Azyumardi Azra:The Origins of Islamic Reformism, Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern Ulama in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIASoutheast Asia Publications Series

THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page i

ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIASoutheast Asia Publications Series

The Southeast Asia Publications Series (SEAPS) supports the dissemination ofquality research on all aspects of Southeast Asia by scholars who have, or havehad, close links with Australia.

Sponsored by the Asian Studies Association of Australia (ASAA), inconjunction with Allen & Unwin and the University of Hawai’i Press, SEAPSaims to promote the work of first-time as well as established authors and tobring their research to the widest possible audience.

Further details on how to order SEAPS books are posted on both the ASAAand the Allen & Unwin websites.

Titles in print�� , F.M. Cooke��

� !!–"!!!��Howard Dick, Vincent J.H. Houben, J. Thomas Lindbladand Thee Kian Wie

�� #��$%$��M.B. Hooker

��&��, Philip Taylor&%��&�%��'��(�)��*��#��%�),

J.H. Walker��+��,��#��, Peter Searle��-��.��/�0��1"2–�134, M.C. Ricklefs.��&�� /�0��43"–�435,

Shigeru Sato.��%�� 0��,��,

Virginia Matheson Hooker

Editorial CommitteeProfessor Virginia Hooker (Editor) Professor Barbara AndayaAustralian National University University of Hawai’i

Diana Carroll (Editor’s Assistant) Dr Jane DrakardAustralian National University Monash University

Assoc. Professor Howard Dick Professor Kevin HewisonUniversity of Melbourne City University of Hong Kong

Professor Barbara Hatley Professor Rey IletoUniversity of Tasmania National University of Singapore

Emeritus Professor Campbell Macknight Dr Kathryn RobinsonAustralian National University

Professor Anthony MilnerAustralian National University Dr Milton Osborne

Professor Tony Reid Professor Carl ThayerNational University of Singapore University of NSW (ADFA)

Assoc. Professor Krishna SenCurtin University of Technology

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page ii

THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMICREFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern ‘-��$’ in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

Azyumardi Azra

Asian Studies Association of Australiain association with

ALLEN & UNWINand

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I PRESSHONOLULU

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page iii

First published in 2004

Copyright © Azyumardi Azra, 2004

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writingfrom the publisher. The � ��#�� 42 (the Act) allows a maximum ofone chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by anyeducational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educationalinstitution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.

Published in Australia byAllen & Unwin83 Alexander StreetCrows Nest NSW 2065Australia

www.allenandunwin.comhttp://coombs.anu.edu/ASAA/

Published in North America byUniversity of Hawai’i Press2840 Kolowalu StreetHonolulu, Hawai’i 96822

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Azra, Azyumardi.The Origins of Islamic reformism in Southeast Asia:networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern ‘��’ inthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Bibliography.Includes index.ISBN 1 74114 261 X.

1. Islam - Asia, Southeastern - History. 2. ��Indonesia - History. 3. ��- Middle East - History. I. Title. (series: Southeast Asia publications series).

297.60959

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

A catalog record of this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 0-8248-2848-8

Set in 10/11 pt Times by Midland Typesetters, Maryborough, VictoriaPrinted by SRM Production Services Sdn Bhd, Malaysia

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page iv

Maps and Charts viTransliteration viiPreface viii

Introduction 11 Networks of the ‘Ulam$’ in the Seventeenth Century �aramayn 82 Reformism in the Networks 323 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian

Networks I: �� 524 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian Networks II:

‘��’�� 705 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian

Networks III: �� 876 Networks of the ‘-��$’ and Islamic Renewal in the

Eighteenth Century Malay-Indonesian World 1097 Renewal in the Network: The European Challenge 127

Epilogue 148Notes 154Bibliography 205Index of Personal Names 240Subject Index 247

IContents

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page v

,�#�1. �� ’� itinerary 612. �� ’� itinerary 723. �� ’� itinerary 100

��1. The core of the seventeenth century networks 142. The core of the eighteenth century networks 263. �� ’� networks 584. �� ’� partial networks 765. �� ’� networks 93

IMaps and Charts

0�

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page vi

Excepting the common terms such as Islam or Muhammad (the Prophet),the transliteration of Arabic words, terms and names in this book basicallyfollows the rules employed by the ��/ ��,�� 6 I apply this rule also to Malay-Indonesian persons, whose namesare of Arabic origin, rather than using their popular Malay-Indonesianspelling. Thus I will use ‘Abd ��’� �� ’ rather than ‘AbdurraufSingkel’ or other Malay-Indonesian variations of it. Non-Arabic Malay-Indonesian names will be retained in their original spelling.

All foreign words (or non-English words) are italicised through the text.Names of places that have been anglicised are used in their familiar form:thus I employ ‘Mecca’ instead of ‘Makkah’, or ‘Medina’ instead of‘Madinah’.

Diacritic marks for Arabic words are used throughout the text, except forwords used in their common English form, such as Islam, the ProphetMuhammad.

The plural of all Arabic and Malay-Indonesian words is formed simplyby adding ‘s’ to their more familiar singular form: thus, ‘7��8��s’ instead of‘�7$�8��’, or ‘9��8:��s’ instead of ‘9 � :’ (or ‘9��$’�:’ or 9��8:�t—otherArabic plural forms).

All dates cited will include both the Muslim date or Anno Hijrah (AH),which is given first, followed by the Gregorian date or Christian/CommonEra (CE) after an oblique stroke: thus 1068/1658, 1115/1693. This willallow readers unfamiliar or confused with the Hijrah calendar dates toreadily know the equivalent Common Era dates. For the conversion of bothdates, this book employs the table printed in J.L. Bacharach, ��,�� ) (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984).

ITransliteration

0��

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page vii

Preface

For many of my friends, publication of this book is long overdue. Whilethe Indonesian edition of the /��-��(‘ ��$’ networks) has beenpublished in several editions by Mizan (Bandung) since 1994, followed byArabic translation in 1997, the English version has been delayed for severalyears. Increased interest in the subject of ‘the transmission of Islamiclearning’ from the Middle East to Indonesia or elsewhere in the Muslimworld in the past several years has further enhanced the need for publi-cation of this work.

Based mostly on my PhD dissertation at Columbia University in NewYork City, defended in 1992, most of the research draws on primarysources that have not been considered in detail by other scholars. Althoughcompleted 10 years ago, my dissertation has not been available to a non-Indonesian audience and I have been encouraged to present it to a widerreadership. An epilogue has been added to take account of some of themore recent research in this field and to add a broader context. The bibli-ography has been updated with references kindly supplied by Dr MichaelFeener (Reed College).

The revisions would not have been possible without the concrete supportof a number of friends. Barry Hooker was instrumental not only in provid-ing substantive advice for the improvement of the contents in the light ofnew scholarly developments on the subject but also in the editing of themanuscript. His wife, Mbak Nia (Virginia Hooker), was also very support-ive, and gave me continued encouragement to publish the work in the midstof my almost overwhelming administrative duties as rector of the StateInstitute for Islamic Studies (IAIN), which on 20 May 2002 was convertedinto a fully fledged university, the Syarif Hidayatullah State IslamicUniversity (UIN), Jakarta.

My younger colleagues at the Pusat Pengkajian Islam dan Masyarakat(PPIM) of UIN Jakarta, particularly Jamhari Makruf, Oman Fathurahman

0��

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page viii

PREFACE ix

and Burhanuddin, have helped to edit and retype the manuscript. I owethem all a great debt.

I should mention a number of long-time friends who have alwaysencouraged me to continue with the work: among these are William Roff,Richard Bulliet, John Voll, Barbara Metcalf, Barbara Andaya, AnthonyJohns, Merle Ricklefs, James Fox, Martin van Bruinessen, Peter Riddell,Karel Steenbrink, Johan H. Meuleman, Nurcholish Madjid, TaufikAbdullah, Abdurrahman Wahid, Sumit Mandal and Mohammad RedzuanOthman.

My greatest debt is of course to my family—my wife Ipah Farihah andour sons and daughter, Raushanfikr Usada Azra, Firman el-Amny Azra, M. Subhan Azra and Emily Sakina Azra who over the years have sustainedmy scholarly spirit with their love and understanding, especially when Ihave had to travel across the continents in the search for knowledge. MayGod bless all of them.

�;� ��;��-��# ��# ��

/ ��"!!<

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page ix

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page x

Introduction

The transmission of Islamic renewal and reformism is a neglected area ofIslamic studies. In contrast to the abundance of studies of the transmissionof learning and ideas, for instance, from the Greeks to the Arabs andfurther to the Western world,1 there has not yet been any comprehensivestudy devoted to examining the transmission of religious ideas fromcentres of Islamic learning to other parts of the Muslim world. There are,of course, several studies on the transmission of 7��8��s (Prophetic tra-dition) from one generation of early Muslims to another by way ofunbroken ��$�s (chains of transmission).2

The study of the transmission of Islamic renewalism and reformism,particularly on the eve of European expansion in the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, is important for several reasons. The Islamic socio-intellectual history of this period has been little studied; most attention hasbeen given to Islamic political history. Given the decline of Muslimpolities, this period has often been considered a dark age in Islamic history.In contrast to this widely held belief, it will be shown that the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries constituted one of the most dynamic periods in thesocio-intellectual history of Islam.3

The origins of Islamic dynamic impulses in the seventeenth and eigh-teenth centuries were networks of Muslim scholars (‘ ��$’), centred inMecca and Medina. The central position of these two Holy Cities in Islam,especially in conjunction with the annual 7�== pilgrimage, attracted a largenumber of scholars and students who produced a unique scholarlydiscourse there. These scholarly networks consisted of a significantnumber of leading ‘ ��$’ who came from different parts of the Muslimworld; they thus brought together various traditions of Islamic learning toMecca and Medina. There were conscious, if not concerted, efforts amongthese scholars to reform and revitalise the prevailing teachings of Islam;their central theme was the intellectual and socio-moral reconstruction of

�

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page 1

Muslim societies. Because of the extensive connections of the networks,the spirit of reform and renewal soon found its expression in many partsof the Muslim world.

The transmission of Islamic renewalism and reformism in the scholarlynetworks involved very complex processes. There were highly intricatecrisscrossings of scholars within the networks, by way of both their studiesof Islamic sciences, particularly 7��8��, and their adherence to Islamicmystical brotherhood (9��8:��s). An examination of this crisscrossing ofthe networks, and of works produced by scholars in the networks, throwsmuch light on how Islamic renewalism and reformism were transmittedfrom centres of the networks to many parts of the Muslim world.

Understanding the processes of transmission becomes more important inconnection with the course of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. As itis situated on the periphery of the Muslim world, there is a tendency amongscholars to exclude the Malay-Indonesian world from any discussion ofIslam. It is assumed that the region has no single stable core of Islamictradition. Islam in the archipelago has long been regarded as not ‘realIslam’. It is considered distinct from Islam in the centres in the Middle East.We will not, of course, ignore local influences on Islam in the archipelago,but one should not assume that Malay-Indonesian Islamic tradition haslittle to do with Islam in the Middle East.4

Similarly, it is incorrect to assume that the links between Malay-Indonesian Islam and Middle Eastern Islam have more political overtonesthan religious. The links, at least from the seventeenth century onwards,though marked by intense political relations between several Malay-Muslim kingdoms and the Ottoman Empire, were mostly religious intheir nature. If these religious relationships later stimulated some kind ofpolitical ‘consciousness’ especially vis-à-vis European imperialism, it wassimply a logical consequence of the impact of the rising ‘Islamic identity’that resulted from such links.

Links between Muslims in the Malay-Indonesian world and the MiddleEast have existed since the earliest times of Islam in the archipelago,around the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Muslim merchants from Arabia,Persia and the Indian subcontinent frequented the harbour cities of thearchipelago, where they engaged not only in trade but also in the trans-mission of Islam to the native population. Later penetration of Islam in thearchipelago, however, was carried out less by Muslim traders than bywandering >?�8s and scholars who came in increasingly large numbers tothe area from the thirteenth century onwards.

The prosperity of Malay-Indonesian Muslim states provided an oppor-tunity for a certain segment of Malay-Indonesian Muslims to travel to thecentres of Islamic learning in the Middle East. The Ottoman efforts toimprove the security along 7�==�routes also encouraged Malay-IndonesianMuslims to make their pilgrimages to Mecca. As economic, diplomatic andreligio-social relations between Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern

" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


states developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it is probable thatMalay-Indonesian pilgrims and students were able to pursue Islamiclearning in a variety of places along the trade and 7�== routes. This led tothe rise of a non-Arab community in the �aramayn (Mecca and Medina),which was called ‘�>7$�� @/$%��8�’ (fellow Malay-Indonesians) byMeccans and Medinese. The term ‘/$%8’ (or J�wah), though derived fromthe name Java, came to signify anyone from the Malay-Indonesian world.

The /$%8�students in the �aramayn represented major lines of intellec-tual tradition among Malay-Indonesian Muslims. Examination of theirhistory and the textual materials they produced and taught from will help toilluminate not only the nature of religious and intellectual relationshipsbetween Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern Muslims but also thecontemporary development of Islam in the archipelago. Their lives andexperience presented a vivid picture of the various networks that existedamong them and Middle Eastern ‘ ��$’.

These scholarly networks involved a number of prominent MiddleEastern ‘ ��$’ teaching in Mecca and Medina. They constituted a cosmo-politan scholarly community linked together in a relatively solid fashion byway of their studies, particularly of 7��8��, and their involvement in the>?�8� 9��8:��s. Contacts and interactions between these scholars and students from distant places of the Muslim world resulted in further expan-sion of the international networks of the ‘ ��$’. There were severalMalay-Indonesian students involved in such networks in the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries. Having studied in the �aramayn with its leadingscholars, most of them returned to the archipelago, and thus became essen-tial transmitters of the Islamic tradition in the centres of Islamic learning inthe Middle East to the Malay-Indonesian world.

The most salient feature of the intellectual tendencies that emerged fromthe scholarly networks was the harmony between ��8’�� (Islamic legaldoctrine) and ��>�%% � (Islamic mysticism). This has been called by manymodern scholars ‘neo-Sufism’. Even though the reconciliation between��8’�� and ��>�%% � had been emphasised earlier by such scholars as �� and �� !�� , it apparently gained its strongest momentumthrough these scholarly networks. Scholars in the networks were activelytaught, and ardently believed that only by way of total commitment to the��8’�� could the extravagant features of earlier Sufism be controlled. Therenewed commitment to ��8’�� and ��>�%% �, in turn, led to a socio-moral reconstruction of Muslim societies.

Although all scholars in the networks shared a commitment to Islamicrenewal and reform, there was no uniformity among them as to theirmethod of achieving this aim. Most of them chose a peaceful and evolu-tionary approach, but some of them, prominent among these Ibn ‘��"�� , and ‘�#�� $��%� in West Africa, preferred amore radical and far-reaching reform, which in turn was adopted by someof the scholars in the archipelago.

INTRODUCTION <


Despite their differences, the networks of scholars in the ��pro-vided a basis for the renewalist drive within Muslim communities in thearchipelago in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The exchange ofideas and the maintenance of lines of intellectual discourse during the periodare crucial to the history of Islamic religious thought and to understandingthe influence foreign Muslim ideas exerted on the outlook and daily lives ofmany Malay-Indonesians. The ferment of ideas arising from these intenserelations and contacts through scholarly networks had a revitalising effecton the communal and personal lives of most Malay-Indonesian Muslims.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

As far as I am aware, no comprehensive work, historical or otherwise, hasbeen done of networks of Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’.Little attempt has been made to provide a critical analysis of the origins ofIslamic reformism in the Malay-Indonesian world before the nineteenthand twentieth centuries through networks of the ‘ ��$’; and of howIslamic teachings were transmitted and how the transmission affected thecourse of Islam in the archipelago.

The works of Voll5 have discussed the existence of the internationalnetworks of the ‘ ��$’ centred in Mecca and Medina and their connectionsin other parts of the Muslim world. He deals mostly with the emergence ofsuch networks among Middle Eastern and South Asian ‘ ��$’, and simplymentions in passing the involvement of such Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ as‘��’�� and �� in the inter-national scholarly networks in the seventeenth century.

Johns, on the other hand, in several studies6 discusses at length theserelationships, particularly between �� and $�� &�� .However, he has made no attempt to examine further networks of �� with other leading �aramayn scholars. The lack of studies dealing withnetworks of other Malay-Indonesian scholars is even more striking. Studiesdealing with leading Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ other than al-Sink l in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries fail to trace their linkages with MiddleEastern scholars in the period.

Furthermore, where the scholarly networks are actually mentioned, dis-cussion centres on the ‘organisational’ aspect of the networks, namely, thenature of the relationships that existed between scholars in centres ofIslamic learning in the Middle East and those coming from other parts of the Muslim world. No study has yet been done to examine the ‘intellec-tual content’ of the networks. This examination is crucial to determining thekinds of ideas and teachings transmitted through such scholarly networks.

This book will seek to answer the following questions: (i) How did thenetworks of Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ come intobeing? What were the nature and characteristics of the networks? Whatwere the teachings or intellectual tendencies developed in the networks?

3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


(ii) What was the role of Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ in the transmission ofthe intellectual contents of the networks to the archipelago? What were themodes of transmission? (iii) What was the larger impact of the networks onthe course of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world?

In sum, this study attempts to elucidate a number of important subjects.It is the first comprehensive study of the global scholarly networks, withparticular reference to Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ and their intellectualtendencies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the first treatmentof the role of such networks in the transmission of Islamic renewal andreform to the archipelago; and a pioneering study of the origins of earlyIslamic renewal and reform in the Malay-Indonesian world.

SCOPE OF DISCUSSION

To present an accurate and comprehensive account of the scholarlynetworks and their role in the transmission of Islamic renewal and reformto the archipelago, this study is divided into seven chapters which, in turn,consist of several sections. Within each chapter, several topics will beexplored and a conclusion drawn at the close of each section.

Chapter 1 examines the rise of the international scholarly networks in the��. The discussion centres first on how the political and economicsituation affected pilgrimage and the world of learning in Mecca andMedina. Then follows an examination of a number of ‘ ��$’ who consti-tuted the core of scholarly networks in the seventeenth century; particularattention is given to the nature of their relationships in the networks.

Chapter 2 deals with a discussion of ‘neo-Sufism’ and of how itscharacteristics represented the intellectual contents and tendencies of the networks in the seventeenth century.

Chapters 3 to 5 are devoted to examining the careers and teachings of theleading precursors of Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ in seventeenth centuryscholarly networks, namely �� , �� and �� . Specialattention is given to their connections with leading scholars in the networksin the Middle East, and to how teachings spread in the archipelago relatedto Islamic renewalism and reformism in the centres.

Chapter 6 constitutes a final discussion of a number of Malay-Indonesian‘ ��$’ who were involved in the scholarly networks in the eighteenthcentury. The chapter begins with a discussion of the origins and date ofIslamic renewalism in the archipelago. Discussion is then focused on thebiographies of Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ and some of their teachers in the�� and Cairo. The chapter continues with a discussion of theirteachings and of how they translated Islamic reformism in the Malay-Indonesian world.

Finally, in chapter 7, we look forward to the nineteenth century and thenetworks in the face of the European challenge.

INTRODUCTION 5


NOTES ON SOURCES

This study is the first to use Arabic sources extensively in any discussionrelating to the history of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. The Arabicbiographical dictionaries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, mostof which have by now been printed,7 are goldmines of information onteachers of the Malay-Indonesion students involved in the networks, andon scholarly discourse in the Middle East, particularly in the �aramaynand Cairo.

It is striking that most of these biographical dictionaries have not beenutilised earlier for examining, for instance, the world of learning in the��. It is not surprising therefore that, unlike other centres of Islamiclearning in the Middle East such as Baghdad, Cairo or even Nishapur,which have been studied a great deal, those of the �aramayn have onlyreceived scanty treatment. These biographical dictionaries have provenessential to an accurate account of the institutions of Islamic learning, suchas the Holy Mosques, ��s and ��$9s in the �aramayn.

Malay-Indonesian texts, either written by ‘ ��$’ discussed in this studyor by modern scholars, in many cases do provide the names of the teachersof Malay-Indonesian students in the ��. Contemporaneous Arabicbiographical dictionaries are used to trace not only the scholarly careers ofthese teachers but more importantly their connections with one another. Byusing these Arabic biographical dictionaries we are now on firm ground inspeaking about the existence of the scholarly networks between Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern ‘ ��$’.

Furthermore, these biographical dictionaries in some instances showevidence of intense contacts between Malay-Indonesian students and theirMiddle Eastern teachers. The ��%$’�� @��7$� of ��'��( , forinstance, provides vivid accounts of intellectual and religious confusionamong Malay-Indonesian Muslims because of their misunderstanding ofIslamic mysticism and of the reactions of such outstanding scholars as ��&�� to this. �� ’� *� �$>��@�� and �� ’� ��)��@A �� inform us of several leading �� scholars who wrote specialworks to fulfil the requests of their Malay-Indonesian students.

Beginning in the eighteenth century, scholarly accounts of Malay-Indonesian scholars began to make their appearance in Arabic biographicaldictionaries. The first, who was given a respected place in this genre ofArabic literature, is ‘��)��*�� , discussed in chapter 6.His Yemeni student, "�+ �� , includes the biography of ��*�� in his ��@�� @B��8� %�� @+?7� ��@+��7$�8. Later, ��*�� ’� biography is reproduced by ��,��-�� in his C�� @(��8��$�8)��@D��@��$��‘��.

Arabic biographical dictionaries are thus an indispensable source for thestudy of Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ who studied or established their careersin the ��. A cursory observation of Arabic biographical dictionaries



in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries gives even more striking evidenceof the involvement of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the scholarly networksof this period. A substantial number of Malay-Indonesian ‘ ��$’ also maketheir appearance.8

INTRODUCTION 1


1Networks of the ‘-��$’ in the Seventeenth Century ��

Mecca and Medina (the ��, the two C��s, forbidden sanctuar-ies) occupy a special position in Islam and the life of Muslims. The twinC��s are the places where Islam was revealed to the ProphetMuhammad and initially developed. Mecca is the :�� towards whichthe believers turn their faces in their >��$�s (prayers) and the holy citywhere they make the 7�== pilgrimage. With all their religious importance,it is not surprising that some special qualities and merits (��E$’��) havebeen attributed to both Mecca and Medina.

The combination between the ��E$’�� of Mecca and Medina, and theinjunction of the Qur’�n and the 7��8�� to the Muslims to search forknowledge (9��@’��), undoubtedly raised the value of the knowledgeacquired in the two cities in the eyes of many believers. As a consequence,the scholars who taught and studied in the �� enjoyed a moreesteemed position in Muslim societies, particularly those of the Malay-Indonesian world, than their counterparts who underwent a similarexperience in the other centres of Islamic learning.

Furthermore, with the coming and going of countless pilgrims everyyear, Mecca and Medina became the largest gathering point of Muslimsfrom all over the globe, the intellectual hub of the Muslim world, where‘ ��$’, >?�8s, rulers, philosophers, poets and historians met and exchangedinformation. This is why scholars and students who taught and studied inMecca and Medina were generally more cosmopolitan in their religiousoutlook than their counterparts in other Muslim cities. Such an experiencefor the seeker of ‘��(knowledge) in the �� not only emphasiseduniversal traits common to all Muslims but moulded them into a formula-tion for their self-definition vis-à-vis both the larger scholarly communityof the Muslim world and their much smaller ones.

The emergence of networks of the ‘ ��$’, which included a substantialnumber of non-Middle Eastern scholars in Mecca and Medina, was not


independent of other developments in the �� and the Muslim soci-eties as a whole. Their rise can be attributed to several important factorswhich were not only religious but also economic, social and political,working at the regional level in a given Muslim society and at the level ofthe larger Muslim world.

For instance, contacts and relations between Malay-Indonesian Muslimsand the Middle East began to gain momentum with the flowering ofMuslim kingdoms in the archipelago in the late sixteenth century. Theintensification of their participation in the trade of the Indian Oceanbrought them into closer contact not only with Muslim traders but also withpolitical authorities in the Middle East. The increasing presence of Euro-peans, particularly the Portuguese, was also an important factor that pushedtheir relations much further into the politico-diplomatic realm. Theintensification of these relations contributed significantly to the growth ofthe Malay-Indonesian pilgrimage to the ��, which in turn spurredthe pilgrims’ involvement in the scholarly networks.

The growth of the international networks of the ‘ ��$’ in the��, particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, shouldtherefore be viewed not only from a wider perspective but through the longer span of historical discourse between Muslim societies of both theMiddle East and the Indian Ocean region.

SCHOLARLY DISCOURSES IN THE �ARAMAYN: EARLYNETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAMF’

The tradition of learning among the ‘ ��$’ throughout Islamic history hasbeen closely associated with religious and educational institutions such asmosques, madrasahs, ��$9s, and even the houses of the teachers. This isparticularly evident in the ��, where the tradition of learningcreated a vast network of scholars, transcending geographical boundaries aswell as differences in religious outlook. In this chapter we discuss hownetworks of the ‘ ��$’ developed surrounding these institutions, and howleading scholars in the ��, through their traditions of learning,created links that connected them with each other as well as with earlier andlater scholars.

There is no doubt that the two great mosques in Mecca and Medina werethe most important loci of scholars involved in the networks from the lastdecades of the fifteenth century onwards. Despite the fact that the numberof madrasahs and ��$9s continually increased after the the first and secondmadrasahs in Mecca were built in 571/1175 and 579/1183 respectively, the�ar�m Mosques continued to be the most important centres for the processof learning. The madrasahs and ��$9s by no means replaced the two greatmosques so far as the process of learning was concerned. However, theybecame vital complements to the scholarly world in the Holy Land.

Before we go any further, it seems important to note that the madrasahs

NETWORKS OF THE ‘-G�,F IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY �� 9


were organised in a more formal way. They had their officially appointedheads of madrasahs, teachers, :$E8s (judges) and other functionaries.Furthermore, they each had their own curriculum, and even a certain quotaof students, as well as an exact allocation of the time of study according totheir ��. This is particularly true in the case of madrasahs, whichconsisted of four divisions of �� legal ��s. The �� #��, for instance, had a quota of 20 students for each ��.The ��’ and �� students had their classes in the morning, while the�� and �� students had theirs in the afternoon.1 Similar arrange-ments applied at the ��madrasahs.2 It is also clear from oursources that these madrasahs were mainly devoted to teaching basic andintermediate levels of various Islamic disciplines. With all their formality,the madrasahs had few opportunities to bring their students to higher levelsof Islamic learning.

However, such a disadvantage, which resulted from the nature of the�� madrasahs, was soon filled by the ��$9s, and more importantlyby the two great mosques. Those who aspired to seek advanced learning, asa rule, joined the 7��:��s in the �� Mosques, or the ��$9s, and in manycases they also studied privately in teachers’ houses. As can be expected,there was little formality in such halqahs. Personal relationships wereformed and became the ties that connected them to each other. Teacherswere well acquainted personally with each of their students; they thus recog-nised the special needs and talents of each student, and they attempted tomeet these special needs. The significance of this should not be under-estimated; it is through these processes that the teachers issued ijazah(authority) to their students or appointed them the )��8�� (successor ordeputy) of their 9��8:��s.��%�� relates many examples of teachers in the �� Mosque in

Mecca who were authorised to teach privately not only advanced studentsbut also rulers and traders intending to pursue special Islamic disciplines.Among them was ‘�� .� �� %�((�� (d. 781/1389), who wasauthorised to teach a ruler of ��!/��+�’ �.��!� ,about the 7��8�� of the Prophet. So satisfied was he with the way ��%�((�� taught him that the ruler granted 200 ��:$� of gold, a portionof which was spent on building a ��$9.3 Similarly, when ,�� 0��1�� , a ��ruler in Egypt, wished to study various Islamic disci-plines in Mecca, several :$E8s were assigned to teach him. The mostimportant among them was D$E8� ��@D E$�� 0�� 2�� (d. 817/1414).4 Another scholar, �� 3��’ �� '�� (d. 780/1378), and his son, ��.�3��’ �� )�4�� (d. 825/1422), were also appointed to teach �� :� to severalmembers of the Egyptian �� ruling dynasty.5

Furthermore, scholars who taught in the �� Mosques were oftenasked to answer questions coming from many parts of the Muslim world.

10 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA�! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA



As a rule, they held special ��=�� (sessions), discussing these matters. Inmany instances they issued written ��%$s, but it was also not unusual forthem to write special books, which attempted to answer the questions indetail. ��%�� again relates the story of 0�� 2�� , one of histeachers, who received hundreds of questions from various parts of theMiddle East.6 Such an important role played by the scholars in the ��Mosques vis-à-vis many believers becomes a distinctive feature in the laterperiods, when the scholarly networks increasingly gained momentum. Aswe shall see, several leading scholars in seventeenth century ��wrote about, and discussed, certain religious issues that arose among Indianand Malay-Indonesian Muslims. For example, at the end of the seventeenthcentury the Chief D$E8� of Mecca issued a ��%$ on the deposition ofSul-�nah Kam�lat Sh�h (of the Acehnese Sultanate) stating that, in hisopinion, an Islamic kingdom could not be ruled by a woman.7

One essential question to ask is how scholars who came from manydifferent places in the Muslim world were able to get teaching positions inthe �� madrasahs and at the �� Mosque of Mecca and theProphet Mosque in Medina. In order to be allowed to teach, a teacher, eitherin the madrasah or at the Holy Mosques, was required to have �=$;��(authority), which established the academic credentials of the holder. Themost important credential was the ��$�, namely, the chain of authority thatindicated the unbroken teacher-student link in the transmission of certainbooks or teachings. The �=$;�� was issued by a recognised teacher to hisstudents, generally after they studied with him.8 However, there were a fewcases, as we see later, showing that the �=$;�� might also be issued throughrelatively short meetings and even through correspondence with teachers.9

The appointment of scholars to teaching positions at the Holy Mosquesin Mecca and Medina was decided by a religious bureaucracy, which wasresponsible not only for administration of the Holy Mosques but also forreligious life in the �� as a whole. The highest official in thebureaucracy was the D$E8 (judge), often called D$E8� ��@D E$�� (ChiefD$E8), who was in charge of religious laws and of leadership of the four:$E8s—each of them representing a �� legal school. It appears that priorto the Ottoman period, the D$E8� ��@D E$��also held the office of , ��8.Next came the Shaykh al-��, the two directors of the ��Mosque in Mecca and Medina. In each city there was a ��)��@’-��$’(chief of scholars), who oversaw all scholars.10

We have no information as to when such a religious bureaucracy wasinstituted, but it is clear that it was already well established from at least thefifteenth century onwards. When the Ottomans rose to power in the ��+�!that structure was largely maintained. Although the holders of most of theposts needed to be confirmed by the Ottoman authorities, the ��scholars were relatively free to choose those who would fill these positions.There was a tendency, however, for those positions to be dominated byscholars belonging to certain families.


This is demonstrated in the careers of many ‘ ��$’ in the ��.For instance, 0�� 2�� , the D$E8 of D E$�, mentionedabove, was succeeded to the position by his son �� .��2�� in the early fifteenth century.11 Similarly, the historian ��%�� —whose father, �� (d. 819/1416), happened to be related by marriage tothe Chief D$E8� of Mecca, �� .� �� .� ‘�� ’�! !��(�� —was appointed the �� D$E8�of Mecca in 807/1405 with aletter of investiture from al-Malik ��1�� Faraj b. ,��, a ��rulerin Cairo.12 An important scholar in the networks, �� .� ‘��,��!��+ , who migrated to the �� in the second half ofthe seventeenth century, led scholars of the ,��!��+ family to prominencein Mecca; three members of this family dominated the office of the ��’ Mufti after 1269/1852.13 ‘�� 5� ��’�+�� (or �+�� ) became amufti of Mecca after ��.�‘�� ’�+�� , a prominent scholar in thenetworks, established the fame of the ‘�+�� family towards the end of theseventeenth century.14

It was the Shaykh ��’��’, the D$E8��@D E$�, Shaykh al-��and four :$E8s of the four ��s who collectively made decisions on theappointment of scholars to teaching positions in the �� Mosques. Onceor twice a year they sat together to examine candidates for future teachers.The candidates, as a rule, were longtime students of the mosques and werewell acquainted with senior teachers. The examiners, in addition to checkingthe �=$;�� of the candidates, posed a number of questions concerning variousbranches of Islamic discipline. If the candidates were able to answer allquestions satisfactorily, they were issued �=$;��, or permission to teach inthe Holy Mosques. The names of these new teachers were made public, andstudents were able to begin their studies with them.15

Our sources make no mention of the number of teachers in the ��Mosques in the period under discussion. An Ottoman report for the year1303/1884-5, however, mentioned that there were 270 teachers in that year.Snouck Hurgronje considers this number unreliable, ‘for many of thosemen are named professors because the Governor [Ottoman] wished to favorthem with a salary from a fund destined for the advancement of science’.l6

Thus, Snouck believes that the total number of actual teachers was onlybetween 50 and 60.17 There is no way we can substantiate this number.However, I would suggest that the average number of teachers at any giventime during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was between 100 and200. If this number is added to teachers who taught only in the madrasahsand visiting teachers, then the total number of teachers in the ��was clearly quite large.

PERSONAGE AND LINKAGES IN THE NETWORKS

There is little doubt that some of the scholars mentioned above, in one wayor another, had connections with each other. What is important is that

12 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA�" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


several leading scholars of that period had links to the core of scholarlynetworks in the seventeenth century. We have noted that ��%�� , forinstance, was a student and good friend of $�� +�� ’�� and�� , two great � 7��s who lived in Egypt. Simi-larly, ��(�� , a leading scholar in the sixteenth century ��,had extensive connections not only with earlier scholars, such as $��+��’�� , but also with those of the seventeenth century, such as$�� &�� . Almost all scholars who constitute the core of seven-teenth century networks of the ‘ ��$’ could trace their 7��8�� $� and9��8:�� to these scholars. The nature of their connections willbecome clearer as we proceed with this discussion.

The scholarly networks in the seventeenth century had cosmopolitanorigins. There were at least two non-��+�! scholars who appear to havecontributed largely to the growth of the networks in this century: the firstwas Indian by birth and Persian (Isfahan) by origin, ��)��4��#��.� �� 0�� ,��(�+ (some spell it ��,��+ or the modernBarauch in Gujarat), and the second was an Egyptian named ��.�‘�� .� ‘�� ( � ��1� � �� . Their relationshiprepresents a good example of how scholarly interactions resulted both inexchanges of knowledge and in the transmission of the ‘little’ traditions ofIslam from India and Egypt to the �� (see Chart 1).

Sayyid )��4��#� �� (d. in Medina 1015/1606) was undoubtedly atypical wandering scholar who ended up being a ‘grand immigrant’ in the��. Hailing from a Persian immigrant family in India, one of hisfamous Indian teachers was "�+ �� +��# (d. 997/1589), aleading ��--�� master, who lived in Ahmadabad. For several years)��4��# ��, under the patronage of the local ruler, taught the ��--��doctrines in the town of his birth. In 999/1591 he travelled to Mecca in orderto make the 7�== pilgrimage. After returning to India, he travelled to variousplaces before staying in Ahmadnagar for one year. Later he moved toBijapur, a strong >?�8 centre in India, where he won the favour of ��-��$�� ‘6��, who then made a special arrangement for him to travelback to the �� in the royal ship during the 7�== season of1005/1596.18

After performing the pilgrimage )��4��#� �� decided to settle inMedina, where he built a house and a ��$9 from the %�:� and gifts hereceived from the ��-�� of Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Ottoman officialsin Medina. )��4��#�� was generally known as a leading ��--��Shaykh; he was regarded as being responsible for introducing the /�%$��@�� *�� of the famous ��--�� shaykh, �� #��'�� (d. 970/1563), and other ��--�� trea-tises to �� scholars. However, he also initiated disciples into theChishtiyyah, ��(��, ��, &��(�#��, '��, �� and %�� orders. This is notsurprising, as his teacher, "�+ �� , had also been initiated into all



14 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA�3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Chart 1 The core of the seventeenth century networks


eight orders.19 In Medina, )��4��#� �� was active in teaching at the��( Mosque; he also wrote several works on Sufism, theology, and acommentary on the B��7�( ��’��8�exegesis.20

The diversity of )��4��#� ��’� most prominent disciples clearlyreflects the cosmopolitan nature of the scholarly discourse in the��. Among his disciples were �� ( , �� , �� +�� !�, �� ’�� ,�� , �� ,�� .�� 1� , I��‘��.�"�� 7�� , ��.� ‘�� 7�� , $�� '�� , �� 1� , ��.� $��&�� , ��5�� , ‘��5 �� and �� '�� .21 His 7��:��s were also attended by somestudents and pilgrims from the Sultanate of Aceh, who in turn providedinformation about Islam in the archipelago.22 It is worth mentioning that)��4��#� �� was also a friend of %�7�� ,��9� � ��'�� (d. 1029/1620),23 whose work, entitled ��@� 7�� @, �� $� + 7��@��8,24 had provoked intense discussion at the time.

Two prominent scholars responsible for the spread of )��4��#��’�teachings in the �� were �� ( and �� . Born in 975/1567 to a noted scholarly family in Egypt, ��.�‘�� .�‘��(��( acquired his earlyeducation in his own land.25 His grandfather, ��( , aprominent >?�8 shaykh, was a master of the famous Egyptian >?�8 ‘��"��’�� . The latter, in turn, initiated ��( ’�father, ‘�� ( , into the �� 9��8:��.26 Even though��( was from an early age exposed extensively to Sufism,he had an interest in studying 7��8��. Among his teachers in 7��8�� weretwo leading Egyptian � 7��s: the Sh�fi’ � ��8, �� (d. 1004/1596),27 and ��.�� ,�� , whowas also known as a >?�8.28 ��( travelled to the ��and took up residence in Medina, where he died in 1028/1619.

There can be no doubt that ��( attained fame in the Cityof the Prophet. He established a friendship and studied with )��4��#��,who initiated him into the ��--�� order. His erudition in the��--�� and other orders earned him the title of the ��@($��@H��8:�� (‘the dazzling light of the >?�8 order’). With his expertise in 7��8��and Sufism, he attracted numerous students to his 7��:��s. Among hisleading students were S�� .� �� , �� and ��0�� . ��( ’� scholarly connections through 7��8�� studies and

9��8:�� were extensive. For instance, he had ��$�s with earlier scholarsand >?�8s such as �� 2�� , ��-�� (�� , $�� +�� ’�� , ��- and $�� ’�� .29 Hewrote several works dealing with theology and Sufism; al-Baghd�d andBrockelmann respectively list 16 and five of them.30 One of his works,



��=�� @(�>$’�� C$�� ‘��$� *��$�� @/�%$�� @I�� @��8, is a commentary on the *��$�� @/�%$�� [��@*��] of�� #��'�� .

THE EXPANSION OF NETWORKS

How the scholarly networks in the �� developed further can be seenin the experience of �� . His career demonstrates how theweb of scholars was becoming wider and more pregnant with intellectualexchange. Undoubtedly he was the most influential among the disciples of)��4��#� �� and �� ( . In the colophon of one of �� ’� works, ��@��9��@,�=8�,31 we are told about the career of thisgreat scholar. The most complete biography of �� , however, isprovided by ��-��.�%�#�, ��( �� (d. 1124/1712), aleading � 7�� and historian in Mecca. ��( himself was astudent of $�� &�� , the most prominent and influential disciple of�� .32 In his yet unpublished three-volume biographical dictionaryentitled ��%$’�� @��7$�� %�� $’�=� ��@�� 8� �)��$�� @D��@C$�8� ‘��,33 ��( devotes a long account (no fewer than 13folios—26 pages) to the biography of �� , which is based mostlyon the recollection of ��&�� .34 ��&�� himself includes biographicalnotes of his great shaykh towards the end of his ��@-�� J:$K��@��.35 ��( ’� accounts were later condensed by �� in his *� �$>��@��8��’�$��@D��@C$�8�‘��.36

)�� .� �� +�� was born in Medina in 991/1538 of a Palestinian family, whosegenealogy traced his ancestors back to :�� , a prominentMedinese companion of the Prophet. His grandfather, �� ,a >?�8, decided to take his family back to Medina from Dijana, a village nearJerusalem. In the City of the Prophet, Shaykh ��, who had also beenknown as ‘�� , earned his living by selling : ��$��, second-handgoods, from which �� got his first ��:�� (surname or nickname). Oursources suggest that he took this lowly position in order to retain hisanonymity as a great >?�8.37

�� acquired his rudimentary religious knowledgeaccording to the �� school of law from his father and ��.‘$��:�� , a renowned ‘$�� in Medina. In 1011/1602 his father tookhim on a trip to Yemen, where he studied with most of the ‘ ��$’ withwhom his father had studied, such as �� .� )�� (�� ,�� , �� -�� ;��’ , S�� ‘�� ’ and ‘�� .��-��. They stayed in Yemen for some years beforereturning to Mecca, where he made the acquaintance of many of its leadingscholars, such as �� #�� +� and ��-�� +!�.Although he spent the rest of his life in Medina, �� often visitedMecca, particularly during the pilgrimage seasons.38 It was in Medina that

16 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA�2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


�� established his scholarly career. As ��( tells us,he associated himself with the city’s leading ‘ ��$’, exchanging knowl-edge and information. Among them were �� .� ��%�7�� .� ‘��’, "�� ‘��.��-��,�� ’6�� , �� ’ , �� ’�� ,�� and, of particular importance, ��( .��( not only taught him 7��8��, ��:�, )��$��and othersciences related to Islamic law and theology, but also initiated him into andappointed him his )��8�� of the ��--�� 9��8:��. The relationshipbetween these two scholars went beyond the scholarly realm: �� married ��( ’� daughter.

Despite their very close relationship, �� differed from ��( in that he maintained his adherence to the �� school of law;only after ��( ’� death did he adopt the ��’ ��, the legalschool his father-in-law adhered to. In long accounts of �� ’�change of ��, ��( reports that �� adopted the��’ �� after he got guidance from the Prophet Muhammadhimself through his reading of the whole ��’�� in one single night. �� also gives several other valid reasons to change one’s ��,39

as we see later. It is evident that �� was a scholar ofextraordinary erudition and humility. This is confirmed, for instance, by�� &��(�# (994-1071/1586-1661), a great >?�8�(whowas, it is worth mentioning, a teacher of �� <. �� points out that he had never met a scholar as learned as �� .40

�� was also a prolific author. The number of his works is listedas 16 by ��,�4�� ,41 as 19 by Brockelmann42 and more than 50 by othersources.43 These works deal with ��>�%% �, 7��8��, ��:�, >?� ��:�, and��8�. Only ��@��9��@,�=8� has been published thus far.

Although �� is generally known as a shaykh of the��--��9��8:��, he was actually affiliated with almost a dozen other>?�8 orders. It must be admitted, however, that he was particularly instru-mental in the transmission of the ��--�� 9��8:��, through hisstudents, to many different parts of the Muslim world. According to ��( , his principal disciples were no fewer than 100; they came frommany regions (�:9$�) of the world,44 and they constituted crucial linksamong scholars in the networks.45 The best known among his discipleswere $�� &�� (1023-1101/1614-1690); ‘��.��‘�� (1027-1073/1618-1662), a teacher of ,�� , who was ateacher of �� ;46 ��.� ‘�� ’�+�� (1049-1113/1639-1701);47

��’��"�� ,��#��:�� ; ��‘��&��'�� =�� (d.1059/1649);48 �� ‘�� >��+�?��4�� $�� (1023-1085/1614-1674);49 ‘$�� .� �� 4�� 0�’�� (1020-1080/1611-1669);50 �� .� ‘�(�,��!�’; ��‘��,��%�� , ��‘�� ;�� (d. 1072/1662) and a number of other leading Yemeni scholars, especially



18 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

those of the ‘��( �and 0�’�� families;51 ��.� ‘��,��!��+ � ��&�� (1040-1103/1630-1692);52 and �� and �� .�� died in Medina in 1071/1661.

Our scholarly networks gained strong impetus when $�� &�� ,the most celebrated student of �� , established his career inMedina after travelling in quest of Islamic sciences in various places in theMiddle East. The fact that I�� &�� occupied a position of extra-ordinary importance in the further development of the scholarly networksis shown by the large number of his students and his vast connections, butmore importantly by his numerous works. He was the common startingpoint for the lines of linkage of many scholars in the seventeenth and eigh-teenth centuries. Being a scholar of intellectual distinction, ��&�� madea substantial contribution to the further growth of the intellectual currentsdeveloped by ��( and �� .

By all accounts, $�� &�� was a great scholar. �� callshim ‘a mountain among mountains of ‘�� and a sea among seas of ‘��$�(spiritual knowledge)’.53 A prominent nineteenth century scholar, �� @��’�5 �� (born 1273/1857), a notedIndian � 7��, has singled out ��&�� as the reformer (� =��) ofthe eleventh century AH/seventeenth century CE.54 Discussing extensivelythe 7��8�� which states that ‘God sends to this community ( ��) at the“head” [��’�] of each century one who regenerates its religion for it’, ��’�5 �� gives a list of Muslim scholars who have been considered as the� =��s of Islamic beliefs and practices at the end of each hundred yearsof the '�+��. It is important to note that for the ninth century AH/fifteenthcentury CE � =��, ��’�5 �� states a preference for 0�� - (d. 911/1505) over ;��1�� (d. 926/1520), who had beenchosen by other scholars.55 Despite this difference in preferences, the twogreat � 7��s were recognised by the leading exponents of the networksas their intellectual and spiritual precursors.

As for the � =�� of the tenth century AH/sixteenth century CE, ��’�5 �� follows �� ,56 who chose �� , thegreat Egyptian � 7��, who was a teacher of ��( . In thetwelfth century AH/eighteenth century CE, according to ��’�5 �� ,there were two � =��s: the first was the great lexicographer, theologianand historian ��#�7�� ;�� (d. 1205/1791), and the second was theWest African � 7�� who settled in Medina, )�� .�� %�� (d. 1218/1803-1804). These two scholars were among the mostprominent personages in the international networks of ‘ ��$’ in the eigh-teenth century.

Why is $�� &�� chosen as the � =�� of the eleventh centuryof the Islamic calendar? According to a��&�##�� /��&�� was a Shaykhal-Islam and a teacher of the scholarly world, who was a ‘proof of Sufism’(7 ==��@>?��) and a reviver of the �� mystical tradition. Further-more, he was one of the scholars most responsible in Islamic history for


spreading the science of 7��8�� studies, 7��8�� narration and its ��$�s inthe Muslim world.57 ��;�� credits ��&�� with being a leading� =�� among the ��’ � :��$’ and � 7��s.58

,�� $�� .� �� .� �� &�� !� �� &�� , later also �� / was born in �� ,a village in the mountainous region of Kurdistan close to the borders ofPersia.59 Our sources provide no account of his background. ��&�� initially studied Arabic, )��$� (‘theology’), ��9�: (logic) and philosophyand, curiously enough, also �� (‘engineering’) in his own region(: 9�). Thus, in his early studies, he had already explored various sophisti-cated subjects, but he seems to have had a special interest in languages. Hepursued rather detailed studies of Arabic, such as ��’$�� and ��$� and atthe same time studied Persian and Turkish. He later concentrated on >?��:�, ��:�, 7��8�� and ��>�%% �, mainly under the guidance of �� &�� )�� (d. 1078/1667).60

After the death of his father, $�� &�� left for Mecca toperform the 7�== pilgrimage. The younger brother who travelled with himbecame gravely ill, which instead caused him to go to Baghdad. Heremained there for a year and a half and took this opportunity to advancehis knowledge of Arabic and Persian as well as to observe more closelythe practice of the �� 9��8:��. ��&�� met ‘��0�� in one of his dreams. He was going westward, and ��&�� followed him to Damascus, where he lived for the next four years. Duringthis period he became increasingly interested in mystical doctrines, partic-ularly in that of $�� ‘�� (562-638/1165-1240). His main teacher inSufism was ��.��’�� ! . But, as he told��( , it was �� , whom he met later in Medina, who wasmostly responsible for instilling understanding in him of the intricatemystico-philosophical doctrine of $��‘�� .61

Despite his growing fascination with Sufism, $�� &�� did notput aside his genuine interest in 7��8��. For that reason, he travelled to Egyptin 1061/1650, where he studied 7��8�� with its great � 7��s, such as��‘��’ �� ,�� !�� (1000-1077/1592-1666),62 �� &��+ � �� 1� (d. 1069/1659)63 and Shaykh ��-�� .� �� .� �� .� $��’�� !!�� !�� (987-1075/1577-1644).64 As ��&�� tells usin his ��@-��J:$K��@��, these scholars issued him �=$;��s to teach7��8��, after he had studied with them not only the standard books on thesubject, such as the * � ��@�� (six canonical books of the Tradition ofthe Prophet), but also a great number of lesser-known 7��8�� books. Theyconnected him with many leading Egyptian ��$�s, including Shams �� and ;�� 1�� .65 It is important to note that ��&�� was also linked to the Egyptian ��$�s by way of �� , who receivedthem from a��( , who in turn got them from his teacher, Shams



�� . In addition to 7��8��, he studied ��8� (until 1087/1677)with the �!��$��/�� ‘�� , and ‘�� .66

In 1062/1651 I�� &�� returned to Mecca and then proceeded toMedina, where he attended the 7��:��s of �� and ‘��&�� .�� ,��&�� , among others. He was also appointed by �� as his )��8�� in the ��--�� order. Despite this, ��&�� was betterknown as a shaykh of the Naqshbandiyyah order. Later he taught in the��( Mosque at the site where )��4��#��/��( �and��,�� had taught. ��&�� , as ��( tells us, devoted his7��:��s to teaching 7��8��, ��:�, ��8�, and ��>�%% �. The books he used inhis 7��:��s were, among others, the * � ��@��, and standard works bysuch scholars as ��- /�� !�� and $��‘�� .67

Because of his intellectual distinction and personality, ��&�� attracted scholars and students from distant parts of the Muslim world toattend his 7��:��s or ��=�� to study and learn from him. As a friend and ateacher he was extraordinarily humble. He loved to intermingle with hisstudents. Furthermore, instead of simply swamping them with all the neces-sary sciences, he preferred to discuss them. To be present in his ��=�� waslike, as ��( puts it, being in ‘one of the gardens of paradise’(��%E��$E��@=��).68

Our sources do not tell us the exact number of ��&�� ’� students. But��&�##�� points out that practically all seekers after ‘��during his time inthe �� were his students. Therefore, his networks were enormouslyextensive.69 The best known among his disciples were $��‘��,��!��+ , �� (1044-1130/1639-1701),70 ��‘��'�� or �� &�� (d. 1138/1726),71 ‘��.��’��=�� (d. in Medina in 1083/1673),72 ‘��,�1� (1048-1134/1638-1722),73 �� @�� .� $�� &�� (1081–1145/1670–1732),74 ‘�� ;�� (d. 1072/1662),75

$�� .� �� .� 0�’�� (d. 1096/1685),76 �� 1024–1105/1615–93) and �� (1037–1111/1627–99). ��&�� wrote prolifically which added to his intellectual importance

in the networks. He is said to have written at least 100 works;77 ��,�4�� provides 49 titles,78 while Brockelmann lists 42 of them.79 Most of his textsdeal with 7��8��, ��:�, ��%78� (and )��$�), ��8� and ��>�%% �. In addition,he wrote a number of works that were intended to be his reply or expla-nation of certain problems either directly posed to him or contained inparticular writings of other scholars. Although many of his works are avail-able in manuscript form, so far only two have been published.80

So far our discussion has centred on the networks in Medina. This doesnot mean that those of Mecca were not important. Before discussing thenetworks in Mecca, it should be remembered that even though all the greatscholars mentioned earlier had settled and taught in Medina, they regularlyvisited Mecca. During these visits they made contact with other scholars

20 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA"! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


and taught students as well. We should not underestimate the significanceof such contacts in the scholarly networks: they were an important meansof exchanging information on various issues and, more importantly, oflinking scholars. And for students like �� , contacts with a number ofgreat ‘ ��$’ in the networks significantly contributed to their learning. Agreat scholar of enormous importance in connecting scholars both in Meccaand Medina with Egyptian 7��8�� scholarship was ��.�‘��’ �� ,�� !�� (d. 1077/1666). He was a disciple of�� , �� ,�� ( , and a number of otherleading Egyptian scholars.81 Both �� and ��,�� have been mentioned as teachers of �� ( and ��&�� respectively. He was acclaimed as a superior ��$� and as one of the mostreliable memorisers of the 7��8��s (��@7$��K). He was even compared to the��5� $��+��’�� . ��#�7��;�� , another ��5 of 7��8��s,maintains that there were no other great ��5� except ��,�� after thedeath of the ��5�and historian ��( in 902/1497. As a testimony to��,�� ’� eminent position in 7��8�� studies, ��#�7��;�� wrote twoworks, entitled ��@, ��8��@*��8��8��%$�‘��@($��8�and ��@��=��@($��8��8��=��@($��8.82

Hailed as a major � 7�� in the seventeenth century, ‘��’ �� ,�� travelled to various cities in Arabia and thus had extensivenetworks of colleagues and disciples.83 Later, he mostly lived in his hometown, ,��, and held a teaching post in the )�� Madrasah until his death. But he regularly visited the ��, where he performed the7�== and stayed for a while to establish contact with prominent scholarsthere as well as to teach. The best known among his students were inMecca, �� and ��’�+�� and, in Medina, a��&�� . �� tells us that he also came into contact with this eminent scholar.��,�� was a very dedicated teacher, who preferred to meet students inperson rather than by way of writing. Although he actually discouragedwriting, he wrote a work entitled ��@/�7$��%��E$’��.84

Another great scholar who played a remarkable role in connecting thescholarly networks in Mecca, this time with the Indian tradition of Sufism,was :�+�� .�;��.��-��’�#�� '�� (d. in Mecca in 1052/1642). He hailed from Sambhal, India, and immi-grated to Mecca when he was unable to secure the position of highest-ranking master in the Indian Naqshbandiyyah order after the death of��,�� (971-1012/1563-1603).85

In Mecca, :�+�� '�� succeeded in initiating a number of promi-nent �� scholars into the Naqshbandiyyah 9��8:��, the mostprominent being ��.�$�� .�‘�� (d. 1033/1624), a noted Meccan>?�8 and � 7��, and �� . These two disciples largelyhelped the Naqshbandiyyah become more commendable to the Arabs.Thanks to Ibn ‘Alan’s prestige and influence in the ��, :�+�� '�� ’� translation of Persian Naqshbandiyyah texts into Arabic could win



a much wider audience.86 As for al-Nakhl , who was also known as a� 7��, such a connection helped not only to bring about the Naqsh-bandiyyah reorientation but to link the community of 7��8�� scholars to the>?�8s. He had also ��s of the Naqshbandiyyah and ��--�� from�� &��.��,�� , connecting him to )��4��#��.87

Scholars from the Maghrib region played a substantial role in thenetworks. Like the Egyptian scholars mentioned earlier, they were respon-sible for introducing the North African tradition of 7��8�� studies and thusfor strengthening the intellectual trends of returning to a more ��8’��-oriented Islam. There were two prominent Maghrib scholars whose nameshave been mentioned in passing: ‘$��.��4�� 0�’�� :��’�� 4�� (1020-80/1611-69), and ��.�� 4�� (1037-94/1626-83). By settling down inMecca, they not only brought the North African tradition of 7��8�� schol-arship to the �� but also helped create more linkages amongscholars from many regions of the Muslim world. Considering their impor-tant roles in the scholarly networks, we will now examine them briefly.

‘$��4�� , later also �� , traced his ancestors to 0�’��.�� @��, a cousin of the Prophet Muhammad. He spent most of his early yearsstudying with local ‘ ��$’ in his home town in the ��0�!�� region.88 Ofall branches of Islamic science, he was particularly interested in ��:� and7��8��. For this reason he first travelled to Algiers, where he studied 7��8��and other Islamic religious sciences, mostly with its , ��8, ��’ ��.�$�� . After continuing his studies in Tunis and other places in thisregion, he went for a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1062/1652. After the pilgrim-age he extended his sojourn for one year at the ��(�� $9, wherehe taught 7��8�� and ��:�. Again he went travelling, this time to Cairo,where he attended 7��:��s of great Egyptian ‘ ��$’ such as D$E8 ��&��+ , ��-��!!�� and ��‘�� —allof whom were also teachers of ��&�� .

Having gained from these �=$;�� to teach and to relate 7��8��, ‘$��4�� returned to Mecca. In the Holy City he exchanged knowledgeand studied with prominent �� scholars, such as :�+� �� .� ��’�� (d. 1066/1656),89 ;�� ’6�� @�� (1002– 78/1594–1667),90 ‘�� ! !� ��;��!�� (997–1072/1589–1662)91 and ‘�� 0�� (1002-72/1594-1661).92 All ofthese scholars also authorised him to 7��8��s through their ��$�s, whichmostly began with ‘��’ �� ,�� .

The significance of ‘$��4�� in the scholarly communities of the�� cannot be overestimated. He was acclaimed as one of the mostprominent �� legal scholars in his time. In the Holy Cities he wasknown by the honorary title ‘��$��@C��’. He taught at the HolyMosques in Mecca and Medina. As ��+ tells us, he attracted many�� students to attend his 7��:��s. $�� &�� , ��

22 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA"" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


��’�+�� and �� were among his best-known students. �� , as we will see later, also established contact with ‘$��4�� while he was studying in Mecca. At a certain period everyyear, ‘$��4�� taught in Medina, where he had a warm friendshipwith �� .93

All biographers of ‘$��4�� are in accord that he was of greatimportance in connecting the tradition of 7��8�� studies in the Maghribregion and Egypt with that of the ��. The scope of his narration(��%$��) was wide; as ��&�##�� puts it, ‘nobody was more learned thanhe in these matters during his time’. Because of his extensive travels,��#�7�� ;�� believes that ��4�� was a ‘� �� @� ��$’(7��8�� narrator for the world).94 These claims find their support in one of��4�� ’� own works, entitled *��;��@+�%$��@,�=�?’ �8�A ��@,�=$;�%��B�%$:��@,��?’. This work consists of two volumes and, asits title indicates, is indeed of the 7��8�� narration. In it, ��4�� listshis 7��8�� teachers, and more importantly draws a picture of their complexconnections with one another. In addition, he provides the titles of thebooks that were produced by scholars involved in these 7��8�� networks.95

The *��;��@+�%$��, therefore, is an important work which sheds morelight on the role of 7��8�� narration in the growth of the scholarlynetworks.

In terms of his educational background our next scholar, ��.�� 4�� , was not so very different from hiscountryman, ‘$�� 4�� . But in contrast to ‘$�� 4�� , whopreferred to lead a quiet life, �� 4�� was an outspokenscholar; he had a strong tendency to exercise his religious influence in thepolitical realm. As ��’ points out, he was the only scholar in Meccawho dared to speak out against the abuse of power among the ruling�� family, with their continuous struggles among themselves. Healso attempted to bring about radical changes in the religious life of theHoly City. His close relations with the Ottoman ruling elite gave him addi-tional weight in launching his reforms in Mecca.96

After studying in his home region, �� 4�� travelled to al-Jazair and Egypt, where he learned from leading ‘ ��$’, such asShaykh ��$��’ ��.�$�� , ��&��+ , ‘��’ �� ,�� and Shaykh ��-�� !!�� . These same men, asmentioned earlier, were also the teachers of $�� &�� and ‘$��4�� . In 1079/1668 ��4�� travelled to the ��,where he remained for two years. After long travels to Istanbul and othercities in Turkey, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, he finally returned toMecca. There he built what was known as the $�� $9.However, he did not confine his activities to scholarly and religiousmatters: he was also occupied with public affairs, which led to openconflicts with the �� of Mecca.97 As a result, he was expelled from



Mecca and died in Damascus. We return to �� 4�� ’�activism in the next section.

In addition to his activism, S��4�� was known as a distin-guished � 7�� with strong links to superior ��$�s in 7��8�� narration.Among his works, two were devoted to 7��8�� studies: /��’ ��@��%$’��8��@C��8��, and L�� @*�� ,�%>?�� @��. In these works the authordescribed, among other things, his connections with a number of earlierprominent �� #��, such as $��+��, and the 7��8�� books he studied.98

The biographical accounts of ��4�� do not explicitly mentionthe names of his students in the ��. However, according to �� (1061-1111/1651-99), the author of *� �$>�� @��, who was himself astudent of S�� 4�� , the latter had numerous students in the��, including �� and �� ‘�+�� .99 And, as ��&�##�� shows us, �� 4�� had vast connections by way of7��8�� studies with his contemporaries and later scholars in the networks.100

So far, we have seen that many leading scholars in the seventeenthcentury networks were ‘grand immigrants’. This does not mean that nativescholars from the �� did not play an important role in this cosmo-politan scholarly community. There were in fact a number of nativescholars of Mecca and Medina who took part actively in the networks in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

One of the leading scholars of Meccan origin was :�+�� .��,better known as $�� ’��. He was born in Mecca, where he died in1066/1656. He studied primarily in Mecca with its leading scholars, suchas ‘��@�� , ‘��’�� and &�� ,who issued �=$;�� for him to teach in the �� Mosque. $��’�� hadclose relationships with scholars involved in the networks, particularly with‘$�� 4�� . Similarly, his connections through 7��8�� studies wereextensive. Known as an expert on the ��8’��, )��$� and ��>�%% �, $��’�� was later appointed to the office of the D$E8��@D E$��of Mecca.In addition to this position, he taught in several madrasahs in Mecca. Hewas a prolific writer on various topics from Arabic to Sufism. As we shallsee, one of his works was devoted to answering religious questions fromMalay-Indonesian Muslims.101

Another important scholar of Meccan origin was ;��’6�� @�� (1002-78/1594-1667), a leading scholar of the @�� family in Mecca. Thisfamily traced their ancestors to ‘�� .�� @��.�;��’6�� ’� principalteacher was his own father, ‘��.��.��@�� (976-1033/1568-1624). But it is clear that ;��’6�� was also involvedin scholarly discourses with other prominent scholars in the ��. Byvirtue of the scholarly reputation of his family, he was able not only to gain agreat deal of benefit from many prominent scholars in the �� but alsoto assert his own role and that of the @�� family in the networks. Being a� 7�� of distinction in Mecca, ;��’6�� was a teacher of the next

24 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA"3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


generation of scholars, including ��’�+�� , �� , ‘��,�1� and ��@��&�� .102

It is worth noting that ;��’6�� ’� father, ‘��@�� (976-1033/1568-1624), was also a major scholar: he was a � 7��,whose ��$�s included great traditionists like Shams a�� /;�� 1�� and 0�� - . He also inherited theMeccan scholarly tradition from the 2�� family, mentioned earlier.Thus, ‘�� was a scholar of special importance in connecting thescholarly networks of an earlier period with those under discussion here.‘�� was also a historian of Mecca: several of his numerousworks were devoted to exploring the history of Mecca.103

Another son of ‘�� /� ‘�� (d. 1070/1660), was also a notedscholar, especially in ��:�. With an expertise in this field he was often askedto give religious opinions (��%$s) on various matters. Like his brother, ;��’6�� , in addition to studying with his father he gained a great deal ofbenefit from scholars in the ��. If ;�� ’6�� inherited hisfather’s expertise in 7��8��, ‘�� took over his father’s talent as an historian.Thus, ‘�� wrote several works on the history of Mecca and its notables.104

As we shall see later, ‘�� @�� was also one of �� ’� teachers.It is obvious that the @�� family played a significant role in scholarly

discourse in the ��. ��’ points out that the three @�� scholars mentioned above revived the reputation of the @�� family as anold scholarly family in Mecca. A daughter of ‘�� @�� ,named �� , was also a noted scholar.105 The @�� family continued to maintain its eminence in subsequent periods. One suchwell-known later @�� scholar was ��.� ��@�� (1100–73/1689– 1760), a �� and an historian.106

The list of scholars involved in the networks in the second half of theseventeenth century is a very long one. For the purpose of our discussion,it suffices to say that all the scholars discussed above played major roles inthe networks during the period. We will, however, mention other scholarsof this generation whenever necessary throughout this discussion.

SCHOLARS AT THE TURN OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Most scholars of $�� &�� ’� generation died in the second half ofthe seventeenth century. But the chain of the networks continued with theirstudents who, in turn, became crucial links to scholars into the eighteenthcentury. These students were generally at the peak of their scholarly careersat the turn of the seventeenth century or in the early decades of the eigh-teenth century. We now deal briefly with some of the most prominentamong these scholars (see Chart 2).

There is no doubt that ��.�‘�� .��.�‘��’�+�� ( ) some spell his name ��’�+�� ( ) �� , was one of theseprominent scholars at the turn of the seventeenth century. He was also



26 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA"2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Chart 2 The core of the eighteenth century networks


known as ‘��?��@��$�’ (‘father of spiritual mysteries’). Born in Mecca,��’�+�� hailed from a noted scholarly family in Egypt. His greatgrandfather, ��.�‘��+ ��’�+�� (d. 822/1419), was awell-known scholar in Cairo. ��’�+�� studied with virtually everyleading scholar in the ��. In addition to �� and ��&�� ,he studied with prominent scholars such as ‘��’ �� ,�� , ‘�� and ;��’6�� @�� , ‘$��4�� , ‘�� , ��’ ��=�� , ‘�� &��11 and $�� .�‘��0�’��. The last two, as we will see later, were also teachers of �� .It is certain that �� ’�+�� possessed a thorough knowledge ofvarious branches of Islamic discipline. He was renowned as an outstanding�� , � 7��, >?�8 and historian. In 7��8�� studies, ��&�##�� regardshim as one of the few scholars in his time blessed by God to be a ‘light-house of the 7��8��’. He died in @�’�� in 1113/1701-2.107

�� ‘�+�� played an important role in connecting the scholarlynetworks in the seventeenth century with those of the eighteenth century,particularly by way of 7��8�� studies and 9��8:�� s. He was ameeting point of various traditions of 7��8�� studies: Syria, Egypt, theMaghrib, the ��+�!, Yemen and the Indian subcontinent. It is not surpris-ing, as ��&�##�� points out, that students in the �� did not feelsatisfied in their 7��8�� studies until they had met and received 7��8��sfrom him. They flocked to his 7��:��s in proximity to the Gate of ��"��’ and the Gate of Umm '�� ’ at the �� Mosque in Mecca.108 Asa result, ��‘�+�� ’� ��$�s and narrations of 7��8�� were extensive.109

To demonstrate the importance of the connections in the 9��8:��s, ��‘�+�� wrote a special work, entitled +��$��@‘�=��8��8��@H � :, whichdeals with the ��s of 40 9��8:��s that existed in the Muslim world upuntil his time.110 In this work, in addition to discussing special distinctions ofthe teachings of each 9��8:�� the author provides the ��s to shaykhs ofthe 9��8:��s and the benefits of affiliating with them. This is one of the mainreasons why ��‘�+�� was also known as ‘��’. By virtue of hisworks, the +��$��@‘�=��8� �8��@H � : together with the ��$’ ��@G�9$’��)��$��@H$’��, ��‘�+�� established himself as a historian in his ownright. �� ‘�+�� ’� best known disciples were, among others,

�� #� �� (d. 1163/1653), �� @�� .� $�� &�� (1081-1145/1670-1732), T�j �� ’ , D$E8 of Mecca,111

�� and the historian %�#� �� ( .� �� ‘�+�� built the reputation of the ‘�+�� as a noted scholarly family in Mecca.Among the most prominent members of the ‘�+�� family in later periodswere ‘�� 5� ��‘�+�� , Muft of Mecca; �� .� ��‘�+�� ; and ��%�#��‘�+�� .112

The next scholar worth mentioning was �� .� ‘�� ,��!��+ . Tracing his ancestors to ‘�� .� �� @��, he was born in



��!�, Kurdistan. He acquired his early education in his own region andlater travelled to Iraq, Syria, the �� and Egypt. His teachers in the�� included �� &�� , $��&�� /� $�� .� 0�’�� ;�� , ‘$�� 4�� and several otherscholars. While he was in Egypt, ��,��!��+ studied with, among others,‘��’ �� ,�� , N�� and ��-��!!�� .113

After studying in Egypt, ��,��!��+ returned to the ��, and latersettled in Medina, where he died. He was a noted � 7��, ��:8� andshaykh of the �� order. He devoted his life to teaching and writing.He was a prolific writer: ��,�4�� lists 52 of his works, two of which weredevoted to refuting �� ’� claim to be the ‘renewer of the SecondMillennium of Islam’. ��,��!��+ ’� connections in the networks were far-reaching.114 ��,��!��+ was the earliest scholar of the ,��!��+ � family tosettle down and become famous in the ��. One of the most prominentscholars of the ,��!��+ family in Medina after ‘Abd al-��,��!��+ was0�’�� .� �� .� ‘�� &�� ,��!��+ � (1103-80/1690-1766), the��’ , ��8 in Medina and author of the ‘�:�� @/�%$��, a famous textrelating to the celebration of the birthday of the Prophet.115

�� .� �� .� �� ‘�� was alsoevidently one of the most prominent scholars in the networks after thegeneration of $�� &�� . He was born and studied mostly in Meccaand became known as a � 7��->?�8.116 In his work entitled ( ��@H$��8��(��$��@,��$’�)��@, 7�::�:8��@, ’��8�, �� provides a complete list of his teachers, his ��$�s in various branches ofIslamic discipline, and his �� in a number of 9��8:��s.

It is of particular importance that, in the ( ��@H$��8�, �� alsogives an account of the learning at the �� Mosque of Mecca. Forinstance, he tells us that he attended lectures held in the ��:��s in proximityto the Gate of Peace (($��@��$�). Lectures were given by his teachersevery day after the L �7 (dawn), ‘�>� (afternoon), ,�� (sunset) and‘��$’ (night) prayers. It was in the 7��:��s that he received some of his�=$;��s in the exterior sciences—such as ��8’�� or ��:�—and was initiatedinto several 9��8:��s: the ��, Nawawiyyah, ��, Naqsh-bandiyyah, ��--�� and Khalwatiyyah. And it was also in the ��Mosques that he most of the time practised the ��)� of these 9��8:��s.117

Like ��‘�+�� and ��,��!��+ , �� studied with most of the leading�� scholars of his time. The list of his masters includes ‘��’ �� ,�� , �� , ��&�� , :�+� �� '�� , ‘$�� 4�� ,�� ‘�� .� ‘�� )�� , ;�� ’6�� @�� , ‘�� ‘�! !� ��;��!�� and ‘�� 0�� . A�� also hadnumerous teachers from Egypt, the ��4�� region, Syria and Iraq. Thus,as ��#�7��;�� correctly puts it, �� linked numerous scholarsby way of his 7��8�� studies.118 Likewise, his students came from variousparts of the Muslim world and carried the networks even further.l19

Another important scholar who belonged to the group discussed under

28 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


this heading was ‘��.��.��.��.�‘$��,�1� �� . He was born and died in Mecca. As one can see in ��,�1� ’� ownwork, *��$�� @��$�� ,�’�� ‘-� %� ��@��$�, his education wasthorough; he studied many sciences, including 7��8��, ��8�, ��:�, thehistory of the Prophet (��), Arabic and ��>�%% �. In the *��$��@��$�,he devotes long pages to providing the titles of 7��8�� books he has studied,along with the ��$�s to each of them. He goes on to mention books in otherfields. As for ��>�%% �, he studied books written by such scholars as �� !�� , �� , $��‘�#�’ �� and $��‘�� .120

Though ��,�1� was an expert in various branches of Islamic science, he was mainly known as a great � 7��; he was called an ��8��@, ’��8�� 8� ��@C��8�� (‘commander of the believers in the 7��8��’).��’ points out that ��,�1� was one of the greatest 7��8�� teachers inthe �� Mosque in the early eighteenth century.l21 Through the *��$��@��$� he contributed significantly to 7��8�� studies by providing thenames of scholars who were included among the superior ��$�s. But likeother scholars in the networks, ��,�1� was an eminent >?�8. He was amaster of several 9��8:��s, such as the Naqshbandiyyah, �� andNawawiyyah. Furthermore, he established the reputation of the ,�1� family in the scholarly discourses in the ��.122

��,�1� played an important role in connecting the earlier generation ofseventeenth century scholars and later networks. This can be seen in thecomposition of his teachers and disciples. Besides $�� &�� , hisprincipal teachers included such familiar names as ‘��’ �� ,�� ,‘$�� 0�’�� 4�� , �� 4�� and ‘�� @�� .Among his disciples were ‘A��’ �� .�‘��,�� !+�+ ��;�� ,��@��&�� /��#�� and ��.�‘��"��, all of whom, as we will see shortly, were leading exponents ofthe networks in the eighteenth century.123

The last scholar to be dealt with here is ��@��.�$�� &�� (1081-1145/1670-1733). �� @�� was born and died in Medina. Itappears that he studied mostly in the ��. His principal teacherswere his father, $�� &�� , �� 4�� , �� ‘�+�� , $��‘��,��!��+ , ‘��,�1� and �� . We have no detailed information on his studies with them, but thereis no doubt that his religious learning was thorough.l24

��@�� was primarily known as a � 7��, but he was also a ��:8�and a >?�8. He was heir to much of his father’s expertise in 7��8�� studies.As a �� , he occupied the post of ��’ , ��8 of Medina for some time.He was a prolific writer as well. According to ��&�##�� , he wrote about ahundred treatises, the most important among them being *��;��@’��8� ��@�:%$� and �� ?7��@� >?>��8��@��)��@�)��. This last workwas apparently intended to explicate the doctrine of I�� ‘�� . It alsoreflects ��@��’� learning in the realm of philosophical mysticism. ��



@�� had wide connections in the networks, by way of both 7��8�� $�sand 9��8:�� s. Among his best-known students were ��#�� , S��"�� and ��&�� , all of whom areexamined in greater detail in chapter 2.125

THE NETWORKS: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS

After discussing a number of the most important ‘ ��$’ involved in thenetworks, it is useful to make some generalisations about the basic charac-teristics of the networks. The scholarly networks became increasinglyextensive in the seventeenth century. It is clear that there had been someconnections between earlier scholars and the ones who were involved inseventeenth century scholarly networks. However, networks that developedduring the seventeenth century appear to have been much more compli-cated; the crisscrossing of linkages by way of both 7��8�� studies and9��8:�� affiliations was enormously complex. Despite the historiographicalproblems one finds in sources of information on these scholars and theirnetworks, their connections to one another can be traced down to our time.

The crisscrossing of scholars who were involved in the networks producedintertwined, international intellectual communities. Relations among themgenerally existed in conjunction with the quest for learning through religiouseducational institutions such as the mosques, madrasahs and ��$9s. The verybasic linkages among them, therefore, were ‘academic’ in their nature. Theirconnections to each other, as a rule, took the form of teacher–student (or‘vertical’) relationships. This academic linkage included other forms:teacher–teacher, which may also be termed ‘horizontal links’; andstudent–student relations, all of which could also crisscross each other. Suchforms of linkages were not strictly or formally organised in any kind of hier-archical structure. The relatively high mobility of both teachers and studentsallowed the growth of vast networks of scholars transcending geographicalboundaries, ethnic origins and religious leanings.

Even though the relationships among scholars probably seem quiteinformal, especially from the point of view of the modern academic world,their common interest in regenerating the �� (Muslim ‘nation’) stimu-lated cooperation, which in turn resulted in closer interpersonalrelationships. These close personal relationships were maintained in variousways after scholars or students in the networks returned to their own coun-tries or travelled elsewhere after their sojourn in the ��. The need toestablish stronger ties with scholars in the centres was increasingly feltwhen the returning teachers and students faced problems in their home-lands, thus needing the guidance of their former teachers and colleagues inthe ��. All this helps to explain the continuing scholarly connec-tions in the networks.

Furthermore, as we have seen, two important vehicles in solidifying the

30 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA<! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA



linkages of the networks were the 7��8�� $� and 9��8:�� . Vollhas pointed out that both played crucial roles in linking scholars involvedin the networks centred in the �� in the eighteenth century.l26 Myown research for the same period supports this conclusion.

The same was true of the seventeenth century scholarly networks. In thisperiod, scholars of the networks brought together Egyptian and NorthAfrican traditions of 7��8�� studies, thus connecting them with those of the��, which had been known in the early period of Islam as thestrongest centre of 7��8�� scholarship. The scholars in the networks playeda crucial role in reviving the position of Mecca and Medina as centres of7��8�� scholarship.

As for the 9��8:�� s, traditionally they had been an importantmeans of creating close linkages between scholars. Disciples of themystical way, by definition, must succumb to their master’s will. Thiscreated a very strong bond between those who followed the 9��8:��s.Voll127 emphasises that this type of relationship ‘provided a more personaltie and a common set of affiliations that helped to give the informal group-ings of scholars a greater sense of cohesion’.

The increasing importance of the esoteric way (7�:8:��) in the��, introduced for instance by South Asian scholars, resulted inbringing together scholars, who had mainly been associated with theexoteric way (��8’��), in an even more personal way. The involvement ofSouth Asian scholars in the networks certainly helped widen the reach ofthe networks. But, not less importantly, they expanded the realm of influ-ence of 9��8:��s, in particular the ��--�� and Naqshbandiyyah orders,previously mostly associated with the Indian subcontinent version ofSufism, which had been almost unknown in the �� in earlierperiods. But it must be kept in mind that by entering the realm of Mecca andMedina which now, once again, had become important centres of 7��8��scholarship, these 9��8:��s, as we elaborate in chapter 2, underwent a sortof reorientation. In short, they became more ‘��8’��-oriented 9��8:��s’.

One should also be aware that, despite their close relations, there was agreat deal of diversity among scholars involved in the networks. They weredifferent from each other in terms of not only their places of origin but alsotheir ��s and 9��8:�� affiliations. While a certain teacher might be a�anaf in terms of his adherence to Islamic legal doctrine, his studentmight be a ��’ . While a teacher might be a ��--��>?�8, his studentmight follow the path of the Naqshbandiyyah. Despite all these differ-ences, however, they shared a general tendency towards Islamicreformism. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 2.


2Reformism in the Networks

A number of studies have been conducted on intellectual trends developedthrough scholarship in particular periods of Islamic history. However,never before has a study been done which examines the intellectual trendsthat grew out of the numerous ‘ ��$’ who were linked to each other inloose scholarly networks such as those under discussion. They were differ-ent from one another not only in terms of their geographical backgrounds,which had their own ‘little’ Islamic traditions, but more importantly intheir intellectual preferences, as reflected by their legal (��) and9��8:�� affiliations.

Furthermore, leading scholars in the networks, before settling down in the�� or elsewhere, had been peripatetic scholars, travelling from onecentre of Islamic learning to another, studying with and learning fromvarious teachers who had their own personal traditions of religious schol-arship. Thus, scholars were influenced not by one single teacher but bymany; they were exposed to and absorbed various lines of thought andintellectual tendencies. Because of this, describing the contents of teach-ings developed and transmitted by the scholarly networks is not easy. Atthis stage we will attempt to draw the broad outlines of the intellectualtrends of the networks; this will perhaps help us comprehend the natureand characteristics of these scholarly networks.

In a certain sense the �� was a ‘melting pot’, where various‘little’ traditions of Islam melded to form a ‘new synthesis’ which wasstrongly in favour of the ‘great’ tradition.1 We have seen previously howscholars from the Indian subcontinent, for instance, carried their mysticaltraditions to the ��, while those from Egypt and North Africa camewith an inheritance of 7��8�� scholarship. These traditions interacted witheach other as well as with the tradition already established in the ��itself.

<"


It must be kept in mind at the outset that what we call a ‘new synthesis’is not entirely a new development in the history of Islamic social and intel-lectual traditions. Even though it has some distinctive characteristics,compared with the previous tradition, in many respects it also containselements of continuity with earlier traditions. The return to the �� ortho-doxy that gained momentum after the twelfth century appears to reach itsculmination in the period under discussion. This can be seen not only in theintellectual contents of the networks but also in their ‘organisational’aspects, or more precisely the linkages among scholars. Thus, the revival-ist spirit that inspired the establishment of ��s everywhere in theMiddle East after the founding of the �5�� in 459/1066continued to flourish in a variety of ways.

The salient feature of the scholarly networks is that the rapprochementbetween the ��8’��-oriented ‘ ��$’ (more specifically, the � :��$’) andthe >?�8s reached its climax. The long-standing conflict between these twogroups of Muslim scholars appears to have greatly diminished; therapprochement or reconciliation between them, which had been preachedinsistently by such scholars as �� and �� !�� several centuriesearlier, became a common goal among our scholars. Most of them were ��@��8’�� (� :��$’) and ��@7�:8:�� (>?�8s) at the same time; thus, theywere learned not only in the intricacies of the ��8’�� but also in the7�:8:�� (mystical or Divine Realities). However, we should be verycareful not to conclude that they took this reconciliation for granted;instead, they continued to nurture it.

The rapprochement between the ��8’�� and Sufism and the enrolmentof the ‘ ��$’ in the 9��8:�� resulted in the rise of ‘neo-Sufism’. There hasbeen considerable discussion on the meaning and use of the term ‘neo-Sufism’, which was coined by the late Fazlur Rahman.2 According toRahman, neo-Sufism is the reformed Sufism largely stripped of its ecstaticand metaphysical character and content, these being replaced by a contentthat was nothing other than the postulates of the orthodox religion.3 As heexplained, this new ‘type’ of Sufism emphasises and renews the originalmoral factor and puritanical self-control in Sufism at the expense of theextravagant features of the popular unorthodox Sufism. Neo-Sufism bringsto the centre of attention the moral reconstruction of Muslim society, ascontrasted with the earlier Sufism, which had primarily stressed the indi-vidual and not society.4 As a consequence, Rahman concludes, the overallcharacter of neo-Sufism is undoubtedly puritanical and activist.5 We willnow see more clearly how neo-Sufism developed in the networks.

NEO-SUFISM AND CADJTH STUDY

Fazlur Rahman maintains that the most important group of Muslimscholars responsible for helping to crystallise the rise of neo-Sufism werethe ‘people of tradition’ (��@7��8��). He further argues that after the >?�8

REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS <<


<3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

movement captured much of the Muslim world emotionally, spiritually andintellectually during the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, thetraditionists found it impossible to neglect the >?�8 forces entirely. There-fore, as Rahman puts it:

they tried, in their methodology, to incorporate as much of the >?�8 legacy ascould be reconciled with orthodox Islam and could be made to yield a positivecontribution towards it. First, the moral motive of Sufism was emphasised andsome of its technique of ��)� or � �$:��, ‘spiritual concentration’,adopted. But the object and the content of this concentration were identifiedwith the orthodox doctrine and the goal redefined as the strengthening of faithin dogmatic tenets and the moral purity of the spirit. This type of neo-Sufismtended to regenerate orthodox activism and reinculcate a positive attitude tothis world.6

The ��, from the early years of Islam, had been known as themain centre of the 7��8��. This is not hard to understand, as the Prophet, thesource of the 7��8��, lived and initiated Islam there. Furthermore, two ofthe four major schools of Islamic law, the �� and the �� , knownas ��@7��8��, had in fact initially developed and gained their strongholdin the Arabian Peninsula. It is true that the �� , introduced by�� .� �� (d. 179/795) in Medina, later became more dominant inNorth and West Africa and Upper Egypt, but the �� also came toexercise a predominance in the Arabian Peninsula. Although the �� are known for their strong reliance on 7��8�� and their refusal of rationalphilosophy and speculative mysticism, many accepted Sufism as long as itwas practised in accordance with the ��8’��. There is no evidence thatsuch prominent �� scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) and Ibnal-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah were opposed to all types of Sufism; what theyfiercely attacked was unorthodox ecstatic and antinomian Sufism—that is,Sufism which regards itself free from injuction of ��8’��or ��:�. For thisreason, Fazlur Rahman considers them pioneers of neo-Sufism.7

There was also reluctance to accept Sufism among the ��@7��8�� ofthe �� in the North African region and Upper Egypt. The��4�� in particular were more puritanical and, in some cases,also aggressive. It is well known that the early Egyptian (Nubian) >?�8 ��1� (d. 245/859) was persecuted by the Egyptian �� jurist‘��.�‘��A8 �� !�� ’� books were condemned andbanned by the �� :��$’ of Spain,9 and one of the fiercest attacks onSufism in Egypt, particularly of the extravagant type, came from $��++��’�� , a leading �� :8� in the fourteenth century.10

Again it is important to note that not all �� scholars were hostile toSufism. Some of them were even zealous >?�8s. A good example of this is‘�� .�� (854–917/1450–1511), a noted Moroccan �� , whowas responsible for spreading a revivalist version of the ��order in Syria. He regenerated the decadent Syrian Sufism by not allowing


his disciples to isolate themselves in )��%�� (seclusion) at the )�$�:$�.11

It appears that when scholarly contacts and linkages between the ��4�� and scholars of other ��s gained momentum after thesixteenth century, some began to soften their tone of opposition to Sufismand joined other scholars in preaching neo-Sufism.

Despite these exceptions among the �� and �� 7��s, themajority did not make use of their expertise in 7��8�� for accelerating thereform of Sufism on any larger scale. These � 7��s generally continuedto concentrate their 7��8�� studies on maintaining, reorganising and inter-preting the six canonical books of the 7��8�� in light of their ��’s pointof view. However, they increasingly established contacts and connectionswith scholars of the intellectual traditions. In this way they were exposed toother ‘little traditions’ of Islam. At the same time they played an importantrole in connecting scholars living in various regions of the Middle Eastthrough their 7��8�� scholarship.

This is particularly true among the leading �� 7��s, who livedmostly in Egypt and the North African region. As we will see shortly, theywere among the scholars most responsible for transmitting 7��8��s, and thusfor establishing crucial linkages between various traditions of 7��8�� schol-arship in the Middle East. The material shows that most ��$�s in thenetworks were transmitted through the major fifteenth and early sixteenthcentury � 7��s in Egypt, namely $��+��’�� (d. 853/1449),12

0�� - 13 and ;�� 1�� ,14 noted earlier. Theseprominent scholars in fact constituted a group of networks among them-selves.15 They were considered the most superior 7��8�� $�s, and thereforebecame the most sought-after ��$�s by later scholars in the networks.16

As a result of this development, beginning in the late sixteenth century,connections among scholars in the �� resulting from 7��8�� schol-arship increasingly widened in scope. In addition to the Egyptian ��$�sabove, we find the ��$�s of North Africa coming into the picture. TheNorth African ��$�s in many cases also had strong linkages with theEgyptian ��$�s. Being possessors of superior ��$�s, major � 7��sfrom the two regions not only became crucial links among scholars butmore importantly stimulated new intellectual trends in the networks. Thisis perhaps best illustrated by the experience of such prominent � 7��sas ‘��’ �� ,�� , ‘$��4�� and ��4�� .

One of the most superior ��$�s these three brought to the �� wasthat of �� , the tenth century renewer of Islam, alsoknown as the ‘little ��’ ’ (��@��$��’8� ��@L��8�).17 As a superior ��$�,�� received 7��8��s from his father, �� (d. 957/1550),18 who in turn received them directly from his renownedteacher, ;��1�� . Although �� was not asfamous as ��1�� , he was undoubtedly one of the prominent ��’ � 7��s of his generation.

Even major scholars in the networks, who have been mainly identified as

REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS <5


>?�8s, such as �� , ��&�� , �� or ‘��,�1� , hadin fact extensive linkages with the Egyptian and North African traditions of7��8�� scholarship. There is no doubt that 7��8�� studies constituted the mostimportant subject in these scholars learning. ��&�� , in his accounts ofhis ��$�s in various Islamic disciplines, devotes more than 40 pages todisclosing his 7��8�� $�s before going on to those in ��:�, ��8’�� and��>�%% �. His 7��8�� $�s mostly go back through �� to��( and further to Egyptian ��$�s, or directly in ascending orderfrom Shams �� to �� to ;��1�� to$��+�� and so forth to ��.

But $�� &�� also possessed a 7��8�� $�, beginning with‘��=�� (d. 1083/1672), who migrated from Lahore, India, toMedina. ��=�� , by way of this ��$�, connected him with ��-�� (�� . This ��$� also includes Ibn ��+�� at its apex, and has namesnot in the Egyptian and North African ��$�s. By way of this ��$�, ��&�� is directly connected to the Indian tradition of 7��8�� studies.19

It is interesting to note that ��&�� has also an interesting 7��8�� $�,which runs through >?�8 shaykhs that connect him to Ibn ‘�� . It wentfrom �� , who received it from ��( , who took it from hisfather, ‘�� .� ‘�� ‘�� ( , who got it from hismaster, ��’�� , who got it from ;��1�� , who got it from�� %�#�� 4� , who got it from Sharaf �� .$�� 0��# � ��;�� from �� ‘�� "�� , who got itfrom the great master Ibn ‘�� , who got it from ‘Abd ��"��.�‘�� ,�4�� , who got it from ��%�#��&�� , who got it from ��$��’ �� 1�� ( , who finally got it from ‘�� 0��0�� .20 This ��$� was inherited by al-Kr�n ’s disciples, such as ‘Abd��,�1� . ��,�1� tells us in his *��$��@��$��,��’��‘-� %��@��$� that he studied ��:�� ’� � ��and ��’ ’� � ��with ��&�� on the authority of this ��$�.21

The importance of stating $�� &�� ’� long ��$� above is that itwill enable us to see how chains of transmission can increasingly becomeorthodox and, by extension, how Ibn ‘�� , often accused of being an‘unorthodox’ >?�8, was a source of authority to scholars who were mostlyknown as � 7��s.22

On the above list of names, three are perhaps most important: Ibn ‘�� /;��1�� , and ‘Abd ��"��’�� . For some Muslims itmay be a shock to learn that a major � 7�� such as ��1�� possesseda 7��8�� $� that went back through Ibn ‘�� , who had been condemnedby many other � 7��s. It is important to note that, although ;��1�� was widely known as a great � 7�� and chief ��7 , he was infact also a >?�8. He studied with and received ��>�%% � from, among others,Mu�ammad �� . ��1�� also wrote several treatises on Sufism,including a commentary on �� ’� +��$�� @��>�%% �, which is

<2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


known for its insistence on the conformity of Sufism to the ��8’��. There-fore, it is not a mere historical coincidence that ��1�� initiated the young��’�� (d. 973/1565) into Islamic mysticism.23 The fruit of the master-disciple relation of this type of scholar was the emergence of ��’�� ’�‘neo-Sufism’ or, as Trimingham24 calls it, the ‘middle course’, that is, acombination of ��>�%% � and ��:�.

The connection between the leading �� scholars and the neo->?�8 ��’�� was far from simply a chain in the transmission ofparticular 7��8��s or authority in studying 7��8�� books. Instead, theirlinkages were crucial to the transmission of the doctrines of neo-Sufism.�� , for instance, traces his teachings on the obligation ofdisciples of the 9��8:�� to move (��=��) from negligence and ignoranceto enlightenment, to wage +�� against inward and outward enemies, andto persevere in facing hardships, or on the permissibility of women to beinitiated into the mystical ways, to ��’�� . ��’�� taught themto ‘�� ( , who taught them to his son, �� ( ,who in turn taught them directly to �� . But it is important tonote that ��’�� derived his teachings from the authority of ��- .25 �� also attributes similar teachings to ;��1�� through A��( , who got them from Shams �� , who received them by way of ‘general �=$;��’ (��@�=$;�� @’$��) from ��1�� .26

Similarly, $�� &�� had connections with ��’�� , whichappear in more ways than simply by way of 7��8�� $�: he read��’�� ’� works with A��( , who received them fromhis father, ‘�� ( , who acquired them directly from the author, ��’�� .27 Therefore, it is clear that ��&�� was fully awareof ��’�� ’� neo-Sufism.

Another example of the scholars in our networks who treated 7��8�� schol-arship with particular regard is �� . He presents his ��$�s in thesearch of exoteric (K$��) and esoteric (�$9��) sciences in his ( �� @H$��8��(��$��@,��$’�)��@, 7�::�:8��@, ’��8�.28 He possessed,for instance, an Egyptian 7��8�� $� which began directly from ‘��’ �� ,�� , who in turn connected him with Shams �� , ;��1�� and Ibn ��+��. He also acquired a North African and Egyptian ��$�by way of ‘$��4�� as well as an Indian ��$� that went back through)��4��#�� to ��1�� . In addition to the ‘Kutub al-Sittah’, he studiednumerous other 7��8�� books, such as the ��@, %�99$’ of M�lik b. Anas��@� ��@* ��$�of al-Bayhaq and ��@/$��’ ��@L��8� of ��- .29

The particular importance placed by these scholars on 7��8�� reflectstheir conscious attempts to make the way of the Prophet, besides the��’��8 teachings, not only a source of law but also a boundless inspi-ration towards proper moral conduct. Therefore, as a rule, in their 7��8��studies they did not confine themselves to studying standard 7��8�� books.



We have cited several books, outside the ‘Kutub al-Sittah’, studied by�� . It is also clear from ��&�� ’� accounts that the six canonical7��8�� books constituted only a small portion of his 7��8�� studies. Manylesser-known 7��8�� books, such as the , �� @A$��8, , ��@(�;$��, ��@*��8�and , ��‘��8��@��8�8��@,�%> �8, in factconstituted a substantial portion of his 7��8�� scholarship.30 There wereindeed serious efforts on the part of our scholars to go beyond the tra-ditional study of the ‘Kutub al-Sittah’.

Thus, these scholars did not view 7��8�� studies in the traditional waythat is, for the sake of the ��8’�� as such. �� #� studies were directedto achieving other, higher, pious purposes. �� , forexample, believes that the 7��8�� will lead to real intimacy with theProphet, who was second only to God as the essence of faith.31 Accord-ing to �� , the Prophet was the most important figure forthe 9��8:�� people, as he was the source of the ��8’�� after Godhimself.32 So attached were our scholars to the 7��8�� that $�� &�� asserts, ‘I have no doubt that it [7��8��] will be everlasting onearth’.33

Our scholars were also aware of the fact that there were scholars whofabricated 7��8�� in order to pursue their own ends in the name of theProphet. For that reason, in their 7��8�� studies, they preferred what thesescholars called the ‘high ��$�s’ or the superior ��$�s (‘ � %��@��$��@��$�� @’$�8), namely, those consisting of scholars of renownedintegrity. According to ‘��,�1� , a superior ��$� for a scholaris much like a sharper sword for a fighter: it is a more effective tool. Hegives another illustration: a scholar without the superior ��$� is like awood gatherer who comes in the night into a forest that has venomoussnakes without light.34

Thus, a superior ��$� is essential to scholars in the networks in order forthem to be able to receive the true 7��8��s, not the fabricated ones.�� takes special note of those scholars who fabricated or adver-tently abused the 7��8��s by citing a tradition of the Prophet which statesthat whoever says something the Prophet does not say, then his seat in thehereafter will be of fire.35 In a different tone, ��&�� appeals to his fellow>?�8s to interpret the 7��8�� only with sufficient knowledge and under-standing of all teachings of Islam; to do otherwise would lead only tothe elimination of ��$’ (‘annihilation’ or ‘passing away’ of physical con-sciousness), an important stage of the mystical journey.36

There is no doubt that the special emphasis placed by these scholars on7��8�� studies had considerable impact not only in linking the scholarstogether, as well as the various Islamic ‘little traditions’, but also inbringing changes in their view of Sufism, especially in its relation to the��8’��.

< THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


NEO-SUFISM AND THE SHARJ’AH

The emphasis on the study of 7��8�� or the way of the Prophet, the secondsource of Islamic law, led our scholars to a greater appreciation of thesignificance of the ��8’�� in Sufism. It is interesting to take �� as an example in this respect. �� was initiated by�� ( into the ��--�� order, often associated withIndian Sufism, which tended to transgress the rules of the ��8’��—atleast in the earlier growth of this order.�� played an important part in the reorientation of the

��--�� order by emphasising the importance of Islamic legaldoctrines in the mystical way. In his opinion, both exoteric (legal/��8’��)and esoteric (mystical/7�:8:��) aspects of Islam should be in harmony and not in conflict with each other. Citing the ,8;$� [��@* ��$] of��’�� ,37 he believes that there must be loyal adherence to the preceptsof the ��8’�� on which the doctrine and practice of the 7�:8:�� would bebuilt. Therefore, all mystical aspirants must practise the whole doctrine ofthe ��8’�� before they can hope to gain God’s trust.38

�� recognises certain differences between the two ‘ways’—indeed ‘way’ or ‘path’ is among the meanings of both ��8’�� and 9��8:��.He maintains that they originated from the same sources—namely, the��’�� and the 7��8��. Basically, Muslims could attain certain stages of the7�:8:�� while ignoring doctrines of the ��8’�� laid down by the ��’��and the 7��8��, but they could not ‘feel’ the real blessing of God. Therefore,the >?�8 needs to travel the mystical path with the guidance of the ��8’��.According to ��( , ‘When he [�� ] speaks about the7�:8:��, he always supports it with ��’��8 verses and the tradition of theProphet’.39 Johns rightly concludes that, in contrast to a few other >?�8s whodevoted most of their exegetical skill to the ��’��, �� alwayspresented his views by citing both the ��’�� and the 7��8��.40

With a clear vision of the proper relation between the �� ‘�� andSufism, it is not surprising that �� was an ardent supporter ofneo-Sufism. He holds that there would be no real ��:$� nor �7%$�(stages of mystical progress) without having sufficient knowledge (‘��)and good deeds (‘��) as taught by the ��’�� and the 7��8��. ‘�� aloneis not enough; there simply would be no real mystical progress for thosewho did not fulfill the obligatory ‘��$��, such as prayers, fasting or alms,and other recommended actions. �� takes the Prophet Muhammad as the exemplary figure of

the perfect man of Sufism. As a >?�8, the Prophet did not alienate himselffrom society; he not only asked people to enjoin good and prohibit evil butalso intermingled with their brethren, and performed his ‘mundane’ duties.�� , on the authority of the scholar and historian ��( ,refutes the belief held in certain >?�8 circles that the Prophet used to takefrom his companions what later became known among >?�8s as ‘��@)��:��



��@>?��’ (lit. ‘>?�8’s rag’).41 He simply could not accept the inclusion ofthe Prophet in specific 9��8:��s, which would have supported the often-heard claim that it was sanctioned by the Prophet himself.

Similarly, $�� &�� emphasises the paramount importance ofthe ��8’�� without necessarily putting aside his attachment to Sufism. Heargues that >?�8s should not allow their views and actions to conflict withthe ��8’�� and other religious duties. The ��@)��, people of intuitiverevelation, have their own understanding of the meanings of the ��’��and the Prophetic 7��8��. He reminds them, however, that each verse of the ��’�� or �� (text) of the 7��8�� has not only esoteric (�$9��)meanings—as understood by the �� @)��—but also exoteric (K$��)meanings. As a consequence, the >?�8s must not put their understanding ofthe ��’�� in opposition to that of the �� @��8’��. He takes as anexample the issue of ��$’ (‘annihilation’) in the ��’�� (55: 25). Heexplains that, according to its exoteric meaning, ��$’ is clearly not naturaldeath (��@��%��@9��8’8), but esoterically it is a kind of ‘death’ (��@��%��@��’��%8).42

It is clear that for ��&�� the reconciliation between the ��8’�� andSufism is not to be taken lightly. In dealing with this matter, his argumentis subtle and philosophical. This is not surprising because, as ��( tells us in detail, he was familiar with various kinds of intellectualdiscourses, ranging from ��’#�!��#B and ��’�� #B�� to Ibn ‘�� ’�philosophical mysticism and the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.43

In this regard he was a scholar of distinctive stature in the networks. But it must be borne in mind that his tone was always conciliatory and all-embracing. Thus, in addition to emphasising total obedience to the��8’��, he makes appeals for the recognition of the )�� as a valid pathto understanding the inner meaning of the ��’�� and the 7��8��.

For common Muslims, the intricate realm of Islamic philosophical inter-pretation could lead them to confusion and even lead them astray. Manyscholars in the networks realised this. They shared a sense of responsibilityfor preventing their fellows from being heretical through a misunderstand-ing of the mystical doctrines and practices of Islam. This concern is shownby some scholars in the networks not simply by issuing ��#(�� but moreimportantly by devoting special works to the subject.

There are several outstanding examples of this. Prominent among themis $�� &�� . He seems to have been very responsive to answeringquestions either directly or indirectly posed to him. At least nine out of his49 works listed by ��,�4�� were devoted to responding to a variety ofdifficult issues, ranging from the relation of Sufism to the ��8’�� and thequestion of whether man will be able to see God, to the issue of ��:�8�(blind imitation).44 His most important work of this type is ��7$��@A��)8�� 7� ��@� 7�� @, �� $� +?7� ��@��8, which has been citedseveral times earlier. Johns45 claims that it was ��&�� ’� most importantsingle work.

3! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


��&�� wrote the ��7$�� @A��)8 in response to %�7�� ,��9� ’� ��@� 7�� @, �� $� +?7� ��@��8. As Johnsconcludes,46 in this succinct work, complemented by its short commentary,��@7�:8:��@, %$��:��@��8’��, ��,��9� essentially attemptsto restrain the extravagant type of Sufism by emphasising the essentialelements of Islam, such as the absolute Being (. =?�) of God and theimportance of the ��8’��. Apart from this, I would argue, the author’sbasic concepts, such as the seven grades of being and his arguments toexplain them, are absolutely philosophical. These in turn might or couldobscure the real intention of the author, especially if the work was read bythe �%%$� (common believers).

The � 7��@, �� was written in 1000/1590, and in 1030/1619 orearlier it was already known in the Malay-Indonesian world. The effects ofthis book on Islam in the archipelago were recorded by ��&�� and hisdisciple, ��( . The latter tells us that he first met and studied with��&�� in 1086/1675. The ��7$��@A��)8 had obviously been completedbefore that year, for ��( read it together with other books, such asthe ��787��@( )�$�8 (and other ‘Kutub al-Sittah’), the /$��’ ��@L��8��of��- , the �7�$’ ‘-�?�� @A8� of �� !�� and the � �?7$��@,�))�� of Ibn ‘�� .47 In his account of %�7��,��9� ,��( relates that: 48

Our Shaykh ��@*�$��@, 7�::�:8��$�� &�� told me, while wewere reading the � 7��@, �� with him, that some of our /$%8companions (��’E��>7$��$��@/$%��8�) informed him that this treatise andmatters it treats was popular and famous in their land and that it is read intheir religious schools, and that youth study it as one of the minor treatises intheir rudimentary studies.

��&�� himself, in his introductory notes to the ��7$�� @A��)8,provides further background to his writing of the commentary:49

We have had reliable information from a group (=��$’��) of the /$%��8� thatthere have spread among the population of the lands of /$%�� some books onthe 7�:8:�� [Divine Realities] and gnostic knowledge (‘ �?��@��$�) passedfrom hand to hand by those attributed with knowledge because of their studyand the teaching of others, but who have no understanding of the ‘��@��8’�� of the Prophet [Muhammad], the Chosen, the Elect [by God],peace be upon him, nor the ‘��@7�:$’�: bestowed upon those who followthe path of God, the Exalted; those who are close to Him, those admirableones, or those who have set their foot on any path of their paths founded onthe *��$� [��’��] and the Sunnah [Tradition] through perfect obedience bothoutwardly (��@K$��) and inwardly (��@�$9��), as is done by the devout andpure. This is the reason for the deviation of many of them [the /$%��8�] fromthe right path, for the rise of impure belief: in fact they have entered into thecrooked camp of atheism (��@;��:��) and heresy (��@��7$�).

REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS 3�


It is mentioned [by the /$%��8�] to me that among the famous books wasthe compendium named ��@� 7��@, ��$�M+?7N��@��8, peace beupon him, written by the adept by God’s help, ��%�7��,��9� , may God the Almighty render him of service. Morethan one of them have repeatedly asked my poor self (��@��:8�) to write acommentary on it to make clear of the questions [it discusses] to the principlesof religion, confirmed by the Noble Book and the Sunnah of the Master of theapostles, peace be upon him.

While Drewes50 points out that ��&�� wrote the work on the orders of�� , the accounts of both ��&�� and ��( provide noevidence to substantiate his view. If it is true, the work must have beenconceived before the death of �� in 1071/1660. Whether he wrote itafter having been asked directly by his /$%8�students or whether it was recom-mended by �� , or both, what is important is that ��&�� took thetask very seriously. He made special prayers for guidance (��)�$��) at the tomb of the Prophet in Medina, and he began the work only after he wassure that his prayers were answered and that it was appropriate for him to do the work.51 What follows in the ��7$��@A��)8 is a long presentation on the mystical interpretation of Islam based on the ��’�� and the 7��8��.$�� &�� seems not to have been satisfied with writing only a

single work on the ‘��@,��$’�� @/$%��’ (the questions of the /$%8people). He wrote another work entitled ��@/�%$�$��@I��$%�� ‘��@,��$’��@/$%��@/��,52 in which he once again attempted toclear the matter up. It is unfortunate that we can find no trace of it; wehardly have any concept of it beyond what its title indicates.

The religious problems of the /$%8 evidently persisted for some time in ��&�� ’� circle. ‘�� , very likely one of hisstudents, wrote a work called O��$�� ‘��$��@, ��:��8�� @/$%8. This work, like the � 7�� @, ��, deals with thequestion of the Being and Unity of God.53 The name ‘�� occursin one of �� ’� silsilahs of the ��--�� 9��8:��. �� ,according to this silsilah, received the 9��8:�� from ‘��, whotook it from ��&�� , who in turn received it from �� .54 ��&�� also wrote a work for ‘�� entitled *��@,��?�� 8/�%$��’�� ‘��@�� )?�, which could indicate their close relation-ship55 (see chapter 4).

Despite controversy around the � 7��@, ��, it was used as animportant reference by virtually all major Malay-Indonesian scholarsthroughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. From Shams �� #�� (d. 1039/1630), �� , �� 56 and �� 57 to��*�� and �� ,��+�� , all referred to the � 7��@, �� in their writings.

Another prominent scholar who wrote a work of this nature in order tomeet the special religious needs of the /$%8 was :�+� �� .� ��,

3" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


better known as $��’��. He also devoted a special work to answeringproblems originating from the ‘(��$��@/$%��’. The problem concernedthe concept of the %�7�$�� (Unity of God). The title of the work is ��@/$��@D�%8�� $��7:8:�,��’��@. =?��%��’�� :��@D ��@D��8�� 8� ��@/�%$�� ‘�� @��’�� @.$�� M(��$�N� /$%��.58

It is doubtful whether the work is available today, as I found no trace of this very important text on the intellectual relations between the Malay-Indonesian world and the Middle East. It seems probable that it was�� , who asked $��’�� to write this work, as he was includedamong the scholars coming into contact with him in Mecca.

The fact that at least three works are devoted by leading ��‘ ��$’ in the seventeenth century to what our sources call ‘��@,��$’��@/$%��’ indicates the nature of the relationships between the /$%8students and scholars in Mecca and Medina. As we will see later, in thesecond half of the eighteenth century �� &�� , a leading�� scholar who was also the teacher of a group of Malay-Indonesian students, wrote a work of the same nature, entitled ��@A ��@(��8�/�%$��@��’��@/$%��. All of this indicates the exis-tence of an intense intellectual discourse between Malay-Indonesianstudents and scholars in the centres of the ��. It also shows us theconcern among the �� scholars about, and commitment to, intellec-tual reform among their fellow Muslims in the Malay-Indonesian world.They simply would not allow them to go astray because of any misunder-standing of the proper relationship between the ��8’�� and Sufism. $�� &�� was fully aware of this danger. He thus insists that

those who aspire to follow the mystical path should prepare themselves forthis journey by a correct understanding of the ��’�� and the 7��8�� and bytotal attachment both outwardly and inwardly to ��8’�� doctrines. To dootherwise, he believes, will only result in deviation from the right path and,worse still, to unbelief and heresy.59 Furthermore, as related by ��( ,��&�� maintains that young students should initially be taught articlesof faith, the exoteric meaning of the ��’�� and the 7��8��, and the teach-ings and practices of the righteous predecessors (��@��$��@L$��78�) ��they are exposed to mystical doctrines by masters who are learned not onlyin Sufism but also in ��8’��.60

�� ’� daily practice also demonstrated his concern withcommon believers going astray because of their inability to comprehendthe correct significance of the mystical way. Citing ��&�� , ��( relates that �� usually would not allow his friends to read anddiscuss with him certain difficult and problematic passages of $��‘�� ’��@� �?7$�� @,�))��, except in a very restricted manner. He woulddiscuss them only when uneducated people were not present, and then onlyin a special room with locked doors. �� believed that great >?�8s,such as al-Junayd, never discussed anything about the 7�:$’�: except with

REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS 3<


select ()��%%$>) friends or disciples. He then goes on to cite someexamples from the Prophet Muhammad, who never said anything thatcould lead to confusion among his companions, and who indeed madedistinctions between the common believers (��@’�%%$�) and the select(��@)��%%$>).61

NEO-SUFISM AND ACTIVISM

Another striking intellectual tendency characteristic of the networks is theemphasis on the use of reason and, by extension, on the exercise of indi-vidual judgment (�=��$�) in religious matters. There is no evidence,however, that they actually employed the familiar slogan ‘open the �$��@�=��$�’ (‘the gate of individual judgment’), which has, since the earlytwentieth centry, been declared by modern Muslim scholars. �� is reported to have urged Muslims who possessed

sufficient ‘�� (knowledge) to understand both outward and inwardmeanings of the verses of the ��’�� and the 7��8��. He appealed to thosewho devoted themselves to religion (��:��8��@A8�) to exercise �=��$�.He takes $��‘�� as an example of this. According to �� , $��‘�� made use of 7��8�� extensively in order to make his own �=��$�.Although many traditionists opposed $�� ‘�� ’� judgment, �� believes that he had brought all his learning together in his attempts toproduce his own �=��$�. $��‘�� ’� �=��$� essentially constituted a newinterpretation of the mystical doctrine of Islam. �� then cites hisown experience of having changed his �� from �� to ��’�,after he exerted himself to produce his own �=��$�. As for those who havelittle knowledge, �� considers it better for them to take others’�=��$�s and simply become � :��s (‘followers’).62

�� places emphasis not only on the exercise of reason but alsoon activism. Time after time he urges Muslims to abandon their negligenceand ignorance by searching for ‘��, and by using their time to goodpurpose. He also insists that Muslims fully perform their worldly duties inorder to support their lives by teaching, trading or farming. In his opinion,a real >?�8 is not one who alienates himself from society but one whoenjoins good and prohibits evil, and lends his helping hand to theoppressed, the sick and the poor. Furthermore, a real >?�8 is one who canmutually cooperate (��’$% �) with other Muslims for the betterment ofsociety. These are some examples given of good deeds that should be doneby those who aspire to be perfect men (��@��$��@)$��) as ideally envi-sioned by Sufism.63

In contrast to most >?�8s, who would simply emphasise the totalemotional commitment to God without the interference of reason, $�� &�� , like �� , encourages Muslims to exercise theirreason. Speaking in a more philosophical way, he promotes an intellectualunderstanding of God and His role as Creator and the relation of the Creator



to creation. In bringing up the issue of reason here, he evokes the classicheated discussion between the � ��)��?� (‘theologians’) and the ��@7��8�� (‘traditionists’). It is beyond the scope of our discussion to dwellon the long analysis in his ��7$��@A��)8 on such hotly debated topics asthe Realities of God, the obscure meaning (� ��$��$�) of some versesof the ��’�� and the nature of stages of mystical journeys.64 I do not feel,however, that by bringing back these issues he intends to reactivate contro-versies among scholars. Rather, as ��( tells us, all he wants to do isto promote mutual understanding among scholars by emphasising theirpoints of agreement.65 After all, as ��&�� reminds the Muslims, byciting ��’ , �� !�� and Ibn ‘�� , the power of reason is notwithout limit.66

It is worth noting, however, that not all scholars involved in the networkswere ready to present long and complicated arguments to promote activism intheir societies. An exception to this trend was ��4�� , whowas indeed a ‘radical’ scholar. Although he was a >?�8 himself, and foundedthe famous I��$9 in Mecca, he was opposed to the extravaganttype of Sufism which permitted drum-beating and dancing in the ��$9s, andto those >?�8s who alienated themselves from mainstream society. In hisopinion, this type of Sufism was not sanctioned by the ��’�� and 7��8��.Taking the law into his own hands, he expelled the �>7$�� @)��$%8(secluded people) who had carried on those practices from those ��$9s affili-ated with the ��s of Qayt Bey and �� in Mecca. In so doing,he made more room for resident students (��@� =$%��?�), who, he believed,better deserved them. ��4�� , who had endowed a number of��s and ��$9s in the ��, also challenged misappropriation of the %�:��properties by the �� family. These things brought him intoopen conflict with the Meccan �� . After several failed attempts, theywere finally able to expel him from Mecca in 1093/1682 with the reluctanthelp of the Ottoman authorities. A year later he died in Damascus.67

The reformism of the networks, as we have seen thus far, is clearlycentred on the social, moral and intellectual reconstruction of Muslimsociety. Although we find little evidence to indicate that specific discussionoccurred among scholars about the regression of Muslim society, theyapparently realised that society needed to be revitalised. The most logicalway to achieve that end, it seemed to them, was by engendering a morebalanced comprehension of each of the aspects of Islam itself: emphasisingall its teachings in a unified fashion, such as legal and mystical, intellectualand practical, and social and individual. Thus, none of our scholars rejectedSufism or dismissed the importance of the ��8’��. Their stress is clearlyreformist, purificationist and activist in tone. In short, they sought to bringabout changes in their society by their own efforts rather than waiting foreschatological intervention. There is no evidence to suggest that there wereany among the scholars who adhered to such ideas as millenarianism orMahdism. In fact, they strongly rejected these views.

REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS 35



The best-known example of the rejection of millenarianism is thepolemic concerning the claim among the Indian subcontinent scholars that�� (971–1034/1564–1624) was the renewer of the secondmillennium (� =��@�� @�� $�8) of Islam. The strongest refutation tosuch a claim came from the ‘ ��$’ involved in the networks. The mostprominent among them, ��.�‘��,��!��+ , devotedtwo works to the issue, entitled D��7��@O��%��D��7��8�+��/��$�$��@��8, completed on 15 Rajab 1093/20 July 1682, and ��@�$��@�$=�� @��:�� @�P=��, completed on 7 Muharram 1095/26December 1683.68 ��’�+�� wrote another work called ��@’�>��@�� 8>$��* ��$��7��@��8.69 It is reported that ��&�� also wrote a treatise on the subject, but we cannot find any trace of it invarious lists of his works. Meanwhile, �� is said to have written a treatise after he engaged in a long discussion with Adam Banuri (d. 1053/1643), a leading follower of �� , who preached hismaster’s doctrine in the ��.70

�� claimed that his age was full of darkness. A thousand yearsafter the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam had regressed; at the sametime, infidelity and ��’�� (unwarranted innovations) held sway among theMuslims. He believed that he himself was a scholar of perfect knowledge,who was capable of fulfilling the task of the steadfast prophet to renew andrevive Islam. Friedmann71 shows us that eschatological speculations are inthe background of �� ’� view of his times. His eschatology,however, does not anticipate the ultimate end of the world but rather thearrest of the process of decline at its nadir by means of ��=�8� (renewal). Byattributing the necessity of ��=�8� to the period of 1000 years, he evidentlyadheres to the concept of millenarianism.

The crux of the issue attacked by ��,��!��+ was the very concept of and belief in the second millennium. He poses the following rhetoricalquestions:

What is the meaning of the Renewer of the Second Millennium? Does asecond millennium remain from the time allotted to this community so that he[�� ] can be its renewer? Did the ‘ ��$’ not agree unanimously anddid ��@7$��K al-Suy- not say in his epistle (called) ��@*�� [‘��, =$%�;��$��@-��@��] that not even five hundred years will elapse afterthe Millennium and that the Day of resurrection will take place four hundredold years after it.72

Unlike the concept and belief in the centennial renewal of Islam widelyaccepted by Muslim scholars, �� ’� views on the millennial renewalimply the abolition of Muhammad’s prophecy and of his law. This becomesclearer when he asserts that the Ka’bah is superior to the Prophet; that theProphet reached perfection only 1000 years after his death, the time whenthe 7�:8:��@�� 7��8 was changing to 7�:8:��@��7��8; and that hehad a direct relationship with God without Muhammad’s prophetic medi-



ation.73 With regard to these teachings, ��,��!��+ , after mentioning ��&�� , who discussed these issues in the light of the ��’�� and the7��8��, concludes that �� was an infidel.74 It is not very clearwhether ��&�� , who was known for his conciliatory nature, reallyshares ��,��!��+ ’� conclusion. �� , however, supports ��,��!��+ when he points out that it was infidelity to state that the reality ofthe Ka’bah was superior to the reality of the Prophet Muhammad.75

NEO-SUFISM AND ORGANISATION OF THE HARJQAHS

What was the impact of all the above doctrinal changes in Sufism on theorganisational aspect of the 9��8:��s? In attempting to assess the organisa-tion of the 9��8:��s, we will take a comparative perspective.76

The most striking feature of the 9��8:��s in the period under discussionis that they appear to have been loosely organised; there were no clear cutboundaries between the numerous 9��8:��s in either their doctrines andpractices (ritual and ceremonies) or their ‘membership’. L?�8 shaykhs and� �8�s (disciples) did not necessarily owe their loyalty to a single 9��8:��;they could become masters and disciples of a number of 9��8:��s. Further-more, they could be affiliated not only with certain 9��8:��s originatingfrom or mostly developing in one particular area of the Muslim world butalso with those coming from other regions. This fact undoubtedly explainsfurther the cosmopolitanism of our scholars in the networks. �� is a good example to support this observation. As he

tells us, he was affiliated with almost a dozen 9��8:��s: the ��--��/Chishtiyyah, Firdawsiyyah, Kubrawiyyah all of which he received from�� ( or directly from )��4��#� ��. He also took theSuhrawardiyyah order from )��4��#��, and from ��( by way ofa silsilah which included ��’�� . As for the �� 9��8:��, he tookit from his father, and ��( and )��4��#��. He was also affiliatedwith the orders of :��, �( ��, Khalwatiyyah and Naqsh-bandiyyah, all of which he received from ��( and )��4��#��.Then he took the ,�-�� order through a silsilah which went back to��,�1� . Finally he received the �� order and 9��8:�� of$�� ‘�� from ��( by a silsilah which included ��’�� .77

�� ’� ��$�s of these orders tell us how the Indian and NorthAfrican traditions of Sufism had their meeting points initially in��( and later in �� . They also indicate how $��‘�� ’�mystical tradition passed through generations down to the scholars in thenetworks. Similarly, �� received several >?�8 orders from varioustraditions. He took the Naqshbandiyyah order from :�+��'�� and � �&��, the �� order from Ni’mat �� , the ��order from ‘��’ �� ,�� , and the Khalwatiyyah order from��‘$��.�&�� .78


Although affiliation with numerous 9��8:��s was widely practised, oncea disciple declared his allegiance (��’��) to a certain Shaykh he wasrequired to obey his orders. As �� maintains, allegiance to theshaykh would lead him to the real meaning of the mystical way.79 However,�� appears to have opposed the teachings of most 9��8:��s inearlier periods, which required disciples to behave vis-à-vis their masters as‘a dead body in the hands of its washer’.80 He asked disciples to leave theirmasters and their 9��8:��s if they transgressed Islamic legal doctrines aslaid down by the ��’�� and the 7��8��. This is because �� believes that the essence of joining the 9��8:�� is entering the ��8’��.81

Thus, the rules of the ��8’�� become the norms for disciples wishingto be initiated into the 9��8:��s. Among the most important requirementsfor the acceptance of disciples is maturity (� �?�), which makes themaccountable for practising all the pillars of Islam; in short, a total obedienceto the ��8’�� both outwardly and inwardly.82 With such stringent require-ments, the membership of the 9��8:�� becomes quite restricted. Theserestrictions go even further in the adoption of such divisions among disciples as ‘�%%$� (lay) and )��%%$> (elite). Both �� and ��&�� believed that only the ��((�1 disciples could be taught the realsubstance of the mystical ways. Exposing all secrets of the 9��8:��doctrines to the ‘�%%$� would result only in religio-intellectual confusionand heresy.83 All these restrictions make it clear that the 9��8:�� organisa-tion was intended more as a vehicle for intensifying religious beliefs anddevotional practices than for recruiting mass followings.

Although membership in the 9��8:��s was quite restricted, disciples in the�� were far from homogeneous. In contrast to, for instance, the disci-ples of ��( —a master of ��’�� —who were mostlyfellahs,84 the �� >?�8s and disciples were heterogeneous in manyrespects. The �� >?�8s geographically came from various parts of theMuslim world; religiously they adhered to different ��s; and sociallythey occupied various positions in society, from teachers and traders to rulers.The heterogeneity in the membership of the 9��8:��s in the ��undoubtedly comes from the existence of cosmopolitanism in the area.

Partly also because of their cosmopolitanism, the succession in the�� 9��8:��s is ascriptive rather than descriptive. There was atendency among certain orders in Egypt in the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies to make the post of >?�8 shaykh a hereditary position.85 However,the �� >?�8 shaykhs, as a rule, designated their best disciples to leadtheir 9��8:��s. We have numerous examples of this. ��( designated �� his successor in several 9��8:��s. The latter, in turn,appointed ��&�� to succeed him as the ��--�� shaykh.�� also appointed �� as his ��--�� )��8�� for oneof its branches in the Malay-Indonesian world. It is not very clear whetherthis pattern of succession in the �� 9��8:��s was in one way or



another influenced by ��’�� ’� opposition to the principle of automatichereditary succession among his fellow Egyptian >?�8 shaykhs.86

Furthermore, the �� >?�8 shaykhs appear to have been free fromthe image of ‘holy men’ that we often find in the accounts of earlier9��8:��s.87 The image of the wandering dervish is almost entirely absent inthe accounts of the �� >?�8s. This is related to the special emphasisput by scholars involved in the networks on the importance of the ��8’��in the 9��8:�� practices and of following the example of the ProphetMuhammad. They generally believe that the real >?�8 is not the one whodistinguishes himself from the rest of society by wearing distinctive clothes.

In this respect, according to �� , the real >?�8 is the one whodresses well in accordance with the rules of the ��8’��. The clothes a >?�8wears should be clean, for cleanliness reflects the purity of the soul.88 Asfor ��&�� , ��+ vividly narrates that despite his reputation as agreat scholar and >?�8, he wore only the clothes of ordinary people, dis-regarding the style of dress of certain ‘ ��$’ who lengthened their sleevesand enlarged their turbans in order to command people’s respect, or ofsome >?�8s who wore dervish clothes to raise their aura of sanctity.89

Another important organisational aspect of the 9��8:��s concerns theircentre of activities. If most 9��8:��s in other parts of the Muslim worldcarried out their activities mainly in the ��$9s, )�$�:$�s or z�wiyahs, the�� >?�8s were centred in the Holy Mosques, teachers’ houses and��$9s. However, the �� Mosque in Mecca and the ��( Mosquewere the most important centres of devotional and learning activities. Mostof our >?�8 scholars studied and later taught as well as practised theirSufistic rituals there. The accounts of �� , cited earlier,demonstrate this.

Furthermore, those scholars who had settled in the �� had theirown houses, which sometimes also had large libraries.90 Thus, the >?�8shaykhs, in most cases, did not live in the ��$9s but in their own houses,where they also held learning sessions.91 This significantly reduced thetendency among the >?�8 shaykhs to style themselves in a more dervishfashion if they lived in the ��$9s. The ��$9s were, of course, also impor-tant centres of learning and devotional activities for the �� >?�8s.But they were occupied mainly by disciples, who stayed there temporarilyuntil they returned to their homelands or travelled elsewhere. These ��$9swere usually led by an appointed head who was an administrator rather thana >?�8 shaykh.92

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE

It is important to keep in mind that with the emergence of neo-Sufism the old paradigm of Sufism did not completely disappear. ExtravagantSufism was still practised by some people in Mecca, as we have seen in the




experience of ��4�� . In spite of this, there is no evidencethat our scholars attempted to remove all aspects of the earlier tradition ofthe 9��8:��s. Therefore, it is appropriate to describe this phenomenon asone of continuity and change. While the scholars in the networks substan-tially reduced the extravagant and ecstatic features of earlier Sufism andemphasised loyal adherence to the ��8’��, at the same time they main-tained their doctrinal links with, for instance, Ibn ‘A�� . However, inmaintaining their connection with Ibn ‘A�� they tended to disengagethemselves from some points of his controversial doctrines.

Johns93 has pointed out that $�� &�� was one of the last greatexponents of the school of Ibn ‘A�� , so far as his philosophical and theo-logical ideas are concerned. But we should be careful not to conclude thathis thought was dominated by Ibn ‘A�� ’� teachings. It is true that, in his��7$�� @A��)8, he often cites Ibn ‘A�� , but at the same time he putsforward his own arguments by citing �� !�� , �� and even IbnTaymiyyah.94 Furthermore, he studied not only Ibn ‘Arab ’s philosophicaldoctrines but also his legal teachings. As he tells us, he learned this oftenneglected aspect of Ibn ‘A�� ’� teachings not from a >?�8 but from a promi-nent Meccan scholar, Zayn ��‘6�� @�� , who was known as a� 7��.95

The same is true of �� . In the same vein he expresses agreat appreciation of �� !�� and Ibn ‘A�� . He tells us that he studied�� !�� ’� �7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8� with Sayyid �� 4�� , better known as ��@,�7=?�, who later issued him an �=$;�� toteach �� !�� ’� teachings. But from the same teacher he studied the rulesof fasting in a chapter of Ibn ‘Arab ’� ��@� �?7$��@,�))��. In anotherpassage he relates that he studied the �7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8� with ��&�� ,who told him that this book was very popular in his homeland, Kurdistan.Interestingly enough, �� also learned the �7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8� from�� , who studied it with ��( , who received it byway of an ��$� which included ��’�� , ;��1�� and Ibn‘Arab .96

With this evidence it is clear that there was a conscious effort amongscholars in the networks to reconcile different streams of thought that hadoften been seen as in conflict with each other by scholars before them.There seems to have been no bias against scholars who had been the subjectof controversies, such as �� !�� or Ibn ‘Arab . On the contrary, scholarsin the networks studied them in order to understand their teachings and laterattempted to reconcile them. An example of this had been set earlier by theneo->?�8 ��’�� , who sought to reconcile doctrines of the speculativetheologians (��@��)�) and the mystics (��@)��) by taking care not toassociate himself entirely with Ibn ‘Arab , despite his admiration for him,and linking himself to famous � :��$’ and � 7��.97

Although such a scholar in the networks as $�� &�� was bynature a conciliator, who preferred to reconcile two opposing points of


REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS 5�

view rather than choose one or the other of them, he was bitterly criticisedby a number of scholars, such as the Algerian Ibn ��@�� and ��( . Ibn ��@�� writes a short biography of ��&�� in the ��@,��$�8.98 In this work, Ibn ��@�� recognises ��&�� ’� high repu-tation. Despite this, he attacks him on various issues: that he was in favourof the Qadariyyah interpretation of the ability of created power to beresponsible for the acts of human beings; that he leaned to the Mu’tazilitepoint of view by writing a treatise on the material character of non-being;that he accepted the historicity of the report that the Prophet ��had uttered the so-called ‘Satanic verses’, allegedly interpolated into the��’��(53:21); and that he wrote a treatise on the faith of Pharaoh accord-ing to Ibn ‘Arab ’� philosophical framework. Meanwhile ��( (fl. 1096/1685), in his work entitled ��@��@+�:8:��8�C �:?��@�$��@O��8:, goes even further by accusing ��&�� of atheism and demand-ing his death. ��( ’� accusation, in turn, was answered by ��,��!��+ ,in his work ��@’�:$��@�$%��‘��$��@��’��@’F%8�%��@� ��$��@*$%8��@�’��$��@I�$%8�%��@��$��@��$%8��@�7%$��@��$%8.99

The fact that $�� &�� was attacked on such a wide range ofissues is, as Johns points out,100 an index of his learning. He had sufficientstatus in various Islamic disciplines to provoke disagreements. He was amaster of various disciplines of Islam, and on the basis of his learningmade his own �=��$�s. Eclectic and original, he was the kind of scholarabout whom others must have divided views and who thus exercises acreative role among his contemporaries. To sum up, these attacks on��&�� indicate the dynamics of intellectual discourse in the networks,which continued to gain momentum in the succeeding periods.


3Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian

Networks I: Nr al-D n al-R�n r

Two of the three major chains of networks in the Malay-Indonesian world,those stemming from �� and �� , flourished in the Sultanate ofAceh, while the originator of the other, �� , was born in Sulawesi(Celebes) and established his career in Banten, West Java. In this chapterwe will deal with �� (d. 1068/1658), discussing particularly his rolein transmitting the reformism of the networks to this part of the Muslimworld.

The importance of Aceh or North Sumatra as a whole in the early historyof Islam in the region is unquestionable. However, in order to understandthe proper socio-historical context of �� ’� reforms specifically, it isappropriate to give a brief account of the dominant Muslim intellectualdiscourse in Aceh prior to �� ’� time. This in turn leads us to twomajor scholars, ��!��%��1� and Shams �� #�� , whoplayed a crucial role in shaping the religious thought and practice of theMalay-Indonesian Muslims in the first half of the seventeenth century.

Despite their prominence, many things about the life of ��!�� andShams �� are still obscure. There is still disagreement on the birthplaceof ��!��%��1�� as well as his life span, as his dates of birth and deathare unknown. However, there is evidence that he lived and flourished inthe period preceding and during the reign of ��-��‘��’ �� ’��#�� (r. 997–1011/1589–1602); it has been suggested that he died before1016/1607.1 Apart from this it is clear that ��!�� was a Malay of %��1�,an old centre of Islamic learning in southwest Aceh.2

�amzah was obviously a great scholar. He is reported to have travelledto the Middle East, visiting some important centres of Islamic learning,including Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Baghdad, where he was initiatedinto the �� 9��8:��. He also travelled to Pahang, Kedah and Java,3

where he preached his teachings. ��!�� mastered Arabic, Persian andpossibly also Urdu. He was a prolific writer, producing not only religious

5"


treatises but also prose works laden with mystical ideas.4 In view of hisworks, he is regarded both as one of the most important early Malay-Indonesian >?�8s and a prominent precursor of the Malay literary tradition.

The nature of ��!�� %��1� ’� relationship with Shams �� (d. 1040/1630) is not very clear either. Most scholars are of the opinion thatthey were friends.5 This may imply a sort of teacher–disciple relationship,as suggested by Hasjmi and Abdullah; both assert that Shams �� was a disciple of ��!��.6 Whatever the case, Shams �� and ��!��certainly met. Sir James Lancaster, the British special envoy to Aceh in1011/1602, tells us that he negotiated a treaty of peace and friendshipbetween England and Aceh with two notables appointed by ��-�� ‘��’�� ’��#�� to discuss this matter on his behalf:

The one of these noblemen was the chiefe bishope of the realme, a man ofgreat estimation with the King and all the people; and so he well deserved, forhe was a man very wise and temperate. The other was one of the most ancientnobilitie, a man of very good gravitie but not so fit to enter into theseconferences as the bishop was. And all the Conferences passed in the Arabicketongue, which both the bishop and the other nobleman well understood.7

Schrieke8 and Hasjmi9 maintain that the ‘chiefe bishope’ was ��!��%��1� , as he, by that time, had gained prominence. Van Nieuwenhuijze10

and Iskandar,11 on the other hand, are of the opinion that the ‘chiefe bishope’was Shams �� . The first opinion seems to be more plausible, as Shams�� during this time was in the middle of his career; it was only under thenext ��-��, namely Iskandar Muda (r. 1015–1046/ 1607–1636), that hebecame ‘chiefe bishope’. Like ��!��, Shams �� was a prolific writerand a master of several languages. He wrote in both Malay and Arabic, andmost of his works deal with )��$��and Sufism.12 But, unlike ��!��, henever wrote any mystical poetry. ��!�� and Shams �� have been categorised as belonging to the

same stream of religious thought. We are not going to describe in detailtheir thoughts, but the two were the leading proponents of the %�7��@% =?��philosophical interpretation of Sufism.13 Both were deeply influ-enced in particular by Ibn ‘Arab and ��0 � , and strictly followed theirelaborate system of % =?��. For instance, they explain the universe interms of a series of neo-Platonic emanations and consider each of theemanations an aspect of God himself.14 These are the very concepts that ledtheir opponents, prominent among them �� , to accuse them of beingpantheists and, therefore, of having gone astray.

So far as this accusation is concerned, scholars are divided into twogroups. Winstedt,15 Johns,16 Van Nieuwenhuijze17 and Baried18 maintain that the teachings and doctrine of ��!�� and Shams �� are ‘heretical’or ‘heterodox’. Therefore, they were ‘heretics’ or ‘heterodox’ mystics asopposed to the ‘orthodox’ >?�8s such as �� and �� . On the other

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I 5<


hand, al-Attas maintains that the teachings of ��!��, Shams �� and�� are essentially the same; one cannot categorise the first two asheretics. Al-Attas, in turn, accuses �� of distorting the thought of ��!�� %��1� and Shams �� and of conducting a ‘smearcampaign’ against them.19 Al-Attas, however, seems to change his assess-ment of �� in his later book,20 in which he praises �� as ‘a mangifted with wisdom and adorned with authentic knowledge’, who succeededin making clear the false doctrines of % =?�� scholars, whom he callsthe ‘pseudo->?�8s’.

In any case, the period before the coming of �� in 1047/1637 wasthe time during which mystical Islam, particularly that of the % =?��,held sway not only in Aceh but in many parts of the archipelago. Althoughthere were attempts to apply the precepts of the ��8’��, the mysticaldoctrine and practices, the salient feature of Malay-Indonesian Islam fromthe earliest period, continued to enjoy supremacy. ��!�� and Shams�� ’� writings give further impetus to this tendency. With their positionas ��)��@��$� of the Acehnese Sultanate, they were able to exerciseconsiderable influence. All the sources, local and foreign, are in agreementthat the two scholars dominated the religious and intellectual life of theMalay-Indonesian Muslims before the rise of �� .

�=��6C�C’� BIOGRAPHY AND NETWORKS

A good number of studies have been devoted to �� . However, theymostly deal with his thought; very little attention is paid to the wider contextof his scholarly milieu and to his role in Islamic discourse in the Malay-Indonesian world. There is no single study devoted to assessing the religiouschanges he brought about in the Malay-Indonesian world. Therefore, �� is mostly considered a >?�8 rather than a renewer (� =�� ). In fact, he wasobviously one of the most important early � =��s in the archipelago.�� .� ‘�� .� ��+ � �� (or ��)

��’ � ��’�� ’�� was born in �� (modernRandir), an old harbour on the Gujarat coast. Despite his birthplace,�� is generally regarded as a Malay-Indonesian ‘$�� rather thanIndian or Arab one. His birth date is unknown, but it was probably towardsthe end of the sixteenth century. It has been suggested that his mother wasa Malay,21 but his father was of ��7�� immigrants with a long traditionof migrating to South and Southeast Asia. Most of these South Arabianpeople settled in the harbour towns on the coast of the Indian Ocean and ofthe Malay-Indonesian archipelago.22 His ancestors probably belonged to the�� family of the Zuhra, one of the 10 clans of the Quraysh.23 Amongthe prominent members of the Zuhra clan was ‘Abd ��.�‘�(�, aclose companion of the Prophet.24 But it is also possible that �� ’�ancestors were of the �� family, often associated with ��,�� ‘��



��.�;�� (d. 219/834), known as one of theprominent native scholars of Mecca.25 �� was among the mostfamous disciples of ��’ . He was also the , ��8 of Mecca and a leadingtraditionist (� 7��) in the �ij�z.26

In the first half of the sixteenth century, �� was an important and busyharbour that attracted Arabs, Persian, Turks and Malays to trade or settlethere. In 1040/1530, the Portuguese attacked and colonised it. As a result,�� experienced a severe blow and was replaced in eminence by Surat.Although �� has since that time been under Portuguese rule, most��7�� immigrants appear to have continued to live there. However, theymaintained their contacts with ��7��(#, Yemen and the �� aswell as with the Malay-Indonesian world. ��7�� scholars, in fact,travelled back and forth to these places, contributing significantly to themaintenance of close contacts and relations among these Muslim societies.Furthermore, the �a7ram s generally sent their children and youth to theirancestral home and to the �aramayn to pursue their religious studies. Whenthey completed their studies, most of them returned to their birthplaces ortravelled elsewhere in the Muslim world.

This pattern of life among �a7ram immigrants can be observed clearlyin the experience of al-R�n r ’s own uncle. In his ( ��$��@��$98��8�A��)��@�%%��8��%��@F)��8�,27 he tells us that his paternal uncle, Mu�ammadJ l�n b. �asan Mu�ammad al-�umaydi, came from Gujarat to Acehbetween 988/1580 and 991/1583, where he taught ��:�, >?��@��:�, ethicsand logic (��9�:) and rhetoric. However, people were more interested instudying mysticism (��>�%% � ) and theology ()��$�). As al-R�n r furtherrelates, his uncle was no expert in mysticism and was therefore notprepared to meet the people’s demand to learn about it. Mu�ammad J l�n then decided to cancel his teaching, and went to Mecca instead to pursuemore advanced studies in mysticism and other related subjects. Havingmastered these, he returned to Aceh during the reign of Sul-�n ‘Al�’ al-D nRi’�yat Sh�h (r. 997–1011/1589–1602) to teach people in the subjects theywanted to study. It appears that he succeeded to some extent in unravelingthe intricacies of mysticism and )��$�, especially of the nature of thearchetypes (��@�’�$��@��$��).

The account shows us how a �a7ram teacher from Gujarat played animportant role in the development of Islam in Aceh. The events surround-ing him indicate intense contacts and relations among Muslim scholars andcommunities in various parts of the Muslim world. As al-R�n r relates, the interest of the Acehnese Muslims in mysticism was generated by adeadlock in public discussion and debates between two scholars, comingfrom Mecca to Aceh in 947/1540, on mystical and philosophical matters, inparticular concerning the permanent archetypes.

The first was Ab al-Khayr b. Shaykh b. �ajar, the author of a bookentitled ��@��@D$9�’,28 which deals with difficult issues concerning thenature of the third metaphysical category between being and non-being:

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I 55


the fixed essences, or the permanent archetypes. It seems that in additionto teaching ��:�, Ibn ��+�� discusses matters contained in his book thatwere very difficult for the common people to grasp. The other scholar was�� , an expert in ��:� and >?�� @��:� as well as in‘ �?�� @7��8�� and sciences related to the ��. Both scholars werelater involved in a heated discussion on these topics, but neither gained theupper hand by satisfactorily explaining these complicated matters, leavingthe audience in confusion and with an abiding intellectual curiosity. Tomake the situation even worse, both Shaykhs left Aceh. And people had to wait for the coming of �� ’� uncle to attempt a conclusion.�� followed in the footsteps of his uncle and many other ��7��

scholars. He acquired his early education in �� , and later continued hisstudy in the ��7��(# region. We have no information on the time hespent there, or on the teachers with whom he studied. It is not very cleareither whether or not he returned to his home town when he left ��7��(#. But, most probably, he went directly to the ��, as, accordingto �� , he was in Mecca and Medina in 1030/1620 or 1031/1621,when he performed the 7�== pilgrimage.29 And it is very likely that he alsocame into contact with the /$%8 students and pilgrims there before return-ing to Gujarat.30

�� ’� most prominent teacher in India was ��1� ‘�� .‘�� ,�� :�� 7�� (d. 1066/1656), who wasalso known in the Gujarat region as Sayyid ‘��.31 There isno information on his dates of birth or death, but he was born in the Gujaratregion. ,�� was, like �� , of ��7�� origin, more preciselyof the �� of :�� , one of the most important centres of Islamiclearning in South Arabia. According to �� , it was ,�� whoinitiated him into the ��’�� order, an old Arab 9��8:��.32 He appointed�� his )��8�� of the 9��8:�� and was therefore responsible forspreading it in the Malay-Indonesian world.33 But the ��’�� was notthe only order �� was affiliated with. He also had chains of initiationof the ��34 and ��35 orders.,�� first studied in his land of birth but later travelled to :�� ,

where he studied with such well-known ‘ ��$’ as ‘��.�� (d. 1073/1662), a disciple of �� / and ‘��! !��;��!�� , and his son, Zayn ��‘6�� ; ��7 �‘��.�� (945–1014/1538–1605);36 �� ,�� .� ��(d. 1061/1651);37 and his two brothers, �� '�� and �� . After several years in :�� , ,�� continued hisstudies in Mecca and Medina for four years, studying with and taking9��8:��s from many �� ‘ ��$’. Prominent among these wereSayyid ‘��.�‘�� ,�1� (d. 1037/1638),38 ��.$�� .� ‘�� (d. 1033/1624)39 and ‘�� &��- �� (d. 1014/1605).40 All these scholars and their connections, as their biographies inform us, were involved in the networks in the



seventeenth century and, through others in addition to B� Shayb�n, also hadconnections with the archipelago.,�� n returned to :�� and married. Later he went to ‘A��$�

��@��’ (the '�� region=Surat?) to study with ��)��@��$� Sayyid�� .� ‘�� ’��, who also initiated him into the‘�� order. �� ’��41 who was considered by�� as his spiritual grandfather,42 was born in 970/1561 in :�� where he studied various branches of Islamic thought. When he was 19 years old he went to Ahmadabad to meet his grandfather, Sayyid ‘�� ’�� (d. 990/1582), a celebrated >?�8 and theologian of theGujarat region. �� then established himself in Surat, following inthe footsteps of his grandfather as a great >?�8 and ‘$��, and was known asthe ‘L�78�� ’ (Master of Surat). He died there in 1030/1621.

Another important figure related to ,�� was his uncle, ‘��’��, whose mother was an Indian. Born in Ahmadabad, hewrote a number of books on ��>�%% � and biography. After travellingextensively he returned to Ahmadabad, where he died in 1038/1638.43 ‘�� had another nephew, who later became a prominent figure in thereligious and political realm in Bijapur. ‘��.��(d. 1041/1631) was born in :�� . Before migrating to Gujarat in1025/1616 he studied in Yemen and the ��, where he was initiatedinto a number of 9��8:��s including the ‘��, ��,��h and ��(�� orders. He was also recognised as a� 7��. After getting spiritual blessings from his uncle in Ahmadabad,‘�� soon launched his Islamic renewal in the region.44

The importance of mentioning these major scholars of the ��family is to put �� and his renewal in the proper context, for it iscertain that the ‘�� scholars played an important role in channellingreligious ideas from the Middle East to India and further to the Malay-Indonesian world. �� , for instance, lists no fewer than 30prominent scholars of the ‘�� family, who were centred in :�� .Many of them travelled back and forth from :�� to the �� toIndia and the archipelago throughout the tenth-eleventh/sixteenth-seventeenth centuries.45 ,�� was one of the crucial links,connecting various traditions of Islamic learning. By way of his main disci-ples, like �� and �� , he transmitted religious ideas from:�� and the �� to India and the Malay-Indonesian world (seeChart 3). ,�� lived mainly in Bijapur, one of the leading centres ofIslamic learning and Sufism in India.46 There he enjoyed the patronage of��-��‘6�� (r. 1037–68/1626–1656) of the ,�� Sultanate. Laterhe moved to ,��9� , where he produced several books, but he died inBilgram.47

Having studied Islamic sciences and been appointed as a �� of boththe ‘�� and ��’�� orders, the time had come for �� to begin his career. Some of his works indicate that he was well acquainted



with the Malay world even before coming to the archipelago. It appears thathe acquired information on it from his involvement in the /$%8 communityin Mecca. But there is little doubt that his uncle, ��0 �� , whoused to travel back and forth to Aceh, provided him with much informationon Malay cultural and religious tradition.�� was certainly the most prominent predecessor of the

‘�� scholars in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago. We havementioned that ‘�� .��1-�� ’�� (d. 1194/1780 inEgypt), a teacher of ��#�7�� ;�� , also travelled to the Malay-Indonesian world. But unlike �� , who left a substantial impact on thearchipelago, ��1-��’�� apparently only passed through it in histravels to many parts of the Muslim world. However, it is not impossible thathe came into contact and established networks with ��.��,��’�� (d. in 1213/1798 in Batavia, now Jakarta), another leading scholarand >?�8 of the ‘�� family in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.48

There is no information as to when �� travelled for the first timeto, and lived in, the Malay world. But it is likely that, during the periodbetween his completion of the pilgrimage in 1029/1621 and 1047/1637, helived for some time in the archipelago, probably in Aceh or Pahang in theMalay Peninsula or both. His sudden rise to the office of ��)��@��$�of the Sultanate of Aceh in 1047/1637 indicates that he had been known


Chart 3 ��’��


before among the Malay rulers or circles, especially those of the PahangSultanate. The son of ��-�� of Pahang was seven years of agewhen he was taken to Aceh by ��-�� Iskandar Muda, who later marriedhim to his daughter and treated him as his own son;49 he was later knownas Iskandar :�� . Thus, when he succeeded his father-in-law to the throneof the Acehnese Sultanate, �� was not new to the ��-�� circle. It ishard to believe that �� could win the patronage of the ��-�� and theoffice of ��)�� @��$� as soon as he arrived in Aceh without havingbeen in close contact beforehand.

If �� had already been in the archipelago before 1047/1637, whythen did he not establish himself in Aceh? To answer this question oneshould consider the political and religious situation in Aceh during thereign of ��-�� Iskandar Muda (r. 1015–1046/1607–1636). In this period itwas Shams �� #�� who occupied the office of ��)�� @��$�. Under the patronage of Iskandar Muda, the doctrines of % =?��preached by ��!��%��1� and Shams �� enjoyed their heyday.Therefore, the time was not yet ripe for �� to challenge the estab-lished political and religious order; he had to wait until the situation becamemore favourable to him.

When Shams �� and Iskandar Muda successively died, �� came to Aceh, precisely on 6 Muharram 1047/31 May 1637.50 He was soonappointed ��)��@��$�, one of the highest posts in the Sultanate belowthe ��-�� himself, becoming perhaps even more influential than the othertwo highest officials, the D$E8� ,��)� ��@’F�� and the '�� *��,��=�� =�. The Dutch trade representatives to Aceh calledhim ‘the Moorish Bishop’.51 He was, of course, responsible for religiousmatters, but Dutch records make it clear that he also played an importantrole in economic and political affairs. So when the Gujarat traders onceagain tried to dominate trade in Aceh, the Dutch fiercely protested, but tono avail. It is only through �� ’� goodwill and mediation that ��-��)��#� �� (1051–86/1641–75), the widow of Iskandar :�� ,withdrew policies favourable to the Gujarat traders and detrimental to theDutch.52

Gaining a firm foothold in the court of the Acehnese ��-��, �� began to launch Islamic renewal in Aceh. In his view, Islam in this regionhad been corrupted by misunderstanding of the >?�8 doctrine. �� lived for seven years in Aceh as an ‘$��, � ��8 and prolific writer,spending much of his energy in refuting the doctrines of % =?��. Heeven went so far as to issue a ��%$, which led to a kind of heresy-hunting:killing those who refused to dismantle their beliefs and practices, andreducing to ashes all of their books. He succeeded in retaining the favourof the court until 1054/1644, when he abruptly left Aceh for his town ofbirth, �� . This is recorded by one of his disciples in the colophon of �� ’� work, /�%$��@’-�?��8�*��@,�’�?�:53



And when he has thus far completed this work it came about by [God’s]decree that he was prevented [from completing it altogether], whereat he setout for his native town of �� .

This short passage provides no clear explanation as to why �� suddenly returned to �� . This leads Daudy54 to speculate that �� ’�abrupt departure had something to do with his dislike of the policies of��-��)��#�� , designed to persecute people who refused to beruled by a woman. These people believed that, according to the local tra-dition as well as the ��8’��, it was inappropriate for a woman to be theruler. As a result, there was opposition to her rule; and �� ’� depar-ture represented such an opposition. This explanation does not seemplausible. One may expect some kind of opposition or resistance from amore ��8’��-oriented Muslim society to the rule of a woman; however,as far as �� ’� departure is concerned, it is unlikely that his return tohis native town was caused by his alleged dislike of rule by a woman whohad shown favour to him. In fact, many of his works were written to satisfythe command of the ��-��, including those written in the last minutesbefore his departure.

The enigma of �� ’� sudden departure was solved when Itopublished a short but very important article,55 based on the diary of the##��)#��(‘higher trader’) Peter Sourij, who in 1053/1643 was sentby the VOC (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) as a trade commis-sioner to Jambi and Aceh. In an entry of his diary for 8 August 1643, Sourijreports that the coming of a ‘Moorish Bishop’ from Surat, India, to Acehgave rise to endless debates between him and �� , for the latter hadbranded the newcomer’s doctrines as ‘heretical’. The debates put the��-�� in an awkward and difficult situation. She had up to then sharedthe views of �� , but the newcomer’s teachings soon gainedmomentum.

Two weeks later Sourij provides us with more background information.In the entry of 22 August, he again reports the continuing debates betweenthe two ‘ ��$’, now in the presence of the chairman of the Joint Council-lors of the Sultanate or '�� *�� ,��=��. More importantly,Sourij informs us that the new person was Sayf ��+��, a Minangkabau,who used to study in Aceh with a certain Shaykh Maldin (0�� ?).The latter was banished from Aceh after the coming of �� because ofhis allegedly unorthodox views. Sayf ��+�� soon won the hearts of manyAcehnese through his erudition and piety. He even made his entire houseand adjoining lands into a pious foundation. �� himself gives a vividaccount of the whole situation:

Then came Sayf ��+��, and he held debates with us over the matters whichhad been discussed before. We ask: ‘How could you approve of the peoplewho assert that %��$��$��$��$�, man is �� and �� is man



[sic]?’ He [Sayf ��+��] answers: ‘This is my belief and that of the people ofMecca and Medina.’ Then his words prevail, and many people return to thiswrong belief.56

It is clear that the bitter debates between �� and Sayf ��+��became a divisive political issue. The '��*��failed to settle the issue,so the Joint Councillors of the Sultanate and the ��(ministers) had tomeet again and again to resolve the controversy. But they too failed. Theonly thing they could do was to recommend that the case be settled by��-��)��#�� , who wisely refused to do so, for she acknowl-edged not having knowledge on religious matters. So she left the case in thehands of the �� (�� functionaries).

With the ��-��’� refusal to use her authority to end the bitter dis-agreement between the two scholars, some kind of religious and politicalconfusion soon prevailed among the population. So confused had the situ-ation been that Sourij complained about the delay in his business. Finally,Sayf ��+�� gained the upper hand. Sourij, in his notes for 27 August 1643,writes that Sayf ��+�� was finally summoned to the court by the ��-��herself, during which time he received honourable treatment. With this, thedoor was shut to �� , and he was forced to leave the arena.

There is no further information on Sayf ��+��, who won the struggle.But what is clear is that he represents a strong counter-attack against �� , who for about seven years persecuted the followers of ��!��

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I 2�

Map 1 Al-R�n�r�’s itinerary


��%��1� and Shams �� . Another important point to note is the inter-national nature of the success of Sayf ��+��. In order to win the struggle,he travelled a long way to Surat, studying. We do not know with whom hestudied there. When he returned, he possessed enough distinction to enablehim to challenge �� and not easily be defeated by him in their bitterdebates.�� returned to his native town in 1054/1644–45, as was

mentioned in the colophon of his /�%$��@’-�?��8�*��@,�’�?�. Hespent the remaining 14 years of his life in �� . Although he was now farfrom Aceh or the archipelago, he maintained his concern for Muslims in the‘lands below the wind’. �� relates that after returning to his nativetown �� wrote at least three works,57 dealing with the matters he usedto encounter in Aceh. One of the works was written as his answer to ques-tions put forward by the Bantenese ��-��, ��‘��’�� . �� died on Saturday, 22 ��++�� 1068/21 September1658.58

�=��6C�C’� WORKS AND RENEWAL

�� was a prolific and erudite writer. According to various sources hewrote no fewer than 29 works. But not all were written during his seven-year sojourn in Aceh. For instance, one of his most studied works, the L��$9��@, ��:8�, was prepared at least partly before he came to Aceh. Hisworks mainly deal with ��>�%% �, )��$�, ��:�, 7��8��, history and compar-ative religion.

As he wrote much on )��$� and ��>�%% �, apparently �� consid-ers one of the basic questions among Malay-Indonesia Muslims to be their‘�:$’�� (fundamentals of belief ). Therefore, he attempts to make clear,among other things, the relation between the Realities of God and theuniverse and man.59 He delineates the ��’�� doctrine of difference(� )�$��) between God and the universe, the origin of the world in time(�7�$��), and God’s absolute transcendence vis-à-vis man. With his loyaladherence to the Ash’ariyyah it is not hard to understand why he was sobitter towards ��!��%��1� and Shams �� , both of whom main-tained the immanence of God in His creation.

As far as �� ’� Sufism is concerned, although he is generallyknown as belonging to the ��’�� order, he was also affiliated withthe ‘�� and �� orders. His affiliation, particularly withthe ‘�� 9��8:��, appears to have been crucial in developing hisradical tendencies. Eaton60 has shown us that the ‘��, with itsstrong Arabian roots, is one of the most important reformist 9��8:��s in the Indian subcontinent. It strongly emphasises the harmony between themystical way and total obedience to the ��8’��. It is also noted for its non-ascetic and activist attitude.



With these characteristics, the ‘�� is clearly a 9��8:�� of neo->?�8 type. The prominent >?�8 scholars of the ‘�� attempted toimpart in India not only the teachings of a more ��8’��-oriented Islam butalso certain symbols of Arab culture. ‘Abd �� b. Shaykh ��’��(d. 1041/1631), for instance, went so far with his reform as to ‘convert’��-�� $�� II (‘6�� ) from �� ’�� to �� Islam. Although the ��-�� was tolerant of the �� ’��, he had never been a �� ’ himself.‘Abd �� also persistently attempted to persuade the ��-�� to wear Arabclothing.

Joining in the general tendency in these networks, �� insisted onthe importance of the ��8’�� in mystical practices by writing the L��$��@, ��:8��in Malay.6l In this work he explicates the basic but fundamentalduties of each Muslim in his life. Using the familiar outline of any ��:�book, he goes on in detail to explain various matters concerning ablution(% E?’), prayers (>��$�), ‘alms’ (;�)$�), fasting (>�%�), pilgrimage (7�== ),sacrifice (: ��$�) and the like. Although the book would seem to be asimple exposition of basic ��:� rules, one should not underestimate itsimportance to Malay-Indonesian Muslims during the time when an extrava-gant Sufism was prevalent.

Most of the �� works are polemical, and to some extent apologeti-cal. But this should not conceal the important fact that he always makesgood use of standard books and leading authorities. He was certainly anavid reader. On )��$� and ��>�%% � he eloquently quotes �� !�� , Ibn‘Arab , ��( , �� , ��% �!�� , ��0 � , ‘Abd ��0�� , %�7��,��9� and other leading scholars.62 As for his��:�, he based himself on the standard ��’ books, including ,��$=��@H$��8��of ��(�( , ��7� ��@.��$�� 7�,��$=� ��@H ��$��ofZakariyy� ��1�� , ��$��@, 7�$=��7��@, )��>$��of Ibn ��+��,*��$��@��%$��of �� or ��$��@, 7�$=�(��$��7��@,��$=Q—of ��(�( ) of Shams �� .63 Considering �� ’�works and their sources, it is clear that he was more than simply a zealous��)�� @��$�, using his religious and political influence to persecute% =?�� followers. He was a man of erudition and argument, exploringthe intricacies of the mystical doctrines in order to put those he regarded ashaving gone astray on the right track.

In his polemical works, �� vigorously charges % =?�� follow-ers with heresy and even with polytheism. Thus, as a consequence, theycould be condemned to death if they refused to repent.64 Furthermore, hechallenges protagonists of the % =?�� doctrine to debate the matter.�� tells us that debates were held at the court of the Sultanate in thepresence of the ��-�� or ��-��. In some instances the debates werefierce and lasted for several days. However, they obviously failed to settlethe differences. ��-��$��:�� repeatedly ordered the % =?��followers to change their minds and repent to God for their misbelief, but

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I 2<


this was also fruitless. Finally, the ��-�� had them all killed and theirbooks burned in front of the Banda Aceh grand mosque, Bayt ��.65

�� tells us vividly:

Again they say: ‘��@’$�� %��$�� %��@’$��—the universe is Godand He is the universe. After that the King orders them to repent for theirwrong belief. He appeals several times, yet they are not willing [to changetheir mind]; they even fight the messengers of the King. Finally, the Kinggives orders to kill them all and to gather and burn their books in the field atthe front of the Mosque Bayt ��.66

Scholars have tried to explain why �� used his position as the��)��@��$� of the Sultanate to issue a ��%$ declaring the % =?��people unbelievers ()$��). Daudy67, for instance, asserts that �� ’�uncompromising personality has something closely to do with his pastexperience of living in the hostile Hindu environment of India. The long-standing social and religious conflicts between the Muslim minority andthe Hindu majority created little tolerance within segments of both soci-eties; and �� was a product of such a society.

Looking at �� ’� case in this rather wider perspective, this kind ofinterpretation has its own validity. However, I would argue that �� ’�uncompromising personality is to a great extent related to the reformism inthe networks. In other words, as Drewes68 correctly points out, �� ’�radical opposition to ��!��%��1� and Shams �� #�� ,together with their followers, was not an isolated case of ‘orthodoxreaction’ to unorthodox mysticism. �� ’� sojourn in Aceh occursduring the period in which the doctrines of % =?�� met serious theo-logical opposition or were reinterpreted by many scholars in the centres, ina stricter way in light of the ��8’��. In this sense, �� ’� attitude is agood example of how the reformism of the networks was translated intorenewalism in the Malay-Indonesian world.

The persecution against % =?�� followers left an everlasting markon the intellectual life of Islam in the archipelago. It gave rise to a reassess-ment among the ‘ ��$’, in particular �� , of such concepts as‘Muslim’, ‘)$��’ (unbeliever), ��$� 7 (religious tolerance), and the like,all of which will be discussed further. More importantly, �� ’� ��%$of ��)�8� and the killing of % =?�� Muslims reached the ��,where an anonymous manuscript written in 1086/167569 tells us that it wasthe writer’s answer to questions coming from an island of the J�wah region(�� ’E� =�;$’�� /$%��). The problem put forward was that an ‘$��coming from ‘above the wind’70 accused a % =?�� >?�8 of being a k�fir.The case was brought to the attention of the ��-��. The ‘$�� stronglydemanded that he repent, but he refused. The >?�8 maintained that he couldnot repent as his argument was not understood. But nobody took his wordsseriously; and finally the ��-�� issued an order to kill him, together with



all the people who followed his teachings. All of them were put into thefire. Was it permissible to do that?

The author of the treatise explains the danger of arguing with people whocannot comprehend the matter. However, the >?�8’s statements that he wasnot properly understood were indications of his following certain intricateinterpretations of a particular religious doctrine that he himself was not ableto explicate to the ‘$��, who labelled him unbeliever. Whatever the case,the treatise’s writer argues that it was terribly wrong to kill him and hisfollowers. He further elaborates that the accusation was obviously based ona literal understanding of % =?�� doctrine; yet this attitude was notpermissible in Islam. He goes on to quote the Prophet that any statement ofMuslims could not be considered wrong as long as others were able tointerpret it in any other way.

It comes as no surprise that the writer was $�� &�� .71 The ‘$��from ‘above the wind’ was obviously �� ; the ��-�� was Iskandar:�� ; and the one who transmitted the problem to the �� was�� . As we describe in greater detail in chapter 4, �� appar-ently could not accept the way �� launched his reform. Therefore,without any hesitation he brought the matter to his teacher’s attentionacross the Indian Ocean in Medina. And finally he received the teacher’sresponse. This event tells us how the intellectual and religious networks ofteacher–disciple played their role in the historical course of Islam in thispart of the Muslim world.

�=��6C�C’� ROLE IN MALAY-INDONESIAN ISLAM

�� was primarily a >?�8, a theologian and a ��:8� ( jurist). But he wasalso a man of letters, a preacher and a politician. His multifaceted person-ality could lead to misunderstanding, particularly if one viewed only acertain aspect of his thought. As a result, until now he has often beenconsidered more as a >?�8 who was probably occupied only with mysticalpractices, whereas he was in fact also a ��:8�, whose main concern was thepractical application of the very basic rules and regulations of the ��8’��.Therefore, to understand him entirely one should take into consideration allaspects of his thought, personality and activity.

Although �� ’� sojourn in the archipelago was relatively short (forseven years only, 1047–1054/1637–1644), he had a significant role in thedevelopment of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. He played a key rolein bringing the great tradition of Islam to the region, reducing substantiallythe tendency to uncontrolled intrusion of local tradition on Islam. Withoutunderestimating the role of the earlier carriers of Islam from the MiddleEast or elsewhere, one can say that �� had a much stronger networkof the ‘ ��$’, connecting the Islamic tradition in the Middle East with thatof the archipelago. He was indeed one of the most important transmitters ofIslamic reformism and renewals to this part of the Muslim world.



We do not know much about �� ’� network of disciples, but thereis little doubt that his most prominent disciple in the archipelago was�� . The latter, in a work entitled ��8�� @��=$�, gives his�� of the �� 9��8:�� from �� . �� explicitlystates that �� was his shaykh and teacher ( � ).72 Despite thisevidence, there are problems concerning the date and place they met (whichare discussed in chapter 5). We have no names for the disciples of �� ,except �� . After returning to �� , he apparently devotedhimself to teaching and writing; he even ordered his disciples to completehis /�%$��@’-�?��8�*��@,�’�?�, but he mentioned no names forthese disciples.73

Despite the obscurity surrounding the identity of his disciples, �� ’� role in the transmission of reformism through his works isundeniable. His habit of citing numerous well-known authorities andstandard works to support his arguments throughout his writings was acrucial means of their transmission. In so doing, he introduced these author-ities to the Muslims in the archipelago. Furthermore, by introducing intoand disseminating in the archipelago the interpretation of Islam held by themainstream of ‘ ��$’ and >?�8s in the centres of Islam, he stimulated astrong impetus for renewal among Malay-Indonesian Muslims. �� ’�mastery of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Malay and Acehnese was of great impor-tance to him in building his scholarly reputation.

With his polemical works against what he regarded as the ‘heretical’% =?��, �� was the first in the archipelago to clarify the distinc-tion between the true and the false interpretation and understanding of >?�8doctrines and practices. There were, of course, attempts by such scholars as%�7�� ,��9� to clarify this distinction. But a��,��9� failed to achieve the intended aim.74 On the contrary, his work led to reli-gious confusion among Malay-Indonesian Muslims, so that $�� &�� felt it necessary to write a commentary on it, as mentionedearlier. Further attempts were also carried out by ��!��%��1� andShams �� . But, as al-Attas points out, their works again failed to drawa clear distinction, particularly between God and the universe, or relationsbetween God and Creation.75 �� therefore paved the way towardsthe rise of neo-Sufism in the archipelago.

A further consequence of his clarification of the types of Sufism was theintensification of the Islamisation process in the Malay-Indonesianworld.76 The process was pushed further by �� ’� writings on the��8’�� and ��:�, particularly by his L��$��@, ��:8�. �� was thefirst ‘$�� in the archipelago ever to take the initiative to write a sort ofstandard manual for people’s basic religious duties. Even though theprecepts of ��8’�� and ��:� had to an extent been known and practisedby some Malay-Indonesian Muslims, there was no single work in Malayto which to refer. Therefore, it is not hard to understand why the workbecame very popular and seems to be still in use to this day in certain parts



of the Malay-Indonesian world, particularly in Southern Thailand and theMalay Peninsula.77

�� ’� concern about the application of the detailed rules of the ��:�led him to extract sections of his L��$�� @, ��:8�� and issue them asseparate works. The most famous among these extracts are *�� @L��$��and ($��@��)$7; the latter together with the L��$��@, ��:8��weresent by �� himself to Kedah in about 1050/1640. This appears to beof particular importance in furthering the Islamisation of Kedah.78 For thatreason it has been claimed that his contribution to the process of Islamisa-tion of Kedah was of equal magnitude to that of the first preachers whodirectly brought Islam to the people of Kedah.79

The role of �� in the intensification of the process of Islamisationis also clear in the political field. During his sojourn in Aceh, in his positionas the ��)��@��$� of the Sultanate, among his duties was that of coun-selling the newly enthroned ��-�� Iskandar :�� in various matters, eitherreligious or political. In his ( ��$��@��$98�, he tells us how he counselledthe ��-�� in his function as a ruler and )��8��(representative) of God onearth. Quoting various verses of the ��’�� (e.g. 4:59; 6:165; 38:26), hemakes clear to the ��-�� his responsibility for and duty towards his people;protecting the weak and providing goodness to the people make himprotected and blessed by God. Probably because of his counsel, ��-��Iskandar :�� abolished un-Islamic punishments for criminals, such as the‘immersing into hot oil’ (�� #��)) and ‘licking the burning steel’(��=��).80 The ��#�� also prohibited his subjects from discussingthe issues surrounding God’s Being with reason.81

According to �� , the application of the ��8’�� could not beintensified without a deeper knowledge of the tradition (7��8��) of theProphet. Therefore, he compiled in his ��$��@C��8��8��@��8��%��@��8� some traditions of the Prophet which he translated from Arabicinto Malay so that the Muslim population would be able to understand themcorrectly. In this concise compendium, he interpolates 7��8��s with cita-tions of the ��’��8 verses in order to support the arguments attached tothe 7��8��s. This work was the pioneer in the field in the archipelago andintroduced the importance of 7��8�� in the life of Muslims.

Apart from clarifying the distinction between unorthodox and orthodoxSufism and emphasising the importance of the ��8’��, �� took onthe arduous task of making Muslims understand correctly the articles ofbelief (��@’�:$’�� ). It is true that one of the standard works of the‘��’�� , the , )��>�� @’�:$’�� by Najm �� , wasalready in use among certain circles of Malay-Indonesian Muslims.However, this is not a simple text: in addition to the subject being difficultto comprehend, its Arabic was hard for the Malays in general to under-stand. Realising the need for this kind of text, �� prepared its Malaytranslation or a partial translation, called A �� @��$’�� 7�



��@’�:$’��.82 He does not in fact simply translate it; he adds somecommentary, so that it is easier for his Malay readers to understand.�� played a crucial role, not only in clarifying to the Malay-

Indonesian Muslims the very basis of Islamic beliefs and practices but inrevealing the truth of Islam in a comparative perspective with other reli-gions. He was the first ‘$�� ever in the Malay world to write a work oncomparative religion, called ��$�� 8� ,�’�� @��$�,83 as well assubstantial passages touching on the same subject in his other works.84 The��$�, which has been discussed by scholars,85 was apparently plannedaccording to the *��$�� @,�� %�� @��7��, the well-known work oncomparative religion by ��#�� . But for much of its contents�� depends on �� ’� *��$��@��8�. In the firstpart of the ��$� he begins his discussion with non-scriptural religions, toconclude with the scriptural religions of Christianity and Judaism. Thesecond part deals with Islam, including the 72 Muslim splinter groupsconsidered heretical or outside the true �� tradition. As one mightexpect, he includes the followers of ��!��%��1� and Shams �� among these ‘heretics’.

The influence of �� in the field of history was no less profound.Again, he was the first writer in Malay to present history in a universalcontext, and to initiate a new form of Malay historical writing. His historybooks, collectively called the ( ��$��@��$98�, are his most voluminouswork, reflecting the author’s special interest in the field. These seven booksshow us how he successfully made use of several traditions of the histori-ography of Islam and introduced them to Malay audiences. The first twobooks present the history of the world, mostly from a theological point ofview. While the first book is written following the pattern of ��&��’ ’�D�>�>��@��$’, dealing with the creation of the Pen, the Tablet, the Lightof �� and the like, the second book is planned according to ��@�� ’� �$�8)��@+ � ��%��@, �?). Thus, he begins with the history ofthe Persian, Greek and Arabian people in the pre-Islamic period, followedby an annalistic history of Islam until the year of the execution of ��+in 309/921. The second book later goes on to describe the history of thekings of India and the Malay-Indonesian world. The remaining five booksof the ( ��$�� @��$98� follow the pattern of al-Ghazali’s ��87�� @, �?), and therefore were intended to be guiding books for the courtfamilies.

The ( ��$��@��$98� is one of the most important early Malay-Indone-sian histories. It has been an indispensable source for the reconstruction ofthe early history of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. Its significancebecomes enormous in view of the fact that the history of Islam in the regionis mostly written on the basis of Western sources. �� ’� acquaintancewith the history of the archipelago is clearly extraordinary. It seems thatone of his major sources for the ( ��$��@��$98� was the ��=��,�� .




In fact, he was apparently an expert in the detailed description of the��=��,�� , because he probably was well acquainted with its author,Tun Seri Lanang. He was also familiar with the genealogy of the ��-�� ofPahang.86

Not least important is �� ’� role in stimulating further developmentof the Malay language as the lingua franca of the Malay-Indonesian world.He is even acclaimed as one of the first # =�� (men of letters) ofMalay. Although �� was not a native speaker of Malay, his masteryof the language was undisputed. A. Teeuw, a Dutch scholar who was oneof the prominent experts in the Malay-Indonesian language, maintains thathis classical Malay indicates none of the awkwardness often found in clas-sical Malay before the seventeenth century.87 Thus, works in Malay are alsoconsidered literary works, and contributed substantially to the developmentof Malay as a language of learning.


4Seventeenth Century Malay-IndonesianNetworks II: ‘Abd ��’� ��

We have seen how �� sparked the momentum for renewal in theMalay-Indonesian world. Although the reform he launched underwent asignificant political setback with his fall, there is no doubt that �� had an irreversible impact. Before long the renewal again gained a crucialstimulus in �� (1024–1105/1615–93), one of the most importantearly � =��s in the archipelago. We have already established that�� in one way or another had connections with the core of networksin the ��. �� surpassed �� in this respect. Hepossessed direct and undisputed links with the major scholars of thenetworks. For the first time we find, in �� , a clear picture of intel-lectual and spiritual genealogies, putting Islam in the Malay-Indonesianworld on the map of the global transmission of Islamic reformism.�� has been the subject of several important studies. However,

these mainly concentrate on his teachings. Some of them do mention inpassing his teachers in the Middle East, but no attempt has been made to tracefurther his intricate intellectual connections with the cosmopolitan scholarlynetworks centred in Mecca and Medina. There is no study either that seeks toexamine how his involvement in the networks influenced his thought andintellectual disposition. Furthermore, no critical study has been done to assesshis role in stimulating Islamic renewal in the Malay-Indonesian world. Anattempt will be made in this chapter to deal with all these questions. In thatway we shall be able to gain a better understanding not only of his positionin the historical course of Islam in the archipelago but also of the interplaybetween Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world and Islam in the Middle East.

�=��$&C=C’� EARLY LIFE

‘Abd ��’��.�‘�� al-0�( ��%��1� �� , as his name indicates,was a Malay of %��1�, Sinkil (modern Singkel), on the southwestern

1!


coastal region of Aceh. His birth date is unknown, but Rinkes, after calcu-lating backwards from the date of his return from the Middle East to Aceh,suggests that he was born around 1024/1615.1 This date has been acceptedby most scholars of �� .2 We do not have very reliable accounts ofhis familial background. According to Hasjmi, ancestors of �� camefrom Persia to the Sultanate of Samudra-Pasai at the end of the thirteenthcentury. They later settled in %��1� (Barus), an important old harbour onthe coast of western Sumatra. He further argues that �� ’� father wasthe older brother of ��!��%��1� .3 We are not sure whether �� was really a nephew of ��!��, as there is no other source to corroborateit. It appears that he did have some familial relationship with him, for insome of his extant works �� ’� name is followed by the statement:‘who is of the tribe of ��!�� %��1� ’ (‘�� C��;��>?�8’).4

Daly,5 on the other hand, maintains that �� ’� father, Shaykh ‘�� [��%��1� ], was an Arab preacher who, after marrying a local woman of%��1�, took up residence in Singkel, where their child, ‘Abd ��’�, wasborn. There is of course the possibility that �� ’� father was non-Malay, as we know that Samudra-Pasai and %��1� had been frequented byArab, Persian, Indian, Chinese and Jewish traders from at least the ninthcentury.6 But as far as the accounts of �� ’� father are concerned,there is no other source to substantiate them.

It appears that �� acquired his early education in his nativevillage, Singkel, mainly from his father, a supposed ‘$��, who, Hasjmi7

believes, also founded a �� that attracted students from variousplaces in the Acehnese Sultanate. It is also very likely that he continued hisstudies in %��1�, as it, as Drakard8 points out, was an important Islamiccentre and a point of contact between Malays and Muslims from westernand southern Asia. According to Hasjmi, �� later travelled to BandaAceh, the capital of the Acehnese Sultanate, to study with, among others,��!�� %��1� and Shams �� #�� . It is clear that�� could not have met Hamzah, as the latter died around 1016/1607,at which time �� was not even born.9 However, we cannot rule outthe possibility of �� ’� studying with Shams �� . If we assume thathe studied with Shams �� (d. 1040/1630) in his final years, �� must have been in his teens at that time.

Despite these problematic accounts, there is no doubt that in the periodbefore �� departed for Arabia, around 1052/1642, Aceh was markedby controversies and struggles between the followers of the % =?��doctrine and �� , as discussed in chapter 3. There is no indicationwhatsoever that �� met and had personal contact with �� , whowas in Aceh in the period 1047/1637 to 1054/1644–45. However, he musthave been aware of the teaching of ��!��%��1� and Shams �� aswell as of �� ’� persecution of their followers. �� , as we willsee later, apparently attempted to disengage himself from the controversies.

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II 1�


Even though the spirit of �� ’� writings shows that he differs from��!�� and Shams �� , we find no evidence in his teachings that explic-itly opposes their teaching.10 He also has the same attitude towards�� . Only implicitly does he criticise the way �� carried out hisrenewal; he has no dispute with his teachings in general.

�=��$& = ’� ARABIAN NETWORKS

Although �� ’� early years were obscure, we are fortunate that he hasleft us a biographical codicil of his studies in Arabia. In the codicil attachedto the colophon of one of his works, ‘-��@, 7�$=8��$�� ?)�,��)��@, ��8�,11 he provides us with information on the 9��8:��s he was affil-iated with, the places where he studied, the teachers from whom he learned,and the scholars he met. Although the account is rather concise, it nonethe-less gives us a good picture of how a Malay-Indonesian ‘$�� travelled insearch of ‘�� (religious knowledge). It discloses not only the crisscrossingof our scholarly networks but also the process of transmission of Islamiclearning among Muslim scholars.

��’ itinerary


�� most probably left Aceh for Arabia in 1052/1642.12 He lists19 teachers from whom he learned various branches of Islamic discipline,and 27 other ‘ ��$’ with whom he had personal contacts and relations.We are not going to give accounts of all his teachers; we will examineonly the most prominent among them. �� studied in a number of places, scattered along the 7�== routes, from 3�� (Doha) in thePersian Gulf region, Yemen, Jeddah, finally to Mecca and Medina (seeMap 2). Thus he began his studies in 3��, Qatar, where he studied with‘Abd ��(� �,13 but it appears that he stayed there for only ashort time.

Leaving 3��, �� continued his studies in Yemen, chiefly in Bayt��%�� [ibn ‘Ujayl] and ;�� , although he also had several teachers inMawza’, ��, ��=��, Hudaydah and :�’�!!. Bayt ��%�� and;�� were certainly the most important centres of Islamic learning in thisregion.14 In Bayt ��%�� he studied mostly with scholars of the 0�’��family, such as $�� .��.�0�’��,15 $�� .�‘Abd ��.�0�’�� and ��7 �$��.��.�0�’��. In addition, he estab-lished relations with ��:8� al-@ayyib b. �� .�0�’��, the Muftiof Bayt ��%�� , and another ��:8�, ��.�0�’��n.16 The 0�’��,an eminent >?�8@’ ��$’ family in Yemen or, as �� puts it, ‘a propof the people of Yemen’, initially lived in ;�� before finally moving toBayt ��%�� .17 Several of the 0�’�� scholars, mentioned earlier, werestudents of �� and $�� &�� .

Among �� ’� teachers from the 0�’�� family, the most importantwas $�� .�‘Abd ��$��0�’�� (d. 1083/1672). Mostly known as a� 7�� and ��:8�, he appears to have studied largely in the Yemenregion before settling down in Bayt ��%�� . He was a prolific author of��#(�� and, therefore, one of the most sought-after scholars in the area. He also had connections with leading ‘ ��$’ in the networks.18 �� relates that he spent most of his time with $�� .�‘Abd ��0�’��studying what he calls ‘’�� @K$��’ (exoteric sciences), such as ��:�,7��8�� and other related subjects. It was ‘with his blessing that this ��:8�,poor [�� ] was able to continue his studies under the feet [��#�)] ofthe enlightened %��8� (saint] who was the authority and ��-� of his time;that is, Shaykh �� in the City of the Prophet, peace beupon him’.19

$��.��.�0�’�� (d. 1014–1096/1605–1685) was anothermajor scholar of the 0�’�� family with whom �� studied. Born in;�� , he got his early education, in Yemen, from his uncle, Ibn ��@�� .� 0�’��, among others. Later he travelled to the ��,where he became a student or rather a friend of $�� &�� , ‘$��4�� and Ibn ‘Abd �� ,��!��+ . Returning to Bayt ��%�� , he gained fame as a leading ��:8� and � 7�� in the region.He died in ;�� .20 Even though �� mentions only ‘Abd ��.

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II 1<


0�’��, who introduced him to �� , it is not unlikely that $��.� 0�’�� also recommended him to study with �� as well aswith ��&�� .

The network of �� ’� clearly becomes more complex on thecontinuation of his studies in ;�� . Among his teachers in Zabid were‘Abd �� b. ��)�� &��11;21 �� .��)�� !+�+ , whowas also a teacher of �� ;22 and ‘Abd �� .��’�� , whom �� calls the best reciter of the ��’��in the region. He also came into contact with prominent ;�� or Yemenischolars such as ‘Abd ��%�##�� &��11, the , ��8 of ;�� ; Sayyid ��@�� .� �� ; �� ‘Abd ��,�� !+�+ , acelebrated �� shaykh (d. 1074/1664),23 who was also a teacher of�� ; ��7 ��.�� ,��.��-�� (d. 1086/1675);24

and ��’��.� ��-�� (d. 1075/1664).25 Most of thesescholars, especially of the Ahdal and ��!+�+ families, as we have shown,played an important role in linking scholars in the networks.�� does not inform us as to when he left Yemen. Following the

pilgrimage route we now find him in Jeddah, where he studied with its, ��8, ‘Abd ��,�� .26 He then continued his travels to Mecca,where he studied with Badr �� =�� and ‘Abd �� =�� .�� ’� most important teacher in Mecca was ‘�� .�‘Abd ��@�� . �� was introduced to ‘�� @�� by one of his teachers in;�� , ‘�� .��’, a � 7�� who had close relation-ships with the @�� family and other �� leading scholars.27 ‘�� @�� , like his brother Zayn ��’6�� ,28 was a leading Meccan ��:8�.‘�� , or the @�� family, had extensive networks with other Yemenischolars, especially of the 0�’�� family, who may also have recom-mended �� to study with ‘�� @�� and other prominent�� scholars.29

In addition to studying with scholars whom he mentioned specifically ashis teachers, �� established contacts and relations with other promi-nent scholars in Mecca, both resident and visiting. He does not specify thenature of his relations with them, but there is little doubt that he gainedgreat advantages from them. They can be assumed, at least, to have inspiredhim and brought him a much wider intellectual perspective. Most of thesescholars are familiar names in the networks: they include ‘$��4�� ,‘Abd ��’�! !��;��!�� , :�+�� $��’��, ‘��’ �� ,�� ,Zayn ��’6�� @�� , ‘�� 0�� and ‘Abd ��.��’ ��,�� (1003–1076/1595–1665).30

The last leg of �� ’� long journey in his search of knowledge wasMedina. It was in the City of the Prophet that he felt satisfied that he hadcompleted his studies. He studied in Medina with �� untilthe latter’s death in 1071/1660, and with his )��8��, $�� &�� .With �� , �� learned what he calls the ‘interior’ sciences



(‘��@�$9��); that is, ��>�%% � and other related sciences. As a sign of hiscompletion of studying the mystical way, �� appointed him his��--�� and �� )��8��. �� ’� relationship with�� was apparently very cordial. An account of the ��--�� in West Sumatra tells us that �� studied with and served�� for several years. One day the teacher ordered him to return to/$%��, for he considered that �� possessed sufficient knowledge to enable him to carry out further Islamisation in his homeland. Havingheard the order, �� burst into tears, as he felt the need to learn more.As a result, �� changed his mind and allowed him to stay withhim as long as he wished.31

Intellectually, �� ’� largest debt was to $�� &�� . This isobvious not only in his thought, reflected in his writings, but also in hispersonal demeanour, as we will elaborate shortly. In his accounts, �� makes it clear that it was with ��&�� that he completed his educationafter the death of �� .32 He had no 9��8:�� with ��&�� Atherefore, what he learned from him apparently were sciences, promotingan intellectual understanding of Islam rather than a spiritual or mysticalone. In other words, for �� , �� was a spiritual and mysticalmaster, while ��&�� was an intellectual one.

There is no doubt that �� ’� personal relationship with ��&�� was very close. We have mentioned earlier that $�� wrote his master-piece, the ��7$�� @A��)8, on the request of his unnamed ‘�>7$��@/$%��8�’. Considering their close intellectual and personal ties, it is nosurprise that Johns33 suggests that it was �� who asked ��&�� towrite it. This suggestion becomes more plausible if one takes into accountthe fact that �� , after returning to Aceh, asked ��&�� ’� opinionon the way �� launched his reform in Aceh. Furthermore, it wasapparently not the only question sent across the Indian Ocean by �� to ��&�� . In the concluding notes to his G ��@*��%��@(��$��$��$� ��@, 7��E��@’��$�, which deals with the best type of ��)�for the dying, he writes:

Let it be known, my disciples, that after I wrote this treatise, I sent a letter tothe City of the Prophet, to our enlightened Shaykh in the science of Realities(‘��@7�:$’�:) and in the science of secret details of things (‘��@��:$’�:),i.e., Shaykh ��(��$�� [��&�� ], asking [his opinion] about all mattersdescribed in the beginning of this treatise whether it is correct in the opinion ofthe [leading] >?�8�, and whether this matter on the best ��)� is discussed in7��8�� books or in any [other] books. After a while, his treatise entitled *��@, ��K�� was sent by [our] Shaykh, in which he answers all the questions.34

Although �� obviously spent most of his time in Medina studyingwith �� and ��&�� , he also established contacts and scholarlyrelations with several other leading scholars there (see Chart 4). He

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II 15



Chart 4 ��’��


includes in his list35 such scholars as Mull� �� &�� ;Ibn ‘Abd �� ,��!��+ ; $�� .� ‘Abd �� &�� (1037–83/1638–72), a student of ‘��’ �� ,�� , $�� &�� and ‘Is� ��4�� ;36 and ‘�� ,�1 �� (d. 1106/1694), a � 7��.37

�� notes that he spent 19 years in Arabia. The fact that most ofhis teachers and acquaintances are recorded in Arabic biographical diction-aries indicates the incontestable prominence of �� ’� intellectualmilieu. Coming from a fringe region of the Muslim world, he entered thecore of the scholarly networks and won the favour of the major scholars inthe ��. His education was undeniably complete from ��8’��, ��:�,7��8�� and other related exetoric disciplines to )��$�, and ��>�%% � oresoteric sciences. His career and works after his return to the archipelagowere the history of his conscious efforts to implant firmly the idea ofharmony between ��8’�� and ��>�%% �.

Like many other scholars in the networks, �� appears to havebegun his teaching career in the ��. This is no surprise, as by thetime he came to Mecca and Medina he already possessed sufficient knowl-edge to be transmitted to his fellow Malay-Indonesian Muslims. It appearsthat �� also initiated /$%8 disciples into the ��--�� 9��8:��.But there were also ��--�� s in Java which went straight backto �� , instead of by way of �� . Snouck Hurgronje38

maintains that �� appointed his Malay-Indonesian )��8��sduring the pilgrimage. If we accept this, then we can believe that �� played a crucial role in introducing them to �� .

�=��$&C=C’� TEACHINGS AND RENEWAL

�� supplies no date for his return to his homeland. However, heindicates that he returned not long after the death of �� , and after��&�� issued him an �=$;�� to transmit what he had received from him.Therefore, most scholars of �� are in accord that he returned to Acehabout 1072/1661.39 It is useful to recall that ��-��)��#�� , whohad patronised �� for about two and a half years before turning toSayf ��+��, still occupied the throne of the Acehnese Sultanate. We donot know for sure whether Sayf ��+��, powerful exponent of the% =?�� type of Sufism, was still alive nor how far the doctrine couldbe revived by him.

In any case, the arrival of �� from Arabia naturally created curios-ity, particularly among court circles. Before long �� was attended bya court official, &�#��B��+��.��!��6�� , who put unspecifiedreligious questions to him. Voorhoeve40 points out that ��6�� ’� office was‘+� �� )��*��, �’; that is, the Secret Secretary of the ��-��.Therefore, Voorhoeve believes that al-6sh was assigned by the ��-��



to assess �� ’� religious views. It is clear that �� passed the‘examination’, as he soon won the favour of the court. He was appointedby the ��-�� to the office of the D$E8�,��)��@’F�� or , ��8 who wasresponsible for administering religious affairs.

Before we proceed with �� ’� teachings and his renewal, it isappropriate to discuss briefly the political developments in the AcehneseSultanate during his career. The most striking feature of the period was thatthe Sultanate was ruled by four successive ��-��, well until the close ofthe seventeenth century. We already know that the first ��-�� was)��#� �� , who succeeded her husband, Iskandar :�� , in1051/1641. Under her long rule until 1086/1675, the Sultanate’s authoritysubstantially dwindled; much territory under its control in the Malay Penin-sula and Sumatra soon broke away.41 In addition to its political decline, theSultanate under )��#�� was marked by religious turmoil.

The next ��-��, N��’6�� #�� , after reigning for onlythree years (1086–88/1675–8), was succeeded by Zakiyyat �� (1088–98/1678–88). Despite the Acehnese political troubles, the Sultanatewas still apparently a respected Muslim political entity in the region. Thusin 1096/1683 ��-�� ;��#� �� received a delegation from the��8� of Mecca. The delegation was initially dispatched by the �� Barakat to meet the Moghul ��-��4!B�, who reportedly refused toentertain them. As a result, the delegation came to Aceh instead, bringingletters and gifts for the ��-��. Feeling very pleased, she asked them tostay for a while in the capital city, while preparing gifts for the ��8� ofMecca. It is reported that the Acehnese sent gifts and >��:��(charitablegifts), consisting of, among other things, a statue made of gold taken fromthe ruins of the palace and the Bayt �� Mosque, which had bothbeen destroyed by fire during the period of ��-��#�� .42

It is clear that �� was involved in events surrounding the dele-gation. However, we have no information on his exact role in entertainingthe envoys of the ��8� of Mecca. The delegation finally returned toMecca, bringing numerous gifts to be presented not only to the ��8� ofMecca, and the Prophet Mosque in Medina, but also to the poor populationin the ��. There was dispute among the sons of the deceased �� Barakat concerning the distribution of the gifts. The events surrounding thedelegation, the coming of the gifts from ‘(��$��F��8’ (Banda Aceh) andthe dispute among members of the �� family are not ignored by Arabhistorians. Based on a chronicle written about 1700, ��, aneminent scholar and historian of Mecca, gave a detailed account of theevents.43

The coming of the delegation from Mecca was to a certain extent a boostto the prestige of the ��-��. But it was also taken as a good opportunityfor some Acehnese to ask for an opinion on the question of whether it waspermissible according to Islamic law for a woman to be a ruler.44 The



question had long been an unsolved problem among the Acehnese.�� himself appears to have failed to answer it explicitly. In his��:� work ,��’$�� @H ��$�, he does not address the issue directly.Discussing the requirements for the 7$)�� (judge—by extension, the ruler),�� seems deliberately to provide no Malay translation for the word��)�� (male).45 He could possibly be accused of compromising his intel-lectual integrity, not only by accepting the rule of a woman but also by notaddressing the issue more properly. On the other hand, this case could be afurther indication of his personal tolerance, a trait �� certainlypossessed.

Similarly, the Meccan delegation gave no answer to the matter but appar-ently brought the question to the attention of the �� ‘ ��$’. Theanswer finally came from Mecca to the Acehnese court during the reign of��-��&��#�� (1098–1109/1688–99). The Chief , ��8 of Meccareportedly sent a ��%$, declaring that it ran contrary to ��8’�� for anIslamic kingdom to be ruled by a woman. As a result, &��#�� wasdeposed from the throne, and ‘U��.��7 ��’6��$�� wasinstalled as ��-��,��’6�� '��,��’��( ��'�� ,establishing the ‘Arab 0��=�� dynasty in Aceh.46

Thus, in his entire career in Aceh, �� was patronised by the��-��. He wrote about 22 works, dealing with ��:�, ��8�, )��$�, and��>�%% �.47 He wrote in both Malay and Arabic. He appears to havepreferred to write in Arabic rather in Malay, acknowledging that hisMalay was not very good because of his long sojourn in Arabia. There-fore, he was helped by two teachers of the Malay language to write hisworks in Sumatran Malay or, as he puts it: ‘in the ��$��@/$%��@��’��6’48 Throughout his writings �� , much like $�� &�� , demonstrates that his main concern is the reconciliationbetween the ��8’�� and ��>�%% �, or in his own terms, between theK$�� and �$9��sciences.

The major work of �� in ��:� is ,��’$��@H ��$��8��8��,�’��@��@�7)$��@��’��@,��)��@.��$�.49 Written on the requestof ��-�� )��#� �� , it was completed in 1074/1663. Unlike theL��$9��@, ��:8��of �� , which deals solely with ‘��$�� (devotionalservices), the ,��’$��@H ��$��sets out the � ’$��aspect of ��:�, includ-ing the political, social, economic and religious life of the Muslims.Covering so many topics, it is a substantial work in the field. Its mainsource was the ��7��@.��$��of Zakariyy� ��1�� , a major predeces-sor in the networks discussed earlier.50 But �� also derives materialsfrom such standard books as: ��7��@/�%%$��and � 7��@, 7�$=, bothof Ibn ��+��'��#�� (d. 973/1565); ��$��@, 7�$=�of Shams �� ; ��8��@(��E$%8�of Ibn ‘��,��7�( (d. 685/1286); and��7� L�787� , �� of ��(�( (d. 676/1277).51 With these sources �� makes clear his intellectual connections with the networks. �� was the first scholar in the Malay-Indonesian world who



wrote on the ��:�� ’$��. By way of the ,��’$��@H ��$� he shows hisfellow Muslims that Islamic legal doctrines are not confined to purelydevotional services (‘��$��) but include all aspects of their daily life. The,��’$�� @H ��$�� is no longer used in the archipelago today, although in the past the work was widely circulated. Hooker52 has pointed out that theG %��, ‘Selections’, used by the Muslims of Maguindanao, the Philip-pines, since the middle of the nineteenth century, made the ,��’$��@H ��$�one of its main references. Another work of �� in ��:�, *��$�� @��$’�E, presumably taken from the ,��’$��@H ��$�, was apparently usedby some Malay-Indonesian Muslims until more recent times.53

The significance of �� to the development of Islam in the archi-pelago is irrefutable in the field of ��’��8 commentary (��8�). He wasthe first ‘$�� ever in this part of the Muslim world to take on the enormoustask of preparing ��8� of the whole ��’�� in Malay. A number of studieshave discovered that before him there was only a fragment of commentaryon �?�� 18 (al-Kahf). That work, supposedly written during the period of��!��%��1� or Shams �� #�� , follows the traditionof ��&��!��’� commentary. But the style of translation and interpretationwas different from that of ��!�� or Shams �� who, as a rule, inter-preted passages of ��’��8 verses cited in their works in a mysticalsense.54

Although �� gives no date for the completion of his acclaimed��8� work, entitled ��= �$��@, ��8�, there is no doubt that he wroteit during his long career in Aceh. Hasjmi55 maintains that it was written inIndia, when he allegedly travelled there. This is a wild supposition, as thereis no indication whatsoever that �� ever set foot in India. Further-more, it would have been impossible for him to undertake such a huge workwhile travelling. The patronage he enjoyed from the Acehnese rulers makesit more plausible that he wrote the work in Aceh.

Being the earliest ��8�, it is not surprising that his work was widelycirculated in the Malay-Indonesian world. Editions are found to be amongthe Malay community as far away as South Africa. Of various MSS avail-able in many collections, Riddell56 has established that the earliest extantcopy of the ��= �$��@, ��8��dates back to the late seventeenth andearly eighteenth centuries. More importantly, the ��= �$�� @, ��8�lithograph and printed editions were published not only in Singapore,Penang, Jakarta and Bombay but also in the Middle East. It was publishedin Istanbul by the ��-��’��’�#�� as early as 1302/1884 (and in1324/1906); and later also in Cairo (by ��4� ) and Mecca(by �� <.57 The fact that the ��= �$��@, ��8� was publishedin the Middle East at various times reflects the importance of the work aswell as the intellectual stature of �� . Its latest edition was publishedin Jakarta as recently as 1981. This indicates that the work is still in useamong Malay-Indonesian Muslims today.

! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


The ��8� has long been regarded as simply a translation into Malay ofthe ��%$��@��;8��of ,��7�( . Snouck Hurgonje,58 apparently withouthaving studied the work in greater detail, concludes in his typically cynicalway that it was merely a bad rendering of ��,��7�( ’� commentary. Withthis conclusion Snouck was responsible for leading astray two other Dutchscholars, Rinkes and Voorhoeve. Rinkes, a student of Snouck, creates addi-tional errors by stating that �� ’� works, in addition to the ��= �$��@, ��8�, include a translation of the ,��7�( ��8� and a translation ofa section of the 0�� 8�.59 Voorhoeve, after following Snouck andRinkes, finally changed his conclusion by stating that the sources of the��= �$��@, ��8� were various Arabic exegetical works.60

Riddell and Harun,61 in their studies, have shown convincingly that thework is a rendering of the 0�� 8�. Only in rare instances did�� make use of the commentaries of ��,��7�( and ��&��!��(d. 41/1340). This identification is important, not only for disclosing theline of transmission from the centres, but for showing the approach�� used in transmitting what he received from his teachers in thenetworks to his Malay-Indonesian audience.

The 0�� 8�, it is worth noting, was written by the two 0��; thatis, 0�� (d. 864/1459) and 0�� - (d. 911/1505), a major figure to whom most of our leading scholars in thenetworks traced their intellectual and spiritual genealogies. �� ’�selection of this ��8� as the major source of his own commentary, there-fore, must be because he possessed ��$�s connecting him to 0�� - through both �� and ��&�� . Having had �=$;��s totransmit from ��&�� all the sciences he received through successivechains of transmission, which included ��- , �� could beexpected to prefer the 0�� 8� to other commentaries of the ��’��.This argument becomes more plausible when we take into account the factthat �� also took the ��7��@.��$��of ;��1�� as themain source for his ,��’$��@H ��$�. His tendency to rely heavily on theworks by scholars in the networks is also clear in his works on )��$� and��>�%% �.

Furthermore, as Johns argues,62 although the 0�� 8� was oftenconsidered as contributing little to the development of the tradition of ��’��8 commentary, it is a masterly, lucid and succinct exegesis of the ��’��. Furthermore, it provides ��$��@� ;?�� (the backgrounds torevelation) of the verses, which are very helpful for a fuller comprehension of the commentary. With these characteristics, the 0�� is a good introductory text for novices in the science of ��8� among the Malay-Indonesian Muslims. In rendering the 0�� into Malay, �� makes it simple or comprehensible to his fellow Malays in general. As arule, he translates the 0�� word for word, and restrains himself fromgiving his own additions. Furthermore, he leaves out the Arabic grammat-ical explanations and long commentaries that might distract the attention of

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II �


his audience. Thus, it is clear that his intention is that the ��= �$�� @, ��8��should be easily understood by his readers and, as a consequence,become a practical guide for life.

One can hardly overestimate the role of the ��= �$��@, ��8� in thehistory of Islam in the archipelago. Johns63 maintains that ‘it is in more thanone way a landmark in the history of Islamic learning in Malay’. It hascontributed significantly to the study of ��’��8 commentary in the archi-pelago. It lays the foundation for a bridge between ��=�� (translation)and ��8�,64 and thus stimulates further study on the ��8� works in Arabic.For almost three centuries it was the only full rendering of the ��’�� inMalay; only in the past 30 years have new commentaries in Malay-Indonesian made their appearance, but without necessarily detracting fromthe ��= �$��@, ��8�. Therefore, this work continues to play an impor-tant role in promoting a better understanding of the teachings of Islam.

We need no long argument to prove that �� inherits the tendencyfrom the scholarly networks of emphasising the importance of the 7��8��.He wrote two works in this field. The first was a commentary on the��’?��C��8��of ��(�( , written at the request of ��-��;��#�� .65 The second was ��@,�%$’�K� ��@(��8’��, a collection of 7��8��: ��8—that is, God’s revelation communicated to the believers by theProphet’s own words. Again, �� ’� selection of these works reflectshis genuine concern for his fellow Muslims at the grassroots level; all hewants is to lead them to a better understanding of the teachings of Islam. Itis worth noting that the Forty �� #� of ��(�( , a small collection of7��8��s concerning the basic and practical duties of Muslims, is clearlyintended for a general audience rather than specialists pursuing religiousstudies.�� ’� collection of the 7��8�� : ��8 possesses a similar nature. It

delineates 50 teachings (#��=��) concerning God and His relationto creation, hell and paradise, and the proper ways for the individual toachieve God’s favour. �� particularly emphasises the need for eachMuslim to find harmony between knowledge (‘��) and good deeds(‘��); knowledge alone will not make a better Muslim: he must do gooddeeds as well. He thus appeals to Muslim activism.66 The ,�%$’�K��@(��8’��was published in Mecca in 1310/1892 (fourth or fifth edition).67

It was also reissued in Penang in 1369/1949, and it is still used by Muslimsin the archipelago.68 With these works, �� set an example for laterMalay scholars to undertake works on small collections of the 7��8��, assince the nineteenth century such works have been very popular in thearchipelago.69

�� writes not only for common Muslims (��@’�%%$�) on theK$�� sciences but also for the elite (��@)��%%$>) on topics related to the �$9�� sciences, such as )��$� and ��>�%% �. He wrote several worksdealing with these topics.70 But the works are still not sufficiently studied,and, as Johns 71 lamented more than three decades ago, there is a lack of

" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


interest among scholars in exploring them. The works of ��!��%��1� and Shams �� #�� , however, whom Johns calls ‘theforemost exponents of heterodox pantheistic mysticism’, have beenpublished. �� ’� orthodoxy, he laments further, appeals less to theimagination of scholars than heresy.72

To begin our discussion of his mystical teachings, �� , in his *��$��@, 7��=8��$�,��@, %�77��8��@D$’��8��.�7��@. =?�,73

insists on the transcendence of God over His creation. He refuses to adhereto the notion of the % =?��, which emphasises the immanence of God inHis creation. This teaching reminds us of the doctrines developed by theleading scholars discussed earlier. �� argues that before God createdthe universe (��@’$��) He always thought of Himself, which resulted in thecreation of the �?��, 7��(the Light that is ��). It is from the�?�� , 7�� that God created permanent archetypes (��@�’�$�� @��$��), namely, the potential universe, which became the source of theexterior archetypes (��@�’�$�� @)�$��=��), the creation in its concreteform. �� concludes that although the �’�$�� @)�$��=�� are theemanation of the Absolute Being, they are distinct from God Himself: it islike a hand and its shadow. Although the hand can hardly be separated fromits shadow, the latter is not identical to the former. With this explanation, �� establishes the transcendence of God over His creation.

The same argument is presented in his short treatise entitled A�:$’�:��@C �?�. The work is a commentary on the so-called ‘two pantheisticverses’ of Ibn ‘Arab .74 There is no need to dwell on �� ’� discussionof the verses, as Johns has shown us that �� knowledgeably inter-prets them in an orthodox sense,75 proving that God and the universe are notidentical. Although �� also makes use of the quasi neo-Platonicemanation system, also closely associated with the pantheism of Shams�� , he carefully distances himself from an unorthodox interpretation.76

Johns concludes:

He [�� ] affirms at once the intuition of the mystics and the rights oforthodoxy, recognising the incapacity of human words to express adequatelythe dependence of the world upon God and its existence through Him, and theunspeakable reality of the Divine transcendence.77

�� ’� interpretation is clearly reminiscent of $�� &�� ,who emphasises the importance of intuition ()��) in the mystical way,while recognising the limit of reason in understanding the Realities of God.�� expresses his intellectual links with ��&�� in a more thanimplicit way. In discussing the Unity of God in the A�:$’�:��@C �?�,78 herelies heavily on ��&�� ’� concepts of ��%78�� @-�?�� (DivineUnity), ��%78��@��’$� (Unity of God’s Act), ��%78��@L��$�� (Unity ofAttributes), ��%78��@. =?�� (Unity of Being), ��%78��@A�$�� (Unity of Essence) and ��%78��@C�:8:8�(Unity of Absolute Reality).79

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II <


Like $�� &�� , �� proposes that the most effective wayto feel and grasp the Unity God is by performing ‘��$��, particularly��)� (‘remembrance’ of God), both silently (��) and vocally (=��).According to �� , the aim of the ��)� more specifically is to achieve��@��%��@�)��$�8�(‘voluntary’ death), or what is called by ��&�� @��%�� @��’�$%8 (‘ideational’ death), as opposed to ��@��%�� @9��8’8(natural death).80 In his detailed method of ��)�, however, �� ,largely follows that of �� , as described in his work ��@��9��@,�=8�.81 He also follows �� ’� teachings on the obligationof disciples towards their master, as he shows in his two treatises calledrespectively +��, ��)��)��and +��$��, )��>��8(��$�� ?9��@��)��%��@, �8�.82

Having discussed �� ’� teachings, it is clear that he transmitted the doctrines and tendencies in the scholarly networks in order to renew theIslamic tradition in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago. The most salientfeature of his teachings indicates that what he transmitted is neo-Sufism:his works make it clear that ��>�%% � should go hand in hand with the��8’��. Only with total obedience to the ��8’�� can aspirants ofmystical ways gain the true experience of the 7�:8:�� (realities).

It is important to keep in mind, however, that �� ’� approach torenewal was different from that of �� : he was a � =�� of anevolutionary type, not a radical. Therefore, like $�� &�� , hepreferred to reconcile opposing views rather than to take sides. Eventhough he was against the doctrines of % =?��, only implicitly does hemake clear his views. Similarly, he shows his dislike for the radicalapproach of �� ’� renewal quite simply and not explicitly. Again,without mentioning �� ’� name, he wisely reminds Muslims in theA�:$’�:��@C �?��of the danger of accusing others of unbelieving by citinga 7��8�� of the Prophet, stating ‘let no man accuse another of leading asinful life or of infidelity, for the accusation will turn back if it is false’.83

Considering �� ’� gentleness and tolerance, Johns84 rightly concludesthat he was a mirror image of his teacher, $�� &�� .

�=��$&C=C’� MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS

The Acehnese have long been proud of their country; they have alwayscalled their country, with pride, ‘��,�))��’, or the front yard or gateto the Holy Land, not only because of its crucial role in Islamic learning butalso for its position as the most important transit point for the Malay-Indonesian pilgrims in their journey to and from the ��.85 Aceh’sspecial position was among the main reasons why works of scholars like��!�� %��1� , Shams �� #�� , �� and �� became widely circulated in the archipelago. The fact that all these scholarslived in Aceh, together with extensive relations and contacts betweenthe Acehnese and foreign Muslim scholars, contributed substantially to the




establishment of the identity of the Acehnese as one of the most ardentMuslim ethnic groups in the archipelago.�� appears to have begun teaching while he was in the

��, but we have no information on his disciples there. It is onlyafter he returned to Aceh that we are able to trace his Malay-Indonesiannetwork of disciples. These disciples, in turn, were responsible for spread-ing �� ’� teachings and 9��8:��s, particularly the ��--�� order,in many parts of the archipelago.

There is no doubt that the type of the ��--�� order, so often asso-ciated with the Indian type of Sufism, that was implanted by �� inthe archipelago was the one that had been reformed by such leadingscholars in our networks as ��( and �� .Archer,86 in his classical study, calls the ��--�� introduced by�� the ‘orthodox way’. Although in his �� refers tothe 9��8:�� as the ��--��, he also calls it the ‘��’9��8:��.87 The ��--�� 9��8:�� was also known as the ‘Ishqiyyah inIran and as the ,��-�� in Ottoman Turkey, but is not generally knownas the ��.88 The �� 9��8:�� was another name forthe reformed ��--�� and became a unique Malay-Indonesianphenomenon. This can be taken as an indication of �� ’� attempts todisengage his 9��8:�� from the early ��--��. The ��9��8:�� was and can still be found in certain parts of the archipelago.89

The most celebrated of �� ’� disciples in Sumatra was Burh�n�� , better known as the Tuanku of Ulakan,90 a village on the coast ofthe Minangkabau region (now West Sumatra). Local accounts of the devel-opment of Islam in Minangkabau relate that ,�� (1056–1104/1646–92) studied with �� for several years before returning to hishome region.91 ,�� was, of course, not the first scholar to intro-duce Islam to the Minangkabau area, but he undoubtedly played a crucialrole in the intensification of Islamisation among its population.

Soon after his return, ,�� established his ��--�� ,a ribat-type educational institution, in Ulakan. Before long it gained fameas the sole religious authority in Minangkabau.92 The Ulakan surauattracted numerous students from throughout the region; they specialised invarious branches of Islamic discipline, and in turn established their ownsuraus when they returned to their home villages.93 By the fourth quarter ofthe eighteenth century several leading students of ,�� began inearnest to launch their reforms, which reached a climax at the turn of thecentury.94

Another eminent student of �� was ‘Abd �� of West Java.It is through the latter’s efforts that the ��--�� gained a large follow-ing in Java. Although our sources provide no date of birth, they are inaccord in reporting that ‘Abd �� studied with �� in Acehbefore embarking on a pilgrimage to Mecca. He was reported also to havetravelled to Baghdad in order to visit the tomb of ‘Abd ��0�� .


Returning from the 7�== pilgrimage, on the request of the local leader hesettled in Karang, Pamijahan, West Java, where he played a substantial rolein converting people from animistic beliefs to Islam. ‘Abd �� wasalso very active in preaching the ��--�� 9��8:��, for many ��s ofthe order in Java and the Malay Peninsula went through him which hereceived directly from �� .95

�� also had a prominent student in the Malay Peninsula: he was‘Abd �� .� ‘Abd �� (1089–1149/1678–1736), better known asTok Pulau Manis, of Trengganu. Abdullah points out that ‘Abd ��studied with �� in Aceh, and later continued his studies in the��. According to local tradition, he studied there also with Ibr�h mal-Kr�n . But this is hardly plausible, because at the time of the latter’sdeath (1101/1690) ‘Abd �� had not even been born. At best, he mayhave met with ��&�� ’� students. Apart from this problematic account,‘Abd �� was obviously a scholar of some distinction. His works dealmainly with the ��8’�� or ��:�; he was also very active in teaching.96

The closest disciple of �� , without doubt, was ��(�� 0�( ��%��1� ��.�$��’ ��.��4��1-��.��4��‘�� . The importanceof citing his long full name is to indicate that he was most likely of Turkishorigin. His father was probably one of the Turkish mercenaries who came inlarge numbers to assist the Acehnese Sultanate in their contest with thePortuguese in the early sixteenth century. The attribution al-0�( indicatesthat his mother was probably a Malay, or that he was born in the archipelago.

Despite the obscurity surrounding his origin, ��(� al-0�( � �� was the most favoured student of �� . There is a strong indication inthe colophon of �� ’� ��= �$��@, ��8��that he was ordered bythe teacher to make some addition to the ��8�. And there is also a sugges-tion that he did so under the supervision of �� himself before thelatter’s death.97 Hasjmi98 maintains that ��(�� -0�( �� was themain )��8�� of �� . Together with his master, he founded a ��,a traditional Acehnese Islamic educational institution, in Banda Aceh. Hewas also reported to have written several works.�� died around 1105/1693 and was buried near the ) ��, or the

mouth, of the Aceh River. The site also became the graveyard for his wives,��(�� and other disciples. It is after the site of his tomb that�� later came to be known as the Shaykh of * ��. �� ’� tombhas become the most important place of religious visitation (;��$��) inAceh until the present time.99

It is important to note that �� was also associated with�� . They were in fact friends, studying together with, amongothers, �� and ��&�� . It is to �� that we now turn.



1

5Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian

Networks III: ��

Our discussion of the Malay-Indonesian connection of the networks of‘ ��$’ up to now has centred mainly on Aceh. The third figure of Islamicrenewal in the archipelago, �� (1037–1111/1627–99), brings our discussion into a vast region, from South Sulawesi(Celebes) and West Java to Arabia, Srilanka and South Africa. In order toget a better grasp of �� ’� role in Islamic development in theseplaces, we must also deal in passing with the religious and intellectual lifeof the Muslims in these respective areas.

There have been a number of studies devoted to �� , in both Indonesia and South Africa.1 But most of them centre only on hiscareer in the archipelago or when he was in exile in South Africa; very littleattention has been given to his scholarly connections within the interna-tional networks of ‘ ��$’. This fails not only to trace the origins of�� ’� teachings but also to recognise his role as one of the earlytransmitters of Islamic reformism to the region where he lived.

FROM SULAWESI TO BANTEN AND ARABIA

�� .� ‘Abd �� :�+� ��&��(�# �� , also known in Sulawesi as ‘� ��)��I%�’ (OurGracious Master from Gowa), according to the Annals of Gowa, was bornin 1037/1627.2 Despite myth and legends concerning the parents and eventssurrounding the birth of �� , probably fabricated after his death,his family was among those which had been fully Islamised.

As a result, from his early years of life, prior to his departure to Arabia,�� was educated according to Islamic tradition. He initiallylearned to read the ��’�� with a local teacher named Daeng ri Tasam-mang. Later he studied Arabic, ��:�, ��%78� and ��>�%% � with ��,�


‘��( ��.�‘Abd ��’��@��, an Arab preacher who lived inBontoala at that time. When he was 15 years of age he continued his studiesin Cikoang, where he studied with 0�� al-Aydid, a peripateticteacher who was reported to have come from Aceh to Kutai, Kalimantan,before finally settling down in Cikoang.3

The accounts of al-Maqass�r ’s initial religious education again empha-sise the nature of Islamic development in Sulawesi, as in many parts of thearchipelago, namely, that wandering scholars, many of them >?�8s, played acrucial role in converting and teaching the native population. However,they came to Sulawesi much later than to the western part of the archipel-ago; only after the second half of the sixteenth century do we find evidenceof their presence in the region. It was in the early seventeenth century thatthese peripatetic teachers, from Aceh, Minangkabau, South Kalimantan(Borneo), Java, the Malay Peninsula and the Middle East, succeeded inconverting large numbers of the population of Sulawesi. They had muchgreater success after the local rulers embraced Islam.4

Thus, in the period of �� ’� birth, Islam was gaining firmerroots in South Sulawesi. By the third decade of the seventeenth century thenewly Islamised rulers made their attempts to translate some doctrines ofthe ��8’�� into the political organisation of their kingdoms. Religiousposts such as ��$� (prayer leader), )��98� (reciter of the Friday sermon)and :$E8 (judge) were created, and their holders became included amongthe nobility.5 With the creation of these offices, many wandering scholarswere encouraged to stay. �� was able to acquire a rudimentaryIslamic education in his own region. However, it is important to note thatdoctrines of Islamic law were adopted only to a limited degree, especiallythose concerning familial matters, which were incorporated in localcustoms variously called #�� or #��))��.

Returning from Cikoang, �� married a daughter of the ��-��of Gowa, ‘��’ �� , also known locally as Mangarangi Daeng Maura-biya (r. 1001–46/1591–1636). �� had apparently long cherishedan ambition to pursue further studies in the Middle East; it can be expectedthat his teachers of Arab origin gave him a further incentive towardsIslamic learning there. �� left Makassar for Arabia in the monthof Rajab 1054/September 1644.6 Makassar, it is worth noting, was animportant harbour in the eastern part of the archipelago, and from thesecond half of the fifteenth century it had been frequented by Malay-Indonesian and foreign traders. It had links, in the interinsular tradingnetworks, with Banten and other harbours on northern Java as well as withMalacca and Aceh. �� took advantage of the trading networks.He boarded a Malay ship, and we soon find him in Banten.7

The Sultanate of Banten (Bantam) was one of the most importantMuslim kingdoms on Java. When �� arrived in Banten, thereigning ruler was ��‘Abd �� (r. 1037–63/1626–51),

THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


who was granted the title of ��-�� by the �� of Mecca in 1048/1638.He evidently had a special interest in religious matters; he sent inquiriesabout religious matters not only to al-R�n r but also to scholars in the��, which resulted in special works written by those scholars,answering his questions.8 As a result, Banten became known as one of themost important Islamic centres on Java, and it is highly possible that �� also studied there. Not least importantly, he was able to establishclose personal relations with the elite of the Bantenese Sultanate, especiallywith the Crown Prince, Pangeran Surya, who would succeed his father,��, as ��-�� with the official name ‘Abd ��%�##��, betterknown as ��-�� Ageng Tirtayasa.

Following the route of the interinsular trade, �� departed forAceh. It is reported9 that while he was in Banten he had already heard about�� and intended to study with him. Meanwhile, �� had leftAceh for his home of birth, �� , in 1054/1644. As �� departedfrom Makassar in the same year, it is unlikely that they met in Aceh.However, �� , in his work ��8�� @��=$�, before giving hiscomplete silsilah of the �� 9��8:��, has the following to say:

As for the chains of initiation of the )��8�� , I take it from my Shaykh and prop (��), the learned and prominent, the wise andinimitable, who possesses the sciences of ��8’��and 7�:8:��, exploring��’��and 9��8:��, my master and teacher ( � ), Shaykh �� .��+��.�� ; may God purify his spirit and illuminate his tomb.10

Considering this account, it is likely that �� followed �� to India, where, as al-Attas points out, he studied also with ‘Umar b. ‘Abd��,��, �� ’� teacher.11 If this is so, he must have beenintroduced to ,�� by �� ; and they must have met only in theGujarat region as, so far as we are aware, ,�� never travelled to theMalay-Indonesian world.

In all probability it is from the Gujarat coast that �� continuedhis travels to the Middle East. His first destination was the Yemen, where hestudied mostly in ;�� , with ��.�‘Abd ��,�� ,Sayyid ‘A� ��;�� and ��.��"�+ ��’� �� .12

We have mentioned earlier that ��.�‘Abd ��,�� !+�+ �� (d. 1074/1664), probably the most important scholar of the��!+�+ family in the seventeenth century, was one of the scholars �� came into contact with in the Yemen. ‘Abd ��,�� was in fact the prede-cessor of the ��!+�+ scholars, who played an increasingly important role inthe expansion of the networks to many parts of the Muslim world.

Volll3 has suggested that by the beginning of the eighteenth century the��!+�+ � had been identified with the Naqshbandiyyah order. The associ-ation certainly began with ‘Abd ��,�� , for, as �� points out,14

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III 4


he was initiated into the order by :�+�� '�� , the leading shaykh ofthe Naqshbandiyyah in Mecca. �� tells us that he took theNaqshbandiyyah 9��8:�� from ‘Abd ��,�� .l5 He does not make mentionof other sciences he learned from ‘Abd ��,�� ; therefore, we can assumethat �� primarily studied ��>�%% � with him.

The second major teacher of �� in Yemen was simply namedSayyid ‘�� ;�� or ‘�� .� �� Bakr, according to �� ’�silsilah of the ,��‘��(�� 9��8:��.l6 It is difficult to identify this scholarin Arabic sources, because his is a very common name. But his identifi-cation with Zab d helps us in some way. �� mentions two ‘Al s,one of whom could be a teacher of ��, because of his connectionnot only with �� but also with the larger networks; he is ‘Ali binMuhammad b. al-Shaybani al-Zabidi, as described later.

To take �� ’� silsilah of the ,�� ‘��(�� into account, it ispossible that Sayyid ‘�� was ‘�� .��.�� ,��.��-��,who died in ;�� in 1084/1673. The ��-�� scholars had played some rolein the networks; two of the ��-�� scholars, have already been mentionednamely, ��.�� Bakr and ��’��, in connectionwith �� . ‘�� .��-�� [��;�� ] was known as a >?�8 and � 7��@��. �� , however, simply mentions that ‘�� adhered to the 9��8:��of the ��@� ��%��@/��$’��(the people of the Sunnah and commu-nity, or the mainstream of the �� ); no explicit mention is made of the ,�‘��(�� 9��8:��, although the order can surely be included among the9��8:��s with which the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ��0��’�� was affiliated.l7

It is also possible that Sayyid ‘�� was actually ‘�� .��.�� ;�� (d. 1072/1661). Al-Mu�ibb , citing ��1-��.�%�#�� ( , his colleague, tells us that ‘�� ;�� was a great� 7�� of Yemen and the leader of men of learning in ;�� . Heinitially studied in his home town with ��.��)�� &��11��;�� or $��$��0�’��—both mentioned earlier in connection with�� . ‘Al continued his studies in the ��, receiving 9��8:��sfrom �� . He was also active in teaching 7��8��; amongthose who studied 7��8�� with him were $�� &�� , Ibn ‘Abd�� ,��!��+ and �� ’�+�� . He died in Zab d.l8 ‘�� ;�� ’� connections with these scholars, who were teachers of 0�( students, including �� himself, made it possible for ‘Al to comeinto contact with and teach al-Maqass�r . We cannot go further, as there isno indication that he was a shaykh of the B� ‘Alwiyyah 9��8:��.

Al-Maqass�r does not inform us of the date of his sojourn in Yemen, but it probably took several years before he continued his travels to theheart of the networks in the �aramayn. His period of study in Mecca andMedina coincided with that of al-Sinkil . Therefore, it can be expected thatal-Maqass�r studied with scholars who were also the teachers of al-Sinkil .The most important among his teachers in the �aramayn were familiar



names in the networks, such as A�mad al-Qush�sh , Ibr�h m al-Kr�n and�asan al-’Ajam .l9

Al-Maqass�r ’s relationship with al-Kr�n was apparently close. It isknown that he was entrusted by al-Kr�n to copy ��@A ��@�$)�� and+��$��8��@. =?�, both works of Nr al-D n al-J�m (d. 898/1492), and acommentary on the first work by ‘Abd al-Ghafr al-L�r (d. 912/1506). Al-Kr�n himself later wrote a commentary on ��@A ��@�$)��called��@��7�8�$�� @($�� ,��$7�� @A �� @�$)��.20 All of theseworks attempt to reconcile opposing positions between the Muslim theolo-gians and philosophers on several philosophical issues concerning God. It hasbeen suggested that al-Maqass�r studied these three works under al-Kr�n when he was copying them.21

Unlike al-Sinkil , al-Maqass�r does not specify the religious sciences hestudied with the above scholars. He mentions them primarily in connectionwith his teachings and 9��8:�� silsilahs or in notes towards the end of someof his works. Considering their scholarly discourse and the kind of teach-ings he attributed to them, it is fair to assume that, in addition to ��>�%% �,al-Maqass�r studied 7��8��, tafs r, ��:� and other branches of Islamicscience with them.

Aside from the above scholars, al-Maqass�r mentions his other teachersin the �aramayn: Mu�ammad al-Mazr’ [al-Madan ], ‘Abd al-Kar mal-Lahr and Mu�ammad Muraz al-Sh�m .22 While I have failed toidentify the first scholar, the second was very likely ‘Abd al-Kar m al-Hind al-Lahr , who settled in the �aramayn and flourished in theeleventh/ seventeenth century. He appears also to have been involved in thenetworks; he was an acquaintance of ‘Abd All�h al-Ba1r , A�mad al-Nakhl , T�j al-D n al-Qal’ and Ab @�hir al-Kr�n .23 We may expect thatthrough ‘Abd al-Kar m for Mu�ammad al-Lahr , al-Maqass�r learnedmuch about the Indian tradition of Islamic learning.

As for Mu�ammad Muraz al-Sh�m , he was most probably Mu�ammadMirza b. Mu�ammad al-Dimashq . This is based on the fact that thecopyists of al-Maqass�r ’s works obviously misspelled the names ofseveral of his teachers. They, for instance, wrote ‘Mu�ammad al-Zuj�j al-Naqshband ’ instead of Mu�ammad [b. ‘Abd al-B�q ] al-Mizj�j al-Naqshband , or ‘Mu�ammad B�q All�h al-Lahr ’ instead of ‘Abd al-Kar m al-Lahr or Mu�ammad b. ‘Abd al-B�q al-Naqshband .24

We have other reasons to identify Mu�ammad Mirza as a teacher ofal-Maqass�r . First of all, he was a student of T�j al-D n al-Hind al-Naqsh-band . Like Mu�ammad b. ‘Abd al-B�q al-Mizj�j , Mu�ammad Mirza wasinitiated by T�j al-D n into the Naqshbandiyyah order in Mecca; they may beexpected to have been friends. As al-Maqass�r had received the order earlierfrom ‘Abd al-B�q , it is possible that he later recommended al-Maqass�r to study with Mu�ammad Mirza when he left Yemen for the �aramayn.Mu�ammad Mirza migrated from Damascus and lived in Medina for 40 yearsbefore he finally moved to Mecca, where he died in 1066/1656, after only two

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III 4�


years there. Mu�ammad Mirza, mainly known as a >?�8, attempted to reinter-pret Ibn ‘Arab ’s doctrines in terms that people could comprehend.25

Unlike al-Sinkil , who returned directly to the Malay-Indonesian worldafter studying in the �aramayn, al-Maqass�r travelled to Damascus,another important centre of Islamic learning in the Middle East. It appearsthat Mu�ammad Mirza recommended that al-Maqass�r study there. But itis also possible that A�mad al-Qush�sh encouraged him to go to Damascusand study with one of its leading scholars, Ayyb b. A�mad b. Ayyb al-Dimashq al-Khalwat (994–1071/1586–1661). As we have already noted,al-Qush�sh was a close friend of Ayyb al-Khalwat �(see Chart 5).

Ayyb al-Khalwat was born and died in Damascus. He was a renowned>?�8 and � 7�� of Syria. His education included both exoteric sciences,such as 7��8��, tafs r and ��:�, as well as esoteric sciences like ��>�%% �and )��$�. Both al-�amaw and Al-Mu�ibb call him ‘��@ ��$��@�)��’(great teacher), and they claim that nobody else in Damascus was aslearned as he was during his time. Sul-�n Ibr�h m, the ruler of Syria, oftenconsulted him in matters relating to Islamic law and mysticism.26

Ayyb al-Khalwat was also a prolific writer. His writings mainly dealwith ��>�%% �, )��$�, 7��8�� and Khalwatiyyah rituals. He attempted togive a new interpretation of Ibn ‘Arab ’s doctrines, particularly concerningthe concept of ��@��$��@*$��(‘perfect man’ or ‘universal man’), in lightof the ��8’��. Ayyb al-Khalwat also had extensive networks by way of7��8�� studies. His scholarly reputation made his halqahs popular withstudents from various parts of the Muslim world, such as the Maghribiregion, Arabia, and South and Southeast Asia.

Al-Maqass�r does not tell us when the period of his study with Ayybal-Khalwat took place, but al-Maqass�r evidently accompanied him forsome time. After exhibiting his talent for absorbing the exoteric andesoteric sciences, he was able to win the favour of Ayyb al-Khalwat . Thelatter awarded him the title of ‘��@�$=� ��@*��%��8 ’ (the Crown of theKhalwat ). Al-Maqass�r highly praises Ayyb al-Khalwat in his worksand mentions him in his silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah 9��8:��.27 The way al-Maqass�r refers to Ayyb al-Khalwat could lead one to assume that thisDamascene scholar was simply a great >?�8, but in fact he was also a leadingexpert in Islamic law.

After studying in Damascus, al-Maqass�r is said to have continued histravels to Istanbul.28 Traditional accounts of al-Maqass�r ’s life that circu-late in South Sulawesi tell the story of his journey in the ‘�� + �’(Turkey), but we have no other sources to corroborate them.29

According to Gowa sources, while he was in Mecca al-Maqass�r hadbegun to teach. As one might expect, most of his students were of Malay-Indonesian origin, both from the 7$== pilgrims and the /$%�� community inthe �aramayn. Among his students in Mecca was ‘Abd al-Bash r al-3ar ral-Rapan (from Rappang, South Sulawesi), who later was responsible forspreading the Naqshbandiyyah and Khalwatiyyah orders in South



SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III 4<

principal teachersacquaintances

Chart 5 Al-Maqass�r�’s networks


Sulawesi.30 Furthermore, al-Maqass�r is reported to have married thedaughter of a Sh�f ’ Im�m in Mecca, but his wife died when she gave birthto a child, and al-Maqass�r remarried a woman of Sulawesi origin inJeddah before he finally returned to the archipelago.31

FROM BANTEN TO SRILANKA AND SOUTH AFRICA

It is not very clear when Al-Maqass�r returned to the archipelago. Hamidand Van Bruinessen respectively claim that he returned in 1075/1664 and1083/1672,32 but we are not able to substantiate this, for other sources donot supply us with the date of al-Maqass�r ’s return. However, if thesedates are correct, it means that he spent between 20 and 28 years travel-ling in search for knowledge. There are also conflicting accounts ofwhether al-Maqass�r returned directly to his homeland, Gowa, or wentvia Banten.

Hamka,33 Amansyah,34 Mattulada35 and Pelras36 all maintain thatal-Maqass�r initially returned to South Sulawesi before he proceeded toBanten. Hamid,37 Labbakang38 and Dangor,39 on the other hand, believethat al-Maqass�r settled in Banten when he returned to the archipelago andnever came back to Gowa. We will discuss these two conflicting accountsand attempt to determine which one is the more plausible.

According to the first opinion, when al-Maqass�r returned from Arabiato Gowa, South Sulawesi, he found that Islamic precepts were not beingpractised by the Muslim population; remnants of contra-Islamic local beliefscontinued to hold sway. Although the ruler and nobility had long declaredthemselves Muslims, they were reluctant to apply the doctrine of Islamiclaw in their realms. They were unwilling or unable to prohibit gambling,cock-fighting, arrack drinking, opium smoking and the like. They in factpromoted superstitious practices such as giving offerings to the spirit of theancestors in the hope that the latter would bring them prosperity.

Having witnessed such a sorry state of religious life, al-Maqass�r appealed to the Gowa ruler and notables to abolish all such practices and toimplement Islamic law. However, the ruler insisted on maintaining thestatus quo; abolishing gambling and opium smoking, for instance, wouldhave meant reducing financial gains.40 As a result, al-Maqass�r departed toBanten, where he established his career. He left behind him, however,several outstanding disciples, such as Nr al-D n b. ‘Abd al-Fatt��, ‘Abdal-Bash r al-3ar r and ‘Abd al-Q�dir Karaeng Jeno.

It is apparent that the account of al-Maqass�r ’s return to Gowa is basedon Hamka’s article, one of the earliest writings on al-Maqass�r in theIndonesian language. The problem with Hamka’s article is that it reliesheavily on an oral tradition that has passed through many generations. It isdifficult to sift fact from myth in such oral histories, and we have no writtensources to substantiate them.



The spread of al-Maqass�r ’s teachings and works in South Sulawesi didnot necessarily require al-Maqass�r ’s physical presence in the region. Allof his students are reported to have studied with him either in the �aramaynor in Banten. Furthermore, from the middle of the seventeenth century,Muslims from South Sulawesi came to Banten in large numbers. They alsoplayed an important role in spreading al-Maqass�r ’s teachings and workswhen they returned to their own regions.4l

It is more plausible, therefore, that al-Maqass�r returned to Bantenrather than to Gowa. He may have planned to stay there temporarily on hisway back to his homeland, but later developments made him change hismind. After several months in Banten he married the daughter of Sul-�nAgeng Tirtayasa.42 It is worth remembering that al-Maqass�r and theSul-�n had been friends before the former left for Arabia. Thus, when al-Maqass�r returned with scholarly credentials and prestige, Sul-�n Agengattempted to keep him in Banten by any means, including marriage.

Sul-�n Ageng Tirtayasa (r. 1053–96/1651–83) was undoubtedly the lastgreat ruler of the Bantenese Sultanate. Under his rule the Sultanate reachedits golden age. Its port became an important centre of international trade inthe archipelago. The Bantenese traded with traders from England,Denmark, China, Indo-China, India, Persia, the Philippines and Japan. Theships of the Sultanate sailed the archipelago, representing the last powerfultrading power of the Malay-Indonesian kingdoms.43

Sul-�n Ageng was a fervent enemy of the Dutch; his accession to thethrone resumed the long-standing conflicts between the Bantenese and the Dutch, who had fought wars in 1028/1619 and 1043–9/1633–9. Peacesettlements achieved after the wars could not hold for very long. Sul-�nAgeng’s fleet, modelled after those of the Europeans, attacked the Dutchposts in Sumatra. He made Banten a safe haven for fighters from elsewherein the archipelago in wars against the Dutch, as well as for fugitives fromDutch prisons.44 For the Dutch, who now fortified themselves in Batavia,Sul-�n Ageng was a major stumbling block in their territorial expansion inthe archipelago.

Sul-�n Ageng Tirtayasa, like his father, Sul-�n Ab al-Maf�khir ‘Abdal-Q�dir, had a special interest in religion. The political and diplomaticrelations with the Muslim rulers, particularly with the Shar fs of Mecca,that had been established by his father continued to flourish. Contempora-neous Dutch sources45 also note that Sul-�n Ageng was able to establishrelations with Surat and other Muslim kingdoms on the coastal region ofthe Indian subcontinent.

Moreover, he sent his son, ‘Abd al-Qahh�r, on a diplomatic missionto Istanbul; this was in conjunction with the latter’s 7$== pilgrimages toMecca, which were undertaken respectively from 1080/1669 to1082/1671 and from 1085/1674 to 1087/1676. During the time of Sul-�nAgeng, scholars and students from various parts of the Muslim world



continued to come to Banten. Sul-�n Ageng himself, most of the time,was accompanied by these Muslim scholars.46 Thus, he was able tomaintain the reputation of Banten as an important centre of Islamiclearning in the archipelago.47

The political and religious situation in the Bantenese Sultanate wasclearly favourable for al-Maqass�r to remain there. His marriage to thedaughter of the Sul-�n created a stronger bond with the Sultanate. He roseto one of the highest positions among the court elite, and became the mostinfluential member of the Sul-�n’s Advisory Board. He was called ##��@#��or ��#��(highest priest) by Dutch sources, and played animportant role not only in religious matters but also in political ones.48

The news about al-Maqass�r ’s presence in Banten soon reached SouthSulawesi. The Sul-�n of Gowa dispatched a delegation to Banten in orderto induce him to return to his homeland. The Sul-�n requested thatal-Maqass�r teach the royal family about Islam and thus accelerate theprocess of Islamisation in the region. Al-Maqass�r , however, declinedthe invitation. Our sources49 cite him as stating that he would not return toGowa until his erudition in Islamic reached perfection. He instead senthome his student ‘Abd al-Bash r al-3ar r, who had apparently followedhim from Mecca to Banten. Al-Maqass�r appointed al-3ar r (‘the blind’)his )��8�� of the Khalwatiyyah and Naqshbandiyyah orders.

Thus, while in Banten, although al-Maqass�r was increasingly pulledinto the political arena he continued to teach students in the capital city ofBanten as well as to write. Later, when al-Maqass�r was involved in warsagainst the Dutch, he was reported to have retreated to the village ofKarang, and had some connections with a man named by Dutch sources as‘Hadjee Karang’.50 Karang was the home of ‘Abd al-Mu�y , a disciple ofal-Sinkil , and he was certainly the ‘Hadjee Karang.’ ‘Abd al-Mu�y tookthe opportunity of his meeting with al-Maqass�r to study with him, askinghis commentary on certain verses of the Qur’�n that dealt with mysticaldoctrines. ‘Abd al-Mu�y also asked al-Maqass�r to transmit to him thesilsilah of the 9��8:��s he received in the �aramayn.51

Included among the most prominent students of al-Maqass�r was theheir to the Sultanate, ‘Abd al-Qahh�r. There is little doubt that al-Maqass�r recommended that he travel to Istanbul after performing his pilgrimage inMecca. Al-Maqass�r ’s wide contacts in the Middle East and his possiblevisit to Istanbul helped pave the way for the Crown Prince to carry out hisdiplomatic mission. We have no further information on the mission. Whatis clear is that when the heir Prince returned from the Middle East to Bantenwith the new title of Sul-�n ��ji, he soon appealed to the Bantenese to wearclothes of Arab style.52

‘Abd al-Qahh�r’s insistence on Arab dress is reported by Sasmita53 tohave been the initial reason for the rifts between him and his father, Sul-�nAgeng. But it appears that the fundamental cause of conflict was the



decision of Sul-�n Ageng to appoint his other son, Pangeran Purbaya, tosucceed him to the throne while ‘Abd al-Qahh�r was on his pilgrimage.54

This decision was apparently prompted by ‘Abd al-Qahh�r’s predilectionfor the Dutch, in contrast to Sul-�n Ageng’s decidedly anti-Netherlandsdisposition. Sul-�n Ageng attempted to reach some reconciliation with‘Abd al-Qahh�r: the latter was restored to his original position as heir, andwas assigned to rule the Sultanate from the capital city, Banten, while theold Sul-�n moved to Tirtayasa. These policies proved to be a great blow tothe old Sul-�n, for ‘Abd al-Qahh�r now used his position to embrace theDutch even more closely.

Meanwhile, Sul-�n Ageng had reasserted his rule over the CirebonSultanate, and warned the Dutch resident in Batavia in the presence of theEnglish, French and Danish residents that he would consider every act ofhostility or interference by the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) in theaffairs of Cirebon as a �� for him.55 ‘Abd al-Qahh�r did not sharehis father’s views. He made it clear that he took the side of the Dutch.Probably with the connivance of the Dutch, ‘Abd al-Qahh�r declared theabdication of his father from the throne in 1091/1680, and claimed it forhimself. Sul-�n ��ji soon dismissed supporters of Sul-�n Ageng from theirofficial positions, and sent envoys to Batavia to negotiate a peace treatywith the Dutch.

Sul-�n Ageng refused his forced abdication; he gathered his army inTirtayasa, and civil war appeared inevitable. Being caught in this difficultsituation, al-Maqass�r , together with Pangeran Purbaya, chose to take theside of Sul-�n Ageng. The war finally broke out in the last days of1092/early 1682, when Sul-�n Ageng’s forces besieged Sul-�n ��ji in thecapital, Banten. Realising that his position was precarious, Sul-�n ��jiappealed for support from Batavia. In return for Dutch help in keeping himon the throne, he promised to cede all trade benefits to the VOC.

The Dutch immediately seized this long-awaited opportunity. Reinforce-ments under Captain François Tack were sent from Batavia so that Sul-�n��ji could escape from being humiliated by Sul-�n Ageng’s army. Freshfrom victories in South Sulawesi, Cirebon and Mataram, the Dutch armywas able to inflict reverses on Sul-�n Ageng’s forces. On 29 December1682, Dutch troops attacked Tirtayasa, but Sul-�n Ageng, al-Maqass�r andPangeran Purbaya escaped the siege and took refuge in the southern moun-tains of West Java. Persistently pursued by forces of the Dutch and Sul-�n��ji, Sul-�n Ageng was finally captured in 1096/1683 and was exiled toBatavia, where he died in 1103/1692.56

The capture of Sul-�n Ageng, however, did not put an end to the war. Hisforce was now led by al-Maqass�r . Conducting a guerilla warfare,al-Maqass�r ’s forces of 4000 men, consisting of the Bantenese, Makassarese/Buginese and Javanese, proved difficult to subdue. This attests to al-Maqass�r ’s dauntless courage and bravery, and to his firm determination



to fight the enemy. After failing to capture al-Maqass�r on the battlefield, theDutch finally employed the trickery that they were so often to use in theirterritorial expansion in the archipelago. According to one version from Dutchaccounts, Van Happel, the commander of the Dutch troops, wearing Arabgarb and disguised as a Muslim, was able to infiltrate al-Maqass�r ’s fortifi-cation, finally capturing him on 14 December 1683.57 Another version of thecapture is that Van Happel came to al-Maqass�r ’s hiding place with thelatter’s daughter, promising him the pardon of the Dutch if he surrendered.Persuaded by the promise, which was never honoured by the Dutch, al-Maqass�r and his forces joined Van Happel and followed him to Cirebon,where he was officially declared a prisoner of war and taken to Batavia. Atthe same time, his followers of South Sulawesi origin were sent back to theirhomeland.58

With the capture of al-Maqass�r , the Banten wars practically ended. Thenews of al-Maqass�r ’s detention spread through Batavia; he was hailed asa great hero in the struggle against the Dutch expansionism. He was highlyvenerated: even his ��#��(chewed betelnut) was picked up by his follow-ers when he spat it out, and was preserved as a relic.59 It is not hard tounderstand, then, the Dutch fear that the Muslims would rise up to free him.In September 1684 they exiled him to Srilanka, together with two wives,several children, 12 disciples and a number of maids.60

Despite the fact that al-Maqass�r stayed in Srilanka for almost a decade,studies of the Malay-Indonesian Muslim community on that island fail todisclose his presence and role in the development of Islam there.61 This isunfortunate, as when he was in Srilanka al-Maqass�r produced a sub-stantial number of works, some of which bear the title of ��$��(or Sailan = Ceylon) or are mentioned explicitly to have been written in ‘��’ (mediaeval Arabic term for Srilanka).62 Furthermore,al-Maqass�r appears to have left some descendants in Srilanka whopossess manuscripts that could be a starting point for future research.63

Such manuscripts would certainly be useful for complementing bothIndonesian accounts and Dutch records of al-Maqass�r ’s life in Srilanka.

It is worth noting that outside the archipelago, Srilanka, ruled by theDutch in the period between 1050/1640 and 1211/1796, was the secondcentre for banishment after the Cape of Good Hope for Malay-Indonesianexiles. Due to its proximity to the archipelago, Srilanka had been preferredby the Dutch to the Cape of Good Hope, which seems to have been reservedfor more dangerous exiles. The Dutch apparently began to transport asubstantial number of Malay-Indonesian exiles to Srilanka as soon as theyestablished their rule there.64 We know very little about the life of exilesprior to the seventeenth century, but there is no doubt that al-Maqass�r wasthe most prominent Malay-Indonesian figure ever banished by the Dutch toSrilanka.

In a sense, al-Maqass�r ’s banishment to Srilanka was a blessing indisguise. While he was in Banten he experienced political turbulence, but



he never abandoned his scholarly concerns; he was even able during thisperiod to produce several works. Now in Srilanka he had the opportunity toreturn entirely to the scholarly world. In the introduction to his ��8��@��=$�, al-Maqass�r in retrospect expected that by the grace of God hewould inherit the wisdom of Adam, the prophet, who was, in the Muslimbelief, discharged on Srilanka after his fall from Heaven.65 So al-Maqass�r devoted himself primarily to writing.

We can fairly safely assume that al-Maqass�r played an important rolein nurturing the hitherto small and inchoate Malay Muslim community onthe island. Al-Maqass�r himself expressly mentioned that he wrote hisworks in Srilanka to satisfy the requests of his friends, disciples and fellowMuslims there.66 He also established contact with other scholars there.Among the Muslim scholars of Indian origin who became his friends wereSidi Matilaya, Ab al-Ma’�n Ibr�h m Min��n and ‘Abd al-)idd q b.Mu�ammad )�diq.

The fact that his ��8��@��=$��was written on the request of Ibr�h mMinhan was an indication that Minhan and his fellow Indian scholars werewell aware of al-Maqass�r ’s erudition. It is possible that through thesescholars the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb (1071–1119/1659–1707) learnedabout the banishment of al-Maqass�r to Srilanka. The Sul-�n reportedlywarned the Dutch authorities there to pay attention to the wellbeing ofal-Maqass�r .67

Thus, the banishment had failed to cut al-Maqass�r off from outsidecontacts. No less important than al-Maqass�r ’s relations with the Indianscholars were his contacts with Malay-Indonesian pilgrims, who madeSrilanka their transit point on their way to and from Mecca and Medina, orwith Muslim traders who came there for business. That the contacts betweenal-Maqass�r and the pilgrims existed becomes obvious from an explicitmention in one of his works that he wrote it for his friends the 7$==�s.68

It was these 7$==�s who brought al-Maqass�r ’s works, written inSrilanka, to the archipelago so that we are able to read them today. They inturn brought works written by Malay-Indonesian scholars to Srilanka. Thereligious works found among the Malays on this island include these ofal-R�n r , al-Sinkil and al-Maqass�r himself.69

Considering the existence of such extensive relations, the Dutch wereright in assuming that al-Maqass�r still exerted a considerable influence onthe Malay-Indonesian Muslims. They were suspicious that through thosepilgrims al-Maqass�r had established networks, consisting of variousMuslim rulers in the archipelago, who would wage concerted and large-scale wars against the Dutch. Fearing further political and religiousrepercussions from al-Maqass�r ’s relations with his countrymen, theDutch authorities decided in 1106/1693 to send al-Maqass�r even fartheraway, to exile in South Africa. He was already 68 years old when onceagain he was forced to embark on ‘De Voetboog’, which would take him tothe Cape of Good Hope.70



��

�

��

��

�

��

’it

iner

ary


Among the Malays, the Cape of Good Hope was the most notoriousplace of banishment. Since colonisation by the Dutch in 1064/1652, anumber of eminent Malay-Indonesian figures, considered by the Dutch tobe the most dangerous, had been exiled there. But, as in Srilanka, not allMalay-Indonesians brought to the Cape of Good Hope were exiles; some ofthem were slaves who were used for work on Dutch farms in the region.71

Prior to the coming of al-Maqass�r , both the early exiles and slaves consti-tuted the nucleus of a small Muslim group known as the Cape Malays.

All writers on South African Islam are in accord that al-Maqass�r wasthe most important Malay-Indonesian exile ever banished to SouthAfrica.72 Al-Maqass�r arrived in the Cape of the Good Hope on 2 April1694. Most of his retinue of 49 people were those who had followed himearlier to Srilanka. Two months later the Dutch authorities took him and hisretinue to live in Zandvliet, a farm village at the mouth of the Eerste River,so that he, as Jeffreys points out, ‘would not be in touch with any adherentsof the old regime’.73 Bearing historical connections to al-Maqass�r and hisfollowers, this locality today is known as Macassar, and its coastal area iscalled Macassar beach.

Generally, al-Maqass�r received good treatment and due respect fromthe Dutch authorities in the Cape. Governor Simon van der Stel and later hisson, Willem Adriaan, befriended him.74 Despite this, they must have beenaware that al-Maqass�r could give them problems. Therefore, the Dutchattempted to isolate him and his followers from other Malay-Indonesianexiles who had arrived before them. But their attempts apparently failed. Heonce again became the rallying point for the Malay-Indonesians, not to riseup against the Dutch but to intensify their Islamic beliefs and practices.Al-Maqass�r and his 12 disciples, now called ��$�s, together with otherexiles, carried out teaching sessions and religious services secretly in theirlodges.75 With such activities, al-Maqass�r was able not only to preservethe Islamic belief of his fellow exiles but to gain numerous new converts.76

Al-Maqass�r appears to have devoted most of his time to proselytisingactivities; there is no evidence that he also spent his time on writing, fornone among his known works contains any indication whatsoever that itwas written in South Africa. This suggests that al-Maqass�r considereddirect propagation through teaching to be of the utmost importance to hisMalay-Indonesian community. In short, the maintenance of Islamic beliefwas his primary concern.

This is no surprise, as the Dutch not only prohibited Muslims fromopenly holding religious services but, worse still, ordered the Christian-isation of all Muslim slaves in the Cape.77 The Dutch evangelist scholarZwemer even regrets the failure of Petrus Kalden, first minister of the OldDutch Church at Cape Town, to convert al-Maqass�r to Christianity,despite the fact that the latter lived on land belonging to the minister.Zwemer bluntly points out that a great opportunity was lost by Kalden.78

Al-Maqass�r has been hailed by historians of South African Islam as the

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III �!�


founder of Islam in the region. The term ‘founder’ could be misleading:Islam, or a Malay-Indonesian Muslim community, had clearly existed inthe Cape before he arrived there. Therefore, I would suggest that he is moreappropriately called the ‘reviver’ or ‘revitaliser’ of Islam in South Africa.His determination to preserve the belief of his fellow Muslims was one ofthe crucial factors contributing to the survival and further development ofIslam in the region.

Furthermore, as Zwemer79 points out, there were three >?�8 orders thatexisted among Muslims in South Africa: the Q�diriyyah, Sha--�riyyah, andRif�’iyyah. It is highly likely that al-Maqass�r was responsible for intro-ducing these orders there, for he was a )��8�� of all of them. As early as1186/1772, Thurnberg80 observed a ritual among the Malays that clearlyconstituted ��)�, and in the 1860s Mayson81 gives us vivid accounts of thewell-known practices among the Rif�’iyyah followers of being invulnera-ble to fire and weapons.

Al-Maqass�r , as Colvin82 in his +��#��asserts, couldnot but have longed for the palms and spices of his native land, which hewas fated never again to see. Colvin may be right, but al-Maqass�r himself never made clear his sense of being an old exile under his long-contested enemy. It is clear that his relatives in Gowa had never lost hopefor his freedom. As early as 1103/1689, when al-Maqass�r was still inSrilanka, the Sul-�n of Gowa, ‘Abd al-Jal l (r. 1088–1121/1677–1709),and all the important local notables came to meet the Dutch Governor inMakassar, asking for the return of al-Maqass�r to his homeland. Theybrought with them 2000 ��=)��, which had been donated by bothnotables and commoners to make possible his return. Although theGovernor agreed to meet the request, Batavia annulled his decision.83

‘Abd al-Jal l asked the Dutch to return al-Maqass�r repeatedly until1110/1698, when the Dutch Council in Batavia issued a definite refusalto consider any such request, obviously fearing political repercussionsfrom his return.84

Al-Maqass�r died at the Cape on 22 Dh al-Qa’dah 1111/22 May1699,85 and was buried in Faure, on the sandhills of False Bay, not far fromthe farm of Zandvliet. His tomb later came to be known as the ‘*��$��’Shaykh Yusuf (lit. ‘miracle’). Between 1321/1903 and 1333/1913 the graveof al-Maqass�r was restored by ��ji Sulaym�n Sh�h Mu�ammad, a richCape Muslim of Indian origin. A splendid domed mausoleum was erectedover al-Maqass�r ’s grave, which later was complemented by other buildings, including tombs of four of his disciples. The ‘kar�mat’ of al-Maqass�r is one of the most beautiful and the most important tombbuildings in the Cape Peninsula. It became a central point of the Malay-Indonesian community and the most important place of Muslim religiousvisitation (;��$��) at the Cape; or, as Du Plessis puts it, ‘the tomb hasbecome the Mecca of the South, where thousands of pilgrims pay theirrespects annually to the memory of a noble exile’.86

�!" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


The death of al-Maqass�r was a relief for the Cape Dutch authorities,both politically and financially. On 1 July 1699, they reported his death toBatavia; they asked Batavia to lift the financial burden, incurred by theCape authorities, for the upkeep of al-Maqass�r and his retinue. As aresult, the Council of Batavia decided in October 1699 to grant permissionto al-Maqass�r ’s survivors and followers to return to the archipelago,should they want to; most of them chose to return, and they departed onboard the ships ‘De Liefde’ and ‘De Spiegel’ in 1116/1704.87

In the meantime, the news of al-Maqass�r ’s death had reached SouthSulawesi. Once again the Sul-�n of Gowa requested the return ofal-Maqass�r —now, of course, only his remains. Finally, the remainsallegedly belonging to al-Maqass�r arrived in Gowa on 5 April 1705, andwere reburied the following day in Lakiung.88 Like his tomb in Faure, thistomb of al-Maqass�r soon became one of the most important places of reli-gious visitation in South Sulawesi.89

The fact that al-Maqass�r has two tombs has led to some speculation.De Haan believes that the Dutch sent the actual remains of al-Maqass�r to Gowa; therefore, his tomb in Faure is empty.90 The Muslims in theCape, on the other hand, believe that only the remains of a single fingerof al-Maqass�r were taken to his homeland.9l This speculation appears tocontain some truth if one considers a legend in Gowa about the body ofal-Maqass�r they reburied. According to the legend, initially only ahandful of dust, which was probably the remains of his finger, wasbrought from the Cape. The dust, however, kept growing until it took theshape of the full body of al-Maqass�r when it reached Gowa.92

AL-MAQASS6RC’S NEO-SUFISM

Al-Maqass�r was primarily a >?�8. His life experience makes it clear thathis Sufism did not keep him away from worldly affairs. Unlike earlier >?�8swho exhibited strong tendencies to shun worldly life, the whole expressionof al-Maqass�r ’s teachings and practices shows a full range of activism.

Like al-R�n r and al-Sinkil in the Sultanate of Aceh, al-Maqass�r playedan important role in Bantenese politics. Not only that he stepped up to theforefront of the wars against the Dutch after the capture of Sul-�n AgengTirtayasa. However, like most scholars in the international networks ofscholars in the seventeenth century, al-Maqass�r did not employ the 9��8:��organisation to mobilise the masses, especially for the purposes of war.

Al-Maqass�r wrote his works in perfect Arabic; his long sojourn in theMiddle East had enabled him to write in that language. Almost all hisknown works deal with ��>�%% �, particularly in its relations with )��$�.Like al-R�n r and al-Sinkil , al-Maqass�r in developing his teachingsoften cites such scholars and >?�8s as al-Ghaz�l , Junayd al-Baghd�d , Ibn‘Arab , al-J l , Ibn ‘At�’ All�h and other authorities.

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III �!<


A central concept of al-Maqass�r ’s ��>�%% � is the purification of belief(‘�:8��) in the Unity of God (��%�8�). This is his attempt to explain thetranscendence of God over his creation. Such, of course, is a central themedeveloped by other scholars in the networks. Citing Srat al-Ikhl�1 (theQur’�n, chapter 112) and another verse of the Qur’�n that states thatnothing can be compared with Him (42:11), al-Maqass�r maintains that theUnity of God (��%78�) is infinite and absolute.93 ��%78� is the essentialcomponent in Islam; one who does not believe in ��%78� is an unbeliever()$��). He further compares the immaculate ��%78� with a leafy tree:gnostic knowledge (��’��) is its branches and leaves, and devotionalservices (‘��$�$�) are its fruits. One who has no ��’�� is ignorant (=$��),and one who does not practise ‘��$�$� is sinful (�$��:).94

Despite his insistence on the transcendence of God, al-Maqass�r believes that God is all-encompassing (��@�7$9��) and omnipresent (��@��’��) over His creation.95 But he takes great care not to associatehimself with the doctrine of pantheism by maintaining that although God ispresent or expresses Himself in His creation, it does not necessarily meanthat the creation is God himself; all creation is simply allegorical being (��@��%=?��@��=$;8), not the Real Being (��@��%=?��@7�:8:8).96 Thus, likeal-Sinkil he believes that the creation is only a shadow of God, not GodHimself. According to al-Maqass�r , the ‘expression’ of God in Hiscreations is not the ‘physical’ presence of God in them.

With the concept of ��@�7$9��and ��@��’��, God descends (��;; �)while man ascends (��::8), a spiritual process that brings the two closer.It is important to note that according to al-Maqass�r the process will nottake its form in the ultimate unity between man and God: while the twomay be closely associated, in the final analysis man is man and God is God.With this, al-Maqass�r rejects the concept of %�7��@% =?��(‘Unity ofBeing’, or ontological monism) and ��@7 �?� (‘Divine Incarnation’). In hisopinion, God is simply incomparable to anything (��)��,Qur’�n 42:11). Instead he adopts the concept of %�7��@�� ?��(‘Unityof Consciousness’, or phenomenological monism).97 Thus, while he care-fully disengages himself from the controversial doctrine of %�7��@% =?� of Ibn ‘Arab and of al-�ull of Man1r al-�all�j, al-Maqass�r adopts the doctrine of %�7�� @�� ?�, developed mainly by A�madal-Sirhind (971–1034/1564–1624); later, this doctrine was also adopted byShah Wali Allah (1114–76/1702–1762).

A salient feature of al-Maqass�r ’s theology of God’s Unity is that heattempts to reconcile all Attributes or Qualities of God. According to Islamicbelief, God possesses Attributes which may seem to be conflicting one withanother. God is, for instance, believed to be the First (��@�%%��) and theLast (��@F)��); the Exterior (��@R$��) and the Interior (��@($9��); the Onewho gives guidance (��@�$�8), but also the One who allows humans to goastray (��@, E��). According to al-Maqass�r , all these seemingly conflict-ing Attributes of God should be understood in accordance with the Unity of

�!3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


God Himself. Emphasising only certain Attributes while ignoring the otherswill lead to wrong belief and practices. The Realities of God are the Unityof pairs of conflicting Attributes, and none will be able to comprehend theirsecret but those who have been granted knowledge by God Himself.98

As far as al-Maqass�r ’s theology is concerned, he adheres strictly to theAsh’ar doctrines. He thus stresses total commitment to all six articles ofbelief—that is, belief in the One God, the Angels, the Revelation, theProphets, the Day of Judgment and the Will of God. Furthermore, inconnection with impeccable belief in these articles of faith, he appeals tohis fellow Muslims to accept the ambiguous meanings of some verses ofthe Qur’�n, or ��@$�$��@� ��$��$�.99 Looking for or questioning thereal meanings of such verses is simply an indication of not totally believ-ing in God; only with the acceptance of the verses as such will a travelleron God’s path be able to gain the blessing of God.l00

It is well known that the theology of al-Ash’ar emphasises humanpredestination vis-à-vis the Will of God. Al-Maqass�r basically acceptsthis notion. For instance, he repeatedly asks Muslims to sincerely embracetheir fate and the divine decree (��@D�E$� %�� @D��), either good orbad.101 He insists, however, that men must not simply surrender to them. Ofparticular importance, men cannot blame God for their bad deeds, for theyshould not simply accept them as their fate. Instead, they must make cease-less attempts to avoid sinful behaviour and improve humanity by thinkingabout the creation and doing good deeds.

In this way, al-Maqass�r believes, men will be able to create a better lifein this world and the next. More importantly, they will open the way to attain-ing the highest stage, called ��@’ �?�� @� 9��:�� (unrestrictedadoration). The one who succeeds in achieving this stage reaches the centreof his being, and is accordingly called the Universal Man (��@��$��@*$��).102 According to al-Maqass�r , by achieving the stage of UniversalMan a slave strips his allegorical being (��@��%=?��@��=$;8) and gets intohis real ‘nothingness’, non-existence (‘ � ��@7�:8:8). His nothingness istaken by God as a mirror (��’��) of Himself. God further reveals (��=��8)Himself in the slave. In other words, the slave who is absorbed (��$’) in theexistence of God is able to recognise the secrets of his Master—that is, God.He then sees through His Sight, hears with His Hearing, reaches with HisHands, walks with His Feet, speaks with His Word and thinks with HisMind.103

Al-Maqass�r ’s notion of the Universal Man reminds us of the similardoctrine elaborated by al-J l . The latter says:

If the servant is lifted higher and God fortifies him and conforms him, after hisextinction (��$’), in the state of subsistence (��:$’), God will reply Himselfto whoever invokes this servant.

When God reveals Himself to His servant in one of his Qualities, theservant soars in the sphere of this Quality until he has reached the limit by way

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III �!5


of integration (��@�=�$�), not by distinctive knowledge, for those who realisethe Divine Qualities do not have distinctive knowledge except by virtue ofintegration. If the servant soars in the sphere of a Quality, and he realises itentirely by (spiritual) integration, he is seated on the throne of this Quality, sothat he assimilates it into himself and becomes its subject; from then on, heencounters another Quality, and so on until he realises all the Divine Qualities.

To some, God reveals Himself in the Quality of the Sight (��@��>��). For,revealing Himself first by the total intellectual vision which penetrateseverything, God will reveal Himself more particularly in the Quality of Sight,so that the sight of the servant will become the organ of his knowledge.104

Again, al-Maqass�r takes pains not to be trapped in the long and heatedcontroversy concerning the concept of Unity of Being between the servantand God. He maintains that even though the servant is able to enter the exis-tence of God, he nevertheless remains a human being, whereas Godremains God.

Like most other >?�8s, al-Maqass�r clearly holds a positive view ofhumankind as a whole. In his opinion, every person has an innate disposi-tion to believe in God, and those who are closest to Him are the ones whoare able to nurture that disposition in the right way.105 Therefore, he appealsto his fellow believers not to scold or look down on those who do notbelieve in God and who live a sinful life; the faithful simply must have agood opinion (7 �� @K��) of the unbelievers. Citing Ab Mady�nal-Tilims�n , he reminds them that the flaws of the unbelievers may bebetter than the pitfalls of the faithful.106 With such a view it is not suprisingthat nowhere in his works does al-Maqass�r accuse the Dutch, whoinflicted great misery on his life.

In accordance with their degree of belief in God, al-Maqass�r classifiesthe believers into four categories. The first, those who simply utter the state-ment of faith (��$��) without really believing, are called the hypocrites(��@� �$��:). The second group is the people who do not only utter the��$�� but also implant it deep in their souls; this group is called thecommon faithful (��@� ’��@’�%%$�). The third category is the groupof faithful who fully realise the inward and outward implication of theirstatement of faith in their life; they are called the people of the elite (��@)��%%$>). The last group is the highest category of the faithful, who comeout of the third group by intensifying their ��$��, mainly by practising��>�%% �, in order to get closer to God; they are accordingly called theselect of the elite ()�$>>��@)��%%$>).107

Al-Maqass�r clearly reserves the ��>�%% � for the select of the elite.Like other scholars in the networks, his ��>�%% � is the one that has beenclassified as neo-Sufism; he calls his ��>�%% � by the name the ‘-ar qatal-Mu�ammadiyyah’ or ‘-ar qat al-A�madiyyah’, which is familiar amongscholars in the networks. This very name implicitly conveys their aim to return to the way of the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Maqassari believes

�!2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


the ‘-ar qat al-Mu�ammadiyyah’ constitutes the right path (L��$9��@, ��:8�).108 Throughout his writings he makes it clear that the mys-tical way can be trod only through a total commitment, both outwardly andinwardly, to the legal doctrine of Islam as well as to the way of the Prophet.He maintains that committing oneself simply to the ��8’�� is better thanpractising ��>�%% � while ignoring Islamic legal precepts.109 He even goesso far as to classify as ;��8: (freethinker) and � �7��(heretic) those whobelieve that they will be able to get closer to God without practising suchrituals as prayer and fasting.110

It appears that al-Maqass�r was rather overzealous in his reconciliationbetween the exoteric and esoteric aspects of Islam. In this regard, he repeat-edly narrates statements of unnamed authorities who assert that those whostick only to the ��8’�� without the 7�:8:�� are f$siq (sinful), and thosewho practise ��>�%% � while ignoring ��8’�� are ;��:.111 The best thatcan be done is to harmonise the two. As al-Maqass�r puts it: ‘Let it beknown, my fellows, exoteric devotion without esoteric one is like a bodywithout a soul (�?7), whereas esoteric occupation without exoteric devotionis like a soul without a body’.112 Finally he cites a 7��8�� of the Prophetwhich states that the Prophet was sent by God in order to bring to thepeople both the ��8’�� and 7�:8:��.113

Al-Maqass�r insists that every aspirant in the path of God shouldpractise all the precepts of the ��8’�� before he enters ��>�%% �.114 Hethen lists the ways to get closer to God. First is the way of the �)��$��(bestpeople), that is by performing numerous prayers, reading the Qur’�n and7��8��, striving in the way of God (��@=��$�� 8� ��8�� $�) and otherexoteric devotion. The second is the way of the people of � =$�$�$��@��:$’ (those who strive against hardship), by way of rigorous training toget rid of bad habits and to purify the mind and soul. The last is the way ofthe people of ��)� (�� @��)�), who love God both outwardly andinwardly; they take very special care of the two kinds of devotion.115

Al-Maqass�r , however, discourages the traveller on God’s path (�$��))from treading his own way in seeking after truth; it will only lead himastray, for Satan will become his master. Therefore, he should look for atrusted and experienced >?�8 master, even if he, as a consequence, musttravel to distant places, leaving his family and homeland behind. But thereis no other way; only with the guidance of a trusted >?�8 master (��)�)will he be able to get to God; for the master will show him the correct andsurest way to achieve spiritual progress.116 More than that, >?�8 shaykhs aresuccessors of the Prophet; they are his representatives ()��8��) bothoutwardly and inwardly.117

With such an important position reserved by �� for the >?�8shaykh, he differentiates himself from most scholars in the networks.Unlike �� , who encourages a �$��) to leave his master ifthe latter disobeys the ��8’��, �� adheres to the earlier notion

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III �!1


of the position of the >?�8 master vis-à-vis his disciples. Thus, for�� , once a �$��) pledges his allegiance (��’��) to a certain >?�8master, he must totally obey him, even if the shaykh does something thatdoes not necessarily lead to a closer communion with God. In accordancewith the traditional way, he should behave like a dead body in the hands ofthose who clean it. To support this view, �� cites Ibn ‘Arab , whomaintains that a �$��) must obey his master, even though he may observethat the shaykh does something that runs contrary to the precepts of the��8’��. The reason for this is that the shaykh is not infallible: even someprophets made mistakes.118 However, when the shaykh makes mistakes bytransgressing certain rules of the ��8’��, �� reminds the discipleto keep up his good deeds and not to follow his master’s transgression.119

Al-Maqass�r discusses at length some specific religious devotionalservices and the steps towards spiritual progress that should be undertakenby the travellers in God’s path. He puts a special emphasis on ��)�. His��)� was mainly the vocal one (=��), as taught by both Ibr�h m al-Kr�n and Mu�ammad b. ‘Abd al-B�q al-Naqshband .120 In accordance with hisconcept of the purification of faith, in al-Maqass�r ’s opinion the essenceof the ��)� is the full recognition of the Unity of God. On the preliminarylevel (��@� ��8’), the one who performs ��)� confirms that in his faithnothing should be worshipped but God. On the intermediate level (��@� ��%��9), he recognises that he seeks and loves nothing but God. On thefinal level (��@� ��8), he fully believes that there is no other being butGod.121

Although al-Maqass�r ’s teachings are apparently confined to the��>�%% �, this does not conceal his main concern; that is, the renewal of Muslim belief and practice in the archipelago by way of the implemen-tation of a more ��8’��-oriented Sufism. Of the various 9��8:��sal-Maqass�r was affiliated with, it was the Khalwatiyyah—later known asthe Khalwatiyyah Ysuf—that found fertile ground, especially in the SouthSulawesi region. If the people of South Sulawesi, and also of West Java,have been counted generally as among the most fervent Muslims in thearchipelago, one can hardly underestimate the role of al-Maqass�r indeveloping that identity.

�! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


6Networks of ‘-��$’ and Islamic

Renewal in the Eighteenth CenturyMalay-Indonesian World

So far we have attempted to give a comprehensive account of the trans-mission of reformist ideas from the centres of scholarly networks in theMiddle East by three of the most important scholars of the Malay-Indonesian world in the seventeenth century, al-R�n r , al-Sink l andal-Maqass�r . The career and teachings of these scholars clearly show usthat Islamic developments in the archipelago were to an extent influencedby those in the Middle East. Thanks to al-R�n r , al-Sink l andAl-Maqass�r , the reformist tendencies of the scholarly networks foundtheir rapid translation in the archipelago.

Despite differences among modern scholars over the definition andboundaries of the terms ‘reform’ and ‘renewal’, it is clear that not all of theMalay-Indonesian scholars proposed radical doctrinal changes of Islam thatcan be categorised as reform. Their endeavours are more appropriately calledrenewal (��=�8� ) than reform. Their central theme is a return to an orthodoxythat finds its most salient feature in the harmony between ��8’�� and��>�%% �. With this, these � =��s contributed substantially to thestrengthening of the Islamic identity of their societies. The immediate resultof this process was the intensification of Islamisation in the archipelago.

I have argued that Islamic renewal began in the Malay-Indonesian worldas early as the seventeenth century, rather than at the beginning of the nine-teenth century or the early twentieth century, as maintained by somescholars. Hamka and Federspiel, for instance, believe that Islamic reformor renewal began in the archipelago only with the rise of the PadriMovement in West Sumatra at the beginning of the nineteenth century.1

Although Geertz recognises that what he calls ‘a more precisian Islam’ (or‘scripturalist Islam’) was introduced to the archipelago before the nine-teenth century, he is of the opinion that it gained momentum only after theearly nineteenth century with the rise, for instance in West Sumatra, ofwhat he termed ‘a band of religious zealots, outraged by the heterodoxy

�!4


of local customs’.2 In this reference to the Padri Movement, Geertz clearlyviews Islamic reforms very simplistically.

The Padri Movement, as we will discuss briefly later, in fact originatedfrom the scholarly networks. The birth and growth of this movement reflect acomplicated process of the transmission of reformist ideas, including a ‘tug ofwar’ between the forces of reformism and local factors such as ��(custom).The Padri Movement is an excellent example of how reformism generated bythe networks found one of its extreme manifestations in the archipelago.

Deliar Noer,3 on the other hand, maintains that Islamic reformism startedonly in the early twentieth century. Noer overemphasises Islamicreformism in the period he discusses, concluding without hesitation thatIndonesian Islam before the twentieth century was dominated by ��>�%% �and was thus no more than a hybrid of Islamic mysticism and remnants oflocal Hindu-Buddhist beliefs. He does mention the influences that hadcome from Mecca since the eighteenth century, but by using SnouckHurgronje’s framework Noer views this influence mostly in political terms,or more precisely as pan-Islamism.

As we will see shortly, this view can no longer be maintained, becausethere is no evidence in the eighteenth century, among scholars in the centresof the �aramayn or among our Malay-Indonesian scholars, that points toany attempt to forge a feeling of pan-Islamism in the archipelago. What theytransmitted to this part of the Muslim world was for the most part, indeed,reformist or renewalist religious ideas rather than political ones.

Our three � =��s did not explicitly declare that they were launchingreform, nor did they employ the organisation of the 9��8:��s in order topursue their ends, but the central theme of their teaching leaves no doubtabout their commitment to renewalism. It is important to note thatreformism or renewal is not an overnight process. Therefore, although bythe second half of the seventeenth century reformist ideas had been intro-duced to the archipelago, they took root only slowly and sporadically.There is no doubt, however, that the momentum of renewalism sparked byal-R�n r , al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r was irreversible. Thus, as Federspielrightly points out, over the past four centuries Islam in Indonesia has slowlyaltered its form: ‘the heterodox religious trends of the early period haveslowed in momentum, and more orthodox Islamic practices and patternshave slowly gained in importance’.4

Federspiel recognises that contacts between the Malay-Indonesianworld, by way of /$%8 students and pilgrims, and the Middle East greatlycontributed to the rise of Islamic renewalism in the region. Again, however,like Hamka, he simply points to the famous example of the PadriMovement, which gained crucial stimulus from the return of three 7$==�sfrom Mecca in the early nineteenth century.5 But as we have already noted,and will discuss further later, the origins of the Padri Movement can betraced back to al-Sink l and to reformist movements in the centres of thenetworks in Mecca and Medina.

��! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


In the final analysis, the roots of Islamic renewal in the Malay-Indonesian world are to be found in the teachings of al-R�n r , al-Sinkil and al-Maqass�r . Like reformism in the �aramayn, the renewal is genuineand born as an internal response to prevailing religious conditions amongMuslims themselves. But from the eighteenth century outside factors,especially increasing colonial encroachment, also contributed to the accel-eration of Islamic renewal and reform in the archipelago.

‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY NETWORKS

If al-R�n r , al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r have commanded much attentionfrom scholars, the ‘ ��$’ in the eighteenth century have been less studied.Furthermore, the few sources available, mainly in Malay and Indonesian,simply narrate biographies, without critical examination of their positionsvis-à-vis Islamic developments in the Malay-Indonesian world or their relationship to the teachings introduced by al-R�n r , al-Sink l andal-Maqass�r . No attempt has been made to trace their connections with thescholarly networks of the larger Muslim world, which should give us abetter picture of the continuing religious and intellectual relations betweenthe archipelago and the Middle East.

The ‘ ��$’ involved in the eighteenth century scholarly networksindeed had traceable connections with earlier networks. While they did nothave direct teacher-student connections with al-R�n r , al-Sink l andal-Maqass�r , their teachers in Mecca and Medina were among the promi-nent figures of the networks in their period and had direct connections withearlier scholars to whom the three predecessors had also been linked.Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century, moreover, were wellaware of the teachings of their three precursors, and they established intel-lectual connections with them by making reference to their works.

In chapter 5 we have seen how, through al-Maqass�r and his disciples,the regions of South Sulawesi and West Java, following Aceh, came intothe picture of Islamic learning in the archipelago in the seventeenthcentury. In the eighteenth century, South Sumatra, South Kalimantan(Borneo) and the Patani region in the northern part of the Malay Peninsulacame to prominence. Therefore, I would argue that the birthplaces andethnic origins of Malay-Indonesian scholars in a way reflect the historicalcourse of Islam in the archipelago through centuries. This points to the factthat appreciation of the importance of Islamic learning as well as the needfor renewal and reform began to gain ground among various ethnic groupsin the archipelago. These scholars, having acquired substantive credentialsin Islamic learning, in turn stimulated further intensification of Islamisa-tion, particularly among their respective ethnic groups. In the eighteenthcentury such developments continued, so as to become one of the mostdistinctive features in the transmission of Islam in the archipelago.

NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ��


There were several major Indonesian-Malay ‘ ��$’ who came fromvarious regions and ethnic groups in the archipelago in the eighteenth to theearly nineteenth centuries. A prominent group came from the Palembangregion of South Sumatra. The most important among them were Shih�bal-D n b. ‘Abd All�h Mu�ammad, Kemas Fakhr al-D n, ‘Abd al-)amadal-Palimb�n , Kemas Mu�ammad b. A�mad and Mu�ammad Mu�y al-D nb. Shih�b al-D n. Then came Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banj�r andMu�ammad Naf s al-Banj�r from South Kalimantan; ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis from Sulawesi; ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w al-Ma1r from Bataviaand D�wd b. ‘Abd All�h al-Fa-�n from the Patani region (SouthThailand). Although information on several of these scholars is sketchy,their careers and teachings make it clear that they were involved bothsocially and intellectually in the networks. Taken together, they constitutedthe most important scholars of the archipelago in the eighteenth century.

AL-PALIMB6NC AND OTHER PALEMBANG SCHOLARS

The fact that there were several scholars of the Palembang region who roseto prominence in the period under discussion is an interesting example ofthe relations between Middle Eastern Muslims and the growth of Islamiclearning in the archipelago.

Arab migrants, particularly from the ��7��(#,6 began to come toPalembang in increasing numbers from the seventeenth century.Al-Palimb�n ’s father, although he stayed in Palembang for only a relativelyshort time, was among the Arab sayyids who came to this region in the earlyseventeenth century. By the middle of the eighteenth century, some Arabscholars had gained prominent positions in the court of the PalembangSultanate. In 1168/1754–5 a certain Sayyid al-’Aydars was reported to havemarried Sul-�n Ma�md’s sister, and several unnamed sayyids came tocontrol the religious hierarchy in the Sultanate: they became ‘senior priests’,and one of the sayyids was called ‘Tuan Besar’ (great lord).7

These Arabs clearly played an important role in the growth of the tra-dition of Islamic learning in the region. They stimulated and encouraged theSul-�ns of Palembang to pay special attention to religious matters, but appar-ently did not go much further. They did not take any initiative, for instance,to establish religious educational institutions at the popular level, for there isno evidence that such institutions as �� or #�� existed duringthis period. Instead, they concentrated on the court, and apparently contri-buted to the rise of the court as the centre of learning. As a result, the courtof Palembang become the centre for an extensive collection of religiousworks by local scholars. This further indicates the importance of the court inthe scholarly discourse in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.8

Most of the Palembang scholars, such as Shih�b al-D n, Kemas Fakhral-D n, Mu�ammad Mu�y al-D n and Kemas Mu�ammad, are knownmostly from their works, preserved initially in the court of the Palembang

��" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Sultanate before being taken by the Dutch and the British. Drewes hascorrectly concluded that they lived throughout the second half of the seven-teenth and the early eighteenth centuries. There is insufficient informationon their lives, although it is known that Kemas Fakhr al-D n (1133–77/1719–63) travelled to India and spent a good deal of his life in Arabia, mostprobably in Mecca or Medina, where he wrote his works.9 Most of theworks of these scholars deal with mysticism and theology and are basedlargely on the teachings of al-Junayd, al-Qushayr and al-Ghaz�l . Theyclearly embraced teachings belonging to neo-Sufism.10

Without doubt, the most prominent among these Palembang scholarswas ‘Abd al-)amad al-Palimb�n . He was also the most influential, espe-cially through his works, which were widely circulated in the archipelago.We have a rather complete account of his life and career, unlike his fellowPalembang scholars, so that we are able to reconstruct his biography. Sofar, accounts of al-Palimb�n ’s life are based on the scattered informationhe supplied in his works, which have been supplemented by Malayaccounts and Dutch sources. However, there is ample information on himin Arabic biographical dictionaries, which throw some light on this majorMalay-Indonesian scholar. This is an important finding, for never beforehad accounts of a Malay-Indonesian scholar been given in Arabic bio-graphical dictionaries. This also indicates that al-Palimb�n enjoyed arespected career in the Middle East.

According to Malay sources the full name of al-Palimb�n was ‘Abdal-)amad b. ‘Abd All�h al-J�w al-Palimb�n , but Arabic sources call himSayyid ‘Abd al-)amad b. ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-J�w .11 We have every reasonto believe that ‘Abd al-)amad b. ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-J�w was indeed ‘Abdal-)amad al-Palimb�n . As we will show in this chapter, the picture of thecareer of ‘Abd al-)amad b. ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-J�w in Arabic sourcesalmost entirely describes that of ‘Abd al-)amad al-Palimb�n given byother sources.

Of all the available sources, only the �$�8)�� $�� *��supplies the date of al-Palimb�n ’s birth and death. According to this work,al-Palimb�n was born about 1116/1704 in Palembang to a sayyid fatherand a Palembang woman. This, therefore, corroborates the Arabic sources,which mention that al-Palimb�n was a sayyid. Al-Palimb�n ’s father issaid to have come from Sana’a, Yemen, and travelled widely in India andJava before taking up residence in Kedah, where he was appointed D$E8.About 1112/1700 he went to Palembang, where he married a local womanand returned to Kedah with his new born son, al-Palimb�n . It is believedthat al-Palimb�n acquired his early education in Kedah and Patani,probably in a #��)�(local traditional Islam educational institution), aboutwhich more follows. Later, his father dispatched him to study in Arabia.12

We have no information on when he left the archipelago.Although we cannot resolve the conflicting dates surrounding his life, all

sources are in accord that al-Palimb�n ’s life span was from the first decade

NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ��<


well into the late eighteenth century. Al-Bay-�r points out al-Palimb�n died after 1200/1785.13 But most probably he died in 1203/1789, the dateof completion of his final and most acclaimed work, the ��@�$��)8�.14

When he completed this work he would have been 85 years old. In the�$�8)��$��*��, it is reported that he was killed in the waragainst the Thais in 1244/1828.15 It is difficult to accept this account, asthere is no evidence in other sources to indicate that al-Palimb�n everreturned to the archipelago. Furthermore, he would then have been about124 years old—too old to go to the battlefield. Although al-Bay-�r does notmention the place where al-Palimb�n died, there is a strong suggestion thathe died in Arabia.16

Al-Palimb�n almost certainly established his career in the �aramaynand never returned to the archipelago. He nevertheless maintained a deepconcern for Islam and Muslims in the Malay-Indonesian world. In the�aramayn, al-Palimb�n was involved in the /$%8 community and was afellow student of Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banj�r , ‘Abd al-Wahh�b Bugis,‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w and D�wd al-Fa-�n . His involvement in the/$%8 community kept him fully aware of the religious and political devel-opments in the archipelago.

Al-Palimb�n and his group all had the same teachers. The mostfamous among them were Mu�ammad b. ‘Abd al-Kar m al-Samm�n ,�� b. Sulaym�n al-Kurd and ‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Damanhr .17

Al-Bay-�r, in addition to mentioning Mu�ammad [b. ��] al-Kurd ,lists other teachers of al-Palimb�n : they were Ibr�h m al-Ra’ s,Mu�ammad Mur�d, Mu�ammad al-Jawhar and ‘A-�’ All�h al-Ma1r .18

Some of these scholars were also teachers of the four friends of al-Palimb�n .

It is important to examine briefly the biographies of these last fourteachers, as they further show us the connections al-Palimb�n and hisfellow Malay-Indonesians had with the extensive scholarly networks.

[Ab al-Fawz] Ibr�h m [b. Mu�ammad] al-Ra’ s [al-Zamzam al-Makk ](1110–94/1698–1780) was evidently another important scholar from theZamzam family.19 As al-Jabart points out, Ibr�h m al-Zamzam al-Ra’ swas well versed in various religious sciences; one of his special subjectswas ‘�� @��) (astronomy). Among his teachers were ‘Abd All�h al-Ba1r , Ibn al-@ayyib, A�mad al-Jawhar , ‘A-�’ All�h al-Ma1r and �asanal-Jabart , the father of the historian al-Jabart ; he took the Khalwatiyyahorder from Mu1-af� al-Bakr and the Naqshbandiyyah from ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-’Aydars. No less importantly, he was a student of Murta7�al-Zab d 20 and )�li� al-Full�n ,21 both major figures of the scholarlynetworks in the eighteenth century. Ibr�h m al-Ra’ s was also closelyconnected with Mu1-af� al-’Aydars and with scholars of the Ahdal andMizj�j families, including the father of Sulaym�n al-Ahdal, one of al-Palimb�n ’s students.22

��3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


As for Mu�ammad Mur�d, there is strong evidence that he wasMu�ammad Khal l b. ‘Al b. Mu�ammad b. Mur�d al-�usayn (1173–1206/1759–91). My research on Mu�ammad Mur�d in several biographicaldictionaries of the period points to Mu�ammad Khal l al-Mur�d .23 Betterknown as al-Mur�d , primarily for his four-volume biographical dictionary��)� ��@A ��,24 he was a contemporary of al-Palimb�n . Al-Jabart , hisgood friend, points out that al-Mur�d mainly lived in Damascus but trav-elled extensively, including to the �aramayn, in order to collect informationon the scholars he would write about in his biographical dictionary. In thecourse of his travels, al-Mur�d not only advanced his knowledge but taughtstudents as well.25 Therefore, it is highly probable that al-Palimb�n took theopportunity of al-Mur�d ’s visits to the �aramayn to study with him.

Although al-Mur�d was renowned mostly as a historian, al-Jabart reports that he was a ‘prop of the ��8’��’ and a ‘house of knowledge’ inSyria during his time, who had mastered both exterior and interior sciencesto the fullest extent.26 As al-Baghd�d also tells us, he was the , ��8 of the�anaf school of law in Damascus, and a Naqshband shaykh.27 He hadwide connections with such major scholars in the networks as Murta7�al-Zab d , not only because he had met them in the course of collectingbiographical data but more importantly because of 7��8�� scholarship; hiswas considered a ‘superior’ ��$� in 7��8�� studies.28

The next teacher of al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammad [b. A�mad] al-Jawhar [al-Mi1r ], was the son of a leading Egyptian � 7��, A�mad b.al-�asan b. ‘Abd al-Kar m b. Ysuf al-Kar m al-Kh�lid al-Jawhar al-Azhar (1096–1181/1685–1767).29 Mu�ammad al-Jawhar (1132–86/1720–72), like his father, A�mad al-Jawhar , was known mainly as a tra-ditionist.30 Although he lived mostly in Egypt, Mu�ammad al-Jawhar oftentravelled to the �aramayn, where besides performing pilgrimages he taughtstudents. In addition to receiving 7��8�� from his father, he possessed ��$�sthrough his father which connected him with such scholars as ‘Abd All�hal-Ba1r and A�mad al-Nakhl . Therefore, he was among the most sought-after ��$�s in the networks during this period. He had also extensivenetworks through 7��8�� studies down to more recent times.31

The last scholar in the list of al-Palimb�n ’s teachers was ‘A-�’ All�h [b. A�mad] al-Azhar al-Ma1r al-Makk , mentioned earlier as a teacher ofIbr�h m al-Ra’ s. ‘A-�’ All�h was a renowned � 7��32 and a colleagueof Mu�ammad al-Samm�n , Mu�ammad al-Jawhar and Murta7� al-Zab d .Al-Zab d even lists ‘A-�’ All�h as one of his numerous teachers.33 Itappears that after completing his education at the Azhar, later in his life‘A-�’ All�h migrated to Mecca or, in al-Katt�n ’s terms, he was ‘��;8��@C��’, where he was very active in teaching.34 Among his studentswere Ab al-�asan al-Sind al-)agh r and )�li� al-Full�n , and a number ofYemeni scholars.35 Like Mu�ammad al-Jawhar , ‘A-�’ All�h is considereda superior ��$� in 7��8�� studies.36

NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ��5


Thus, as al-Sink l earlier, al-Palimb�n reaped great profit from visitingscholars in the �aramayn, especially during the pilgrimage season. Onevisiting scholar from whom al-Palimb�n gained great benefit was A�madal-Damanhr . The latter, whose biography has been provided by Zab d ,lived mostly in Cairo, though he often travelled to the �aramayn. Based onnotes he took when he attended lectures given by al-Damanhr in Mecca,al-Palimb�n was able to write one of his earliest works, entitled O ��@, �8��8�(��$��*��@��%78�. The work, in Malay, deals with logic(��9�:) and theology ( >?�� @�8�), and it was written at the request of one of his friends, obviously a Malay, in order to better understandal-Damanhr ’s lectures.37

Considering the status of the scholars he studied with, it is certain thatal-Palimb�n ’s education was a thorough one; he studied 7��8��, ��:�,��8’��, ��8�, )��$� and ��>�%% �. Al-Palimb�n had a strong dispositiontowards mysticism, and it is evident that he studied ��>�%% � mostly withal-Samm�n , from whom he also took both 9��8:��s of Khalwatiyyah and Samm�niyyah.38 Abdullah39 believes that al-Palimb�n studied with al-Samm�n for five years in Medina. During the course of his studies withal-Samm�n , he was entrusted to teach some of al-Samm�n ’s students ofArab origin. So far as his adherence to 9��8:�� is concerned, al-Palimb�n was deeply influenced by al-Samm�n . Conversely, it is through al-Palimb�n that the Samm�niyyah 9��8:�� found fertile ground not only inthe Palembang region but in other parts of the archipelago; al-Samm�n andthe Samm�niyyah 9��8:�� became principal subjects in the writings of laterPalembang scholars.

Al-Palimb�n never returned to the archipelago. He devoted his time inthe �aramayn to writing and teaching. Al-Bay-�r reports that in 1201/1787he travelled to Zab d, where he taught students, particularly of the Ahdaland al-Mizj�j families.40 This report is in accord with Abdullah’s accountsof al-Palimb�n ’s travels to Zab d and his meetings with local scholars andstudents.41 One of his students in Zab d was Waj h al-D n ‘Abd al-Ra�m�nb. Sulaym�n b. Ya�y� b. ‘Umar al-Ahdal (1179–1255/1765–1839), a� 7�� who later occupied the post of , ��8 of Zab d. Waj h al-D n al-Ahdal evidently considered al-Palimb�n one of his most importantteachers, as he included his biography in his dictionary, ��@��@B��$�8%��@+?7��@+��7$�8.42

According to al-Katt�n , Waj h al-D n al-Ahdal in his biographicaldictionary put al-Palimb�n into his third category S��@9��:��@��$��T;that is, major scholars who visited Zab d and spent their time there prima-rily as teachers.43 It is interesting to note that, in addition to studying with al-Palimb�n , Waj h al-D n learned from such scholars as A�mad b.�asan al-Muqr al-Zab d , Amr All�h b. ‘Abd al-Kh�liq b. Mu�ammad al-B�q al-Mizj�j , Sulaym�n al-Kurd , ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n Mu1-af� al-’Aydarsand Murta7� al-Zab d .44 Thus, through Waj h al-D n al-Ahdal, al-Palimb�n was connected to a much wider networks of scholars.

��2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Because of his scholarly connections, al-Palimb�n �was, without doubt,the most prominent Malay-Indonesian scholar in the eighteenth centurynetworks. However, his importance in light of Islamic development in thearchipelago lies not only in his involvement in the scholarly networks butmore importantly in his writings, which were widely read in the Malay-Indonesian world, particularly in the ‘ ��$’ circles, in the #��,#��) and other Islamic educational institutions. In his worksal-Palimb�n disseminated the teachings of neo->?�8s, but he also appealedto his fellow Muslims to launch a =��$� against Europeans, particularly theDutch, who had intensified their attempts to subdue Muslim politicalentities in the archipelago.

�=�,�06�C�

With Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banj�r we now come to South Kalimantan(Borneo), a region where the development of Islam is still insufficientlystudied. As elsewhere in the archipelago, studies of Islam in South Kali-mantan have so far mainly concentrated on the questions of when, how andwhence Islam came to this region; there is almost no discussion of thegrowth of Islamic institutions and the tradition of learning among itsMuslim population. With regard to this, the importance of Mu�ammadArshad lies not simply in his involvement in the scholary networks but alsoin the fact that he was the first scholar to establish new Islamic institutionsas well as to introduce new religious ideas to South Kalimantan.

Islam came to South Kalimantan at a much later period than, for instance,North Sumatra or Aceh. It is assumed that there had been some Muslims inthe coastal region since the early sixteenth century, but Islam gainedmomentum only after the Demak Sultanate’s troops in Java came to Banjar-masin to assist Pangeran Samudra in his struggles with the court elite of theDaha Kingdom. On his victory, Pangeran Samudra converted to Islam around936/1526 and was installed as the first Sul-�n of the Banjar Sultanate. He wasgiven the name of Sul-�n Surian Sh�h or Surian All�h by an Arab teacher.45

With the establishment of the Sultanate of Banjar, Islam appears to havebeen officially regarded as the religion of the state, although Muslimsconstituted a minority of the population. Adherents to Islam, by and large,were confined to the Malay population; Islam only very slowly madeinroads among the tribal population, commonly called the Dayaks.46 Evenamong Malay Muslims, the adherence to Islam was evidently nominal anddid not go beyond the utterance of the confession of faith. Under succes-sive Sul-�ns down to the period of al-Banj�r , it is evident that there was nosubstantial attempt made by the rulers to advance Islamic life. However,they did adopt the Arabic script for the Sultanate’s correspondence withother Malay-Indonesian rulers, the Dutch and the British. There are alsoaccounts of attempts by wandering scholars to further Islamisation in theregion, but apparently they made little progress.47



A substantial drive for further Islamisation was launched byMu�ammad Arshad b. ‘Abd All�h al-Banj�r (1122–1227/1710–1812),one of the best-known scholars of Kalimantan. Born in Martapura, SouthKalimantan, Mu�ammad Arshad acquired a rudimentary religiouseducation in his own village, apparently from his father and localteachers, for there is no evidence that � �� or #�� existed duringthis period in the region. When he was seven years old he is reported tohave been able to read the Qur’�n perfectly. He became famous for this,which led Sul-�n Tahl l All�h (1112–58/1700–45) to take him and hisfamily to live in the court of the Sultanate. Later the Sul-�n married himto a woman, but almost immediately he sent Mu�ammad Arshad to the�aramayn in order to pursue further studies at the Sultanate’s expense.The Sul-�n seems to have financed him generously; Mu�ammad Arshadwas even able to buy a house in the Shamiyyah quarter of Mecca, whichis still maintained by the Banjar immigrants even today.48

As we noted earlier, Mu�ammad Arshad studied with al-Palimb�n andseveral other Malay-Indonesian students. However, while al-Palimb�n had a good number of teachers, Mu�ammad Arshad’s known teachersincluded only al-Samm�n , al-Damanhr , Sulaym�n al-Kurd and ‘A-�’All�h al-Ma1r . It is possible that he studied with other teachers, especiallywith Ibr�h m al-Ra’ s al-Zamzam , from whom Mu�ammad Arshad mostlikely studied ‘��@��) (astronomy), a field in which he was a leadingauthority among Malay-Indonesian scholars.

With regard to his works and activities after his return to the archipelago,one might assume that Mu�ammad Arshad was simply an expert in ��:� or��8’��, especially due to the fact that his best-known text, entitled ��8��@, ��8�, is a ��:� book. But this does not necessarily mean that he wasnot learned in Sufism; it is known that he also wrote a work entitled *��;��@,�’��, dealing with ��>�%% �. Thus Mu�ammad Arshad was wellversed in the exterior (��@K$��) and interior (��@�$9��) sciences or, as Steen-brink writes,49 he was an expert in ��:� as well as in ��>�%% �. Mu�ammadArshad received the Samm�niyyah 9��8:�� from al-Samm�n , and he isconsidered the scholar most responsible for the spread of the Samm�niyyah9��8:�� in Kalimantan.

Mu�ammad Arshad studied for about 30 years in Mecca and five yearsin Medina before returning to the archipelago. Several years before hisreturn it is said that he began to teach students in the �ar�m Mosque ofMecca.50 However, Mu�ammad Arshad felt that he did not yet have suffi-cient knowledge. Together with al-Palimb�n , ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w and ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis , he asked permission of their teacher, ‘A-�’All�h al-Ma1r , to advance their education in Cairo. While appreciatingtheir good intention, ‘A-�’ All�h suggested that it would be much better forthem to return to the the archipelago, as he believed they already possessedmore than sufficient knowledge to be effective as teachers in theirhomeland. They decided to travel to Cairo anyway, but simply for a visit,

�� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


not to study.51 It was probably a sign of their connection with ‘A-�’ All�hand their visit to Cairo that one of Mu�ammad Arshad’s friends, ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w , added the ��:�� (surname) of ‘al-Ma1r ’ to his name.

Like other Malay-Indonesian scholars, Mu�ammad Arshad maintainedconstant contact and communication with his homeland while he was in the�aramayn, so that he was well informed about the developments of Islamthere. In this connection he is reported to have asked the opinion of histeacher, Sulaym�n al-Kurd , about the religious policies of the Sul-�n ofBanjar. The Sul-�n, he had heard, imposed heavy fines on his Muslimsubjects for failing to perform the / �’�� (Friday) prayer. Mu�ammadArshad also asked Sulaym�n al-Kurd to explain the differences between;�)$� (obligatory ‘alms’) and tax, for the Banjar Sul-�n had required thepopulation to pay tax instead of ;�)$�.52 It is unfortunate that we have noinformation on Sulaym�n al-Kurd ’s responses to these questions, but thisaccount reflects the genuine concern on the part of Mu�ammad Arshadabout the correct application of the ��8’��.

Mu�ammad Arshad, together with ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w al-Ma1r and ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis , returned to the archipelago in 1186/1773.Before he proceeded to Banjarmasin, at the request of al-Bat�w , Mu�ammadArshad stayed in Batavia for two months. Although in Batavia for a relativelyshort time, he was able to launch an important reform for the BatavianMuslims. He corrected the :��(the direction Muslims face when perform-ing prayers towards the Ka’bah in Mecca) of several mosques in Batavia.According to his calculation, the :�� of mosques in Jembatan Lima andPekojan, Batavia, were not directed correctly at the Ka’bah, and therefore hadto be changed. This created controversy among Muslim leaders in Batavia,and as a result the Dutch Governor summoned Mu�ammad Arshad to explainthe matter. The Governor, impressed by Mu�ammad Arshad’s mathematicalcalculations, happily presented him with several gifts.53 Later, the correctionof the direction of the :�� was proposed by ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w inPalembang when he travelled there around 1800; this incited heated discus-sion as well.54

The reformist impulse in Mu�ammad Arshad’s personality to introducenew religious ideas and institutions is obvious after his return to Martapura,South Kalimantan. One of the first things he did after his arrival was to establish an Islamic educational institution, which was crucial to the educa-tion of Muslims in advancing their understanding of Islamic teachings andpractices. To that end Mu�ammad Arshad asked Sul-�n Ta�m d All�h II(r. 1187–1223/1773–1808) to grant him a large plot of wasteland outside thecapital of the Sultanate. He and ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis , who was nowmarried to Mu�ammad Arshad’s daughter, built a centre for Islamic educa-tion, which was similar in characteristics to the � �� in West Sumatra or#�� in Java. Like many � �� s and #��s, Mu�ammad Arshad’scentre of learning consisted of lecture halls, students’ hostels, teachers’



houses and libraries. This centre was economically self-sufficient, asMu�ammad Arshad together with other teachers and students transformednearby lands into productive rice fields and vegetable gardens. Before long,the centre had established itself as the most important locus for the trainingof students, who later became leading scholars in Kalimantan society.55

Mu�ammad Arshad took another important step in intensifying Islam-isation in his region by reforming the administration of justice in theSultanate of Banjar. In addition to making Islamic legal doctrines the mostimportant reference in criminal courts, Mu�ammad Arshad, with thesupport of the Sul-�n, established separate Islamic courts to deal with morepurely civil legal matters. He also initiated the establishment of the officeof , ��8, who was responsible for issuing ��%$s on religious and socialmatters.56 With these initiatives, Mu�ammad Arshad managed to putIslamic law into effect in the realm of the Sultanate of Banjar.

Another important Kalimantan scholar is Mu�ammad Naf s b. Idr s b. �usayn al-Banj�r . Although we do not have much information on hislife, there is no doubt that he was second only to Mu�ammad Arshad interms of the influence he exerted on the Kalimantan Muslims, especially inthe field of ��>�%% �. If Mu�ammad Arshad was known primarily as anexpert in ��8’��, Mu�ammad Naf s was famous as a >?�8 scholar by virtueof his well-known work, ��@A �� @��8�� 8� (��$�� .�7�� @��’$��@��$’ %��@L��$��%��@A�$��@��:�8�, which circulated widely in thearchipelago. This work was printed several times in Cairo by D�ral-@ab�’ah (as recently as 1347/1928) and by Mu1-af� al-�alab (1362/1943), in Mecca by Ma-ba’at al-Kar m al-Isl�miyyah (1323/1905), and invarious places in the archipelago.57

Mu�ammad Naf s was born in 1148/1735 in Martapura into the Banjarroyal family. Thus, he lived in the same period as Mu�ammad Arshad.There is no evidence of the date of his death, although it is known that hedied and was buried in Kelua, a village about 125 kilometres from Banjar-masin.58 His early education is not known, but he was most probably taughtthe basic principles of Islam in his own region. Later, we find him studyingin Mecca, as he writes in his introductory notes to his ��@A �� @��8�:‘ . . . he who writes this epistle . . . that is Mu�ammad Naf s b. Idr s b. al-�usayn, who was born in Banjar and lives in Mecca’.59 There is no hardevidence that he studied together with al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammad Arshad ortheir colleagues, but it is highly probable that his period of study in the�aramayn coincided with that of al-Palimb�n and others. I would suggestthat they studied together at one time or another, particularly if we considerthe following list of Mu�ammad Naf s’ teachers.

Abdullah mentions that Mu�ammad Naf s studied with a number ofscholars in the �aramayn, the most famous of whom were al-Samm�n ,Mu�ammad al-Jawhar , ‘Abd All�h b. �ij�z al-Sharq�w , Mu�ammad)idd q b. ‘Umar Kh�n and ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n b. ‘Abd al-Az z al-Maghrib .60

Mu�ammad )idd q b. ‘Umar Kh�n was a student of al-Samm�n and ‘Abd

�"! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY �"�

al-Az z al-Maghrib , and was apparently a close friend of al-Palimb�n . Thelatter even includes the titles of several works of Mu�ammad )idd q inthe list of works that he recommends to be read by aspirants of the >?�8 path.61

We have already mentioned both al-Samm�n and Mu�ammadal-Jawhar , who were among the teachers of al-Palimb�n and his fellows.The fact that �� Naf s studied with al-Samm�n , al-Jawhar andMu�ammad )idd q indicates that he was indeed a fellow student of al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammad Arshad and their other Malay-Indonesiancounterparts.

As for ‘Abd All�h b. �ij�z [b. Ibr�h m] al-Sharq�w al-Azhar (1150–1227/1737–1812), he was Shaykh al-Isl�m and Shaykh of the Azharfrom 1207/1794.62 Al-Sharq�w was two years younger than Mu�ammadNaf s. As al-Sharq�w mostly lived in Cairo, it is very likely thatMu�ammad Naf s studied with him during his frequent visits to the�aramayn.63 We are not so certain whether al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammadArshad, ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w and ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis alsostudied with al-Sharq�w . But, as we will see shortly, al-Sharq�w hadanother important Malay-Indonesian student, namely D�wd al-Fa-�n .

Al-Sharq�w , it is worth mentioning briefly, was himself a student ofimportant scholars in the networks, including A�mad al-Damanhr ,Ma�md al-Kurd and A�mad al-Jawhar . Ma�md al-Kurd appointed himas the khal fah of the Khalwatiyyah 9��8:�� in Cairo. Al-Sharq�w thenestablished himself among reformists of the order. He was well versed invarious branches of Islamic discipline, although he was mainly known as aleading expert in the ��8’�� and 7��8��. Like most scholars in thenetworks, he emphasised the importance of 7��8��, in terms of its positionnot only as the second source of Islamic legal doctrines but also as theindispensable source of proper moral conduct.64 Therefore, in addition tobeing a reformist, and a >?�8 with numerous khal fahs, al-Sharq�w wasamong the most respected ��$�s in the networks.65 It is important to notein passing that Mu�ammad Ma�f5 al-Tarmis (from Termas, East Java—1285–1338/1842–1920), an important Malay-Indonesian 7��8�� scholarwho lived and died in Mecca, traced his ��$�s to al-Sharq�w , amongothers.66 Having studied with al-Sharq�w as well as with al-Samm�n andMu�ammad al-Jawhar , Mu�ammad Naf s clearly had strong links with thenetworks in the period under discussion.

Mu�ammad Naf s al-Banj�r , like all Malay-Indonesian scholars,followed the Sh�fi’ school of law and Ash’ar theological doctrines. Hewas affiliated with several 9��8:��s: Q�diriyyah, Sha--�riyyah,Samm�niyyah, Naqshbandiyyah and Khalwatiyyah.67 Mu�ammad Naf swas an expert in )��$� and ��>�%% �. His A ��@��8�, while stressingthe absolute transcendence and Unity of God, refused the notion of theJabariyyah, who maintained fatalistic determinism as opposed to free will (Qadariyyah). In Mu�ammad Naf s’ opinion, Muslims must strive toachieve a better life by doing good deeds and avoiding evil.68 Thus,


Mu�ammad Naf s was clearly a proponent of activism, one of the basiccharacteristics of neo-Sufism discussed earlier. With its strong emphasis onMuslim activism, it is no surprise that his book was banned by the Dutch,who feared that it would incite people to launch a =��$�.69

There is no information on when Mu�ammad Naf s al-Banj�r returnedto the archipelago. It appears that he proceeded straight to South Kaliman-tan. Like Mu�ammad Arshad, who was the pioneer of the Islamiceducational institution, Mu�ammad Naf s devoted himself to the pioneeringwork of propagating Islam in the interior of the South Kalimantan region.He was indeed a typical wandering >?�8 teacher and played a crucial role inexpanding Islam in Kalimantan.70

�6"DE��,.�‘ABD �==6' AND THE RISE OF PATANI SCHOLARSHIP

To conclude this chapter, we will examine the Patani scholars who by theend of the eighteenth century increasingly came into the picture of Islamiclearning in the archipelago. With the rise of Patani scholars, we can observenot only the proliferation of the tradition of Islamic learning but also thefurther dissemination of renewal and reformism in the Malay-Indonesianworld.

The conversion of the Patani region in South Thailand to Islam tookplace from roughly the twelfth to the fifteenth century. The Patani Sultanatewas a populous and prosperous Muslim kingdom in the Malay Peninsulauntil it fell under Thai control in 1202/1786. Its harbour was also an impor-tant centre of trade for Asian and European traders.71

There have been numerous studies on Patani Muslim separatism afterWorld War II but little attention has been paid to the growth of Islamictradition and institutions among the Patani Muslims in the earlier period.72

Despite Patani’s political weakness as a border state, wandering teachers,mainly >?�8s, continually frequented the Patani region. The ��)��&��reports the coming of scholars such as Shaykh Gombak and his student‘Abd al-Mu’min from Minangkabau,73 and Shaykh Faq h )af al-D n fromPasai in the second half of the sixteenth century. They played a crucial rolein the religious life of the Sultanate. )af al-D n, for instance, urged theconstruction of a royal mosque and later became adviser to Sul-�n Mu5affarSh�h on religious matters.74 Again, in the middle of the seventeenth century,a number of scholars came to Patani: Sayyid ‘Abd All�h from Jerusalem viaTrengganu, ��ji ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n from Java, Faq h ‘Abd al-Man�n, aMinangkabau from Kedah, and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Q�dir from Pasai.75 Theyare reported to have carried out concerted efforts to spread the � ) ��(��8’��) into Patani.76

An important point conveyed by these accounts is that the PataniMuslims were not isolated among their fellow Muslims in the archipel-ago. With the coming of scholars to their region, Patani Muslims were

�"" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


made aware of developments in religious ideas and institutions in otherparts of the Malay-Indonesian world. It is highly plausible that it wassuch scholars who stimulated the establishment of the traditional Islamiceducational instititution known in Patani as #��).77 Furthermore, it issuggested that the #��) system, which also developed in other parts ofthe Malay Peninsula, originated from Patani.78 Al-Palimb�n , asmentioned earlier, is said to have had his early education in Patani,probably in the #��)s there, but little is known about them in the periodbefore the nineteenth century. Matheson and Hooker point out that the#��)s in Patani were very prestigious and that their more advancedstudents were welcomed as teachers elsewhere.79 I would argue, however,that this was true only in the nineteenth century, when native Patanischolars increasingly came onto the scene and contributed significantly tothe growth of the #��)s.

Shaghir Abdullah, a grandson of A�mad Zayn al-’6bid n al-Fat�n , aleading Patani scholar,80 lists Mu�ammad @�hir b. ‘Al al-Fa-�n (914–78/1508–78), the author of the famous ��)��$��@,�%E?’$�,81 as among theearliest and most famous scholars of Patani. This is incorrect, asMu�ammad @�hir also had a ��:�� (nickname) of al-Hind (from India), tobe exact, from Patan in the Gujarat region.82 If this claim were true,Mu�ammad @�hir al-Fa-�n would have been the earliest Malay scholarinvolved in the scholarly networks of the �aramayn; that is, a centuryahead of al-R�n r , al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r .

The best-known Patani scholar was D�wd b. ‘Abd All�h b. Idr s al-Fa-�n ; but he was neither the earliest nor the only scholar from this regioninvolved in the networks. At least from D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s silsilah of theSamm�niyyah 9��8:�� we know that he received the order not directly fromMu�ammad al-Samm�n but by way of two other Patani scholars, namely‘Al b. Is��q al-Fa-�n and Mu�ammad )�li� b. ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Fa-�n .83 They probably came to the �aramayn earlier than D�wdal-Fa-�n , but Abdullah suggests that the three were contemporaries, withD�wd al-Fa-�n the youngest among them.84

Thanks to research done by Abdullah, published in his ��)��A� �� @��, we know more about D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s life andcareer. According to Abdullah, records kept by families related to D�wdal-Fa-�n give the date of birth of this great scholar differently; that is,1724, 1153/1740 and 1183/1769. He died in @�’if, and one of the recordsgives his date of death as 1265/1847.85 There is no way we can be certainwhich of the dates is the correct one. But because of his studying with the teachers listed below, I think al-Fa-�n was most probably born in1153/1740; he is reported to have studied with al-Barr�w (d. 1182/1768),as will be seen shortly. Furthermore, his earliest dated work wascompleted in Mecca in 1224/1809, when he was 69 years old and hadestablished himself as a learned scholar. The date of his last work is1259/1843.86 This means that he lived a relatively long life. The height of

NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY �"<


his career was certainly in the early decades of the nineteenth century—beyond the period of our discussion. However, as he had directconnections with the eighteenth century scholarly networks, he must beincluded in this discussion.

According to Abdullah, D�wd al-Fa-�n was born in Kresik (alsospelled Gresik), an old harbour in Patani, where Mawl�n� Malik Ibr�h m,one of the famous Wali Sanga, reportedly preached Islam before heproceeded to East Java. There he built a centre of Islamic propagation alsonamed Gresik. It said that D�wd al-Fa-�n had ancestral relations withMalik Ibr�h m.87 Abdullah believes that D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s grandfather wasa certain Faq h ‘Al or Datuk Andi Maharajalela, a prince of the BoneSultanate, South Sulawesi, who came to Patani in 1047/1637 from the courtof Bone as a result of political unrest. Later he married a Patani woman androse to influence in the Patani Sultanate.88 Although it is difficult tosubstantiate these accounts, they at least indicate that, in addition to intel-lectual connections in the various Muslim ethnic groups in the archipelago,there existed some kind of blood relations among them.

D�wd al-Fa-�n acquired his early education in his own region, appar-ently from his father. But Abdullah suggests that D�wd al-Fa-�n alsostudied in the #��)s in Patani.89 He later travelled to Aceh, where hestudied for two years with Mu�ammad Zayn b. Faq h Jal�l al-D n al-Ash .90

Mu�ammad Zayn al-Ash , as Hasjmi tells us, was a leading scholar of theAcehnese Sultanate during the period of Sul-�n ‘Al�’ al-D n Ma�md Sh�h(r. 1174–95/l760–81). Al-Ash appears to have inherited his father’sexpertise in ��:�, for he wrote several works in this field. There is strongevidence that al-Ash also studied in the �aramayn. Two of al-Ash ’sknown works, the (��$��@��$�� and *��@*��$�, were preparedin Mecca in 1170/1757 and 1171/1758 respectively, and were apparentlycompleted in Aceh.91

In all probability, D�wd al-Fa-�n travelled from Aceh directly to the�aramayn, but we have no information on when he reached the Holy Land.In the �aramayn, he immediately joined the circle of /$%8 students alreadythere. Among them were Mu�ammad )�li� b. ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Fa-�n ,‘Al b. Is��q al-Fa-�n , al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammad Arshad, ‘Abd al-Wahh�bal-Bugis , ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w and Mu�ammad Naf s. Abdullahtells us that D�wd al-Fa-�n was the youngest of these scholars.92 All theolder students were also teachers of D�wd al-Fa-�n , or at least assistedhim in his studies with non-Malay teachers.

Abdullah argues that D�wd al-Fa-�n , like al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammadArshad, ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n al-Bat�w and ‘Abd al-Wahh�b al-Bugis , studieddirectly with al-Samm�n .93 He is also reported to have learned from ‘Is�b. A�mad al-Barr�w ,94 who died in 1182/1768, seven years earlier thanal-Samm�n (d. 1189/1775). In other words, when D�wd al-Fa-�n studiedwith al-Barr�w , presumably in the last years of his life, al-Samm�n was atthe height of his career. Because of his studying with al-Barr�w and

�"3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


al-Samm�n , D�wd al-Fa-�n must have reached the �aramayn in thesecond half of the 1760s, or when he was in his late 20s.

‘Is� b. A�mad [b. ‘Is� b. Mu�ammad al-Zubayr al-Sh�fi’ al-Q�hir al-Azhar ], better known as al-Barr�w , was a � 7�� and faq8h who hada special expertise in legal 7��8��s and in the comparative study of schoolsof Islamic law.95 He lived mainly in Cairo, where he died in 1182/1768. Hewas also a frequent visitor to the �aramayn, performing pilgrimage andinvolving himself in scholarly activities. He received 7��8�� through ��$�swhich included ‘Abd All�h al-Ba1r . Al-Barr�w was also a teacher ofMurta7� al-Zab d and Mu�ammad b. ‘Al al-Shanw�n .96 Al-Shanw�n , aswe will see shortly, was also a teacher of D�wd al-Fa-�n . Al-Fa-�n mostly studied >?�� @A8� (lit. ‘roots of religion’) with al-Barr�w . Hepossessed an ��$� in this science, which ran from al-Barr�w to includesuch major network scholars as ‘Abd All�h al-Ba1r , ‘Al�’ al-D n al-B�bil ,Shams al-D n al-Raml and Zakariyy� al-An1�r .97 Considering the fact thatal-Fa-�n wrote a number of works on ��:�, it is highly probable that he alsolearned this science mostly from al-Barr�w .

More than any other Malay scholar who preceded him, al-Fa-�n hadmany teachers either of Egyptian origin or with a strong Egyptian connec-tion. As there is no evidence that al-Fa-�n ever travelled to Cairo, he musthave studied with them during their visits to the �aramayn. In addition to studying with al-Barr�w , al-Fa-�n continued his studies with al-Sharq�w ,98 the Shaykh of Azhar and celebrated Khalwatiyyah reformistmentioned earlier as a teacher of Mu�ammad Naf s. As al-Sharq�w was anexpert in 7��8��, ��8’��, )��$� and ��>�%% �, it is probable that al-Fa-�n also learned these sciences from him.

The next teacher D�wd al-Fa-�n studied with was the successor of al-Sharq�w as the Shaykh of al-Azhar. He was Mu�ammad b. ‘Al Al-Shanw�n (d. 1233/1818), better known simply as Al-Shanw�n , whowas elected President of the Azhar University on al-Sharq�w ’s death.99

During his youth, Al-Shanw�n studied with most of the leading scholars ofEgypt, including A�mad al-Damanhr , al-Barr�w , al-Sharq�w andMurta7� al-Zab d . He was an outstanding scholar of 7��8��, ��:�, ��8� and)��$�. Although he taught mostly in Cairo, he had a number of students inMecca, who studied with him during his visits there.100 With Al-Shanw�n ,al-Fa-�n advanced his studies in ��:� and )��$�.

In addition to studying with the scholars mentioned above, al-Fa-�n learned from Mu�ammad As’ad, A�mad al-Marzq and Ibr�h m al-Ra’ sal-Zamzam al-Makk .101 The latter, as we have seen, was also a teacher ofal-Palimb�n . D�wd al-Fa-�n studied various branches of Islamic disci-pline with Ibr�h m al-Ra’ s as well as receiving the Sh�dhaliyyah 9��8:��from him. It is interesting that Ibr�h m al-Ra’ s in turn took this 9��8:�� from)�li� Al-Full�n , who got it from his teacher, Ibn Sinnah.102

‘Mu�ammad As’ad’ was most probably Mu�ammad As’ad al-�anaf al-Makk , a � 7�� who is said to have been very proud of having a

NETWORKS OF ‘ULAMF’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY �"5


�"2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

7��8�� $� that went back to ‘Abd All�h al-Ba1r .103 Interestinglyenough, al-Fa-�n did not take the ��$� but instead took the Sha--�riyyah9��8:�� from Mu�ammad As’ad al-Makk , who took it from Mu�ammadSa’ d b. @�hir, who took it from his father, Ab�@�hir, who in turn took itfrom his father, Ibr�h m al-Kr�n , who took it from A�mad al-Qush�sh ,who took it from A�mad al-Shinn�w , who took it from )ibghat All�h.104

This silsilah is different from that of al-Sinkil , who received the 9��8:��not from al-Kr�n but from al-Qush�sh .

We do not have much information on ‘A�mad al-Marzq ’, the last in the list of al-Fa-�n ’s teachers. This scholar very likely was A�mad al-Marzq [al-Makk al-M�lik ], a student of Al-Shanw�n . A�mad al-Marzq was known as a � 7�� who taught mostly in Mecca.105 BothMu�ammad As’ad al-�anaf and A�mad al-Marzq al-M�lik were al-Fa-�n ’s teachers of non-Sh�fi’ ��s. This indicates that thedifferences among scholars in their adherence to schools of Islamic law, asin the previous century, were not barriers in the networks of ‘ ��$’ in theeighteenth century.

Considering all the teachers he studied with and the sciences he got fromthem, it is clear that D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s education was complete andcomprehensive. He possessed more than sufficent knowledge to earn himfame as a major Malay-Indonesian scholar in the period of transitionbetween the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Al-Fa-�n seems never tohave returned to Patani or elsewhere in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.Instead he devoted himself to teaching and writing in the �aramayn untilhe died in Ta’if. His numerous Malay-Indonesian students came from allover the archipelago.106 He has been claimed as a pivotal figure in thehistory of Islam in Patani.107

There can be no question that al-Fa-�n was one of the most prolificamong Malay-Indonesian scholars. He wrote at least 57 works, dealingwith almost all branches of the Islamic disciplines.108 The works them-selves, however, some printed in various places in the Middle East and theMalay-Indonesian world, have not been sufficiently studied.

The careers of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century,from al-Palimb�n to al-Fa-�n , have shown us that the networks amongMiddle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian scholars continued to gainmomentum. More importantly, these indicate the incessant transmission ofreformism from the centres of learning in the Middle East to various partsof the archipelago. The wide circulation of the writings of these Malay-Indonesian scholars pushed Islamic reformism in this part of the Muslimworld even further.


7Renewal in the Network: The European Challenge

We have seen how ‘Abd al-)amad al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammad Arshadal-Banj�r , Mu�ammad Naf s al-Banj�r , D�wd al-Fa-�n and otherscholars in the eighteenth century had definite connections with a numberof important scholars in the centres of networks in the �aramayn and inCairo. Not only were they the crucial channels of transmission of Islamicreformism from the Middle East to the archipelago, they also served asconnections for later Malay-Indonesian scholars, who came in ever-increasing numbers to the �aramayn. Their links with /$%8 students in thenineteenth century, which involved a number of leading scholars in the�aramayn, created similarly complex webs of scholarly networks.1

The connections of al-Palimb�n and his group with earlier scholarswere more than simply student–teacher relations; throughout theirwritings they showed their intellectual lineage to earlier major scholars bygiving their works as major sources of their thought. It is no surprise tofind that they developed equally reformist teachings.

Al-Palimb�n and his fellow Malay-Indonesian scholars also played animportant role in preserving the morale of their fellow Muslims in facingthe continuing encroachment of European colonial powers. This periodmarked a painful transition in the history of Malay-Indonesian Muslims:one after another, the Malay Muslim kingdoms fell into the hands offoreign powers.

These encounters with European powers added a new dimension to the development of Islam in the archipelago. We should not, of course,overemphasise the European factor, but there is little doubt that itcontributed to the growing concern among our Malay-Indonesian scholarsabout the future of Islam in this region. This concern is, in turn, reflectedin their writings. We will first attempt to discuss their teachings, particu-larly in relation to the intellectual currents in the wider networks. Then wewill assess their impact on Islamic development in the archipelago. Lastly

�"1


we will examine their response to the intensification of the Europeanattempts to incorporate the Malay-Indonesian world ino their realm.

SHARJ’AH AND TALAWWUF: RECONCILING AL-GHAZ6LC WITHIBN ‘ARABC

In previous chapters we have examined the central theme of al-R�n r ,al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r , which was the harmony between the legal andmystical aspects of Islam. This harmony also became the central theme inthe writings of al-Palimb�n and his group. Throughout their writings, theywere eager to reconcile Ibn ‘Arab ’s philosophical mysticism andal-Ghaz�l ’s ��>�%% �. At the same time, the importance of the ��8’��was repeatedly emphasised.

This tendency in the development of Islamic thought is best seen inPalembang. As Drewes has shown,2 local religious literature in this regionat the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century did notinclude works of �amzah al-Fan1r or Shams al-D n al-Samatr�n , nor anywritings that had been considered ‘unorthodox’ or that even containedsome ‘heterodox’ teachings. On the other hand, works of al-R�n r andal-Sink l circulated widely. Prominent Palembang scholars such as Shih�bal-D n b. ‘Abd All�h Mu�ammad preached neo-Sufism as taught by al-Junayd, al-Qushayr and al-Ghaz�l . Shih�b al-D n even went so far as tocondemn the reading of works on the �� = � (seven grades ofbeing). He opposed this doctrine, it appears, simply because he feared thatit would lead his fellow Muslims astray. He assumed they would mis-understand it because of their lack of solid grounding in Islamicknowledge, particularly of the ��8’��.3 As we will see, most Malay-Indonesian scholars in the period, from al-Palimb�n to al-Fa-�n , in factadopted the very same concept of the seven grades of being.

Of all the Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century, it wasMu�ammad Arshad al-Banj�r and D�wd al-Fa-�n who fostered theentrenchment of the ��8’�� in the archipelago. We have seen howMu�ammad Arshad played a crucial role in the establishment in the BanjarSultanate of the administration of justice in accordance with Islamic law.His role in the spread of Islamic legal doctrines in the archipelago,however, was far greater through his works on ��:�, which were widelycirculated in the archipelago.4

Mu�ammad Arshad’s principal work was the ��8�� @, ��8� ��@��:: ��8��@A8�. Without doubt it is one of the major works on��:� in Malay after the completion of the L��$9��@, ��:8� of al-R�n r andthe ,��’$��@H ��$� of al-Sink l . As Mu�ammad Arshad states in his intro-ductory notes, he began to write the ��8��@, ��8� in 1193/1779 at therequest of Sul-�n Ta�m d All�h. It was completed in 1195/1781. The workis in two volumes, consisting of some 500 pages. It deals with detailed rules

�" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


of the ‘��$�� (ritual) aspect of ��:�. It is basically an elaboration, or tosome extent a revision, of al-R�n r ’s L��$9��@, ��:8�, which used manyAcehnese words hardly understood by Malay-Indonesians in other areas ofthe archipelago.5

The ��8��@, ��8�, printed several times in Mecca, Cairo, Istanbuland various places in the archipelago, was highly popular in the Malay-Indonesian world, and is still used in many parts of the region. Later,descendants of Mu�ammad Arshad composed a collection of his teachingson the fundamentals of belief (‘�:$’��) and ��:�, entitled &�� ) ��(��@(��=$�8 or &�� ) ��,�� . The work enjoyed similar success andwas subsequently translated into other languages of the archipelago, suchas Javanese and Sundanese.6 The popularity of Mu�ammad Arshad’swritings indicates that works explicating Islamic legal precepts wereneeded by Malay-Indonesian Muslims as practical guides in their daily life.It attests to the fact that Muslims in the archipelago also exhibited a deepinterest in the legal aspect of Islam. They were not solely interested inIslamic mysticism, as had been supposed by some scholars.7

The main sources of the ��8�� @, ��8� are Zakariyy� al-An1�r ’s��7� ,��$=� ��@H ��$�� Shams al-D n al-Raml ’s ��$�� @, 7�$=[��$� ��7� ��@,��$=� � ��@��%�%8], Ibn �ajar al-Haytam ’s � 7��[��@, 7�$=� �� 7� ��@,��$=], and Kha- b al-Sharbayn ’s , ��8��@, 7�$=.8 Both al-R�n r and al-Sink l also made extensive use of thesesources. Al-R�n r ’s L��$9��@, ��:8�, which was printed in the margin of��8��@, ��8�, was Mu�ammad Arshad’s starting point; he then madethe works of the scholars mentioned above his major references. Mu�ammadArshad thereby strengthened his intellectual connections with some impor-tant scholars in the networks. Because of its popularity, the ��8��@, ��8�played an important role in establishing the dominance of the above works asstandard references of the Sh�fi’ school of law in the archipelago.

A substantial contribution to the further spread of Islamic legal doctrineswas made by D�wd al-Fa-�n , the most prolific among the Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century. He is the best example of ascholar successful in his attempts to reconcile the legal and mystical aspectsof Islam. We discuss D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s main works on ��>�%% � later,focusing our attention now on those works dealing with various aspects ofthe ��8’�� or ��:�. The most important among them are the ( ��@H ��$�� , �8�� ,�’�� @�7)$�� @L�%$�, which discusses religious observances (��:�� @’��$��), and � �?’ ��@,��$’�� %�� ->?��@.��$’��, which deals with rules and guidelines in daily life. Smallerepistles then follow, such as the /��’ ��@��%$’��, on various obligations ofa Muslim towards his fellows and others; ��$�� @, ��’�� %�‘-�� @, ’��, on ��:� in generalU� , �� @, >��8, on prayer(>��$�); ��=��@+$��8��8��8��@, ��:8�, on commercial transactions;I�$��@��:�8�, on inheritance (��$’�E)� JE$7��@($��, �8��@��)$7

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �"4


��@L�%$�, on matters relating to marriage and divorce; and a number ofother shorter writings on particular sections of ��:�.9

Coming out of the same intellectual milieu, it is hardly surprising thatal-Fa-�n also derived most of his teachings from the important scholarsreferred to earlier. His major sources for ( �� @H ��$� are, amongothers, the ,��$=��@H$��8� of al-Nawaw , ��7��@.��$� of Zakariyy�al-An1�r , � 7�� @, 7�$= of Ibn �ajar al-Haytam , and ��$�� @, 7�$= of Shams al-D n al-Raml . Al-Fa-�n ’s ( ��@H ��$� consistsof two volumes of 244 and 236 pages, and was printed several times inMecca, Istanbul, Cairo and various places in the archipelago. Delineatingthe details of various Muslim religious obligations (‘��$��), this work hasbeen acclaimed as the most complete book on this particular aspect of ��:�.The ( �� @H ��$� was as popular as the ��8�� @, ��8� ofMu�ammad Arshad, and it is still used in many parts of the Malay-Indonesian world.10

The � �?’ ��@,��$’�� is another ample work on ��:�; a reprinted Meccanedition (1257/1841), based on an earlier edition published in Cairo (n.d.),consists of two volumes of 275 and 394 pages. The work is an adaptationof both Shams al-D n al-Raml ’s ��@��$%$�and �usayn b. Mu�ammad al-Ma�all ’s *��@G��$�, and was written in the form of questions andanswers. By adopting this style of writing, al-Fa-�n introduced a newmethod of delineating the intricacies of ��:� in what he considered anattractive and effective vehicle for teaching ��:� to his Malay-Indonesianaudience.

Al-Fa-�n , through his works listed above, played a major role in thehistory of ��:� in the archipelago. Although the works bore Arabic titles,they were in fact written in Malay. This reflects al-Fa-�n ’s concern that hisMalay-Indonesian co-religionists should be able to understand the preceptsof the ��8’��. He underlines the importance of the ��8’�� or ��:� forMuslims by citing a 7��8�� of the Prophet, which states that a good ��:8�can better defend himself against evils than a thousand Muslims whoperform religious obligations without sufficient knowledge of ��:�.11 Itmust be kept in mind, however, that al-Fa-�n was not simply a great ��:8�or an expert on the ��8’��; he was also a >?�8 #��V��, devoting anumber of writings to ��>�%% � and )��$�.

So far as the eighteenth century is concerned, al-Palimb�n was thescholar most responsible for the further spread of neo-Sufism in the archi-pelago. He was particularly an expert on the Ghaz�lian ��>�%% �. AsAl-Bay-�r informs us, al-Palimb�n was renowned among his fellowscholars in the �aramayn for his outstanding expertise on al-Ghaz�l ’s�7�$’ ‘-�?� ��@A8�. He not only taught his students the ��>�%% � ofal-Ghaz�l , appealing to them to study and practise it seriously, but he alsowrote several works about it, including the ��E$’��@�7�$’ ��@I��;$�8.12

It is known that al-R�n r , al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r referred to al-Ghaz�l

�<! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


in their works, but al-Palimb�n more than all of them made the �7�$’‘-�?��@A8� the basis for his works. Therefore, he can appropriately beconsidered the most prominent ‘translator’ of al-Ghaz�l among Malay-Indonesian scholars. The immense popularity of the Ghazalian ��>�%% � inthe archipelago can to a great extent be attributed to al-Palimb�n .

Al-Palimb�n ’s masterpieces, widely circulated in the archipelago, weretwo works that have been closely associated with al-Ghaz�l ’s writings, the��$�� @�$��)8�� 8� � �?)� ,��)� ��@, ��:8� and �� @�$��)8�� $‘��$��+��@’F��8�. Both works were written in Malay and were thusintended to be read by the wider Malay-Indonesian audience. The ��$��@�$��)8�, completed in Mecca in 1192/1778, was printed at various timesin Mecca (1287/1870 and 1303/1885), Bombay (1311/1895), Cairo(1341/1922), Surabaya (1352/1933) and Singapore (n.d.). The �� @�$��)8�� consisting of four parts, was written in Mecca and @�’if between1193/1780 and 1203/1788. Like the ��$��@�$��)8�, the ��@�$��)8�was printed in Mecca (1306/1888) and Cairo (1309/1893 and 1372/1953),and later also reprinted in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The ��$�� @�$��)8� deals mostly with rules of the ��8’�� inter-preted in a mystical way. As al-Palimb�n himself points out, it is atranslation of al-Ghaz�l ’s (��$�� @��$��. But this work can moreappropriately be termed an adaptation of the (��$�� @��$��, as,according to al-Palimb�n , ‘it renders several topics found in al-Ghaz�l ’s[(��$�� @��$��] into the /$%8 language, while at the same time itintroduces a number of appropriate additional [topics which] are notaddressed in it’.13

Al-Palimb�n , of course, depends heavily on the (��$��@��$��, butat the same time he takes material from other works of al-Ghaz�l , such asthe �7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8�, ,��$=��@’F��8� and ��@��’8��8�->?��@A8�.Of particular importance, he makes numerous references to works byseveral prominent scholars in the networks, such as the B�%$:8��@/�%$��of al-Sha’r�n ,14 ��@A ��@��8� of ‘Abd All�h al-’Aydars,15 ��@( ��$��@’F��8� of al-Qush�sh 16 and ��7��@��$��of al-Samm�n .17

In many respects al-Palimb�n ’s ��@�$��)8� is a further elaborationof the teachings contained in the ��$�� @�$��)8�. According toal-Palimb�n , the ��@�$��)8� is a rendering of the G �$��7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8�� an abridged version of the �7�$’ ‘-�?�� @A8�� written byal-Ghaz�l ’s brother, A�mad b. Mu�ammad.18 But the ��@�$��)8� is notjust a translation of the G �$�� 7�$’. As in the ��$�� @�$��)8�, al-Palimb�n in the ��@�$��)8� takes additional material from works ofsuch scholars as Ibn ‘Arab , al-J l , Ibn ‘A-�’ All�h, al-Sha’r�n ,al-Burh�npr , al-Shinn�w , al-Qush�sh , al-Kr�n , al-Nabuls , al-Bakr and al-Samm�n . Al-Palimb�n also makes references to works of hisMalay-Indonesian predecessors, such as al-Sink l and even Shams al-D nal-Samatr�n ,19 who had been considered by many an unorthodox scholar.

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �<�


All this again underlines the fact that al-Palimb�n possessed not onlyteacher–disciple connections but also intellectual links to many importantscholars in the networks.

We are not going to dwell on the detailed contents of the ��$��@�$��)8� and ��@�$��)8�. It suffices to say that both works elucidatethe principles of Islamic faith and religious duties to which every aspirantof the mystical way should commit himself. Like many scholars in thenetworks, al-Palimb�n believes that the grace of God can be attained onlythrough correct faith in the absolute Unity of God and total obedience to the��8’�� precepts. Although he accepts certain notions of Ibn ‘Arab or al-J l , particularly concerning the doctrine of the Universal Man,al-Palimb�n interprets them in light of al-Ghaz�l ’s teachings. He putsemphasis in his ��>�%% � more on purification of mind and moral conductthan on the exploration of speculative and philosophical mysticism.20

With such an emphasis, al-Palimb�n adopted the central teaching ofother scholars in the networks. He maintained that the fulfilment of thedoctrines of the ��8’�� concerning rituals and good deeds was the surestway to achieve spiritual progress. At a higher level, further progress wouldbe attained through the intensification of the ��)�. Al-Palimb�n outlinesseven kinds of ��)�, each of which is designed to uplift the �� (humansoul), which has seven corresponding stages.21 He then goes on to describein detail various requirements of the ��)� that will enable the person whoperforms it to achieve the intended aims.22

As far as his ��)� is concerned, although al-Palimb�n was mostlyknown as a Samm�niyyah shaykh, he followed the teachings of the Khal-watiyyah 9��8:��. This is not surprising, as he received this order fromal-Samm�n .23 In fact, al-Palimb�n ’s teaching of seven kinds of ��)� andseven stages of the soul was originally developed among the circle of the Khalwat s, and later incorporated by al-Samm�n in the body ofSamm�niyyah teachings.24

However, in contrast to the tendency among the Khalwatiyyah shaykhsto encourage a certain degree of individualism and freedom among theirdisciples, al-Palimb�n subscribes to the older teachings, which emphasisethe absolute position of masters vis-à-vis their disciples. Al-Palimb�n , in accord with al-Maqass�r , also a Khalwatiyyah shaykh, requires totalobedience of disciples to their master. In order for disciples to succeed, theymust pledge their allegiance (��’��) to their master and obey him totally,for he is an heir or representative of the Prophet.25 In the final analysis, thedisciples must submit themselves to the master like ‘a dead body in thehands of its washers’.26

From these teachings one may gain the impression that al-Palimb�n encourages some kind of passivity, at least in the realm of mysticism, but it would be unfair to view him only from those teachings. Al-Palimb�n , like al-Maqass�r , who was an exemplary activist against Dutch

�<" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


colonialism, encouraged activism among his fellow Muslims, such as the=��$� against the Dutch.27 It appears that it was al-Palimb�n ’s concern fordisciples who might be led astray if they embarked on the mystical path ontheir own that inspired him to adopt these teachings. Therefore, he insistedthat disciples be guided by trusted masters, who would shield them fromconfusion about the mystical doctrines.

Al-Palimb�n categorises the travellers on the mystical path into threegroups: the beginners (��@� ��8), the intermediates (��@� ��%��9), andthe advanced (��@� ��8). For each group, al-Palimb�n recommends anumber of readings. His list of readings is interesting indeed. For thebeginnners he lists no fewer than 56 works: among others, six works ofal-Ghaz�l , two works of al-An1�r , seven works of al-Sha’r�n , three worksof ‘Abd al-Q�dir al-’Aydars , one work each of al-Qush�sh , al-Kr�n ,T�j al-D n al-Hind � and al-Sink l , some 13 works of al-Bakr andal-Samm�n or their students concerning doctrines and practices of theKhalwatiyyah and al-Samm�niyyah orders, and several works by otherscholars.28 Most of these works were simple elucidations of the fulfilmentof the ��8’�� in connection with the aim of achieving spiritual progressin the mystical way. With his selection of such works by these scholars,al-Palimb�n clearly intends to show to every aspirant of the mystical waythat the ��8’�� constitutes the fundamental basis of Islamic mysticism.

At the intermediate level, al-Palimb�n brings the seekers after truth to adeeper exploration of Sufism. He lists no fewer than 26 works, most ofwhich are more philosophical and theological.29 He includes the C�)��of Ibn ‘A-�’ All�h, which must be read along with commentaries byMu�ammad b. Ibr�h m b. al-’Ib�d, al-Qush�sh and A�mad b. ‘Al�n. Hethen lists the C�)��of Rasl�n al-Dimashq . This work is most probably thesame work as the +�� 8� ��@��%78�, for al-Palimb�n mentions itscommentary entitled ��7��@+�7�$��by al-An1�r .30 Al-Palimb�n pointsout that he read the C�)��and the +��$��8��@��%78��together with thelatter’s commentaries by al-Nabuls and al-Samm�n . Al-Palimb�n alsoincludes theological works such as ��@B�%$:8��@/�%$��of al-Sha’r�n ,,��$7� ��@,�’�� 8� ��@H��8:�� @��:��of al-Nabuls , andseveral works of al-Bakr and al-Samm�n .31

At the advanced level, the travellers in God’s path are exposed to morecomplicated and, therefore, somewhat more controversial works.32 At thetop of the list are the works of Ibn ‘Arab , including the � >?>��@C�)��,� �?7$��@,�))�� and ,�%$:�’ ��@� =?�. Then follows the al-��$��@*$�� of al-J l , the �7�$’ ‘-�?�� @A8�� of al-Ghaz�l , the � 7��@, �� of al-Burh�npr together with its commentaries written by al-Kr�n and al-Nabuls , the G�%$:�� @��%$�� @D ��of al-Sha’r�n , the ,��’$�� C�:$’�:� of al-Shinn�w and the ,��)��@, )��$��of al-Kr�n . Finally he includes works by Malay-Indonesianscholars: the /�%$��@C�:$’�:�and ��8��@H ��$��8�,�’��@,��)��@.��$��of Shams al-D n al-Samatr�n ,33 the ��’�8��@(��$��C$��

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �<<


JE$7��@(��$��8��7:8:�,��$’��@�’�$��[sic] of al-Sink l ,34 and finally al-Palimb�n ’s own work, O$�� @, ��:8�� 8� ��%78�� +�� @’F��8�.35

Al-Palimb�n states that O$��@, ��:8� was written as an exposition of thedoctrine of %�7�� @% =?� as he received it from al-Samm�n and hisstudent )idd q b. ‘Umar al-Kh�n.36

Al-Palimb�n , undoubtedly, was fully aware of the possibility that suchworks might lead to intellectual and religious confusion. Therefore, theabove works were reserved for advanced disciples only. Those who did nottotally comprehend and practise the ��8’�� and its proper relations withthe 7�:8:�� might be led astray or even to heresy by such works.37

With regard to the works he recommends, al-Palimb�n again demon-strates his intellectual linkage to the tendencies in earlier networks.Following the lead of al-Sha’r�n , al-Qush�sh , al-Kr�n , al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r , who took great care not to sever their intellectual andspiritual links with the philosophical-mystical doctrines of Ibn ‘Arab , al-Palimb�n made his own attempts to reconcile Ibn ‘Arab ’s teachings withthose of al-Ghaz�l , emphasising the importance of the purification ofmind and of the fulfilment of religious obligations in the mystical way. Al-Palimb�n was opposed to the uncontrollable speculative notion ofmysticism; he denounced the doctrines of the so-called % =?�� 7��(lit. atheistic unity of being) as well as the practice of religious offerings tothe ancestors’ spirits.38 These religious beliefs and practices appear to havehad some followers in South Sumatra during the times of al-Palimb�n ,which inspired him to try to end them.

In the same way as al-R�n r , al-Palimb�n divides the doctrines of % =?�� into two kinds: the % =?�� 7�� (atheistic unity ofbeing), and the % =?�� %�77��(unitarianism of unity of being). Al-Palimb�n points out that according to the followers of the doctrine of% =?�� 7��, the first article of belief—that is, �$� ��$�� $� ��$�(there is no god but God)—means that ‘there is no such thing as our being,but only God’s Being, that is, we are God’s Being’.39 Al-Palimb�n moreover explains:

They further said ��$��@7�:�� 7$�� %��’$�$��%=?��$��8E��% =?��@)$’��$��[sic], that is, the Reality of God does not exist but in thebeings of all created things. Thus they insist that the Unity of God exists onlyin the beings of creation. They, in addition, say that ‘we are of the similarnature (��) and similar being (��% = �) with God and that the Essenceof God is knowable, for He exists in the external world ()�$��=) in time andplace’. Such a belief is infidelity () ��).40

Al-Palimb�n apparently did not cite al-R�n r for his denunciation of thefollowers of % =?�� 7��. But both scholars share the same teaching.Al-R�n r , for instance, states that:

�<3 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Now I would like to explicate and make you all aware of the falsity of thebelief of % =?�� 7�� and ;��8:. They maintain that our beings and thatof the universe are God’s Being, and [conversely] God’s Being is the being ofus and the universe. Let it be known if such a belief of % =?�� [� �7��] iscorrect, then every thing is God. And if we kill a man and cut him into pieces,then what [we] kill and cut is God.41

Again reminding us of al-R�n r , al-Palimb�n includes the followers of% =?�� 7�� among the group of people whom he calls pseudo->?�8s()� �� @� ��). Another group of pseudo->?�8s, accord-ing to al-Palimb�n , were the followers of 7 �?��(the doctrine of God’sincarnation). He maintains that their error was their belief that God incar-nates Himself into the beings of man and other creations.42

Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banj�r is known to have written only one workon Sufism. But because he studied together with al-Palimb�n in the samesocial and intellectual milieu, there is little doubt that he shared al-Palimb�n ’s views on the subject. Mu�ammad Arshad opposed the doctrineof % =?�� 7��. According to local tradition, several years after hisreturn a scholar named ��j ‘Abd al-�am d Abulung came to South Kali-mantan. Despite the obscurity surrounding his life, what is clear is that heintroduced to the local Muslims the kind of teachings that have been cate-gorised by both al-Palimb�n and al-R�n r as % =?�� 7��. ‘Abdal-�am d reportedly taught people that ‘there is no being but God. There isno ‘Abd al-�am d but God; He is I and I am Him’.43

As a result, religious confusion spread among the population and ‘Abdal-�am d was summoned to the royal court. But he fiercely held fast to hisbelief. This led Mu�ammad Arshad to issue a ��%$ declaring ‘Abd al-�am d’s teachings heretical and led Sul-�n Ta�m d All�h to order hisexecution.44 This is reminiscent of the heresy hunting and killing ofWujdiyyah followers in Aceh during the time of al-R�n r .

In al-Palimb�n ’s opinion, the true >?�8s were followers of the doctrine of% =?�� %�77��. These >?�8s affirmed the absolute Unity of God inHimself. They were called the % =?�� because ‘their belief and intel-lectual disposition centre on the absolute Unity of God’.45 Al-Palimb�n does not elaborate his teachings about true >?�8s. However, it is clear fromal-Palimb�n ’s short statement that true >?�8s put more stress on the tran-scendence of God than on His immanence. Although they accept the notionthat God is immanent in creation, it is anathema for them to hear any state-ment saying that God is identical with creation.

Al-Palimb�n shares the view of many scholars in the networks that Godand the universe are two different entities: each possesses distinct realities.At this stage, al-Palimb�n and many scholars in the networks accept theview of Ibn ‘Arab that the universe is the exterior expression (��@�’�$��@)�$��=��) of God. As such, the exterior expression of God is not GodHimself; it is simply a shadow of God’s Being.

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �<5


In such a view, the doctrine of % =?�� %�77�� is basically similarto that of %�7��@% =?� of Ibn ‘Arab , according to which all createdbeings come into existence only when God reveals Himself. Men and othercreatures, in essence, are separate from the Self of God, and it is onlythrough revelation, as a way opened up by God Himself, that they are ableto reunite with God. This reunion requires purification and total conform-ity to the Divine norm on the part of men. All this finally leads to a stagewhere men fully realize the Unity of Being. This stage of %�7��@% =?�is also called by al-Palimb�n the stage of ��%78��@L��8:8�—that is, thestage of the ��%78� of the truthful whose spiritual progress makes themoccupied solely with God; they come to realise that there is no other beingbut God. As al-Palimb�n points out:

At the fourth stage of ��%78�, he [who seeks after truth] sees nothing in theexistence of the universe but A�$� (Essence) of the One Supreme God, who isthe Necessary Being (��@%$=��@% =?�) this is the vision of those L��8:8�(who fully believe), those ‘$��8��(who are adept); the >?�8 master calls thempeople who experience ��$’ (perish) in the ��%78��they then will not realizethemselves, for their spirit is occupied with the �� ?� (vision) of God, theReal Being.46

At this point al-Palimb�n apparently succeeds in his attempt to reconcilethe tradition of Ibn ‘Arab with that of al-Ghaz�l . The concept of the fourthstage of ��%78� of the )idd q n, taken from al-Ghaz�l ,47 is equated by al-Palimb�n with Ibn ‘Arab ’s %�7��@% =?�. But this does not mean theyare identical.

To explicate the revelation of God in accordance with the concept of%�7�� @% =?� or to achieve ��$’ in the fourth stage of ��%78�,al-Palimb�n adopts the doctrine of the seven stages of revelation or sevengrades of being (�� = �). This doctrine was originally developedby Ibn ‘Arab but was later reinterpreted in a more orthodox sense byal-Burh�npr . According to al-Burh�npr , God reveals (��’�� or��=��8) Himself through seven stages of being. The creation of man is thelast stage of God’s revelation.48 While al-Burh�npr believes that nobodywill be able to grasp the essence of the Real Being,49 al-Palimb�n main-tains that it can be known through ��’�� (gnostic knowledge), centred inthe :�� (lit. heart = intuition).50 Emphasising the teachings of al-Ghaz�l ,al-Palimb�n considers that ��’�� can be attained through spiritualpurification and concentration, all of which will result in, as al-Ghaz�l putsit, ‘the vision of the Essence of God’.51

An attempt to reconcile the tradition of al-Ghaz�l ’s ��8’��-oriented��>�%% � with that of Ibn ‘Arab ’s philosophical Sufism was also made byMu�ammad Naf s in his A ��@��8�. This work, completed in Meccain 1200/1785, apparently enjoyed wide circulation. Printed several times invarious places in the Middle East and the archipelago, it is still used in many

�<2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


places in the Malay-Indonesian world. The A ��@��8��was written in the‘/$%8 language, so that it can be read by those who do not read Arabic.’ 52

A glance at the A ��@��8��attests to the fact that Mu�ammad Naf smade a conscious attempt to reconcile the tradition of al-Ghaz�l and thatof Ibn ‘Arab . In preparing this work, aside from using the oral teachings ofhis masters in the �aramayn he makes extensive use of the � �?7$��@,�))��and � >?>��@C�)��of Ibn ‘Arab , the C�)�� of Ibn ‘A-�’All�h, the ��@��$��@*$��of al-J l , the �7�$’ ‘-�?��@A8��and ,��$=��@’F��8��of al-Ghaz�l , the +��$��@D ��of al-Qushayr , the/�%$��%��@A ��of al-Sha’r�n , the , )��>��@� 7��@, ��of ‘Abd All�h b. Ibr�h m al-Mirgh�n and the ,��7��@, 7��of al-Samm�n .53

According to Mu�ammad Naf s, the Unity of God (��%78�) falls into fourstages: the ��%78�� @��’$�� (Unity of the Acts of God), ��%78�� @L��$�(Unity of God’s Attributes), ��%78��@��$’ (Unity of God’s Names), and��%78��@A�$� (Unity of God’s Essence). At the highest stage, the ��%78��@A�$�, seekers after truth will experience ��$’, during which they will beable to have a vision (� ��$��) of God. Like al-Palimb�n , Mu�ammadNaf s believes that the Essence of God cannot be known through the fivesenses and reason: only with )�� (direct intuition) will one be able tograsp the Essence of God.54

Mu�ammad Naf s stresses the importance of the fulfilment of the��8’�� both outwardly and inwardly in order to attain the stage of )��.It is impossible for anybody to reach that stage without intensifying hisspiritual power through performing the religious rituals and obligations laiddown by the ��8’��.

A comprehensive study of D�wd al-Fa-�n ’s mystical teachings is notyet available, but it is clear that he was a great proponent of al-Ghaz�l ’s��>�%% � as well as a prominent defender among Malay-Indonesianscholars of Ibn ‘Arab ’s tradition. Al-Fa-�n is known to have writtenseveral works along the same lines as the doctrines of al-Ghaz�l , bearingsuch titles as the ��=��(��$��@��$��and ,��$=��@’F��8�655

For al-Fa-�n , al-Ghaz�l was the greatest >?�8. As he puts it: ‘Im�mal-Ghaz�l is like a very deep sea, containing precious pearls which cannotbe found in other seas’.56

In al-Fa-�n ’s view, the greatest >?�8 next to al-Ghaz�l was al-Sha’r�n .He points out in the introductory notes to his Malay translation ofal-Sha’r�n ’s *�� @I� �� that al-Sha’r�n was his ‘#�� ’(master), who guided him in the path of God.57 It is no surprise, therefore,that al-Fa-�n , like al-Sha’r�n , staunchly defends the doctrine of Ibn‘Arab ’s %�7��@% =?� and the seven grades of being in a little-knownbut important work entitled ,��@L$�8��8�(��$��O ��@L?�8.58

Al-Fa-�n was very critical of people who styled themselves as >?�8swhile in fact being simply pseudo->?�8s (��)��#�� ) and ignorant



of the true teachings of Sufism. According to al-Fa-�n , among the groupsof pseudo->?�8s were people who claimed to have complete union (��7$�)with God. He bitterly denounces them:

The people of ��7$� believe that their essence (��$�) becomes the Essence ofGod. This is a gross infidelity () ��). Those who worship idols are much betterthan they are, they think that they gain the true vision, [in contrast] they havecome to the presence of ��8� (devil).59

In connection with this view, al-Fa-�n conceives the ,��@L$�8 asan answer and explanation of various concepts and terms in ��>�%% �. Inaddition to discussing such concepts as %�7��@% =?�, �� = �and other mystico-theological matters, al-Fa-�n complements the workwith a list of some key terms in >?�8 vocabularies and their meanings. In theintroductory notes to the ,��@L$�8, the author again criticises pseudo->?�8s who misunderstood the concept of, for instance, %�7�� @% =?�because they simply embraced its literal meaning. For that reason, hereminds the Muslims that books dealing with such topics should be readonly by experts or by those who have solid grounding in the ‘9��8:��Mu�ammadiyyah’.60

The fact that the Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth centurycontinued to cling to the central doctrine of Ibn ‘Arab is hardly surpris-ing. Despite criticism of the concept of %�7��@% =?�, it is in fact thefundamental and central doctrine of all kinds of Sufism. Criticism of thisdoctrine by such scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Subk (d. 745/1344) and Ibn Khaldn (d. 780/1378) is essentially based on the fact that it canbe easily misunderstood. It may lead to the belief that there is a continu-ity, or a total unity, between the creation and God. In other words, it couldbring one to a pantheistic belief, which is anathema to legal scholars (��@��’8).

It is important to note that the doctrine of %�7��@% =?�, quite surpris-ingly, was defended by several eminent legal and 7��8�� scholars, includingMu�y al-D n al-Nawaw (d. 676/1278), Jal�l al-D n al-Suy- andZakariyy� al-An1�r . We have shown how al-An1�r , for example,possessed 7��8�� isn�d which can be traced to Ibn ‘Arab . The staunchestdefender of Ibn ‘Arab among neo->?�8s was, of course, al-Sha’r�n , towhom many scholars in the networks traced their mystical teachings.61

It is of particular importance to keep in mind that many scholars in thenetworks, from al-Qush�sh , al-Kr�n , ‘Uthm�n b. Fd , al-Sink l ,al-Maqass�r , al-Palimb�n and Mu�ammad Naf s to al-Fa-�n , respondedin a similar fashion to controversy surrounding Ibn ‘Arab ’s doctrines.Much like al-Sha’r�n , they insisted that Ibn ‘Arab ’s doctrines should notbe taken at face value: they must be understood in connection with othermystical concepts.

In order to avoid misinterpretation of Ibn ‘Arab ’s doctrines, these

�< THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


scholars unanimously urged disciples in the mystical path to read Ibn‘Arab ’s books only after they had achieved the degree of the ‘)�$>>’(elite). Disciples must have firm grounding in all aspects of mystico-philosophical doctrines and understand fully their relations with the legalteachings of Islam before they can understand the teachings of Ibn ‘Arab in their proper contexts. It is equally important to note that these scholarstook great care not to associate themselves entirely with Ibn ‘Arab ; theycited other authorities, unanimously known as ‘orthodox’ scholars, such asal-Ghaz�l , as their central sources.

JIHFD AND THE RADICAL COURSE OF REFORMISM

Sufism, particularly among modernist Muslims, has been regarded as oneof the main causes of regression of the Muslim world. Religiously it hasbeen accused of being the source of ��’�� (unwarranted innovation) and��)�� (delusion) or )� �$��(superstitions). Socially, Sufism has beenblamed for pulling the Muslim masses into ‘passivity’ and withdrawal(‘ ;��) from worldly affairs. It allegedly promoted escapism from thesocioeconomic and political ills of their societies. As a result, so the accu-sation goes, Muslim societies failed to cope with the advanced but hostileWestern world, which from the early seventeenth century increasinglypenetrated the A$��@��$�.62

Most of the accusations are ill-founded. There is no need to repeat thearguments and evidence presented throughout this book: that the centralteaching of the reformed Sufism or neo-Sufism was puritanical in itsnature. It called for the total obedience, both outwardly and inwardly, ofMuslims to orthodoxy, or more precisely to the shar ’ah. The scholars in thenetworks agreed that it was simply impossible for the >?�8s to achieve theirspiritual goal without committing themselves fully to the orthodox doctrineof Islam. There were, of course, deviant manifestations of Sufism, particu-larly at the level of the masses, but these were generated mostly by a lackof understanding of the correct teachings of Sufism. Therefore, Sufism assuch could not be held responsible for all ��’��s and )� �$��s found inMuslim societies.

Similarly, the modernists’ accusation that Sufism encouraged passivityand withdrawal from worldly affairs was based mostly on ignorance ormisunderstanding of the whole teachings of Sufism. We have shownthroughout this discussion that none of the scholars in the networks taughtpassivity and withdrawal. On the contrary, they appealed to Muslimactivism; for them, the fulfilment of Muslims’ worldly duties was an integralpart of their spiritual progress in the mystical journey.

In the case of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the seventeenth century, wehave seen that al-Sink l and al-Maqass�r presented themselves as exem-plary >?�8s, who were absorbed not only with their own spiritual journeys



but also with worldly affairs, holding the office of , ��8�in their respectiveSultanates. Al-Maqass�r went so far as to become one of the most impor-tant leaders and heroes of the Bantenese war against the Dutch.

This was also true of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenthcentury. We have already mentioned Mu�ammad Arshad’s reformism andactivism; he was the pioneer of the establishment of the office of , ��8 andof Islamic educational institutions in the Sultanate of Banjar. Even thoughthe Sultanate was, from 1021/1612 onwards, continually harassed by theDutch before they finally subdued it in 1237/1860, it is surprising to findhow little Mu�ammad Arshad had to say about the struggle against theDutch; neither his own works nor other sources indicate that he everpreached the doctrine of =��$� (holy war) against the Dutch.63

Appeals for =��$�, strangely enough, came from al-Palimb�n andal-Fa-�n , who spent most of their lives and died in the �aramayn. This isstrong evidence of their very close attachment to and concern for Islam intheir homelands. It indicates that they were not the >?�8s pictured bymodernist Muslims merely occupied with their spiritual journeys andalienated from their societies. This also suggests that contacts and commu-nications between the Malay-Indonesian world and the �aramayn werewell maintained, so that the /$%8 scholars were well informed about thedevelopment of Islam in the archipelago, particularly in connection withthe continued encroachment by unbelievers.

On more than one occasion al-Palimb�n urged his Malay-Indonesianfellows to wage =��$� against European colonialists. Voorhoeve andDrewes64 even argue that =��$� was one of al-Palimb�n ’s specialties. Thisseems to be an exaggeration, which has led to a misunderstanding anddistortion of al-Palimb�n ’s teachings as a whole.

The major work of al-Palimb�n on =��$� is ��>87�� @, ��8�� %��)8��@, ’��8�� 8��E$’��@/��$�� 8��8��$��%��*��$��@, =$��8��8��8��$�.65 The work is unquestionably the first of this typeknown widely in the archipelago. However, the ��E$’�� @/��$�� wasapparently intended to be read not only by a Malay-Indonesian audience,but by a much wider one, for it was written in Arabic. He appears to havedeliberately not written it in Malay, so that, he might have assumed, theDutch would not understand it. The work, consisting of seven chaptersdelineating the virtues of the holy war according to the Qur’�n and the7��8��, was a concise but substantial writing on the subject. After explain-ing that it was obligatory for Muslims to wage holy war against hostileunbelievers, al-Palimb�n concludes the ��E$’�� @/��$�� with a shortsupplication (� ’$’), which would make the � =$��8� (those who carry out=��$�) invulnerable.

Snouck Hurgronje has maintained that al-Palimb�n ’s ��E$’��@/��$�was the main source of various works on =��$� in the long Acehnese warsagainst the Dutch. It became the model of the Acehnese version of admon-

�3! THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


ition to Muslims to fight the unbelievers.66 Known collectively as the��)�� &�� , such works played an important role in sustaining the fighting spirit of the Acehnese throughout the protracted wars foughtbetween 1873 and the early twentieth century. Roff67 rightly points out thatthe Acehnese resistance to Dutch aggression from the early stages assumedthe character of =��$� led by the independent ‘ ��$’ who were best fittedto organise and prosecute a holy war.

Al-Palimb�n ’s appeal to Malay-Indonesian Muslims for =��$� was notconfined to writing the ��E$’��@/��$�. He is said to have written letters,three of which were intercepted by the Dutch. They contained exhortationsto Javanese rulers and princes to wage holy wars against the infidels. Theletters were written in Arabic and later translated into Javanese and theninto Dutch. The writer of the letter called himself Mu�ammad, but in thetext of the Javanese translation he is referred to as ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n, aPalembang scholar in Mecca. Drewes68 has established that the writer was‘Abd al-)amad al-Palimb�n ; according to Arabic sources, al-Palimb�n was also called Ibn ‘Abd al-Ra�m�n.

The first letter, translated into Dutch in Semarang, Central Java, on22 May 1772, was addressed to the Sul-�n of Mataram, Hamangkubuwana I,previously known as Pangeran Mangkubumi. After a quite lengthy doxologyin praise of God, al-Palimb�n writes:

A sample of God’s goodness is that He has moved the heart of the writer[al-Palimb�n ] to despatch a letter from Mecca, the Lord has assured that thoseSul-�ns shall enter it [paradise] whose magnanimity, virtue and prowessagainst enemies of other religion [sic] are without equal. Among these is theking of Java, who maintains the religion of Islam and is triumphant over allpotentates, and furthermore excels in good works in the war against those ofother religion [sic]. The Lord reassures those who act in this way by saying‘Do not think that those who fell in the holy war are dead; certainly not, theyare still alive’ [Qur’�n 2:154, 3:169]. The Prophet Muhammad says: ‘I wasordered to kill anyone but those who know God and me, His Prophet’ [sic].Those who are killed in the holy war are in odour of sanctity beyond praise; so this is a warning to all followers of Muhammad.69

The conclusion of the letter then follows, which recommends two 7$==�sfor religious positions in the Mataram and mentions that the writer has sentwith them a small quantity of Zemzem (Zamzam) water (from Mecca) forthe Sul-�n.

While the contents and addressee of the second letter were almost iden-tical to the first letter, the third one was sent to Pangeran (Prince) PakuNagara, or Mangkunagara, together with a banner reading ��@+�7�$��@+�78�, , 7��+��?��$��‘Abd ��$�, meaning ‘the Merciful andCompassionate [God], His apostle and servant Muhammad’. After praisingGod and the Prophet in the opening, the letter runs as follows:

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �3�


God will forgive the sins of the most pious people like PangeranMangkunagara, whom He has created to win such repute in the world, and alsobecause Your Highness is a scion of the House of Mataram, upon whom Godhas bestowed Abundant mercy beside Muhammad the Prophet, consideringthat Your Highness’ justice is a matter of common knowledge. Furthermore,Your Highness should bear in mind the words of the Qur’�n, to the effect thata small host is capable of gaining the victory over a mighty force.

Will it please Your Highness to also keep in mind that it says in the Qur’�n:‘Do not say that those who fell in the holy war are dead’ [Qur’�n 2:154,3:169]. God has said that the soul of such a one enters into a big pigeon andascends straight up to the heaven. This is a thing all devout people surelyknow in their hearts, and more particularly this will be the case with YourHighness, who is comparable to a flower which gives forth its fragrance fromsunrise to sunset, nay all Mecca and Medina and the Malay countries arewondering at this fragrance, and pray to God that Your Highness may triumphover all his enemies. Please think of the word of Muhammad, who has said:‘Kill those who are not of the Islamic faith, one and all, unless they go over toyour religion’.

Be confident of permanent good fortune and exert yourself in the fear of theLord; do not fear misfortune and eschew all evil. One doing so will see the skywithout cloud and the earth without squalor. Derive comfort from thefollowing words of the Qur’�n: ‘Those who have believed and worked theworks of righteousness, shall obtain the grace of the Lord [in the paradise]’,[Qur’�n 2:25] for the Prophet Muhammad has said: ‘If a man can live foreverin this world, he will also live forever and enjoy eternal bliss in the hereafter’.

This is to notify Your Highness that I am directed, to deliver to YourHighness the accompanying =�� [amulet, in the form of banner], the potencyof which is such that when it is used by Your Highness, when campaigningagainst your enemies, [with God’s blessing Your Highness] will always bevictorious, which will lead to the protection of the Muslim faith and theextermination of all its malevolent adversaries.

The reason why this banner has been sent to you is that we in Mecca haveheard that Your Highness, being a truly princely leader, is much feared inbattle. Value it and make use of it, please God, in exterminating your enemiesand all unbelievers. Good wishes and greetings are conveyed to Your Highnesson behalf of the old Godfearing people of Mecca and Medina: Ibr�h m, ImamSh�fi’ , Im�m �anaf , Im�m M�lik and Im�m �anbal , and furthermore onbehalf of all the other people here, whose unanimous wish is that the blessingsof the Prophet and his four great companions Ab Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthm�n and‘Al�, may abide with Your Highness’person.70

Ricklefs71 concludes that these letters were a significant historicallandmark in the history of the struggles of Malay-Indonesian Muslimsagainst the Dutch. In his opinion, they are the first evidence to come to lightof an attempt from the world of international Islam to foment holy war inJava in the second half of the eighteenth century. On the other hand,Drewes72 argues that the letters had only modest purposes: recommendingtwo scholars for religious posts in the Mataram Sultanate, and sending a

�3" THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


banner to a Javanese prince. Even though Drewes recognises that =��$� wasone of al-Palimb�n ’s concerns, he suspects that the letters were simply adisplay of the writer’s learning in religious matters, particularly in the holywar, not really exhortations to wage the =��$�.

Even though I do not subscribe to Ricklefs’ view that the letterscontained the spirit of pan-Islamism, I accept the notion that the mainpurpose of the letters was indeed to encourage the adressees to lead the=��$�. Al-Palimb�n evidently devoted the larger part of the letters to thevirtues of =��$� against the unbelievers to incite the Javanese rulers to takethe lead in holy wars. The letters, as Ricklefs believes, reinforced potentialindigenous antagonism towards the Dutch.73

It is worth noting that al-Palimb�n did not criticise the Javanese rulinghouse for division and quarrels among themselves, nor did he question theirattachment to Islam. For that reason, it is clear that he did not wish to exac-erbate their conflicts by criticising any one among them. Instead, herecalled the greatness of the Mataram Sultanate and, therefore, appealed toits rulers to once again revive it by way of =��$�. Although al-Palimb�n made no explicit mention of the Dutch in the letters, what he calls unbe-lievers or infidels were undoubtedly the Dutch, who had intensified theirattempts to subdue the Mataram Sultanate: it is the Dutch who were to bethe target of the =��$�.

Al-Palimb�n failed in his attempts to instigate Javanese rulers to wagethe =��$�, for the Dutch intercepted the letters before they reached theirdestination. The original letters were subsequently destroyed by order ofthe Dutch authorities in Batavia. But it is not impossible that the centralmessage of the letters was conveyed orally to the addressees by scholarsrecommended by al-Palimb�n . If so, as Ricklefs argues, the oral commu-nication of the contents of the letters did not immediately affect the courseof events in Java. The 1770s marked the beginning of major steps towardspolitical stability on the part of the Javanese monarchs. The incendiarymessage from al-Palimb�n in Mecca did not impede this progress.74

Another leading proponent of the =��$� among Malay-Indonesianscholars in the eighteenth century was Shaykh D�(d ibn ‘Abd All�hal-Fa-�n . In his case, his period saw the increasing attempts of the Thais totighten their grip over the Muslim region of Patani. It is hardly surprising,therefore, that this sorry political situation in his homeland also became amain concern for al-Fa-�n .75 Abdullah76 even asserts that al-Fa-�n returnedhome to lead =��$� himself against the Thais before he finally returned andsettled permanently in the �aramayn. We cannot support this assertion, asthere is no evidence to corroborate it. Al-Fa-�n never returned to Patanifrom the time he left it in search of knowledge: he spent the rest of his lifeteaching and writing in the �aramayn.

Al-Fa-�n appeals to Muslims, especially those in Patani, through hiswritings. However, he did not write a special work on the =��$�, nor did he

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �3<


send letters to the Muslim rulers of Patani. He delineated his ideas on the=��$� in his various works. It is known, for example, that his work on prayer(>��$�), entitled , �� @, >��8� in Malay, completed in Mecca in1242/1827, has some political overtones. Matheson and Hooker77 suggestthat the work was written particularly for the Muslims in Patani in order tosupport them in their struggles against the Thais.

Al-Fa-�n ’s teachings on =��$� appear to bear some relation to his idea ofthe Islamic state. In his opinion, an Islamic state (�$��@��$�) should bebased on the Qur’�n and the 7��8��; otherwise it would be called a state ofunbelievers (�$��@) ��).78 We have no details on his notion of the Islamicstate, particularly with regard to its system and administration. However, anIslamic state must function to protect Islam and the Muslims. Therefore,apostasy (� ��) from Islam is not allowed, and those who so deviateshould be killed.79

In connection with the protection of Islam and the Muslims, accordingto al-Fa-�n , it is an essential obligation (��E��@’��) for every Muslim towage =��$� against hostile unbelievers ()$�8��@7��). If an Islamic state isattacked and annexed by unbelievers, the Muslims are obliged to fight themuntil they regain their freedom. As for the =��$� to expand the realm ofIslam, which involves the subduing of the unbelievers, it is only a ��E��@)��$��, an obligation which is acquitted in the name of all as long as itis performed by some. In both cases of the obligation of =��$�, al-Fa-�n stresses the need for Muslims to have fighting strategies; they must notwage =��$� if they are ill-prepared militarily.80

Having seen such teachings of Malay-Indonesian scholars, known as >?�8scholars, it is no surprise that the Dutch in particular considered these teach-ings and 9��8:�� highly dangerous to their rule. Snouck Hurgronje, the mostprominent adviser on Islamic affairs to the Dutch authorities, points out that>?�8 shaykhs were the most dangerous enemies of Dutch rule in the archi-pelago. He claims that the menace of Malay-Indonesian >?�8 scholars to theDutch was no less than that of the Sansiyyah to the French in Algeria.81 Forthe Dutch, >?�8 scholars, whom they also called ‘independent teachers’, werevery difficult to control. It is thus not hard to understand why the Dutch didwhatever they possibly could to contain their influence, including thebanning of their books and interception of their letters.

One of the best-known examples of Islamic renewal and reformismoriginating among >?�8 and 9��8:�� circles, which resulted in long warsbetween the Dutch and the native population, was the Padri Movement inMinangkabau or West Sumatra. We have discussed in chapter 4 howal-Sink l ’s renewalist teachings and 9��8:��, mainly by way of his studentBurh�n al-D n, spread to this region. Burh�n al-D n in turn, through hisfamous surau of Ulakan, established himself as the most importantMinangkabau scholar towards the end of the seventeenth century, withwhom most of the next generation of Minangkabau scholars studied. Afterhis death, the tomb of Burh�n al-D n became a centre of religious visitation,

�33 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


where pilgrims performed what Hamka82 calls some strange religious prac-tices but which were in fact the rituals of the 9��8:�� people, such as ��)�followed by dancing or singing.

Despite such practices, Sha--�riyyah writings, such as those of al-Sink l and the teachings of Burh�n al-D n himself, again and again emphasisedthe need for the ��>�%% � followers to commit themselves totally to theprecepts of the ��8’��.83 It appears that 9��8:�� practices in Ulakan,particularly at the popular level, had become uncontrolled and tended to beexcessive and extravagant; this in turn invited criticism among ex-studentsof the Ulakan surau. From this it is evident that the embers of reformismdid not die out.

In the late years of the eighteenth century, clearer signs of religiousreform came to the forefront in Minangkabau society. For instance, amongthe Sha--�riyyah suraus, mainly located in the Minangkabau inner highland(��)), there were conscious attempts to revive al-Sink l ’s teachings,particularly on the importance of the ��8’�� in the practice of ��>�%% �.84

Furthermore, as Jal�l al-D n, a contemporary Minangkabau who also tookpart in this new wave of renewal and reform, tells us, there were constantarrivals in Minangkabau of scholars from Mecca, Medina and Aceh, whocontributed to reformism. Jal�l al-D n makes no mention of their names,but he does state that scholars from the �aramayn were experts in ��9�:(logic) and ��’$�8� (ideal realities), both sciences being crucial to under-standing ��8’�� as well as ��>�%% �. Meanwhile, an Acehnese scholarcame to teach such sciences as 7��8��, ��8� and ��$’�E (inheritance).85

The leading scholar in Minangkabau in this period was Tuanku Nan Tuo,the principal teacher of Jal�l al-D n. The latter tells us that Tuanku NanTuo (1136–1246/1723–1830) of Ampat Angkat was a student of TuankuMansiangan Nan Tuo, who was in turn a student of Burh�n al-D n.86

Tuanku Nan Tuo was also reported to have studied in the Ulakan surauwith other students of Burh�n al-D n. Later he established his own surau inCangking, Ampat Angkat, and gained fame as a scholar of both ��8’��and ��>�%% �.87 For his expertise in these two aspects of Islam, TuankuNan Tuo earned the title of ‘Sul-�n ‘6lim Awliy�’ All�h’, who was the‘leader of all Minangkabau ‘ ��$’ of the ��@� ��%��@/��$’��’(‘people of the approved way and community’).88

The surau of Tuanku Nan Tuo accordingly became the best-knowncentre for the study of ��:� and ��>�%% � in Minangkabau.89 Similarly,the students of Tuanku Nan Tuo, when they later returned to their ownvillages and devoted themselves to teaching in the suraus or in society ingeneral, stressed the importance of the ��8’��. Jal�l al-D n, theforemost disciple of Tuanku Nan Tuo, for instance, established his surauin Kota Lawas, which was already the home of another, older,Sha--�riyyah surau. The aim of Jal�l al-D n in establishing his surau wasto create a genuine Muslim community in Minangkabau by way of totalcommitment to the implementation of the Islamic way of life as

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �35


�32 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

prescribed by the ��8’��. For that purpose, Jal�l al-D n taught hisstudents the various aspects of Islamic law.90

Tuanku Nan Tuo committed himself to the cause of the reform ofMinangkabau society. He made clear to the people the differences betweengood and evil, as well as between the conduct of Muslims and k�firs. Heimpressed on his students the need for the Minangkabaus to follow the pathof the ��@� ��%��@/��$’��, who based their lives on the Qur’�nand the 7��8��. At the same time, he warned them that failure to do sowould only lead to social insecurity and disruption.91

Tuanku Nan Tuo was not content with simply lecturing his students inhis surau on the importance of the ��8’��; he himself, together with hisstudents, led the way to the field where un-Islamic practices such asrobbery, arrack drinking and slavery held sway.92 According to Jal�l al-D n, Tuanku Nan Tuo visited places where robbery occurred and peoplewere held captive to be sold as slaves, or where the precepts of the ��8’��were violated. He appealed to those who were involved in such things to ridthemselves of those wrongdoings; otherwise they would be attacked andpunished. As a result, peace returned to the region and trade once againrevived in the region; Tuanku Nan Tuo, himself a well-to-do merchant, wasrenowned as a ‘��#��#�� ’ (protector) of the traders.93

The Sha--�riyyah 9��8:�� was not the only >?�8 order in Minangkabau. Itis known that the Naqshbandiyyah 9��8:�� was introduced to the region inthe first half of the seventeenth century by Jam�l al-D n, a Minangkabauwho initially studied in Pasai before he proceeded to Bayt al-%�� , Aden,the �aramayn, Egypt and India. On his way home he stopped in Aceh beforefinally reaching his homeland in West Sumatra, where he was active inteaching and preaching the Naqshbandiyyah 9��8:��. Jam�l al-D n’s travelsremind us of al-Sink l ’s earlier. Even though Jam�l al-D n provides livelyaccounts of his travels to these places, unlike al-Sink l , he makes nomention of his teachers, so we are not able to trace his scholarly connections.Both Van Ronkel and Johns94 have suggested that Jam�l al-D n was theauthor of a Naqshband ��:� text entitled G �$�� @��$��, which wasbased on the teachings of A�mad Ibn ‘Al�n al-)idd q al-Naqshband . Bythe late eighteenth century, the Naqshbandiyyah and the Q�diriyyah9��8:��s had made substantial inroads on Minangkabau. Both 9��8:��s, likethe Sha--�riyyah, contributed significantly to Islamic renewal in the period.95

The renewalism of the Sha--�riyyah, Naqshbandiyyah and Q�diriyyah,best represented by Tuanku Nan Tuo and Jal�l al-D n, met strong opposi-tion from the #�� s (��, custom chiefs) as well as from thefollowers of the extravagant type of Sufism. More importantly, some disci-ples of Tuanku Nan Tuo himself considered his reform simply a piecemealone. The most prominent among such students was Tuanku Nan Renceh,who envisaged a more thorough and radical reform.

Having failed to persuade Tuanku Nan Tuo to change his evolutionaryand peaceful approach to Islamic renewal, Tuanku Nan Renceh found


strong supporters in the famous three 7$==�s who returned from Mecca in1218/1803: Haji Miskin, Haji Sumanik, and Haji Piobang. Their pilgrim-age coincided with the capture of Mecca by the Wahh�� s. Therefore, theyare considered to have been influenced by the Wahh�� teachings, such asopposition to ��’��s, the use of tobacco and silk clothing, which theyattempted to spread by force in the Minangkabau region.

Tuanku Nan Renceh, together with the three 7$==�s, now known as thePadris, declared =��$� against those Muslims who declined to follow theirteachings. As a result, civil war erupted among the Minangkabau; thesuraus, considered the bastion of ��’��s, were attacked and burned tothe ground, including those of Tuanku Nan Tuo and Jal�l al-D n. The royalfamily and the #�� s, who also became a major target, soon asked thehelp of the Dutch. With the intervention of the Dutch, the Minangkabaustruggles for reform led to the famous Padri wars, which ended at the closeof the 1830s.96

It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the teachings of the Padrisand the course of events surrounding the Padri wars. Important for ourpurpose here is that Islamic renewal and reform in the Minangkabau region,whether initiated by Tuanku Nan Tuo and the 9��8:�� cirles or launched byTuanku Nan Renceh and the Padris, found their origins in the scholarlynetworks. The differences in their approach to renewal and reform,peaceful or evolutionary on the one hand and radical on the other, revealthat the course of reform was not a simple one.

Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahh�b (1115–1201/1703–87), the pioneer ofthe radical wahh�bi movement, despite his connection with the networks,was also influenced by other factors that substantially determined hisapproach to renewal and reform. Similarly, although most of the leadingproponents of the Padris in Minangkabau derived their inspiration forrenewal and reform from the 9��8:�� circles, at a later stage they were influ-enced by a string of other factors, such as the ‘success’ of the Wahh�b s inArabia and the local conditions in Minangkabau that led them to adopt radi-calism.

Despite its excesses, the Padri Movement was a major landmark in thehistory of Islamic renewal and reform in the archipelago. Its impact on thedevelopment of Malay-Indonesian Islam was tremendous. The PadriMovement, in restrospect, not only questioned the degree of renewalismamong the 9��8:�� circles but more importantly challenged the establishedformulation of relations between the ‘great tradition’ of Islam in the centresand an Islamic ‘little tradition’ that mixed with the �� (customs) at thelocal level. The transmission of reformist ideas and teachings through allMalay-Indonesian scholars, as we have shown throughout our discussion,constituted a conscious attempt to bring the great tradition of Islam tosupremacy in the archipelago. This also becomes one of the most distinc-tive features of Islamic development in the Malay-Indonesian world in later periods.

RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK �31


Epilogue

THE LEGACY OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTHCENTURY NETWORKS; THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ANDBEYOND

This book has been concerned with the transmission of the reformist tra-dition from the seventeenth and eighteenth century �aramayn toSoutheast Asia. The nature and form of transmission is fundamental to ourunderstanding of tradition—the latter defined broadly as a body of knowl-edge. The data, the traditions in this book, are the Arab biographicaldictionaries (tar�jim) of the period. The primary research on which thisbook is based was completed a decade ago, and during that time knowl-edge about many of the outstanding Muslim scholars of the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries has grown considerably. It has not been possibleto include references to all the new contributions to the fields since thetime I prepared my dissertation. However, in this Epilogue I draw on thatresearch to offer some preliminary notes on the persistence of thereformist tradition into the nineteenth century and beyond to the forma-tion of new traditions originating from the reform movements at the endof the nineteenth century.

Some preliminary comment on transmission is, however, apposite at thisstage. ‘Transmission’ means to hand on through time, and we thus needsome basic understanding of time in Islam and in Indonesian Islam.

TIME: THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

From the linear view, time gives us a past, a present and a future; for Islamthe Torah was revealed, as was the Injil, and Islam has completed revelation.Similarly, the networks of transmission are completed transmissions, datablein historical time. This last phrase is clearly referring to linear time, but italso creates two difficulties.

148

Islamic Reform - TEXT -2nd half.qxd 14/01/04 10:15 Page 148

First, from the internal point of view, the Arab biographies are in thepresent. By this I mean they are a continuing and present authority inthe �� (traditional Muslim boarding schools) and circles of Muslimscholarship in the fifteenth/twenty-first century in Indonesia. They existnow and have meaning and authority now because they are how we knoworiginal Islam. Their time is present. This can be seen for instance in thecase of Shaykh M�� (originally from Padang, WestSumatra, died in Mecca in 1990), who had a number of students that arenow ��s of the ��s and ‘� ��’ at the same time. His studentsproudly maintain the chain of authority (��) from � ��, who wasregarded as one of the most important authorities of the �� in thecontemporary times. � �� himself produced a manuscript entitled��‘� ��’ � ��, in which he gave an account of the �� he andhis students possessed.

Second, the truths of Islam, which is transmitted, are timeless. This is notto propose that they are ahistorical, alhough this was the view of muchnineteenth century European historiography. Such a view is to comprehen-sively misunderstand revelation. Unfortunately, remnants of this positionpersist in occasional social science accounts of Indonesian Islam, which failto realise that time is historical but that networks are both in the historicalpast and in the present.

Transmission through time is achieved by �� and � � �� (chains oftransmission). Indeed, Islam may be described (up to a point) as a religionand law formulated by chains of transmission. Accuracy of linkage is thusfundamental. Here time must be historically demonstrable. However,linkages are not solely linear, as the Arab biographies show; historical linksare equally important. They indicate sometimes a variability in the materialbeing transmitted. There are many examples of these, not only in the ��‘ �� (chain of transmission of Islamic learning) but also in the �� (chain of transmission of esoteric sciences of �� ). Amongthe ��s—both ��‘ �� and ��—there exist what arecalled as the ��‘� � (supreme ��s), which indicate that the sources ofauthority occupied a higher or even highest position, but also that thesciences they had transmitted were of the highest values. This can clearly beseen in some of the ��s of � �� (seventeenth century), � �� (eighteenth century), �� (nineteenth century)and �� (twentieth century).1

NEW TIMES, NEW AUTHORITIES: THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES

By 1800, the Malay-Indonesian world or, more correctly, the various parts ofwhat later became Indonesia and Malaysia, no longer drew authority, sover-eignty or legitimacy primarily from Islam. While it is true that some areas,such as Aceh, maintained an ethic of Muslim authority (and still do, though

EPILOGUE ��


in a different form) until the end of the nineteenth century, Islam itself beganto be redefined in European (Dutch and English) terms. The colonial periodsaw the introduction of a new sort of authority, which essentially reducedIslam to a private and personal religion and justified itself in secular terms(treaties, the colonial state). This was the context for nineteenth and twen-tieth century Islam. That was a real context, as it remains today, but thisdoes not mean that seventeenth and eighteenth century ��s and � � ��sbecame irrelevant; of course they did not, and they persist. What it doesmean is that we have to recognise two streams of authority: the traditional�� and � � ��, and the new ‘reform’ �� and � � �� of the nineteenthand twentieth centuries.

THE TRADITIONAL ISN!D AND SILSILAH

The time is the nineteenth century and the material is the Malay2 scholar-ship of this period. That scholarship is extensive, and there is space hereonly for some illustrative examples, all from the northeast Malayan Penin-sula (Kelantan-Patani), a somewhat neglected area.

There are 15 or so major authors, plus a number of others in the mid tolate nineteenth century. In terms of time, the context is important. Thesescholars were writing in the timelessness of revealed Islam, but the contextwas the time of European triumphalism. The lines of transmission could nolonger be taken for granted. The "�� Islam, while timeless and true, wasalso in European "��, which imposed its own time. Intellectual Sufismwas not self-contained, as in the past: it had to cope with a new and appar-ently superior way of thinking—the so-called scientific rationalism, whichis even more apparent in the Islamic modernism that began to take roots.This challenge comes through in the writing of the period. The ‘� ��’ hadto look over one shoulder at the past and, at the same time, to a new futurein a new world.

The Patani ‘� ��’ were no exception. By the early to mid-nineteenthcentury, the scholarship coming from this area was overwhelminglyconcerned with �� and ��# �� ; �� is poorly represented in thesurviving material. In part, this may be explained as a consequence of whatwas happening in Mecca where, as Snouck describes,3 the chief branches oflearning had been reduced to these two. However, there is also the localfactor to take into account. Patani in the nineteenth century was a mere pawnin the power struggle between Britain and France for political control inSoutheast Asia. Siam itself was desperately trying to retain its status as anindependent state, and part of its success lay in convincing European powers(in this case Britain) of its actual exercise of sovereignty over its southern,and Malay-populated, possessions. The ‘� ��’ were well aware of this, andtheir priority became the protection of Malay Muslim identity. In this effort,�� had little obvious practicality to offer. This is not to say that it wasneglected—it was not—but that the prior emphasis was elsewhere.

�$% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


An excellent example is Shaykh �� ibn ‘Abd � �� discussed above. But we can also give an illustration in the life and workof Shaykh �� Zain (1856–1906), one of the greatestPatani ‘� ��’ in post-��‘�� period. His grandfather, twoof his three uncles and two cousins were all well-known scholars.4 InMecca, Shaykh �� studied medicine and later became supervisor ofthe Malay (��) printing press, which published many of Shaykh ��’works. He was also a noted teacher and his students went on to fill highpositions in politics, as &�� in various parts of Malaya, Kalimantan andCambodia and as teachers and founders of �'��'. His influence hasextended into the twentieth century. One of the most prominent of hisstudents was Che �� , better known as Tok Kenali(1868–1933), who established the Majlis Ugama Islam in Kelantan and wasa leading commentator and teacher of religion in the Malay world. Shaykh��’ own writing is distinguished, in particular his � �(�� (��. This is a complex collection of �� and may be comparedwith those of Ahmad Hassan in the Persis collections one generation laterin Indonesia. The pressures of time were clearly beginning to transform�� and � � �� from those delivered in person to include also those trans-mitted from a distance through new print media.

However, this transformation has never been linear, as can be shown inthe works of �� (1813–97). Born in Tanara,Banten, West Java, � �� settled in Mecca permanently in 1855,where he became one of the most important �� ‘� ��’ in the �� !�.Prior to his becoming an ‘� �, he had studied with a number of prominent‘� ��’ in the �� !�, among whom were Shaykh A�� ,Shaykh Sayyid �� !��, Shaykh Sayyid �� Dahlan, andShaykh ��"�� #�� . Many Malay-Indonesian flocked tohim, and many of them later became ��s of many ��s in Java.They carried with them the ��s and � � ��s of religious learning andtradition in the time of translation from Islamic traditionalism tomodernism. Among � ��’ prominent students were Kiyai Haji (KH)Hasyim �!’� � (founder of Tebu Ireng �� and the Nahdlatul Ulamaorganisation); KH Khalil of Bangkalan, Madura; and KH Asnawi ofCaringin, West Java. He produced 26 works, some of which are still usedin many ��s in Indonesia. His most important work is the �� )#��&��*�+�, which, according to Riddell,5 represents an exegeticalapproach in harmony with the new reformist spirit of the time.

THE NEW ISN!D AND SILSILAH

The new �� and � � �� could just as well be named the ‘reform’ ��and � � ��, and we conventionally date them from about 1900, with theworks of Egyptian reformers (Mu�ammad ‘Abduh and $��$�%) plus

EPILOGUE �$�


the explosion of journals such as � �,�� and � �&��. Internally withinthe Muslim reform groups (-��&��, .��,� ��and others), therebegan the long debate on how to renew Islam in the face of modern chal-lenges, chief among which was the successful Western imperialism and,even more fundamentally, secularism. In addition, from within Muslimthought arose views that were critical of �#�� scholars such as � ��and his fellow in Mecca, Shaykh ��"�� &��, whichwere widely disseminated in the later nineteenth century. These ‘� ��’ onthe surface would seem staunchly anti-Sufism; but careful examination oftheir works reveals that what they opposed was the excessive and escapistSufism as practised by certain ��s. On the other hand they accepted amore puritan Sufism, which was strongly oriented to the socio-moralreconstruction of Muslim society.

The twentieth century was a time of great intellectual turmoil, and this is represented in a number of authors. Hamka (1908–81) is a goodexample.6 He grew up in a religious household and was educated in reli-gious schools. By his mid-20s he had published widely on both religiousand secular subjects as well as working as a journalist, including as aneditor. He was also a novelist, often using religious themes, and a teacherin religious institutions. His own personal �� and � � ��, therefore,were formed from a number of different sources which, in typical nine-teenth and twentieth century fashion, included new media forms, neweducational methods and new intellectual derivations. Taken together,these are perhaps a definition of modernism. His /� ��01��,� ��(1984) and ��&'�� (1987) are good examples, because in themhe attempted to show that orthodox �#�� belief and practice were consonantwith modernity, provided that the individual’s response to the latter did notlead to syncretism, especially with reference to local customs. He washimself well aware of the dangers of mixing elements of different philo-sophical traditions.

The same is true of Harun Nasution7 (1919–98), although the contradic-tions in his �� and � � �� are much more marked. He was educated inboth Western and Islamic traditions and is now remembered primarily forhis reforms of the IAIN curricula in the 1960s–70s. His contribution toIslamic education was notable. But this is not the whole sum of his achieve-ment. Nasution was a bold and constructive thinker on the place ofrevelation in the contemporary state, Indonesia, which was avowedlysecular but populated by Muslims whose intellectual �� and � � ��went back many centuries. While he did not dismiss that heritage, he wasconcerned to contextualise it in the new circumstances of the time. Thistook several forms.

First, he held very strongly to the view that no one of the revealed reli-gions can be held to be prior to any other; time, as such, is not a determinantbecause any completion of how one knows and experiences God is impos-sible. All that is possible is the individual effort, the will to approach God,

�$2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


EPILOGUE �$3

and each of the three monotheisms accepts this premise as fundamental.The logical consequence therefore, for Indonesia, is not an ‘Islamic state’.To hold otherwise is to deny that the revealed message is outside time: thatis, social, cultural, language and geographic circumstances are the deter-mining factors in how one ‘knows’.

Second, and following from this, it is true that these factors cannot eitherbe ignored or diminished at any stage of history. Indonesia is not the ArabicMiddle East, though it shares the Prophethood of Muhammad. Thetemporal factors, therefore, are ‘natural’ and this itself is God-willed. Thisallows different temporal expressions of truth but it is the same truth. Toinsist on a common or general form for truth is (a) not necessary and(b), given the diversity of Muslim cultures and societies, actually quiteperverse. Harun is presenting here a form of ��’��'� � argument, whichallows even for ascetism. In his view there is no necessity to force opposi-tions between reason, revelation and/or Sufism. Reason, for Nasution, is aGod-given capacity, but the ways in which it is exercised are various.However, variety is always limited by revelation, which imposes its ownintellectual and spiritual constraints. The laws of science are an example:there is no value-free science, although science does tell us about the‘nature of things’. Scientific truths certainly do describe possible behaviourand do not deny choice.

This rationalist trend also makes the values of Islam relatively compat-ible with political ideologies, and Nasution himself was not unsympatheticto the ideology of Pancasila. He read it as a possible intellectual justifi-cation for modernisation and development, which also allowed space forreligion. But to hold this position is to come close to a ‘rational’ Islam, andthe danger here is that revelation itself can be made into an ideology or,worse, reduced to one ideology among others. Pancasila, in fact, becomesa manifestation of Islam for the nation-state.

There is a serious implication here: are the new �� and � � �� intime, are they conditioned in the modern world by the state and by science?The discussion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was conductedfrom within Islam. This is not now a possibility, because with the best willin the world it is now hard to avoid the objectification of religion. The new�� and � � �� are responsive to secularism to the extent that they maynow even be conditioned by it. Time, and hence transmission through time,is now linear, so that timeless truths in Islam are now debatable in a placeand in the circumstances of that place at a given time. This is the real chal-lenge for Islam in contemporary Indonesia. The lessons of the historicalseventeenth and eighteenth century transmissions are thus still with us.


Notes

INTRODUCTION

1 See, for instance, ‘Abd � �$�� , La transmission de la philosophie gresque au monde Arabe, Paris: J. Vrins, 1964;F. Gabrieli, ‘The Transmission of Learning and Literary Influences toWestern Europe’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History ofIslam, Cambridge: University Press, 1970, II, 851–89. For trans-mission of learning among Muslims, there are several studies, such asJonathan Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo:A Social History of Islamic Education, Princeton: Princeton Univer-sity Press, 1992; G. Vajda, La transmission du savoir en Islam(VIIe–XVIIIe siecles), N. Cottart (ed.), London: Variorum Reprints,1983; Ivor Wilks, ‘The Transmission of Islamic Learning in theWestern Sudan’, in J. Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. A recent work is PeterRiddell, Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission andResponses, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books, 2001.

2 See, for instance, M.M. Azami, 4�� .5��5��’�� 4�1�� '�� &��5�, New York & Riyad: John Wiley & King SaudUniversity, 1985; .�� 6�� &��'�' '1�� *��,Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1977; G.H.A. Juynboll,&�� '�7�.�� 8��'�' '1�9�/�':��5�9��0��'��'��;�� 6��, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983;J. Schacht, �� 4�1�� '�� &�� 5�, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1979.

3 See, J.O. Voll, ,� ��: 8'��8��1�� &'��<'� �,Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982, esp. 82; N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds),‘Introduction’, in ;1��8��=�� =��'��,� ��,Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 3–20.

�$�


NOTES—CHAPTER 1 �$$

4 See, for instance, C. Geertz, ��=� 1'�� '�� :�, New York: FreePress, 1960.

5 J.O. Voll, ‘�� !!� � �� and �� ‘�� (��: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in the EighteenthCentury Madina’, >.40., 38 (1975); ‘�� Scholars and )� �*��:An ‘+ ��’ Group in the Eighteenth Century �aramayn and TheirImpact in the Islamic World’, �00., 15, 3–4 (1980).

6 See, A.H. Johns, ‘Friends in Grace: ,� �� "� �� and ‘Abd � �$�’�� al-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), .��5��7� ;�� /�� '.�� 0 ��+�� '��6�� .�:�� >��, Jakarta: DianRakyat, 1978; ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Direc-tions’, ,��'��, 19 (1975).

7 See bibliography for the complete titles.8 See, for instance, ‘Umar ‘Abd � �-�� , .�� +�’?

‘� �� =�+’ ‘0��, Jeddah: Tihama, 1403/1982;@��#��&�� ’ ��A��+�� &�� A��, Cairo:n.p., 1959. For further discussion on Malay-Indonesian ‘� ��’ afterthe eighteenth century, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘Ulama Indonesia diHaramayn: Pasang dan Surutnya sebuah Wacana Intelektual’, � �� B��’��, III, 3 (1992).

1 NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM!’ IN THE SEVENTEENTHCENTURY �ARAMAYN

1 � ��, .��’ � �C�� +� 0�+�� >� �� A��, 2 vols,Makkahi Maktabat al-Nahd .at al-�adithah, 1965, I, 329.

2 See � �� , -��+�� ,’ ��, in Wustenfeld (ed.), @��8��'��.��&��, Brockhaus, 1857, III, 353–4.

3 � ��, � �’,�� >� �� 0��, 8 vols, Cairo,Mat.ba’at al-sunnat al-Muhammadiyyah, n.d., VI, 130. For informationon the ��/’ �+��, see � ��, .��’ � �C��, I, 333.

4 � ��, � �’,�� , II, 53–8.5 ,+�, II, 293; III, 168–9.6 ,+�, II, 56.7 See R.H. Djajadiningrat, -�� 05��7�.��/��+��1.�� -�� 05�� +�� >�� +�� 1� �� -��&� ��, trans. Teuku Hamid, Banda Aceh: DepartemenPendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1982–3, 60. Cf. D. Crecellius & E.A.Beardow, ‘A Reputed Sarakata of the Jamal al-Lail Dynasty’,�&>=0., 52, II (1979), 54.

8 For a discussion of ��"��, see Tritton, &�� '��&�� ;��5��'��&�� 01��, London, Luzac, 1957, 40–6; Jonathan Berkey, ��'�� '��-�'� ��1�� &��:� �8��'7�0� .'5� �6��'�� '�,� ��5� ;��5��'�9 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992,esp. 31–3, 176–8.


9 See the case of 0 �� and his teacher, Ibn Sinnah, in Azyu-mardi Azra, Jaringan Ulama Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan NusantaraAbad XVII dan XVIII, Bandung, Mizan, 3rd edn, 1995, 152–4.

10 See ‘Abd � �$�� 0 �� ‘�� , �� ’ �� &�� &��, Jeddah: � � � �� *, 1403/1982, 41; Gibb &Bowen, ,� ��5�.'5��<��9�1�23 4�56�3 �7�56�3 ��+��28 ��!� 84�9:;<4�,79, esp. 98–100. Cf. C. Snouck Hurgronje, &�� *�� /�� '�� 8��, trans. J.H. Monahan, Leyden andLondon: Brill & Luzac, 1931, 173–86; W. Ochsenwald, =� 1'�9.'5�� .�� 0��+�7� ��6��"� ��4��'��8'��' ,Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984, 50–4.

11 � ��, � �’,�� , III, 139–42.12 ,+�, I, 335–63.13 A biography of ‘Abd � �$�� '��/� will be provided shortly. Cf.

Ochsenwald, =� 1'��.'5��, 52.14 A biography of �� ‘�/�� will be given below. For the further

role of scholars of the ‘�/�� family in the religious offices in Mecca,see � ��’�, �� &��, 2 vols, al-Mamlakat al-Arabiyyat al-Su’�diyyah, 1404/1984, II, 469–70.

15 ‘Abd � �, �� ’ ��, 41–2; Abdullatif Abdullah Dohaish,6��'�� '�� ;��5��'�� 6��"� �� '� � 2$, Cairo: � � � �� , 1398/1978, 189–90. Cf. C. Snouck Hurgonje, &��, 174–5.

16 Snouck Hurgronje, &��, 183; Dohaish, 6��'��'��;��5��'�, 180.17 Snouck Hurgronje, &��, 183. 18 For 0��&�� ’ biography and works, see ��

� �� (1061–1111/1651–99), -�� 0��0’�� B�� A�� ‘0��, 4 vols, Cairo, 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut: � �0�� ,n.d., II, 243–4; ‘Abd � ��!!� �=� �� (d. 1923),)�"�� -�� >�� &��’ �� )��D�, 7 vols,Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� ’+��!!��, 1931–59, V, 175–7;0��*� �=�� >��/� (d. 1307/1889), 0+�� ’� #�, 3 vols,Beirut: � � � �"�� ’, ��!!��, n.d., III, 225; ,�’� � �� &��, 6�� ’!��7� 0��’ � �&�’� �� ‘!�� &��, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951, I, 425;Khayr � �� ?� �� (al-Zerekli), � �0‘ ��7� B��#�� , 12vols, Beirut: n.p., 1389/1969, III, 287. Cf. S.A.A. Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��,��, 2 vols, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983,II, 329–30.

19 Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��, II, 130.20 For a list of his works, see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 425.21 � ��, -�� 0��, II, 234–4; � ��, )�"��

� �-��, V, 185–6.22 See T. Iskandar, @��6��0��, ‘s-Gravenhage: Smits, 1959, 167–8;

Djajadiningrat, -�� 05��, 47.

�$E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


NOTES—CHAPTER 1 �$F

23 For � �� @� �’ complete biography, see ��A�� (d. 1123/1711), (��’�� ,�� )��’�� .�� 0�+��0� �� B�� A��‘0��, 3 vols, Cairo, MS. � �� "�� A �!!��, B �� 1093, I, fols 166–8; � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 110–11; � ��, )�"�� -��, V, 352–3;� ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 271.

24 See A.H. Johns, �� C�� 0�� '� �� .�� '�� /�'��,Canberra: Australian National University, 1965. For its commentaries,see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 271; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II,617. In addition to ,� �� "� ��4 ‘Abd � �C�� wrote another commentary on it entitled )��+�� &��’� ��.

25 For � ��’ biography and works, see � ��, -�� 0��, I, 243–6; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 165; � �?� �� ,� �0’ ��, I, 174–5.

26 On �� ’ and �� ’ relationshipwith � ��’ ��, see M. Winter, .'5��=� 1'�� 4��'��;1��7�.�� <��1��'�� ‘0+�� <��+�� .��’��, NewBrunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, 30, 51, 57, 95, 98, 99, 126, 129,138–40. Cf. � �"��, (��, I, 319, 1052.

27 For a biography of Shams � �� $�� , who played a significant rolein the networks as we will see in due course, see ‘Abd � �(�� ’ �� (899–973/1493–1565), � �G�+�� H�1��, ‘Abd � �>�� ‘�� (ed.), Cairo: Maktabah � �>�� , 1390/1970, 121–3; � ��, -�� 0��, III, 342–7; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��,II, 261; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, VI, 235; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 418.

28 For further information on �� ’, see � ��’ ��,� �G�+�� H�1��, 78–80. It is curious that, according to� ��’ ��, � �� died in 950/1543(?). If this is true, �� had probably not met him. Or perhaps another�� =� ‘� �� A �, died in1087/1676, who seems to be younger than � ��. In any case,the �� was a noted �� of a �#�� family in Egypt. See � ��, -�� 0��, III, 465–8.

29 For �� ’ connections in the networks, see � �"��,(��, I, 296, 319; II, 734, 865, 957, 958, 1022, 1051.

30 � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 154-5; Brockelmann, C0*, II,514; S. II, 534. See also a description of his work, entitled >�1�� ,� �� .� �� -��, in � �"��, (��, I, 254.

31 Its complete title is � �.�� &�� .��’�� >��’�� @�� .� �� 0� �� , Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1327/1909. A short description of the � �.�� is alsogiven in � �"��, (��, II, 1061. For further discussion on theSim�4�88�5�� 4�‘Tarekat syattariyyah di Dunia Melayu-Indonesia’, doctoral dissertation, Program Pasca-Sarjana, UniversitasIndonesia, 2003.


32 For � ��’ biography, see M��"�� , . � �@�� 0’�� B�� ‘0��, 4 vols, Beirut: � �,�� '�, 1408/1988, IV, 178; ‘Abd � �$�� -�� (1169–1239/1754–1822), �� ‘0��’+� � �0�� 0�+��, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-J�l, n.d., I, 125. The last work isavailable in several editions, in different numbers of volumes. On theimportance of the ‘0��’+� � �!�� for the history of Arabia, see�� /�, ‘K�� ‘�/’�� B� /�� !�� ‘�� $�� -�� A�� -�'� �� ‘� ��!!�� >� �� B� ��‘�� / �� E� �BF�’ ‘�� G’, in &�� "�� ‘0��+��4� $�!��: ��’�� -��’�� $�!%, 1279/1979, II, 279–301. It should be noted, however, that � �-�� alsoprovides accounts of prominent scholars in the seventeenth and eigh-teenth centuries.

33 MSS � �� "�� A �!!��, Cairo, Tarikh, 1093.34 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fols 320–33.35 ,� �� "� ��, � �� I��D� � �6��, MS � � � �"��

� ��A �!!��4��/��’ B� ’�� 933. For practical reasons, we cite itspublished edition in Hayderabad, 1328/1910. �� >��’biographical note is on 125–7.

36 Cf. � ��, -�� 0��, I, 343–6.37 � �>��, � �.�� &��, 181; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I,

fol. 323; � �"��, (��, II, 970–1; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, I, 228.The same account is also found in �� (� �� (1114–76/1702–62), 0�� ’!��, Delhi: 1315/1897, 179–80.

38 � �>��, � �.�� &��, 181–2; � ��, (��’�� ,�� ,I, fol. 231; � ��, -�� 0��, I, 344.

39 � �>��, � �.�� &��, 182; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I,fol. 324. On further reasons of the change of his ��+, see� ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fols 324–6, 327.

40 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 321; � ��, -�� 0��, I, 344–5. For �!!�� =� �� =� �!!�� "�� ’ biography, see � ��, (��’�� ,�� , II, fols87–8; � ��, -�� 0��, I, 428–33. We provide �!!�� "�� ’ detailed biography in connection with � ��*� � inchapter 5.

41 � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 161.42 Brockelmann, C0*, II, 514–15; S. II, 535; Cf. ‘Abd � �� #��

��D, � �&�� &�� , Cairo: � � � �B� ��,1381/1972, 149.

43 A.H. Johns, ‘� �"��, 0�� =��=��,� �� /��’, ;,2, V, 525.

44 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 321.

�$J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


45 For �� >��’ connections and role in the networks, see� �"��, (��, I, 166, 208, 254, 319, 347; 415, 449, 480, 502, 505:II, 552, 558, 583; 587; 620, 734, 811, 914, 927, 957, 958, 1022, 1027,1053, 1082.

46 For ‘Abd � � b. Shaykh � �’�!�� ’ biography, see � ��,-�� 0��, III, 51; � ��, )�"�� -��, V, 53–4. OnBa ��!��, � ��, -�� 0��, III, 214–5; � ��,)�"�� -��, V, 288–9. The role of the ‘�!�� scholars andtheir connections with Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian scholarlynetworks are discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.

47 � �’�/��’ complete biography is given shortly. 48 He later became a leading shaykh of the Chishtiyyah order in Lahore.

See Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��, II, 267.49 ‘Abd � �$�� /�� was a good example of the scholars who

were successful in harmonising �� and Sufism. He was reported tohave numerous miracles (��) in the �� !�. For his biog-raphy, see � ��, -�� 0��, II, 346–8; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 166.

50 We examine ‘Is � ��&� ��’ biography below.51 Several leading scholars of these families were also teachers of

� �� and � ��*� �. We discuss their role in the networks inchapter 4 and 5 respectively.

52 The complete biography of � �� '��/� is provided below.53 � �� , . �� @��, I, 6.54 A�� )�!!�� *� � �’�D��, ‘0��

&�’+#�7� .�� .�� 0+�� @��#�, 14 vols, Medina: Maktabatal-Salafiyyah, 1389/1969, IV, 395. Cf. another 4 volume repr. ed. publ.in Delhi 1323/1905, Beirut: � �� "�� ’� ��, n.d., IV, 181. I ammost grateful to Prof. J.O. Voll, who brought to my attention an articleby Hunwick that mentions these ��s. See J.O. Hunwick, ‘0 �� (1752/3–1803): The Career and Teachings of a West African‘H �� in Medina’, in A.H. Green (ed.), ,�� B�� '�� ,� ��56��7� 0��+5� �� ,� ��5� .�� &��'�� '�� &'�� )'��, Cairo: The American University Press, 1984, 139–53.

55 For an account of preference for ?�� !!�� A �, see for instance,� ��, -�� 0��, III, 346. For a biography of -� �� !��, see � ��’ ��, � �G�+�� H�1��, 17–36; E.M. Sartain,-� �� !��, 2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1975. For ?�� !!�� A �’ biography, see � ��’ ��, � �G�+�� H�1��, 37–45; � �G�+�� -�+��, 2 vols, Cairo: Maktabah wa��’��‘� ��0�� , (1965?), II, 111–3.

56 See � ��, -�� 0��, III, 242.57 � �"��, (��, I, 494. 58 � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, I, 28.

NOTES—CHAPTER 1 �$


59 � �� devotes a long account to ,� �� "� ��’ biography.See his (��’�� ,�� , I, fols 21–32. � �"� ��’ biography is alsogiven in the colophon of his own work, � ��, 131–3; � �� ,. �� @��, I, 5–6; � �-�� , ‘0��’+�� !��, I, 117; � ��,� �>�� G� ’, 2 vols, Cairo: Ma�ba’at al-Sa‘dah, 1348/1929, I, 11;� �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 167; ��D, � �&�� &�� , 150; A.H. Johns, ‘� �"� ��, ,� �� =� �� '� �� 4� � �� (1023–1101/1615–90)’,;,2, V, 432–3; � �"��, (��, I, 166–8, 493–4; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, I, 28.

60 � �� "� �� appears to have been a teacherof numerous scholars in the �� !�, including ,� �� "� ��.See his biography in � �"� ��, � ��, 128–9; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fols 93–3; � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 280–1. Fora list of his works which includes a commentary on the ��%��(0�� "� ), see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 291.

61 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , II, fol. 22; cf. � �� , . � �@��, I, 5.

62 � �� ’ biography is given shortly.63 Mainly known as an ��+ (man of letters) and a ��?�, � �"��/� was

an important chain in the networks. He lived mainly in Cairo, thoughhe regularly travelled to the �� !� and other centres for Islamiclearning in the Middle East. He was a disciple of the �� Shams� �� $�� , who in turn connected him, among others, to?�� !!� � ��A �. See � ��, -�� 0��, I, 331–43.For a list of his works, see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 160–1.

64 � ��''�� was professor of �� at the Azhar after studying withalmost 30 scholars. He was also learned in ��. He wrote acommentary on the &��'��K�� 0��. Among his promi-nent students were ‘� ’ � �� and �� . See � ��, -�� 0��, II, 210–1;� ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 394.

65 � �"� ��, � ��, 3–13; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 23. 66 � �"� ��, &�� 0+�� A�� )�+�� &��, MS. �

� �"�� A �!!��, �� 2283, Microfilm 14904.67 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 25.68 ,+�, I, fols 24–5; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 167.69 � �"��, (��, I, 494. For ,� �� "� ��’ connections in the

networks, see ,+�, I, 92, 96, 115, 116, 118, 148, 166, 167, 168, 169,170, 171, 183, 194, 203, 208, 218, 225, 226, 242, 252, 255, 301, 312,316, 319, 326, 343, 415, 423, 427, 447, 451, 480, 493–4, 495, 496,502, 505, 508, 512, 534; II, 555, 557, 559, 586, 588, 595, 634, 671,679, 683, 714, 727, 734, 735, 738, 760, 767, 770, 771, 808, 878, 914,941, 942, 948, 951–4, 957–8, 971, 1005, 1027, 1061–2, 1075–6, 1094,1103, 1115–16, 1157–8.

�E% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


70 The complete account of � �� is given below.71 �� =�‘�� , better known as ��

� �� "�� , was a ��. He was also a student of� �� and � �� '��/�. One of his well-known students wasM��!!�� , an important figure of in the scholarlynetworks in the eighteenth century. For his life and works, see � �� 4 . � � �@��, III, 66; � �-�� , ‘0��’+� � �!��, I, 135;� ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 318. One of his works was acommentary on the -��+� � �.��. See � �"��, (��, I, 148.�� (� �"�� ) should not be confused with �� 0�&�� (or �� 0��*� � ��,1125–87/1713–73), a disciple of ��!!�� and ateacher of 0 �� . See � �"��, (��, I, 148–9.

72 ‘�� =� ��’�� I�� , a ��, was known to bevery active in introducing to �� !� ‘� ��’ the teachings of suchIndian scholars as �� ‘�� !� �� and ‘�� *� �� . Among his students in the �aramayn were ��)�� =� ,� �� "� �� and �� (� �� . See (� �� ,0�� ’!��, 190–2. For � �I�� ’ connections in the networks,see � �"��, (��, I, 166, 168, 495, 496; II, 948, 949, 951, 953,957, 958, 960.

73 ‘�� =�� A �’ complete biography is given shortly.74 A��)�� ’ biography is provided below.75 The �� ‘� �� ?�� appears to be one of the earliest ?��

scholars involved in the networks in this period. The ?�� scholarsincreasingly played an important role in the subsequent periods. Histeachers also included � �>��, � �� '��/� and � �� . See� ��, -�� 0��, III, 192–3.

76 ,�*� �=� -�’�� , a leading scholar of the J�’�� family,was the B�?� of ?��. In the �� !� he also studied with ‘,�� &� �� and � �� '��/�. See � ��, -�� 0��, I,394–6; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 202. Among his students inthe networks was � �� , discussed in chapter 4

77 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. . �� @��, I, 6.78 � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 35–6.79 Brockelmann, C0*, II, 505–6; S. II, 520. 80 They are: � ��, cited earlier, and Alfred Guillaume, ‘� �I��’��

� ��!�� B��*�*� � �, *’ �� +��!� by ,� �� "� ��’,>.40., XX (1957), 291–303.

81 For � �� ’ detailed biography, see � ��, (��’�� ,�� ,I, fols 201–4; � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 39–42; � �>��/�,0+�� ’� #�, III, 166. For his works: � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 290; � �"��, (��, I, 210–12; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��,VII, 152.

NOTES—CHAPTER 1 �E�


82 � �"��, (��, I, 210.83 For � �� ’ connections in the networks, see � �"��, ,+�, I, 194;

213, 217, 219, 233, 252, 255, 327, 328, 339, 345, 405, 411, 425, 452,457, 480, 502, 505, 521, 533, 536, 538; II, 558, 562, 583, 587, 589,590, 592, 605, 620, 739, 784, 807, 851, 890, 916, 918, 935, 941, 942,964, 987, 1094, 1127, 1132, 1134, 1151.

84 � ��, -�� 0��, 41; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, I, 152.85 For B/� � �� #��’ life and works, see � ��, -��

� �0��, I, 464–70; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 244. Cf. Rizvi,0�6��'��'��.��, II, 336–8; Trimingham, ��.��4��, 93–4.

86 For more information on ��=�‘� �, see chapter 3 note 39. Foran account of the prominence of the ‘� � family in Mecca, see � ��’�, ��&��, II, 468.

87 On � �� ’ becoming a disciple of B/�� #��, see (� �� , 0�� ’0��, 188. Cf. � �� , >�1�� -G� +�� >�� &��’�� &�� &�’��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1328/1910, 73–6, 80.

88 For detailed accounts of ‘I� � ��&� ��’ career and works, see� ��, -�� 0��, III, 240–2; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 166–7; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, V, 294–5; � �"��,(��, I, 500–3; II, 589–90, 806–9; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II, 691,939.

89 B/�� ’*��’s career follows shortly.90 ?�!�� ’H��’s biography is given below.91 ‘A�� ’�'�'� � �?��'�� was a leading scholar of the ?��'��

family, the guardian of the Zamzam well. He was a grandson of the�� ,��/� in the maternal line. As a renowned scholar, hewrote a number of works. See � ��, -�� 0��, II,426–7; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 379. On the role of the ?��'�� inIslamic learning in Mecca, see � ��’�, ��&��, II, 470. Cf.� ��&��, 6��‘!��, I, 584, 737.

92 ‘� ��=�� -�� , also known as � �-�� A �,was born in Mecca. After studying with various teachers he taught at the�� Mosque. Among his students were �� ’�/��, �� and ‘�� =�� A �. He wrote numerous worksdealing with various topics. See � ��, -�� 0��, III,128–30; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 759–80. For his connec-tions in the network, see � �"��, (��, I, 194, 252, 502; II, 583,811.

93 � ��, -�� 0��, III, 242; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�,III, 166.

94 � �"��, (��, II, 806–7.95 For a quite lengthy description of the contents of the -��"�� =��,

see � �"��, (��, I, 500–3.

�E2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


96 For �� !�� &� ��’s complete biography, see � ��,-�� 0��, IV, 204–8; �� , -�� -� ��, 87–104; � ��’�, ��&��, II, 378–83; � �"��, (��, I, 95, 425–9;� �?� �� , � �0’ ��, VII, 22.

97 � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 204–5; �� , -�� -� ��, 103–4; � ��’�, ��&��, II, 380.

98 For a description of the contents of these works, see � �"��,(��, I, 95, 426–7.

99 See � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 207. Cf. � �� , . � �@��, IV, 82.

100 For detailed accounts of �� !�� &� ��’s connections in thenetworks, see � �"��, (��, I, 90, 95, 97, 98, 101, 116, 131, 156,160, 194, 209, 211, 237, 252, 298, 301, 302, 309, 326, 339, 343, 351,378, 386, 401, 425–9, 474, 475, 496, 505, 518, II, 567, 576, 582, 583,595, 711, 716, 736, 784, 805, 808, 811, 838, 903, 941, 942, 973, 988,1028, 1093, 1134.

101 For Ibn ��’*��’ detailed biography and works, see � ��,-�� 0��, I, 457–64; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 245;Brockelmann, C0*, II, 379. For his further connections in thenetworks, see � �"��, (��, I, 198, 501; II, 576, 587, 865.

102 Zayn � �’H�� )�� ’s complete biography is given in � ��, -�� 0��, II, 195–6. For his connections in thenetworks, see � �"��, (��, I, 119, 166, 169, 183, 194, 196, 209,252, 296, 327, 415, 502; II, 583, 587, 685, 811, 992, 1022.

103 For ‘Abd � �>�� )�� ’s biography and works, see � ��,-�� 0��, II, 457–64; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I,600; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, IV, 168–9; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II, 509.For his further scholarly connections, see � �"��, (��, I, 209,518; II, 685, 781, 935.

104 For biography and works of ‘� �� )�� , see � ��, -�� 0��, III, 161–6; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 759;� �?� �� , � �0’ ��, V, 115. For his scholarly connections, see� �"��, (��, I, 194, 415; II, 587, 811, 941–4, 1000.

105 For further accounts of the role of the )abar� family in Islamic learningin Mecca, see � ��’�, ��&��, II, 466.

106 For a biography of � �� )�� , see � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, VII,189.

107 For more detail on � �’�/��4�88�� -�� , ‘0��’+�� !��, I, 123;� �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 167–8. His more complete biographyis provided by the editor of his work, ,��’ � �*��’�� 0�+�� G�’�, ��!�� -��!�� ’�� (ed.), T’if: � � B��*��,1400/1980, 9–24; � �"��, (��, II, 810–3. For lists of his works,see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 294; and ,��’ � �*��’�,17–23; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, II, 223; � �"��, (��, I, 209, 4479,504–5; II, 810–13.

NOTES—CHAPTER 1 �E3


�E� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

108 � �"��, (��, II, 810–11; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, II, 223.109 For � �’�/��’ further connections in �� studies, see � �"��,

(��, I, 209; II, 811–13; III, 66.110 A short description of the contents of the =�� ’0�� G��

is given in � �"��, (��, II, 447–9. This work is not listed eitherin � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 284, or in � �?� �� , � �0’ ��,II, 223.

111 For a biography of B/� � ��, who was also known as ��=�‘�� >� ’�, see � �"��, I, 978; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 168–9.

112 For an account of the scholarly role of ‘�/�� family in Mecca, see� ��’�, ��&��, I I, 469–70; � �"��, (��, 813.

113 For � �� '��/�’ biography and work, see the colophon of his ownwork, -��+�� ,��’�� ,�� .�’��, �� ’�� (ed.), Cairo: ��’�� ’��, 1325/1907; � �� , . � �@��, IV, 65–6; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 303–4; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, VII, 75.

114 � �� '��/�’ connections in the networks is provided in � �"��,(��, I, 98, 148, 301, 302, 314, 427, 447, 451, 495; II, 767, 828, 840,1095.

115 Further information on -�’�� '��/� is given in � �� , . � �@��, II, 9; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 255; � �?� �� ,� �0’ ��, II, 117. For a history of the �� '��/� family, see C.J.Edmonds, -��9��9��0��+�, London: Oxford University Press,1957, esp. 68–79.

116 For � �� ’ complete biography, see his >�1�� G� +�� >�� &��’�� &�� &�’��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1328/1910; � �� , . �� @��, I, 171–2;� �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 177; � �"��, (��, I, 251–3; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, I, 230. Among his works was � �� 0�� >�� !�� .��’��. See � ��&��,6�� ’!��, I, 167.

117 � �� , >�1�� G� +��, 5–9, 65–80.118 � �"��, (��, I, 252.119 For � �� ’ connections in �� studies, see ,+�, I, 98, 101, 118,

168, 199, 211, 213, 224, 234, 251–3, 256, 302, 339, 411, 447, 487,495, 497, 502, 511, 518, 533; II, 559, 589, 590, 607, 608, 609, 702,734, 751, 792, 805, 809, 829, 865, 919, 942, 976, 985, 1007, 1076,1133, 1135, 1147, 1156.

120 For ‘Abd � ��=�� A �’s biography and works, see his -��+� �,��+�&�’��‘� �� ,��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1328/1910; � �-�� , ‘0��’+� � �!��, I, 132–3;� ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 480; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�,


III, 177; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��, IV, 219–20; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II,521; � �"��, (��, I, 95–6, 193–9.

121 � ��’�, ��&��, II, 469.122 ,+�.123 For � ��A �’ connections with his contemporaries and earlier

scholars, see his -��+� � �,��. For his connections with laterscholars, see � �"��, (��, I, esp. 95–6, 193–9; III, 113.

124 For ��)�� ’s biography and works, see � �� , . �� @��,IV, 27; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 321; � �>��/�, 0+�� ’� #�, III, 168; � �"��, (��, I, 494–6; � �?� �� , � �0’ ��,6, 195.

125 For ��)�� ’s connections in the networks, see � �"��, (��,I, 98, 101, 110, 119, 166, 167, 178, 195, 219, 253, 289, 356, 423, 427,483, 505, 511, 514; II, 559, 605, 735, 743, 760, 770, 811, 812, 829,850, 903, 951, 976, 986, 1048, 1070, 1076, 1111.

126 J.O. Voll, ‘Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama Group in the 18thCentury Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World’, �00., XV,3–4 (1980), 246–73; ‘��!!�� and ��,��‘�� (��: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in EighteenthCentury ��’, >.40., 38 (1975), 32–9.

127 Voll, ‘Hadith Scholars’, 267.

2 REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS

1 For an explanation of the ‘melting pot theory’, see Nathan Glazer &Daniel P. Moynihan, >��'��&� ��1�/'�, Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1974. For a thorough discussion on the dichotomy between‘great tradition’ and ‘little tradition’ in Islam, see D.F. Eickelman,‘The Study of Islam in Local Contexts’, 8'��+��'�� '� 0��.��, 17 (1982), 1–16.

2 See Fazlur Rahman, ,� ��, 2nd ed, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1979, esp. 193–6, 205–6. For further discussion on neo-Sufism,see John O. Voll, ‘Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama Group inthe 18th Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World’,�00.4 XV, 3–4 (1980), 264–72; N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds), ‘Intro-duction’, in ;1�� 8�� =�� =��'�� ,� ��,Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 3–20; L. Brenner, ‘Sufismin Africa in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in ,� �� .'5��é�� .��, 2 (1988), 80–92; R.S. O’Fahey, ‘Neo-Sufism and Ibn Idris’, in his Enigmatic .��7�0��+��,��,�� '�, Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press, 1990,1–26; Bernd Radtke, ‘Kritik am Neo-Sufism’, in Frederick de Jong &Bernd Radtke (eds), ,� ��5�&��5��8'��7��8��'��8'��':��/' ��5�, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999, pp. 162–73.

NOTES—CHAPTER 2 �E$


3 Rahman, ,� ��, 205–6.4 Fazlur Rahman, ‘Revival and Reform’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), ��8��+��1��6��'��'��,� ��, 1970, II, 637.

5 Rahman, ,� ��, 194.6 ,+�, 195.7 For further discussion on this, see Rahman, ,� ��, 194–5. For argu-

ments against the inclusion of Ibn Taymiyyah among �#��s or neo-�#��s,see for instance, F. Meier, ‘Das Sauberste über die Vorbestimmung.Ein Stück Ibn Taymiyya’, .��5� ��, 32 (1981), 74–89. For discussionon the role of some leading �� scholars in Sufism, see G. Makdisi,‘The Sunni Revival’, D.S. Richards (ed.), ,� ��5� 8: ��'�,950–1150, London: Bruno Cassirer, 1973, esp. 161–8; J.S. Triming-ham, ��.��4��,� ��, 41–2.

8 L. Massignon, ;�� '�1�� L�� , Paris: J. Vrin, 1954, 207. A fuller account of �� is in‘Abd � �(�� ’ �� (d. 973/1565), � �G�+�� -�+��,2 vols, Cairo: Maktabah wa ��’��‘� �, n.d., I, 59–61.

9 Trimingham, ��.��4��, 46.10 See Ibn � ��//�� ’�� (d. 738/1336–7), � �&�� , 4 vols, Cairo:

��A�� , 1380/1960, III, 194–8, 218–20.11 Trimingham, �� .��4��, 89–90. For Ibn ��!��’ biography,

see �� ‘�� !!� ,�� ’,�� (d. 1089/1678), .�� @��+� �� 0�+�� @��+, 8 vols, Cairo: Maktabat� �>��, 1350–1/1931–2, VIII, 81–4. This biographical chroniclecovers the earlier centuries of Islam to the year 1000/1591.

12 For Ibn ��/� ’s biography, see Ibn � �’,��, .�� @��+,VII, 270–3.

13 ,+�, VIII, 51–5 for sources of � ��!��’s biography. 14 ,+�, VIII, 134–6 for sources of ?�� !!�� A �’s biography. 15 The famous Egyptian �83��#�� ’ �� had a common link with all

of them. ?�� !!�� A � was his direct teacher, who used to studywith ,��/� �� ’�*� ��=�� !��, also a student of Ibn ��/� , wasa teacher of � ��’ ��’s father. A month before � ��!�� died, � ��’ �� himself met him in Cairo. See � ��’ ��, � �G�+�� -�+��, II, 111–3; � �G�+�� .�1��. (ed.) ‘Abd � �>�� ‘�� (ed.), Cairo: Maktabat � �>�� , 1390/1970, 18–20. More tofollow on links between � ��’ �� and our networks.

16 See ‘Abd � ��!!� �=� ‘�� "�� "�� (d. 1963), (�� (�� ’0��+��, 3 vols, Beirut: � � � �C�� , ��,1402/1982, I, 71–94, for a discussion on the importance of the�� in �� study and other branches of Islamic discipline, andon their ranking. Cf. M.M. Azami, .�� 6��&��'�' '1�� *��, Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1977,esp. 58–67.

�EE THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


17 See for instance, his )�� &�� .�� &�� (��‘� ��&��+� � �,�� .��’�, 8 vols, Misr: ��A�� , 1967, which expressly introduces him by that honorific.

18 For �� $�� ’s biography, see � ��’ ��, � �G�+�� .�1��, 67–9.

19 ,� �� "� ��, � �� I��D� � �6��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1328/1910, 3–5; � �"��, (��, II, 952.

20 � �"� ��, � -��, 10–1.21 See ‘Abd � �� A �, -��+�� ,��+�&�’��‘� ��

� ��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1328/1910,50–1.

22 For Ibn ‘� ��’ further connections in �� studies, see � �"��,(��, I, 99, 204, 208, 310, 449, 496; II, 596, 686, 716, 928, 991,1055.

23 For � ��’ ��’ accounts of ?�� !!� � ��A �, see � �G�+�� -�+��, I, 111–3; � �G�+�� .�1��, 37–45.

24 Trimingham, ��.��4��, 220–5. For a complete discussion on the�83��#�� ’ ��, see Michael Winter, .'5��=� 1'��;�� 4��'�� ;1��7� .�� <��1�� '�� ‘0+�� <��+� �.��’��, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, esp. 53–8,150–200, 219–51. On his initiation into Sufism by ?�� !!� � ��A �, see ,+�, 5.

25 �� >��, � �.�� &��.��’�� >��’�� @�� .� �� 0� �� , Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��, 1327/1909, 45–8, 86.

26 ,+�, 45.27 � �"� ��, � ��, 80.28 Published in Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��,

1328/1910.29 � �� , >�1�� G� +��, esp. 10–14. He mentions here all

�� books he studied and their �� through 28.30 See � �"� ��, � ��, 4–44.31 � �� , >�1�� al-G�lib�n, 31.32 � �>��, � �.��, 7–8.33 ��A�� , (��’�� ,�� )��’�� .��

��0�+��0� �� B�� 6��‘0��, 3 vols, Cairo, MS. � �� "�� A �!!��, B �� 1093, I, fol. 21.

34 � ��A �, -��+�� ,��, 3.35 � �� , >�1�� G� +��, 12, 31.36 � �"� ��, � ��, 115.37 This work was published in Cairo: Maktabah wa ��’��‘� ��0��

�� , n.d., 2 vols. 38 � �>��, � �.��, 41, 83–4; � �"� ��, � ��, 125–6; � �

��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 320, 329. Cf. S.A.A. Rizvi,

NOTES—CHAPTER 2 �EF


0�6��'��'��.��,��, 2 vols, New Delhi: Munshiram Manohar-lal, 1983, II, 330–1.

39 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 320; � �"� ��, � ��, 166.40 EI2, V, 525.41 � �>��, � �.��, 106–10; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 329.42 ,� �� "� ��, ,�� @��+�.�� &��

=#�� )�+�, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub � ��A �!!��, B�A�� 2578,fols 6, 9, 11, 15.

43 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fols 25–6, 28.44 See ,�’� � �� &��, 6�� ’!��7� 0��’

� �&�’� ��‘!�� &��, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli EgitimBasimevi, 1951, I, 35–6.

45 A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Directions’,,��'��, 19 (1976), 51; ‘Friends in Grace: ,� �� "� �� and ‘Abd� �$�’�� al-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), .��5��7�;��/�� '.��0 ��+��, Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978, 476. The ,�� @�� is included in all lists of his works; see � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 35; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II, 520. This work is reserved inseveral libraries: Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub, B�A�� 2578, Microfilm7651, another copy is B�A�� 2954, Microfilm 10200; MS LeidenUniversity, Or. 7050, 1892; MS India Office, no. 684, 1877.

46 See A.H. Johns, �� C�� 0�� '� �� .�� '�� /�'��,Canberra: Australian National University, 1965, 5–7.

47 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 25.48 ,+�, I, fol. 167; Cf. Johns, ‘Reflections’, 50.49 � �"� ��, ,�� @��, fol. 2; Cf. Johns, ‘Reflections’, 51–2.50 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Review of: A.H. Johns PhD Malay Sufism’, >-,,

115, III (1959), 283. 51 � �"� ��, ,�� @��, fol. 2.52 � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 35; ��"�� ,

. �� @��0’�� B�� ‘0��, 4 vols, Beirut: � �,�� '�, 1408/1988, I, 6.

53 See P. Voorhoeve, 6�� '��0��+5�&��5�� *+��'��:��'��*��4��8' �5�'��)�� , TheHague: Leiden University Press, 1980, 461.

54 Leiden University, MS. F. Or. A13d (17–18); D.A. Rinkes, 0+�'��'��:��.�1� 7�>��1��'��:��'��.��:�, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909, 95 n. 2.

55 See � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 35.56 Johns, ��C��, 8–12.57 � ��*� �, K�+�� 0��, 47; �� 0��, 72–4. Both are

included in a collection of � ��*� �’s MSS, Jakarta, NationalLibrary, KBL MS A-101. This collection consists of 20 works of� ��*� �.

�EJ THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


58 The work is listed in both � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 245, and�� , -�� 0�� ‘0’�� B�� 6��‘0��, 4 vols, Cairo: 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut: � �0�� ,n.d., I, 458. For his complete biography and works, see � ��,-�� 0��, I, 457–64; � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 245;Brockelmann, C0*, II, 379.

59 � �"� ��, ,�� @��, fol. 2.60 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 167.61 ,+�, I, fol. 320.I, 344.62 ,+�, I, fols 326–7; � ��, -�� 0��, I, 344.63 � �>��, � �.��, 118–20; � ��, (��’�� ,�� ,

fol. 329.64 � �"� ��, ,�� @��, fols 11–24; al-Umam, 115–18.65 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 30.66 ,+�, I, fol. 12.67 � ��, -�� 0��, IV, 305–7; �� ?�!�� ,

-�� -� �� >��’ � �> �� A��, Cairo: n.p.,1305/1888, 102–3; �� ’�, ��&��, Riyad (?): � �� ’� ��!!�� ’��!!��, 1404/1984, II, 378–82; G. deGaury, =� ��'��&�55�, 1951, repr. ed. New York: Dorset Press, 1991,148, 155–6.

68 Asafiyya State Public Library, Hayderabad, MS "� � 224 and "� �223 respectively, cited in Y. Friedmann, .��0��.��7�0�4�� '��6��'�1��.��'��6��,��1��;��'��/'��, Montreal: Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University Press,1971, 7–8, 97–101, appendix C; Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��, II, 339–2.Only the B�� K�� is included among � �� '��/�’ 56 worksgiven by � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, II, 303. I was not able tocheck these MSS myself.

69 ��!!�� State Library, "� �4 224, cited in Friedmann, 8. The workis not listed among � �’�/��’s works listed by � ��&��, 6�� ’!��, I, 294, nor by ��!� �� -��!�� ’��, editor of� �’�/��’s ,��’ � �*��’�� 0�+�� G�’�, )’��: � � B��*��,1400/1980, 17–24.

70 See Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��, 339.71 Friedmann, .��0��.��, esp. 13–21.72 � �� '��/�, B�� K��, fols 14a28–14bl, cited in Friedmann, .��

0��.��, 98. For � ��!��’s work cited by � �� '��/�, see Brock-elmann, C0*, II, 151, no. 135, and I. Goldziher, K��8��C� � ��@��.��’�� 5��ä�1��, Vienna: 1872.

73 Friedmann, .��0��.��, 98–9; Rizvi, 0�6��'��'��.��,II, 340–1.

74 Friedmann, .��0��.��, 99. See appendix C of this work,in which a portion of � �� '��/�’ treatises is given.

NOTES—CHAPTER 2 �E


75 For � �>��’s detailed opinion on this question, see Rizvi, 06��'��'��.��, II, 339.

76 For discussion on the organisation of ��s, see for instance, Trim-ingham, �� .�� 4��, 166–93; Winter, .'5�� =� 1'�,126–44.

77 For � �>��’s complete silsilah of the respective ��, see his� �.��, 66–135.

78 For his complete silsilah, see his >�1�� G� +��, 65–81.79 � �>��, � �.��, 36.80 This simile was first coined by al-Junayd � ��&��. See Rahman,

,� ��, 137. Initially, it was employed to refer to Muslim’s total submission (�� ) to God. See I. Goldziher, ‘Materialien zurEntwicklungsgeschichte des Sufismus’, C�� .5��,Hildesheim: 1967, IV, 180.

81 � �>��, � �.��, 83–4; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 329.Cf. A. Janson, R. Tol and J.J. Witkam (eds), ‘Mystical Illustrationsfrom the Teachings of Shaykh Ahmad al-Qusyasyi: A FacsimileEdition of a Manuscript from Aceh (Cod. Or. 2222) in the Library ofLeiden University’, &��5��,��'��5�, vol. 5, Leiden: INIS andLeiden University Library, 1995; Trimingham, ��.��4��, 167,on the freedom of each member, provided he adhered at the same timeto regulations for communal life.

82 � �>��, � �.��, 27–8, 41–5; � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I,fol. 322, 329.

83 � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 167, 320; � �"� ��, ,�� @��, fol. 2. Cf. Trimingham, ��.��4��, 175.

84 See Winter, .'5��=� 1'�, 129–30.85 See ,+�, 131–9, and Trimingham, �� .�� 4��, 173–4, on the

general tendency among �#�� shaykhs to give first priority to theirdescendants who will succeed them. This type of succession in somecases led to the appointment of incompetent or worldly orientedsuccessors. But in Syria the tendency did not become universal. Insome orders, notably the Khalwatiyyah and �� !!��, the shaykhwas elected by disciples.

86 See Winter, .'5��=� 1'�, 137–41.87 See Trimingham, ��.��4��, 22.88 � �>��, � �.��, 15–6; al-�amaw�, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 329.89 0��*� �=� �� >��/�, 0+�� ‘� #�, 3 vols, Beirut: �

� �"�� ‘, ��!!��, n.d., III, 168.90 � �"� ��, for instance, is reported to have had a big library in his

house. See Ibn � �)�!!��, )�� &��, Fes: 1310/1892, II,130–7, cited in Johns, ‘Friends in Grace’, 474.

91 For an account of � �>��, who also held teaching sessions in hishouse, see � ��, (��’�� ,�� , I, fol. 330.

�F% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


92 Cf. Trimingham, ��.��4��, 168.93 EI2, V, 433.94 See � �"� ��, ,�� @��, esp. fols 7–23.95 See � �"� ��’s accounts of his studies of Ibn ‘� ��’s works with

Zayn � �’H�� )�� , in � ��, 122–5.96 � �� , >�1�� G� +��, 27, 45–6.97 See Winter, =� 1'��.'5��, 165–72.98 Ibn � �)�!!��, )�� &��, II, 130–7, cited in Johns, ;,2, V, 433;

‘Friends in Grace’, 473–4.99 See P.K. Hitti, N.A. Faris & B. ‘�� , @��5��:��8�� '1��

'�� C�� 8' �5�'�� '�� 0��+5� &��5�� /��5��'��:��*+��, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1938,460–1.

100 Johns, ‘Friends in Grace’, 474.

3 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I

1 S.M.N. al-Attas, ‘New Light on the Life of Hamzah Fansuri’, �&>=0.40, I (1967), 40; ��&��5��'��6��"��(��, Kuala Lumpur:University of Malaya Press, 1970, 313. Cf. Hasjmi, -�+��05�� .��, Jakarta: Beuna, 1983, 195–7.

2 A. Hasjmi, =�+�’� 6��"�� (��, -�� .�� .�� 0+�� MN,,,Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1976, 10. A recent dis-cussion on the date of Hamzah � ��A� �, based on archeologicalevidence calculates that Hamzah al-FanA�r� died in 1527 (seeC. Guillot & L. Kalus, ‘La stèle funéraire de Hamzah Fansuri’,0�5�� 9� 2000, 3–24). The argument was disputed, however, byanother article of Vladimir I. Braginsky, ‘On the Copy of HamzahFansuri’s Epitaph Published by C. Guillot & L. Kalus’, 0�5�� , 2001,20–33. In turn, this Braginsky’s comment led Guillot & Kalus to writea counter-response, see Guillot & Kalus, ‘En réponse à Vladimir I.Braginsky’, 0�5�� , 2001, 34–8).

3 For an account of the places visited by Hamzah, see J. Doorenbos, @�1��5��:��6��"��/��'��, Leiden: Batteljee & Terpstra, 1933.Cf. H. Kraemer, ;�� :��5�� /��+'�� "�� ,Leiden: 1921, 23–30.

4 Some of his writings are romanised in Doorenbos, @��C��5��,16–204; al-Attas, &��5��'��6��"��, 233–353.

5 See for instance, C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@��:��/��:>��1��'��.��5��, Leiden: Brill, 1945,19–20, 234–5; C. Snouck Hurgronje, �� 05��, 2 vols, trans.A.W.S. Sullivan, Leyden: Brill, 1906, II, 13 and n. 2.

6 Hasjmi, =�+�’, 11–3; Hawash Abdullah, /��+��1�� , �� ''��''�� )��, Surabaya: Al-Ikhlas,1980, 41–2.

NOTES—CHAPTER 3 �F�


7 J. Lancaster, ��N'��1�� '�� .�� *��5�� '�>��" � �� ;�� ,��, Sir William Foster (ed.), London: The Hakluyt Society,1940, 96.

8 B.J.O. Schrieke, ,��'�� .'5' '15� � .��, The Hague &Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1955, II, 243.

9 A. Hasjmi, -�+��, 197–8.10 Van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@�, 18.11 T. Iskandar, @��6��0��, ‘s-Gravenhage: Smits, 1959, 137, 153,

168.12 For lists of his works, see Van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@�, 25–6;

Abdullah, /��+��1��, ��, 35–49; Hasjmi, -�+��,198.

13 For a detailed exposition and analysis of their thought and doctrine, seeal-Attas, &��5�� '�� 6��"��; =�� <�� '�� F��8��05��, Monograph of MBRAS no. 3, Singapore, 1966,43–79; Van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@�; Hasjmi, =�+�’; Abdullah,/��+��1��, ��, 35–49.

14 A.H. Johns, ‘Aspects of Sufi Thought in India and Indonesia in the firsthalf of the 17th Century’, �&>=0., 28, I (1955), 72–7.

15 R.O. Winstedt, ‘Some Malay Mystics, Heretical and Orthodox’,�&>=0., 1 (1923), 312–8.

16 Johns, ‘Aspects’, 73–5.17 Van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@��, 329–39.18 Siti Baroroh Baried, ‘Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf di Indonesia’, in

S. Sutrisno et al. (eds), >��9�.��9�>��, Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University Press, 1985, 2908.

19 Al-Attas, =��, esp. 15–42; &��5�� '��6��"��, esp. Chs II, III and VI.

20 S.M.N. al-Attas, 0�8'��'��A�� H��of N#r al-D�nal-R�n�r�, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, 1986, xiii, 8–12.

21 S.M.N. al-Attas, =��, 12.22 For a more complete account of the �adram� migration to the archi-

pelago, see L.W.C. van den Berg, *�� 6��'�� 5' '��+�� ’��5�� , Batavia: Imprimerie de Gouvernement,1886; U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds), ��6��9.5�' ��9� �� .�� ,�� 45�� F$%–� E%�9 Leiden:Brill, 1997.

23 al-Attas, 0�8'��, 3.24 Ibn Khalliqn, <�� 0’�� 0�+�’ � �K��. Ed. I�sn

‘Abbs, 8 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Thaqfah, 1968–72, IV, no. 616.25 According to G.W.J. Drewes, if ( ) is read ‘al-�umayd’, then

al-Rn�r� could belong to the B �umayd family of �a%ramawt. Seehis ‘De herkomst van Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, >-,, 111 (1955), 149. ForAb� Bakr al-�umayd�’s biography, see Taq� al-D�n al-Fs�, ‘0��

�F2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


� �� >� �� 0��, 8 vols, Cairo: Ma�ba’atal-Sunnat al-Mu�ammadiyyah, 1385/1966, V, 160–1.

26 Ibn Khalliqn, <��, IV, no. 558.27 Al-Rn�r�, >�� .� ��>�+�,,, Fasal 13, ed. T. Iskandar, Kuala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1966, 25.28 I failed to find the book and its author. But al-Kattn� mentions a book

entitled � �.�� B��’ �� A�� &��’ +� &�� =��# � �.��’ by Mu�ammad b. ‘Al� al-Fs�. See ‘Abd al-�ayy b. ‘Abdal-Kab�r al-Kattn�, (�� (��, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Gharbal-Islm�, 1402/1982, I, 273.

29 ‘Abd al-�ayy b. Fakhr al-D�n al-�asan�, )�"�� -�� >�� &��’ �� )��D�. 7 vols. Hayderabad: D’iratal-Ma’rif al-’Uthmniyyah, 1931–59. V, 349.

30 P. Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, >-,, 107 (1951),357.

31 Al-�asan�, )�"�� -��, V, 350; Voorhoeve, ‘Van en overNuruddin’, 356; ��&� ��5��1��5��:��)#��=��,Leiden: Brill, 1955, 5–6; Drewes, ‘De herkomst’, 149–50; For BShaybn’s biography, see Mu�ammad al-Am�n Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0�� 0’�� B�� A�� ‘0��, 4 vols, Cairo: 1868, III,214–15.

32 J.S. Trimingham, ��.��4��,� ��, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1971, 37–40. The Rif’iyyah ��, one of the most widespreadorders until the fifteenth century, was known for its transitoryannihilation in Absolute Reality; its �#fis were noted for their fire-resisting and snake-charming skills.

33 For accounts of the spread of the Rif’iyyah order in Aceh and otherparts of the archipelago, see Snouck Hurgronje, �� 05��, II,249–57; Aboebakar Atjeh, �� , Kota Bharu:Pustaka Aman, 1979, 95–8. For �� and litanies of the Rif’iyyah inthe archipelago, see Leiden University, MSS Or. 7617, 7618, 1994.

34 See the chains of initiation of the ‘Aydar�siyyah in his �� ’� #��-�� &�’ #�, MS Marsden Collection, Text no. 12151,21v–158r, SOAS, University of London. A microfilm of this is inLeiden University Cod. Or. A41. Another copy is in Jakarta, NationalLibrary, Ml 795.

35 Al-Rn�r�’s � � �� of the Qdiriyyah is given in .�� )��ofal-Maqassr�, cited in Hamka, @��/��+��*��, Medan:Madju, 1963, 40–1; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf Makasar: =��6��9�-��0��, Jakarta: Departemen P&R, 1987, 22–3.

36 ‘Abd al-Ra�mn b. Shihb al-Saqqf, born and died in Tar�m, was aleading scholar in the �a%ramawt region. He was well versed in��, ��, �� and ��. For his biography, see Al-Mu�ibb�,-�� 0��, II, 359–60.

NOTES—CHAPTER 3 �F3


37 Ab� Bakr b. Shihb, called by Al-Mu�ibb� the ‘great traditionist’(� �� +��), had studied in the Yemen and the �aramaynbefore establishing his career in Tar�m. Among his teachers in the�aramayn were ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Ra��m al-BaAr�, ‘Abd al-’Az�zal-Zamzam� and A�mad b. Ibrh�m b. ‘Aln. Among his prominentdisciples was ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-’Aydar�s. See Al-Mu�ibb�,-�� 0��, I, 85–6. For his connections in �� studies, seeal-Kattn�, (��, II.

38 ‘Umar al-BaAr�, a �� and �#��, was perhaps a major link connectingB Shaybn and al-Rn�r� with Egyptian �� scholarship, for he wasa student of Shams al-D�n al-Raml�; he established his career in Mecca,and therefore had disciples from many parts of the Muslim world.Among them were ‘Al� al-)abar� and ‘Al� Jaml al-Makk�, both ofwhom were teachers and acquaintances of al-Sink�l�. For his biogra-phy, see Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, III, 210–12.

39 A�mad b. ‘Aln al-Makk� was a noted Naqshbandiyyah shaykh inMecca. He received this order from Tj al-Hind�= His works mainlydeal with the Naqshbandiyyah doctrine and with Taw��d such as.�� =�� .�� =�� . For his biography andworks, see Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 157–8; Ism’�l Bshal-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli EgitimBasimevi, 1951, I, 165. Y�suf al-Maqassr�, who was a student ofMu�ammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq� al-Mizjj�, another disciple of B/al-Naqshband�, apparently did not meet A�mad b. ‘Aln while he wasstudying in Mecca. But his name is found in Ism’�l al-Khal�d�al-Minangkabaw�’s � � �� of the Naqshbandiyyah in the Malay-Indonesian world in the nineteenth century. See K.F. Holle,‘Mededeelingen over de devotie der Naqsjibendijah in den Ned.Indischen Archipelago’, �>C 31 (1886), esp. 74. Cf. Ph.S. vanRonkel, .�� '� �� 8�� '1�� '�� 0��+5� &��5��/��:��&��'��>��:��.'5��'��0��.5��5��,Batavia & The Hague: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1913, 171–2, for a text ofthe Naqshbandiyyah �� attributed to A�mad b. ‘Aln.

It is important to note that A�mad b. ‘Aln should not be confusedwith his nephew, Mu�ammad b. ‘Al� b. ‘Aln al-0idd�q� (996–1057/1588–1647). Born in Mecca, Mu�ammad b. ‘Aln was a leading��, who studied with, among others, Sayyid ‘Umar al-BaAr�,mentioned above. (For his biography and works, see Al-Mu�ibb�,-�� 0��, IV, 184–9; al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, II,284–5; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, VII, 187; Brockelmann, C0*, S. II, 533.For his connections in �� studies, see al-Kattn�, (��, I, 451; II,730, 811.) He seems to have been in close contact with A�madal-Qushsh�, who wrote a work entitled ,��+�� 0�� (�? � �-�� +�A� �� 0+��+�� 0�+�’ [sic] �� -��+�� ,�� -��

�F� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


to answer his questions. Mu�ammad b. ‘Aln, a prolific writer, wasquick to answer questions posed to him. Among his works was � �&��+� � �=�++�� ‘�� 0�’ �� , written asanswer to a question put forward by the Sul�n of Banten, Ab�al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir (r. 1037–63/1626–51), concerningal-Ghazl�’s )�� &� #. See P. Voorhoeve, 6�� '��0��+5&��5��, The Hague: Leiden University Press, 1980, 130–1,204–5. The questions of the Bantenese Sul�n were apparently broughtto Mecca by his delegation in 1038/1638. B�8 � �0�’ �� is not listed in Arabic sources.

40 Al-Kha��b al-Sharbayn� was born in Egypt and performed pilgrimages24 times. During these frequent visits to the �aramayn he also taughtdisciples, especially on the subject of Shfi’� ��. See his biography inAl-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II, 378.

41 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, IV, 26–7.42 Voorhoeve, ��&� ��5��, 6.43 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II, 440–2; Brockelmann, GAL, II,

418; al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, I, 600–1; al-Kattn�, (��, I,340; II, 967, 1021.

44 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II, 235–6: EI2, Art. ‘Aydar�s’, 780–2.45 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, see for instance, I, 70–1, 81–8, 182,

218, 482; II, 94, 235–6, 389–90, 440–2; III, 37, 37–8, 49–50, 51,117–18, 118, 234; IV, 20, 26, 56, 94.

46 R.M. Eaton, .��'��>��3%%–�F%%7�.'5� �=' ��'��.��&��:� � ,��, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978; D.C.Verma, 6��'��'��>��, New Delhi: 1974.

47 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, III, 215.48 For �usayn al-Aydar�s, see Van den Berg, *��6��'��, 162–3.

For further accounts on Hadhrami ‘� ��’ in Southeast Asia, seeAzyumardi Azra, ‘Hadhrami Scholars in the Malay-IndonesianDiaspora’, .��,� ��7�,��'��'�� '��,� ��5�.��, 2,II (1995), 1–33; ‘A Hadhrami Scholar in Indonesia: Sayyid ‘Uthman’,in U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds), 6�� 9.5�' �� .�� ,��45��9� �F$%�–� E%�, Leiden:E.J. Brill, 1997, 249–63.

49 Al-Rn�r�, >�� .� ��, Iskandar (ed.), 36. Cf. MS. LeidenUniversity, Cod. Or. 5443, f. 28–30.

50 Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin’, 357.51 @�1��1�� E��–2, 166.52 @�1��1��E��–29�,+�.53 The Malay text was cited in Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin’, 353.

Cf. A. Daudy, 0 �� &�� -'�� )�� =��, Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983, 45; H. Djajadiningrat, ‘De ceremonievan het “poela batèë” op het graf van Soeltan Iskandar II van Atjeh

NOTES—CHAPTER 3 �F$


(1636–1641)’, �>C, 69 (1929), 109–11. For further accounts on thecontroversy, see A. Vakily, ‘Sufism, Power Politics and Reform:Al-Raniri’s Opposition to Hamzah al-Fansuri’s Teachings Reconsid-ered’, .�� ,� ��7� ,��'�� '�� '�� ,� ��5� .��, 4, I (1997), 113–35.

54 A. Daudy, .��)��=��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978,17.

55 Takeshi Ito, ‘Why Did Nuruddin ar-Raniri leave Aceh in 1054 A.H.’,>-,, 134 (1978), 489–91. Ito makes use of the Koloniaal Archief no.1052, fols 667v–668r.

56 Al-Rn�r�, (�� &�+��, MS in the Daudy collection, 4, cited in his0 ��, 47. A much longer passage is also cited in A. Hasjmi, .�’��0� ��, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1983, 107–9.

57 See al-�asan�, )�"�� -��, V, 350. For the complete list of al-Rn�r�’s works, see H.N. van der Tuuk, ‘Kort verslag der Maleischehandschriften’, >-,, 13 (1866), esp. 462–6; P. Voorhoeve, ‘Lijst dergeschriften van Rn�r�’, >-,, 111 (1955), 152–61; Tudjimah (ed.),0�� ,��&�’�� =#��‘ �=��, Bandung: al-Ma’arif,1961, 9–22; Daudi, 0 ��, 47–58. For a classification of his worksaccording to the branches of Islamic discipline, see Siti ChamamahSoeratno et al., &��-��)��0��, Jakarta:Departemen P&K, 1982, 16–48.

58 Al-�asan�, )�"�� -��, V, 349.59 For further discussion on al-Rn�r�’s teachings on Sufism, see for

instance, al-Attas, =��O� 0� 8'��O� Daudi9� 0 ��; SitiChamamah Soeratno, &��-��. For a comparison ofhis teachings with those of �amzah al-FanA�r� and Sham al-D�n, seeVan Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@�; ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri als bestrijderder Wugudiya’, >-,, 104 (1948), 337–411; al-Attas; &��5�� '�6��"��.

60 Eaton, .��'��>��, 127–9. Cf. Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II,235–6.

61 For a detailed discussion on the H�� &��, see R.S.Tjokrowinoto, �� -��+� H��’ �&�� P-��1�� )#��@�� 0��=��Q9� Unpubl. MA thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada,Yogyakarta: 1964.

62 For al-Rn�r�’s sources of �#�� doctrine, see Tudjimah, 0�� ,��,244–87; al-Attas, 0�8'��, 15–24; Daudy, 0 ��, 226, 247.

63 Tjokrowinoto, ��, 124; Abdullah, /��+��1�� , ��, 29.

64 Al-Rn�r�, �+�� &�’�� 0��, in Voorhoeve, ��&� ��5��, 5.

65 Al-Rn�r�, �+��, in ,+�; >�� .� ��, Iskandar (ed.), 40–1.66 Al-Rn�r�, � �(�� &�+��, MS in the Daudy collection fols 3–4,

�FE THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


NOTES—CHAPTER 3 �FF

cited in his 0 ��, 41; also in the Hasjmi collection, cited in his .�’��0� ��, 109.

67 Daudy, 0 ��, 44.68 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘N�r al-D�n al-Rn�r�’s Charge of Heresy against

�amzah and Shamsudd�n from an International Point of View’, inC.D. Grijns & S.O. Robson (eds), 8� �� 8'��5��L�� ,��'�, Dordrecht: Foris, 1986, 54–9. For a comprehensive accountof polemic and controversy during this period, see Azyumardi Azra,‘Opposition to Sufism in the East Indies in the Seventeenth and Eigh-teenth Century’, in Frederick de Jong & Bernd Radtke (eds), ,� ��5&��5�� 8'��7� �� 8�� '�� 8'��':�� /' ��5�, Leiden: Brill, 1999, 665–86.

69 MS Leiden University Cod. Or. 2467 (5660), fols 12–31.70 ‘Lands above the wind’ is a term popular in mediaeval Arabic litera-

ture referring to the ‘upper’ region to the West of theMalay-Indonesian archipelago. In contrast, the term ‘land below thewind’ is employed to designate the whole archipelago. See H. Clifford& F.A. Swettenham, 0�@5�'��'��&� ��*��1��1�, I, Taiping:1894, 63.

71 MS Leiden University Cod. Or. 2467 (5660), fols 12–21. In thecolophon of the work, ‘Abd Allh al-Jw� the copyist prays to God togive His blessing to Ibrh�m ibn �asan al-Kurd� al-K�rn� al-Shahrn�al-Sharaz�r� al-Madan�. See folio 12. Cf. Voorhoeve, ‘Van en overNuruddin’, 365–8.

72 Hamka, @��/��+��, 40–1; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf,22–3.

73 See colophon of the work printed in Tudjimah (ed.), 0�� ,��, 6.74 See Fa%l Allh al-Burhnp�r�, �� &�� )�+�, Arabic

and Javanese texts, English trans. A.H. Johns, Canberra: TheAustralian National University, 1965.

75 For detailed discussion, see Al-Attas, =��; 0� 8'��;Tudjimah (ed.), 0�� ,��; Daudy; 0 ��.

76 Al-Attas, 0�8'��, 8, 46.77 There are several editions of this work now available. See al-Rn�r�,

H�� &��, Shaykh A�mad b. Mu�ammad Zayn MuA�afal-Fatn��(ed.), Singapore: n.d.; another edition printed in the marginof Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banjr�’s .�+� � � �&��, Singapore:Sulayman Mar’ie, n.d. For the spread and use of the H�� &��, see Mohd Nor Bin Ngah, -��+��7�,� ��5��'�1��'�� &� �� &�� .5�' ��, Singapore: ISEAS, 1983; MuhdShaghir Abdullah, /��+��1��, ��(��, esp. 29–31; Martin vanBruinessen, ‘Kitab (�� di Pesantren Indonesia dan Malaysia’,/��, 6, I (1989), 37; ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Scriptused in the Pesantren Milieu’, >-,, 146 (1990), 249–50.


78 See 6�� &��'�1� &��1��, Siti Hawa Saleh (ed.), KualaLumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1970, Ch. IV, esp. 115.

79 Al-Attas, 0�8'��, 11.80 Al-Rn�r�, >�� .� ��, Iskandar (ed.), 38–40.81 Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, I, 109–10.82 Al-Attas, 0�8'��, 46–7. Cf. S.M.N. al-Attas, ��4 ��'��

&� ��&��5��7�0��E��8��&� �� '��'��‘0��’�'�� –)��, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya, 1988.

83 The Malay text of the work in Arabic script is published in facsimile,with an introduction by Voorhoeve, ��&� ��5��. A romanised partof the work is in K. Steenbrink, -��+� .�5� �� -�� ' ��7)�� 0��=�� 01�� -��, Yogyakarta: IAIN SunanKalijaga Press, 1988.

84 See for instance, 0�� ,��, Tudjimah (ed.), 17582; >�� .� ��, MS Raffles no. 8, Royal Asiatic Society, esp. Book II;0�+�� 0�� 0�� B��, esp. Ch. IV. Cf. EdwarDjamaris, ‘Nuruddin ar-Raniri Khabar Akhirat dalam Hal Kiamat’, inSutrisno et al. (eds), 131–46.

85 Voorhoeve, ��&� ��5��; Ph.S. van Ronkel, ‘Raniri’s Maleischegeschrift: Exposé der religies’, >-,, 102 (1943), 461–80; K. Steen-brink, -��+�.�5��-��' ��, ‘Jesus and the Holy Spirit in theWritings of N�r al-D�n al-Rn�r�’, ,8&=, I, no. 2 (1990), 192–207.

86 Al-Attas, 0�8'��, 7.87 A. Teeuw, ‘Pertumbuhan Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Dunia’, in

Harimurti Kridalaksana (ed.), &�� *�� >�� ,��'��7.�+��>��1��=��, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1991, 125–6.

4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II

1 D.A. Rinkes, 0+�'��'��:��.�1� 7�>��1��'��:��'��.��:�, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909, 25–6.

2 See for instance, T. Iskandar, ‘Abdurrauf Singkel Tokoh Syatariyah(Abad ke-17)’, in M.D. Mohamad (ed.), �''��''��.��&� ��- ��, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1987, 72–3;P. Riddell, ��1� �� '�7� ‘0+�� =�’#�� .�1 �’�=��1� ��'� &� �� '�� 8'��, Monographno. 31, Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, Univer-sity of California at Berkeley, 1990, 4–5; Salman Harun, ‘HakekatTafsir Tarjumn al-Mustaf�d Karya Syekh Abdurrauf Singkel’,unpubl. doctoral diss., Institut Agama Islam Negeri, Jakarta, 1988,12–13O� Oman Fathurahman9� ��+�� &��9� &��'� � <�� <��7�-��0+��.�1� ��05��0+��F, Bandung: Mizan &EFEO, 1999.

�FJ THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


3 A. Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf Syiah Kuala, Ulama Negarawan yangBijaksana’, in ��:��.��-�� &�� 1�2%��, Medan:Waspada, 1980, 370.

4 See Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II, 19; P. Voorhoeve, >�� 7� >��+�� &��1�� /�� +�&�� 1� 0+�� .�1� , trans. Aboe Bakar, BandaAceh: PDIA, 1980, 3. The original article is in Dutch, ‘Bayn Tadjall�:Gegevens voor een nadere studie over Abdurrauf van Singkel’, �>C,85 (1952), also reprinted in &�� , ��>��9�, ��>��-�+��,��'��, 85, IV (1955–7), 87–117.

5 Peunoh Daly, ‘Naskah Mir’atut Thullab Karya Abdur-Rauf Singkel’,in 01��9� >�� &��, Jakarta: Balitbang Depag RI,1980, 133.

6 For accounts of Fansur or Barus, see J. Drakard, ‘An Indian Ocean Port:Sources for the Earlier History of Barus’, 0�5�� , 37 (1989), 53–81; L. Nurhakim, ‘La Ville de Barus: Etude archéologique préliminaire’,0�5�� , 37 (1989), 4352; Cf. S.D. Goeitein, *��'��&��:� ��, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973, 228–9.

7 Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 369.8 Drakard, ‘History of Barus’, 54–5; Voorhoeve, >�� , 3.9 Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 370–1. Recent discussion on the date of

Hamzah al-FanA�r�, see chapter 3, note 2 above.10 Cf. Snouck Hurgronje, �� 05��, II, 19–20; Voorhoeve, >��

�� , 3.11 For a list of MSS of this work and its location, see Voorhoeve, >��

�� , 42–3. For our purposes, we use MS Jakarta National Library,M1. 107 B and MS Leiden University, Cod. Or. 1933.

12 See Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 25.13 Al-Sink�l�, ‘��, MS Jakarta National Library, M1. 107, fol. 112.14 For an identification of these places and the state of Islamic learning

there, see ‘Abd al-Ra�mn b. ‘Al� al-Dayba’, � �(�? � � �&�"�’ ‘� �>�1�� &��&��K�+��, Y�suf Shalhud (ed.), Sana’a:Markaz al-Dirsat wa al-Bu��th al-Yaman�, 1983; Ism’�l b. ‘Al�al-Akwa’, 0 �&�� ,� �� R��, Beirut: Mu’assasatal-Rislah, 1406/1986.

15 According to Al-Mu�ibb�, Ibrh�m b. Mu�ammad b. Ja’mn was thegrandfather of Ibrh�m b. ‘Abd Allh b. Ja’mn, and died in 1034/1625.If this date is correct, al-Sink�l� could not have met him. SeeAl-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 39; Cf. al-Kattn�, (��, I, 415.

16 Al-Sink�l�, ‘��, MS Ml. 107, fol. 112, 113.17 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 22.18 For Ibrh�m b. ‘Abd Allh b. Ja’mn’s biography and works, see

Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 21–2; al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, I, 33; al-Kattn�, (��, I, 131, for his further connectionsin the networks.

NOTES—CHAPTER 4 �F


�J% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

19 Al-Sink�l�, ‘��, M1. 107, fol. 112.20 For Is�q b. Ja’mn’s biography and works, see Al-Mu�ibb�, -��

� �0��, I, 394–6, al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, I, 202; For hisfurther connections in the networks, see al-Kattn�, (��, I, 415.

2l For ‘Abd al-Ra��m al-KhAA’ biography, see Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 347. It is important to note that ‘Abd al-Ra��m al-KhAAwas also a teacher of �asan al-’Ajami, Zayn al-’Hbid�n and ‘Al�al-)abar�. See al-Kattn�, (��, I, 270; II, 554, 811, 992.

22 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, IV, 281; ‘Al� b. Mu�ammadal-Dayba’ [al-Shaybn�], a �� and reciter of the Qur’n. Foral-Dayba’, see al-Kattn�, (��, I, 374, 415, 587, 714.

23 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II, 283. 24 ,+�, III, 334–625 ,+�, I, 252–3.26 Al-Sink�l�, ‘��, M1. 107, fol. 112.27 See al-Kattn�, (��, II, 587.29 For ‘Al� al-)abar�, see chapter 1, note 104 and accounts attached to it.30 ‘Abd Allh B Qash�r, a �� and poet, was a friend of

Al-Mu�ibb�. Among his teachers were ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Ra��mal-BaAr�, ‘Abd al-Qdir al-)abar� and A�mad b. ‘Aln. He hasnumerous students from Mecca, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. See Al-Mu�ibb�, Khul��at al-Athar, III, 42–4; al-Baghdd�, Hadiyyatal-‘!rif�n, I, 478; al-Kattn�, Fahras, I, 194, 252; II, 583.

3l See the accounts called ‘Pasal pada Menyatakan . � �� Tuan SyekhAbdul Ra’uf tatkala Menuntut Ilmu kepada Syekh Abdul Qusyasyi[sic]’, Ph. S. van Ronkel (ed.), ‘Het Heiligdom te Oelakan’, �>C, 64(1914), esp. 309–12. Henceforth, . � �� Abdul Rauf.

32 Al-Sink�l�, ‘Umdat, M1. 107, fol. 112.33 A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Direc-

tions’, ,��'��, 19 (1975), 48–54; ‘Islam in Southeast Asia:Problems of Perspective’, in C.D. Cowan & O.W. Wolters (eds),.'�� 0�� 6��'�� 6��'�'1��7� ;�� /�� '@SCS;S�6� , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976, esp. 316–9.

34 See the complete Malay text printed in Voorhoeve, Bay�n Tajall�, 18.This text of al-K�rn�’s is not listed in various bibliographies of hisworks. In the Malay-Indonesian world it is known through its trans-lation into the �� language by Katib Seri Raja. The work begins withpassages that are said to have been taken from Jall al-D�n al-Suy��’s.��+�.��A� �� &�� B�+�, giving a detailed descriptionof events on the eve of one’s death.

35 Al-Sink�l�, ‘��, M1. 107, fol. 113.36 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I; 25–8; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 393;

al-Baghdd�, Hadiyyat al-‘!rif�n, I, 33; For his further connections inthe networks, see al-Kattn�, Fahras, I, 169, 183, 211, 212, 386; II,576, 587, 767, 808.


37 Al-Murd�, . �� @��, III, 229–30. 38 See Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II, 10, 18-9. I was unable to

inspect these � � ��s myself.39 See Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 25; Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II,

18; Voorhoeve, >�� , 2; Iskandar, ‘Abdurrauf’, 72–3; Johns,‘Reflections’, 47.

40 Hasjmi, ‘Sjekh Abdurrauf’, 375; Cf. K.F.H. van Langen, ‘SusunanPemerintahan Aceh semasa Kesultanan’, trans. Aboe Bakar, BandaAceh: PDIA, 1986, 42–4, 54–9. The original article in Dutch is ‘Deinrichting van het Atjehsche staatsbestuur onder het Sultanaat’, >-,,37 (1888), 382–471.

41 R.H. Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan Aceh, trans. Teuku Hamid, BandaAceh: Dep. P&K, 1982/3, 27. This is a translation of ‘Critischoverzicht van de in Maleische werken vervatte gegevens over deGeschiedenis van het Soeltanaat van Atjeh’, >-,, 65 (1911), 135–265.

42 For complete account of the delegation, see C. Snouck Hurgronje, ‘EenMekkaansch gezantschap naar Atjeh in 1683’, >-,, 37 (1888), 545–54;Djajadiningrat, -�� , 58–9.

43 A�mad Da�ln, -�� -� �� >�� ’ � �>� �� A��, Cairo: n.p., 1305/1888, 104–5. Snouck Hurgronje pointsout that he based his accounts on Da�ln’s work. The information wasalso copied by A�mad al-Sib’�, T�r�kh Makkah, 2 vols, Riyad(?):al-Mamlakat al-’Arabiyyat al-Su’�diyyah, 1404/1984, II, 388.

44 Snouck Hurgronje, ‘Een Mekkaansch’, 144.45 See al-Sink�l�, &�’�� G� �+, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 445,

cited in Harun, ‘Hakekat Tafsir’, 27.46 Djajadiningrat, -�� , 60. For further accounts of the Jaml al-Layl

Dynasty, see D. Crecelius & E.A. Beardow, ‘A Reputed AcehneseSarakata of the Jaml al-Lail Dynasty’, �&>=0., 52, 2 (1979), 51–66.

47 For a complete list of his works, see Voorhoeve, >�� , 35–53;Cf. Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 377–8.

48 Al-Sink�l�, &�’�� G� �+, printed in part in S. Keijzer, ‘De spiegelvoor leergierige wetgeleerden’, >-,, 11 (1864), 221; Voorhoeve,>�� , 4.

49 For the locations of this work, see Voorhoeve, >�� , 36–7.50 See al-Sink�l�, &�’�� G� �+, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 445,

1; cf. Zakariyy al-AnAr�, (�� <��+� +� .�� &�� G� �+, Beirut: Dr al-Ma’rifah, 1978(?).

51 See Daly, ‘Naskah Miratut Thullab’, 137.52 See M.B. Hooker, ,� ��5�*��.'��;��0��, Singapore: Oxford

University Press, 1984, 20, 32, 41 n. 98.53 See ‘Abd al-Ra’�f b. ‘Al� al-FanA�r�, -��+� � �(��’�, Singapore/

Jeddah: �aramayn, n.d. Another edition is published in one volumewith Ism’�l al-Minangkabaw�’s -�� C�� , Penang: n.d.

NOTES—CHAPTER 4 �J�


54 For further discussion on the growth of the Qur’nic commentary trad-ition in the archipelago, see P. Riddell, ‘Earliest Quranic ExegeticalActivity in the Malay-Speaking States’, 0�5�� , 38 (1989), 107–24;A.H. Johns, ‘Quranic Exegesis in the Malay World: In Search of aProfile’, in A. Rippin (ed.), 0��'�5��'��6��'��'��,��'��'��B��’��, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 257–87; ‘Islam inthe Malay World: An Exploratory Survey with Some Reference toQuranic Exegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), ,� �� 0��7N' �� ,,9� .'�� ;�� 0��, Boulder, CO: Westview Press,1984, 115–61; R.M. Feener, ‘Notes towards the History of Qur’anicExegesis in Southeast Asia’, .��,� ��7�,��'��'�� '�,� ��5�.��, 5, III (1998), 47–76.

55 See Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 378.56 Riddell, ��1, 20–5.57 For complete accounts of various editions of the Tarjum�n al-

Mustaf�d, see Riddell, ��1, 15-33; Harun, ‘Hakekat Tafsir’,38–42.

58 Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II, 17 n. 6.59 Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 31–2.60 See Voorhoeve, >�� , 38; ‘Abd al-Ra’�f al-Sink�l�’, in E1, I, 88.61 His full name was ‘Al’ al-D�n b. Mu�ammad b. Ibrh�m al-Baghdd�

al-Khzin. For an edition of his commentary, see �� -��"�,Cairo: MuA�af al-Bb��al-�alab�, 1375/1955. The original title of thecommentary is *�+�+�� ’�� &�’�� "� .

62 Johns, ‘Quranic Exegesis’, 264.63 Johns, ,+�, 266.64 ,+�. 65 Al-Sink�l�, &��’D � �>��’��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 341-

A; Voorhoeve, >�� , 40; Iskandar, -�� , 59.66 For an outline of the &��’D � �>��’��, see Rinkes, 0+�'��'��,

33–6.67 Voorhoeve, >�� , 40.68 Printed in one volume with ‘Abd Allh b. ‘Abd al-Ra��m al-Fatn�,

&��A��)�+, Penang: Sulaymn Press, 1369/1949.Cf. Mohd Nor bin Ngah, -��+��7� ,� ��5��'�1��'�� &� ��&�� .5�' ��, Singapore: ISEAS, 1982, esp. 27–8, 35, 46.

69 See M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script used inthe Pesantren Milieu’, >-,, 146 (1990), 255.

70 For a complete list, see Voorhoeve, >�� , esp. 39–40, 42–52.71 A.H. Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f by ‘Abd al-Ra’�f of Singkel’, �=0., 1,

2 (1955), 55. The same argument is presented by al-Sink�l� in.��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 336D, pp 65–71.

72 ,+�, 55.73 Voorhoeve, >�� , 44; Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 39.

�J2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


74 The verses read: Kunn �ur�fan ‘liytin lam nuqal//Muta’alliqtin f�dhur a’l al-qulal//An anta f�hi wa na�nu anta wa anta h�//Wa al-kullu f� h� h�, fas’al ‘amman waAal. (We lofty letters, (yet) unuttered//held latent in the highest peaks of the hills//I am you in Him and we areyou, and you are He//and all is He in Him ask those who have attained.)Cited in Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f’, 61, 69.

75 A. Marie Schimmel similarly praises the way al-Sink�l� interprets theverses. See Schimmel, ‘The Primordial Dot: Some Thoughts aboutSufi Letter Mysticism’, �� .��0��+5��,� ��P�.0,Q,9 (1987), 354.

76 Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f’, 56.77 ,+�.78 See al-Sink�l�, .��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 336D,

p. 74; Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f’, 154–5.79 See Ibrh�m al-K�rn�, ,�� @��+�.�� &��

�� =#�� )�+�, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub al-MiAriyyah, ��2578, fols 14, 20. Cf. al-Sink�l�, .��, MS Jakarta NationalLibrary, Ml 336D, 74.

80 Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f’, 150, 157. Cf. al-K�rn�, ,�� @��, fols6, 9, 11, 15.

81 For a complete description of al-Sink�l�’s method of ��, seeal-Sink�l�, ‘�� &��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml375, pp. 35–40; .��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml336D, p. 74; Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 59–93. Cf. A�mad al-Qushsh�,� �.�� &�� .��’�� >��’�� @�� .� �� 0� � � ��, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-NiDmiyyah, 1327/1909, esp. 15–21, 30–1; cf. Fathurahman9��+�� &��, 36–192.

82 See Voorhoeve, >�� , 47–8. Cf. al-Qushsh�, � �.�� &��, 11–15, 33–6.

83 Johns, ‘DaJ’ik al-�ur�f’, 143, 153–4. The Arabic text of the ��runs as follows: ‘L yarm� rajulun rajulan bi al-fus�qi wa l yarm�hi bial-kufri ill irtadda alayhi in lam yakun A�ibuhu kadhlik.’ The �ad�this narrated by al-Bukhr�. See al-Bukhr�, H�� >��, Cairo:al-Sha’b, n.d., 44.

84 Johns, ‘Reflections’, 53.85 See for instance, Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II, 19.86 See R. LeRoy Archer, ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’,

�&>=0., 15, II (1937), 90, 93.87 The full title of the work is ��+�� &�� &��#+� ��G��

B��. See Voorhoeve, >�� , 35.88 See J.S. Trimingham, ��.��4��, esp. 97–8.89 See Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, II, 10, 18–20, 216; Rinkes, 0+�

�'��'��, 57, 95; S.N. al-Attas, .'��0��5��'��.��''��

NOTES—CHAPTER 4 �J3


�� /��5�� '�1� �� &� ��, Singapore: Malaysian SociologicalResearch Institute, 1963, 28–9.

90 ‘Tuanku’ is one of the highest title of ‘� ��’ in West Sumatra. Thistitle as such cannot be inherited. See Hamka, 0��7�=��6��@�S� 6S� 0+�� -�� 0�� /��1�� -�� 01�� .��, Jakarta: Djajamurni, 1967, 24 n. 1.

91 See . � �� Abdul Ra’uf, Van Ronkel (ed.), 312–16; J.J. de Hollander(ed.), N�� :��:��1��/��'� ��'��.��''�.��5�� @� � � ;��, henceforth, A�� @��, Leiden: Brill,1857, 5–6. For a fuller biography of Burhn al-D�n, see Tamar Djaja,‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’, in his /��,��'��7�=��6��4��1�'��1�>��0�, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965,282-90; Hamka, 0��(��-�� =�', Jakarta: BulanBintang, 1974, 110–2, 128–57.

92 A�� @��, 6; . � �� 0+�� =�’��, 315. For a completeaccount of the surau, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Rise and Decline ofthe Minangkabau Surau: A Traditional Islamic Educational Institutionin West Sumatra during the Dutch Colonial Government’, unpubl. MAthesis, Columbia University, 1988.

93 A�� @��, 6–9.94 See Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Surau and the Early Reform Movements in

Minangkabau’, &"��, 3, II (1990), 64–85.95 For complete accounts of ‘Abd al-Mu�y�’s biography and teachings,

see Rinkes, 0+�'��'��, 96–6; ‘De Maqm van Sjech Abdoelmoehji’,�>C, 52 (1910), 556–89; Mohammad Kosasi, ‘Pamidjahan en zijnHeiligdom’, @��, 38 (Oct. 1938), 121–44; A.M. Santrie, ‘Martabat(Alam) Tujuh: Suatu Naskah Mistik Islam dari Desa Karang, Pamija-han’, in A.R. Hassan (ed.), <�� ,�� ,� �� ,��'��,Bandung: Mizan/LSAF, 1987, 105-29; A.W. Mu thi, ‘Tarekat Syat-tariyah, dari Gujarat sampai Caruban’, /��, 4, III (1987), 7581.

96 H.W.M.S. Abdullah, /��+��1��, ��(��''��''��0��11��,, Solo: Ramadhani, 1985, 16, 46–9.

97 See Riddell, ��1, 42–3.98 A. Hasjmi, ‘Pendidikan Islam dalam Sejarah’, .��@�� , 63

(1975), 20–1. Cf. Hamka, 0��(��, 179–80.99 Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��,,, 17, 20; Riddell, ��1, 43.

5 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III

1 To mention some of the most recent studies on al-Maqassr�: Ab�Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf Tajul Khalwati: Suatu Kajian AntropologiAgama’, unpubl. doctoral diss., Ujung Pandang: Universitas Hasanud-din, 1990; Tudjimah et al., .�� R�� &��7� =�� 6��9

�J� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


-�� 0��, Jakarta: Dep. P&K, 1987; E.P.J. von Kleist,‘Ein indonesischer Muslim des 17. Jahrhunderts in Südafrika: ZweiSendschreiben des Scheichs Yusuf Makassar’, unpubl. MA thesis,Kapstadt: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, 1986; Suleman Essop Dangor,.��R��, Durban: Kat Bros, 1982; H.A. Massiara, .��R��.� ��C'��, Jakarta: Yayasan Lakipadada, 1983; I.D.du Plessis, .��1� �'��'��, Kaapstad: Nasionale Boekhandel, 1970;Nabilah Lubis, .��R�� &��7�&��1��,��.�1� �� =��, Bandung: Mizan, EFEO & FS UI, 1996; M.R.Feener, ‘Syaikh Yusuf and the Appreciation of Muslim Saints inModern Indonesia’, �'�� '��,� ��5�.��, 18/19 (1999), 112–31.

2 The work, entitled *'��> ��1, is the oldest historiography of theKingdoms of Gowa and Tallo in South Sulawesi. It is written inMacassarese according to the hijrah calendar, and has generally beenconsidered reliable by historians of the region. The 0�� is editedand translated into Dutch by A. Ligtvoet, ‘Transcriptie van hetdagboek der vorsten van Gowa en Tello’, >-,, 28 (1880), 1259 (hence-forth, @�1+'�). Reference to al-Maqassr�’s date of birth is given onp. 90. For discussion on the 0�� , see J. Noorduyn, ‘Origins of SouthCelebes Historical Writings’, in Soedjatmoko et al. (eds), 0�� ,��'��5�'��'�,��'��6��'�'1��, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1965, 13755; A.A. Cense, “Old Buginese and MacassareseDiaries”, >-,, 122 (1966), 416–28.

3 &��,� ��.� ��.� ��, Ujung Pandang: Balai PenelitianLektur, 1985–6, 43. Cf. Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 104–5.

4 For a history of Islamisation of the region, see J. Noorduyn, ‘DeIslamisering van Makassar’, >-,, 112 (1956), 247–66; C. Pelras,‘Religion, Tradition and the Dynamics of Islamisation in SouthSulawesi’, 0�5�� , 29 (1985), 107–35; Mattulada, ‘Islam di SulawesiSelatan’, in Taufik Abdullah (ed.), 01�� /��+�� .'�� ,Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983, 209–321; >�1��&�� /��,� ��,��'��, Ujung Pandang: IAIN Alauddin, 1982.

5 Mattulada, ‘Islam’, 236, 239–40; Pelras, “Religion”, 121–2.6 @�1+'�, 105.7 ,+�, 105.8 See discussion in chapter 3 on al-Rn�r�.9 Hawash Abdullah, /��+��1�� , �� ''��''�� )��, Surabaya: Al-Ikhlas, 1980, 62–5; Hamka,‘Sjeich Jusuf Tadju’l Chalwati (Tuanta Salamaka), 1626–1699’, in/��+��*��, Medan: Madju, 1963, 40.

10 Al-Maqassr�, .�� )��, cited in Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 40–1.Cf. Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 22–3.

11 Al-Attas, =��, 13. I was unable to substantiate this account, asal-Attas gives no reference to it.

NOTES—CHAPTER 5 �J$


12 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , Jakarta National Library, MSA 101, 25.

13 J.O. Voll, ‘Linking Groups in the Networks of Eighteenth CenturyRevivalist Scholars: The Mizjaji Family in Yemen’, in N. Levtzion &J.O. Voll (eds), ;1�� 8�� =�� =��'�� ,� ��,Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 72.

14 Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, II, 283.15 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 25; .��

� �)��, cited in Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 23.16 See al-Maqassr�, .�� )��, cited in Tudjimah et al., .��

R��, 23; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 40.17 See Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, III, 193.18 ,+�, III, 192–3.19 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 25; .��

� �)��, cited in Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 23.20 See MSS Yahuda 2393 and 2395 in R. Mach, 8�� '1�� '�� 0��+5

&��5�� PR�� .�5�'�Q� �� C�� 8' �5�'�� /��5��'��:��*+��, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977,205. Al-K�rn�’s commentary is not mentioned in al-Baghdd�’s6�� ’!��, nor in Brockelmann’s C0*.

21 See N. Heer, �� /��5'�� /�� : 0 ��’�� @�� (��'1�� C '�� 8'�� '�� ‘0+�� C��#�� *��, Albany: State University of New York Press (1979), 13–15.

22 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 25.23 See al-Kattn�, (��, II, 829. 24 See al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 25; Abdullah,

/��+��1��, ��, 60.25 For a complete account of Mu�ammad M�rz, see Al-Mu�ibb�,

-�� 0��, IV, 202–3.26 For further details of Ayy�b al-Khalwat�’s biography and works, see

MuA�af Fat� Allh al-�awaw�, (��’�� ,�� )��’�� .��,3 vols, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub al-MiAriyyah, Tr�kh 1093, II, fols 87–8; Al-Mu�ibb�, -�� 0��, I, 428–33. For his connection inthe networks, see al-Kattn�, (��, I, 133, 252, 497, 505; II, 558.

27 See al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 25; .�� )��, cited in Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 23; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’,40.

28 Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41; Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 19. 29 See Djirong Basang (trans.), =��.��R��-��&��

��1� @��1� &��1, Jakarta: Dep. P&K, 1981, 149–50;Anonymous, ‘Riwajat’na Tuanta Salamaka Rigowa’, typescript,Makasar: 1969, 19–20.

30 Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 110; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 42.31 Dangor, .��R��, 2–3; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 111.32 Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 111; Martin van Bruinessen, ‘The Origins and

�JE THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Development of the Naqshbandi Order in Indonesia’, @�� ,� ��, 67(1990), 157.

33 ‘Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41–2.34 A.M. Amansyah, ‘Tentang Lontara Syekh Yusuf Tajul Halawatiyah’,

unpubl. typescript, Ujung Pandang: Perpustakaan UniversitasHasanuddin, 1975, 7–8.

35 Mattulada, ‘Islam di Sulawesi Selatan’, 241.36 Pelras, ‘Religion’, 123–5.37 ‘Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 111–12.38 ‘Hikajat Sjeich Joesoep van H.S.D. Moentoe Labbakang, Pangkad-

jene’, unpubl. typescript, Coll. A.A. Cense, Leiden University, KITLVOr. 545–218, pp 56–7.

39 Dangor, .��R��, 3. 40 See Mattulada, ‘Islam’, 243–4; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41–2; Pelras,

‘Religion’, 123–4.41 See @�1��1��EF , 429; @�1��1��EJ%, 705; cf. A.A. Cense,

‘De verering van Sjaich Jusuf in Zuid-Celebes’, �� >�1�� >��,Leiden: Sijhoff, 1950, 51.

42 Labbakang, ‘Hikajat’, 65; @�1+'�, 154; Massiara, .��R��, 62;Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 4; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 113.

43 B.H.M. Vlekke, )��7� 0� 6��'�� '�� ,��'��, The Hague &Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1959, 177; M.C. Ricklefs, 0�6��'��'��&'��,��'��, London: Macmillan, 1990, 175.

44 See @�1��1��EF , 429. 45 @�1��1�� EEE–�EEF, 140, 289, 292; @�1��1�� 1670–1671,

264, 273; @�1��1��1674, 12, 127, 157, 196, 271.46 @�1��1�� EJ%, 606.47 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep Makasar’, @��, 6 (1926), 84–5;

B.J.O. Schrieke, ,��'��.'5' '15� �.��, 2 vols, The Hague &Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1957, II, 242.

48 @�1��1��EJ%, 97, 269, 705.49 Labbakang, ‘Hikajat’, 56–7; Basang (trans.), =�� .�� R��,

158–60; B.F. Matthes, ‘Boegineese en Makassaarsche Legenden’,>-,, 34 (1885), 449–52.

50 See F. de Haan, /��1��7� @�� /��1��1��5�� '�� )�� 5�� +�� '�� J��, Batavia & ‘s-Gravenhage, Kolff &Nijhoff, 1912, III, 282; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 85.

51 For further accounts of the meeting between al-Maqassr� and ‘Abdal-Mu�y�, see an untitled MS in the collection of al-Maqassr�’s works,Jakarta National Library, MS A 101, 64.

52 Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 85; Uka Tjandra Sasmita, &�� >��-'��>� ��7�.� ��01��1��, Jakarta: Nusalarang, 1967,35–6.

53 ,+�, 35–6.

NOTES—CHAPTER 5 �JF


54 F.W. Stapel, C��5�� :�� )�� 5��,��ë9� $� :' �, Amster-dam: Joost van den Vondel, 1939, II, 414.

55 ,+�; Dangor, .��R��, 15.56 For detailed accounts of Sultan Ageng’s conduct of the war, see De

Haan, /��1��, III, 238–78; Sasmita, &��>��-'��, 38–46.57 De Haan, /��1��, III, 282; Sasmita, &��>��-'��, 46–7.58 De Haan, /��1��, III, 282–3; @�1+'�, 154; Drewes, ‘Sjech

Joesoep’, 86. Cf. Sasmita, &��>��-'��, 48–9.59 Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 85.60 De Haan, /��1��, III, 283; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 86.61 See for instance, A.L. Ab’ Bakar (ed.), &� �� .� ��, Kuala

Lumpur: Gapena, 1990; B.A. Hussainmiya, 4��1� =��7� ��&� ��'�� 8�� '��=� ��=�1��, Bangi: Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia, 1990; ‘A Brief Historical Note on the Malay Migration toSri Lanka’, ��+��, 14 (1986), 65–92.

62 Of about 29 works attributed to al-Maqassr�, no fewer than eight werewritten in Srilanka: � �>�� .�� 9� � �)�� .�� 9� � �&�� .�� &�� =��9-�� &��1�� ,��+��+�� A�� B��9�A�+ �� B�� .�’�� &��9�.�� )��9�&�� +�� .� ��9��=�� C�� ,�� )�� ,��D��= See the collection ofal-Maqassr�’s works in Jakarta National Library, MS A No. 101 and MSA 108; Tudjimah 8�� S, .�� R��, 20–26; Voorhoeve, 6�� '�0��+5�&��5��, 539; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 155–60.

63 According to Hussainmiya, a number of Malay families in Srilanka atthe present time still claim that they are descendants of prominentMalay-Indonesian rulers and princes who live as exiles on the island.Among them is Mas Ghaise Weerabangsa, who possesses a manuscriptthat states that his family descended from al-Maqassr�. See Hussain-miya, 4��1�=��, 80, 86 n. 15.

64 Hussainmiya, 4��1�=��, 38–8; T.J.P. Ahtmat J.P., ‘KedatanganOrang Melayu ke Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), &� �� .� ��,13–15.

65 Al-Maqassr�, .�� )��, cited in Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 45.66 Cf. his introductory notes to his works, written in Srilanka, in

Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 20, 22, 23–5, 26.67 Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 46–7; Tudjimah et al., .��R��, 20. I was

unable to substantiate this account from Indian and Dutch sources.68 See al-Maqassr�, =�� C��, summarised in Tudjimah et al.,

.��R��, 26, 107–10.69 Among them were the >�� .� ��9� H�� &�� of

al-Rn�r�4 .�� &��and -��+�� (��’��of al-Sinkil�= RashidAhmad also mentions that al-Maqassr�’s works are found in Srilanka,but he gives no titles. There is also 6�� .� �� of ‘Abd al-

�JJ THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


0amad al-Palimbn�, who is discussed in chapter 6. See Hussainmiya,4��1�=��, esp. 138–40; Rashid Ahmad, ‘Gapena Pelopori UsahaMenjalin Hubungan yang Terputus’, 26; A.S. Yahya, ‘Budaya BertulisMelayu Srilanka’, 67–72; Arifin Said, ‘Manuskrip Melayu diSrilanka’, 73–6; Abu Hassan Sham, ‘Malay Manuscripts andSrilanka’, 153–60. All the last four articles are in Abu Bakar (ed.),&� ��.� ��.

70 The fact that there were attempts among Malay-Indonesian exiles tocollaborate with their fellow Muslims in the archipelago in strugglesagainst the Dutch has been shown by Hussainmiya for the period of theeighteenth century. There is reason to believe that such connectionsalso existed in the period of al-Maqassr�. See Hussainmiya, 4��1=��, 42–3.

71 J.S. Mayson, ��&� �� '�� 8��'��, Manchester: J. Galt & Co,1861, 11; I.D. du Plessis, �� 8�� &� ��, Johannesburg: SouthAfrican Institute of Race Relations, 1946, 2; F.R. Bradlow, ‘TheOrigins of the Early Cape Muslims’, in F.R. Bradlow & MargaretCairns, ��;�� 8��&�� 7�0�.��'��&'��9�C�� '1�� 4�1��, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1978, 81–90; C.Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf, the Founder of Islam in South Africa’,=� 1'�� .'�� 0��5�, I, 1 (1980), 10–11; M.J. Swart, ‘TheKaramat of Sheik Yussef’, .'��0��5��/��'��, 6 (1961), 18.

72 See for instance, S.M. Zwemer, ‘Islam at Cape Town’, &<, 15, 4(1925), 328; Du Plessis, The Cape Malays, 2; F.R. Bradlow, ‘Islam atthe Cape of Good Hope’, .��0�� 6��'�� '�� , 13(1981), 9; J.M. Cuoq, *��&�� 0��, Paris: Misoneuve &Larose, 1975, 490.

73 K.M. Jeffreys, ‘Sheikh Joseph at the Cape’, 8��)�� , 6 (1939),195. For the earliest references to al-Maqassr� in South Africa, seeFrançois Valentijn, 4�� )�� 4'��,��, Dordrecht/Amster-dam: 1724–6, III, 208–9; IV, 109, 123; V, 47; K. Scherzer, )��:�'��8�5��:1��'��'��C '+��+��0��(�1��)':��R��J$F9��J$J��J$ , London: 1861, I, 245–8. For lateraccounts, see G. McCall Theal, 6��'�� ;��'1�� '�� 0��5�.'��'��K��+��, 3 vols, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1909, II,263; A. van Selms, ‘Yussuf (Joseph) Sheik’, in W.J. de Kock (ed.),@5�'�� '�� .'�� 0��5�� >'1��, 1968, 893; Greyling,‘Schech Yusuf’, 15–6; Dangor, .��R��, 27–8.

74 Du Plessis, ��8��&� ��, 4; Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf’, 16.75 Du Plessis, �� 8�� &� ��, 4; Dangor, .�� R��, 29. Cf.

Bradlow, ‘Islam at the Cape’, 16.76 Dangor, .��R��, 59; Jeffreys, ‘Sheik Joseph’, 195.77 Achmat Davids, ‘Politics and the Muslims of Cape Town: A Histori-

cal Survey’, .�� 6��'�� '�� 8�� '��, 4 (1981), 174,

NOTES—CHAPTER 5 �J


177–9; Dangor, .��R��, 29; E.A. Walker, 0�6��'��'��.'��0��5�, 3rd edn, London: Longmans, 1962, 72.

78 Zwemer, ‘Islam at Cape Town’, 327.79 ,+�, 330.80 See C. Thurnberg, ��:� ��;��'��9�0��5��0��, 4 vols, London:

F. Rivingston, 1795, I, 132–4.81 Mayson, ��&� ��, 19–20.82 Cited in I.D. du Plessis & C.A. Luckhoff, ��&� ��B��,��

/�'� �, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1953, 36.83 See L.Y. Andaya, The Heritage of Arung Palakka: A History of South

Sulawesi (Celebes) in the Seventeenth Century, The Hague: Nijhoff,1981, 273, 276–7.

84 ,+�, 273; Jeffrey, ‘Sheikh Joseph’, 195; Dangor, .��R��, 32.85 @�1+'�, 169; De Haan, /��1��, III, 283.86 For a detailed description of al-Maqassr�’s ��(tomb), see I.D.

Du Plessis, �� 8�� &� ��7� 6��'��9� =� 1'�9� ��'��9� (' �� '��&� ��B��, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1972, 4–5; duPlessis & Luckhoff, ��&� ��B��, 35–7; Dangor, .��R��,51–2; K.M. Jeffreys, ‘The Karamat at Zandvlei, Faure. Sheikh Josephin the East’, ��8��)�� , 5 (1938), 15–17.

87 Van Selm, ‘Yussuf (Joseph), Sheik’, 893; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’,86–7.

88 De Haan, /��1��, III, 284; @�1+'�, 176; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 87.89 For a detailed description of the reverence paid by Muslims in South

Sulawesi to Al-Maqassr�, see Cense, ‘De verering’; Hamid, ‘SyekhYusuf’, 137–9.

90 De Haan, /��1��, III, 283–4.91 Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf’, 17.92 Matthes, ‘Boeginese’, 451–2.93 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 2. 94 Al-Maqassr�, &�� +�� .� �, MS A 101, 81–2.95 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 23; &�� +

� �.� �, MS A 101, 81; .�� 0��, MS A 101, 86; K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 31; @��’ � �>� �, in Tudjimah et al., .��R��,esp. 99.

96 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 22; K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 32.

97 Al-Maqassr�, K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 38–9.98 Al-Maqassr�, Tj � �0��, MS A 101, 76–7; -�� &��1�, in

Tudjimah et.al, 43–4. Cf. Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 197–8.99 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 2.

100 ,+�, 28; B�� ’0��, MS A 101, 54–5.101 Al-Maqassr�, � �(��’�� R#��, MS A 108, 80–1; ��

� �0+��, MS A 101, 78–9; � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 8–9.

� % THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


102 Al-Maqassr�, K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 36–7; (��’�� R#��, MS A 108, 80–1.

103 Al-Maqassr�, K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 39.104 ‘Abd al-Kar�m al-J�l�, ��:�� &��, extracts trans. with commentary

T. Burckhardt, English trans. Angela Culme-Seymor, Paris: BesharaPublication, 1983, 39, 45, 48.

105 Al-Maqassr�, .�� 0��, MS A 101, 95.106 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 12.107 Al-Maqassr�, � �>�� .�� , MS A 108, 71. Cf.

� �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 4–5.108 Al-Maqassr�, � �(��’�� R#��, MS A 108, 83; B��

� �’0��, MS A 101, 52; .�� 0��, MS A 101, 94.109 Al-Maqassr�, K�+�� 0��, MS A 101, 37.110 ,+�, 42.111 Al-Maqassr�, � �(��’�� R#��, MS A 108, 82; � �)��

� �.�� , MS A, 101, 4; �� 0��, MS A 101, 73–4.112 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 4; Tj � �0��,

MS A 101, 74.113 Al-Maqassr�, .�� 0��, MS A 101, 94.114 Al-Maqassr�, &�� +�� .� ��, MS A 101, 85. 115 al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 23–4.116 ,+�, 2.117 ,+�, 24–5.118 Al-Maqassr�, � �)�� .�� , MS A 101, 5, 24–5. I was

unable to verify this citation, claimed to have been a statement of Ibn‘Arab�, in the latter’s works.

119 Al-Maqassr�, �� 0��, cited in Tudjimah et.al., .��R��,114.

120 For a detailed exposition of devotional services related to ��, seeal-Maqassr�, (�� -�� @��, MS A 108, 62-66; �� 0��(�?� �� @��, MS A 101, 78–80.

121 Al-Maqassr�, �� 0��, MS A 101, 79.

6 NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM!’ AND ISLAMIC RENEWAL

1 See Hamka, 0��7�=��6��@�S�6S�‘0+��-��0�� /��1��-��01��.��, Djakarta: Djajamurni, 1963,esp. 26ff; H.M. Federspiel, /�� ,� ��7� ,� ��5� =��'�� 8��,��'��, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ModernIndonesia Project, 1970, 4.

2 C. Geertz, ,� ��4+��:��7�=� 1'��@�:� '�� &'�'55'� ��,��'��, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1968,65–70.

3 See Deliar Noer, ��&'��&�� &':��4 Singapore: OxfordUniversity Press, 1973, esp. 10–21, 30–3.

NOTES—CHAPTER 6 � �


� 2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

4 Federspiel, /��,� ��, 3.5 ,+�, 4. Cf. Hamka, 0��, 26–7.6 For accounts of the Sultanate Palembang, see M.O. Woelders, 6��.� ��/� ��+��1��J��–�J2$, Leiden: Nijhoff, 1975; P. de Roo dela Faille, @��K��-�� /� ��+��1, trans. S. Poerbakawatja,Djakarta: Bhratara, 1971; Husni Rahim, Sistem Ororitas dan MasaKesultanan dan Kolonial cli Palembang, Jakarta: Logos, 1998.

7 VOC 2934 Palembang to Batavia 10 Sept. 1758, fol. 70; VOC 3733Resident’s reply to Amsterdam’s letters of 30 Nov. 1781 and 22 Nov.1982, fol. 10. I am grateful to Professor Barbara W. Andaya for supplyingthese sources. She and Professor Leonard Andaya have generously sharedsome findings of their research concerning Palembang in this period.

8 See ‘Palembang Manuscripts and Authors’, in G.W.J. Drewes, @��5��'�� '�� :� �� '�� &��5� /��, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1977,198–241; T. Iskandar, ‘Palembang Kraton Manuscripts’, in C.M.S.Hellwig & S.O. Robson (eds), 0�&��'��,��'��*��7�;��6'�'�� '�� /�'��'�� 0S� ��, Dordrecht: Foris Publication, 1986,67–72; R. Winstedt, 0�6��'��'��8 ��5� �&� ��*��, KualaLumpur: Oxford University Press, 1969, 152–3, 154.

9 Drewes, @��5�'��, 220.10 ,+�, esp. 219–21; Winstedt, 0�6��'��'��8 ��5� �&� ��, 153, 154.11 See ‘Abd al-Razq Al-Bay�r (1253–1335/1837–1917), A ��

>�� B�� ‘0��, 3 vols, Damascus: Ma�b�’tal-Majma’ al-’Ilm� al-’Arab�, 1382/1963, I, 851–2. This is a biographicaldictionary which provides us with accounts of al-Palimbn�’s career inArabia. Al-Palimbn�’s connections with scholars in the networks arealso mentioned in Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad b. Ya�y Zabrah, )�� <�� =�� R�� B�� ‘0��, 2 vols, Cairo: al-Ma�ba’ah al-Salafiyyah, 1350/1931, II, 30, and in ‘Abdal-�ayy b.‘Abd al-Kab�r al-Kattn�, (�� (��, 3 vols, Beirut:Dr al-Gharb al-Islm�, 1402/1982, II, 697; III, 106.

12 See M.H. b. Dato Kerani M. Arshad, 0 ��.� �� )�1��-��,Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1968, esp. 123–26. This workshould be treated with caution because it contains curious stories whichare difficult to accept. For a discussion of 0 ��.� �� , see HenriChambert-Loir, ‘Abdussamad al-Palimbani sebagai Ulama Jawi’, in al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, [vol. I], Romanised by A. Muin Umar,Banda Aceh: Musium Negeri Aceh, 1985/6, ix–x. An account of thedates of al-Palimbani’s birth and death is also given in M. ChatibQuzwain, &��1�� 0 ��7� .�� 1�� 0�� .��0+��.�� /� �+��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984, 12.

13 Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 851. 14 See al-Palimbn�’s own notes in the colophon of his .�� .� ��

‘+�� =�++� � �’! ��, 4, Cairo: MuA�af al-Bb� al-�alab�,1372/1953.


NOTES—CHAPTER 6 � 3

15 See Arshad, ��.� �� , 149–50.16 Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 852. Al-Bay�r accounts cited in this

book was disputed by Wan Mohd. Shaghir Abdullah in his /��+��,� ��& . � �� .��1��@��&� �� , KualaLumpur: Khazanah Fathaniyyah, 1421/2000, 6–14. He asserts that thedate of al-Palimbn�’s birth had not been originally given by ��.� �� -�� nor by al-Bay�r, but by a certain Haji Mahmud binMuhammad Yusuf Trengganu, whom he claims to be a student of al-Palimbn�. According to Shaghir Abdullah Haji Mahmud wrote manymanuscripts, but he fails to mention any.

17 Muhd Shaghir Abdullah, .�� 0+�� .�� /� �+��,Pontianak: al-Fathanah, 1983, 6–8; Quzwain, &��1�� 0 ��9�20.

18 Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 851.19 For Ibrh�m al-Zamzam� al-Ra’�s’ complete biography and works, see

‘Abd al-Ra�mn al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� 0�� 0�+��,3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-J�l, n.d., I, 560–2; Al-Bay�r, A �� >��,I, 33.

20 Al-Kattn�, (��, I, 539.21 ,+�, II, 903.22 For Ibrh�m al-Ra’�s’ connections in the networks, see al-Kattn�,

(��, I, 145, 146, 254, 301, 539; II, 620, 697, 755.23 See al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+� � �!��, II, 140–2; Al-Bay�r, A ��

� �>��, III, 1393–1405; Ism’�l Bsh al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951, II, 349–50;al-Kattn�, (��, I, 355, 480; II, 623, 738, 757, 795, 893, 985, 1005,1006, 1010, 1148, 1166; III, 183; Khayr al-D�n al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��7B��#��, 12 vols, Beirut: n.p., 3rd edn, VI, 352.

24 For lists of al-Murdi’s works, see al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��,II, 349–50; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, VI, 352; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 379;S. II, 404.

25 Al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� 0��, II, 141. Cf. Al-Bay�r, A �� >��,III, 1404.

26 Al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� 0��, II, 140. Cf. Al-Bay�r, A �� >��,III, 1393.

27 Al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, II, 349.28 For al-Murdi’s further connections in the networks, see al-Kattn�,

(��, III, esp. 623, 738, 795, 985, 1010.29 It is important to note that Mu�ammad al-Jawhar�’s father (A�mad

al-Jawhar�) studied with ‘Abd al-Allh al-BaAr� and A�mad al-Nakhl�when he visited the �aramayn in 1120/1708, see al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� 0��, I, 364–6; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, I, 109; al-Kattn�, (��, I,302–3.

30 See Mu�ammad al-Jawhar�’s biography in al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� 0��,I, 426–7.


31 Al-Kattn�, (��, I, 199, 229, 377, 406; II, 785, 796, 844–5, 985,1128, 1147.

32 For more information on ‘A�’ Allh, see al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� !��,I, 560; al-Kattn�, (��, I, 94, 121.

33 Al-Kattn�, ,+�, I, 200, 201.34 ,+�, I, 535.35 ,+�, I, 149; II, 903, 1128.36 For ‘A�’ Allh’s position in �� studies, see ,+�, II, 903, 985,

1128.37 See P. Voorhoeve, ‘Abd al-0amad b. ‘Abd Allh al-Palimbn�’, ;,2, I,

1960; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 371; Quzwain, &��1�� 0 ��, 13.38 Al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 39, 178, 203.39 Abdullah, .��0+��.��, 6, 39. 40 Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 851.41 Abdullah, .��0+��.��, 39.42 I find no MS or printed edition of this work, but al-Kattn� gives a five-

page description of it in his (��, II, 695–700. For a detailedbiography and works of Waj�h al-D�n al-Ahdal, see Zabarah, )�� <��, II, 30–1; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, IV, 79.

43 Al-Kattn�, (��, II, 697.44 Zabarah, )�� <��, II, 30–1. Cf. Abdullah, .�� 0+��

.��, 39–40, who mentioned a Sayyid al-Maqr�, who was veryprobably A�mad b. �asan al-Muqr� Al-Zab�d�, as having been presentin al-Palimbn�’s teaching sessions in Zab�d.

45 J.J. Ras, 6�� >��7� 0� .�� &� �� 6��'�'1��, TheHague: Nijhoff, 1968, 49, 438–43; A. Basuni, )��,� ��-� ��.� ��, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1986, 10–33; A.G. Usman, ��1>�� .��, Banjarmasin: Lambung Mangkurat UniversityPress, 1989, 46–53: ‘Kesultanan Banjar’, in ;�� '�� ,� �� ,��'��, Jakarta: Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II, 487–93. For aconcise treatment of the advance of Islam in Kalimantan as a whole,see Mrs Samuel Bryan Scott, ‘Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes fora Study of the Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of Its Influ-ence on the Native Tribes’, �'�� '��0��5��4�� .'5��,33 (1913), 313–44.

46 Scott, ‘Mohammedanism’, 319–27.47 See Basuni, )�� ,� ��, 40–2; Zafry Zamzam, .�� &��

0�� >��+�1�� @�’��, Banjarmasin: Karya,1974, 3–4; Scott, ‘Mohammedanism’, 331–5.

48 For a complete biography of Mu�ammad Arshad, see Zamzam, .��&�� 0��; Jusuf Halidi, � �� >�� -� ��7� .��5�&�� 0�� >��, Martapura: Jajasan al-Banjari, 1968;Tamar Djaja, ‘Sjeich M. Arsjad Bandjar’, in his /�� ,��'��,Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965, 309–17; Shaghir Abdullah, .��

� � THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


&�� 0�� >��9� &�� ,� ��, Pontianak: al-Fathanah,1983; Abu Daudi, &�� .��&'�S�0�� >��, Martapura:Sullamul ulum, 1980; M.S. Kadir, ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyadal-Banjari Pelopor Da’wah Islam di Kalimantan Selatan’, &�+�� , 6 (1976), 69–79.

49 K. Steenbrink, ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari: 1710–1812,Tokoh (�� dan Tasawuf’, in his B�+�� 0�� 1� ,� �� ,��'��0+�� , Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984, 91, 96. Cf. Halidi,� �� >��, 13; Zamzam, .�� &�� 0��, 10; Kadir,‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad’, 73.

50 Zamzam, .�� &�� 0��, 6. Cf. Steenbrink, ‘SyekhMuhammad Arsyad’, 92.

51 Halidi, � ��>��, 11–2; Abdullah, .��0+��.��, 11–2.52 Zamzam, .�� &�� 0��, 67; Steenbrink, ‘Syekh

Muhammad Arsyad’, 92.53 Halidi, � �� >��, 14–5; Halidi, .�� &�� 0��, 7;

C. Snouck Hurgronje, )��8S�.�'�5�6��1�'�� -��1��/��6��>� ��, trans. Sukarsi,Jakarta: INIS, 1991, V, 898–9. This is an Indonesian edition of E.Gobée & C. Adriaanse (comp.), 0�+�� :�"�� :��8S� .�'�56��1�'��9��JJ –� 3E, 2 vols, ‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1959–65.

54 Snouck Hurgronje, )��, 900–1.55 Zamzam, .��&��0��, 8–9; Halidi, � ��>��, 16.56 Halidi, � �� >��, 18; Zamzam, .�� &�� 0��,

10–11. 57 See Ph.S. van Ronkel, 8�� '1�� 5��5��, Batavia

& ‘s-Gravenhage: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1909, 403; G.F. Pijper, (��1�� ,� ��5�7� .��ë�� ':�� ,� �� )�� 5��,��ë,Leiden: Brill, 1934, 64; Hawash Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafisal-Banjari’, in his /��+��1�� , �� , 121; Anon.,‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in ;�� '�� ,� �� ,��'��,Jakarta: Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II, 616; H.M. Laily Mansur,-��+�0��@��)��7��0��, Banjar-masin: Hasanu, 1982, 6.

58 For a discussion on Mu�ammad Naf�s’ life and work, see Mansur,-��+� ��@�� )��, esp. 14–59; Abdullah, ‘Syekh MuhammadNafis al-Banjari’, 107–22; ‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in ;�� '��,� ��, II, 614–7.

59 Mu�ammad Naf�s al-Banjr�, � �@�� )��, cited in Abdullah,‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 108.

60 Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 109.61 See Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 852; Abdullah, .�� 0+��

.��, 35, 46.62 For al-Sharqw�’s complete biography, see al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� !��,

NOTES—CHAPTER 6 � $


� E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

III, 375–80; Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 1005–7; al-Kattn�,(��, II, 1071–3; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, IV, 206.

63 For an account of al-Sharqw�’s visits to the �aramayn and his otherstudents there, see al-Kattn�, (��, I, 229.

64 Al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� !��, III, 375–6; Al-Bay�r, A �� >��,II, 1005–6. For further discussion of al-Sharqw�’s reformism, seeP. Gran, ,� ��5� =''�� '�� 8�� : ;1��9� �FE%–�J�%, Austin:University of Texas Press, 1979, esp. 21–2, 44–6, 56.

65 For al-Sharqw�’s further connection in the networks, see al-Kattn�,(��, I, 134, 150, 354, 377, 445, 486; II, 578, 713, 754, 776, 777,778, 826, 890, 1008, 1067, 1143, 1161, 1163.

66 ,+�, I, 503–4.67 ‘Muhammad Nafis’, ;�� '�� ,� ��, II, 616; Abdullah, ‘Syekh

Muhammad Nafis’, 108.68 For a further discussion of the contents of the @�� )��, see

Mansur, -��+��@��)��K Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’,109–21.

69 Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 110.70 Usman, ��1� >��, 60; ‘Muhammad Nafis’, ;�� '�� ,� ��,

615; Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 4.71 For an excellent treatment of the rise and decline of the Patani

Sultanate, see Ibrahim Syukri, 6��'�� '�� &� �� -�1�'�� '�/��, trans. C. Bayley & J.N. Miksic, Athens, OH: Center for Inter-national Studies, 1985, 13–62.

72 See Syukri, ,+�, 21–38; A. Teeuw & D.K. Wyatt, 6��/��, TheHague: Nijhoff, 1970, 10–20.

73 ,+�, 76–7.74 ,+�, 78–9.75 ,+�, 131.76 ,+�.77 ‘/'��'’ literally means ‘hut’, but it has also been generally used to

refer to a cluster of buildings, used collectively as a centre of Islamiceducation. The �'��' is, thus, similar in characteristics to the ��and ��, existing in other parts of the archipelago. For furtherdiscussion of all of these terms, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Rise andDecline of the Minangkabau .��’, unpubl. MA thesis, ColumbiaUniversity, 1988, esp. 19–21; for further discussion of the pondok seeHasan Madmarn, The Pondok and Madrasah in Patani, KualaLumpur: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1999.

78 Virginia Matheson & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: TheMaintenance of an Islamic Tradition’, �&>=0., 61, I (1988), 43. Cf.R.L. Winzeler, ‘The Social Organisation of Islam in Kelantan’, in W.R. Roff (ed.), -� ��7�=� 1'�9�.'5��/' �5��&� ��.��, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1974, 266, n. 7; cf.A.A.H. Hasan, ‘The Development of Islamic Education in Kelantan’,


NOTES—CHAPTER 6 � F

in Khoo Kay Kim (ed.), ��,� ��&� ��, Kuala Lumpur:Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia, 1980, esp. 190–6. For an account of thePatani /'��' in recent years, see W.K. Che Man, ‘The Thai Govern-ment and Islamic Institutions in the Four Southern Muslim Provincesof Thailand’, .'�'��, 5, II (1990), esp. 263–70.

79 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 43; Hamdan Hassan,‘Pertalian Pemikiran Islam Malaysia-Aceh’, in Kim (ed.), ��,� ��, esp. 53–5.

80 H.W.M. Shaghir Abdullah, .�� @�� +�� 0+�� (��7� ��/��1��1�� 1�0��11��, Kuala Lumpur: Hizbi,1990, 3; Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 19, 28.

81 This work deals with �� forgeries: see a Beirut reprint of theCairo(?) edition, 1343.

82 For a biography of Mu�ammad )hir al-Hind� al-Fa�n�, see Ab�al-Fall� b. ‘Abd al-�ayy Ibn al-’Imd, .�� @��+� ��0�+�� @��+, 8 vols, Cairo: Maktabat al-Quds�,1350–1/1930–1, VIII, 410; 0idd�q b. �asan al-Qann�j�, 0+�� ’� #�, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, n.d., III, 222–3;al-Kattn�, (��, I, 171; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, VII, 42–3; Brockel-mann, C0*, II, 548; S. II, 601.

83 See Dw�d al-Fa�n�’s silsilah of the Sammniyyah �� inAbdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 36–37.

84 ,+�, 37–8.85 ,+�, 23–4.86 P. Voorhoeve, ‘Dw�d b. ‘Abd Allh b. Idr�s al-Fa�n� or Fa��n�’, ;,2,

II, 183.87 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 22. 88 ,+�, 10–13. Neither the Hikayat Patani nor Syukri’s 6��'��'��/��

mentions Faq�h ‘Al� or Datuk Maharajalela. The 6��/��makesmention only of Faq�h or Shaykh 0af� al-D�n (pp. 78–9) and Faq�h‘Abd al-Mann (p. 131).

89 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 32.90 ,+�, 32.91 See A. Hasjmi, ‘Pendidikan Islam di Aceh dalam Perjalanan Sejarah’,

.�� @�� , 63 (1975), 20; .�� -�+�� ,� �� ,��'��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1990, 230; Abdullah, .��@��+�� 0+�� , 32; ‘Syekh Muhammad Zain bin Faqih JalaluddinAceh’, in his /��+��1��, ��(��, 62–74; Amir Sutarga et al.,-�� '1��-' ��)��&� ��&��/��, Jakarta: Departe-men P&K, 1972, 264, 276.

92 Abdullah, .�� 0+�� .��, 6; .�� &�� 0��, 8–9;.��@��+��0+�� , 32–3.

93 Abdullah, .��0+��.��, 6; .��@��+��0+�� , 33.94 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 39.95 For al-Barrw�’s biography and works, see Mu�ammad Khal�l


al-Murd�, . � � �@��, III, 273; al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+� � �!��, I,366–7; al-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, I, 811; Brockelmann, C0*, S.II, 445; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, V, 283–4; al-Kattn�, (��, I, 223.

96 See al-Kattn�, (��, I, 102, 197, 535, 1078.97 For Dw�d al-Fa�n�’s complete �� of the ��# � �@��, see

Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 39.98 ,+�, 38.99 See Al-Shanwn�’s biography in al-Jabart�, ‘0��’+�� !��, III, 588;

Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, III, 1270–1; al-Zarkal�, � �0’ ��, VII,190; al-Kattn�, (��, II, 10789.

100 See al-Kattn�, (��, I, 229; II, 578, 777, 796.101 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 34, 35, 39.102 See al-Fa�n�’s silsilah of the Shdhiliyyah order in Abdullah, ,+�, 41. 103 See al-Kattn�, (��, I, 198–99.104 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 35.105 See al-Kattn�, (��, I, 122–3; II, 1079.106 See a partial list of his students in Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� ,

42, followed by accounts of the activities and roles of these students infurthering reformism in the archipelago on 43–50. Cf. Matheson &Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 26–35, which gives the names ofthe most important Patani scholars together with their works in theperiod after Dw�d al-Fa�n�.

107 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 19.108 For lists of his works and descriptions of their contents, see Abdullah,

.��@��+��0+�� , 55–99; Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Liter-ature in Patani’, 21–6; Winstedt, 0�6��'��'��8 ��5� �&� ��, 153–4.

7 RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK

1 For a preliminary study of Malay-Indonesian students in the scholarlynetworks in the nineteenth century, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘UlamaIndonesia di �aramayn: Pasang dan Surutnya Sebuah Wacana Inte-lektual’, � �� B��’��, 3, III (1992).

2 Drewes, @��5�'��, 217. Cf. Iskandar, ‘Palembang Kraton Manu-scripts’, 68–9.

3 Drewes, @��5�'��, 219.4 For descriptive lists of Mu�ammad Arshad’s works, see Abdullah,.��&��0��, 41–58; Zafry Zamzam, ‘Karya Ar-Ranirydan al-Bandjari’, .��@�� , 25 (1970), 449.

5 Mu�ammad Arshad al-Banjr�, .�+� � � �&�� @��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 776, 2–4; Abdullah, .��&��0��, 51; ‘Syeikh Muhammad Arsyad’, in /��+��1��, �� (��, 81–2; Zamzam, ‘Karya ar-Raniry dan al-Bandjari’, 49;Mohd Nor bin Ngah, -��+��7�,� ��5��'�1��'��&� ��&�� .5�' ��, Singapore: ISEAS, 1982, 5.

6 Zamzam, ‘Karya ar-Raniri dan al-Banjari’, 49; Pijper, (��1��

� J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


,� ��5�, 65; Van Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Scriptused in the Pesantren Milieu’, >-,, 146 (1990), 250–1; ‘Kitab ��*� diPesantren Indonesia’, /��, 6, I (1989), 48.

7 See Geertz, ,� ��4+��:��, 12–3; Noer, ��&'��&�� , 12.8 Mu�ammad Arshad, .�+� �� &��, MS Jakarta National Library,

Ml 776, 2–4. Cf. its printed edn, Cairo: 1343/1925, 3–4.9 See Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 55–99; Matheson & Hooker,

‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, Winstedt, 0�6��'�� '��8 ��5� �&� ��,153–4.

10 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 99–100; Matheson & Hooker,‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 21; M.B. Hooker, ,� ��5�*�� .'��;�� 0��, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984, 32; VanBruinessen, ‘Kitab (�� di Pesantren’, 48–9.

11 Dw�d al-Fa�n�, 6�� &��’� �, 5, cited in Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 103–4.

12 Al-Bay�r, A �� >��, II, 851. The (�?�’ �� ,��’ �� C��"� �is not listed in Malay sources among al-Palimbn�’s works.

13 Al-Palimbn�, 6�� .� ��, Surabaya: 1933, 3.14 See al-Palimb��, 6�� .� ��, 5. The R�� of al-

Sha’r�� was printed in Cairo in 1321/1904.15 Al-Palimb��, 6�� .� ��, 7–8. I was unable to trace the @��

� ��.16 Al-Palimb��, ,+�, 75. Neither al-Baghdd� nor Brockelmann list the

Bustan al-’Arifin of al-Qush��, but both mention >�� ’0+��=�� ’0��, which is probably the same work. Seeal-Baghdd�, 6�� ’!��, I, 161; Brockelmann, C0*, II, 515.

17 Al-Palimb��, 6�� .� ��, 273–4. What al-Palimb�� called the)�� , �� were probably al-Samm��’s � �(�� , �� =#��and � �)�� B��.See Brockelmann, C0*, S. II, 535.

18 Al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, Cairo: MuA�af al-Bb� al-�alab�,1372/1953, I, 3. Cf. H. Ritter, ‘al-Ghazl�, A�mad b. Mu�ammad’,;,2, II, 1041.

19 See al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 168–84.20 Some of al-Palimbn�’s teachings are discussed in Quzwain, &��1��

0 ��, esp. 32–138; M.U. el-Muhammady, ‘The Islamic Concept ofEducation according to Shaykh ‘Abdu’s-Samad of Palembang and Its Significance in Relation to the Issue of Personality Integration’,0��, 1 (1972), 59–83.

21 Al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 12–3.22 See al-Palimbn�, 6�� .� ��, 270–2.23 For al-Palimbn�’s silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah ��, see his .��

� �.� ��, III, 39–40.24 ,+�, III, 12–13. Cf. al-Sammn�, � �)�� , ��, MS Jakarta

National Library, no. DCLII.

NOTES—CHAPTER 7 �


25 Al-Palimbn�, 6�� .� ��, 285; .�� .� ��, I, 16.26 ,+�, III, 43–4. 27 See al-Muhammady, ‘The Islamic Concept’, esp. 75–83.28 See al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 177–9.29 ,+�, III, 180–1.30 For a discussion of the A�� or =�� (��

� �=��, see Drewes, @��5�'��, 6–38.31 Al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 180–1.32 For the complete list of the works, see al-Palimbn�, ,+�, III, 182–4.33 Cf. C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, .��’ �@��:��/��, Leiden: Brill,

1945, 24.34 This work is not listed among the known works of al-Sink�l�. But

Voorhoeve, citing al-Palimbn�, mentions it in passing. See P. Voor-hoeve, >�� , Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1980, 45.

35 The K�� &��, which probably summarises al-Palimbn�’s�� central doctrines, has not yet been recovered.

36 See al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, III, 183.37 ,+�, III, 171.38 See al-Palimbn�, �� =�1�+�� >�� A�� ,��

� �&�’��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml. 719, 2, 25–6.39 ,+�, 26.40 ,+�.41 Al-Rn�r�, &�’ � �A�� 0� �� &��, a full romanised Malay text

in A. Daudi, .��)�� =��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978,44–5. Al-Rn�r�’s condemnation of the doctrine of ��#�� can be found in many of his other works. See for instance, in 6�� H�� @��’ � �K��, Malay text in Arabic script, 5–6, 9–10, inP. Voorhoeve, �� &� �� 1��5�� :�� )#�� =��,Leiden: Brill, 1955.

42 See al-Palimbn�, �� =�1�+��, 19–26.43 Halidi, .��&��0��, 11–2; Usman, ��1�>��, 60–1;

Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 4.44 Halidi, .�� &�� 0��, 12; Usman, ��1� >��, 61;

Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 4.45 See al-Palimbn�, �� =�1�+��, 26.46 See al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, IV, 103.47 See al-Ghazl�, ,��’ ‘� #�� @��, Cairo: 1387/1967, 4 vols, IV, 240.48 Al-Burhnp�r�’s work in Arabic and Javanese and their English

renderings are given in A.H. Johns, ��C��0��'��.��'��/�'��, Canberra: Australian National University, 196S.

49 See al-Burhnp�r�, ��C��, 140.50 See al-Palimbn�, .�� .� ��, IV, 36, 123.51 See al-Ghazl�, ,��’, IV, esp. 85, 240.52 See Van Ronkel, 8�� '1��, 402; ;�� '�� ,� ��, II, 616; G.F.

Pijper, (��1��,� ��5�, 64; Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 5–8.

2%% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


53 For further analysis of the @�� )��, see Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 14–59; Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Muhammad Nafis’.

54 Mansur, -��+��@��)��, 42, 43, 45–50, 58; Abdullah, ‘SheikhMuhammad Nafis’, 112, 116–17.

55 See Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature’, 24; Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 61, 77.

56 Abdullah, ,+�, 109.57 ,+�, 74, 111, 168. The -�� C��is listed among al-Sha’rn�’s

works. See Michael Winter, .'5�� =� 1'�� ;�� 4��'��;1��7�.�� <��1��'�� ‘0+�� <��+�� .��’��, NewBrunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, 8.

58 Abdullah, ,+�, 62. For a lengthy exposition of the contents of the&�� H��, see Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah al-Fathani’,in his /��+��1��, ��, 121–46.

59 Al-Fa�n�, <�� , 55, cited in Abdullah, .��@��+�0+�� , 107.

60 For further discussion of al-Fa�n�’s ��, see Abdullah, ‘SyeikhDaud bin Abdullah al-Fathani’, 24–58; .�� @�� +�� 0+�� ,106–11.

61 For further discussion on al-Sha’rn�’s defense of Ibn ‘Arab�, seeMichael Winter, .'5��=� 1'�, esp. 160–72. Cf. A. Ates, ‘Ibn‘Arab�, Mu�y�’l-D�n Ab� ‘Abd Allh b. Mu�ammad b. ‘Al� b.Mu�ammad. Al-’Arab� al-�tim� al-)’�’, ;,2, III, esp. 710–11. Foral-Suy��’s defense of Ibn ‘Arab� against accusations of heresy andeven unbelief, see E.M. Sartain, �� @�� .��#��, 2 vols,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, I, 36–7.

62 For a good summary of the modernists’ accusations against Sufism,see Fazlur Rahman, ,� ��, 2nd edn, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1966, 212–34, 244–8.

63 See Halidi, � �� >�� -� ��, 6–8; Zamzam, .��&��0��, 17–3; Usman, ��1�>��, 56–9, 66–80.

64 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Further Data Concerning ‘Abd al-0amadal-Palimbn�’, >-,, 132 (1976), 269, 274.

65 For MSS of this work, see Jakarta National Library, MSS no. CCIXand V.d.W. 51; Leiden University, F. Or. A 20c. For an outline of thecontents of the (�?�’ �� , see Ph.S. van Ronkel, .�� '��8�� '1��'��0��+5�&��5��:��&��'�� >��:�� .'5�� '�� 0�� .5��5��, Batavia & The Hague:Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1913, 139–40.

66 C. Snouck Hurgronje, ��05��, 2 vols, trans. A.W.S. Sullivan,Leyden: Brill, 1906, 119–20.

67 See W.R. Roff, ‘South-East Asian Islam in the Nineteenth Century’, inP.M. Holt et al. (eds), ��8��+��1��6��'��'�� ,� ��, Cambridge:University Press, 1970, II, 178–80. Cf. M.C. Ricklefs, 0�6��'�� '�&'��,��'��, London: Macmillan, 1981, 136–8.

NOTES—CHAPTER 7 2%�


68 See Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 267–9; Cf. M.C. Ricklefs, �'1�� .� �� &��1�+�� F� –�F 2, London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1974, 134, 150–5.

69 The English translation of this letter is taken from Drewes, ‘FurtherData’, 270.

70 Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 271–3. Most of English translations of thisletter are also supplied by Ricklefs, �'1��.� ��, 151–2.

71 ,+�, 154.72 Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 268–8. 73 Ricklefs, �'1��.� ��, 155.74 ,+�, 154.75 See Syukri, 6��'��'��/��, esp. 39–56, on renewed Thai attacks on

Patani.76 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� 9�94–5.77 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 25; bin Ngah, -��+

��, 29 n. 12, 41 n. 3 and n. 5; 42 n. 8 and 9.78 Abdullah, .��@��+��0+�� , 34, 95.79 Al-Fa�n�, 6�� &��’� �, 17, cited in Abdullah, .��@��

+��0+�� , 95.80 Al-Fa�n�, (��#’ � �&��’ ��# �� <��’ , MS Jakarta National

Library, Ml 779, 945ff; >�1�� G� �+, I, 95, cited in Abdullah,.��@��+��0+�� , 97–8.

81 C. Snouck Hurgronje, ‘Een Arabisch bondgenoot der Nederlandscheregering’, in N�� C��5��, Bonn & ‘s-Gravenhage: KurtSchroder & Nijhoff, 1924, VI, 85.

82 See Hamka, .�� ,� �� .��, Medan: Pustaka Nasional,1950, 24; R. LeRoy Archer, ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’,�&>=0., 15, II (1931), 103–4.

83 See Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Burhanuddin’, in his /��+��1�� , ��, esp. 57–9; Tamar Djaja, ‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’,in his /��,��'��, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965, 282–90.

84 For a detailed discussion of Islamic reformism, particularly in its relationsto the Minangkabau economy during this period, see Christine Dobbin,,� ��5�=�::� ��8��1�1�/��;5'�'��; Central Sumatra,1784–1847, London: Curzon, 1983, esp. 117–54. See also, Dobbin,‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau at the Turn of the NineteenthCentury’, &'��0��.��, 8, III (1974), 319–56; Werner Kraus,K��5�� =��'�� =�+� '�7� ü+�� ;��5 ��1� �� ,� �� &��1�+�� P<��Q� "��5�� +��=��'��+��1��1��/��P�J3FQ��&'��P� %JQ9�Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner,1984, esp, 13–21, 43–61; Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Surau and the EarlyReform Movements in Minangkabau’, &"��, 3, II (1990), 64–85.

85 See J.J. de Hollander (ed.), N�� :�� :��1� �� /��'� �� '�� .�� ''�� .��5�� @� � � ;�� (henceforth, A�� @��Q9�Leiden: Brill, 1857, 6.

2%2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


NOTES—EPILOGUE 2%3

86 A�� @��, 6–7.87 For a further biography of Tuanku Nan Tuo, see Tamar Djaja, ‘Tuanku

Nan Tuo’, in his /��,��'��, 318–27.88 A�� @��, 9.89 ,+�, 9–10.90 +�, 10–13; Dobbin, ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau’, 329–30;

,� ��5�=�::� ��8��1�1�/��;5'�'��, 127.91 A�� @��, 9–11.92 ,+�, 8.93 ,+�, 8–9.94 For further information on Jaml al-D�n, see for instance, Ph.S. van

Ronkel, ‘Een Maleisch getuigenis over den weg des Islams inSumatra’, >-,, 75 (1919), 363–78; A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in the MalayWorld: An Exploratory Survey with Some Reference to Qur’nicExegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), ,� ��0��7�N' ��,,9.'��;��0��, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1984, 124–6.

95 See Dobbin, ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau’, 3267; ,� ��5=�::� ��8��1�1�/��;5'�'��, 121–4.

96 For complete accounts of the Padri Wars, see A�� @��,13–54; Dobbin, ,� ��5�=�::� ��8��1�1�/��;5'�'��,128–87; H.A. Stein Parvé, ‘Oorsprong der Padaries: Eene secte op de Westkust van Sumatra’, �),, 1, I (1838), 113–31; ‘De secte dePadaries (Padries) in de Bovenlanden van Sumatra’, �>C, 3 (1855),249–78; Ph.S. van Ronkel, ‘Inlandsche Getuigenissen aangaande denPadrioorlog’, ,C, 2 (1915), 1099–1119, 1243–59; M.D. Mansur,/��1� /�� .�� >��, Djakarta: 1964; M. Martamin,��,��>'��' , 2nd edn, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1984.

EPILOGUE

1 See Azyumardi Azra, =��,� ��0��11��7�.��<�5��-��, Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya, 1999, esp. 143–61; Forrecent research on � �� , see Michael Feener, ‘Yemeni Sourcesfor the History of Islam in Indonesia: ‘Abd al-Samad Palimbani in theNafs al-Yamani’, *��'��:'�� &'��&�� é��é��, 1999, 19, 128–144. For further accounts of Shaikh�� , who played a prominent role in the educa-tion of ‘��’ students after World War II, see Azyumardi Azra, &��&��&��, Bandung: Rosda, 1999: 52–5.

2 The Javanese scholarship has to be treated separately. M.C. Ricklefs hasargued convincingly that the religious tendencies discussed in this workwere also taking place in Java; see his ��.��<'� �� :�� F2E–�F� 7� 6��'��9� *�� ,� �� 8'�� '�/��+�� ,,, Sydney & Hawaii: Allen & Unwin and University of


Hawai’i Press, 1998. I would argue that at the beginning of the nineteenthcentury, Java as a whole had risen to be one of the important centres ofIslamic intellectualism in the archipelago. A number of prominent ‘� ��’appeared from Java, such as ��$��’� of Pekalongan (1786–1876),Mu�ammad � �� (1813–1897), �� Saleh Darat � �� (from Semarang, d. 1903) and ��D�� B8 �� (from Termas, East Java, d. 1919). For preliminary studies ofeach of them, see for instance, Peter Riddell, ‘Muhammad al-Nawawi al-Jawi 1813–97)’, in his ,� ��&� ��,��'��<'� �7��'��=��'��, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books,2001, 193–7; Didin Hafiduddin, ‘Tinjauan atas Tafsir al-Munir KaryaImam Muhammad Nawawi Tanara’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.),<�� ,�� ,� �� ,��'��, Bandung: Mizan, 1987; AbdulDjamil, ‘KH Ahmad Rifa’i Kalisalak: Studi tentang Pemikiran danGerakan Islam Abad Sembilan Belas (1786–1876)’, doctoral dissertation,Program PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 1999; HM Muchoyyar HS,‘B�� %� � �$�� Tarjamah B�� "� � Malik � ��!!�Karya KHM Saleh � �� ’, doctoral dissertation, Program PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 2002; Abdurrahman Mas’ud, ‘��D�� B� �� (d. 1338/1919): An Intellectual Biography’, .�� ,� ��, 5, 2 (1998), 27–48.

3 C. Snouck Hurgronje, &�� *�� /�� '�� )��8��, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1931, 160.

4 Virginia Matheson & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: TheMaintenance of an Islamic Tradition’, �&>=0., 61, I (1988), 36.

5 See Peter Riddell, ,� �� &� ��,��'�� <'� �7� ��'�� =��'��, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & HorizonBooks, 2001, esp. 192–7; cf. M.F. Laffan, ‘The Umma below the Winds:Mecca, Cairo, Reformist Islam and a Conceptualization of Indonesia’,doctoral thesis, University of Sydney, 2000, published as ,� ��5)��'��''�� 8' '�� ,��'��O� �� +� '�� <��,London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003; Azyumardi Azra, ‘TheTransmission of � �&��’s to the Malay-Indonesian World: The Casesof � �,�� and � �&��’, .��,� ��, 6, 3 (1999), 75–100.

6 See Azyumardi Azra, ‘Prof. Dr. Hamka: Pribadi dan Institusi MUI’, inAzyumardi Azra & Saiful Umam (eds), �''��/��01��7>'1�� .'�� /' �, Jakarta: Litbang Depag RI & PPIM IAINJakarta, 1998; cf. Nurwahidin, ‘Pemikiran Tasawuf Hamka’, MAthesis, Program PascaSarjana IAIN Jakarta, 1995; Karel Steenbrink,‘Hamka (1908–1981) and the Integration of the Islamic �� ofIndonesia’, .��,� ��, 1, 3 (1994), 119–47.

7. See Harun Nasution, ,� ��=��'�� , Bandung: Mizan, 1995; SaifulMujani, ‘Mu’tazilah Theology and the Modernization of the Indo-nesian Muslim Community’, .�� ,� ��, 1, 1 (1994), 91–131;Richard C. Martin & Mark R. Woodward with Dwi S. Atmaja,@�� '�� =��'�� ,� ��7�&�’��" �� '��&��:� � .5�'' � �'&'�� .��+' , Oxford: Oneworld, 1997, esp. Part II, ‘HarunNasution and Modern Mu’tazilism’.

2%� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS

BKI Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en VolkenkundeBSOAS Bulletin of School of Oriental and African StudiesEI2 Encyclopedia of Islam, New EditionGAL Geschichte der Arabischen LitteraturIG De Indische GidsJAAS Journal of Asian and African StudiesJAS Journal of Asian StudiesJIAEA Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern AsiaJMBRAS Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Malaysian BranchJRAS Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and

IrelandJSEAH Journal of Southeast Asian HistoryTBG Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en VolkenkundeTNI Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-IndieVBG Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch

Genootschap van Kunsten en WetenschappenVKI Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-,

Land- en Volkenkunde

PRIMARY SOURCES

Manuscripts

� ��/� �, �� Arshad4 .�+� �� &�� 0�� @��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 776.

� ��, �� b. ‘Abd � �, (��#’ � �&��’ ��# �� <��’ , MSJakarta National Library, Ml 779.

2%$


� �#��4� �� (d. 1123/1711), (��’�� ,�� )��’�� .�� 0�+��0� � � �B�� A�� ‘0��, 3 vols, Cairo:MS � al-Kutub � ��A �!!��, B �� 1093.

� �"� ��, ,� �� (1023–1101/1583–1660), � �� I��D�� 6��,Cairo: MS � al-Kutub � ��A �!!��, Mujami Tal’at 933 & 5040.

� �"� ��, ,� ��, &�� 0+�� A�� )�+�� &��,Cairo: MS � al-Kutub � ��A �!!��, �� 2293, Microfilm 14904.

� �"� ��, ,� ��, ,�� @��+�.�� &�� =#�� )�+�, Cairo, MSS � al-Kutub � ��A �!!��, B�A�� 2578,Microfilm 27651; B�A�� 2954, Microfilm 10200.

� �"� ��, ,� ��, � �� >�� &�+�� @�� (��, MSS Yahuda Section, the Garrett Collection, PrincetonUniversity 2393 and 2395.

� �"� ��, ,� ��, untitled [answers to questions coming from ��+�’?��"�’�� ], MS Leiden University, Cod. Or. 2467 (5660), fols.12–31.

� ��*� �, �� , � �>�� .�� , MS A JakartaNational Library, 108.

� ��*� �, �� , (�� -�� @��, MS AJakarta National Library, 108.

� ��*� �, ��, � �(��’�� R#��, MS A JakartaNational Library, 108.

� ��*� �, �� , &�� +� � �.� ��, MS A JakartaNational Library, 101.

� ��*� �, ��, � �)�� .�� , MS A JakartaNational Library, 101.

� ��*� �, �� , .�� 0��, MS A Jakarta NationalLibrary, 101.

� ��*� �, �� , �� 0��, MS A Jakarta NationalLibrary, 101.

� ��*� �, ��, �� 0+��, MS A Jakarta NationalLibrary, 101.

� ��*� �, ��, �� 0��(�?� �� @��, MS AJakarta National Library, 101.

� ��*� �, ��, K�+�� 0��, MS A Jakarta NationalLibrary, 101.

� �� , ‘Abd � �0��, �� =�1�+�� >��A�� ,�� &�’��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 719.

� �� , ‘Abd � �0��, )�� &�� &�’��(�?�’ �� -�� &��.�+� �0 ��,MSS A Jakarta National Library, no. CCIX and V.d.W.51; LeidenUniversity, F. Or. A20C.

� �$�� , �� , �� ’� #��-�� &�’ #�, MS MarsdenCollection, SOAS, University of London, Text No. 12151; LeidenUniversity, Cod, Or. A41; Jakarta National Library, Ml 795.

2%E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


� �$�� , �� , >�� .� ��, MS Leiden University, Cod. Or.5443; MS. Raffles No. 8, Royal Asiatic Society.

� ��, ‘Abd � �� , K��‘,+�� &��0� � ��, Leiden: MS. F. Or. A 13d (17–18).

� �� , ‘Abd � �$�’��, >�� , MS Jakarta National Library, Ml107B, and Ml 115A; Leiden University, Cod. Or. 1933.

� �� , ‘Abd � �$�’��, ‘�� &�� .� #� &�� &��, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 107B, pp 120–227; M1375, pp 20–141.

� �� , ‘Abd � �$�’��, &�’�� G� �+, MS Jakarta National Library,Ml 445.

� �� , ‘Abd � �$�’��, &��’D� � �>��’��, MS Jakarta NationalLibrary, Ml 341A.

� �� , ‘Abd � �$�’��, .��, MS Jakarta National Library, M1336D, pp 66–82.

� �� , ‘Ahd al-Ra’�f, Tanb�h al-M�sh�, MS Jakarta National Library,A101.

Printed� �� , Ibn � ��// (d. 738/1336–7), � �&�� , 4 vols, Cairo: ��A��

� �� , 1380/1960.0��05��, Arabic text romanised by R. Harun & T.R.M.A. Gani, Jakarta:

Departemen P&K, 1985. 0��0��, ed. G.W.J. Drewes & P. Voorhoeve, VKI, 24, Leiden: KITLV,

1958.� �’�/��, �� b. ‘� � (d. 1113/1701–2), ,��’ � �*��’��0�+��

G�’�, ed. ��!� �� -��!�� ’��, )’��: � � � �B��*��,1400/1980.

� ��A� �, ?�� !! (d. 925/1519), (�� <��+� +� .�� &�� G� �+, Beirut: � �� ’ ��, 1978 [?].

� ��' �*�, �� (� �� b. ‘Abd � �� (d. 250/864), ‘"�� B�’ ��-’��H�� ’,in Wustenfeld (ed.), @��8��'�� .��&��, Leipzig: Brock-haus, 1858, I.

� ��/� �, �� Arshad, .�+� � � �&�� 0�� @��, Cairo: 1343/1925.

� �� '��/�, �� =� ‘�� $�� (1040–1103/1630–92), -��+� �,��’�� ,�� .�’��, ed. �� Badr � �� ’��,Cairo: ��’�� ’��, 1325/1907.

� ��A �, ‘Abd � � b. �� (1048–1134/1638–1722), -��+�� ,��+&�’��‘� �� ,��, Hayderabad: �’� �� ’ �� D��!!��,1328/1910.

Bello, �� (d. 1243/1827), ,��’ �&��#��T,�� &��#�U, ed.C.E.J. Whiting, London: Luzac, 1957.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2%F


Braddell, T., ed. & trans., ‘On the History of Acheen: Translations from theMajellis Ache’, �,0;0, 5 (1851).

[� �� @� �, �� b. ��% � � �, d. 1031/1620], �� C��0�� '� �� .�� '�� /�'��, ed., trans. from Arabic andJavanese texts with annot. A.H. Johns, Canberra: The Australian NationalUniversity, 1965.

@�1��1�� 1��'�� 8�� >��:�� :�� ':�� 1�� )�� ,��, 31 vols, Batavia & TheHague, 1888–1931.

� ��!�, ‘Abd � �$�� b. ‘� � (866–933/1462–1536), � �(�? �� &�"’‘� ��>�1�� &��0�+��&��K�+��, ed. �� Shulhud,San’a: Markaz � �� wa � �� , 1983.

� �� , �� (� �� (1114–76/1702–62), 0�� ’!��, Delhi:1315/1897.

� �� , ��(� �� , A��0 �� >� 1��, 2 vols, ed. Sayyid��*, Cairo: � al-Kutub � ��, 1964.

� �� , �� (� �� , ‘Wahdatul Wujud and Wahdatul Shuhud:Unityism and Apparentism’, trans. Fazl �� , in .��*��, Santiniketan: Visbharati, 1954.

� ��*�, ‘Abd � �>�� , b. �� ’�!�� (d. 927/1527), � �@�� &��, 2 vols, ed. Ja’far � �#��, Damascus [?]:Maktabat � �B��*�� !!��, 1988.

� ��, B�*�� (775–832/1373–1428), � �’,�� >� �� 0��, 8 vols, Cairo: Ma�ba’at al-Sunnat � ��!��, n.d.

� ��, B�*�� , .��’ � �C�� +� 0�+�� >� �� A��, 2 vols Makkah: Maktabat � ��%�� , 1965. Also printed inWustenfeld (ed.), @��8��'��.��&��, Leipzig: Brockhaus,1859, II.

� �� , 0� �� (1166–1218/1752–1803), B�� =��’ 0�� &�� (��#�� !��, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif� ��D��!!��, 1328/1910.

� �� , 0� ��, ,��D�6�� 0+��, Cairo [?]: Muniriyyah Press,1355/1937.

� �C��' �, ,��’ ‘� #�� @��, 4 vols, Cairo: 1347/1967.6��0��, ed. & annot. T. Iskandar, ‘s-Gravenhage: H.L. Smith, 1959.[6�� @��], in J.J. de Hollander (ed.), N�� :��:��1��

/��'� ��'��.��''��.��5��@� � �;��, Leiden: Brill, 1857.6��/��: ��.�'��'��/��, eds. A.E. Teeuw & D.K. Wyatt, The

Hague: Nijhoff, 1970.6��=��/��, ed. & trans. A.H. Hill, �&>=0., 33, (1960).Ibn ��, =� �� ,+�� >��#��, ed. B� � �� , Beirut: � al-Kutub

al-’Ilmiyyah, 1407/1987.Ibn ��, ��:� ��'��,+��>��, trans. H.A.R. Gibb, Cambridge:

University Press, 1958.

2%J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Ibn Fahd, ‘Umar b. Fahd b. �� (812–85/1409–80), ,�� <��’+� 0�+�� B��, 3 vols, Makkah: -��’�� Umm � �>� ,1404/1893.

Ibn Faraj, ‘Abd � �>�� b. �� (d. 1010/1602), � �H �� ’��>��—��>��'��=��.��: 0� %��V�E��8��055'��'��, Arabic text ed., trans. and annot. by G.R. Smith andA. Umar al-Zayla, Durham, Eng.: Centre for Middle Eastern and IslamicStudies, 1984.

Ibn ��, ‘Abd � � (1180–1245/1766–1829), ‘,��’ � �)��#�� ‘�� .��#�, in M. Hiskett, ‘Material relating to theState of Learning among the Fullani before Their Jihad’, >.40., 19, I(1957).

[Ibn ��, ‘Abd � � b. ��], ��"�� <��, ed. & trans. M.Hiskett, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1963.

[Ibn ��, ‘+��], .��‘��+��(#��A�� 0��#�� 0��, ed., trans. with a commentary by F.R. Siddiqy, Kano: QualityPress, 1989.

[Ibn ��, ‘+��], ‘Unbelief in the Western Sudan: Uthman dan Fodio’s‘Ta’l�m � �,��’’, ed., trans. and annot. B.G. Martin, Middle EasternStudies, 4 (1967–8).

Ibn al-’Imd, �� b. ‘Abd � ��!! (d. 1089/1678), .�� 0�+��@��+, Cairo: Maktabat � �>��, 1350–1/1930.

Ibn Jubayr, ‘Abd � ��!� �� b. ��, �� :� �� '�� ,+��+��, trans. from Arabic with an introd. and notes by R.J.C. Broad-hurst, London: Jonathan Cape, 1952.

Ibn "� �*��, <�� 0’�� 0�+�’ � �K��, 8 vols, ed. IhsanAbbas, Beirut: Dr � �B��*��, 1968–72.

� �-�� , ‘Abd � �$�� (1169–1239/1754–1822), �� 0��’+� �!�� 0�+��, 3 vols, Beirut: � al-Jil, n.d.

� �-��', �� ‘Uthmn ‘Amr b. Babr (d. 257/868), -��+�� 6��, ed.‘Abd � �� # ��, Cairo: 1344–58/1925–39, VII.

� �-� �, ‘Abd � �"� ��, ��:�� &��, extract trans. with commentary byT. Burkhardt, English trans. by Angela Culme-Seymor, Paris: Beshara,1983.

� �"� ��, ,� ��, � �� I��D� � �6��, Hayderabad: D’iratal-Ma’rif � ��D��!!��, 1328/1910.

[Lontara Bilang—Dagboek or Annals] of Gowa and Tallo, in A. Ligtvoet(ed.), ‘Transcriptie van het Dagboek der Vorsten van Gowa en Tello’,>-,, 4, IV (1880).

� ��, �� (1061–1111/1651–99), -�� !��0’�� B�� A��‘0��, 4 vols, Cairo, 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut:� �0�� , n.d.

� �� , �� "�� (1173–1206/1759–91), . � � �@�� ‘0’�� B�� ‘0��, 4 vols, Beirut: � Ibn al-Hazm,1408/1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2%


al-Nahrawal�, Mu�ammad b. A�mad b. Qutb al-D�n (d. 949/1542), ‘Kitbal-I’lm bi A’lm Bayt al-�aram’, in Wustenfeld (ed.), @��8��'��.��&��, Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1857, III.

al-Nakhl�, A�mad (1044–1130/1639–1718), >�1�� G� +�� >�� &��’�� &�� &�’��, Hayderabad: D’iratal-Ma’rif al-NiDmiyyah, 1328/1910.

al-Palimbn�, ‘Abd al-0amad, .�� .� �� ‘,+��=�++�� ’! ��,4 vols, Cairo: MuA�af al-Bb� al-�alab�, 1372/1953.

al-Palimbn�, ‘Abd al-0amad, .�� .� ��, [vol. I], romanized by A.M.Umar, Banda Aceh: Museum Negeri Aceh, 1985/6.

al-Palimbn�, ‘Abd al-0amad, 6�� .� ��, Surabaya: 1933.[Pires, Tomé], ��.��4�� '��'�é /��, ed. & trans. Armando

Cortesao, London: Hakluyt, 1944.al-Qushsh�, A�mad (991–1071/1583–1660), � �.�� &�� .��’�

� �>��’�� @�� .� �� 0� � � ��,Hayderabad: Di’rat al-Ma’rif al-NiDmiyyah, 1327/1909.

al-Qutb�, ‘Abd al-Kar�m b. Mu�ibb al-D�n (d. 1014/1605), ,’ �� ’� ��’ � �0’ �� +� >��’ � �&�� A��, ed. A�madMu�ammad Jaml, ‘Abd al-Az�z al-Rif’i & ‘Abd Allah al-Jabur�,Riy%: Dr al-Rif’�, 1403/1983.

al-Qutb�, ‘Abd al-Kar�m, � �>�� R�� (�� ’��, Riy%:Dr al-Yammah li al-Bahth wa al-Nashr wa al-Tarjamah, 1967.

al-Ramhurmuz�, Buzurg b. Shahriyar, -��+� ‘0��+� � �6��: Livre lesMerveilles de l’Inde, ed. P.A. van der Lith, French trans., L.M. Devic,Leiden: Brill, 1883–6.

al-Ramhurmuz�, Buzurg b. Shahriyar, ‘0��+�� 6��7�*��:� �� ’,��, trans. L.M. Devic, Paris: Imprimerie de Charles Herissey, 1878.Also ��>''�'��&��:� �� '�� ,��, trans. P. Quennel, London: Rout-ledge, 1928.

al-Raml�, Shams al-D�n (d. 1004/1596), )�� &�� .�� &�� (�� ‘� �� &��+� � �,�� .��’�, 8 vols, MiAr:MuA�f al-Bb� al-�alab�, 1967.

al-Rn�r�, �� al-D�n, >�� .� ��>�+�,,, (�� 3, ed. T. Iskandar,Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1966.

al-Rn�r�, �� al-D�n, -��+�� 0�� 6� � -��, Jakarta:Departemen P&K, 1983.

al-Rn�r�, �� al-D�n, 0�� ,��&�’�� =#��‘ �=��, ed.Tudjimah, Bandung: al-Ma’arif, 1961.

al-Rn�r�, �� al-D�n, H�� &��, ed. A�mad b. Mu�ammad ZaynMuA�af al-Fa�n�, Singapore: n.d.

al-Rn�r�, �� al-D�n, H�� &��, in the margin of Mu�ammadArshad al-Banjar�, .�+� �� &��, Singapore: Sulayman Mar’ie, n.d.[orig. unknown].

2�% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


al-Sakhaw�, Shams al-D�n (831–902/1428–97), �� *�� &�� .��, 4 vols, Cairo: Ma�ba’at al-Sunnat al-Mu�am-madiyah, 1376/l957.

al-Samhud�, �� al-D�n ‘Al� b. A�mad (911/1505), <��’ � �<�� +0�+�� @�� &��, 3 vols, ed. Mu�ammad Mu�y al-D�n ‘Abd al-�mid, Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 1373/1955.

al-Sha’rn�, ‘Abd al-Wahhb (899–973/1493–1565), � �G�+�� H�1��,ed. ‘Abd al-Qdir A�mad ‘A�, Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhirah, 1390/1970.

al-Sha’rn�, ‘Abd al-Wahhb, � �G�+�� -�+��, 2 vols, Cairo:Maktabah wa Ma�ba’ah Mu�ammad ‘Al� Sab�h wa Awlduh, [1965?].

al-Shawkan�, Mu�ammad b. ‘Al� (d. 1205/1791), � �>�� ’, 2 vols,Cairo: Ma�ba’at al-Sa’dah, 1348/1929.

.�� &� �� '�� &� �� 0�� , trans. C.C. Brown, Kuala Lumpur:Oxford University Press, 1970.

[Silsilah ‘Abd al-Ra’�f al-Sink�l�], /�� &��. � ��.�� 0+�� =�’�� T�5U� �� , �� -�� .�� 0+�� T�5U�B��, ed. Ph. S. van Ronkel in, ‘Het Heiligdom te Oelakan’,�>C, 64 (1914).

al-Sink�l�, ‘Abd al-Ra’�f, &�’�� G� �+, in S. Keijzer, ‘Spiegel voorleergierige wetgeleerden’, >-,, 11 (1864).

al-Sink�l�, ‘Abd al-Ra’�f, -��+� � �(��’?, Singapore & Jeddah:Haramayn, n.d.

al-Sink�l�, ‘Abd al-Ra’�f, -��+�� (��’?, publ. in one vol. with Ism’�lal-Minangkabaw�, -�� C�� , Penang: n.d.

al-Sink�l�, ‘Abd al-Ra’�f, &��’D�� >��’��, publ. in one vol. with ‘AbdAllh b. ‘Abd al-Ra��m al-Fa�n�, &�� 6�� )�+,Penang: Sulayman Press, 1369/1949.

al-Suy��, Jall al-D�n (d. 911/1505), A�� &��?��0�+��&�� B��, Cairo: al-Maws�’t, n.d.

al-Suy��, Jall al-D�n, � �6�� &�+�� ?� � +�� &�� &��, ed. ‘Abd Allh Mu�ammad al-Darw�sh, Beirut:al-Yammah, 1405/1985.

‘Tarikh al-Shihri’, in R.B. Serjeant, ��/'��1��'��.'��0��+��8'��7�6��8��'�5 ��, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Valentijn, F., 4��)��4'��,��ë�, 5 vols, Dordrecht: J. van Braam,1724–6.

al-Zbid�, Murta% (d. 1206/1791), �� B� #+� �� @�� &� �>�� 0��#+, ed. 0al� al-Munajjid, Damascus: Majma al-Lughat al-’Arabiyyah, 1388/1968.

al-Zbid�, Murta%, �� ’0�#�� B��#�, 10 vols, ed. ‘Abdal-Sattr A�mad Faraj, Kuwait: al-Turth al-’Arabiyyah, 1385/1985.

al-Zbid�, Murta%, -��+�,�� .�� &��+�.��0��,��’‘� #�� @��, 10 vols, Cairo: n.p., 1893.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2��


Unpublished Dissertations and PapersAbdel Aal, Abdel Hamid, ‘God, the Universe, and Man in Islamic Thought:

The Contribution of Shah Waliullah of Delhi, (1703–1762)’, PhD. diss.,University of London, 1971.

Abu Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf Tajul Khalwati: Suatu Kajian AntropologiAgama’, doctoral diss., Universitas Hasanuddin, Ujung Pandang, 1990.

Amansyah, A.M., ‘Tentang Lontara Syekh Yusuf Tajul Halawatiyah’,typescript, Ujung Pandang: Perpustakaan Universitas Hasanuddin, 1975.

Anonymous, ‘Riwajat’na Tuanta Salamaka Rigowa’, typescript, Makasar:1969.

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Study of the ‘Ulama’: A Preliminary Research’,MA thesis, Columbia University, 1989.

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Rise and Decline of the Minangkabau Surau: ATraditional Islamic Educational Institution in West Sumatra during theDutch Colonial Government’, MA thesis, Columbia University, 1988.

Djamil, Abdul, ‘KH Ahmad Rifa’i Kalisalak: Studi tentang Pemikiran danGerakan Islam Abad Sembilan Belas (1786–1876)’, doctoral disser-tation, Program PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 1999.

[Fathurahman, Oman, ‘Tarekat Sya��riyyah di Dunia Melayu-Indonesia;Kajian atas Dinamika Perkembangannya melalui Naskah-naskah di SumatraBarat’, doctoral diss., Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Indonesia, 2003.

[Galigo, Syamsul Bahri Andi, ‘Syekh Yusuf Makasar dan PemikiranTasawufnya dalam al-Naf�ah al-Saylniyyah’, doctoral diss., UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 1998.

Harun, Salman, ‘Hakekat Tafsir Tarjuman al-Mustafid Karya Syekh Abdur-rauf Singkel, doctoral diss, Institut Agama Islam Negeri, Jakarta, 1988.

‘Hikayat Sjeich Joesoef van H.S.D. Moentoe Labbakang, Pangkadjene’,typescript, Collection A.A. Cense, Leiden University, KITLV, Or.545–218.

von Kleist, E.P.J., ‘Ein indonesischer des 17. Jahrhunderts in Südafrika:Zwei Sendschreiben des Scheichs Yusuf Makassar’, MA thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat, Kapstadt, 1986.

Laffan, M.F., ‘The Umma below the Winds: Mecca, Cairo, ReformistIslam and a Conceptualization of Indonesia’, PhD thesis, University ofSydney, 2000.

Muchoyyar H.S., H.M., ‘Tafsir Faidl al-Rahman fi Tarjamah Tafsir KalamMalik al-Dayyan Karya KHM Saleh al-Samarani’, doctoral dissertation,Program PascaSarjana IAIN, Yogyakarta, 2001.

Nurwahidin, ‘Pemikiran Tasawuf Hamka’, MA thesis, Program Pasca-Sarjana IAIN, Jakarta, 1995.

Reid, A., ‘A Religious Revolution’, paper delivered at the Conference onthe Anthropological and Historical Approaches to the ComparativeStudy of Islam, Washington University, St. Louis, 1989.

Sangidu, ‘Wachdatul-Wuj#d dalam M�’ul-Chay�t li Ahlil-Mam�t’, doctoraldiss., Universitas Gadjahmada, Yogyakarta, 2002.

2�2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Tjokrowinoto, R.S., ‘Tindjauan Kitab Sirat ‘l-Mustaqim (karangan Nur ad-Dinar-Raniri)’, MA thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 1964.

Woodward, M.R., ‘The Shari’ah and the Doctrine: Muslim Law andMystical Doctrine in Central Java’, PhD diss., University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign, 1985.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Books‘Abd Allh, ‘Abd al-Ra�mn 0li�, �� ’ ��&�� &��

��, Jeddah: Dr al-Shur�q, 1403/1982.‘Abd al-Jabbr, ‘Umar, @��#��&�?�� ’ ��A�?��+�� &��

� �A��, Cairo: n.p., 1959.‘Abd al-Jabbr, ‘Umar, .�� +�’?� ‘� ��’�� B��

� �=�+’ ‘0�� 6��, Jeddah: Tihama, 1403/1982.Abdullah, Hawash, /��+��1�� , ��''��''��

)��, Surabaya: al-Ikhlas, 1980.Abdullah, H.W.M. Shagir, .��@�� +�� 0+�� (��7� � ��

��/��1��1�� 1�0��11��, Kuala Lumpur: Hizbi, 1990.Abdullah, H.W. Muhd. Shaghir, /��+��1�� , �� (�� ''��

�''��0��11��, I, Solo: Ramadhani, 1985.Abdullah, Muhd. Shaghir, .��0+��.�� /� �+��, Pontianak:

al-Fathanah, 1983.Abdullah, Shaghir, .�� &�� 0�� >��9� &�� ,� ��,

Pontianak: al-Fathanah, 1983.Abdullah, H.W.M. Shagir, /��+��,� ��. � �� .��1��

@��&� �� , Pengenalan Siri Ke-10, Kuala Lumpur: Persat-uan Pengkajian Khazanah Klasik Nusantara & Khazanah Fathaniyah,2000.

Abu Bakar, Abdul Latiff (ed.), &� ��.� ��, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena,1990.

Abu-Nasr, Jamil, �� 7� 0� .�� 4�� &'�� <'� �,London: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Ahmad, Aziz, .�� ,� ��5� 8� �� ,�� ;�:�'��,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Ahmad, Z., .�� -�� 05�� $2%–�EF$, Medan:Manora, 1972.

Ahmed, Munir ud-Din, &�� ;��5��'��.5�' ��’ .'5� �.��'��$��8��&�� ;��P��8��8��;��Q, Zurich:Verlag der Islam, 1968.

al-Akw, Ism’�l b. ‘Al�, � �&�� ,� �� R��, Beirut:Mu’assasat al-Rislah, 1406/1986.

Al-’Amr�, �usayn b. ‘Abdullh, ��R��Jth �� th 8��70�/' �5� ��,�� 5�� 6��'��, London: Ithaca Press, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2�3


2�� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Andaya, B.W., �'�*:��>�'��7�.'��.��.�:��;1��8��, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.

Andaya, L.Y., ��6��1��'��0��1�/� ��7�0�6��'��'��.'��.� ��P8� �+��Q��.�:��8��, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1981.

Andaya, L.Y., ��-�1�'��'��'�'�7��E��–�F2%, Kuala Lumpur: OxfordUniversity Press, 1975.

Arberry, A.J., &�� .�� &��5�, London: Routledge & KeganPaul, 1966.

Arnold, T.W., ��/��5��1�'��,� ��7�0�6��'��'��/�'��1��'��'��&�� (��, London: Constable, 1913.

Arshad, M.H. b. Dato Kerani, 0 �� .� �� )�1��-��, KualaLumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1968.

al-Asam�, ‘Abd al-Mulk b. �usayn, .�� )��#�� ’0�� 0+��’� �0�� , 4 vols, Cairo: al-Ma�ba’at al-Salfiyyah,1379/1959.

Atjeh, Aboebakar, �� , Kota Bharu: Pustaka Aman,1979.

al-Attas, S.M.N., ��4 �� '��&� ��&��5��7� 0� �E��8��&� �� '��'��‘0��’��'�� )��, Kuala Lumpur: Univer-sity of Malaya Press, 1988.

al-Attas, S.M.N., 0� 8'�� '�� 6�� .�� '�� )�� @�� =��, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, 1986.

al-Attas, S.M.N., ,� �� .�� -�+��&� ��, KualaLumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1972.

al-Attas, S.M.N., �� &��5�� '�� 6��"�� (��, Kuala Lumpur:University of Malaya Press, 1970.

al-Attas, S.M.N, /�� .��'��C�� '��'��,� ��"��'�� '�� &� ��,��'�� 0�5�� 1', Kuala Lumpur: DewanBahasa dan Pustaka, 1969.

al-Attas, S.M.N., =�� <�� '�� F��8��05��, Singa-pore, MBRAS, 1966.

al-Attas, S.N., .'��0��5��'��.��''��/��5��'�1��&� ��, Singapore: Malaysian Sociological Research Institute, 1963.

Auni, L., ��@�5 ��'��,� ��5�;��'��05��9��E��–�E , Jakarta:Departemen Agama R.I., 1996/7.

Azami, M.M., 4��.5��5��’��4�1��'��&��5�, NewYork/Riyad: Wiley/King Saud University, 1985.

Azami, M.M., .��6��&��'�' '1��*��, Indianapolis:American Trust Publication, 1977.

al-’Azimabad�, ‘Ab� al-)ayyib Mu�ammad Shams al-�aq, ‘0�� &�’+#�� .�� .�� 0+�� @��, 14 vols, Medina: Maktabat al-Salfiyyah, 1389/1969.

Azra, Azyumardi, Islam Nusantara: Jaringan Global dan Lokal, Bandung:Mizan, 2002.


BIBLIOGRAPHY 2�$

Azra, Azyumardi, &��&��&��, Bandung: Rosda, 1999.Azra, Azyumardi, =�� ,� ��0��11��7�.��<�5��

-��, Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya, 1999.Azra, Azyumardi, Jarikgan Ulama Timur Tengah dan Kepulanan Nusan-

tara Ahad XVII dan XVIII, Bandung: Mizan, 3rd edn, 1995.Badaw�, ‘Abd al-Ra�mn, *�� '�� '�'��1��5��

�'��+�, Paris: J. Vrins, 1968.al-Baghdd�, Ism’�l Bsh, 6�� ’!��7� 0��’ � �&�’� ��

‘0�� &��, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951.Baljon, J.M.S., =� 1'�� '�1�� '�� .�� <� �� 0 �� @� ��,

1703–1762, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.al-Bash�r, al-)hir Mu�ammad ‘Al�, � �0��+�� H#�� .#��, Khartoum:

al-Dr al-S�daniyyah, 1390/1970.Basuni, A., )��,� ��-� ��.� ��, Surabaya: Bina ilmu 1986.al-Bay�r, ‘Abd al-Razzq (1253–1335/1837–1917), A �� >��

�� B�� ‘0��, 3 vols, ed. Mu�ammad Ba�jatal-Bay�r, Damascus: Ma�b�’at Majm’ al-’Ilm al-’Arab�, 1383/1963.

Beg, M.A.J., /��*'��<'��&� ��, Kuala Lumpur:University of Malaya, 1982.

van den Berg, L.W.C., *�� 6��'�� 5' '�� +�� ’��5�� , Batavia: Imprimerie de Gouvernement, 1889.

Berkey, J., �� '�� '�� -�'� ��1�� &��:� � 8��'7� 0� .'5� 6��'��'��,� ��5�;��5��'�, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Bowen, J.R., .�� /' �5�� /'��5�7� C��'�6��'��9� � %%–� J ,New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1991.

Brockelmann, C., C��5�5�� 0��+�5�� *��, 2 vols and2 supplements, Leiden: Brill, 1943–49.

van Bruinessen, M., -��+� -��19� /��9� �� 7� ��,� ��,��'��, Bandung: Mizan, 1995.

van Bruinessen, M., �� )��+�� ,��'��, Bandung:Mizan, 1992.

>�1��&�� /�� ,� �� ,��'��, Ujung Pandang: IAINAlauddin, 1982.

Bulliet, R.W., Islam: The view from the Edge, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1995.

Bulliet, R.W., 8'�:��'�� '� ,� �� &��:� � /��'�, Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Bulliet, R.W., �� /��5�� '�� )��, Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1972.

Chatelier, A. le, *��5'��é�� 6��", Paris: Ernest Leroux,1887.

Chaudhuri, K.N., �� 8: "��'�� ,�� 45��7� 0�;5'�'�5�6��'��'��=��'��,� ��'��F$%, Cambridge: UniversityPress, 1985.


Clifford, H. & F.A. Swettenham, 0�@5�'�� '�� &� �� *��1��1�, I, Taiping: 1894.

Coedès, G., ��,��"��.��'��.'��0��, ed. W.F.Vella, trans.S.B. Cowing, Honolulu: East-West Center.

Cuoq, J.M., *�� 0��, Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, 1975.Dahln, A�mad Zayn� (d. 1305/1886), -�� -� ��>��’

� �> �� A��, Cairo: n.p., 1305/1888.Dahln, A�mad Zayn�, ��’ > �� A�� 0��

‘0�� =��# � �� .�� A�� +S� ‘0 �, Beirut: al-Dral-Mutta�idah, n.d.

Dangor, Suleman Essop, .��R��, Durban: Kat Bros, 1982.Daud, Ismail Che, �''��''�� ’ .��1�&� ��, Kota Bharu:

Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Kelantan, 1992.Daudi, Abu, &�� .��&'�S�0�� >��, Martapura: Sullamul

Ulum, 1980.Daudy, Ahmad, 0 ��&�� -'��)��=��,

Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983.Daudy, Ahmad, .��)��0��=��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978.Deschamps, H., 6��'��&��1��5��, 3rd ed., Paris, 1965.van Diffelen, R.W., @�� <��+��9 Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1927.Diradjo, Datuk Sangguno, &��'� 0�� 0 �� &��1�+��, Djakarta:

Kementerian PP&K, 1955.Djajadiningrat, R.H., -�� 05�� +�� >��+�� 1

�� -��&� ��, trans. T. Hamid, Banda Aceh: Departe-men P&K, 1982/83. Dutch original is ‘Critisch overzich van de inMaleische vervatte gegevens over de geschiedenis van het Sultanaat vanAtjeh’, >-,, 65 (1911).

Djajadiningrat, R.H., 8��5�� +��5�'��1� :�� .�� >��,Haarlem: J. Enschedé, 1913.

Dobbin, C., ,� ��5�=�::� ��8��1�1�/��;5'�'��7�8�� .��FJ�–�J�F, London: Curzon, 1983.

Dodge, B., &�� ;��5��'��&��:� ��, Washington, D.C.: TheMiddle East Institute, 1962.

Dohaish, Abdullatif Abdullah, 6��'�� '�� ;��5��'�� 6��"� �� '� 2$, Cairo: Dr al-Fikr al-’Arab�, 1398/1978.

Doorenbos, J., @��C��5��:��6��"��/��'��, Leiden: Batteljee &Terpstra, 1933.

Drewes, G.W.J., 0��;�� :��8'�� '��&�� ;��5�, BibliothecaIndonesica, 18, The Hague: KITLV & Nijhoff, 1978.

Drewes, G.W.J., @��5�'��'��:� ��'��&��5�/��, The Hague,Nijhoff, 1977.

Dunn, R.E., �� 0�:�� '�� ,+�� >��7� 0� &�� :� �� ('�� 8��, Berkeley: University of California Press,1989.

2�E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Eaton, R.M., .��'��>��3%%–�F%%7�.'5� �=' ��'��.��&��:� ,��, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Edmonds, C.J., -��9��9��0��+�, London: Oxford University Press,1957.

Efendy, Huseyn, 4��'��;1��01��'��(��5��=�:' ��'�, trans.from the original Arabic with introd. and notes by. S.J. Shaw,Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964.

Esin, Emel, &�55��> ��9�&��=��, London: Elek Books,1963.

Fang, Liaw Yock, ��1��1�&� ��, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1976.Faroqhi, Suraiya, 6��5��ü+��&��7�@��C��5�5��/ 1��,

Munchen: Artemis Verlag, 1990.Fathurahman, Oman, &��'� �<�� <��7�-��0+��.�1�

��05��0+��F, Bandung: Mizan & EFEO Jakarta, 1999.Fatimi, S.Q., ,� ��8'��'�&� ��, Singapore: Malaysian Sociological

Institute, 1963.Federspiel, H.M., /��,� ��7�,� ��5�=��'��8��

,��'��, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Modern Indonesia Project,1970.

Fernandes, L., ��;:' ��'��'��.�� ,��'�� &�� ;1��7��-��1��, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1988.

Ferrand, G., =� ��'��:'��1��L��1é'1��+��9��9�� á ’;L��ê��4��, Paris: Leroux, 1914.

Friedmann, Y., .��0��.��: 0��4�� '��6��'�1��.��'��6��,��1��;��'��/'��, Montreal: Institute of IslamicStudies, McGill University Press, 1971.

de Gaury, G., =� �� '��&�55�9� � $�, repr. ed., New York: New York:Dorset Press, 1991.

Geertz, C., ,� �� 4+��:��7� =� 1'�� @�:� '�� &'�'55'� ��,��'��, New Haven & London, Yale University Press, 1968.

Geertz, C., ��=� 1'��'��:�, New York: Free Press, 1960.Gibb, H.A.R. & H. Bowen, ,� ��5�.'5��<��, 2 vols, Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1957.Gladney, D.C., &�� 8��7� ;��5� )��'�� /�'� �’�

=��+ 5, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991.Glazer, N. & D.P. Moynihan, >��'��&� ��1�/'�, Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press, 1974.Goldziher, I., K��8��C� � ��@��.��’��

��5��ä�1��, Vienna: 1872.de Graaf, H.J., @�� =�1��1� :�� .� �� 01��19� :'�� :�� &��,

�E�3–�E�$9��:��"��:''�1��1��+��.��1�-��9�E%�–�E�3, VKI, 23, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1958.

de Graaf, H.J. & Th. G. Th. Pigeaud, -�� ,� ��,Jakarta: Grafiti, 1984, trans. from @��&'� ��:'��'��'��:�7�.��ë��':��1��1��5��:��$��E��, VKI, 69, Leiden: KITLV, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2�F


Gran, P., ,� ��5�=''��'��8�� , Austin: University of Texas Press,1979.

Gullick, J.M., ,��1��'��/' �5� �.��'��<��&� ��, London:Athlone Press, 1965.

de Haan, F., /��1��7� @�� /��1��1��5�� '�� )�� 5�� +�� '�� J��, Batavia & ’s-Gravenhage: Kolff & Nijhoff,1912, III.

HfiD, ‘Abd al-Salm Hshim, 0 �&�� &�� ,Cairo: Dr al-Turth, 1381/1972.

Halidi, Jusuf, � �� >�� -� ��7� .��5�� &�� 0�� >��, Martapura: Jajasan al-Bandjari, 1968.

Hall, D.G.E., 0�6��'��'��.'��;��0��, London: Macmillan, 1964.Hamid, Abu, .�� R��7� .�'��1�� 9� .�� /��1, Jakarta:

Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 1994.Hamka, 0��7� =�� 6��@�S� 6S� 0+�� -�� 0�� /��

��1��-��01��.��, Jakarta: Djajamurni, 1967.Hamka, 0��(��-�� =�', Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1974.Hamka, @��/��+��*��, Medan: Madju, 1963.Hamka, .��,� ��.��, Medan: Pustaka Nasional, 1950.Haron, Muhammed, &�� .'��0��5�7��'��++ '1��,

Cape Town: South African Library, 1997.al-�asan�, ‘Abd al-�ayy b. Fakhr al-D�n, )�"�� -�� >��

� �&�� )��"�, 7 vols, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rifal-’Uthmniyyah, 1931–59.

Hashim, Muhammad Yusoff, -�� &� ��&� ��, Kuala Lumpur:Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1989.

Hashim, Muhamad Yusoff, /�� &� �� )��, KualaLumpur: Teks Publishing Sdn. Bhd., 1988.

Hasjmi, A., .�� -�+�� ,� �� ,��'��, Jakarta: BulanBintang, 1990.

Hasjmi, A. (ed.), .��&��>��+��1��,� ��,��'��,2nd ed., Bandung: al-Ma’arif, 1989.

Hasjmi, A., .�� 0� �� 1� ��+�� 1�� .��,� ��-�� )��, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1983.

Hasjmi, A., -�+��05�� .��, Jakarta: Beuna, 1983.Hasjmi, A., =�+�’�6��"��(��9�-��.��.��0+��MN,,, Kuala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1976.Heer, N., ��/��5'��/�� 7�0 ��’�� @�� (�� '1��

�� C '�� 8'�� '�� ‘Abd � �C��#�� *��,Albany: State University of New York Press, 1979.

Hiskett, M., ��.�'��'��7��*��'��.��('�', New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Hitti, P.K., N.A. Faris & B. ‘Abd-al-Malik, @��5��:��8�� '1��'�� C�� 8' �5�'�� '�� 0��+5�&��5�� /��5��'��:��*+��, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938.

2�J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Hodgson, M.G.S., �� N�� '�� ,� ��, 3 vols, Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1974.

Hooker, M.B., ,� ��5�*��.'��;��0��, Singapore: Oxford Univer-sity 1984.

Hourani, G.F., 0��+�.��1� �� ,��45��0�5��;�� &��:� ��, Beirut: Khayats, 1963.

Huntington, R., C��.'5� �.��5��&��1��5��, Bloomington& Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Hussainmiya, B.A., 4��1� =��7� �� &� �� '�� 8�� '�� =� �=�1��, Bangi: University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1990.

Ibn Bishr, ‘Uthmn b. ‘Abd Allh, ‘�� &��)��, 2 vols,Riy%: Maktabat al-Riy% al-�ad�thah 1971 [?].

Jalbani, G.N., *�� '�� .��<� � 0 ��, Delhi: Idarah-i adabiyat-i Delli,1980.

Janson, A., Roger Tol, and Jan Just Witkam (eds), &��5� � , ��'��'��5��1��'��.��0�� B��, Leiden: INIS, 1995.

Jones, A.M., 0��5�� ,��'��7� �� ;:��5�� '�� M� '��'�� 4��&��5� ��8� �� (�5�'��, Leiden: Brill, 1971.

de Jong, Frederick & Bernd Radtke (eds), ,� ��5�&��5��8'��7��8��'��8'��':��/' ��5�, Leiden: Brill, 1999.[Azra himself has a contribution to this volume, but there are otherpieces relevant to his work in the chapters by Madelung, Peskes, Radtke,and Lipman, among others.]

de Jonge, J.K.J., @��'�'��:��)�� 5��1�"�1�':��:�, TheHague: Nijhoff, 1870.

Juynboll, G.H.A., &�� '�7�.��8��'�' '1�9�/�':��5�9�� 0��'�� '�� ;�� 6��, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1983.

Kartodirdjo, Sartono (ed.), /�'� ��'��&� ��8� ��, Jakarta: Ministry ofEducation and Culture, 1976.

al-Kattn�, ‘Abd al-�ayy b. ‘Abd al-Kab�r, (�� (�� 0��+�� &�’�� &�’�� &�� &�� , 3 vols,Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm�, 1402/1982.

al-Khrij�, ‘Al�, � �’��#�� *�’ �’�� @�� =��# ��,2 vols, Cairo: Ma�ba’at al-Hilal, 1914.

Kennedy, J., 0�6��'��'��&� ��, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1970.Knysh, A.D., ,+��‘0��+��*��,� ��5��'�7��&��1�'��

/' ��5� �,��1��&��:� �,� ��, Albany: SUNY Press, 1999.Kraemer, H., ;��:��5��/��+'��"��, Leiden: Brill,

1921.Kraus, W., K��5�� =��'�� =�+� '�7� ü+�� ;�t�5 ��1� ��

,� �� &��1�+�� P<��Q� "��5�� +�� =��'��+��1��1��/��P�J3FQ��&'��P� %JQ, Wiesbaden:Franz Steiner, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2�


Landon, K.P., .'��0��7�8�'��'��'��=� 1'��, Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1949.

van Leur, J.C., ,��'�� .'5��, The Hague: Van Hoeve,1955.

Levtzion, N. (ed.), 8'�:��'�� '� ,� ��, New York: Holmes & Meyer,1979.

Levtzion, N. & J.O. Voll (eds), ;1��8��=�� =��'��,� ��, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987.

Lombard, D., *��5��'��:�� (3 vols.), Paris: EHESS, 1990. Trans.into )��. ��1�>�� (3 vols.), Jakarta: Gramedia, 1996.

Lombard, D., *��.� ��’0��é��’,��&��9��E%F–�E3E,Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1967. Trans. into -��05��.� ��,��&��, Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1991.

Lubis, Haji Muhammad Bukhari, The Ocean of Unity: Wa�dat al-Wuj#d inPersian, Turkish and Malay Poetry, Kuala Lumpur: DBD, 1993.

Lubis, Nabilah, .�� R�� &��9� &��1�� ,��.�1� ��=��, Bandung: Mizan & EFEO Jakarta, 1996.

Madmarn, Hasan, The Pondok and Madrasah in Patani, Kuala Lumpur:Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1999.

Majul, C.A., &�� /� ��, 2nd ed., Quezon City: Universityof the Philippines Press, 1979.

Makdisi, G., ��=��'��6��8 ��5� �,� ��8��<��, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.

Mansur, H.M. Laily, -��+� ��@��)��7� �� 0��, Banjarmasin: Hasanu, 1982.

Mansur, M.D., /��1�/��.��>��, Djakarta: 1964.Marsden, W., ��6��'��'��.��, first publ., London: 1873, repr. of

the 1811 ed., Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1975.Martamin, M., ��,��>'��' , 2nd ed., Jakarta: Departemen P&K,

1984.Martin, B.G., &�� >�'��''�� )�� 8�� 0��5�,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Martin, R.C. & M.R. Woodward with Dwi S. Atmaja, @��'��=��'�

��,� ��7�&�’��" ��'��&��:� �.5�'' ��'�&'��.��+' , Oxford:Oneworld, 1997.

Ma’r�f, Nji, &��&��, Baghdad: Ma�ba’at al-Irshd, 1386/1966.Ma’r�f, Nji, ‘� ��’ � �)D�� &�� &�� ,� ��,

Baghdad: Ma�ba’at al-Irshd, 1393/1973.Ma’r�f, Nj�, &��+ �� )D��, Baghdd [?]: Ma�ba’at al-Jam’

al-’Ilm� al-’Irq�, 1393/1973.Massiara, A.H., .�� R�� .� �� C'��, Jakarta:

Yayasan Lakipadada, 1983.Massignon, L., ;�� '�1�� L��5��

�� , Paris: J. Vrin, 1954.

22% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


&�� ,� �� .� �� .� ��, Ujung Pandang: Balai PenelitianLektur, Depag R.I., 1985–6.

Mayson, J.S., ��&� ��'��8��'��, Manchester: J. Galt & Co., 1861.Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P., 0�� ;��'�� ,�� 5��

,��'��0�5�� 1', The Hague: Nijhoff, 1962.Muztar, A.D., .��<� �0 ��7�0�.��.5�' ��'��&�� ,��, Islam-

abad: National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, 1979.al-Naqar, ‘Umar, �� / 1��1�� '�� <�� 0��5�, Khartoum:

Khartoum University Press, 1972.Nasution, Harun, ,� ��=��'�� , Bandung: Mizan, 1995.Ngah, Mohd Nor Bin, -��+��7�,� ��5��'�1��'��&� ��&��

.5�' ��, Singapore: ISEAS, 1983.van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., .��’ �@��:��/��7�>��1��'��

��.��5��&��, Leiden: Brill, 1945.Nock, A.D., 8'�:��'�7��4 �� )��=� 1'�� '��0 �L��

��C��'�0�1��'��6��', Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.Ochsenwald, W., =� 1'�9� .'5�� .�� 0��+�7� �� 6��"�

��4��'��8'��' , Columbus, O.H.: Ohio State University Press,1984.

Owen, T. (ed.), .��;1��8��,� ��5�6��'��, Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press, 1997.

Pesce, A., ��7�/'��'��0��+��8��, London: Falcon Press, 1974.Peters, F.E., �� &�55�7��' '1��'��6' ��8��

)��;��, New York & London: New York University Press, 1986.Pigeaud, T.G. Th., *��'��:�, 3 vols, Leiden: Bibliotheca Univer-

sitatis Leidensis, 1967.Pigeaud, Th. G. Th. & H.J. de Graaf, ,� ��5�.�� :��$%%–�F%%,

The Hague: Nijhoff, 1976.Pijper, G.F., (��1�� ,� ��5�7� .��ë�� ':�� ,� �� )��

��5��,��ë, Leiden: Brill, 1934.du Plessis, I.D., �� 8�� &� ��7� 6��'��9� =� 1'�9� ��'��9� ('

�� '��&� ��B��, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1972.du Plessis, I.D., .��1��'��'��, Kaapstad: Nasionale Boekhandel, 1970. du Plessis, I.D., ��8��&� ��, Johannesburg: South African Institute

of Race Relations, 1946.al-Qann�j�, 0idd�q b. �asan, 0+�� ’� #�, 3 vols Dr al-Kutub

al-’Ilmiyyah, n.d.al-Quds�, ‘Abd al-�mid b. Mu�ammad ‘Al�, � �(��#�� B��

�� .�� .��, Cairo: al-�midiyyatal-MiAriyyah, 1323/1905.

Quzwain, M. Chatib, &��1�� 0 ��7�.��1��0��.��‘Abd��.�� /� �+��, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984.

Raffles, T.S., ��6��'��'��:�, 2 vols, London: Black, Parburg & Allen,1817, repr. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Unversity Press, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 22�


Rahim, Husni, Sistem Otoritas & Administrasi Islam: Studi tentangPejabat Agama Masa Kesultanan dan Kolonial di Palembang, Jakarta:Logos, 1998.

Rahman, Fazlur, =�::� ��=��'��,� ��7�0�.��'��,� ��5�(�� , Oxford: OneWorld, 2000.

Rahman, Fazlur, ,� �� (2nd Edition), Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1979.

Ras, J.J., 6��>��9�0�.�� &� ��6��'�'1��, The Hague:Nijhoff, 1968.

Rauf, M.A., 0�>��6��'��'��,� ��.��5� �=��5��'�&� ��,Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Reid, A., .'�� 0�� 01�� '�� 8'��5�9� ��$%–�EJ%� PN' ��'7�;L��'��8��Q, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Ricklefs, M.C., ��.��<'� ��:�9��F2E–�F� 7�6��'��9*�� ,� �� 8'�� '�� /��+�� ,,, St Leonard,Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1998.

Ricklefs, M.C., 0�6��'��'��&'��,��'��, London: Macmillan, 1990.Ricklefs, M.C., �'1�� .� �� &��1�+�� F� –�F 2,

London: Oxford University Press, 1974.Riddell, P., ,� �� &� ��,��'�� <'� �7� ��'��

=��'��, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books, 2001.Riddell, P., ��1��'�7�0+�� =�’�� .�1 ’��=��1

��'�&� ��'�� 8'��, Berkeley: Monograph No. 31,Centers for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California,1990.

Rinkes, D.A., 0+�'��'�� :�� .�1� 7� >��1�� '�� :�� '�9�.��:�, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909.

=�� .�� R�� -�� &��1� @��1� &��1,Trans. Djirong Basang, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1981.

Rizvi, S.A.A., 0�6��'��'��.��,��, 2 vols, New Delhi: MunshiramManoharlal, 1983.

Rizvi, S.A.A., .��<� �0 ��6��, Canberra: Ma’rifat Publish-ing House, 1980.

van Ronkel, Ph. S., .�� '��8�� '1��'��0��+5�&��5��S S S ��>��:��.'5��, Batavia & The Hague: Albrecht & Nijhoff,1913.

van Ronkel, Ph. S., 8�� '1��&� ��5��6��5��, Batavia & TheHague: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1909.

Salam, Solichin, .��R��‘.�1��C'��’7�� +�� +��,��'�� , Jakarta, 1994.

Saleh, Siti Hawa (ed.), 6�� &��'�1� &��1��, Kuala Lumpur:University of Malaya Press, 1970.

Sandhu, K.S. & P. Wheatley (eds), &� ��7��'��'��'��&� ��8�� 5S��%%–� J%, 2 vols, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press,1983.



Sartain, E.M., �� @�� .��, 2 vols, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1975.

Sasmita, Uka Tjandra, &�� >�� -'�� >� ��7� .� �� 01��1��, Jakarta: Nusalarang, 1967.

Schacht, ��4�1��'��&��5�, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1979.

Scherzer, K., )��:�� '�� 8�5��:1��'�� '�� C '+�� +�� 0�� (�1�� )':�� R�� J$F9� �J$J� �� J$ , 3 vols,London: 1861–63.

Schimmel, A., /��C��5�7�0�.��'��'�&��5� �<��'��;1��8��&�� ,��, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

Schrieke, B.J.O., ,��'��.'5' '15� �.��, 2 parts, The Hague &Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1955.

Sell, Rev. C., &�� 8��, London [etc.]: Christian Literature forIndia 1913.

al-Sha’af�, M.S., ��('��1��'��1��4��'��/��'��J�%–� �E, Jeddah [?]: n.p., 1405/1985.

al-Shamakh, Mu�ammad ‘Abd al-Ra�mn, � ��’ �� &�� &��9�Riy%: n.p., 1393/1973.

Shaw, S.J., ��(��5� ��0��:��4�1��"��'��@�:� '�� '�� 4��'�� ;1��9� �$�F–�F J, Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1962.

Shaw, S.J., �� >��1�� '�� 4��'�� ;1��9� �%%$–�%%EV�$ E–�$ F, TheHague & Paris: Mouton, 1968.

Sherwani, H.K., ��>��'��@�55��, Hyderabad: 1953. Shushud, Hasan, &�� '�� <��'�� '�� 8�� 0��, trans. Muhtar

Holland, Moorcote, Eg.: Coombe Springs Press, 1983.al-Sib’�, A�mad, �� &��, 2 vols, al-Mamlakat al-’Arabiyyat

al-Su’�diyyah, 1404/1984.Snouck Hurgronje, C., )�� 8S� .�'�5� 6��1�'��

-��1��/��6��>� ��, Trans. Sukarsi,Jakarta: INIS, 1991, V, from E. Gobée & C. Adriaanse (comp.), 0�+�� :�"�� :�� 8S� .�'�5� 6��1�'��9� �JJ –� 3E, 2 vols,‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1959–65.

Snouck Hurgronje, C., &��*��/��'�� 8��, trans.J.H. Monahan, Leyden & London: Brill & Luzac, 1931.

Snouck Hurgronje, C., N��1��5��, Hague: Nijhoff, 1924–27.Snouck Hurgronje, C., ��05��, 2 vols, trans. O’Sullivan, Leiden:

Brill, 1906.Soeratno, Siti Chamamah et al., &�� -�� )��

0��, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1982.Stapel, F.W. (ed.), C��5��:��)�� 5��,��ë, 5 vols, Amster-

dam, Joost van den Vondel, 1938–40, I.Steenbrink, K., -��+� .�5� �� -�� ' ��7� )�� 0��=��

01��-��, Yogyakarta: IAIN Sunan Kalijaga Press, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 223


Sulaiman, Ibraheem, 0�=�:' ��'�� 6��'��7��'��('�', London: Mansell, 1986.

Sutaarga, Amir et al., -�� '1��-' ��)��&� ��&��/��,Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1972.

Syukri, Ibrahim, 6��'��'��&� ��-�1�'��'��/��, trans. C. Bailey& J.N. Miksic, Athens, OH: Center for International Studies, 1985.

Talas, Asad, *�� &�� )"�� '�� 6��'��, Paris: Geuthner,1939.

Tara, V. & J.C. Woillet, &��1��5��9�&��5��1�� 8'�'��, Paris:Société Continentale, 1969.

Tarling, Nicholas (ed.), �� 8��+��1�� 6��'�� '�� .'�� 0��,Cambridge University Press, 1992—esp. vol. 1, part 2 and vol. 2, part 1.

Temimi, Abdeljelil (ed.), *�� :�� '5� �� ':�5�� +�� à ’é�'�� '��'��, Zoghuan, Centre d’Etudes et de RecherchesOttomanes, Morisques, de Documentation et d’Information, 1988.

Theal, McCall G., 6��'��;��'1��'��0��5��.'��'��K��+��,3 vols, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1909, II.

Thurnberg, C., ��:� �� ;��'��9� 0��5�� 0��, 4 vols, London:F. Rivingston, 1795, I.

Tibbett, G.R., 0��+�)�:1��'��,��45��+��'��8'��1�'��/'��1��, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1981.

Tibbett, G.R., 0�.��'��0��+5��L��5'��1�&�� '��.'��;��0��, Leiden & London: Brill & Royal Asiatic Society, 1979.

Trimingham, J.S., �� .��4�� ,� ��, London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1973.

Trimingham, J.S., ,� ��.��, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1965.Tritton, A.S., &�� '��&�� ;��5��'��&�� 01��, London:

Luzac, 1957.Tudjimah, .��R��&��7�=��0��, Jakarta: Penerbit

Universitas Indonesia, 1997.Tudjimah et al., .��R��&��7�=��6��9�-��0��

��, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1987.Usman, A.G., ��1� >�� .��, Banjarmasin: Lambung

Mangkurat University Press, 1989.al-Uthaym�n, � �.�� &�� +�� ‘Abd � �<��+7� A��

(��, Riy%: Dr al-’Ul�m, n.d.Vajda, G., *�� '�� :'�� ,� �� PN,,�–MN,,,�� è5 ��Q, ed.

N. Cottart, London: Variorum Reprints, 1983.Vansina, J., 4�� '�7�0�.��6��'�5� �&��'�' '1�, Chicago:

Aldine, 1965.Vlekke, B.H.M., )��7� 0� 6��'�� '�� ;�� ,�� 0�5�� 1',

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943. Voorhoeve, P., 6�� '�� 0��+5� &��5�� *+�� '��

��:��'��*��4��8' �5�'��)�� , Leiden:Leiden University Press, 1980.

22� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Voorhoeve, P., �� &� ��5�� 1��5�� :�� )�� =��,Leiden: Brill, 1955.

Voorhoeve, P., >�� 7� >��+�� &��1�� /�� +�� 1�0+��.�1� , trans. Aboe Bakar,Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1980, from Dutch, ‘Bayan Tadjalli: Gegevens vooreen nadere studie over Abdurrauf van Singkel’, �>C, 85, 1952.

Walker, E.A., 0�6��'��'��.'��0��5�, 3rd ed., London: Longmans,1962.

Wink, A., 0 �6��7��&��1�'��,��'�,� ��5�<'� �, Leiden: Brill,1990.

Winstedt, R.O., �� &� �� &�15��7� >��1� .��9� .�:�� .��,London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.

Winstedt, R.O., 0�6��'��'��8 ��5� �&� ��*��, Kuala Lumpur:Oxford University Press, 1969.

Winter, M., .'5��=� 1'��;�� 4��'��;1��7�.�� <��1�� '��0+�� <��+�� .��’��, New Brunswick: TransactionBooks, 1982.

Woelders, M.O., 6�� .� �� /� ��+��1� �J��–�J2$, Leiden: Nijhoff,1975.

Wolters, O.W., �� (� � '�� .�:�� &� �� 6��'��, Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press, 1970.

Wolters, O.W., ;�� ,��'�� 8'��5�7� 0� .�� '�� 4�1�� '�.�:��, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Wustenfeld, F., C��5�5��.��&��9�in his @��8��'��.��&��, Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1861, IV.

Zabarah, Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad (b. 1301/1884), )�+� �’ � �R��+� �B�� ‘0�� 6��, Cairo: al-Ma�ba’at al-Salfiyyah,1377/1957.

Zabarah, Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad, )�� ’0�� )�+� �’ � �R��+�’?�� ’0 �, Cairo: al-Ma�ba’at al-Salfiyyah, 1359/1940.

Zabarah, Mu�ammad b. Mu�ammad, )�� <��=�� R�� B�� ‘0��, 2 vols, Cairo: al-Ma�ba’atal-Salfiyyah, 1348/1929.

Zainuddin, H.M., ��5��0��)��, Medan: Pustaka IskandarMuda, 1961.

Zamzam, Zafry, .��&��0�� >��+�1�� @��, Banjarmasin: Karya, 1974.

al-Zarkal� (al-Zerekly), Khayr al-D�n, � �0’ ��7�B��#��, 3rd ed.,12 vols, Beirut: n.p., 1389/1969.

ArticlesAbdullah, Taufik, ‘Modernization in the Minangkabau World: West

Sumatra in the Early Decades of the Twentieth Century’, in C. Holt (ed.),8� ��/' �5��,��'��, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,1972.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 22$


Ahmad, Rashid, ‘Gapena Pelopori Usaha Menjalin Hubungan yangTerputus’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), &� ��.� ��, Kuala Lumpur, Gapena,1990.

Ahtmat, J.P., ‘Kedatangan Orang Melayu ke Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),&� ��.� ��, Kuala Lumpur, Gapena, 1990.

al-’Ankaw�, Abdullh, ‘The Pilgrimage to Mecca in Mamluk Times’, inR.B. Serjeant & R.L. Bidwell (eds), 0��+�� .��, I, London:C. Hurst, 1974.

al-AnAar�, Ism’�l Mu�ammad, ‘�ayt al-Shaykh Mu�ammad ibn ‘Abdal-Wahhb waHtharuh al-’Ilmiyyah’, in >��#�� +#’ � �.��&��+��‘Abd � �<��+, Riy% [?]: al-Mamlakat al-’Arabiyyatal-Su’�diyyah, 1403/1983, I.

Anwar, Khairil, ‘‘Ulam’ Ind�n�siya al-qarni al-thmin ‘ashar: tarjamahMu�ammad Arshad al-Banjar� wa afkruhu’, .�� ,� ��, III, v(1996): 137–164.

Archer, R.L., ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’, �&>=0., 15, II (1937).Asiri, Mahmud, ‘Shah Wali Allah’s Views on Wahdatul Wujud and

Wahdatush Shuhud’, � �6��, 1 (1964).Ates, A., ‘Ibn al-’Arabi, Muhyi ‘l-Din Abu Abd Allah b. Muhammad b.

al-Arabi al-Hatimi al-Ta i’, ;,2, III.al-Attas, S.M.N., ‘New Light on the Life of Hamzah Fansuri’, �&>=0.,

40, I (1967). Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Transmission of � �&�� to the Malay-Indonesian

World: The Cases of � �,�� and � �&��’, .�� ,� ��, 6, 3(1999).

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘Prof. Dr. Hamka: Pribadi dan Institusi MUI’, in Azyu-mardi Azra and Saiful Umam (eds), �''�� /�� 01��7>'1�� .'�� /' �k, Jakarta: Litbang Depag RI & PPIM IAINJakarta, 1998.

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘‘Ulama Indonesia di Haramayn: Pasang dan SurutnyaSebuah Wacana Intelektual’, � �� B��’��, III, 3 (1992).

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘Syi’ah di Indonesia: Tinjauan Ulang’, /� ��,11 December, 1990.

Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Surau and the Early Reform Movements inMinangkabau’, &"��, 3, II (1990).

Bachtiar, Harsja W., ‘The Religion of Java: A Commentary’, &�� , ��,��.��,��'��, 5 (1973).

Baried, Baroroh, ‘Shi’a Elements in Malay Literature’, in Kartodirdjo (ed.),/�'� ��'��&� ��8� ��, Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture,1986.

Baried, Baroroh, ‘Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf di Indonesia’, in S.Sutrisno et al. (eds), >��9�.��9�>��, Yogyakarta: Gadjah MadaUniversity Press, 1985.

Baried, Baroroh, ‘Le Shiisme in Indonesie’, trans., Ch. Pelras, 0�5�� , 15(1978).

22E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Bousquet, G.H., ‘Introduction à l’étude de l’Islam indonésien’, =�:��;��,� ��, Cahier 11–111, 1938.

Boxer, C.R., ‘A Note on Portuguese Reactions to the Revival of the Red SeaSpice Trade and the Rise of Aceh, 1540–1600’, �.;06, 10, III (1969).

Braddell, T., ‘Ceremony Observed at the Court of Acheen’, �,0;0, 4(1850).

Braddell, T., ‘The Ancient Trade of the Indian Archipelago’, �,0;0, 2,(New Series), III (1857).

Bradlow, F.R., ‘The Cape of Good Hope’, .��0�� 6��'��'�� , 13 (1981).

Bradlow, F.R., ‘The Origins of the Early Cape Muslims’, in F.R. Bradlow& M. Cairns, �� ;�� 8�� &�� 7� 0� .�� '�� &'��9C�� '1��4�1��, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1978.

Braginsky, Vladimir I., ‘On the Copy of Hamzah Fansuri’s EpitaphPublished by C. Guillot and L. Kalus’, 0�5�� 62, 2001: 21–33.

Brenner, L., ‘Sufism in Africa in the Seventeenth and EighteenthCenturies’, in ,� ��.'5��.��, 2 (1988).

Brenner, L., ‘Muslim Thought in Eighteenth-Century West Africa: TheCase of Shaykh Uthman b. Fudi’, in Levtzion & Voll (eds), ;1��8��=�� =��'�� ,� ��, Syracuse: Syracuse UniversityPress, 1987.

van Bruinessen, M., ‘Studies of Sufism and the Sufi Orders in Indonesia’,@��<� ��,� ��, 38.2 (1998): 192–219.

van Bruinessen, M., ‘The Tariqa Khalwatiyya in South Celebes’, ;L5��8� �+��7�;��+�� +��1��+��5��:��S�)''�� 5��5�� :�� -'�� ,�� :''�� 9� *�� N' ��. Poeze & Schoorl (eds) Leiden: KITLV Uiitgeverij, 1991.

van Bruinessen, M., ‘The Origins and Development of the NaqshbandiOrder in Indonesia’, @��,� ��, 67 (1990).

van Bruinessen, M., ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script used in thePesantren Milieu’, >-,, 146 (1990).

van Bruinessen, M., ‘Kitab Fiqh di Pesantren Indonesia dan Malaysia’,/��, 6, I (1989).

Bulliet, R.W., ‘Conversion to Islam and the Emergence of a MuslimSociety’, in Levtzion (ed.), 8'�:��'��'�,� ��, N.Y.: Holmes & Meyer,1979.

Cense, A.A., ‘De verering van Sjaich Jusuf in Zuid-Celebes’, in >�1��>��, Leiden: Sijhoff, 1950.

Chambert-Loir, H., ‘Abdussamad al-Palimbani sebagai Ulama Jawi’, inal-Palimbani, .�� .� �, [vol. I], Banda Aceh: Musium NegeriAceh, 1985/6.

Che Man, W.K., ‘The Thai Government and Islamic Institutions in the FourSouthern Muslim Provinces of Thailand’, .'�'��, 5, II (1990).

Colless, B.E., ‘Persian Merchants and Missionaries in Medieval Malaya’,�&>=0., 42, II (1969).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 22F


Crecellius, D. & E.A. Beardow, ‘A Reputed Sarakata of the Jamal al-LailDynasty’, �&>=0., 52, II (1979).

Daly, Peunoh, ‘Naskah Mirtatut Thullab Karya Abdur-Rauf Singkel’, in01��9�>��&��, Jakarta: Balitbang Depag R.I., 1980.

Dames, M.L., ‘The Portuguese and Turks in the Indian Ocean in theSixteenth Century’, �=0., 1921.

Davids, Achmat, ‘Politics and the Muslims of Cape Town: A HistoricalSurvey’, .��6��'��'��8��'��, 4 (1981).

Djajadiningrat, H., ‘De ceremonie van het “poela-batee” op het graf vanSoeltan Iskandar II van Atjeh (1636–1641)’, �>C, 69 (1929).

Djaja, Tamar, ‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’, in his /��,��'��7=��6��4��1�'��1�>��0�, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang,1965.

Djaja, Tamar, ‘Sjech Muhammad Arsjad Bandjar’, in his /��,��'��, 1965.

Djaja, Tamar, ‘Tuanku Nan Tuo’, in his /��,��'��, Djakarta: BulanBintang, 1965.

Djamaris, Edward, ‘Nuruddin ar-Raniri Khabar Akhirat dalam HalKiamat’, in Sutrisno et al. (eds), >��9�.��9�>��, Yogyakarta:Gadjah Mada University Press, 1985.

Dobbin, C., ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau at the Turn of the Nine-teenth Century’, &'��0��.��, 8, III (1974).

Drakard, J., ‘An Indian Ocean Port: Sources for the Earlier History ofBarus’, 0�5�� , 37 (1989).

Drewes, G.W.J., ‘A Note on Muhammad al-Samman, His Writings, and19th Century Sammaniyya Practices, Chiefly in Batavia, according toWritten Data’, 0�5�� , 43 (1991): 73–87.

Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri’s Charge of Heresy against Hamzahand Shamsuddin from an International Point of View’, in S.O. Robson &CD Grijns (eds), 8� �� 8'��5��L�� ,��'�, Dordrecht:Foris, 1986.

Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Further Data concerning Sabd al-Samad al-Palimbanil’,>-,, 132 (1976).

Drewes, G.W.J., ‘New Light on the Coming of Islam to Indonesia?’, >-,,124 (1968).

Drewes, G.W.J., ‘A.H. Johns Ph.D Malay Sufism’, >-,, 115, III (1959).Drewes, G.W.J., ‘De herkomst van Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, >-,, 111

(1955).Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Sjech Joesoep Makasar’, @��, 6 (1926).Eickelman, D.F., ‘The Study of Islam in Local Contexts’, 8'��+��'��'

0��.��, 17 (1982).Farooqi, Naim R., ‘Moguls, Ottomans, and Pilgrims: Protecting the Routes

to Mecca in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, ��,��'�� 6��'��=�:��, 10, II (1988).

22J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Faroqhi, Suraiya, ‘Ottoman Documents concerning the Hajj during theSixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Temimi (ed.), *��:��'5� �,1988, Tôme 3.

Fatimi, S.Q., ‘Two Letters from Maharaja to the Khalifah’, ,� ��5�.��,(Karachi), 2, I (1963).

Feener, R.M., ‘Shaykh Yusuf and the Appreciation of Muslim “Saints” inModern Indonesia’, �'�� '�� ,� ��5� .�� (Cape Town), 18–19(1999): 112–131.

Feener, R.M., ‘Yemeni Sources for the History of Islam in Indonesia: ‘Abdal-Samad Palimbani in the )�� R��’. *��'��:'�� '�� é��é��, 19 (1999): 128–144.

Feener, R.M., ‘A Re-examination of the Place of the al-Hallj in the Devel-opment of Southeast Asian Islam’, >-,, 54, 4 (1998): 571–592.

Feener, R.M., ‘Notes toward a History of Qur’anic Exegesis in SoutheastAsia’, .��,� ��, 4 (1988).

Ferrand, G., ‘Les voyages des Javanais à Madagascar’, �'�� 0��,Xe série, 15 (1910).

Fletcher, J., ‘The Taylor-Pickens Letters on the Jahri Branch of the Naqsh-bandiyya in China’, 8�� ,��0��.��, 3 (1989).

Fletcher, J., ‘Les “voies” (turuq) soufies en Chine’, in A. Popovic &G. Veinstein (eds), *��'�� ’,� ��, Paris: Ecole desHautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1986.

Fletcher, J., ‘Central Asian Sufism and Ma Ming-hsin’s New Teaching’,/�'5��1��'�� ('��;��0��0 ��5�8'��5�, ed. Ch’enChieh-hsien, Taipei: National Taiwan University, 1975.

Ford, J.F., ‘Some Chinese Muslims of the Seventeenth and EighteenthCenturies’, �'�� '��='�� 8�� 0��.'5��, 61 (New Series5), 2 (1974).

Gabrieli, F., ‘The Transmission of Learning and Literary Influences toWestern Europe’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), ��8��+��1��6��'��'�,� ��, Cambridge: University Press, 1970, II.

Gellens, S.I., ‘The Search for Knowledge in Medieval Muslim Societies: AComparative Approach’, in D.F. Eickelman & J. Piscatory (eds), &�� :� ��7� / 1��1�9� &1��'�� =� 1'�� ,��1��'�,Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Gibb, H.A.R., ‘An Interpretation of Islamic History II’, &<, 45, II (1955).Gladney, D.C., ‘Muslim Tombs and Ethnic Folklore: Charters for Hui

Identity’, �0., 46, V (1987).Goldziher, I., ‘Materialien zur entwicklungsgeschichte des Sufismus’, in

C�� .5��, Hildesheim: 1967, IV.Goyung, Nejat, ‘Some Documents concerning the Ka’ba in the 16th

Century’, .'��5�� '�� 6��'�� '�� 0��+�, Riyad: Riyad UniversityPress, 1979, part 2.

de Graaf, H.J., ‘South-East Asian Islam to the Eighteenth Century’, in

BIBLIOGRAPHY 22


P.M. Holt et al. (eds), �� 8��+��1�� 6��'�� '�� ,� ��, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1970, II.

Greyling, C., ‘Schech Yusuf, the Founder of Islam in South Africa’,=� 1'��.'��0��5�, 1, I (1980).

Groeneveldt, W.P., ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malaccacompiled from Chinese Sources’, N>C, 39 (1880).

Guillaume, A., ‘Al-Lum’at al-Saniya fi Tahqiq al-Ilqa’ fi-l-Umniya byIbrahim al-Kurani’, >.40., XX (1957).

Guillot, Claude & Ludvik Kalus, ‘La stéle funéraire de Hamzah Fansuri’,0�5�� , 60 (2000): 3–24.

Guillot, Claude & Ludvik Kalus, ‘En réponse â Vladimir I. Braginsky’,0�5�� , 62 (2001): 21–33.

Hafiduddin, Didin, ‘Tinjauan atas Tafsir al-Munir Karya ImamMuhammad Nawai Tanara’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.), <��,�� ,� ��,��'��, Bandung: Mizan, 1987.

Hafsi, Ibrahim, ‘Recherche sur le genre “Tabaqat” dans la littérature arabe’,0��+5�, XXIII (1976): 227–265; & XXIV (1977): 1–41, 150–186.

Hallaq, Wael B., ‘On the Origins of the Controversy about the Existence ofMujtahids and the Gate of Ijtihad’, .��,� ��5�, 63 (1986): 129–141.

Hallaq, Wael B., ‘Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?’, ,��'�� '�� '��&�� ;��.��, 16 (1984): 3–41.

Hamka, ‘Sjeich Jusuf Tadju’l Chalwati (Tuanta Salamaka), 1626–1699’, in/��+��*��, Medan: Madju, 1963.

Hasan, A.A.H., ‘The Development of Islamic Education in Kelantan’, inKhoo Kay Kim (ed.), �� ,� �� &� ��, Kuala Lumpur:Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia, 1980.

Hasjmi, A., ‘Syekh Abdurrauf Syiah Kuala, Ulama Negarawan yang Bijak-sana’, in ��:��.��-�� &�� 1�2%��, Medan: Waspada,1980.

Hasjmi, A., ‘Pendidikan Islam di Aceh dalam Perjalanan Sejarah’, .��@�� , 63 (1975).

Hassan, Hamdan, ‘Pertalian Pemikiran Islam Malaysia-Aceh’, in KhooKay Kim (ed.), ��,� ��&� ��, 1980.

Haykal, B., ‘Al-Shawkani and the Jurisprudential Unity of Yemen’, *�Ré��9� ��é �� é�� ’��é, (ed.) Michel Tuchscherer. Aix enProvence: Édisud, 1988, pp 53–65.

Heins, E.L., ‘Indonesian Colonization of West and Central Africa?’, >-,,72 (1966).

Helfrich, O.L. et al., ‘Het Hasan-Hosein of Taboet-feest te Bengkoelen’,,��'�� 0�5�:��;��'1��, 1 (1888).

Hess, A.C., ‘The Ottoman Seaborne Empire 1453–1525’, 0��5��6��'��5� �=�:��, 75 (1970).

Heywood, C., ‘The Red Sea and Ottoman Wakf Support for the Populationof Mecca and Medina in the Latter Seventeenth Century’, in Temimi(ed.), *��:��'5� �, 1988, Tôme 3.

23% THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


BIBLIOGRAPHY 23�

Hiskett, M., ‘An Islamic Tradition of Reform in the Western Sudan fromthe Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century’, >.40., 25, III (1962).

Holle, K.F., ‘Mededeelingen over de devotie der Naqsjibendijah in denNed. Indischen Archipelago’, �>C 31 (1886).

Hooker, M.B., ‘Introduction: The Translation of Islam into South-EastAsia’, in his (ed.), ,� ��.'��;��0��, Leiden: Brill, 1983.

Hornell, J., ‘Indonesian Influence on East African Culture’, �=0,, 64, (1934).Humphries, S., ‘A Cultural Elite: The Role and Status of the ‘Ulam’ in

Islamic Society’, ,� ��5�6��'��7�0�(��'��'��,��y, PrincetonUniversity Press, 1991, pp 187–208.

Hunt Esq., J., ‘Some Particulars relating to Sulu in the Archipelago ofFelicia’, in J.H. Moors, )'�5��'��,��0�5�� 1'��0��5��8'��, Singapore, 1837.

Hunwick, J.O., ‘A Bibliography of the Works of Sh. Uthman b.Muhammad Fudi’, 0��+5�*��0��5�, 1, (1985).

Hunwick, J.O., ‘Salih al-Fullani (1752–3–1803): The Career and Teachingsof a West African ‘� � in Medina’, in A.H. Green (ed.), ,��B��'��,� ��5�6��7�0��+5��,� ��5�.��&��'��'��&'�� )'��, Cairo: The American University, 1984.

Hunwick, J.O., ‘Salih al-Fullani of Futa Jallon: An Eighteenth CenturyScholar and Mujaddid’, Bull. ,(0) (Ser. B), 10 (1978).

Hussainmiya, B.A., ‘A Brief Historical Note on Malay Migration toSrilanka’, ��+��, 14 (1986).

Imamuddin, S.M., ‘Navigation and Maritime Trade in Early MedievalEgypt’, 6��,� ��5��, 2, IV (1979).

Iskandar, T., ‘Abdurrauf Singkel Tokoh Syatariyah (Abad ke17)’, in M.D.Mohamad (ed.), �''��''�� .�� &� �� - ��, Kuala Lumpur:Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1987.

Iskandar, T., ‘Palembang Kraton Manuscripts’, in C.M.S. Hellwig & S.O.Robson (eds), 0�&��'��,��'��*��7�;��6'�'��'��/�'��'��0S��, Dordrecht: Foris, 1986.

Ito, T., ‘Why Did Nuruddin ar-Raniri leave Aceh in 1054 A.H.?’, >-, 134(1978).

Jeffreys, K.M., ‘Sheikh Joseph at the Cape’, 8��)�� , 6 (1939).Jeffreys, K.M., ‘The Karamat at Zandvlei, Faure. Sheikh Joseph in the

East’, 8��)�� , 5 (1938).Johns, A.H., ‘“She Desired Him and He Desired Her” (Qur’an 12:24): ‘Abd

al-Ra’uf’s Treatment of an Episode of the Joseph story in �� &��’, 0�5�� , 57 (1999): 109–134.

Johns, A.H., ‘The Qur’an in the Malay World: Reflections on ‘Abd al-Ra’uf of Singkel (1615–1693)’, �'�� '��,� ��5�.��, 9.2 (1998):120–145.

Johns, A.H., ‘Quranic Exegesis in the Malay World: In Search of a Profile’,in A. Rippin (ed.), 0��'�5��'��6��'��'��,��'��'��B��’��, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.



Johns, A.H., ‘Islam in the Malay World: An Exploratory Survey with SomeReference to Quranic Exegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), ,� ��0��7�N' ��,,�.'��;��0��, Boulder: Westview, 1984.

Johns, A.H., ‘From Coastal Settlement to Islamic School and City:Islamization in Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and Java’, 6��,� ��5��, 4, I (1981).

Johns, A.H., ‘Friends in Grace: Ibrahim al-Kurani and Abd al-Ra’ufal-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), .��5��7� ;�� /�� '� .��0 ��+��, Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978.

Johns, A.H., ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Directions’,,��'��, 19 (1976).

Johns, A.H., ‘al-Kushashi, Safi al-Din Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yunus,al-Madani al-Dadjani’, EI2, V, 525.

Johns, A.H., ‘Al-Kurani, Ibrahim b. al-Shahrazuri al-Hasan Shahrani,al-Madani (1023–1101/1615–90)’, ;,2, V, 432–3.

Johns, A.H., ‘Muslim Mystics and Historical Writings’, in D.G.E. Hall(ed.), 6��'��'��.'��;��0��, London: Oxford University Press,1961.

Johns, A.H., ‘Sufism as a Category in Indonesian Literature and History’,�.;06, 2, II (1961).

Johns, A.H., ‘Aspects of Sufi Thought in India and Indonesia in the FirstHalf of the 17th Century’, �&>=0., 28, I (1955)

Johns, A.H., ‘Daka’ik al-Huruf by ‘Abd al-Ra’uf of Singkel’, �=0., 1, II(1955).

Jones, R., ‘Ten Conversion Myths from Indonesia’, in Levtzion (ed.),8'�:��'��'�,� ��, New York: Holmes & Meyer, 1979.

de Jong, F., ‘Mustafa Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (1688–1749): Revival andReform of the Khalwatiyyah Tradition’, in N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll(eds), ;1�� 8�� =�� =��'��, Syracuse: SyracuseUniversity Press, 1987.

Jongejans, J., ‘Taboet of Hasan-Hosein-Feesten’, 4�"��0��, 12 (1939).Kadir, M.S., ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari Pelopor Da’wah Islam

di Kalimantan Selatan’, &�+�� , 6 (1976).Karni, Awis, ‘Al-TaAawwuf f� Ind�n�siyy: Dirsat li Nuskhah Kitb

Ma�lib al-Slik�n ta’l�f Y�suf al-Maqassr�’, .�� ,� ��, III.2(1996): 163–189.

Kathirithamby-Wells, J., ‘The Islamic City: Melaka to Yogyakarta, c.1500–1800’, &'��0��.��, 20, II (1986).

Kempe, J.E. & R.O. Winstedt, ‘A Malay Legal Digest compiled for Abdal-Ghafur Muhaiyuddin Shah, Sultan of Pahang’, �&>=0., 21 (1948).

Kensdale, W.E.N., ‘Field-notes on the Arabic Literature of the WesternSudan’, �=0., 1955.

Kent, R.K., ‘The Possibilities of Indonesian Colonies in Africa withSpecial Reference to Madagascar’, in &'�:��'�� '�� ’'5é��, Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1979.


BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

‘Kesultanan Banjar’, in ;�� '��,� ��,��'��, Jakarta: Departe-men Agama, 1987/8, II.

Kortepeter, C.M., ‘A Source for the History of Ottoman-Hijaz Relations:The Seyahatname of Awliya Chalaby and the Rebellion of Sharif Sadb.Zayd in the Years 1671–1672/1081–1082’, in .'��5��'��6��'��'�0��+�, Riyad: Riyad University Press, 1979, part 2.

Kosasi, Mohammad, ‘Pamidjahan en zijn Heiligdom’, @��, 38 (Oct. 1938).Kunst, J., ‘A Musicological Argument for Relationship between Indonesia—

probably Java—and Central Africa’, /�'5��1��'��&��5� �0��'5��'�, Session 62 (1935–6).

Lane, F.C., ‘The Mediterranean Spice Trade: Further Evidence of ItsRevival in the Sixteenth Century’, ��0��5��6��'�5� �=�:��, 45(1939/40).

van Langen, K.F.H., ‘De inrichting van het Atjehsche staatbestuur onderhet Sultanaat’, >-,, 37 (1888) 236, trans. Aboe Bakar, .��/��05��-�� , Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1986.

Lawrence, B. ‘Islam in India: The Function of Institutional Sufism in theIslamization of Rajasthan, Gujerat, and Kashmir’, 8'��+��'�� '0��.��, (ed.) R.C. Martin, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982, pp. 27–43.

Lazzerini, E.J., ‘The Revival of Islamic Culture in Pre RevolutionaryRussia: Or, Why a Prosopography of the Tatar ‘Ulema’’, in Ch.Lemercier-Quelquljay et al. (eds), /��é ��5'��7� /�é�� .':��, Paris: Louvain, 1986.

Levtzion, N., ‘Eighteenth Century Sufi Brotherhoods’, ,� ��7�;�� '�.5��9��'�1��.'5��– ��(��5��6'�'��'��0��'��6S�'�� (Peter G. Riddell and Tony Street, eds.), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.

Levtzion, N. & J.O. Voll (eds), ‘Introduction’, in ;1��8��=�� =��'�� ,� ��, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,1987.

Liaw Yock Fang, ‘Undang-undang Melaka’, in Sandhu & Wheatley (eds),&� ��7� �� '��'�, Kuala Lumpur: University of MalayaPress, 1983, I.

Lofgren, O., ‘Aydarus’, ;,2, I.Lubis, Nabilah, ‘Min ‘Almi ‘Indûn�siya: al-Shaykh Yûsuf al-Maqsr�

(1626–1699)’, .��,� ��, I.3 (1994): 149–175.Majul, C.A., ‘Theories on the Introduction of Islam in Malaysia’, . ��

�'�� , 2, IV (1964).Majul, C.A., ‘The Role of Islam in the History of the Filipino People’, 0.,

4, II (1966).Makdis, ‘The Sunni Revival’, in D.S. Richards (ed.), ,� ��5�8: ��'�,

London: Bruno Cassirer, 1973.Makdis, ‘Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh Century Baghdad’,

>.40., 24 (1961).Makdisi, G., ‘Tabaqat-Biography: Law and Orthodoxy in Classical Islam’,

,� ��5�.��s, 32,4 (1993): 371–396.


Marrison, G.E., ‘Persian Influences in Malay Life (1280–1650)’, �&>=0.,28, I (1955).

Marrison, G.E., ‘The Coming of Islam to the East Indies’, �&>=0., 24, I(1951).

Martin, B.G., ‘A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes’, inN. Keddie (ed.), .5�' ��9�.��.��, Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press, 1972.

Martin, B.G., ‘Notes sur l’origine de la tariqa des Tijaniyya et sur le débutd’al-Hajj Umar’, =�:��;��,� ��, 37 (1969).

Masri, F.H., ‘The Life of Shehu Usuman dan Fodio before the Jihad’,�'�� '��6��'�5� �.'5��'��)1��, 2, IV (1963).

Mas’ud, Abdurraham, ‘Mahfuz al-Tirmisi (d.1338/1919): An IntellectualBiography’, .��,� ��, 5, 2 (1998).

Matheson, V. & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: The Maintenanceof an Islamic Tradition’, �&>=0., 61, I (1988).

Matthes, B.F., ‘Boegineese en Makassaarsche Legenden’, >-, , 34 (1885).Mattulada, ‘Islam di Sulawesi Selatan’, in Taufik Abdullah (ed.), 01��

��/��+��.'�� , Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983.Mauny, R., ‘The Wakuwak and the Indonesian Invasion in East Africa...’,

.��, 14 (May 1965).di Meglio, R.R., ‘Arab Trade with Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula from

the 8th to the 16th Century’, in D.S. Richards (ed.), ,� ��'�� 0��, Philadelphia: Bruno Cassirer & University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Mills, J.V., ‘Eridia’s Descriptions of Malacca, Meridonial India andCathay’, �&>=0., lll, III (1960).

Milner, A.C., ‘Islam and the Muslim State’, in Hooker (ed.), ,� �� .'��;��0��, Leiden: Brill, 1983.

Millward, W.G., ‘Taqi al-Din al-Fasi’s Sources for the History of Meccafrom the Fourth to Ninth Centuries A.H.’, in .'��5��'��6��'��'�0��+�, Riyad: Riyad University Press, 1979.

Meier, F., ‘Das sauberste über die vorbestimmung. Ein stuck IbnTaymiyya’, .��5� ��, 32 (1981).

Moquette, J.P.,‘De grafsteenen te Pase en Grisse vergeleken met dergelijkemonumenten uit Hindoestan’, �>C, 54 (1912).

‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in ;�� '��,� ��,��'��, Jakarta:Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II.

el-Muhammady, M.U., ‘The Islamic Concept of Education according toShaykh Abdu’s-Samad of Palembang and Its Significance in Relation tothe Issue of Personality Integration’, 0��, 1 (1972).

Mujani, Saiful, ‘Mu’tazilah Theology and the Modernization of the Indo-nesian Muslim Community’, .��,� ��, 1, 1 (1994).

Mu’thi, A.W., ‘Tarekat Syattariyah, dari Gujarat sampai Caruban’,/��, 4, III (1987).

23� THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Nakahara, M., ‘Muslim Merchants in Nanhai’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns(eds), ,� �� 0��7� N' �� ,,� .'�� ;�� 0��, Boulder:Westview, 1984.

van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., ‘The Legacy of Islam in Indonesia’, &<, 59(1964).

van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri als bestrijderWugudiya’, >-,, 104 (1948).

Noorduyn, J., ‘Origins of South Celebes Historical Writings’, in Soed-jatmoko et al (eds), 0�� ,��'��5�'�� '� ,��'�� 6��'�'1��,Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965.

Noorduyn, J., ‘De Islamisering van Makassar’, >-,, 112 (1956).Nurhakim, L., ‘La ville de Barus: étude de archéologique preliminaire’,

0�5�� , 37 (1989). O’Fahey, R.S. (ed.), 0��+5�*��'��0��5��,7��1��'��;��

.��5�0��5��'�5S�� %%, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, pp.143–144.O’Fahey, R.S. & Bernd Radtke, ‘Neo-Sufism Reconsidered’, @�� ,� ��,

LXX, 1 (1993): 52–87.O’Fahey, R.S., ‘Neo-Sufism and Ibn Idris’, in his ;�1��5�.��7�0��

+��,��,��'�, Evanston, Ill.: Nortwestern UniversityPress, 1990.

Othman, Mohammad Redzuan, ‘The Role of Makka-Educated Malays inthe Development of Early Islamic Scholarship and Education inMalaya’, �'�� '��,� ��5�.��, 9, 2 (1998): 146–157.

Ozbaran, Salih, ‘A Turkish Report on the Red Sea and the Portuguese inthe Indian Ocean (1525)’, in R.B. Serjeant & R.L. Bidwell (eds),0��+��.��, IV (1978).

Pelras, C., ‘Religion, Tradition and the Dynamics of Islamization in SouthSulawesi’, 0�5�� , 29 (1985).

Peters, Rudolph, ‘Reinhard Schulze’s Quest for an Islamic Enlightenment’,@��<� ��,� ��, XXX (1990): 160–162.

Peters, Rudolph, ‘Idjtihad and Taqlid in 18th and 19th Century Islam’, @�<� ��,� ��, XXX, 3–4 (1980): 131–145.

Radtke, B., ‘Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a ProvisionalAppraisal’, @��<� ��,� ��, XXXVI, 3 (1996): 326–364.

Radtke, B., ‘Wat betekent tariqa muhammadiyya in de islamitische mystiekvan de 18e en 19e eeuw?’ &��9� �� 1�"5�� :�� ,� ��,Marjo Buitelaar & Johan ter Haar, (eds), Bussum, 1999.

Radtke, B., ‘Ijtihad and Neo-Sufism’, 0��5�� .��VE�� 0��s, XLVIII, 3 (1994): 909–921.

Radtke, B., ‘Warum ist des Sufi orthodox’, @�� ,� ��, LXXI (1994):48–66.

Rahman, Fazlur, ‘Revival and Reform’, in P.M. Holt et. al (eds), ��8��+��1��6��'��'�� ,� ��, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1970, II.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 23$


Reid, A., ‘Sixteenth Century Turkish Influence in Western Indonesia’, inKartodirdjo (ed.), /�'� ��'��&� ��8� ��, Jakarta: Ministry of Edu-cation & Culture, 1986.

Reid, Anthony, ‘Islam and the State in Seventeenth Century SoutheastAsia’, /�'5��1��'��,��'�� .��'��,� ��5�8: ��'��&� ��<'� �9 Istanbul: IRCICA, 1999.

Ricklefs, M.C., ‘Six Centuries Islamization in Java’, in Levtzion (ed.),8'�:��'��'�,� ��, NY: Holmes & Meyer, 1979.

Riddell, P., ‘Earliest Quranic Exegetical Activity in the Malay-SpeakingStates’, 0�5�� , 38 (1989).

Rinkes, D.A., ‘De maqam van Sjech Abdoelmoehji’, �>C, 52 (1910) .Ritter, H., ‘Al-Ghazali, Ahmad b. Muhammad’, ;,2, II.Roff, W.R., ‘Islam Obscured?: Some Reflections on Studies of Islam and

Society in Southeast Asia’, 0�5�� , 29 (1985).Roff, W.R., ‘South-East Asian Islam in the Nineteenth Century’, in P.M.

Holt et al. (eds), �� 8��+��1�� 6��'�� '�� ,� ��, II, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1970.

van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Raniri’s Maleische geschrift: Exposé der religies’,>-,, 102 (1943).

van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Een Maleisch getuigenis over den weg des Islams inSumatra’, >-,, 75 (1919).

van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Inlandsche getuigenissen aangaande den Padri-oorlog’, ,C, 37 (1915).

de Roo, de la Faille, P., @��K��-�� /� ��+��1, trans. S. Poer-bakawatja, Djakarta: Bhratara, 1971.

Rosatria, Eri, ‘‘Alqat �arakat Nashr al-Islm wa al-Tarbiyyah al-Islmiyyah f� Sultanah Aceh’, .��,� ��, III, 1 (1996): 127–155.

Said, Arifin, ‘Manuskrip Melayu di Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), &� ��.� ��, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena, 1990.

Said, Nurman, ‘The Significance of al-Ghazali and His Works for Indo-nesian Muslims: a Preliminary Study’, .�� ,� ��, III, 3 (1996):21–45.

Santrie, A.M., ‘Martabat (Alam) Tujuh: Suatu Naskah Mistik Islam dariDesa Karang, Pamijahan’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.), <��,�� ,��'��, Bandung: Mizan & LSAF, 1987.

al-Sarwaj�, Mu�ammad Ma�m�d, ‘Kitb Aj’ib al-Athar f� al-Tarjim waal-Akhbr li al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Ra�mn al-Jabart� ka-Masdar li Ahdthal-Jaz�rat al-’Arabiyyah f� al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar al-Hijr� (al-Tsi’‘Ashar al-M�ld�)’, in &�� "�� ’Ara+��, Riy%:Ma�ba’at Jmi’at al-Riy%, 1279/1979.

Schacht, J., ‘Zur Wahhabitischen Literatur’, K��5�� fü��.��:��C�+��, 6 (1928): 200-213.

Schimmel, A.M., ‘The Primordial Dot: Some Thoughts about Sufi LetterMysticism’, �� .��0��+5��,� �� (�.0,), 9 (1987).

23E THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Schulze, R., ‘Das Islamische 18 Jahrhundert: versuch einer historio-graphischen Kritik’, @��<� ��,� ��, XXX (1990): 140–59.

Scott, (Mrs.) S.B., ‘Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes for a Study ofthe Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of Its Influence on the Native Tribes’, �'�� '�� 0��5�� 4�� .'5��, 33(1913).

van Selms, A., ‘Yussuf (Joseph), Sheik’, in W.J. de Kock (ed.), @5�'��'��.'��0��5��>'1��, 1968.

Sham, Abu Hassan, ‘Malay Manuscripts and Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),&� ��.� ��, 1990.

Shellabear, W.G., ‘An Account of Some Oldest Malay MSS now Extant’,�=0., 31 (1898).

Snouck Hurgronje, C., ‘Een Mekkaansch gezantschap naar Atjeh in 1683’,>-,, 65 (1911).

Snouck Hurgronje, C., ‘Een Arabisch Bondgenoot der NederlandschRegering’, in N�� C��5��, Bonn & ’s-Gravenhage: KurtSchröder & Nijhoff, 1924, VI.

Steenbrink, Karel, ‘Hamka (1908–1981) and the integration of the IslamicUmmah of Indonesia’, .��,� ��, 1, 3 (1994).

Steenbrink, K., ‘Jesus and Holy Spirit in the Writings of Nur al-Din al-Raniri’, ,8&= (Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations), I, 2 (1990).

Steenbrink, K., ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari: 1710–1812, TokohFiqh dan Tasawuf’, in his >�+��0�� 1� ,� �� ,��'��0+�� , Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984.

Stein Parvé, H.A., ‘Oorsprong der Padaries: Eene secte op de Westkust vanSumatra’, �),, 1, I (1838).

Stein Parvé, H.A., ‘De secte de Padaries (Padries) in de Bovenlanden vanSumatra’, �>C, 3 (1855).

Swart, M.J., ‘The Karamat of Sheik Yussef,’ .'��0��5��9�Panorama 6(1961).

Teeuw, A., ‘Pertumbuhan Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Dunia’, inHarimurti Kridalaksana (ed.), &��*��>��,��'��7�.�+��>��1��=��, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1991.

Teeuw, A., ‘Some Remarks on the Study of the so-called Historical Textsin Indonesian Language’, in Kartodirdjo (ed.), /�'� ��'��&� ��8� ��,Jakarta: Ministry of Education & Malay Culture, 1976.

Tibbett, G.R., ‘Pre-Islamic Arabia and Southeast Asia’, �&>=0., 29, III(1956).

van der Tuuk, H.N., ‘Kort verslag der Maleische handschriften’, >-,, 13(1866).

Vakily, Abdollah, ‘Sufism, Power Politics, and Reform: al-Rn�r�’s Oppo-sition to Hamzah al-Fans�r�’s Teachings Reconsidered’, .��,� ��,IV, 1 (1997): 113–35.

Valiuddin, Mir, ‘Reconciliation between Ibn Arabi’s Wahdati-Wujud and

BIBLIOGRAPHY 23F


the Mujaddid’s Wahdat-i-Shuhud’, ,� ��5� 8� ��, (Jubilee No.)(1951).

Voll, J.O., ‘Scholarly Interrelations between South Asia and the MiddleEast in the 18th Century’, in P. Gaeffke & G.A. Utz (eds), ��8'��'��.'��0��7�>'��9�;L��'�9��,�� '��, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of South Asia Regional Studies, 1988.

Voll, J.O., ‘Linking Groups in the Networks of Eighteenth CenturyRevivalist Scholars’, in N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds), ;1��8��=�� =��'��,� ��, Syracuse: University of SyracusePress, 1987.

Voll, J.O., ‘Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: an Ulama Group in the 18thCentury Haramayn and Their Impact in the Islamic World’, �00., 25,III-IV (1980).

Voll, J.O., ‘Muhammad Hayya al-Sindi and Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdal-Wahhab: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in Eighteenth CenturyMadina’’, >.40., 38 (1975).

Voorhoeve, P., ‘Lijst der Geschriften van Raniri’, >-,, 111 (1955).Voorhoeve, P., ‘Van en over Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, >-,, 107 (1951).Voorhoeve, P., ‘‘Abd al-Ra’uf b. ‘Ali al-Djawi al-Fansuri al-Sinkili’, ;,2, I.Voorhoeve, P., ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Palimbani’, ;,2, I.Voorhoeve, P., ‘Dawud b. ‘Abd Allah b. Idris al-Fatani or al-Fattani’, ;,2, II.Wake, C.H., ‘Melaka in the Fifteenth Century: Malay Historical Traditions

and the Politics of Islamization’, in Sandhu & Wheatley (eds), &� ��7�� '��'�, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1983, I.

Wake, C.H., ‘Malacca’s Early Kings and the Reception of Islam’, �.;06,5, II (1964).

Wilks, I., ‘The Transmission of Islamic Learning in the Western Sudan’, inJ. Goody (ed.), *��5��'�� .'5��, Cambridge: UniversityPress, 1968.

Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Advent of Muhammadanism in the Malay Peninsulaand Archipelago’, �&>=0., 24, I (1951).

Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Chronicle of Pasai’, �&>=0., 16, II (1938).Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Malaya’, �&>=0., 13, I (1935).Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Kedah Laws’, �&>=0., 6, I (1928).Winstedt, R.O., ‘Some Malay Mystics, Heretical and Orthodox’, �&>=0.,

1 (1923).Winzeler, R.L., ‘The Social Organization of Islam in Kelantan’, in

W.R. Roff (ed.), -� ��7� =� 1'�9� .'5�� /' �5�� &� ��.��, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University 1974.

Woodward, M.R., ‘The Slametan: Textual Knowledge and Ritual Perfor-mance in Central Javanese Islam’, 6��'��'��=� 1'�, 28, I (1988).

Yahya, A.S., ‘Budaya Bertulis Melayu Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),&� ��.� ��, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena, 1990.

23J THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA


Zwemer, S.M., ‘Islam at the Cape Town’, &<, 15, IV (1925).al-Zulfah, Mu�ammad ‘Abd Allh, ‘IAl�at �as�b Bsh f� Wilyat al-

�ijz (1848–1849) kam j’a f� al-Wath’iq al-’Uthmniyyah’, in ‘Abdal-Jal�l al-Tm�m� (ed.), � �A�� ,��’�� < �� ‘Ara+�� ‘0��’ � �’0�� ’��, Zaghwan: Markz al-Dirsat wa al-Bu��th al-’Uthmniyyah wa al-Murisikiyyah wa al-Tawth�q al-Ma’l�mat, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 23


240

‘�� D�� 9;

‘�� '�'�� ?��'��114 1L4�<M4�;N

‘�� O� � �� $�@��:14�:M4�:N

‘�� *��L:–:9

‘�� L:

‘�� C�� I ��:9

‘�� D�� ’�/��914 1<

‘�� -�� -� ��PN

‘�� -� � �9Q1

‘�� "� �� #�� I�� :9

‘�� "� ��=�� "� ��1Q

‘�� =�‘�� LN

‘�� ’��911

‘�� !��L;–N4 :N

‘�� ’��1M

‘�� ’�� 99M

‘�� 9N

‘�� >�� 1<

‘�� >�� ’�!�� ;<4�9PP

‘�� >�� <M

‘�� >�� -�! ��9:4 L;

‘�� >�� �� )�� 1M–;

‘�� >�� =��=��!�� )�� 1M

‘�� >�� "� �8�&�-8�3�:M

‘�� >�� :;–<

‘�� $�’��=�‘� �� -�� A� ��

<Q

‘�� $��=�� 0��*�� "�AA�1<4�<M

‘�� $��9M9

‘�� $�� ’�!�� 99M

‘�� $�� 9914�99M4�99L–9:4�

9194�91M

‘�� $�� -��NP

‘�� $�� "�� !��;N

‘�� $��=�‘�� '�'�� &� ��91Q

‘�� $��=�‘��;M

‘�� $��=��A�� ’�!�� ;L4�99N

‘�� $��A�� ’�!�� ;L4�99NK

�!�� !!�� !�;LK��!�� !!��;NK

‘�!�� !!��;N–L4�N14�NP

‘�� $�� 1Q

‘�� $�� '��/��1LK�� '��/�

1L4 MN–<4 ;9

‘�� 0�� N4�991–99P4�91<

‘�� 0��*��=��0��*�::

‘�� M1

‘�� (�� &��9914�99M4�99L–9:4�

9194�91M

‘�� (�� ’ ��9;

‘�� (��=�‘� �� &��PN

‘�� ;<4 NP

‘�� ’�!�� 9P9

‘�� A ��1Q4�1;4�PN4�PL4�:94�1:4�99M4

91;–N

‘�� I�� PN4 <M

‘�� =�‘�� PM

‘�� =��/'�� *��91Q

‘�� =��/'��R�=�,� ��S�� *��

919

‘�� =�,� �� &��9P<

‘�� =�� ’��<M

‘�� =��’�� I�� 1Q

‘�� =��’��>�� <M

‘�� =�� =��=�� =

‘,�� A �� 1:

‘�� =��!�� ’�!�� 9<4 NP

‘�� =��!�� !�� ;N–<

‘� ’ � �� 19–P4�1<–:4�P;4�P<4�M<4�<M4

<<4�91;

Index of Personal Names


‘� ’ � ��=�‘�� *�� '//�� ?��

1:

‘� �� A� �� <<

‘� �� -�� 114 1L

‘� �� 1<

‘� �� 91;

‘� �� !�� ?��1Q

‘� �� 9;4 P<

‘� �� )�� 1;4 1:

‘� �� ?��:Q

‘� ��=�‘�� >�� )�� <M

‘� ��=�‘�� >�� ’�� PN

‘� ��=�� :Q

‘� ��=��) ��1M4 1<

‘� ��=�� !��9Q

‘� ��=�,�*�� 91P4 91M

‘� ��=��!��PM

‘� ��=�� !��’ <M

‘� ��=��=�� =��! �:Q

‘� ��=��=�� !�� ?��:Q

‘� ��=��! �9N

‘� ��=�� !�� ?��:Q

‘� ��-�� <M

‘��’ � �� A ��99M4 99L

‘��’ � ��E�=��G�� '�� A ��

��99;

��)�!!�� *��

’�D��9L

�� 1<

�� ’�/��1<

�� "� ��PN

�� &��PN

R�� 'S�,� ��R�=��S�� $�’�R� �?��'�� S�99M

�� ‘� �� (��PN

�� "�� 1Q

�� &�� 99;

�� "��! ��=��!��=��/� �;;

�� ’��,� ��::

�� ‘�� >�� N14�LL–:

�� 9M1

�� ‘�� =�?��! ��

��!��;M

�� 19

�� =�� A ��9;

�� =��;N

��A�‘+�� =�‘�� !��

B� ��;N

��,�’� �� A �� PN

��!�� B� ��9QN

�� NL

��)�� 91N

��)�� =�,� �� "� ��1Q4�1;4�1<4�1:4�:9

�� ;P4�99N4�91P–1M

��::

�� MN

��914 9N

�� ’��=�� ! �<M

�� 1Q

�� 99N4�9194�91;

�� -�� 99M4 919

�� "��/��1P

�� '�*��91;–N

�� '�*�� 91N

�� 1Q–94�1P–;4�1:4�P<4�M:4�;Q4�:9

�� ?�� ’�4��!!��‘� �� >��’�9N

�� "��/��11

�� 9;–1L4�1Q4�194�P<4�P:4�M<4�L;4

91N

�� MN4 9QM

��=�� % ��=�‘�� ’ 9<

��=�‘� ��=�‘�� >��

�� 9;

��=�‘� ��=�‘�� >��

��A �� 9P

��=�� =�‘�� "� ��=��

"� �� "� �� -�� '�� 99;

��=�� * �� ?��99N

��=�,� ��=�‘� ��;N4�9PP

��=�� T�� 91

��=��=��‘� ��

� ��1L

�� <L

��,��‘� �� 0��*�� *��9MN

�� ;N

�� "��/��

��A ��9:

�� 1L

��?�!�� ’H�� 91P

��=�� 0��*�� '//��<M

� ��=�0��*�� 9N

�� =�‘�� "� �*��=��

�*��99N

�’�� 91;

� ��;M4 L:

�� &'8��::

�!!��=��=��!!�� *��

"�� 9<4�:1

��‘� ��!!��:Q

��!��9<4 ;N–<

�� I�� <M

� ��&��9;4�9<4�1Q4�1L4�MQ4�99;

� �� 9P94 9PP

� ��9;9

�� 8�4�� 3 3��;P

� �� 91P4 91;

� �� /��9P

� �� '��/��1L4 MN–<4 ;9K�� !�914 1L

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 241


�� -�� A� ��9Q

��A ��1:

��!%��L9K�>� ’��U�868&8��9;

� ��!%��L9

� ��!��*��P<

� ��!� �N4�99M4 99N

� 3U�8 ��4�V=�9;4 9<

� ��88�4��=�2��:M

�� L;4 9MM–;

�� ,� ��=��=��

9:

� �� @� ��M94�NN4�9P94�9PP4�9PN

V�8��9;9

V3 2��4�,=��=�9Q1

� �O� � �E‘��8�� ’G�:N

�� 9914�99M4�9194�91P–1;4�91<–1:4

9P<

�� -�� A� ��=�,�’� ��=��&�

��A��LN

�� -�� $��LN

��!!��11

��8�&� ��B��&�L<

� �� 99L

�� !4��<9

�� /� 8 ��91M

��!4��8��3��NQ4 NM

�8 �� 38 �99Q

� 8�84�C=�(=�-�M14�NM4�99P4�91L4�9M9–MP

W��3�4�$=��=�N1

� ��9Q4 99–P

��% �� @� ��9;4�M94�NP4�NN

� ��A� ��;1–P4�;:4�N14�NM4�NN4�NL4�<94�LQ4�LP4�91L

��*��‘�� 911

��*��‘� ��91M

� ��91;–N4�9PQ4�9P<–L4�9MQ4�9MP

��' � �$��PM

�8�8 @�8 4�#=��=�9Q:

� �� '��NP

� �8��4��=�MN

� �� 99M

C88 �'4�V=�9Q:4 99Q

� �C��' ��P4�1Q4�1:4�PP–M4�M;4�;Q4�NP4�NL4�9QP4

99P4�91L4�9PQ–P4�9PN–<4�9P:

�/��9M<

�� #��9;

� �#��9QM

��/� �� ’�*� ��9P

� �� /�NL

� ��N4�9N4�9<4�9:4�1Q4�1<4�P:4�MQ–P4�M;4�:1

� ��;M

��'��;M4 <1

��'�� A� ��;14�;P4�;:4�N14�NM4�NN4�NL4�<94

LQ4�LP4�91L

��9Q

�� PM4 P;

�� ’�/��914�9<4�19–14�1M–;4�1<4�1:4�MN4

:QK��8��1<

�� A ��M<

�� -�� 99M

� ��;N

� ��!��;M–;

��!��=�� ’�!�� ;L

��!��=�� 9PQ

#��4��=��8�9QP

#��/88�"� ��&�:N

#�/��‘�� &�9P;

#�/��‘�� $��911

#�/��9M<

#�/��3��&�9M<

#��:M4 9Q:–9Q4 9;1

#�@@8 4�X��:L

#� ��L9

#�/��;P4 <94 LN4 91M

#�!��!’� ��9;9

#33�8 4��=��=�LQ4 9MM

‘,�� &� ��11–M4�1<–:4�P;4�<P–M4�<<

‘,��=��R�=�‘,��=�� ?��! �

91;

‘,��=�� 91M

‘,��=�� &� �� -�’��

9<

‘,��=�� &� �� -�’�� B��’ �11

,��‘�� $�� '��/��1Q4 1:4 <P4 <<4 :Q

,��‘�� (��P

,��‘�� =�(� �� % ��9;

,��‘� ��19

,��‘� ��9;4�9:4�1Q4�1:4�PN4�MQ–94�MP–;4�M<4

;Q–94�;P4�NP4�LP4�:14�9QP–M4�9QL4�91L4�9P94

9PN–P:

,��‘��’ � ��1:4�9QP4�9P94 9PP4 9P<

,��‘+/�! ��!!�� -��'�!!��PM

,�� )�!!��;94 99M

,�� )�!!��=�-�’��<P

,��/� �1M4 PN–<4 ;N4 NP

,��/� �� ’�*� ��194�9P4 9;4 P;–N

,��/� �� #�!��<:4 91:4 9PQ

,��"�� 9PL

,�� !��1P4 M;

,��B�!��!!��PM4 ;Q4 9PL



,��’*��1M4�MP

,� ��9M1

,� �� #��9;

,� �� "� ��M4�9P4�9N–1:4�1Q4�11–P4�1;4

1L–:4�PN–<4�MQ4�M1–M4�;Q–94�N;–N4�<P–M4�<<4�<:4

LM4�LN4�:Q–94�9QL4�91N

,� �� $�’�� ?��'�� 99M–9;4

99L4�91;

,� ��=�‘�� =�-�’��1<4�<P

,� ��=�‘�� $�� "��!� ��

<<

,� ��=��=�-�’��<P

,�� 9M1

,�� !��11

,��9M1

,�� 9M1

,��’��9M1

,�*��=�-�’�� ?��1L4�<M4�:Q

,�*��=��=�-�’�� 1Q4�<P

,�� ;P4�;:

,�� B��;:4 N<4�<L

-�’�� =��) ��11

-�’�� =��=�‘�� "� �� '��/��1L

-�’��9L

� �-�� 99M–9;

-� �� 9M;–<

-� �� !��LL

-� �� L9

-� �� !��9L4�1;4�P;4�L94�9PL

-�� T�� 99–1

� �-�'� ��11

-8�� 8!4�"=��=�9Q9

� �-� ��;P4�NP4�9QP4�9Q;4�9P94�9PP4�9P<

-3��4��=�#=�M94 ;Q4 ;P4 <;4 L14 LP

� �-��!��99P4 91L

-��!�� &��9QP

"��8 ��$�/��=��'�� H��<<

"� �8�4��8� ��9Q9

� �"��9L4�1Q4�1P–M4�1<4�1:4�99N

"8�� 991–9P

"8��=��991

� �"�'��LQ–9

"� �� 1M

"�� !��91:

� �"�’��NL

� �"� ��N4�9L–:4�194�1<–L4�PN4�PL4�MQ4�M14�M;–:4

<M4�<<4�LP4�LN4�:94�91N4�9P94�9PP4�9PL

I��U��8 4�� -��8�;P

� ��=��PM4 PN–<K�� PM4 MMK��

PMK��3 3UU�� PMK��P;K�>%�

91K�U�33 �3�� 9N–1<

� ��9:

�� "� ��919

� ��114 1;

� �� A� �� /��=�� *�*�91

��&� ��&��8�&�� !��LL

��&��&� ��9M9

��A� �� /�9QM

� ��*� ��;4�9<–1L4�1Q4�1<4�M14�;14�NN4�<M4

LN–:14�:M–N4�:L4�9Q9–M4�9QN4�9QL–994�91P4�91L4

9P9–14�9PL–MQK�� 28��8��LLK��8��9Q1

� ��A ��99:

��83�4��=�9MM

�� :M

�� ,� ��91M

��!3�4�-=�=�9Q1

�� "� ��M<

� ��'//��<M4�99N

�3&�� &'8��<L

��&�� /�91:

��R�=�‘�� *�S�� '//��

��*��:9

��R�=��S�� -�� R� ��A �S�99;

��R�=�� !��S�� "� ��99M

��‘�� *�� '//��<M

��‘�� #�� 1Q

��‘��9;9

��‘� ’ � ��

9:

��‘� ��=�‘� �� 0��*��1L

��‘,��=�"�� M<

�� ’�!�� ;<

�� C�� PN

�� #��;N

�� -�� 99M–9;4�91Q–9

�� I�� :9

�� ' �’ :9

�� 9;9

�� >��<M

�� 99;4 91P

�� 9;4 ML

�� ;N

�� ?�//�� *��:9

�� / ��9914�99M4�99<–1Q4

9114�91M4�91<–PQ4�9P;4�9MQ

��’��91;

��’�� 91N

��’�� 91N

��=�‘�� *�� '//��

��*��L:4�:94�9QL

��=�‘�� "� �� 99M

��=�‘�� /�� ’�/��1<

��=�‘�� $�� '��/��9L4

914 1<4 MN

��=�‘�� (��1:

��=�‘� ’ � �� >�� 19



��=�‘� �� 91;

��=�‘,�� B� ��9N

��=�‘+�� % ��9;

��=�� 9;

��=��

’��:Q

��=�� )�� 1;

��=�� 0��*�� "�AA�� ?��:Q

��=��=�‘�� ’�'�'��

��! ��91

��=�O�!’ � �� 0&��9Q

��=�,� ��=�� ’,��9PP

��=��!�� ’�/��1<

��=�-�’��<P

��=�� ’�� C��'��9:

��=�� !�� "� ��99M

��=�� !�� $�� &� ��

114�1P

��=�� (�/��L:

��*�� I�� :9

��*�� 19

��O�!’ � �� #��9Q

��C�� #��9P4 9N

��!!�� 1<4 1:4 PQ

��-�� T�� 9Q

��-� ��=��

��!��;;4�;L

��"�� 99;

��"�� =�‘� ��=��=

�� 99;

��D�� B� ��919

�� '��:94 :1

�� '��=�� *��:9

��!�� 991

��!�� =�� 991

�� 99M–1;

�� '�� :9

�� / ��M14�9914�91Q4�9114

91M4�91<4�9PN–<

��=�,� ��=�� !��91Q

��3�� 9PL

�� 9M:

��$�� ‘�� 9M9

��0 ��=�‘�� $��

91P–M

��0��*��=�‘+�� "��91Q–9

��’��=�)�� 91N

��)�� =�‘� �� 91P

�� 9M:

�� *� ��M4�L<

��=�‘��

L<

��T�� 9;

��?�!��=��*��-� ��

91M

� ��N4�9N4�9L4�1M4�;<4�<P4�L:4�:Q4�:1

��!�� A ��9;

��!�� 9PL

�� D�� 9;

� �� !��=�, !�� "� ��9;

� �� N4�9L4�99;

�� %�� ?��9L4�194�1P4�1L4�;L4�99M–9N4�91;

��A�� ’�!�� ;L

��A�� 99M

��A�� 91Q

��=��9N

��A��=�� :Q

� �� 9P94 9PP

� �� 9P

��/�� N<

� �� 114 1L4 PN4 PL

� ��’��PN

�� ;9

� ��NP4�<:4�L14�9PQ

��’�� >�� M<

��8��8��/'84�V=��=�5=2��;P

�� ’H ��*�!!�� <L

�� ‘� �� 1Q4�114�1L

�� -��:9

�� $�� ;1

�� =�‘�� :M

�� =�‘� ��=��/��

��;M

�� LP

5 ��&�"�!�� /�� /��;:

5 ��&�"�!�� /� 8 ��NQ

� ��9M:

� �� N4�M14�99;–9L4�91Q–94�91P–M4�91N–L4

9PQ–14�9PM–N4�9PL4�9MQ–94�9MP4�9M:K��8��99M

��&� ��9M9

��&8 �� !��:<

��&8 �� 99<

��&8 �� !��L:

�8 �4�V=�:M

� ��3�MQ4�LP

>%��‘�� $��=�� **�

;N

>%��,�*��=��=�-�’��%�� ’H�� ;:4 <L

>%��=�� =��! �<M

� �>��NP

� �>��/��114 M:

� �>��!��NP

� �>��R�� >��S�9N–1Q4�1P4

1<–L4�PN–<4�P:4�M1–M4�MN–L4�;N4�<P–;4�<<4�LM–;4

LN4�:Q–14�9Q<4�91N4�9P94�9PP4�9PL



� �>��! ��P4�1:4�PP4�;Q4�99P4�91L4�9P<

>�� 9;4 PN

� �$�� ;4�9<4�M14�;14�;P–M4�;N–N94�NP–<4�N:4�<Q4

LM4�L:4�9QP4�9Q:–994�91P4�91L–:4�9P94�9PM

$��$�%�9;9

$� �� *��9PP

$�U� 8�4��=�V=�9M1–P

$��8 4��=�L94 9;9

$��84��=��=�<94 L9

$3��4�(=�$=�9M9

0 �� 99;4�91;

0 ��=�� 9L

0�� 911

0�� =��

>�� 9N

0��!!�� <L

0�� ;<

0��&�� 9P4�9;–1N4�1Q4�114�P<4�M<

0��*��=’+�� "��9PM

��’�� I�� 1<

��’��=�,� ��>�� 11

� ��19

� ��99N4�99L4�91Q–94�91M–;4�9P9–M4�9P<

��:N

� ��!�� >��’ ;;

��!�� $�/ �NQ4 N9–14 <<

��!!��‘�� 0��=�‘�� $�� -��

99P

��!!��‘�� "� �*�� #�� I�� 9<

��!!��‘�� 911

��!!��‘�� ’�!�� ;<

��!!��‘�� *��9<

��!!��‘�� $��9<

��!!��‘�� $��R� ��/��S�� &� ��9<

��!!��‘� ��:Q

��!!��‘� �� !�� ?��9<

��!!��‘+�� !�� ;N

��!!��‘+�� =�‘�� $�� A ��;N

��!!�� C��!��/ �9N

��!!�� &� �� ;Q

��!!�� ’� �� (� �� B��9<

��!!�� ’�!�� 991

��!!�� -� � �� C�� 9;

��!!�� )�� =�� !�� <M

��!!��/�� '�9;

��!!��’�� 9;4 9<

��!!��‘� ��=�‘�� ’� ��

)�� LL

��!!�� "� ��=�� 11

��!!��=�‘�� ’�!�� ;<

��!!��C�� 9N

��!!��0��&�� =�$�� -��

�� /��9P

��!!�� =��!��9;

��!!�� 1;

�U� �8�84��=�-=�5�;P

� ��’ ��PN–<4�P:4�M<–:4�9P94�9PP4�9P<–L

��’��9Q4 914�9;4�9<4 9:4 1L–:4�P94 P;4�M;4�;;4�NP4

:M4�919K� �� 8��’��P;K��914�9;4�1L4 1:K

��P;K�U�33 �3�� 919K�� 0�&�� P;

� ��’�� ’� �� ’�!�� $�� ;M

��/’ �=�� '��9Q

��(� �� PQ4�9QM

� ��;9

��&�� 91P

� �� NL

�� ;P–M4�;:4�N14�NN4�NL4�<14�LP

�� $�� 9;4�9L–194�1;4�P;–<4�NP4

<:4�91;4�91:–PQ

�� M14�;14�;:4�NM4�<94�LQ4

LP4�91L4�9P94�9PP

�� =�,� �� -�� ?��PN

�� <L

� �� *��919

��!��‘�� >�� 911

��!��‘� ��<9

��!�� , ��’��=�,� ��>�� 1P

��!��9;9

��!�� 9;9

��!�� >��<P

��!��"�� &��9;1

��!��?��9;9

��!��‘�� 9;9

��!��*��0�� 911

��!�� NQ

��!�� ,� ��<;

��!��!��% ��

�� @� �M1

��!��"�� #�� 9;9

��!�� 9M:

��!�� =��/��=��

��!�� L:

��!��!!�� !��9;9

��!��!!�� 9;9

��!�� ''��1P

��!�� =��=�� =�,�’� �� 9:

��!��9Q1

�� 991

�� ’��9<

�� $�� 9P4 P;

�� =�‘��

9914 91L

�� $�� PN

� ��9L4 PN4 M<4 9P9

� ��’��1P4�1;4�1:

��&�� 91N

�� !��::



� �� R‘�� $�’�� S�M–;4�9L4�1Q4

1P4�1;4�1<4�M1–P4�;14�NM–;4�<Q–M4�<<–LM4�LN4

:9–14�:N4�9QP4�9Q:4�99Q–994�99N4�91P4�91N4

91L–:4�9P94�9PP4�9PM4�9PL–:4�9MM–N4�9M:K

� ��8��3 ��<1K��8��LNK�� !�

,��3�8��8��3 ��LM

� �� M<

��3�U��#� & 3�/84�V=�14�914�<<4�L94�99Q4�9MQ4�9;Q

�3� �/4��8�8 �NQ

��88�� 4�"=�99L

��8 4��3��2��8 �9Q9

��8 4�(� 8�� 2��8 �9Q9

� ��9PL

�� !�� 99M4 99N

�� !�� "� ��PQ4�MP4�99N4�99L–1:

�� !�� &��LQ

�� !��9Q1

�� ‘H�� ;<

�� ‘H �� !’ � ��9M;

�� ‘� ’ � ��91M

�� ‘� ’ � ��$�’!��;1–P4�;;

�� ‘�� >�� :;

�� &8�&�B� ��!��L:4�:;–<

�� ;:

�� /'��9NK�� ''��114 1L

�� ’H �� #�� ’� ��

<:

�� /��:N–<

�� ,� ��:1

�� ,� ��,,�NP

�� ,� ��‘H�� 9P

�� 991

�� D�� 911

�� 99<

�� B�� 99L

�� B�� 91L

�� B�� ,,�99:

�� 99<

� ��!��9;4 1Q4 P<4 M94 MN

�!8�� 91P

� �)�� NL4�<M

� �)�!!��=�� >��=�-�’��� ’��1<

B/�� =��1M4 M1

B/�� =��’*�� 11

B/�� =�?�� !!��=�� ’+��19

B/�� ,��’*��<M

B/�� #��M<

B�U�4�V�@�� ç3��:<

B�� 8 &4�V=�9Q1

� �B� ��PN

B88��4��=�N:

B3��"8�� 9;9

B3�� LN

B ��&��4�-=��=�P<

B��&��B�3�9M;

B��$8�U8��9MN–<

B��B�3�9M;4 9MN4�9M<

B�� C3��L<

B��8 ��I��&�N:

� �’+/�!��1;

‘+�� =�‘�� !��L:

‘+�� =�>%�� ’H�� ,� ��<:

‘+��=��P4�9PL4�9M1

X3 4�-=�5=�L:

X33 �38284��=�L9

(�/�� 9P

(�/�� ‘�� $��=�� !��=

��!�99N

(�/�� 99N

(�/�� C�/� ��9P

(� ��‘+�� =�� >�� ’H�� 9<

(��8��4�$=5=�;P

��!�� ;9

�� >��9N

� �?��99;4�99N

?�� !!�� A ��9L–:4�1;4�P;–<4�NP4�<:4�L94

91;4�91:–PQ4�9PL

?��!!�� <L

� �?� �� 9:

?�!�� ’H��1;4 ;N4 <M

?�!�� ’H�� )�� 114 1M4 1<–L4 ;Q4 <M

?�8�8 4��=�=�9Q9–1



247

� �’ ��LP

‘ ��9N4�;M4�;<4�;:4�NM–N4�NL4�<14�LQ4�9;9

‘� ��9L

‘�� P:4 L1

‘�*��9QM

‘�*’��N14 91:

‘�A �1L

‘��ML

� �’��MM

� �H�� 9QM

� �!�� 9Q;

� ��’!�� /�!!��LP

� ��’!�� ;;

�U8��;1–P4�;;4�;L–:4�NQ4�N14�<94�<;4�LQ4�LM–L4

9994�99<4�91M4�9MN4�9M:K��U8��88�NN4�<:4�91:K

�U8��88�� 8�994�;:4�<94�<<–L4�LN4�91MK

��U8��NM4 <94 <L4 LNK�� H��<L

��99Q

��8��9MN

�� U�7��3�� U��L<4 :M4 9Q9–1K�(8�� U�

P4 9L4�PM

�� P:

�� PP–M4 M;

�� *�*��PP

�� MQ

�� A�9QN

�� ’��9PL

�� ’��PP4 MQ

�� -��’��:Q4 9MN

��9P4 ;<

� &8 ��;9

� &�8 �11

� �� !!��LQ

��@��&��9M;

�� 3��C3��L<

�*� �9<

� ��;M4�NP4�<94�LL4�:N4�:L4�99N–<K�� 14�P4

<14�<<4�L<4�:M4�99P–1MK�� N14�NLK��

�8�� PMK�� U�9:4 1M4 ;14 NN–<4 9P<K

� ��U�8��3�&�8�;PK�� 94 ;;K�-��

I�! ��!��!�<:K��!!��991K��3��

;M4�;N

� �� ’��+A� �� 9P9

� ��’��L1

� �� NP

�A�� -��!!��<;

�A�� M;

�� '� �L9

�� -��!!��P

� �� 0 ��MP

��8��M9

��!!��M<

� �� 9QM

��M9

�'�� 99;

�'�� ,��1Q

�'�� +��28 ��!�91;

�� N<

�� 1L

� �� 19

� �� )� �*��9;

��P<4 MQ4 <:4 L1

� ��M94 9QM4�99L

��!!��M<

��’%��A�� -��!!��M9

��&��N4 9:4 ;14 L;

�� 8�;<

��&�� 9;9

��/� �99L4 91Q

Subject Index


��/� �� 8�99<4 91L

��/� ��91Q

��8��;14�L<–:4�:M–L4�9;9K��88�9MQK

��88�� 9MQK��8�88�� N1K

��8�88�� 8�L:4 :N

�� <9

� ��A� �9QN

��2��;L4 :<4 9QP4 9914 99:

��!’��ML4 9QL4 9P1

��!��9:

��!�� *��<P4 9MN

��!�� $��NM4�<L

��’��MN4 9P:4 9M<

��!�� #��!��91M4 9P9

��/�@� �9P4 ;<

��!!��L;

�3��!�LQ4 9P9

�3�8�� 8�91M

�3��3� ��LL

�3 �83�LL4 9994 99<

� ��9;Q

��99Q

��&�!�� )� ��91:–PQ

��&�!�� ) ��1L4�P<

��&��88�:<

� �� ’H ��9P9

�� ;;4�N<–L

V�� 3�;4�N4�914�114�1<4�LQ4�99N4�99L4�91Q–94�91;4

91<4�91:–P9

V��&��&�9M;

V�@8�9Q1–PK�3��C33��#3@8�:L–:4 9Q9K�� !

9Q9K��8�� 9Q1

V�@8�B3��9Q9

V� ��&��9;9

U��8 ��:<

V8 8�8�;1

V8! 3��:L

V��:;K�V��88�<9

V��!!��9P4 M<

V� ��!�NL4 9Q9

V��3��&�LL

V� 8�3��:<4 :L

V��!�3��8�� 3@�8��9;4�9N4�<P4�<M–;

V3��U� �3��2��9QP

O��<P

� �� , ��9P:4�9MM

� �� 9MM

� �� )��’��91Q

��"��&�3��99<

��U��9:4 1M4 M;4 :9–1

��&3 �:M

��*’�*�� LP–M

�� 8��9M;

��!�3��-��&�8��9Q;

��!��LN

��!��99<

�8�� 8�99<

�8�� :;

��9PN

��9PL

�� <:

�� 1L4 LM4 9Q14 9Q<–L

��/��9N

��! �� #��;<

�3��<P

�� 91Q–94 9PN–<

� �� B��9P9

� �� !!��-�� ’� �� -��!��MP

� �� :9

�� ’��N<

��U��N:4�:;–L4�9QP4�9QN4�99<4�9114�9P14�9MQ–M4

9M<4�9;QK��&& 8�3��9M9K�W��,��8�V3�@��!

:<K�C328 �3 �� 9Q1

W��-�2��9194 91M

W8 �8�$�28 �9Q9

W&!@��9Q4�9P4�9;4�9:4�1P4�1<–L4�PM–N4�;L4�91;4

9MNK�W&!@��19–14�P94�91;4�9;9K�W&!@��

��9:4 P;–NK�W&!@��P<K

W&!@�� 9QK�W&!@��

9;4 99;K�W&!@��A��M:K�W&!@��‘� ��’ 11

W�& ��;P4 :;

W�& ��:<4 9;Q

W� 3@8��;4�:4�99<4�91<–L4�9M:4�9;QK�U3 3��

@3�8 �91<

��*�9QM4 9Q<

��%’� �L��%’� �� ,�!’ �� C��' ��9PQ

��%’� �� -��9MQ4 9M9

� ��/ �� B� /�� 19

��’ PL4 MQ4 9Q;4 9PN

��A� �;14 <Q4 <9

��*�� MM

��*��1<4 1L4 N;4 <P4 91;

��*� �M14�<P

�� ’�%�91:

�� %�� ’�!��9MM

�� %�� !��9MM

� ��9PQ

� �� !!��9;9

��1<

�� -��<:

�� $��9PP

�� (��NP4�<:4 L94 9PQ

�� 8�9QP

��994 1;4 ;:4 NM4 <:



��’�� , �� N4�9N

��*��9Q4�9<4�9:–1Q4�114�1;4�1L–:4�PN–<4�;;–N4

N1–P4�NN–<4�<<4�<:–LQ4�LN–<4�:9–14�99N4�91:4

9;QK�� ’��91:K��’�� LQ

�� !!��9P4�M<

� ��U8�:<4�9;Q

��*��’ PP4 ;Q

�� ’ � ��’� �91:–PQ

��A�A�� 9PP4 9P<

�� !��M94�MP4�;Q4�9PP4 9P<

C��8�3�� (��’ 1<

C��8�3��8�U8�1L

C��8�3��+��#��’ 1<

C�!�� B�* ��91:

C��' ��A��9PQ

C3��L<4 :14 :M–N4 9Q1

& 8��W&!@��9L

& 8��A��9<

C 88��94�MQ4 NL

C 8��91M

C�/� ��9P4�;M4�;;4�;N4�;<4�L:4�91P

&� ��NN

� ��D�194 MN

�//�:14 :;4�::

��<:

��% ��;;–N4 991

��% ��;M–;

��L4�9Q4�9;4�9<–1Q4�11–M4�1:–PQ4�P14�PM4�PN4

MQ4�M1–M4�M<4�N14�N<4�<P4�<<4�LM4�:94�99N4�9MQ4

9MN4�9M:K��9P4�PQ–94�P;–NK�*��L1K�U�3 �

� ��@�P;

��/� �� ’�*� ��9P

�� *��9Q4�9;4�1Q4�114�1<–L

� ��*�*�� *�� ’��M9

�� L:K��3*�8�9Q–914�1M4�1<–:4�99L

�� !��P4�;4�N4�L–9N4�1Q–1P4�1;4�1<–P14�PM–;4

MP4�M;4�ML4�;;–<4�NM–;4�<Q4�<P4�<<–L4�LN4�L:–:14

:;–N4�99Q–994�99;–1N4�99L–1:4�91P–;4�91<4

9P<4�9MQ4�9MP4�9MN4�9ML4�9;9K�A��ML

��//�L4�9P4�9:4�194�;N4�NP4�<P4�LN

��*’�*�MP

��*�*��P94 PP4 P:4 L:4 9Q<

��*�*��MN

��*�*��MN

��/'�994 1<4 ;;

��9PP4 9P<

��//�� A��!!��9L

� �� 9QM

�� !!��9P;

�� D��9QN

#��!!��9P

��9:

�8 8!�M9

#��!�� B� &�� B� ��N<

#��!�� ’� ��‘+�� ’� ��91:

#��!�� /�� A �NP

#��!�� 9P9–1

��/ ��P<

#��!��911

#��!�� &��9M9

�� !�� B �� >� �� B� ��‘��

N

#��;<

#��NM4 99Q

#3 !�V��!�94�11–P

#3 !��3*�8�M:

�33&8@ �8�8 �:N

#��!��<P

‘��P:4�<:–LQ4�9QM4�91:–PQ

‘� ��L4�9L4�1Q4�P:4�MM4�<14�L1

‘� �� *�*�<;

‘� �� <;

‘� �� 99M4 99L

‘� �� D�� <P

� �’,*�� #��‘� �� B��’ �� ’H��

;9

‘,*�� -�� 1L

‘� ��9L

�� 9PL

,%�� 91:

� ��9QM

��N1

,�!’ ‘+ �� M94 ;Q4 9PQ–94 9PP4 9P<

,��’ � �I��’�� )’��1<

�/'��9Q–914�9:4�114�1M4�P<4�;Q4�<<

� ��/'�� ’��P<

� ��/� �9QN

�/��MM4 ;9

� �� M9

��LL4 9Q9

� �,��9;1

,�� !��11

,��9P4�PN4�;<4�NQ4�NP–M4�NL4�L:4�:;4�9MNK�

,��14�994�9P4�1<4�MN4�;M4�<94�L;4�:94�:;4�

9Q1K�,��5U8��:4 ;M4 N;K�,��

U3��8��1<K�,��P:K��

9L

,��3�V��:;

,��3�8��9P94 9M:4 9;94 9;PK�� !�991

,�� "�� MM4�:14�9Q;4�9PP4 9P<

, �*�1L

,��9P

��94�994�9;4�9:4�19–14�1M–;4�1:4�PN4�PL4�M<4

91;4�9M:4�9;QK�‘� ��!!��9M:K�� ’ ��PLK

��A��9M:

,�� LQ4 :;4 91:–PQ

�� M1

SUBJECT INDEX 249


,�� MQ–14 M;4 ;Q4 <;

��9PL

� �-�� >�� B��*�*��’� �� (�/��MP

/�� 9QM

-��’ � ��’��91:

-��’ � �0�&�� M9

-��NM4 <;4 :1

-��M1–P4�;N4�;L4�<<4�:Q4�99Q4�99M4�9P<

-��!!��M9–1

-�’��9L4�<P–M

/�� LM

-� �!��B�� L9

-��’ � ��’�� 1M

/��’��M9

-�@��:;

-�2��;14�L;–:4�9QL4�9994�99:4�9114�9M94�9M14

9;9K 9MPK�� -��MPK�-�2��88�91:

� �-�� C�� !!��‘�� ’� �� -��!!��M1

-�� ’+ ��"�� ’ ��;:4 N14 NN

-�� *’�*�9PP

-�� "��9P

-�� 9P<

� �-�'� ��11

� �-�'�� 1P

-8��<P–M4 :M

-8��I��99:

-8 �� 8��9N4 ;14 911

-8��<9

/��99<4 9114 9MQ4 9MP–MK�� 9Q<

� �-��%’� ��19

/��9M1

-��NL

-��!�� &��9QP

�� NM4�9MN4�9QMK�� 9MM

"�’��MN4 99:

��!�� 0� ��N<

�� 9<4�9:4�1Q4�1M4�;P4�;;4�N1–P4�<:4�L9–14�:14

9QP4�99N

"� ��LL4 99L4 91Q4 911K��3��"� ��

LL4�9994�99<–:4�9P;

"��'�� ’�� *� �1:

"��'�� ’ ��99L

"��'�� $��!��1P

"� ��9Q1

"� ��&�LN4 :N

��MN4�LP4 9P<

"�� C��9P<

"�� "� ��91M

"�� I��9PQ

"�� -��’� ��‘��

M1

"�� D� �<;

"��9;1

"8��;14 N<4 99P4 911

"8 ��9;9

"8 ��91Q

��*��P;4 M:

��AA�9P:

��AA�� A�9QN

� �"�� **�*��M9

��LL

�� 9Q4�9<4�1Q4�;N4�N<4�<M–;4�9Q14�9Q<

�� >�� !!��L:

�� P;

"�� !!��9P4�1L4�M<4�:14�:N4�99M4�99N4�9194

9P1–PK��9QL

��A�MM4�L1

� �� *�� A��!!��P:

"�� A�� N4�9N4�1M

�� 9P:

"��!�� /��

LP

"�� NP

"�� ’�%�LQ

"�� ,��‘ ��‘+ �� ,��1:4�PN

"�� -�� 9N

"�� NL

"�� B��NL

��!��9;9

" 8��91M

�� LN

� �"�� P:

"�� !!��M<

�� 9PL

"� ��9:4 1L

"��LL

"�� 9:4 1Q4 PL4 M9

I��&�:M

I��3 8�PN

I��&�9QP

�*��9N4 99:4 91P

I��*�� >��!!��9PP

I8��3��1P

I�&��3��NL

�� -��!!�� ’�!!��<:

� �I��!!��<P

I�� LQ

��’��9M;

��’��9:

� ��’�!!��9QM

��’ ��L:4 9QM

�� !!��9P

��9Q4�914�P9–14�PM–;4�MM4�ML

�� N4�:4�9Q4�914�1M4�PP4�M;4�<9



�� C��!��!!��9Q

�� 9;9

��&� ��11–P4 1<–L

��&� ��114 1L4 PM4�:1

��&��3�LQ

� ��/��;Q

��M;

��/ ��994 1Q

��/ ��+&��, ��9;9

�� L:

�� 88�:<

�� UU��LL

�� !�;14�;L–:4�NP4�NN–<4�N:–<Q4�<:4�9Q14�99N–<4

91<4�9P94�9P<4�9M14�9;9K�,��3�8��P4�M4�;4�<4

994�1M4�M9–14�;1–N4�;L4�N1–L4�<Q4�<14�<<4�LQ–14

L;4�L<–:4�:14�:;4�:L4�9Q94�9Q:4�99Q–94�99M4�99:4

9194�91P4�91N–P94�9PP4�9P<4�9P:4�9MQ–14�9MM4

9M<4�9M:K�� !��9M:K�� 1K��8��

;L4 N<4 <L4 LN4 LL4 999K�

�� 9Q4 91K� � 8 ��V�� 3�91

� �� 9;1

�� !��9P<

�� 0��9P<–L

��*�9:4 ;;4 99N4 9M;

��*��P:

�� /��91L4 9PN

�� @� ��99L–:

� ��’� �� -��!!��M1–P

�� 9PP

��’�� ’+��!!��LQ

��’�� "� �� , ��!!��91Q

�� 9M1

�� 8�9M1–P

��’�D�� ’��L1

��*�’ � ��/��9PP

� ��/��7�� /'��9QM–;K�� *�*��9QM

� ��7�� ! ��LMK�� ’��MQ4�LMK��

��’��LMK

��'�’ <P

�8UU��9–P4�;4�L4�9Q–914�9N4�9:4�1Q–1;4�1<–:4�MP4

M;4�M:4�;14�;;–N4�N94�<P–M4�<<–LQ4�L14�L;4

:Q–:14�:M4�:N4�99Q4�99P4�99;–N4�99L–:4�91:–P94

9PN4�9M9–14�9MM4�9M<4�9;Q4�9;1K��8UU��1M–;K

�8UU��*��<MK��8UU�� M;K��8UU��

A��19K�

�8��94�P4�;4�L4�994�9P4�9;–N4�9L–:4�1Q–P4�1L–:4

PM4�PN4�MP4�;14�;N4�N94�N;4�<P–;4�<<–L4�:94�99Q4

99P4�99N4�9M1

�� 8�U3� 8�P<

�� 8�W��14�;4�:4�994�9L4�PP4�P;4�MP4�;14�N;4

<Q–94�LQ4�LL–:4�:14�:N4�9Q:–994�91N–<4�9PN4�9;P

�� 8�W��8 ��M4 9914 91N

�� ’�!!�� )� �*��

��*��!!��9PP

��=�‘��' �’ 9<

��&��NQ4�L;4�LL4�9114�9M;–<

��/�� ) ��NP4 9PQ

��/�� ’H��9P94 9P<

�� ’��9Q;

�� ’�� *’�*�9PP

�� ’�� )� ��<:4 LQ–94 91L

��* �9Q

��'��P:

��'//��<M4�99N

��'//�� !Y�� 8�L:4�99M

�3&�� ::

�33 ��3@�;:–NQ

��’��'� ��9;P

��’�� <:

� ��’�� ’��9QN

��’��'� ��8�MQ4 ;9

� ��9QL4�9PP

� ��%� �9QM

��9P4�9:4�114�1M–;4�1<–L4�PN4�;Q4�;;4�;<4

<P–M4�:Q4�:14�99N

��A��1L

��994 114 ;;4 <M4 <L

��;:K�3��!�� *��<PK��3��8UU��1<K

3��?��99N�

��&�� /�91:

� ��/�� M;

��/�� *’ 9Q<

��/��9L4 ;M4 <Q4 9Q:–9Q

��/�� MN

��/��8�� U��@8 �&3�;M

��/��9:

��<P

�� N1

��A� �� ’�*’��N<

��A� �� B�� 9P<

�� 9Q<4 9P;

� ��*�9QN

� ��9QL4 9PP

��!�� A� ��91:4�9MM

��*� ��MM

� �� N4�9L4�99;

� �� "�� ‘�� 19

�� M<

��9P<

��‘� �� B�� A� ��PL

�� ' �PL

�� PL

�� !�1P

�� "��PL

�� M;

��M;

� ��9QL

��! �:Q

� ��’ P<

� �� /� �� *�� F/� ��MN

SUBJECT INDEX 251


��3*�8�9;4 1Q4 M:

� �� $�*�*�� *�� ?��*�;9

�� , ��!!��9P9

��9P1

� �� $�� $�!��N4�99N

�� + ��9;9

��/�� $&�� *��91:

� �� 9P

��/�� N<

��*��!!��9P4�1Q–14�1L4�P94�M<4�<M4�L:–:Q4

:14�:N4�99M4�9194�9MN

�� NL

�� ;9

��!!��1L–:

�8&8 ��$��:1

�83��P<4 NN4�9QP4�99P

�8��8 ��:<

��’�� >�� M<

��!�� /�NP4 <:4 91:–PQ

��@� �N

��D��!!��PP

�3��/'��U�3 � �9P

�3 �� U��114 P94 PM4 PN–<

�3 �� ;14 99<

��PM

5 ��U��V�� U��9Q9

3@@8 �33@��NQ

3@@8 @ �8�8 �:N

5 ��&�"�!��N9

5��3��914 9P

5��3��W�@� 8�1

5��3��B� �8!�L;

��&�9M:

�� 9Q:–9Q4 9M<

��&�;14 ;L

��&�� 8�;:

��&� ��9M9

�� 8��&�991–9P4 91L

�� 8��&�� 8�991

�� 8��8�1PK�� 8��9N

��/��LN

��U�� 9;P

@��&��8 8�&�LL

��911

��999–9P4�911–M4�91N4�9MM4�9;9K�� 8

91M

�8�3/��99:

@8�&�� 9P<4 9MN

�8 ��14 9:4 <94 :;K��8 ��9P4�9:4�;14�;;4�NN4�NL4

<9K��8 ��C� ��<PK��8 ��*��!!��

19

�8 ��8� �� / ��91:

�8 ��8 �!��91:

@8�� 8��9914 99<4 9M:4 9;9

�� 3��;9

�� @@��8�LQ4 :;

@3��3��99<4 91P4 9;9

�3 ��&�88�:4 ;;

@�/��&&��N:

� �>�%�� >�� 9Q;

>�� ?��>��$��-��

�� MN

>�� !!��;9

>�� �!��8!�M;

>�A�A�� !’ NL

*�� L4 99:

>�� !!��9:4�1L4�M<4�;14�;N–<4�N14�NN4�<;4�L:4

9Q14�9194�9MN

*%��9Q–14 114 1<4�LL4�99PK�V��8��>%��99–11

>���%��91

>� ’��P:–M;4�ML4�;94�;N4�N<4�<M4�LQ–14�L<4�:N4

9QM–;4�99L4�9MQ4�9M14�9MNK�>� ’��U�N<K

>� ’��U�U3��8�� !�LQ

>� �!��;M

*� ��NP

*��9N

>��!!��L;

��9Q<

� �$�� $��9M9

$��PM

$�@@��&�:1

$8� 8��3��"��3!�� 3�<<

��N4�:–9Q4 9P4 11–P4 PQ4 M:

$��’�!!��;N–<4 N14�9Q1

$�� B��9PP

$� �� !��LM

$� �� (�/��:9

$� ��A� ��!�� !��

LM

$� �� ’�/�� )� �*�1<

$� �� >��! �!!��9P<

$� �� B�A��PN

��!��1P

$�� ;M–;4 NQ4 N1

$3��U8�3��8�W�@� 8�9Q1

0�� ;<

0� �� "�� A� �� 1M

0� �� *��N1–P4�NN–<4�<:4�9Q<4�

91L–:

0��1L

A��L4�9;–1<4�114�1<4�P94�PP–M4�PN4�MQ4�MP4�M;4�M<4

M:4�;P4�;<–L4�NN4�LL4�:Q4�:14�9Q1–P4�9QN4�9QL4



9MM4�9;1K�U8�� 8��,��9PK�’� ��’ <PK��83�

��P<4 NP4�NN4�9QP4�99PK�@8��3�A��;M4

9P;4�9P<–L

��9Q<–L

�� M9

�� 99L4 91L–:

A��*��<L

�� /��NN4 L:4 ::

�� :L

��!!��99N4 99L4 9194 9P1–P

�� <9

��’��99P

�� :L

�� 8��, ��9;1

��! ��!!��:L

��! �� 99M4 9P9–1

�8/� ��8 �!��NL4 N:

�8 ��8��LM

�� !!��91;

�� !!��1L–:4 PM4 M<4 ;<

�� !!��M;

��’��MM

��9QN

�� '� �1L

�� 9:

�� /�� )� ��91:

�� 0�� <:

�� ‘��<<4 LM4 LN

�� ’��P4�1M4�1L4�P94�PM4�PN–MP4�ML–;Q4�;M4�NQ4

NM4�NN–<4�<<4�<:4�LL–:4�9Q<4�99N4�91L4�9PP4�9P<4

9M;4�9MNK�3 �8��8��, ��114�NPK�3 �8��8�� *��

P9K�3 �8��8��‘� ��’ PP

�� 3��8UU��1P4�<L4 L:4�:;

�� !!��9P4�9;4�9<4�1Q4�1M4�1L4�P94�P:4�M14

M<–L4�<;4�L;–N4�9Q14�9194�91N4�9M;–NK��!��

9PK�� <<K�� -�2��<<

��!��7�� !��994 91K�� , ��;M4�;<–:4

NP4�NM4�N<4�919K�� , ��’��=�,� ��

>�� 1PK�� ’+ ��’ 994 91K�3��'�� 91;K

3��8��'�� 919K�3��"�� LNK�3��8

>�� !!��3 �8 �1L

��’��NP

�� '�9Q

��9PN

�� A�A� �� !�� 1:

��9;Q

�� N4 99;

� � ��114 1L4 NN4 9;Q

� �� /��9N–<4 LM

��&�@3 8�9P9

��&�8 �<Q–9

�� <Q

� ��1:

� �LM

�3��8��;M4 9ML

�@��PM

� � ��L<4�:M4�:L–:4�9Q9–1

�� !!��9P4 ;<

�� !!��M<

�� 8��;14 L<–L4 :M4 991K��3�� 8��L<4

:14�:M–N4�9QP4�9QL4�9994�91M

�� !��!!�� 9Q

�� ;P4�NP–M4�L:4�99<4�9M9K��

‘�� >�� :;K��&8�&�B� ��!��L:4�:;–<K

‘� ’ � ��91MK�‘� ’ � ��

$�’!��;1–P4�;;K�� /'��9NK��

��''��114 1LK��;:K�� ’H ��

�� #�� ’� �� <:K�‘H��

;<K�,� ��:1K�,� ��‘H�� 9PK�,� ��

,,�NPK��/��:N–<K�,�� ;:K�,��

B��N<K�‘H �� !’ � ��9M;K��

991K��D�� 911K�3��/� �99:K�3�

C3��LL4 9Q1–PK�� 99<K�B��

99LK�B�� 91LK�B�� ,,�99:

�� NP4 <<–LK�0��!!�� ;:–N94�<:K

"�� <:K�"�� 99K��*�!!��

� ��<LK�?��!!�� L1

�� 7�3��U8��9;4�;L4�9QPK�3��&� �9PK

3��&�N:

�� 87�3��/� �99<4�91Q4�9MQK�3��8��LL

�� <94 <L4 :;K��3�� 9994 991K�(8�

�� <;4�L;4�9Q:4�99:4�9M:

��PN

� �� "�� P<

��88�91:

��:Q

��NP4 NL4 :QK�3 ��3�36!�PP

�@8 �3 ��PL

�� !��9P9

�� ;;4 ;<4 NQ4 N1

� ��9M;4 9M<

�� 99<

�! ��1P4 1<–L4 PM4 :1K��PM

)’��1<

� ��*�� 99N

�� ’� ��L

�� *��1–P4�9Q4�9:4�1<–L4�PQ–P4�P<4�MQ4�M<4 ML4

M:–;Q4�;14�;N–<4�NP4�NN4�<14�L;–N4�L:–:94�:N4

99N4�9M;K�� !!��9QNK��

��!!��9QN–<4�9PLK�� 9P4�1<4�PQ–94�<;4

9M:

B’�''�<P

� �B/�� "�� :1

B �� $�� NL

B �� 8&8 ��"8��99P–1M

��’��MM

��’�!!��9PN

B�’!�� !��9PM

B�� 8��NL

SUBJECT INDEX 253


B�� %�’��91P

�� 9<4�1Q4�1:4�<:–LQ4�L14�99N

B�� !%��<:

B�� I��9;9

� �B�� :9

��/� ��9Q;4 9PN

B�/� �!�� A’� �9N

��/��MN4 9Q:

�� NM

��!!� �9P:

B�� 9N

B�� 9;9

��''� �9QM

B�� )� ��’ �� (��

9PP

��* ��MQ

�� /��9ML

B� /��‘+ ��’ � �-��9M:

�� **��9QM

B� ��;N–<

�� /��L1

B� /��!�� #��!��9P<

B� /�� LQ–14�LN

��A��9<4�9:–1Q4�1M4�1:4�PN–<4�;;4�N1–P4�<;4

<:4�L9–14�LM4�L<4�:Q–94�9QP4�9QN–<4�99N4�99L4

91L4�9M;

��NM

B��3�8 8��9;1

B��1Q4�L<4�9QMK�� ’ �LPK�� ’ �9P<K��

��’ 9P<K�� LP4�9P<K�� 0��*��9PNK

� �0��LP4�9P<K�� *�*��LPK�� + ��!!��LPK

� �(�/��LP

B�!�� !!��M<

B8��, 8�&�9;9

B8 ��919

B�� N<K��3��B�� 991K�B��99M4 9MP–M

B��!��’ �� !��NL

B� ��!��:<

B3�� LN

B 8�&&��LN4 911

B��8� �991

B��R� ��/� �� /S�91:

B�� /�<:4 9PQ

B�� 9;4�M9–14 9PP

B��11

B� �8!�1P4 :1K�B� ��9:4 LNK�B� ��;;

� �’��!!�� *��9Q;

‘� �� M9

‘� ��’ 94�P–:4�91–1P4�9N–1<4�19–14�PQ4�P14�MP4

MN4�M:4�;N4�NQ4�NM–;4�<P4�L<4�9914�9M94�9M:

‘� ��9��;N

‘� �� *�*��9Q;

‘� �� PL

‘�' ��9P:

+/�!��91

+ ��L;4 9M;

� 88�� &�N9

� �+�� *D�� #��9N4 9:

��9L4 PQ

+ ��;14 NN

�A� �� 99N4 91;

�A� �� *��9<4�9:4�;;–N

� �� :1

X5V�NQ4 :<

� ��/�� /��9PN

��!!��MP

(�� /��;P4�9QM4�9PM4�9PN4�9PL

(��9M<

�� <P

(� ��&��91M

��*��9P4 M;

��%�’ NP

(�/��M9

��/��!!��;P–M4�;:4�NP–N4�<94�LP4�9P;

��/��!!�� 9P;

��/��!!��9PM–N

��/��!!��A��NM

��*�� -�� 9P94�9PP

�8�8��9N4�1<4�;;4�;<4�<P–M4�L:–:QK��8�8��

N4 9<4 <M4 99;

� �D�� M94 99L

T�� !�1;

?�� *��B��$�� ’H ��9PM

'��!��M:

?��<P–M4 L:–:Q4 99N

'�� D�� P<4 MQ4 <:4 L1

'��NP4 99:

?��'��9M9

?��'�� !�99M

� �'��*��M9

?8�'8��9M9

'��*�9Q<4 9P;

?�!��‘,� �� *��M1

'�! ��LN4 9Q1

?�� ;M

?�� !��"� �� B��99N