Resume Buku Muhammadiyah Itu NU Dokumen

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.
qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page i
ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

Southeast Asia Publications Series
THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM

IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page ii
ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

Southeast Asia Publications Series
The Southeast Asia Publications Series (SEAPS) supports the dissemination of

quality research on all aspects of Southeast Asia by scholars who have, or have
had, close links with Australia.
Sponsored by the Asian Studies Association of Australia (ASAA), in
conjunction with Allen & Unwin and the University of Hawai’i Press, SEAPS
aims to promote the work of first-time as well as established authors and to
bring their research to the widest possible audience.
Further details on how to order SEAPS books are posted on both the ASAA
and the Allen & Unwin websites.
Titles in print
The Challenge of Sustainable Forests, F.M. Cooke
The Emergence of a National Economy: An Economic History of Indonesia,
1800–2000, Howard Dick, Vincent J.H. Houben, J. Thomas Lindblad
and Thee Kian Wie
Indonesian Islam: Social Change Through Contemporary Fatw,
M.B. Hooker
Fragments of the Present, Philip Taylor
Power and Prowess: The Origins of Brooke Kingship in Sarawak,
J.H. Walker
The Riddle of Malaysian Capitalism, Peter Searle
The Seen and Unseen Worlds in Java, 1726–1749, M.C. Ricklefs
War, Nationalism and Peasants: The Situation in Java, 1942–1945,
Shigeru Sato
Writing a New Society: Social Change through the Novel in Malay,
Virginia Matheson Hooker
Editorial Committee
Professor Virginia Hooker (Editor) Professor Barbara Andaya
Australian National University University of Hawai’i
Diana Carroll (Editor’s Assistant) Dr Jane Drakard
Australian National University Monash University
Assoc. Professor Howard Dick Professor Kevin Hewison
University of Melbourne City University of Hong Kong
Professor Barbara Hatley Professor Rey Ileto
University of Tasmania National University of Singapore
Emeritus Professor Campbell Macknight Dr Kathryn Robinson
Australian National University
Professor Anthony Milner
Australian National University Dr Milton Osborne
Professor Tony Reid Professor Carl Thayer

National University of Singapore University of NSW (ADFA)
Assoc. Professor Krishna Sen
Curtin University of Technology
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page iii
THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC

REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern

‘Ulam’ in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
Azyumardi Azra
Asian Studies Association of Australia

in association with
ALLEN & UNWIN
and
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I PRESS
HONOLULU
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page iv
First published in 2004

Copyright © Azyumardi Azra, 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording
or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing
from the publisher. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of
one chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by any
educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational
institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright
Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.
Published in Australia by
Allen & Unwin
83 Alexander Street
Crows Nest NSW 2065
Australia
www.allenandunwin.com
http://coombs.anu.edu/ASAA/
Published in North America by

University of Hawai’i Press
2840 Kolowalu Street
Honolulu, 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 ‘Ulam’ in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
ISBN 1 74114 261 X.
1. Islam - Asia, Southeastern - History. 2. Ulam -

Indonesia - History. 3. Ulam - 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, Victoria

Printed 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 v
I
Contents
Maps and Charts vi

Transliteration vii
Preface viii
Introduction 1
1 Networks of the ‘Ulam’ in the Seventeenth Century îaramayn 8
2 Reformism in the Networks 32
3 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian
Networks I: N´r al-D¥n al-Rn¥r¥ 52
4 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian Networks II:
‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥ 70
5 Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian
Networks III: Muúammad Y´suf al-Maqassr¥ 87
6 Networks of the ‘Ulam’ and Islamic Renewal in the
Eighteenth Century Malay-Indonesian World 109
7 Renewal in the Network: The European Challenge 127
Epilogue 148
Notes 154
Bibliography 205
Index of Personal Names 240
Subject Index 247
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page vi
I
Maps and Charts
Maps
1. Al-Rn¥r¥’s itinerary 61
2. Al-Sink¥l¥’s itinerary 72
3. Al-Maqassr¥’s itinerary 100
Charts
1. The core of the seventeenth century networks 14
2. The core of the eighteenth century networks 26
3. Al-Rn¥r¥’s networks 58
4. Al-Sink¥l¥’s partial networks 76
5. Al-Maqassr¥’s networks 93
vi
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page vii
I
Transliteration
Excepting the common terms such as Islam or Muhammad (the Prophet),

the transliteration of Arabic words, terms and names in this book basically
follows the rules employed by the International Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies. I apply this rule also to Malay-Indonesian persons, whose names
are of Arabic origin, rather than using their popular Malay-Indonesian
spelling. Thus I will use ‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥’ rather than ‘Abdurrauf
Singkel’ 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 for
words used in their common English form, such as Islam, the Prophet
Muhammad.
The plural of all Arabic and Malay-Indonesian words is formed simply
by adding ‘s’ to their more familiar singular form: thus, ‘úad¥ths’ instead of
‘aúd¥th’, or ‘ar¥qahs’ instead of ‘uruq’ (or ‘ar’iq’ or ar¥qat—other
Arabic 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/Common
Era (CE) after an oblique stroke: thus 1068/1658, 1115/1693. This will
allow readers unfamiliar or confused with the Hijrah calendar dates to
readily know the equivalent Common Era dates. For the conversion of both
dates, this book employs the table printed in J.L. Bacharach, A Middle East
Studies Handbook (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984).
vii
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page viii
Preface
For many of my friends, publication of this book is long overdue. While

the Indonesian edition of the Jaringan Ulama (‘ulam’ networks) has been
published in several editions by Mizan (Bandung) since 1994, followed by
Arabic translation in 1997, the English version has been delayed for several
years. Increased interest in the subject of ‘the transmission of Islamic
learning’ from the Middle East to Indonesia or elsewhere in the Muslim
world 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 New
York City, defended in 1992, most of the research draws on primary
sources that have not been considered in detail by other scholars. Although
completed 10 years ago, my dissertation has not been available to a non-
Indonesian audience and I have been encouraged to present it to a wider
readership. An epilogue has been added to take account of some of the
more recent research in this field and to add a broader context. The bibli-
ography has been updated with references kindly supplied by Dr Michael
Feener (Reed College).
The revisions would not have been possible without the concrete support
of a number of friends. Barry Hooker was instrumental not only in provid-
ing substantive advice for the improvement of the contents in the light of
new scholarly developments on the subject but also in the editing of the
manuscript. His wife, Mbak Nia (Virginia Hooker), was also very support-
ive, and gave me continued encouragement to publish the work in the midst
of my almost overwhelming administrative duties as rector of the State
Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN), which on 20 May 2002 was converted
into a fully fledged university, the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic
University (UIN), Jakarta.
My younger colleagues at the Pusat Pengkajian Islam dan Masyarakat
(PPIM) of UIN Jakarta, particularly Jamhari Makruf, Oman Fathurahman
viii
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page ix
PREFACE ix
and Burhanuddin, have helped to edit and retype the manuscript. I owe
them all a great debt.
I should mention a number of long-time friends who have always
encouraged me to continue with the work: among these are William Roff,
Richard Bulliet, John Voll, Barbara Metcalf, Barbara Andaya, Anthony
Johns, Merle Ricklefs, James Fox, Martin van Bruinessen, Peter Riddell,
Karel Steenbrink, Johan H. Meuleman, Nurcholish Madjid, Taufik
Abdullah, Abdurrahman Wahid, Sumit Mandal and Mohammad Redzuan
Othman.
My greatest debt is of course to my family—my wife Ipah Farihah and
our sons and daughter, Raushanfikr Usada Azra, Firman el-Amny Azra,
M. Subhan Azra and Emily Sakina Azra who over the years have sustained
my scholarly spirit with their love and understanding, especially when I
have had to travel across the continents in the search for knowledge. May
God bless all of them.
Azyumardi Azra
UIN Campus, Ciputat
July 2003
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page x
Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page 1
Introduction
The transmission of Islamic renewal and reformism is a neglected area of

Islamic studies. In contrast to the abundance of studies of the transmission
of learning and ideas, for instance, from the Greeks to the Arabs and
further to the Western world,1 there has not yet been any comprehensive
study devoted to examining the transmission of religious ideas from
centres of Islamic learning to other parts of the Muslim world. There are,
of course, several studies on the transmission of úad¥ths (Prophetic tra-
dition) from one generation of early Muslims to another by way of
unbroken isnds (chains of transmission).2
The study of the transmission of Islamic renewalism and reformism,
particularly on the eve of European expansion in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, is important for several reasons. The Islamic socio-
intellectual history of this period has been little studied; most attention has
been given to Islamic political history. Given the decline of Muslim
polities, 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 seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries constituted one of the most dynamic periods in the
socio-intellectual history of Islam.3
The origins of Islamic dynamic impulses in the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries were networks of Muslim scholars (‘ulam’), centred in
Mecca and Medina. The central position of these two Holy Cities in Islam,
especially in conjunction with the annual úajj pilgrimage, attracted a large
number of scholars and students who produced a unique scholarly
discourse there. These scholarly networks consisted of a significant
number of leading ‘ulam’ who came from different parts of the Muslim
world; they thus brought together various traditions of Islamic learning to
Mecca and Medina. There were conscious, if not concerted, efforts among
these scholars to reform and revitalise the prevailing teachings of Islam;
their central theme was the intellectual and socio-moral reconstruction of
1
2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Muslim societies. Because of the extensive connections of the networks,

the spirit of reform and renewal soon found its expression in many parts
of the Muslim world.
The transmission of Islamic renewalism and reformism in the scholarly
networks involved very complex processes. There were highly intricate
crisscrossings of scholars within the networks, by way of both their studies
of Islamic sciences, particularly úad¥th, and their adherence to Islamic
mystical brotherhood (ar¥qahs). An examination of this crisscrossing of
the networks, and of works produced by scholars in the networks, throws
much light on how Islamic renewalism and reformism were transmitted
from centres of the networks to many parts of the Muslim world.
Understanding the processes of transmission becomes more important in
connection with the course of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. As it
is situated on the periphery of the Muslim world, there is a tendency among
scholars to exclude the Malay-Indonesian world from any discussion of
Islam. It is assumed that the region has no single stable core of Islamic
tradition. Islam in the archipelago has long been regarded as not ‘real
Islam’. 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 has
little 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 overtones
than 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 in
their nature. If these religious relationships later stimulated some kind of
political ‘consciousness’ especially vis-à-vis European imperialism, it was
simply 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 Middle
East 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 the
archipelago, where they engaged not only in trade but also in the trans-
mission of Islam to the native population. Later penetration of Islam in the
archipelago, however, was carried out less by Muslim traders than by
wandering §´f¥s and scholars who came in increasingly large numbers to
the 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 the
centres of Islamic learning in the Middle East. The Ottoman efforts to
improve the security along úajj routes also encouraged Malay-Indonesian
Muslims to make their pilgrimages to Mecca. As economic, diplomatic and
religio-social relations between Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern
INTRODUCTION 3
states developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it is probable that

Malay-Indonesian pilgrims and students were able to pursue Islamic
learning in a variety of places along the trade and úajj routes. This led to
the rise of a non-Arab community in the îaramayn (Mecca and Medina),
which was called ‘a§úb al-Jwiyy¥n’ (fellow Malay-Indonesians) by
Meccans and Medinese. The term ‘Jw¥’ (or Jwah), though derived from
the name Java, came to signify anyone from the Malay-Indonesian world.
The Jw¥ students in the îaramayn represented major lines of intellec-
tual tradition among Malay-Indonesian Muslims. Examination of their
history and the textual materials they produced and taught from will help to
illuminate not only the nature of religious and intellectual relationships
between Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern Muslims but also the
contemporary development of Islam in the archipelago. Their lives and
experience presented a vivid picture of the various networks that existed
among them and Middle Eastern ‘ulam’.
These scholarly networks involved a number of prominent Middle
Eastern ‘ulam’ teaching in Mecca and Medina. They constituted a cosmo-
politan scholarly community linked together in a relatively solid fashion by
way of their studies, particularly of úad¥th, and their involvement in the
§´f¥ ar¥qahs. 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 ‘ulam’. There were several
Malay-Indonesian students involved in such networks in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. Having studied in the îaramayn with its leading
scholars, most of them returned to the archipelago, and thus became essen-
tial transmitters of the Islamic tradition in the centres of Islamic learning in
the Middle East to the Malay-Indonesian world.
The most salient feature of the intellectual tendencies that emerged from
the scholarly networks was the harmony between shar¥’ah (Islamic legal
doctrine) and ta§awwuf (Islamic mysticism). This has been called by many
modern scholars ‘neo-Sufism’. Even though the reconciliation between
shar¥’ah and ta§awwuf had been emphasised earlier by such scholars as
al-Qushayr¥ and al-Ghazl¥, it apparently gained its strongest momentum
through these scholarly networks. Scholars in the networks were actively
taught, and ardently believed that only by way of total commitment to the
shar¥’ah could the extravagant features of earlier Sufism be controlled. The
renewed commitment to shar¥’ah and ta§awwuf, in turn, led to a socio-
moral reconstruction of Muslim societies.
Although all scholars in the networks shared a commitment to Islamic
renewal and reform, there was no uniformity among them as to their
method of achieving this aim. Most of them chose a peaceful and evolu-
tionary approach, but some of them, prominent among these Ibn ‘Abd
al-Wahhb in Arabia, and ‘Uthmn Ibn F´d¥ in West Africa, preferred a
more radical and far-reaching reform, which in turn was adopted by some
of the scholars in the archipelago.
Despite their differences, the networks of scholars in the îaramayn pro-

vided a basis for the renewalist drive within Muslim communities in the
archipelago in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The exchange of
ideas and the maintenance of lines of intellectual discourse during the period
are crucial to the history of Islamic religious thought and to understanding
the influence foreign Muslim ideas exerted on the outlook and daily lives of
many Malay-Indonesians. The ferment of ideas arising from these intense
relations and contacts through scholarly networks had a revitalising effect
on 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, has
been done of networks of Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’.
Little attempt has been made to provide a critical analysis of the origins of
Islamic reformism in the Malay-Indonesian world before the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries through networks of the ‘ulam’; and of how
Islamic teachings were transmitted and how the transmission affected the
course of Islam in the archipelago.
The works of Voll5 have discussed the existence of the international
networks of the ‘ulam’ centred in Mecca and Medina and their connections
in other parts of the Muslim world. He deals mostly with the emergence of
such networks among Middle Eastern and South Asian ‘ulam’, and simply
mentions in passing the involvement of such Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ as
‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥ and Muúammad Y´suf al-Maqassr¥ in the inter-
national scholarly networks in the seventeenth century.
Johns, on the other hand, in several studies6 discusses at length these
relationships, particularly between al-Sink¥l¥ and Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥.
However, he has made no attempt to examine further networks of al-Sink¥l¥
with other leading îaramayn scholars. The lack of studies dealing with
networks of other Malay-Indonesian scholars is even more striking. Studies
dealing with leading Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ other than al-Sink¥l¥ in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries fail to trace their linkages with Middle
Eastern scholars in the period.
Furthermore, where the scholarly networks are actually mentioned, dis-
cussion centres on the ‘organisational’ aspect of the networks, namely, the
nature of the relationships that existed between scholars in centres of
Islamic 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 the
kinds of ideas and teachings transmitted through such scholarly networks.
This book will seek to answer the following questions: (i) How did the
networks of Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ come into
being? What were the nature and characteristics of the networks? What
were the teachings or intellectual tendencies developed in the networks?
INTRODUCTION 5
(ii) What was the role of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ in the transmission of

the intellectual contents of the networks to the archipelago? What were the
modes of transmission? (iii) What was the larger impact of the networks on
the 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, with
particular reference to Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ and their intellectual
tendencies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the first treatment
of the role of such networks in the transmission of Islamic renewal and
reform to the archipelago; and a pioneering study of the origins of early
Islamic renewal and reform in the Malay-Indonesian world.
SCOPE OF DISCUSSION
To present an accurate and comprehensive account of the scholarly
networks and their role in the transmission of Islamic renewal and reform
to the archipelago, this study is divided into seven chapters which, in turn,
consist of several sections. Within each chapter, several topics will be
explored and a conclusion drawn at the close of each section.
Chapter 1 examines the rise of the international scholarly networks in the
îaramayn. The discussion centres first on how the political and economic
situation affected pilgrimage and the world of learning in Mecca and
Medina. Then follows an examination of a number of ‘ulam’ who consti-
tuted the core of scholarly networks in the seventeenth century; particular
attention is given to the nature of their relationships in the networks.
Chapter 2 deals with a discussion of ‘neo-Sufism’ and of how its
characteristics 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 the
leading precursors of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ in seventeenth century
scholarly networks, namely al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥. Special
attention is given to their connections with leading scholars in the networks
in the Middle East, and to how teachings spread in the archipelago related
to Islamic renewalism and reformism in the centres.
Chapter 6 constitutes a final discussion of a number of Malay-Indonesian
‘ulam’ who were involved in the scholarly networks in the eighteenth
century. The chapter begins with a discussion of the origins and date of
Islamic renewalism in the archipelago. Discussion is then focused on the
biographies of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ and some of their teachers in the
îaramayn and Cairo. The chapter continues with a discussion of their
teachings and of how they translated Islamic reformism in the Malay-
Indonesian world.
Finally, in chapter 7, we look forward to the nineteenth century and the
networks in the face of the European challenge.
NOTES ON SOURCES
This study is the first to use Arabic sources extensively in any discussion
relating to the history of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. The Arabic
biographical dictionaries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most
of which have by now been printed,7 are goldmines of information on
teachers of the Malay-Indonesion students involved in the networks, and
on scholarly discourse in the Middle East, particularly in the îaramayn
and Cairo.
It is striking that most of these biographical dictionaries have not been
utilised earlier for examining, for instance, the world of learning in the
îaramayn. It is not surprising therefore that, unlike other centres of Islamic
learning in the Middle East such as Baghdad, Cairo or even Nishapur,
which have been studied a great deal, those of the îaramayn have only
received scanty treatment. These biographical dictionaries have proven
essential to an accurate account of the institutions of Islamic learning, such
as the Holy Mosques, madrasahs and ribs in the îaramayn.
Malay-Indonesian texts, either written by ‘ulam’ discussed in this study
or by modern scholars, in many cases do provide the names of the teachers
of Malay-Indonesian students in the îaramayn. Contemporaneous Arabic
biographical dictionaries are used to trace not only the scholarly careers of
these teachers but more importantly their connections with one another. By
using these Arabic biographical dictionaries we are now on firm ground in
speaking about the existence of the scholarly networks between Malay-
Indonesian and Middle Eastern ‘ulam’.
Furthermore, these biographical dictionaries in some instances show
evidence of intense contacts between Malay-Indonesian students and their
Middle Eastern teachers. The Faw’id al-Irtiúl of al-Hamaw¥, for
instance, provides vivid accounts of intellectual and religious confusion
among Malay-Indonesian Muslims because of their misunderstanding of
Islamic mysticism and of the reactions of such outstanding scholars as
al-K´rn¥ to this. Al-Muúibb¥’s Khul§at al-Athar and al-Murd¥’s Silk al-
Durar inform us of several leading îaramayn scholars who wrote special
works 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 biographical
dictionaries. The first, who was given a respected place in this genre of
Arabic literature, is ‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥, discussed in chapter 6.
His Yemeni student, Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Ahdal, includes the biography of
al-Palimbn¥ in his al-Nafs al-Yaman¥ wa al-R´ú al-Rayún¥. Later,
al-Palimbn¥’s biography is reproduced by al-Bayr in his îilyat al-
Bashar f¥ Tr¥kh al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar.
Arabic biographical dictionaries are thus an indispensable source for the
study of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ who studied or established their careers
in the îaramayn. A cursory observation of Arabic biographical dictionaries
INTRODUCTION 7
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries gives even more striking evidence
of the involvement of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the scholarly networks
of this period. A substantial number of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ also make
their appearance.8
1
Networks of the ‘Ulam’ in the
Seventeenth Century îaramayn
Mecca and Medina (the îaramayn, the two îarams, forbidden sanctuar-
ies) occupy a special position in Islam and the life of Muslims. The twin
îarams are the places where Islam was revealed to the Prophet
Muhammad and initially developed. Mecca is the qiblah towards which
the believers turn their faces in their §alhs (prayers) and the holy city
where they make the úajj pilgrimage. With all their religious importance,
it is not surprising that some special qualities and merits (faè’il) have
been attributed to both Mecca and Medina.
The combination between the faè’il of Mecca and Medina, and the
injunction of the Qur’n and the úad¥th to the Muslims to search for
knowledge (alab al-’ilm), undoubtedly raised the value of the knowledge
acquired in the two cities in the eyes of many believers. As a consequence,
the scholars who taught and studied in the îaramayn enjoyed a more
esteemed position in Muslim societies, particularly those of the Malay-
Indonesian world, than their counterparts who underwent a similar
experience in the other centres of Islamic learning.
Furthermore, with the coming and going of countless pilgrims every
year, Mecca and Medina became the largest gathering point of Muslims
from all over the globe, the intellectual hub of the Muslim world, where
‘ulam’, §´f¥s, rulers, philosophers, poets and historians met and exchanged
information. This is why scholars and students who taught and studied in
Mecca and Medina were generally more cosmopolitan in their religious
outlook than their counterparts in other Muslim cities. Such an experience
for the seeker of ‘ilm (knowledge) in the îaramayn not only emphasised
universal traits common to all Muslims but moulded them into a formula-
tion for their self-definition vis-à-vis both the larger scholarly community
of the Muslim world and their much smaller ones.
The emergence of networks of the ‘ulam’, which included a substantial
number of non-Middle Eastern scholars in Mecca and Medina, was not
8
NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 9
independent of other developments in the îaramayn and the Muslim soci-

eties as a whole. Their rise can be attributed to several important factors
which were not only religious but also economic, social and political,
working at the regional level in a given Muslim society and at the level of
the larger Muslim world.
For instance, contacts and relations between Malay-Indonesian Muslims
and the Middle East began to gain momentum with the flowering of
Muslim kingdoms in the archipelago in the late sixteenth century. The
intensification of their participation in the trade of the Indian Ocean
brought them into closer contact not only with Muslim traders but also with
political authorities in the Middle East. The increasing presence of Euro-
peans, particularly the Portuguese, was also an important factor that pushed
their relations much further into the politico-diplomatic realm. The
intensification of these relations contributed significantly to the growth of
the Malay-Indonesian pilgrimage to the îaramayn, which in turn spurred
the pilgrims’ involvement in the scholarly networks.
The growth of the international networks of the ‘ulam’ in the
îaramayn, particularly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, should
therefore be viewed not only from a wider perspective but through
the longer span of historical discourse between Muslim societies of both the
Middle East and the Indian Ocean region.
SCHOLARLY DISCOURSES IN THE îARAMAYN: EARLY

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM’
The tradition of learning among the ‘ulam’ throughout Islamic history has
been closely associated with religious and educational institutions such as
mosques, madrasahs, ribs, and even the houses of the teachers. This is
particularly evident in the îaramayn, where the tradition of learning
created a vast network of scholars, transcending geographical boundaries as
well as differences in religious outlook. In this chapter we discuss how
networks of the ‘ulam’ developed surrounding these institutions, and how
leading scholars in the îaramayn, through their traditions of learning,
created links that connected them with each other as well as with earlier and
later scholars.
There is no doubt that the two great mosques in Mecca and Medina were
the most important loci of scholars involved in the networks from the last
decades of the fifteenth century onwards. Despite the fact that the number
of madrasahs and ribs continually increased after the the first and second
madrasahs in Mecca were built in 571/1175 and 579/1183 respectively, the
îarm Mosques continued to be the most important centres for the process
of learning. The madrasahs and ribs by no means replaced the two great
mosques so far as the process of learning was concerned. However, they
became vital complements to the scholarly world in the Holy Land.
Before we go any further, it seems important to note that the madrasahs
10
were organised in a more formal way. They had their officially appointed
heads of madrasahs, teachers, qè¥s (judges) and other functionaries.
Furthermore, they each had their own curriculum, and even a certain quota
of students, as well as an exact allocation of the time of study according to
their madhhab. This is particularly true in the case of madrasahs, which
consisted of four divisions of Sunn¥ legal madhhabs. The Madrasah
al-Ghiythiyyah, for instance, had a quota of 20 students for each madhhab.
The Shfi’¥ and îanaf¥ students had their classes in the morning, while the
Mlik¥ and îanbal¥ students had theirs in the afternoon.1 Similar arrange-
ments applied at the Sulaymniyyah madrasahs.2 It is also clear from our
sources that these madrasahs were mainly devoted to teaching basic and
intermediate levels of various Islamic disciplines. With all their formality,
the madrasahs had few opportunities to bring their students to higher levels
of Islamic learning.
However, such a disadvantage, which resulted from the nature of the
îaramayn madrasahs, was soon filled by the ribs, and more importantly
by the two great mosques. Those who aspired to seek advanced learning, as
a rule, joined the úalqahs in the îarm Mosques, or the ribs, and in many
cases they also studied privately in teachers’ houses. As can be expected,
there was little formality in such halqahs. Personal relationships were
formed and became the ties that connected them to each other. Teachers
were well acquainted personally with each of their students; they thus recog-
nised the special needs and talents of each student, and they attempted to
meet 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 khal¥fah (successor or
deputy) of their ar¥qahs.
Al-Fs¥ relates many examples of teachers in the îarm Mosque in
Mecca who were authorised to teach privately not only advanced students
but also rulers and traders intending to pursue special Islamic disciplines.
Among them was ‘Ali b. Aúmad al-Fuwwiy¥ (d. 781/1389), who was
authorised to teach a ruler of Shirz, Shh Shuj’ b. Muúammad al-Yazd¥,
about the úad¥th of the Prophet. So satisfied was he with the way al-
Fuwwiy¥ taught him that the ruler granted 200 mithql of gold, a portion
of which was spent on building a rib.3 Similarly, when Bash¥r al-Jumdar
al-N§ir¥, a Maml´k ruler in Egypt, wished to study various Islamic disci-
plines in Mecca, several qè¥s were assigned to teach him. The most
important among them was Qè¥ al-Quèh Muúammad Jaml al-D¥n
üah¥rah (d. 817/1414).4 Another scholar, Muúammad ëiy’ al-D¥n al-
Hind¥ (d. 780/1378), and his son, Muúammad b. ëiy’ al-D¥n al-êghn¥
(d. 825/1422), were also appointed to teach îanbal¥ fiqh to several
members of the Egyptian Maml´k ruling dynasty.5
Furthermore, scholars who taught in the îarm Mosques were often
asked to answer questions coming from many parts of the Muslim world.
As a rule, they held special majlis (sessions), discussing these matters. In

many instances they issued written fatws, but it was also not unusual for
them to write special books, which attempted to answer the questions in
detail. Al-Fs¥ again relates the story of Jaml al-D¥n al-üah¥rah, one of his
teachers, who received hundreds of questions from various parts of the
Middle East.6 Such an important role played by the scholars in the îarm-
Mosques vis-à-vis many believers becomes a distinctive feature in the later
periods, when the scholarly networks increasingly gained momentum. As
we shall see, several leading scholars in seventeenth century îaramayn
wrote about, and discussed, certain religious issues that arose among Indian
and Malay-Indonesian Muslims. For example, at the end of the seventeenth
century the Chief Qè¥ of Mecca issued a fatw on the deposition of
Sulnah Kamlat Shh (of the Acehnese Sultanate) stating that, in his
opinion, an Islamic kingdom could not be ruled by a woman.7
One essential question to ask is how scholars who came from many
different places in the Muslim world were able to get teaching positions in
the îaramayn madrasahs and at the îarm Mosque of Mecca and the
Prophet Mosque in Medina. In order to be allowed to teach, a teacher, either
in the madrasah or at the Holy Mosques, was required to have ijzah
(authority), which established the academic credentials of the holder. The
most important credential was the isnd, namely, the chain of authority that
indicated the unbroken teacher-student link in the transmission of certain
books or teachings. The ijzah was issued by a recognised teacher to his
students, generally after they studied with him.8 However, there were a few
cases, as we see later, showing that the ijzah might also be issued through
relatively short meetings and even through correspondence with teachers.9
The appointment of scholars to teaching positions at the Holy Mosques
in Mecca and Medina was decided by a religious bureaucracy, which was
responsible not only for administration of the Holy Mosques but also for
religious life in the îaramayn as a whole. The highest official in the
bureaucracy was the Qè¥ (judge), often called Qè¥ al-Quèh (Chief
Qè¥), who was in charge of religious laws and of leadership of the four
qè¥s—each of them representing a Sunn¥ legal school. It appears that prior
to the Ottoman period, the Qè¥ al-Quèh also held the office of Muft¥.
Next came the Shaykh al-îaramayn, the two directors of the îarm
Mosque in Mecca and Medina. In each city there was a Shaykh al-’Ulam’
(chief of scholars), who oversaw all scholars.10
We have no information as to when such a religious bureaucracy was
instituted, but it is clear that it was already well established from at least the
fifteenth century onwards. When the Ottomans rose to power in the îijz
that structure was largely maintained. Although the holders of most of the
posts needed to be confirmed by the Ottoman authorities, the îaramayn
scholars were relatively free to choose those who would fill these positions.
There was a tendency, however, for those positions to be dominated by
scholars belonging to certain families.
12
This is demonstrated in the careers of many ‘ulam’ in the îaramayn.

For instance, Jaml al-D¥n al-üah¥rah, the Qè¥ of Quèh, mentioned
above, was succeeded to the position by his son Aúmad b. Muúammad
al-üah¥rah in the early fifteenth century.11 Similarly, the historian al-Fs¥—
whose father, Aúmad (d. 819/1416), happened to be related by marriage to
the Chief Qè¥ of Mecca, Muúammad b. Aúmad b. ‘Abd al-’Az¥z
al-Nuwayr¥—was appointed the Mlik¥ Qè¥ of Mecca in 807/1405 with a
letter of investiture from al-Malik al-N§ir Faraj b. Barq´q, a Maml´k ruler
in Cairo.12 An important scholar in the networks, Muúammad b. ‘Abd
al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥, who migrated to the îaramayn in the second half of
the seventeenth century, led scholars of the Barzanj¥ family to prominence
in Mecca; three members of this family dominated the office of the Shfi’¥
Mufti after 1269/1852.13 ‘Abd al-îaf¥½ al-’Ajam¥ (or Ujaym¥) became a
mufti of Mecca after îasan b. ‘Al¥ al-’Ajam¥, a prominent scholar in the
networks, established the fame of the ‘Ajam¥ family towards the end of the
seventeenth century.14
It was the Shaykh al-’Ulam’, the Qè¥ al-Quèh, Shaykh al-îaramayn
and four qè¥s of the four madhhabs who collectively made decisions on the
appointment of scholars to teaching positions in the îarm Mosques. Once
or twice a year they sat together to examine candidates for future teachers.
The candidates, as a rule, were longtime students of the mosques and were
well acquainted with senior teachers. The examiners, in addition to checking
the ijzah of the candidates, posed a number of questions concerning various
branches of Islamic discipline. If the candidates were able to answer all
questions satisfactorily, they were issued ijzah, or permission to teach in
the Holy Mosques. The names of these new teachers were made public, and
students were able to begin their studies with them.15
Our sources make no mention of the number of teachers in the îarm
Mosques in the period under discussion. An Ottoman report for the year
1303/1884-5, however, mentioned that there were 270 teachers in that year.
Snouck Hurgronje considers this number unreliable, ‘for many of those
men are named professors because the Governor [Ottoman] wished to favor
them with a salary from a fund destined for the advancement of science’.l6
Thus, Snouck believes that the total number of actual teachers was only
between 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 given
time during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was between 100 and
200. If this number is added to teachers who taught only in the madrasahs
and visiting teachers, then the total number of teachers in the îaramayn
was clearly quite large.
PERSONAGE AND LINKAGES IN THE NETWORKS

There is little doubt that some of the scholars mentioned above, in one way
or another, had connections with each other. What is important is that
several leading scholars of that period had links to the core of scholarly
networks in the seventeenth century. We have noted that al-Fs¥, for
instance, was a student and good friend of Ibn îajar al-’Asqaln¥ and
Shihb al-D¥n al-Raml¥, two great muúaddiths who lived in Egypt. Simi-
larly, al-Nahrawl¥, a leading scholar in the sixteenth century îaramayn,
had extensive connections not only with earlier scholars, such as Ibn îajar
al-’Asqaln¥, but also with those of the seventeenth century, such as
Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥. Almost all scholars who constitute the core of seven-
teenth century networks of the ‘ulam’ could trace their úad¥th isnd and
ar¥qah silsilah to these scholars. The nature of their connections will
become clearer as we proceed with this discussion.
The scholarly networks in the seventeenth century had cosmopolitan
origins. There were at least two non-îijz¥ scholars who appear to have
contributed largely to the growth of the networks in this century: the first
was Indian by birth and Persian (Isfahan) by origin, Sayyid êibghat Allh
b. R´ú Allh Jaml al-Barwaj¥ (some spell it al-Bar´j¥ or the modern
Barauch in Gujarat), and the second was an Egyptian named Aúmad b. ‘Al¥
b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s al-Shinnw¥ al-Mi§r¥ al-Madan¥. Their relationship
represents a good example of how scholarly interactions resulted both in
exchanges of knowledge and in the transmission of the ‘little’ traditions of
Islam from India and Egypt to the îaramayn (see Chart 1).
Sayyid êibghat Allh (d. in Medina 1015/1606) was undoubtedly a
typical wandering scholar who ended up being a ‘grand immigrant’ in the
îaramayn. Hailing from a Persian immigrant family in India, one of his
famous Indian teachers was Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Gujart¥ (d. 997/1589), a
leading Shariyyah master, who lived in Ahmadabad. For several years
êibghat Allh, under the patronage of the local ruler, taught the Shariyyah
doctrines in the town of his birth. In 999/1591 he travelled to Mecca in order
to make the úajj pilgrimage. After returning to India, he travelled to various
places before staying in Ahmadnagar for one year. Later he moved to
Bijapur, a strong §´f¥ centre in India, where he won the favour of Suln
Ibrh¥m ‘dil Shh, who then made a special arrangement for him to travel
back to the îaramayn in the royal ship during the úajj season of
1005/1596.18
After performing the pilgrimage êibghat Allh decided to settle in
Medina, where he built a house and a rib from the waqf and gifts he
received from the Sulns of Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Ottoman officials
in Medina. êibghat Allh was generally known as a leading Shariyyah
Shaykh; he was regarded as being responsible for introducing
the Jawhir-i Khamsah of the famous Shariyyah shaykh,
Muúammad Ghauth al-Hind¥ (d. 970/1563), and other Shariyyah trea-
tises to îaramayn scholars. However, he also initiated disciples into the
Chishtiyyah, Suhrwardiyyah, Madriyyah, Khalwtiyyah, Hama-
dniyyah, Naqshbandiyyah and Firdausiyyah orders. This is not
surprising, as his teacher, Waj¥h al-D¥n, had also been initiated into all
14
Chart 1 The core of the seventeenth century networks

eight orders.19 In Medina, êibghat Allh was active in teaching at the

Nabaw¥ Mosque; he also wrote several works on Sufism, theology, and a
commentary on the Bayèw¥ Qur’nic exegesis.20
The diversity of êibghat Allh’s most prominent disciples clearly
reflects the cosmopolitan nature of the scholarly discourse in the
îaramayn. Among his disciples were Aúmad al-Shinnw¥, Aúmad al-
Qushsh¥, Sayyid Amjad M¥rz, Sayyid As’ad al-Balkh¥, Ab´ Bakr b.
Aúmad al-Nasf¥ al-Mi§r¥, Ibn ‘Abd Allh b. Wal¥ al-îaèram¥, Muúammad
b. ‘Umar al- îaèram¥, Ibrh¥m al-Hind¥, Muúy al-D¥n al-Mi§r¥, al-Mul
Shaykh b. Ilys al-Kurd¥, Mul Ni½m al-D¥n al-Sind¥, ‘Abd al-A½¥m al-
Makk¥ and îab¥b Allh al-Hind¥.21 His úalqahs were also attended by some
students and pilgrims from the Sultanate of Aceh, who in turn provided
information about Islam in the archipelago.22 It is worth mentioning that
êibghat Allh was also a friend of Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥ al-Hind¥
(d. 1029/1620),23 whose work, entitled al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il Ruú
al-Nab¥,24 had provoked intense discussion at the time.
Two prominent scholars responsible for the spread of êibghat Allh’s
teachings in the îaramayn were Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ and Aúmad
al-Qushsh¥. Born in 975/1567 to a noted scholarly family in Egypt, Aúmad
b. ‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s Ab´ al-Mawhib al-Shinnw¥ acquired his early
education in his own land.25 His grandfather, Muúammad al-Shinnw¥, a
prominent §´f¥ shaykh, was a master of the famous Egyptian §´f¥ ‘Abd
al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥. The latter, in turn, initiated Aúmad al-Shinnw¥’s
father, ‘Al¥ al-Shinnw¥, into the Aúmadiyyah ar¥qah.26 Even though
Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ was from an early age exposed extensively to Sufism,
he had an interest in studying úad¥th. Among his teachers in úad¥th were
two leading Egyptian muúaddiths: the Shfi’¥ muft¥, Shams al-D¥n
al-Raml¥ (d. 1004/1596),27 and Muúammad b. Ab¥ al-îasan al-Bakr¥, who
was also known as a §´f¥.28 Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ travelled to the îaramayn
and took up residence in Medina, where he died in 1028/1619.
There can be no doubt that Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ attained fame in the City
of the Prophet. He established a friendship and studied with êibghat Allh,
who initiated him into the Shariyyah order. His erudition in the
Shariyyah and other orders earned him the title of the al-Bhir
al-$ar¥qah (‘the dazzling light of the §´f¥ order’). With his expertise in úad¥th
and Sufism, he attracted numerous students to his úalqahs. Among his
leading students were Sayyid Slim b. Aúmad Shaykhn¥, Aúmad
al-Qushsh¥ and Sayyid al-Jal¥l Muúammad al-Ghurb¥.
Aúmad al-Shinnw¥’s scholarly connections through úad¥th studies and
ar¥qah were extensive. For instance, he had isnds with earlier scholars
and §´f¥s such as Muúammad üah¥rah al-Makk¥, Qub al-D¥n
al-Nahrawl¥, Ibn îajar al-’Asqaln¥, al-Suy´¥ and Ibn al-’Arab¥.29 He
wrote several works dealing with theology and Sufism; al-Baghdd¥ and
Brockelmann respectively list 16 and five of them.30 One of his works,
16
Tajalliyah al-Ba§’ir îshiyat ‘al Kitb al-Jawhir li al-Ghauth

al-Hind¥, is a commentary on the Kitb al-Jawhir [al-Khamsah] of
Muúammad Ghauth al-Hind¥.
THE EXPANSION OF NETWORKS

How the scholarly networks in the îaramayn developed further can be seen
in the experience of Aúmad al-Qushsh¥. His career demonstrates how the
web of scholars was becoming wider and more pregnant with intellectual
exchange. Undoubtedly he was the most influential among the disciples of
êibghat Allh and Aúmad al-Shinnw¥. In the colophon of one of al-
Qushsh¥’s works, al-Sim al-Maj¥d,31 we are told about the career of this
great scholar. The most complete biography of al-Qushsh¥, however, is
provided by Musaf b. Fatú, Allh al-îamaw¥ al-Makk¥ (d. 1124/1712), a
leading muúaddith and historian in Mecca. Al-îamaw¥ himself was a
student of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, the most prominent and influential disciple of
al-Qushsh¥.32 In his yet unpublished three-volume biographical dictionary
entitled Faw’id al-Irtiúl wa Nat’ij al-Safar f¥ Akhbr Ahl al-Qarn
al-îd¥ ‘Ashar,33 al-îamaw¥ devotes a long account (no fewer than 13
folios—26 pages) to the biography of al-Qushsh¥, which is based mostly
on the recollection of al-K´rn¥.34 Al-K´rn¥ himself includes biographical
notes of his great shaykh towards the end of his al-Umam li ¡q½
al-Himam.35 Al-îamaw¥’s accounts were later condensed by al-Muúibb¥
in his Khul§at al-Athar f¥ A’yn al-Qarn al-îd¥ ‘Ashar.36
êaf¥ al-D¥n Aúmad b. Muúammad Yńus al-Qushsh¥ al-Dajn¥
al-Madan¥ was born in Medina in 991/1538 of a Palestinian family, whose
genealogy traced his ancestors back to Tam¥m al-Dr¥, a prominent
Medinese companion of the Prophet. His grandfather, Yńus al-Qushsh¥,
a §´f¥, decided to take his family back to Medina from Dijana, a village near
Jerusalem. In the City of the Prophet, Shaykh Yńus, who had also been
known as ‘Abd al-Nab¥, earned his living by selling qushsh, second-hand
goods, from which Aúmad got his first laqab (surname or nickname). Our
sources suggest that he took this lowly position in order to retain his
anonymity as a great §´f¥.37
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ acquired his rudimentary religious knowledge
according to the Mlik¥ school of law from his father and Muúammad b.
‘Is al-Tilmisn¥, a renowned ‘lim in Medina. In 1011/1602 his father took
him on a trip to Yemen, where he studied with most of the ‘ulam’ with
whom his father had studied, such as al-Am¥n b. êidd¥q¥ al-Marwú¥,
Sayyid Muúammad Gharb, Aúmad al-Saúah al-Zaila’¥, Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-
Qab’¥ and ‘Al¥ b. Muayr. They stayed in Yemen for some years before
returning to Mecca, where he made the acquaintance of many of its leading
scholars, such as Sayyid Ab¥ al-Ghayth Shajr and Suln al-Majz´b.
Although he spent the rest of his life in Medina, al-Qushsh¥ often visited
Mecca, particularly during the pilgrimage seasons.38 It was in Medina that
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ established his scholarly career. As al-îamaw¥ tells us,

he associated himself with the city’s leading ‘ulam’, exchanging knowl-
edge and information. Among them were Aúmad b. al-Faèl b. ‘Abd
al-Nfi’, Wal¥ ‘Umar b. al-Qub Badr al-D¥n al-’dal¥, Shihb al-D¥n al-
Malk’¥, Sayyid As’ad al-Balkh¥ and, of particular importance, Aúmad
al-Shinnw¥. Al-Shinnw¥ not only taught him úad¥th, fiqh, kalm and other
sciences related to Islamic law and theology, but also initiated him into and
appointed him his khal¥fah of the Shariyyah ar¥qah. The relationship
between these two scholars went beyond the scholarly realm: al-Qushsh¥
married al-Shinnw¥’s daughter.
Despite their very close relationship, al-Qushsh¥ differed from al-
Shinnw¥ in that he maintained his adherence to the Mlik¥ school of law;
only after al-Shinnw¥’s death did he adopt the Shfi’¥ madhhab, the legal
school his father-in-law adhered to. In long accounts of al-Qushsh¥’s
change of madhhab, al-îamaw¥ reports that al-Qushsh¥ adopted the
Shfi’¥ madhhab after he got guidance from the Prophet Muhammad
himself through his reading of the whole Qur’n in one single night. Al-
Qushsh¥ also gives several other valid reasons to change one’s madhhab,39
as we see later. It is evident that Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ was a scholar of
extraordinary erudition and humility. This is confirmed, for instance, by
Ayy´b al-Dimashq¥ al-Khalwat¥ (994-1071/1586-1661), a great §´f¥ (who
was, it is worth mentioning, a teacher of al-Maqassr¥). Ayy´b al-Dimashq¥
points out that he had never met a scholar as learned as al-Qushsh¥.40
Al-Qushsh¥ was also a prolific author. The number of his works is listed
as 16 by al-Baghdd¥,41 as 19 by Brockelmann42 and more than 50 by other
sources.43 These works deal with ta§awwuf, úad¥th, fiqh, u§´l fiqh, and
tafs¥r. Only al-Sim al-Maj¥d has been published thus far.
Although al-Qushsh¥ is generally known as a shaykh of the
Shariyyah ar¥qah, he was actually affiliated with almost a dozen other
§´f¥ orders. It must be admitted, however, that he was particularly instru-
mental in the transmission of the Shariyyah ar¥qah, through his
students, to many different parts of the Muslim world. According to al-
îamaw¥, his principal disciples were no fewer than 100; they came from
many regions (aqr) of the world,44 and they constituted crucial links
among scholars in the networks.45 The best known among his disciples
were Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ (1023-1101/1614-1690); ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-
‘Aydar´s (1027-1073/1618-1662), a teacher of B Shaybn, who was a
teacher of al-Rn¥r¥;46 îasan b. ‘Al¥ al-’Ajam¥ (1049-1113/1639-1701);47
Sayyid al-’Allmah al-Wal¥ Barakt al-Tńis¥; Sayyid ‘Abd al-Khliq al-
Hind¥ al-Lh´r¥ (d.1059/1649);48 Sayyid ‘Abd al-Raúmn [al-Maúj´b]
al-Maghrib¥ al-Idr¥s¥ (1023-1085/1614-1674);49 ‘Is b. Muúammad al-
Maghrib¥ al-Ja’far¥ al-Makk¥ (1020-1080/1611-1669);50 Miúnn b. ‘Awd
B Mazr´’; Sayyid ‘Abd Allh B Faq¥h, Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥
(d. 1072/1662) and a number of other leading Yemeni scholars, especially
18
those of the ‘Alaw¥ and Ja’mn families;51 Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l

al-Barzanj¥ al-Kurd¥ (1040-1103/1630-1692);52 and al-Sink¥l¥ and al-
Maqassr¥. Al-Qushsh¥ died in Medina in 1071/1661.
Our scholarly networks gained strong impetus when Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥,
the most celebrated student of Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, established his career in
Medina after travelling in quest of Islamic sciences in various places in the
Middle East. The fact that Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ occupied a position of extra-
ordinary importance in the further development of the scholarly networks
is shown by the large number of his students and his vast connections, but
more importantly by his numerous works. He was the common starting
point for the lines of linkage of many scholars in the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries. Being a scholar of intellectual distinction, al-K´rn¥ made
a substantial contribution to the further growth of the intellectual currents
developed by al-Shinnw¥ and al-Qushsh¥.
By all accounts, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ was a great scholar. Al-Murd¥ calls
him ‘a mountain among mountains of ‘ilm and a sea among seas of ‘irfn
(spiritual knowledge)’.53 A prominent nineteenth century scholar, Ab¥
$ayyib Muúammad Shams al-îaq al-’A½¥mbd¥ (born 1273/1857), a noted
Indian muúaddith, has singled out al-K´rn¥ as the reformer (mujaddid) of
the eleventh century AH/seventeenth century CE.54 Discussing extensively
the úad¥th which states that ‘God sends to this community (ummah) at the
“head” [ra’s] of each century one who regenerates its religion for it’, al-
’A½¥mbd¥ gives a list of Muslim scholars who have been considered as the
mujaddids of Islamic beliefs and practices at the end of each hundred years
of the Hijrah. It is important to note that for the ninth century AH/fifteenth
century CE mujaddid, al-’A½¥mbd¥ states a preference for Jall al-D¥n al-
Suy´¥ (d. 911/1505) over Zakariyy al-An§r¥ (d. 926/1520), who had been
chosen by other scholars.55 Despite this difference in preferences, the two
great muúaddiths were recognised by the leading exponents of the networks
as their intellectual and spiritual precursors.
As for the mujaddid of the tenth century AH/sixteenth century CE,
al-’A½¥mbd¥ follows al-Muúibb¥,56 who chose Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥, the
great Egyptian muúaddith, who was a teacher of Aúmad al-Shinnw¥. In the
twelfth century AH/eighteenth century CE, according to al-’A½¥mbd¥,
there were two mujaddids: the first was the great lexicographer, theologian
and historian Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ (d. 1205/1791), and the second was the
West African muúaddith who settled in Medina, êliú b. Muúammad al-
Fulln¥ (d. 1218/1803-1804). These two scholars were among the most
prominent personages in the international networks of ‘ulam’ in the eigh-
teenth century.
Why is Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ chosen as the mujaddid of the eleventh century
of the Islamic calendar? According to al-Kattn¥, al-K´rn¥ was a Shaykh
al-Islam and a teacher of the scholarly world, who was a ‘proof of Sufism’
(úujjat al-§´fiyyah) and a reviver of the Sunn¥ mystical tradition. Further-
more, he was one of the scholars most responsible in Islamic history for
spreading the science of úad¥th studies, úad¥th narration and its isnds in
the Muslim world.57 Al-Zarkal¥ credits al-K´rn¥ with being a leading
mujtahid among the Shfi’¥ fuqah’ and muúaddiths.58
Burhn al-D¥n Ibrh¥m b. îasan b. Shihb al-D¥n al-K´rn¥ al-
Shahraz´r¥ al-Shahrn¥ al-Kurd¥, later also al-Madan¥, was born in Shahr¥n,
a village in the mountainous region of Kurdistan close to the borders of
Persia.59 Our sources provide no account of his background. Al-K´rn¥
initially studied Arabic, kalm (‘theology’), maniq (logic) and philosophy
and, curiously enough, also handasah (‘engineering’) in his own region
(qur). Thus, in his early studies, he had already explored various sophisti-
cated subjects, but he seems to have had a special interest in languages. He
pursued rather detailed studies of Arabic, such as ma’ni and bayn and at
the same time studied Persian and Turkish. He later concentrated on u§´l
fiqh, fiqh, úad¥th and ta§awwuf, mainly under the guidance of al-Mul
Muúammad Shar¥f al-K´rn¥ al-êidd¥q¥ (d. 1078/1667).60
After the death of his father, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ left for Mecca to
perform the úajj pilgrimage. The younger brother who travelled with him
became gravely ill, which instead caused him to go to Baghdad. He
remained there for a year and a half and took this opportunity to advance
his knowledge of Arabic and Persian as well as to observe more closely
the practice of the Qdiriyyah ar¥qah. Al-K´rn¥ met ‘Abd al-Qdir al-
Jayln¥ in one of his dreams. He was going westward, and al-K´rn¥
followed him to Damascus, where he lived for the next four years. During
this period he became increasingly interested in mystical doctrines, partic-
ularly in that of Ibn ‘Arab¥ (562-638/1165-1240). His main teacher in
Sufism was Muúammad b. Muúammad al-’Amir¥ al-Ghaz¥. But, as he told
al-îamaw¥, it was al-Qushsh¥, whom he met later in Medina, who was
mostly responsible for instilling understanding in him of the intricate
mystico-philosophical doctrine of Ibn ‘Arab¥.61
Despite his growing fascination with Sufism, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ did not
put aside his genuine interest in úad¥th. For that reason, he travelled to Egypt
in 1061/1650, where he studied úad¥th with its great muúaddiths, such as
Muúammad ‘Al’ al-D¥n Shams al-D¥n al-Bbil¥ al-Qhir¥ al-Azhar¥ (1000-
1077/1592-1666),62 Aúmad Shihb al-D¥n al-Khafj¥ al-îanaf¥ al-Ma§r¥
(d. 1069/1659)63 and Shaykh Suln b. Aúmad b. Salmah b. Ism’il al-
Mazzú¥ al-Qhir¥ al-Azhar¥ (987-1075/1577-1644).64 As al-K´rn¥ tells us
in his al-Umam li ¡q½ al-Himam, these scholars issued him ijzahs to teach
úad¥th, after he had studied with them not only the standard books on the
subject, such as the Kutub al-Sittah (six canonical books of the Tradition of
the Prophet), but also a great number of lesser-known úad¥th books. They
connected him with many leading Egyptian isnds, including Shams al-D¥n
al-Raml¥ and Zakariyy al-An§r¥.65 It is important to note that al-K´rn¥
was also linked to the Egyptian isnds by way of al-Qushsh¥, who received
them from al-Shinnw¥, who in turn got them from his teacher, Shams
20
al-D¥n al-Raml¥. In addition to úad¥th, he studied tafs¥r (until 1087/1677)

with the Azhar Imm, N´r al-D¥n ‘Al¥ al-Shabrmalis¥, and ‘Abd al-Raúmn
Shihdha al-Yaman¥.66
In 1062/1651 Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ returned to Mecca and then proceeded to
Medina, where he attended the úalqahs of al-Qushsh¥ and ‘Abd al-Kar¥m
b. Ab¥ Bakr al-K´rn¥, among others. He was also appointed by al-Qushsh¥
as his khal¥fah in the Shariyyah order. Despite this, al-K´rn¥ was better
known as a shaykh of the Naqshbandiyyah order. Later he taught in the
Nabaw¥ Mosque at the site where êibghat Allh, Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ and
Aúmad al-Balkh¥ had taught. Al-K´rn¥, as al-îamaw¥ tells us, devoted his
úalqahs to teaching úad¥th, fiqh, tafs¥r, and ta§awwuf. The books he used in
his úalqahs were, among others, the Kutub al-Sittah, and standard works by
such scholars as al-Suy´¥, al-Ghazl¥ and Ibn ‘Arab¥.67
Because of his intellectual distinction and personality, al-K´rn¥
attracted scholars and students from distant parts of the Muslim world to
attend his úalqahs or majlis to study and learn from him. As a friend and a
teacher he was extraordinarily humble. He loved to intermingle with his
students. Furthermore, instead of simply swamping them with all the neces-
sary sciences, he preferred to discuss them. To be present in his majlis was
like, as al-îamaw¥ puts it, being in ‘one of the gardens of paradise’
(rawèah min riyè al-jannah).68
Our sources do not tell us the exact number of al-K´rn¥’s students. But
al-Kattn¥ points out that practically all seekers after ‘ilm during his time in
the îaramayn were his students. Therefore, his networks were enormously
extensive.69 The best known among his disciples were Ibn ‘Abd al-Ras´l
al-Barzanj¥, Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ (1044-1130/1639-1701),70 Muúammad ‘Abd
al-Hd¥ al-Sind¥ or Ab´ al-îasan al-Sind¥ al-Kab¥r (d. 1138/1726),71 ‘Abd
Allh b. Sa’d Allh al-Lh´r¥ (d. in Medina in 1083/1673),72 ‘Abd Allh
al-Ba§r¥ (1048-1134/1638-1722),73 Ab´ $hir b. Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥
(1081–1145/1670–1732),74 ‘Al¥ al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥ (d. 1072/1662),75
Isúq b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn al-Yamn¥ (d. 1096/1685),76 al-Sink¥l¥
1024–1105/1615–93) and al-Maqassr¥ (1037–1111/1627–99).
Al-K´rn¥ wrote prolifically which added to his intellectual importance
in the networks. He is said to have written at least 100 works;77 al-Baghdd¥
provides 49 titles,78 while Brockelmann lists 42 of them.79 Most of his texts
deal with úad¥th, fiqh, tawú¥d (and kalm), tafs¥r and ta§awwuf. 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 in
particular 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 does
not mean that those of Mecca were not important. Before discussing the
networks in Mecca, it should be remembered that even though all the great
scholars mentioned earlier had settled and taught in Medina, they regularly
visited Mecca. During these visits they made contact with other scholars
and taught students as well. We should not underestimate the significance

of such contacts in the scholarly networks: they were an important means
of exchanging information on various issues and, more importantly, of
linking scholars. And for students like al-Sink¥l¥, contacts with a number of
great ‘ulam’ in the networks significantly contributed to their learning. A
great scholar of enormous importance in connecting scholars both in Mecca
and Medina with Egyptian úad¥th scholarship was Muúammad b. ‘Al’ al-
D¥n al-Bbil¥ al-Qhir¥ al-Azhar¥ (d. 1077/1666). He was a disciple of
Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥, Ab´ Bakr al-Shinnw¥, and a number of other
leading Egyptian scholars.81 Both Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥ and al-Bbil¥
have been mentioned as teachers of Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ and al-K´rn¥
respectively. He was acclaimed as a superior isnd and as one of the most
reliable memorisers of the úad¥ths (al-úfi½). He was even compared to the
úfi½ Ibn úajar al-’Asqaln¥. Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥, another úfi½ of úad¥ths,
maintains that there were no other great úfi½s except al-Bbil¥ after the
death of the úfi½ and historian al-Sakhw¥ in 902/1497. As a testimony to
al-Bbil¥’s eminent position in úad¥th studies, Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ wrote two
works, entitled al-Murabb¥ al-Kamil¥ f¥ man raw ‘an al-Bbil¥ and al-Fajr
al-Bbil¥ f¥ Tarjamat al-Bbil¥.82
Hailed as a major muúaddith in the seventeenth century, ‘Al’ al-D¥n
al-Bbil¥ travelled to various cities in Arabia and thus had extensive
networks of colleagues and disciples.83 Later, he mostly lived in his home
town, Bbil, and held a teaching post in the êalhiyyah Madrasah until
his death. But he regularly visited the îaramayn, where he performed the
úajj and stayed for a while to establish contact with prominent scholars
there as well as to teach. The best known among his students were in
Mecca, Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ and îasan al-’Ajam¥ and, in Medina, al-K´rn¥.
Al-Sink¥l¥ tells us that he also came into contact with this eminent scholar.
Al-Bbil¥ was a very dedicated teacher, who preferred to meet students in
person rather than by way of writing. Although he actually discouraged
writing, he wrote a work entitled al-Jiúd wa Faè’ilih.84
Another great scholar who played a remarkable role in connecting the
scholarly networks in Mecca, this time with the Indian tradition of Sufism,
was Tj al-D¥n b. Zakariyy b. Suln al-’Uthmn¥ al-Naqshband¥ al-Hind¥
(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
Muúammad Bq¥ bi Allh (971-1012/1563-1603).85
In Mecca, Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥ succeeded in initiating a number of promi-
nent îaramayn scholars into the Naqshbandiyyah ar¥qah, the most
prominent being Aúmad b. Ibrh¥m b. ‘Aln (d. 1033/1624), a noted Meccan
§´f¥ and muúaddith, and Aúmad al-Nakhl¥. These two disciples largely
helped the Naqshbandiyyah become more commendable to the Arabs.
Thanks to Ibn ‘Alan’s prestige and influence in the îaramayn, Tj al-D¥n al-
Hind¥’s translation of Persian Naqshbandiyyah texts into Arabic could win
22
a much wider audience.86 As for al-Nakhl¥, who was also known as a

muúaddith, such a connection helped not only to bring about the Naqsh-
bandiyyah reorientation but to link the community of úad¥th scholars to the
§´f¥s. He had also silsilahs of the Naqshbandiyyah and Shariyyah from
Sayyid M¥r Kall b. Maúm´d al-Balkh¥, connecting him to êibghat Allh.87
Scholars from the Maghrib region played a substantial role in the
networks. Like the Egyptian scholars mentioned earlier, they were respon-
sible for introducing the North African tradition of úad¥th studies and thus
for strengthening the intellectual trends of returning to a more shar¥’ah-
oriented Islam. There were two prominent Maghrib¥ scholars whose names
have been mentioned in passing: ‘Is b. Muúammad al-Maghrib¥ al-Ja’far¥
al-Tha’lib¥ al-Maghrib¥ (1020-80/1611-69), and Muúammad b. Sulaymn
al-Raddn¥ al-Maghrib¥ al-Makk¥ (1037-94/1626-83). By settling down in
Mecca, they not only brought the North African tradition of úad¥th schol-
arship to the îaramayn but also helped create more linkages among
scholars from many regions of the Muslim world. Considering their impor-
tant roles in the scholarly networks, we will now examine them briefly.
‘Is al-Maghrib¥, later also al-Makk¥, traced his ancestors to Ja’far b. Ab¥
$lib, a cousin of the Prophet Muhammad. He spent most of his early years
studying with local ‘ulam’ in his home town in the al-Jazir¥ region.88 Of
all branches of Islamic science, he was particularly interested in fiqh and
úad¥th. For this reason he first travelled to Algiers, where he studied úad¥th
and other Islamic religious sciences, mostly with its Muft¥, Sa’¥d b. Ibrh¥m
Qadd´rah. After continuing his studies in Tunis and other places in this
region, he went for a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1062/1652. After the pilgrim-
age he extended his sojourn for one year at the Dw´diyyah rib, where
he taught úad¥th and fiqh. Again he went travelling, this time to Cairo,
where he attended úalqahs of great Egyptian ‘ulam’ such as Qè¥ Aúmad
al-Shihb al-Khafj¥, Suln al-Mazzú¥ and N´r ‘Al¥ al-Shabrmalis¥—all
of whom were also teachers of al-K´rn¥.
Having gained from these ijzah to teach and to relate úad¥th, ‘Is
al-Maghrib¥ returned to Mecca. In the Holy City he exchanged knowledge
and studied with prominent îaramayn scholars, such as Tj al-D¥n
b. Ya’q´b al-Mlik¥ al-Makk¥ (d. 1066/1656),89 Zayn al-’bid¥n al-
$abar¥ (1002– 78/1594–1667),90 ‘Abd al-Az¥z al-Zamzam¥ (997–1072/
1589–1662)91 and ‘Al¥ al-Jaml al-Makk¥ (1002-72/1594-1661).92 All of
these scholars also authorised him to úad¥ths through their isnds, which
mostly began with ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥.
The significance of ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ in the scholarly communities of the
îaramayn cannot be overestimated. He was acclaimed as one of the most
prominent Mlik¥ legal scholars in his time. In the Holy Cities he was
known by the honorary title ‘Imm al-îaramayn’. He taught at the Holy
Mosques in Mecca and Medina. As al-Qann´j¥ tells us, he attracted many
îaramayn students to attend his úalqahs. Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, îasan
al-’Ajam¥ and Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ were among his best-known students.

Al-Sink¥l¥, as we will see later, also established contact with ‘Is
al-Maghrib¥ while he was studying in Mecca. At a certain period every
year, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ taught in Medina, where he had a warm friendship
with Aúmad al-Qushsh¥.93
All biographers of ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ are in accord that he was of great
importance in connecting the tradition of úad¥th studies in the Maghrib
region and Egypt with that of the îaramayn. The scope of his narration
(riwyah) was wide; as al-Kattn¥ puts it, ‘nobody was more learned than
he in these matters during his time’. Because of his extensive travels,
Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ believes that al-Maghrib¥ was a ‘musnad al-duny’
(úad¥th narrator for the world).94 These claims find their support in one of
al-Maghrib¥’s own works, entitled Kanz al-Riwyat al-Majm´’ f¥ Durar al-
Majz wa Yawqit al-Masm´’. This work consists of two volumes and, as
its title indicates, is indeed of the úad¥th narration. In it, al-Maghrib¥ lists
his úad¥th teachers, and more importantly draws a picture of their complex
connections with one another. In addition, he provides the titles of the
books that were produced by scholars involved in these úad¥th networks.95
The Kanz al-Riwyat, therefore, is an important work which sheds more
light on the role of úad¥th narration in the growth of the scholarly
networks.
In terms of his educational background our next scholar, Muúammad
b. Sulaymn al-Raddn¥ al-Maghrib¥, was not so very different from his
countryman, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥. But in contrast to ‘Is al-Maghrib¥, who
preferred to lead a quiet life, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ was an outspoken
scholar; he had a strong tendency to exercise his religious influence in the
political realm. As al-Sib’¥ points out, he was the only scholar in Mecca
who dared to speak out against the abuse of power among the ruling
Shar¥fian family, with their continuous struggles among themselves. He
also attempted to bring about radical changes in the religious life of the
Holy 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, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ travelled to
al-Jazair and Egypt, where he learned from leading ‘ulam’, such as
Shaykh al-Islm Sa’¥d b. Ibrh¥m Qadd´rah, Aúmad al-Khafj¥, ‘Al’ al-
D¥n al-Bbil¥ and Shaykh Suln al-Mazzú¥. These same men, as
mentioned earlier, were also the teachers of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ and ‘Is al-
Maghrib¥. In 1079/1668 Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ travelled to the îaramayn,
where he remained for two years. After long travels to Istanbul and other
cities in Turkey, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, he finally returned to
Mecca. There he built what was known as the Ibn Sulaymn rib.
However, he did not confine his activities to scholarly and religious
matters: he was also occupied with public affairs, which led to open
conflicts with the Shar¥fs of Mecca.97 As a result, he was expelled from
24
Mecca and died in Damascus. We return to Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥’s

activism in the next section.
In addition to his activism, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ was known as a distin-
guished muúaddith with strong links to superior isnds in úad¥th narration.
Among his works, two were devoted to úad¥th studies: Jam’ al-Faw’id f¥ al-
îad¥th, and êilat al-Khalaf bi Maw§´l al-Salaf. In these works the author
described, among other things, his connections with a number of earlier
prominent muúadd¥ths, such as Ibn îajar, and the úad¥th books he studied.98
The biographical accounts of Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ do not explicitly mention
the names of his students in the îaramayn. However, according to al-Muhibb¥
(1061-1111/1651-99), the author of Khul§at al-Athar, who was himself a
student of Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥, the latter had numerous students in the
îaramayn, including Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ and îasan al-‘Ajam¥.99 And, as al-
Kattn¥ shows us, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ had vast connections by way of
úad¥th studies with his contemporaries and later scholars in the networks.100
So far, we have seen that many leading scholars in the seventeenth
century networks were ‘grand immigrants’. This does not mean that native
scholars from the îaramayn did not play an important role in this cosmo-
politan scholarly community. There were in fact a number of native
scholars of Mecca and Medina who took part actively in the networks in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
One of the leading scholars of Meccan origin was Tj al-D¥n b. Aúmad,
better known as Ibn Ya’q´b. He was born in Mecca, where he died in
1066/1656. He studied primarily in Mecca with its leading scholars, such
as ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥, ‘Abd al-Mul´k al-’Asm¥ and Khlid al-Mlik¥,
who issued ijzah for him to teach in the îarm Mosque. Ibn Ya’q´b had
close relationships with scholars involved in the networks, particularly with
‘Is al-Maghrib¥. Similarly, his connections through úad¥th studies were
extensive. Known as an expert on the shar¥’ah, kalm and ta§awwuf, Ibn
Ya’q´b was later appointed to the office of the Qè¥ al-Quèh of Mecca.
In addition to this position, he taught in several madrasahs in Mecca. He
was a prolific writer on various topics from Arabic to Sufism. As we shall
see, one of his works was devoted to answering religious questions from
Malay-Indonesian Muslims.101
Another important scholar of Meccan origin was Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥
(1002-78/1594-1667), a leading scholar of the $abar¥ family in Mecca. This
family traced their ancestors to ‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ $lib. Zayn al-’bid¥n’s principal
teacher was his own father, ‘Abd al-Qdir b. Muúammad b. Yahy al-$abar¥
(976-1033/1568-1624). But it is clear that Zayn al-’bid¥n was also involved
in scholarly discourses with other prominent scholars in the îaramayn. By
virtue of the scholarly reputation of his family, he was able not only to gain a
great deal of benefit from many prominent scholars in the îaramayn but also
to assert his own role and that of the $abar¥ family in the networks. Being a
muúaddith of distinction in Mecca, Zayn al-’bid¥n was a teacher of the next
generation of scholars, including îasan al-’Ajam¥, Aúmad al-Nakhl¥, ‘Abd

Allh al-Ba§r¥ and Ab´ $hir al-K´rn¥.102
It is worth noting that Zayn al-’bid¥n’s father, ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥
(976-1033/1568-1624), was also a major scholar: he was a muúaddith,
whose isnds included great traditionists like Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥,
Zakariyy al-An§r¥ and Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥. He also inherited the
Meccan scholarly tradition from the üah¥rah family, mentioned earlier.
Thus, ‘Abd al-Qdir was a scholar of special importance in connecting the
scholarly networks of an earlier period with those under discussion here.
‘Abd al-Qdir was also a historian of Mecca: several of his numerous
works were devoted to exploring the history of Mecca.103
Another son of ‘Abd al-Qdir, ‘Al¥ (d. 1070/1660), was also a noted
scholar, especially in fiqh. With an expertise in this field he was often asked
to give religious opinions (fatws) on various matters. Like his brother, Zayn
al-’bid¥n, in addition to studying with his father he gained a great deal of
benefit from scholars in the îaramayn. If Zayn al-’bid¥n inherited his
father’s expertise in úad¥th, ‘Al¥ took over his father’s talent as an historian.
Thus, ‘Al¥ wrote several works on the history of Mecca and its notables.104
As we shall see later, ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥ was also one of al-Sink¥l¥’s teachers.
It is obvious that the $abar¥ family played a significant role in scholarly
discourse in the îaramayn. Al-Sib’¥ points out that the three $abar¥
scholars mentioned above revived the reputation of the $abar¥ family as an
old scholarly family in Mecca. A daughter of ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥,
named Sayyidah Mubrakah, was also a noted scholar.105 The $abar¥
family continued to maintain its eminence in subsequent periods. One such
well-known later $abar¥ scholar was Muúammad b. al-Muúibb al-$abar¥
(1100–73/1689– 1760), a faq¥h and an historian.106
The list of scholars involved in the networks in the second half of the
seventeenth 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 in
the networks during the period. We will, however, mention other scholars
of this generation whenever necessary throughout this discussion.
SCHOLARS AT THE TURN OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Most scholars of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥’s generation died in the second half of
the seventeenth century. But the chain of the networks continued with their
students who, in turn, became crucial links to scholars into the eighteenth
century. These students were generally at the peak of their scholarly careers
at 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 prominent
among these scholars (see Chart 2).
There is no doubt that îasan b. ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. ‘Umar al-’Ajam¥
( ) some spell his name al-’Ujaym¥ ( ) al-Makk¥, was one of these
prominent scholars at the turn of the seventeenth century. He was also
26
Chart 2 The core of the eighteenth century networks

known as ‘Ab´ al-Asrr’ (‘father of spiritual mysteries’). Born in Mecca,

îasan al-’Ajam¥ hailed from a noted scholarly family in Egypt. His great
grandfather, Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Maj¥d al-’Ajam¥ (d. 822/1419), was a
well-known scholar in Cairo. îasan al-’Ajam¥ studied with virtually every
leading scholar in the îaramayn. In addition to al-Qushsh¥ and al-K´rn¥,
he studied with prominent scholars such as ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥, ‘Abd
al-Qdir and Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥, ‘Al¥ al-Shabr-
malis¥, Sa’¥d al-Lh´r¥, ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Kh§§ and Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh
Ja’mn. The last two, as we will see later, were also teachers of al-Sink¥l¥.
It is certain that îasan al-’Ajam¥ possessed a thorough knowledge of
various branches of Islamic discipline. He was renowned as an outstanding
faq¥h, muúaddith, §´f¥ and historian. In úad¥th studies, al-Kattn¥ regards
him as one of the few scholars in his time blessed by God to be a ‘light-
house of the úad¥th’. He died in $’if in 1113/1701-2.107
îasan al-‘Ajam¥ played an important role in connecting the scholarly
networks in the seventeenth century with those of the eighteenth century,
particularly by way of úad¥th studies and ar¥qah silsilahs. He was a
meeting point of various traditions of úad¥th studies: Syria, Egypt, the
Maghrib, the îijz, Yemen and the Indian subcontinent. It is not surpris-
ing, as al-Kattn¥ points out, that students in the îaramayn did not feel
satisfied in their úad¥th studies until they had met and received úad¥ths
from him. They flocked to his úalqahs in proximity to the Gate of al-
Wad’ and the Gate of Umm Hn¥’ at the îarm Mosque in Mecca.108 As
a result, al-‘Ajam¥’s isnds and narrations of úad¥th were extensive.109
To demonstrate the importance of the connections in the ar¥qahs, îasan
al-‘Ajam¥ wrote a special work, entitled Rislat al-‘Ajam¥ f¥ al-$uruq, which
deals with the silsilahs of 40 ar¥qahs that existed in the Muslim world up
until his time.110 In this work, in addition to discussing special distinctions of
the teachings of each ar¥qah the author provides the silsilahs to shaykhs of
the ar¥qahs and the benefits of affiliating with them. This is one of the main
reasons why al-‘Ajam¥ was also known as ‘Ab´ al-Asrr’. By virtue of his
works, the Rislat al-‘Ajam¥ f¥ al-$uruq together with the Ihd’ al-La’if
min Akhbr al-$’if, al-‘Ajam¥ established himself as a historian in his own
right.
îasan al-‘Ajam¥’s best known disciples were, among others,
Muúammad îayyt al-Sind¥ (d. 1163/1653), Ab´ $hir b. Ibrh¥m al-
K´rn¥ (1081-1145/1670-1732), Tj al-D¥n al-Qal’¥, Qè¥ of Mecca,111
al-Maqassr¥ and the historian Fatú Allh al-îamw¥. îasan al-‘Ajam¥
built the reputation of the ‘Ajam¥s as a noted scholarly family in Mecca.
Among the most prominent members of the ‘Ajam¥ family in later periods
were ‘Abd al-îaf¥½ al-‘Ajam¥, Muft¥ of Mecca; Muúammad b. îusayn
al-‘Ajam¥; and Ab´ al-Fatú al-‘Ajam¥.112
The next scholar worth mentioning was Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l
al-Barzanj¥. Tracing his ancestors to ‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ $lib, he was born in
28
Shahraz´r, Kurdistan. He acquired his early education in his own region and
later travelled to Iraq, Syria, the îaramayn and Egypt. His teachers in the
îaramayn included al-Mul Muúammad Shar¥f al-K´rn¥, Ibrhim
al-K´rn¥, Isúq b. Ja’mn al-Zab¥d¥, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ and several other
scholars. While he was in Egypt, al-Barzanj¥ studied with, among others,
‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥, N´r al-D¥n al-Shabrmalis¥ and Suln al-Mazzú¥.113
After studying in Egypt, al-Barzanj¥ returned to the îaramayn, and later
settled in Medina, where he died. He was a noted muúaddith, faq¥h and
shaykh of the Qdiriyyah order. He devoted his life to teaching and writing.
He was a prolific writer: al-Baghdd¥ lists 52 of his works, two of which were
devoted to refuting Aúmad Sirhind¥’s claim to be the ‘renewer of the Second
Millennium of Islam’. Al-Barzanj¥’s connections in the networks were far-
reaching.114 Al-Barzanj¥ was the earliest scholar of the Barzanj¥ family to
settle down and become famous in the îaramayn. One of the most prominent
scholars of the Barzanj¥ family in Medina after ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ was
Ja’far b. îasan b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-Barzanj¥ (1103-80/1690-1766), the
Shfi’¥ Muft¥ in Medina and author of the ‘Iqd al-Jawhir, a famous text
relating to the celebration of the birthday of the Prophet.115
Aúmad b. Muúammad b. Aúmad ‘Al¥ al-Nakhl¥ al-Makk¥ was also
evidently one of the most prominent scholars in the networks after the
generation of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥. He was born and studied mostly in Mecca
and became known as a muúaddith-§´f¥.116 In his work entitled Bughyat
al-$lib¥n li Bayn al-Mash’ikh al-Muúaqqiq¥n al-Mu’tamid¥n, al-Nakhl¥
provides a complete list of his teachers, his isnds in various branches of
Islamic discipline, and his silsilah in a number of ar¥qahs.
It is of particular importance that, in the Bughyat al-$lib¥n, al-Nakhl¥ also
gives an account of the learning at the îarm Mosque of Mecca. For
instance, he tells us that he attended lectures held in the halqahs in proximity
to the Gate of Peace (Bb al-Salm). Lectures were given by his teachers
every day after the êubú (dawn), ‘A§r (afternoon), Maghrib (sunset) and
‘Ish’ (night) prayers. It was in the úalqahs that he received some of his
ijzahs in the exterior sciences—such as shar¥’ah or fiqh—and was initiated
into several ar¥qahs: the Shdhiliyyah, Nawawiyyah, Qdiriyyah, Naqsh-
bandiyyah, Shariyyah and Khalwatiyyah. And it was also in the îarm
Mosques that he most of the time practised the dhikr of these ar¥qahs.117
Like al-‘Ajam¥ and al-Barzanj¥, al-Nakhl¥ studied with most of the leading
îaramayn scholars of his time. The list of his masters includes ‘Al’ al-D¥n
al-Bbil¥, al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥,
Muúammad ‘Al¥ b. ‘Aln al-êidd¥q¥, Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥, ‘Abd al-
‘Az¥z al-Zamzam¥ and ‘Al¥ al-Jaml al-Makk¥. Al-Nakhl¥ also had
numerous teachers from Egypt, the Maghrib¥ region, Syria and Iraq. Thus,
as Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ correctly puts it, al-Nakhl¥ linked numerous scholars
by way of his úad¥th studies.118 Likewise, his students came from various
parts of the Muslim world and carried the networks even further.l19
Another important scholar who belonged to the group discussed under
this heading was ‘Abd Allh b. Slim b. Muúammad b. Slim b. ‘Is al-Ba§r¥
al-Makk¥. He was born and died in Mecca. As one can see in al-Ba§r¥’s own
work, Kitb al-Imdd bi Ma’rifah ‘Uluw al-Isnd, his education was
thorough; he studied many sciences, including úad¥th, tafs¥r, fiqh, the
history of the Prophet (sirah), Arabic and ta§awwuf. In the Kitb al-Imdd,
he devotes long pages to providing the titles of úad¥th books he has studied,
along with the isnds to each of them. He goes on to mention books in other
fields. As for ta§awwuf, he studied books written by such scholars as al-
Ghazl¥, al-Qushayr¥, Ibn ‘At’ Allh and Ibn ‘Arab¥.120
Though al-Ba§r¥ was an expert in various branches of Islamic science,
he was mainly known as a great muúaddith; he was called an Am¥r
al-Mu’min¥n f¥ al-îad¥th (‘commander of the believers in the úad¥th’).
Al-Sib’¥ points out that al-Ba§r¥ was one of the greatest úad¥th teachers in
the îarm Mosque in the early eighteenth century.l21 Through the Kitb
al-Imdd he contributed significantly to úad¥th studies by providing the
names of scholars who were included among the superior isnds. But like
other scholars in the networks, al-Ba§r¥ was an eminent §´f¥. He was a
master of several ar¥qahs, such as the Naqshbandiyyah, Shdhiliyyah and
Nawawiyyah. Furthermore, he established the reputation of the Ba§r¥
family in the scholarly discourses in the îaramayn.122
Al-Ba§r¥ played an important role in connecting the earlier generation of
seventeenth century scholars and later networks. This can be seen in the
composition of his teachers and disciples. Besides Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, his
principal teachers included such familiar names as ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥,
‘Is al-Ja’far¥ al-Maghrib¥, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥ and ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥.
Among his disciples were ‘Al’ al-D¥n b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥ al-Zab¥d¥,
Ab´ $hir al-K´rn¥, Muúammad îayyt al-Sind¥ and Muúammad b. ‘Abd
al-Wahhb, all of whom, as we will see shortly, were leading exponents of
the networks in the eighteenth century.123
The last scholar to be dealt with here is Ab´ $hir b. Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥
(1081-1145/1670-1733). Ab´ $hir was born and died in Medina. It
appears that he studied mostly in the îaramayn. His principal teachers
were his father, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥, îasan al-
‘Ajam¥, Ibn ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥, ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥ and Aúmad al-
Nakhl¥. We have no detailed information on his studies with them, but there
is no doubt that his religious learning was thorough.l24
Ab´ $hir was primarily known as a muúaddith, but he was also a faq¥h
and a §´f¥. He was heir to much of his father’s expertise in úad¥th studies.
As a faq¥h, he occupied the post of Shfi’¥ Muft¥ of Medina for some time.
He was a prolific writer as well. According to al-Kattn¥, he wrote about a
hundred treatises, the most important among them being Kanz al-’Amal f¥
Sunan al-Aqwl and Shur´ú al-Fu§´§ l¥ al-Shaykh al-Akbar. This last work
was apparently intended to explicate the doctrine of Ibn ‘Arab¥. It also
reflects Ab´ $hir’s learning in the realm of philosophical mysticism. Ab´
30
$hir had wide connections in the networks, by way of both úad¥th isnds
and ar¥qah silsilahs. Among his best-known students were Muúammad
îayyt al-Sind¥, Shh Wal¥ Allh and Sulaymn al-Kurd¥, all of whom are
examined in greater detail in chapter 2.125
THE NETWORKS: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS

After discussing a number of the most important ‘ulam’ involved in the
networks, it is useful to make some generalisations about the basic charac-
teristics of the networks. The scholarly networks became increasingly
extensive in the seventeenth century. It is clear that there had been some
connections between earlier scholars and the ones who were involved in
seventeenth century scholarly networks. However, networks that developed
during the seventeenth century appear to have been much more compli-
cated; the crisscrossing of linkages by way of both úad¥th studies and
ar¥qah affiliations was enormously complex. Despite the historiographical
problems one finds in sources of information on these scholars and their
networks, their connections to one another can be traced down to our time.
The crisscrossing of scholars who were involved in the networks produced
intertwined, international intellectual communities. Relations among them
generally existed in conjunction with the quest for learning through religious
educational institutions such as the mosques, madrasahs and ribs. The very
basic linkages among them, therefore, were ‘academic’ in their nature. Their
connections 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’; and
student–student relations, all of which could also crisscross each other. Such
forms of linkages were not strictly or formally organised in any kind of hier-
archical structure. The relatively high mobility of both teachers and students
allowed the growth of vast networks of scholars transcending geographical
boundaries, ethnic origins and religious leanings.
Even though the relationships among scholars probably seem quite
informal, especially from the point of view of the modern academic world,
their common interest in regenerating the ummah (Muslim ‘nation’) stimu-
lated cooperation, which in turn resulted in closer interpersonal
relationships. These close personal relationships were maintained in various
ways after scholars or students in the networks returned to their own coun-
tries or travelled elsewhere after their sojourn in the îaramayn. The need to
establish stronger ties with scholars in the centres was increasingly felt
when the returning teachers and students faced problems in their home-
lands, thus needing the guidance of their former teachers and colleagues in
the îaramayn. All this helps to explain the continuing scholarly connec-
tions in the networks.
Furthermore, as we have seen, two important vehicles in solidifying the
linkages of the networks were the úad¥th isnd and ar¥qah silsilah. Voll
has pointed out that both played crucial roles in linking scholars involved
in the networks centred in the îaramayn in the eighteenth century.l26 My
own research for the same period supports this conclusion.
The same was true of the seventeenth century scholarly networks. In this
period, scholars of the networks brought together Egyptian and North
African traditions of úad¥th studies, thus connecting them with those of the
îaramayn, which had been known in the early period of Islam as the
strongest centre of úad¥th scholarship. The scholars in the networks played
a crucial role in reviving the position of Mecca and Medina as centres of
úad¥th scholarship.
As for the ar¥qah silsilahs, traditionally they had been an important
means of creating close linkages between scholars. Disciples of the
mystical way, by definition, must succumb to their master’s will. This
created a very strong bond between those who followed the ar¥qahs.
Voll127 emphasises that this type of relationship ‘provided a more personal
tie 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 (úaq¥qah) in the
îaramayn, introduced for instance by South Asian scholars, resulted in
bringing together scholars, who had mainly been associated with the
exoteric way (shar¥’ah), in an even more personal way. The involvement of
South Asian scholars in the networks certainly helped widen the reach of
the networks. But, not less importantly, they expanded the realm of influ-
ence of ar¥qahs, in particular the Shariyyah and Naqshbandiyyah orders,
previously mostly associated with the Indian subcontinent version of
Sufism, which had been almost unknown in the îaramayn in earlier
periods. But it must be kept in mind that by entering the realm of Mecca and
Medina which now, once again, had become important centres of úad¥th
scholarship, these ar¥qahs, as we elaborate in chapter 2, underwent a sort
of reorientation. In short, they became more ‘shar¥’ah-oriented ar¥qahs’.
One should also be aware that, despite their close relations, there was a
great deal of diversity among scholars involved in the networks. They were
different from each other in terms of not only their places of origin but also
their madhhabs and ar¥qah affiliations. While a certain teacher might be a
îanaf¥ in terms of his adherence to Islamic legal doctrine, his student
might be a Shfi’¥. While a teacher might be a Shariyyah §´f¥, his student
might follow the path of the Naqshbandiyyah. Despite all these differ-
ences, however, they shared a general tendency towards Islamic
reformism. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 2.
2
Reformism in the Networks
A number of studies have been conducted on intellectual trends developed

through scholarship in particular periods of Islamic history. However,
never before has a study been done which examines the intellectual trends
that grew out of the numerous ‘ulam’ who were linked to each other in
loose 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 in
their intellectual preferences, as reflected by their legal (madhhab) and
ar¥qah affiliations.
Furthermore, leading scholars in the networks, before settling down in the
îaramayn or elsewhere, had been peripatetic scholars, travelling from one
centre of Islamic learning to another, studying with and learning from
various teachers who had their own personal traditions of religious schol-
arship. Thus, scholars were influenced not by one single teacher but by
many; they were exposed to and absorbed various lines of thought and
intellectual tendencies. Because of this, describing the contents of teach-
ings developed and transmitted by the scholarly networks is not easy. At
this stage we will attempt to draw the broad outlines of the intellectual
trends of the networks; this will perhaps help us comprehend the nature
and characteristics of these scholarly networks.
In a certain sense the îaramayn was a ‘melting pot’, where various
‘little’ traditions of Islam melded to form a ‘new synthesis’ which was
strongly in favour of the ‘great’ tradition.1 We have seen previously how
scholars from the Indian subcontinent, for instance, carried their mystical
traditions to the îaramayn, while those from Egypt and North Africa came
with an inheritance of úad¥th scholarship. These traditions interacted with
each other as well as with the tradition already established in the îaramayn
itself.
32
REFORMISM IN THE NETWORKS 33
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 contains
elements of continuity with earlier traditions. The return to the Sunn¥ ortho-
doxy that gained momentum after the twelfth century appears to reach its
culmination in the period under discussion. This can be seen not only in the
intellectual 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 madrasahs everywhere in the
Middle East after the founding of the Ni½miyyah madrasah in 459/1066
continued to flourish in a variety of ways.
The salient feature of the scholarly networks is that the rapprochement
between the shar¥’ah-oriented ‘ulam’ (more specifically, the fuqah’) and
the §´f¥s reached its climax. The long-standing conflict between these two
groups of Muslim scholars appears to have greatly diminished; the
rapprochement or reconciliation between them, which had been preached
insistently by such scholars as al-Qushayr¥ and al-Ghazl¥ several centuries
earlier, became a common goal among our scholars. Most of them were ahl
al-shar¥’ah (fuqah’) and ahl al-úaq¥qah (§´f¥s) at the same time; thus, they
were learned not only in the intricacies of the shar¥’ah but also in the
úaq¥qah (mystical or Divine Realities). However, we should be very
careful not to conclude that they took this reconciliation for granted;
instead, they continued to nurture it.
The rapprochement between the shar¥’ah and Sufism and the enrolment
of the ‘ulam’ in the ar¥qah resulted in the rise of ‘neo-Sufism’. There has
been considerable discussion on the meaning and use of the term ‘neo-
Sufism’, which was coined by the late Fazlur Rahman.2 According to
Rahman, neo-Sufism is the reformed Sufism largely stripped of its ecstatic
and metaphysical character and content, these being replaced by a content
that was nothing other than the postulates of the orthodox religion.3 As he
explained, this new ‘type’ of Sufism emphasises and renews the original
moral factor and puritanical self-control in Sufism at the expense of the
extravagant features of the popular unorthodox Sufism. Neo-Sufism brings
to the centre of attention the moral reconstruction of Muslim society, as
contrasted with the earlier Sufism, which had primarily stressed the indi-
vidual and not society.4 As a consequence, Rahman concludes, the overall
character of neo-Sufism is undoubtedly puritanical and activist.5 We will
now see more clearly how neo-Sufism developed in the networks.
NEO-SUFISM AND îAD¡TH STUDY

Fazlur Rahman maintains that the most important group of Muslim
scholars responsible for helping to crystallise the rise of neo-Sufism were
the ‘people of tradition’ (ahl al-úad¥th). He further argues that after the §´f¥
movement captured much of the Muslim world emotionally, spiritually and

intellectually during the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, the
traditionists found it impossible to neglect the §´f¥ forces entirely. There-
fore, as Rahman puts it:
they tried, in their methodology, to incorporate as much of the §´f¥ legacy as

could be reconciled with orthodox Islam and could be made to yield a positive
contribution towards it. First, the moral motive of Sufism was emphasised and
some of its technique of dhikr or murqabah, ‘spiritual concentration’,
adopted. But the object and the content of this concentration were identified
with the orthodox doctrine and the goal redefined as the strengthening of faith
in dogmatic tenets and the moral purity of the spirit. This type of neo-Sufism
tended to regenerate orthodox activism and reinculcate a positive attitude to
this world.6
The îaramayn, from the early years of Islam, had been known as the
main centre of the úad¥th. This is not hard to understand, as the Prophet, the
source of the úad¥th, lived and initiated Islam there. Furthermore, two of
the four major schools of Islamic law, the Mlik¥ and the îanbal¥, known
as ahl al-úad¥th, had in fact initially developed and gained their stronghold
in the Arabian Peninsula. It is true that the Mlik¥ madhhab, introduced by
Mlik b. Anas (d. 179/795) in Medina, later became more dominant in
North and West Africa and Upper Egypt, but the îanbal¥s also came to
exercise a predominance in the Arabian Peninsula. Although the îanbal¥s
are known for their strong reliance on úad¥th and their refusal of rational
philosophy and speculative mysticism, many accepted Sufism as long as it
was practised in accordance with the shar¥’ah. There is no evidence that
such prominent îanbal¥ scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) and Ibn
al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah were opposed to all types of Sufism; what they
fiercely attacked was unorthodox ecstatic and antinomian Sufism—that is,
Sufism which regards itself free from injuction of shar¥’ah or fiqh. For this
reason, Fazlur Rahman considers them pioneers of neo-Sufism.7
There was also reluctance to accept Sufism among the ahl al-úad¥th of
the Mlik¥ madhhab in the North African region and Upper Egypt. The
Maghrib¥ Mlik¥s in particular were more puritanical and, in some cases,
also aggressive. It is well known that the early Egyptian (Nubian) §´f¥ Dh´
al-Nń al-Mi§r¥ (d. 245/859) was persecuted by the Egyptian Mlik¥ jurist
‘Abd Allh b. ‘Abd al-îakam;8 al-Ghazl¥’s books were condemned and
banned by the Mlik¥ fuqah’ of Spain,9 and one of the fiercest attacks on
Sufism in Egypt, particularly of the extravagant type, came from Ibn
al-îjj al-’Abdar¥, a leading Mlik¥ faq¥h in the fourteenth century.10
Again it is important to note that not all Mlik¥ scholars were hostile to
Sufism. Some of them were even zealous §´f¥s. A good example of this is
‘Al¥ b. Maymń (854–917/1450–1511), a noted Moroccan Mlik¥, who
was responsible for spreading a revivalist version of the Shdhiliyyah
order in Syria. He regenerated the decadent Syrian Sufism by not allowing
his disciples to isolate themselves in khalwah (seclusion) at the khnqh.11

It appears that when scholarly contacts and linkages between the Maghrib¥
Mlik¥s and scholars of other madhhabs gained momentum after the
sixteenth century, some began to soften their tone of opposition to Sufism
and joined other scholars in preaching neo-Sufism.
Despite these exceptions among the îanbal¥ and Mlik¥ muúaddiths, the
majority did not make use of their expertise in úad¥th for accelerating the
reform of Sufism on any larger scale. These muúaddiths generally continued
to concentrate their úad¥th studies on maintaining, reorganising and inter-
preting the six canonical books of the úad¥th in light of their madhhab’s point
of view. However, they increasingly established contacts and connections
with scholars of the intellectual traditions. In this way they were exposed to
other ‘little traditions’ of Islam. At the same time they played an important
role in connecting scholars living in various regions of the Middle East
through their úad¥th scholarship.
This is particularly true among the leading Mlik¥ muúaddiths, who lived
mostly in Egypt and the North African region. As we will see shortly, they
were among the scholars most responsible for transmitting úad¥ths, and thus
for establishing crucial linkages between various traditions of úad¥th schol-
arship in the Middle East. The material shows that most isnds in the
networks were transmitted through the major fifteenth and early sixteenth
century muúaddiths in Egypt, namely Ibn îajar al-’Asqaln¥ (d. 853/1449),12
Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥13 and Zakariyy al-An§r¥,14 noted earlier. These
prominent scholars in fact constituted a group of networks among them-
selves.15 They were considered the most superior úad¥th isnds, and therefore
became the most sought-after isnds by later scholars in the networks.16
As a result of this development, beginning in the late sixteenth century,
connections among scholars in the îaramayn resulting from úad¥th schol-
arship increasingly widened in scope. In addition to the Egyptian isnds
above, we find the isnds of North Africa coming into the picture. The
North African isnds in many cases also had strong linkages with the
Egyptian isnds. Being possessors of superior isnds, major muúaddiths
from the two regions not only became crucial links among scholars but
more importantly stimulated new intellectual trends in the networks. This
is perhaps best illustrated by the experience of such prominent muúaddiths
as ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥, ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ and Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥.
One of the most superior isnds these three brought to the îaramayn was
that of Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥, the tenth century renewer of Islam, also
known as the ‘little Shfi’¥’ (al-Shfi’¥ al-êagh¥r).17 As a superior isnd,
Shams al-D¥n received úad¥ths from his father, Shihb al-D¥n al-Raml¥
(d. 957/1550),18 who in turn received them directly from his renowned
teacher, Zakariyy al-An§r¥. Although Shihb al-D¥n al-Raml¥ was not as
famous as al-An§r¥, he was undoubtedly one of the prominent Shfi’¥
muúaddiths of his generation.
Even major scholars in the networks, who have been mainly identified as
§´f¥s, such as al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, al-Nakhl¥ or ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥, had

in fact extensive linkages with the Egyptian and North African traditions of
úad¥th scholarship. There is no doubt that úad¥th studies constituted the most
important subject in these scholars learning. Al-K´rn¥, in his accounts of
his isnds in various Islamic disciplines, devotes more than 40 pages to
disclosing his úad¥th isnds before going on to those in fiqh, shar¥’ah and
ta§awwuf. His úad¥th isnds mostly go back through al-Qushsh¥ to
al-Shinnw¥ and further to Egyptian isnds, or directly in ascending order
from Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥ to Shihb al-Raml¥ to Zakariyy al-An§r¥ to
Ibn îajar al-Asqaln¥ and so forth to Mlik.
But Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ also possessed a úad¥th isnd, beginning with
‘Abd Allh al-Lah´r¥ (d. 1083/1672), who migrated from Lahore, India, to
Medina. Al-Lah´r¥, by way of this isnd, connected him with Qub al-D¥n
al-Nahrawl¥. This isnd also includes Ibn îajar at its apex, and has names
not in the Egyptian and North African isnds. By way of this isnd, al-
K´rn¥ is directly connected to the Indian tradition of úad¥th studies.19
It is interesting to note that al-K´rn¥ has also an interesting úad¥th isnd,
which runs through §´f¥ shaykhs that connect him to Ibn ‘Arab¥. It went
from al-Qushsh¥, who received it from al-Shinnw¥, who took it from his
father, ‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s ‘Abbs¥ al-Shinnw¥, who got it from his
master, al-Sha’rn¥, who got it from Zakariyy al-An§r¥, who got it from
Ab´ al-Fatú Muúammad al-Margh¥, who got it from Sharaf al-D¥n b.
Ibrh¥m al-Jabart¥ al-Zab¥d¥ from Ab´ al-îasan ‘Al¥ al-Wn¥, who got it
from the great master Ibn ‘Arab¥, who got it from ‘Abd al-Wahhb b. ‘Al¥
al-Baghdd¥, who got it from Ab´ al-Fatú al-Kar´kh¥, who got it from Ab´
Ism’¥l al-An§r¥ al-îaraw¥, who finally got it from ‘Abd al-Jabbr
al-Jarrú¥.20 This isnd was inherited by al-K´rn¥’s disciples, such as ‘Abd
Allh al-Ba§r¥. Al-Ba§r¥ tells us in his Kitb al-Imdd bi Ma ’rifah ‘Uluw
al-Isnd that he studied al-Tirmidh¥’s Sunan and al-Nas’¥’s Sunan with
al-K´rn¥ on the authority of this isnd.21
The importance of stating Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥’s long isnd above is that it
will enable us to see how chains of transmission can increasingly become
orthodox and, by extension, how Ibn ‘Arab¥, often accused of being an
‘unorthodox’ §´f¥, was a source of authority to scholars who were mostly
known as muúaddiths.22
On the above list of names, three are perhaps most important: Ibn ‘Arab¥,
Zakariyy al-An§r¥, and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥. For some Muslims it
may be a shock to learn that a major muúaddith such as al-An§r¥ possessed
a úad¥th isnd that went back through Ibn ‘Arab¥, who had been condemned
by many other muúaddiths. It is important to note that, although Zakariyy
al-An§r¥ was widely known as a great muúaddith and chief qè¥, he was in
fact also a §´f¥. He studied with and received ta§awwuf from, among others,
Muúammad al-Ghamr¥. Al-An§r¥ also wrote several treatises on Sufism,
including a commentary on al-Qushayr¥’s Rislat al-Ta§awwuf, which is
known for its insistence on the conformity of Sufism to the shar¥’ah. There-
fore, it is not a mere historical coincidence that al-An§r¥ initiated the young
al-Sha’rn¥ (d. 973/1565) into Islamic mysticism.23 The fruit of the master-
disciple relation of this type of scholar was the emergence of al-Sha’rn¥’s
‘neo-Sufism’ or, as Trimingham24 calls it, the ‘middle course’, that is, a
combination of ta§awwuf and fiqh.
The connection between the leading îaramayn scholars and the neo-
§´f¥ al-Sha’rn¥ was far from simply a chain in the transmission of
particular úad¥ths or authority in studying úad¥th books. Instead, their
linkages were crucial to the transmission of the doctrines of neo-Sufism.
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, for instance, traces his teachings on the obligation of
disciples of the ar¥qah to move (hijrah) from negligence and ignorance
to enlightenment, to wage jihd against inward and outward enemies, and
to persevere in facing hardships, or on the permissibility of women to be
initiated into the mystical ways, to al-Sha’rn¥. Al-Sha’rn¥ taught them
to ‘Al¥ al-Shinnw¥, who taught them to his son, Aúmad al-Shinnw¥,
who in turn taught them directly to al-Qushsh¥. But it is important to
note that al-Sha’rn¥ derived his teachings from the authority of al-
Suy´¥.25 Al-Qushsh¥ also attributes similar teachings to Zakariyy
al-An§r¥ through Aúmad al-Shinnw¥, who got them from Shams al-D¥n
al-Raml¥, who received them by way of ‘general ijzah’ (al-ijzah al-
’mmah) from al-An§r¥.26
Similarly, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ had connections with al-Sha’rn¥, which
appear in more ways than simply by way of úad¥th isnd: he read
al-Sha’rn¥’s works with Aúmad al-Shinnw¥, who received them from
his father, ‘Al¥ al-Shinnw¥, who acquired them directly from the
author, al-Sha’rn¥.27 Therefore, it is clear that al-K´rn¥ was fully aware
of al-Sha’rn¥’s neo-Sufism.
Another example of the scholars in our networks who treated úad¥th schol-
arship with particular regard is Aúmad al-Nakhl¥. He presents his isnds in the
search of exoteric (½hir) and esoteric (bin) sciences in his Bughyat al-
$lib¥n li Bayn al-Mash’ikh al-Muúaqqiq¥n al-Mu’tamid¥n.28 He possessed,
for instance, an Egyptian úad¥th isnd which began directly from ‘Al’ al-D¥n
al-Bbil¥, who in turn connected him with Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥, Zakariyy
al-An§r¥ and Ibn îajar. He also acquired a North African and Egyptian isnd
by way of ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ as well as an Indian isnd that went back through
êibghat Allh to al-An§r¥. In addition to the ‘Kutub al-Sittah’, he studied
numerous other úad¥th books, such as the al-Muwa’ of Mlik b. Anas, al-
Sunan al-Kubr of al-Bayhaq¥ and al-Jmi’ al-êagh¥r of al-Suy´¥.29
The particular importance placed by these scholars on úad¥th reflects
their conscious attempts to make the way of the Prophet, besides the
Qur’nic teachings, not only a source of law but also a boundless inspi-
ration towards proper moral conduct. Therefore, as a rule, in their úad¥th
studies they did not confine themselves to studying standard úad¥th books.
We have cited several books, outside the ‘Kutub al-Sittah’, studied by

al-Nakhl¥. It is also clear from al-K´rn¥’s accounts that the six canonical
úad¥th books constituted only a small portion of his úad¥th studies. Many
lesser-known úad¥th books, such as the Musnad al-Drim¥, Musnad
al-Bazr, Musnad al-Kis¥ and Musnad ‘Al¥ al-Tam¥m¥ al-Maw§ul¥, in fact
constituted a substantial portion of his úad¥th scholarship.30 There were
indeed 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 úad¥th studies in the traditional way
that is, for the sake of the shar¥’ah as such. îad¥th studies were directed
to achieving other, higher, pious purposes. Aúmad al-Nakhl¥, for
example, believes that the úad¥th will lead to real intimacy with the
Prophet, who was second only to God as the essence of faith.31 Accord-
ing to Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, the Prophet was the most important figure for
the ar¥qah people, as he was the source of the shar¥’ah after God
himself.32 So attached were our scholars to the úad¥th that Ibrh¥m al-
K´rn¥ asserts, ‘I have no doubt that it [úad¥th] will be everlasting on
earth’.33
Our scholars were also aware of the fact that there were scholars who
fabricated úad¥th in order to pursue their own ends in the name of the
Prophet. For that reason, in their úad¥th studies, they preferred what these
scholars called the ‘high isnds’ or the superior isnds (‘uluw al-isnd or
al-isnd al-’l¥), namely, those consisting of scholars of renowned
integrity. According to ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥, a superior isnd for a scholar
is much like a sharper sword for a fighter: it is a more effective tool. He
gives another illustration: a scholar without the superior isnd is like a
wood gatherer who comes in the night into a forest that has venomous
snakes without light.34
Thus, a superior isnd is essential to scholars in the networks in order for
them to be able to receive the true úad¥ths, not the fabricated ones.
Al-Nakhl¥ takes special note of those scholars who fabricated or adver-
tently abused the úad¥ths by citing a tradition of the Prophet which states
that whoever says something the Prophet does not say, then his seat in the
hereafter will be of fire.35 In a different tone, al-K´rn¥ appeals to his fellow
§´f¥s to interpret the úad¥th only with sufficient knowledge and under-
standing of all teachings of Islam; to do otherwise would lead only to
the elimination of fan’ (‘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 on
úad¥th studies had considerable impact not only in linking the scholars
together, as well as the various Islamic ‘little traditions’, but also in
bringing changes in their view of Sufism, especially in its relation to the
shar¥’ah.
NEO-SUFISM AND THE SHAR¡’AH

The emphasis on the study of úad¥th or the way of the Prophet, the second
source of Islamic law, led our scholars to a greater appreciation of the
significance of the shar¥’ah in Sufism. It is interesting to take Aúmad
al-Qushsh¥ as an example in this respect. Al-Qushsh¥ was initiated by
Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ into the Shariyyah order, often associated with
Indian Sufism, which tended to transgress the rules of the shar¥’ah—at
least in the earlier growth of this order.
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ played an important part in the reorientation of the
Shariyyah order by emphasising the importance of Islamic legal
doctrines in the mystical way. In his opinion, both exoteric (legal/shar¥’ah)
and esoteric (mystical/úaq¥qah) aspects of Islam should be in harmony
and not in conflict with each other. Citing the M¥zn [al-Kubr] of
al-Sha’rn¥,37 he believes that there must be loyal adherence to the precepts
of the shar¥’ah on which the doctrine and practice of the úaq¥qah would be
built. Therefore, all mystical aspirants must practise the whole doctrine of
the shar¥’ah before they can hope to gain God’s trust.38
Al-Qushsh¥ recognises certain differences between the two ‘ways’—
indeed ‘way’ or ‘path’ is among the meanings of both shar¥’ah and ar¥qah.
He maintains that they originated from the same sources—namely, the
Qur’n and the úad¥th. Basically, Muslims could attain certain stages of the
úaq¥qah while ignoring doctrines of the shar¥’ah laid down by the Qur’n
and the úad¥th, but they could not ‘feel’ the real blessing of God. Therefore,
the §´f¥ needs to travel the mystical path with the guidance of the shar¥’ah.
According to al-îamaw¥, ‘When he [al-Qushsh¥] speaks about the
úaq¥qah, he always supports it with Qur’nic verses and the tradition of the
Prophet’.39 Johns rightly concludes that, in contrast to a few other §´f¥s who
devoted most of their exegetical skill to the Qur’n, al-Qushsh¥ always
presented his views by citing both the Qur’n and the úad¥th.40
With a clear vision of the proper relation between the shar¥‘ah and
Sufism, it is not surprising that al-Qushsh¥ was an ardent supporter of
neo-Sufism. He holds that there would be no real maqm nor aúwl
(stages of mystical progress) without having sufficient knowledge (‘ilm)
and good deeds (‘amal) as taught by the Qur’n and the úad¥th. ‘Ilm alone
is not enough; there simply would be no real mystical progress for those
who did not fulfill the obligatory ‘ibdah, such as prayers, fasting or alms,
and other recommended actions.
Al-Qushsh¥ takes the Prophet Muhammad as the exemplary figure of
the perfect man of Sufism. As a §´f¥, the Prophet did not alienate himself
from society; he not only asked people to enjoin good and prohibit evil but
also intermingled with their brethren, and performed his ‘mundane’ duties.
Al-Qushsh¥, on the authority of the scholar and historian al-Sakhw¥,
refutes the belief held in certain §´f¥ circles that the Prophet used to take
from his companions what later became known among §´f¥s as ‘al-khirqat
al-§´fiyyah’ (lit. ‘§´f¥’s rag’).41 He simply could not accept the inclusion of
the Prophet in specific ar¥qahs, which would have supported the often-
heard claim that it was sanctioned by the Prophet himself.
Similarly, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ emphasises the paramount importance of
the shar¥’ah without necessarily putting aside his attachment to Sufism. He
argues that §´f¥s should not allow their views and actions to conflict with
the shar¥’ah and other religious duties. The ahl al-kashf, people of intuitive
revelation, have their own understanding of the meanings of the Qur’n
and the Prophetic úad¥th. He reminds them, however, that each verse of
the Qur’n or matn (text) of the úad¥th has not only esoteric (bin)
meanings—as understood by the ahl al-kashf—but also exoteric (½hir)
meanings. As a consequence, the §´f¥s must not put their understanding of
the Qur’n in opposition to that of the ahl al-shar¥’ah. He takes as an
example the issue of fan’ (‘annihilation’) in the Qur’n (55: 25). He
explains that, according to its exoteric meaning, fan’ is clearly not natural
death (al-mawt al-ab¥’¥), but esoterically it is a kind of ‘death’ (al-mawt
al-ma’naw¥).42
It is clear that for al-K´rn¥ the reconciliation between the shar¥’ah and
Sufism is not to be taken lightly. In dealing with this matter, his argument
is subtle and philosophical. This is not surprising because, as al-îamaw¥
tells us in detail, he was familiar with various kinds of intellectual
discourses, ranging from Mu’tazilite and Ash’ar¥te kalm to Ibn ‘Arab¥’s
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
shar¥’ah, he makes appeals for the recognition of the kashf as a valid path
to understanding the inner meaning of the Qur’n and the úad¥th.
For common Muslims, the intricate realm of Islamic philosophical inter-
pretation could lead them to confusion and even lead them astray. Many
scholars in the networks realised this. They shared a sense of responsibility
for preventing their fellows from being heretical through a misunderstand-
ing of the mystical doctrines and practices of Islam. This concern is shown
by some scholars in the networks not simply by issuing fatws but more
importantly by devoting special works to the subject.
There are several outstanding examples of this. Prominent among them
is Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥. He seems to have been very responsive to answering
questions either directly or indirectly posed to him. At least nine out of his
49 works listed by al-Baghdd¥ were devoted to responding to a variety of
difficult issues, ranging from the relation of Sufism to the shar¥’ah and the
question of whether man will be able to see God, to the issue of taql¥d
(blind imitation).44 His most important work of this type is Itúf al-Dhak¥
bi Sharú al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il R´ú al-Nab¥, which has been cited
several times earlier. Johns45 claims that it was al-K´rn¥’s most important
single work.
Al-K´rn¥ wrote the Itúf al-Dhak¥ in response to Faèl Allh

al-Burhnp´r¥’s al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il R´ú al-Nab¥. As Johns
concludes,46 in this succinct work, complemented by its short commentary,
al-úaq¥qat al-Muwfiqah li al-Shar¥’ah, al-Burhnp´r¥ essentially attempts
to restrain the extravagant type of Sufism by emphasising the essential
elements of Islam, such as the absolute Being (Wuj´d) of God and the
importance of the shar¥’ah. Apart from this, I would argue, the author’s
basic concepts, such as the seven grades of being and his arguments to
explain them, are absolutely philosophical. These in turn might or could
obscure the real intention of the author, especially if the work was read by
the awwm (common believers).
The Tuúfat al-Mursalah was written in 1000/1590, and in 1030/1619 or
earlier it was already known in the Malay-Indonesian world. The effects of
this book on Islam in the archipelago were recorded by al-K´rn¥ and his
disciple, al-îamaw¥. The latter tells us that he first met and studied with
al-K´rn¥ in 1086/1675. The Itúf al-Dhak¥ had obviously been completed
before that year, for al-îamaw¥ read it together with other books, such as
the Saú¥ú al-Bukhr¥ (and other ‘Kutub al-Sittah’), the Jmi’ al-êagh¥r of
al-Suy´¥, the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n of al-Ghazl¥ and the Fut´út
al-Makkiyyah of Ibn ‘Arab¥.47 In his account of Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥,
al-îamaw¥ relates that: 48
Our Shaykh al-Khtimat al-Muúaqqiq¥n Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ told me, while we

were reading the Tuúfat al-Mursalah with him, that some of our Jw¥
companions (ba’è a§úbin al-Jwiyy¥n) informed him that this treatise and
matters it treats was popular and famous in their land and that it is read in
their religious schools, and that youth study it as one of the minor treatises in
their rudimentary studies.
Al-K´rn¥ himself, in his introductory notes to the Itúf al-Dhak¥,

provides further background to his writing of the commentary:49
We have had reliable information from a group (jam’ah) of the Jwiyy¥n that
there have spread among the population of the lands of Jwah some books on
the úaq¥qah [Divine Realities] and gnostic knowledge (‘ul´m al-asrr) passed
from hand to hand by those attributed with knowledge because of their study
and the teaching of others, but who have no understanding of the ‘ilm
al-shar¥’ah of the Prophet [Muhammad], the Chosen, the Elect [by God],
peace be upon him, nor the ‘ilm al-úaq’iq bestowed upon those who follow
the path of God, the Exalted; those who are close to Him, those admirable
ones, or those who have set their foot on any path of their paths founded on
the Kitb [Qur’n] and the Sunnah [Tradition] through perfect obedience both
outwardly (al-½hir) and inwardly (al-bin), as is done by the devout and
pure. This is the reason for the deviation of many of them [the Jwiyy¥n] from
the right path, for the rise of impure belief: in fact they have entered into the
crooked camp of atheism (al-zandaqah) and heresy (al-ilúd).
It is mentioned [by the Jwiyy¥n] to me that among the famous books was
the compendium named al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il [R´ú] al-Nab¥, peace be
upon him, written by the adept by God’s help, Shaykh Muúammad ibn Shaykh
Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥, may God the Almighty render him of service. More
than one of them have repeatedly asked my poor self (al-faq¥r) to write a
commentary on it to make clear of the questions [it discusses] to the principles
of religion, confirmed by the Noble Book and the Sunnah of the Master of the
apostles, peace be upon him.
While Drewes50 points out that al-K´rn¥ wrote the work on the orders of
al-Qushsh¥, the accounts of both al-K´rn¥ and al-îamaw¥ provide no
evidence to substantiate his view. If it is true, the work must have been
conceived before the death of al-Qushsh¥ in 1071/1660. Whether he wrote it
after having been asked directly by his Jw¥ students or whether it was recom-
mended by al-Qushsh¥, or both, what is important is that al-K´rn¥ took the
task very seriously. He made special prayers for guidance (istikhrah) at
the tomb of the Prophet in Medina, and he began the work only after he was
sure that his prayers were answered and that it was appropriate for him
to do the work.51 What follows in the Itúf al-Dhak¥ is a long presentation
on the mystical interpretation of Islam based on the Qur’n and the úad¥th.
Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ seems not to have been satisfied with writing only a
single work on the ‘al-Mas’il al-Jwiyyah’ (the questions of the Jw¥
people). He wrote another work entitled al-Jawbt al-Gharwiyyah ‘an
al-Mas’il al-Jwiyyat al-Jahriyyah,52 in which he once again attempted to
clear the matter up. It is unfortunate that we can find no trace of it; we
hardly have any concept of it beyond what its title indicates.
The religious problems of the Jw¥ evidently persisted for some time
in al-K´rn¥’s circle. ‘Abd al-Shuk´r al-Shm¥, very likely one of his
students, wrote a work called Ziydah min ‘Ibrat al-Mutaqaddim¥n min
Ahl al-Jw¥. This work, like the Tuúfat al-Mursalah, deals with the
question of the Being and Unity of God.53 The name ‘Abd al-Shuk´r occurs
in one of al-Sinkil¥’s silsilahs of the Shariyyah ar¥qah. Al-Sinkil¥,
according to this silsilah, received the ar¥qah from ‘Abd al-Shuk´r, who
took it from al-K´rn¥, who in turn received it from al-Qushsh¥.54 Al-
K´rn¥ also wrote a work for ‘Abd al-Shuk´r entitled Kashf al-Mast´r f¥
Jawb As’ilah ‘Abd al-Shuk´r, which could indicate their close relation-
ship55 (see chapter 4).
Despite controversy around the Tuúfat al-Mursalah, it was used as an
important reference by virtually all major Malay-Indonesian scholars
throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. From Shams al-D¥n
al-Samatrn¥ (d. 1039/1630), al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sinkil¥56 and al-Maqassr¥57 to
al-Palimbn¥ and Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥, all referred to the Tuúfat
al-Mursalah in their writings.
Another prominent scholar who wrote a work of this nature in order to
meet the special religious needs of the Jw¥ was Tj al-D¥n b. Aúmad,
better known as Ibn Ya’q´b. He also devoted a special work to answering

problems originating from the ‘Bild al-Jwah’. The problem concerned
the concept of the waúdniyyah (Unity of God). The title of the work is al-
Jdat al-Qaw¥mah il Taúq¥q Mas’alat al-Wuj´d wa Ta’alluq al-Qudrat
al-Qad¥mah f¥ al-Jawb ‘an al-As’ilat al-Wridah min [Bild] Jwah.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
al-Sinkil¥, who asked Ibn al-Ya’q´b to write this work, as he was included
among the scholars coming into contact with him in Mecca.
The fact that at least three works are devoted by leading îaramayn
‘ulam’ in the seventeenth century to what our sources call ‘al-Mas’il
al-Jwiyyah’ indicates the nature of the relationships between the Jw¥
students and scholars in Mecca and Medina. As we will see later, in the
second half of the eighteenth century Sulaymn al-Kurd¥, a leading
îaramayn scholar who was also the teacher of a group of Malay-
Indonesian students, wrote a work of the same nature, entitled al-Durrat
al-Bahiyyah f¥ Jawb al-As’ilat al-Jwiyyah. All of this indicates the exis-
tence of an intense intellectual discourse between Malay-Indonesian
students and scholars in the centres of the îaramayn. It also shows us the
concern among the îaramayn 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 shar¥’ah and Sufism.
Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ was fully aware of this danger. He thus insists that
those who aspire to follow the mystical path should prepare themselves for
this journey by a correct understanding of the Qur’n and the úad¥th and by
total attachment both outwardly and inwardly to shar¥’ah doctrines. To do
otherwise, he believes, will only result in deviation from the right path and,
worse still, to unbelief and heresy.59 Furthermore, as related by al-îamaw¥,
al-K´rn¥ maintains that young students should initially be taught articles
of faith, the exoteric meaning of the Qur’n and the úad¥th, and the teach-
ings and practices of the righteous predecessors (al-Aslf al-êliú¥n) before
they are exposed to mystical doctrines by masters who are learned not only
in Sufism but also in shar¥’ah.60
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥’s daily practice also demonstrated his concern with
common believers going astray because of their inability to comprehend
the correct significance of the mystical way. Citing al-K´rn¥, al-îamaw¥
relates that al-Qushsh¥ usually would not allow his friends to read and
discuss with him certain difficult and problematic passages of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s
al-Fut´út al-Makkiyyah, except in a very restricted manner. He would
discuss them only when uneducated people were not present, and then only
in a special room with locked doors. Al-Qushsh¥ believed that great §´f¥s,
such as al-Junayd, never discussed anything about the úaq’iq except with
select (khaww§) friends or disciples. He then goes on to cite some

examples from the Prophet Muhammad, who never said anything that
could lead to confusion among his companions, and who indeed made
distinctions between the common believers (al-’awwm) and the select
(al-khaww§).61
NEO-SUFISM AND ACTIVISM

Another striking intellectual tendency characteristic of the networks is the
emphasis on the use of reason and, by extension, on the exercise of indi-
vidual judgment (ijtihd) in religious matters. There is no evidence,
however, that they actually employed the familiar slogan ‘open the bb
al-ijtihd’ (‘the gate of individual judgment’), which has, since the early
twentieth centry, been declared by modern Muslim scholars.
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ is reported to have urged Muslims who possessed
sufficient ‘ilm (knowledge) to understand both outward and inward
meanings of the verses of the Qur’n and the úad¥th. He appealed to those
who devoted themselves to religion (faqaha f¥ al-D¥n) to exercise ijtihd.
He takes Ibn ‘Arab¥ as an example of this. According to al-Qushsh¥, Ibn
‘Arab¥ made use of úad¥th extensively in order to make his own ijtihd.
Although many traditionists opposed Ibn ‘Arab¥’s judgment, al-Qushsh¥
believes that he had brought all his learning together in his attempts to
produce his own ijtihd. Ibn ‘Arab¥’s ijtihd essentially constituted a new
interpretation of the mystical doctrine of Islam. Al-Qushsh¥ then cites his
own experience of having changed his madhhab from Mlik¥ to Shafi’i,
after he exerted himself to produce his own ijtihd. As for those who have
little knowledge, al-Qushsh¥ considers it better for them to take others’
ijtihds and simply become muqallids (‘followers’).62
Al-Qushsh¥ places emphasis not only on the exercise of reason but also
on activism. Time after time he urges Muslims to abandon their negligence
and ignorance by searching for ‘ilm, and by using their time to good
purpose. He also insists that Muslims fully perform their worldly duties in
order to support their lives by teaching, trading or farming. In his opinion,
a real §´f¥ is not one who alienates himself from society but one who
enjoins good and prohibits evil, and lends his helping hand to the
oppressed, the sick and the poor. Furthermore, a real §´f¥ is one who can
mutually cooperate (ta’wun) with other Muslims for the betterment of
society. These are some examples given of good deeds that should be done
by those who aspire to be perfect men (al-insn al-kmil) as ideally envi-
sioned by Sufism.63
In contrast to most §´f¥s, who would simply emphasise the total
emotional commitment to God without the interference of reason, Ibrh¥m
al-K´rn¥, like Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, encourages Muslims to exercise their
reason. Speaking in a more philosophical way, he promotes an intellectual
understanding 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 classic

heated discussion between the mutakallimń (‘theologians’) and the ahl
al-úad¥th (‘traditionists’). It is beyond the scope of our discussion to dwell
on the long analysis in his Itúf al-Dhak¥ on such hotly debated topics as
the Realities of God, the obscure meaning (mutashbiht) of some verses
of the Qur’n 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 al-îamaw¥ tells us, all he wants to do is
to promote mutual understanding among scholars by emphasising their
points of agreement.65 After all, as al-K´rn¥ reminds the Muslims, by
citing al-Shfi’¥, al-Ghazl¥ and Ibn ‘Arab¥, the power of reason is not
without limit.66
It is worth noting, however, that not all scholars involved in the networks
were ready to present long and complicated arguments to promote activism in
their societies. An exception to this trend was Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥, who
was indeed a ‘radical’ scholar. Although he was a §´f¥ himself, and founded
the famous Ibn Sulaymn rib in Mecca, he was opposed to the extravagant
type of Sufism which permitted drum-beating and dancing in the ribs, and
to those §´f¥s who alienated themselves from mainstream society. In his
opinion, this type of Sufism was not sanctioned by the Qur’n and úad¥th.
Taking the law into his own hands, he expelled the a§úb al-khalw¥
(secluded people) who had carried on those practices from those ribs affili-
ated with the madrasahs of Qayt Bey and Shrabiyyah in Mecca. In so doing,
he made more room for resident students (al-mujwirń), who, he believed,
better deserved them. Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥, who had endowed a number of
madrasahs and ribs in the îaramayn, also challenged misappropriation
of the waqf properties by the Shar¥fian family. These things brought him into
open conflict with the Meccan Shar¥fs. After several failed attempts, they
were finally able to expel him from Mecca in 1093/1682 with the reluctant
help of the Ottoman authorities. A year later he died in Damascus.67
The reformism of the networks, as we have seen thus far, is clearly
centred on the social, moral and intellectual reconstruction of Muslim
society. Although we find little evidence to indicate that specific discussion
occurred among scholars about the regression of Muslim society, they
apparently realised that society needed to be revitalised. The most logical
way to achieve that end, it seemed to them, was by engendering a more
balanced comprehension of each of the aspects of Islam itself: emphasising
all its teachings in a unified fashion, such as legal and mystical, intellectual
and practical, and social and individual. Thus, none of our scholars rejected
Sufism or dismissed the importance of the shar¥’ah. Their stress is clearly
reformist, purificationist and activist in tone. In short, they sought to bring
about changes in their society by their own efforts rather than waiting for
eschatological intervention. There is no evidence to suggest that there were
any among the scholars who adhered to such ideas as millenarianism or
Mahdism. In fact, they strongly rejected these views.
The best-known example of the rejection of millenarianism is the

polemic concerning the claim among the Indian subcontinent scholars that
Aúmad al-Sirhind¥ (971–1034/1564–1624) was the renewer of the second
millennium (mujaddid-i alf-i thn¥) of Islam. The strongest refutation to
such a claim came from the ‘ulam’ involved in the networks. The most
prominent among them, Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥, devoted
two works to the issue, entitled Qadú al-Zand wa Qadaú f¥ Radd Jahlt
Ahl al-Sirhind¥, completed on 15 Rajab 1093/20 July 1682, and al-Nshirat
al-Njirah li al-Firqat al-Fjirah, completed on 7 Muharram 1095/26
December 1683.68 îasan al-’Ajam¥ wrote another work called al-’A§ab al-
Hind li Ist¥§l Kufriyt Aúmad al-Sirhind¥.69 It is reported that al-K´rn¥
also wrote a treatise on the subject, but we cannot find any trace of it in
various lists of his works. Meanwhile, al-Qushsh¥ is said to have written
a treatise after he engaged in a long discussion with Adam Banuri
(d. 1053/1643), a leading follower of al-Sirhind¥, who preached his
master’s doctrine in the îaramayn.70
Al-Sirhind¥ claimed that his age was full of darkness. A thousand years
after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam had regressed; at the same
time, infidelity and bid’ah (unwarranted innovations) held sway among the
Muslims. He believed that he himself was a scholar of perfect knowledge,
who was capable of fulfilling the task of the steadfast prophet to renew and
revive Islam. Friedmann71 shows us that eschatological speculations are in
the background of al-Sirhind¥’s view of his times. His eschatology,
however, does not anticipate the ultimate end of the world but rather the
arrest of the process of decline at its nadir by means of tajd¥d (renewal). By
attributing the necessity of tajd¥d to the period of 1000 years, he evidently
adheres to the concept of millenarianism.
The crux of the issue attacked by al-Barzanj¥ was the very concept of
and belief in the second millennium. He poses the following rhetorical
questions:
What is the meaning of the Renewer of the Second Millennium? Does a
second millennium remain from the time allotted to this community so that he
[al-Sirhind¥] can be its renewer? Did the ‘ulam’ not agree unanimously and
did al-úfi½ al-Suy´¥ not say in his epistle (called) al-Kashf [‘an Mujwazah
Hdhihi al-Ummah al-Alf] that not even five hundred years will elapse after
the Millennium and that the Day of resurrection will take place four hundred
old years after it.72
Unlike the concept and belief in the centennial renewal of Islam widely
accepted by Muslim scholars, al-Sirhind¥’s views on the millennial renewal
imply the abolition of Muhammad’s prophecy and of his law. This becomes
clearer when he asserts that the Ka’bah is superior to the Prophet; that the
Prophet reached perfection only 1000 years after his death, the time when
the úaq¥qat-i muúammad¥ was changing to úaq¥qat-i aúmad¥; and that he
had a direct relationship with God without Muhammad’s prophetic medi-
ation.73 With regard to these teachings, al-Barzanj¥, after mentioning al-

K´rn¥, who discussed these issues in the light of the Qur’n and the
úad¥th, concludes that al-Sirhind¥ was an infidel.74 It is not very clear
whether al-K´rn¥, who was known for his conciliatory nature, really
shares al-Barzanj¥’s conclusion. Al-Qushsh¥, however, supports al-
Barzanj¥ when he points out that it was infidelity to state that the reality of
the Ka’bah was superior to the reality of the Prophet Muhammad.75
NEO-SUFISM AND ORGANISATION OF THE $AR¡QAHS

What was the impact of all the above doctrinal changes in Sufism on the
organisational aspect of the ar¥qahs? In attempting to assess the organisa-
tion of the ar¥qahs, we will take a comparative perspective.76
The most striking feature of the ar¥qahs in the period under discussion
is that they appear to have been loosely organised; there were no clear cut
boundaries between the numerous ar¥qahs in either their doctrines and
practices (ritual and ceremonies) or their ‘membership’. ê´f¥ shaykhs and
mur¥ds (disciples) did not necessarily owe their loyalty to a single ar¥qah;
they could become masters and disciples of a number of ar¥qahs. Further-
more, they could be affiliated not only with certain ar¥qahs originating
from or mostly developing in one particular area of the Muslim world but
also with those coming from other regions. This fact undoubtedly explains
further the cosmopolitanism of our scholars in the networks.
Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ is a good example to support this observation. As he
tells us, he was affiliated with almost a dozen ar¥qahs: the Shariyyah,
Chishtiyyah, Firdawsiyyah, Kubrawiyyah all of which he received from
Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ or directly from êibghat Allh. He also took the
Suhrawardiyyah order from êibghat Allh, and from al-Shinnw¥ by way of
a silsilah which included al-Sha’rn¥. As for the Qdiriyyah ar¥qah, he took
it from his father, and al-Shinnw¥ and êibghat Allh. He was also affiliated
with the orders of Tayf´riyyah, Aw¥siyyah, Khalwatiyyah and Naqsh-
bandiyyah, all of which he received from al-Shinnw¥ and êibghat Allh.
Then he took the Biniyyah order through a silsilah which went back to
îasan al-Ba§r¥. Finally he received the Shdhiliyyah order and ar¥qah of
Ibn ‘Arab¥ from al-Shinnw¥ by a silsilah which included al-Sha’rn¥.77
Al-Qushsh¥’s isnds of these orders tell us how the Indian and North
African traditions of Sufism had their meeting points initially in
al-Shinnw¥ and later in al-Qushsh¥. They also indicate how Ibn ‘Arab¥’s
mystical tradition passed through generations down to the scholars in the
networks. Similarly, al-Nakhl¥ received several §´f¥ orders from various
traditions. He took the Naqshbandiyyah order from Tj al-Hind¥ and M¥r
Kiln, the Qdiriyyah order from Ni’mat Allh al-Qdir¥, the Shdhiliyyah
order from ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥, and the Khalwatiyyah order from
Muúammad ‘Is b. Kinn al-îanbal¥.78
Although affiliation with numerous ar¥qahs was widely practised, once

a disciple declared his allegiance (bay’ah) to a certain Shaykh he was
required to obey his orders. As al-Qushsh¥ maintains, allegiance to the
shaykh would lead him to the real meaning of the mystical way.79 However,
al-Qushsh¥ appears to have opposed the teachings of most ar¥qahs in
earlier 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 their
masters and their ar¥qahs if they transgressed Islamic legal doctrines as
laid down by the Qur’n and the úad¥th. This is because al-Qushsh¥
believes that the essence of joining the ar¥qah is entering the shar¥’ah.81
Thus, the rules of the shar¥’ah become the norms for disciples wishing
to be initiated into the ar¥qahs. Among the most important requirements
for the acceptance of disciples is maturity (bul´gh), which makes them
accountable for practising all the pillars of Islam; in short, a total obedience
to the shar¥’ah both outwardly and inwardly.82 With such stringent require-
ments, the membership of the ar¥qah becomes quite restricted. These
restrictions go even further in the adoption of such divisions among
disciples as ‘awwm (lay) and khaww§ (elite). Both al-Qushsh¥ and al-
K´rn¥ believed that only the khaww§ disciples could be taught the real
substance of the mystical ways. Exposing all secrets of the ar¥qah
doctrines to the ‘awwm would result only in religio-intellectual confusion
and heresy.83 All these restrictions make it clear that the ar¥qah organisa-
tion was intended more as a vehicle for intensifying religious beliefs and
devotional practices than for recruiting mass followings.
Although membership in the ar¥qahs was quite restricted, disciples in the
îaramayn were far from homogeneous. In contrast to, for instance, the disci-
ples of Muúammad al-Shinnw¥—a master of al-Sha’rn¥—who were mostly
fellahs,84 the îaramayn §´f¥s and disciples were heterogeneous in many
respects. The îaramayn §´f¥s geographically came from various parts of the
Muslim world; religiously they adhered to different madhhabs; and socially
they occupied various positions in society, from teachers and traders to rulers.
The heterogeneity in the membership of the ar¥qahs in the îaramayn
undoubtedly comes from the existence of cosmopolitanism in the area.
Partly also because of their cosmopolitanism, the succession in the
îaramayn ar¥qahs is ascriptive rather than descriptive. There was a
tendency among certain orders in Egypt in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries to make the post of §´f¥ shaykh a hereditary position.85 However,
the îaramayn §´f¥ shaykhs, as a rule, designated their best disciples to lead
their ar¥qahs. We have numerous examples of this. Aúmad al-Shinnw¥
designated al-Qushsh¥ his successor in several ar¥qahs. The latter, in turn,
appointed al-K´rn¥ to succeed him as the Shariyyah shaykh.
Al-Qushsh¥ also appointed al-Sinkil¥ as his Shariyyah khal¥fah for one
of its branches in the Malay-Indonesian world. It is not very clear whether
this pattern of succession in the îaramayn ar¥qahs was in one way or
another influenced by al-Sha’rn¥’s opposition to the principle of automatic

hereditary succession among his fellow Egyptian §´f¥ shaykhs.86
Furthermore, the îaramayn §´f¥ shaykhs appear to have been free from
the image of ‘holy men’ that we often find in the accounts of earlier
ar¥qahs.87 The image of the wandering dervish is almost entirely absent in
the accounts of the îaramayn §´f¥s. This is related to the special emphasis
put by scholars involved in the networks on the importance of the shar¥’ah
in the ar¥qah practices and of following the example of the Prophet
Muhammad. They generally believe that the real §´f¥ is not the one who
distinguishes himself from the rest of society by wearing distinctive clothes.
In this respect, according to al-Qushsh¥, the real §´f¥ is the one who
dresses well in accordance with the rules of the shar¥’ah. The clothes a §´f¥
wears should be clean, for cleanliness reflects the purity of the soul.88 As
for al-K´rn¥, al-Qann´j¥ vividly narrates that despite his reputation as a
great scholar and §´f¥, he wore only the clothes of ordinary people, dis-
regarding the style of dress of certain ‘ulam’ who lengthened their sleeves
and enlarged their turbans in order to command people’s respect, or of
some §´f¥s who wore dervish clothes to raise their aura of sanctity.89
Another important organisational aspect of the ar¥qahs concerns their
centre of activities. If most ar¥qahs in other parts of the Muslim world
carried out their activities mainly in the ribs, khnqhs or zwiyahs, the
îaramayn §´f¥s were centred in the Holy Mosques, teachers’ houses and
ribs. However, the îaram Mosque in Mecca and the Nabaw¥ Mosque
were the most important centres of devotional and learning activities. Most
of our §´f¥ scholars studied and later taught as well as practised their
Sufistic rituals there. The accounts of Aúmad al-Nakhl¥, cited earlier,
demonstrate this.
Furthermore, those scholars who had settled in the îaramayn had their
own houses, which sometimes also had large libraries.90 Thus, the §´f¥
shaykhs, in most cases, did not live in the ribs but in their own houses,
where they also held learning sessions.91 This significantly reduced the
tendency among the §´f¥ shaykhs to style themselves in a more dervish
fashion if they lived in the ribs. The ribs were, of course, also impor-
tant centres of learning and devotional activities for the îaramayn §´f¥s.
But they were occupied mainly by disciples, who stayed there temporarily
until they returned to their homelands or travelled elsewhere. These ribs
were usually led by an appointed head who was an administrator rather than
a §´f¥ 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. Extravagant
Sufism was still practised by some people in Mecca, as we have seen in the
experience of Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥. In spite of this, there is no evidence

that our scholars attempted to remove all aspects of the earlier tradition of
the ar¥qahs. Therefore, it is appropriate to describe this phenomenon as
one of continuity and change. While the scholars in the networks substan-
tially reduced the extravagant and ecstatic features of earlier Sufism and
emphasised loyal adherence to the shar¥’ah, at the same time they main-
tained their doctrinal links with, for instance, Ibn ‘Arab¥. However, in
maintaining their connection with Ibn ‘Arab¥ they tended to disengage
themselves from some points of his controversial doctrines.
Johns93 has pointed out that Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ was one of the last great
exponents of the school of Ibn ‘Arab¥, so far as his philosophical and theo-
logical ideas are concerned. But we should be careful not to conclude that
his thought was dominated by Ibn ‘Arab¥’s teachings. It is true that, in his
Itúf al-Dhak¥, he often cites Ibn ‘Arab¥, but at the same time he puts
forward his own arguments by citing al-Ghazl¥, al-Qushayr¥ and even Ibn
Taymiyyah.94 Furthermore, he studied not only Ibn ‘Arab¥’s philosophical
doctrines but also his legal teachings. As he tells us, he learned this often
neglected aspect of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s teachings not from a §´f¥ but from a promi-
nent Meccan scholar, Zayn al-‘bid¥n al-$abar¥, who was known as a
muúaddith.95
The same is true of Aúmad al-Nakhl¥. In the same vein he expresses a
great appreciation of al-Ghazl¥ and Ibn ‘Arab¥. He tells us that he studied
al-Ghazl¥’s Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n with Sayyid Aúmad al-îusn¥ al-Maghrib¥
al-Mlik¥, better known as al-Maúj´b, who later issued him an ijzah to
teach al-Ghazl¥’s teachings. But from the same teacher he studied the rules
of fasting in a chapter of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s al-Fut´út al-Makkiyah. In another
passage he relates that he studied the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n with al-K´rn¥,
who told him that this book was very popular in his homeland, Kurdistan.
Interestingly enough, al-Nakhl¥ also learned the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n from
al-Qushsh¥, who studied it with Aúmad al-Shinnw¥, who received it by
way of an isnd which included al-Sha’rn¥, Zakariyy al-An§r¥ and Ibn
‘Arab¥.96
With this evidence it is clear that there was a conscious effort among
scholars in the networks to reconcile different streams of thought that had
often been seen as in conflict with each other by scholars before them.
There seems to have been no bias against scholars who had been the subject
of controversies, such as al-Ghazl¥ or Ibn ‘Arab¥. On the contrary, scholars
in the networks studied them in order to understand their teachings and later
attempted to reconcile them. An example of this had been set earlier by the
neo-§´f¥ al-Sha’rn¥, who sought to reconcile doctrines of the speculative
theologians (ahl al-fikr) and the mystics (ahl al-kashf) by taking care not to
associate himself entirely with Ibn ‘Arab¥, despite his admiration for him,
and linking himself to famous fuqah’ and muúaddith.97
Although such a scholar in the networks as Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ was by
nature a conciliator, who preferred to reconcile two opposing points of
view rather than choose one or the other of them, he was bitterly criticised
by a number of scholars, such as the Algerian Ibn al-$ayyib and Yaúy al-
Shw¥. Ibn al-$ayyib writes a short biography of al-K´rn¥ in the Nashr
al-Mathn¥.98 In this work, Ibn al-$ayyib recognises al-K´rn¥’s high repu-
tation. Despite this, he attacks him on various issues: that he was in favour
of the Qadariyyah interpretation of the ability of created power to be
responsible for the acts of human beings; that he leaned to the Mu’tazilite
point of view by writing a treatise on the material character of non-being;
that he accepted the historicity of the report that the Prophet Muúammad
had uttered the so-called ‘Satanic verses’, allegedly interpolated into the
Qur’n (53:21); and that he wrote a treatise on the faith of Pharaoh accord-
ing to Ibn ‘Arab¥’s philosophical framework. Meanwhile al-Shw¥
(fl. 1096/1685), in his work entitled al-Nabl al-Raq¥q f¥ îulq´m al-Sbb
al-Zind¥q, goes even further by accusing al-K´rn¥ of atheism and demand-
ing his death. Al-Shw¥’s accusation, in turn, was answered by al-Barzanj¥,
in his work al-’Iqb al-Hwi ‘al al-Tha’lab al-’w¥ wa al-Nushshb al-
Kw¥ li al-A’sh al-Ghw¥ wa al-Shihb al-Shw¥ li al-Aúwl al-Shw¥.99
The fact that Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ was attacked on such a wide range of
issues is, as Johns points out,100 an index of his learning. He had sufficient
status in various Islamic disciplines to provoke disagreements. He was a
master of various disciplines of Islam, and on the basis of his learning
made his own ijtihds. Eclectic and original, he was the kind of scholar
about whom others must have divided views and who thus exercises a
creative role among his contemporaries. To sum up, these attacks on
al-K´rn¥ indicate the dynamics of intellectual discourse in the networks,
which continued to gain momentum in the succeeding periods.
3
Seventeenth Century Malay-Indonesian
Networks I: N´r al-D¥n al-Rn¥r¥
Two of the three major chains of networks in the Malay-Indonesian world,

those stemming from al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sink¥l¥, flourished in the Sultanate of
Aceh, while the originator of the other, al-Maqassr¥, was born in Sulawesi
(Celebes) and established his career in Banten, West Java. In this chapter
we will deal with al-Rn¥r¥ (d. 1068/1658), discussing particularly his role
in transmitting the reformism of the networks to this part of the Muslim
world.
The importance of Aceh or North Sumatra as a whole in the early history
of Islam in the region is unquestionable. However, in order to understand
the proper socio-historical context of al-Rn¥r¥’s reforms specifically, it is
appropriate to give a brief account of the dominant Muslim intellectual
discourse in Aceh prior to al-Rn¥r¥’s time. This in turn leads us to two
major scholars, îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥, who
played a crucial role in shaping the religious thought and practice of the
Malay-Indonesian Muslims in the first half of the seventeenth century.
Despite their prominence, many things about the life of îamzah and
Shams al-D¥n are still obscure. There is still disagreement on the birthplace
of îamzah al-Fan§ur¥ as well as his life span, as his dates of birth and death
are unknown. However, there is evidence that he lived and flourished in
the period preceding and during the reign of Suln ‘Al’ al-D¥n Ri’yat
Shh (r. 997–1011/1589–1602); it has been suggested that he died before
1016/1607.1 Apart from this it is clear that îamzah was a Malay of Fan§´r,
an old centre of Islamic learning in southwest Aceh.2
îamzah was obviously a great scholar. He is reported to have travelled
to the Middle East, visiting some important centres of Islamic learning,
including Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem and Baghdad, where he was initiated
into the Qdiriyyah ar¥qah. He also travelled to Pahang, Kedah and Java,3
where he preached his teachings. îamzah mastered Arabic, Persian and
possibly also Urdu. He was a prolific writer, producing not only religious
52
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS I 53
treatises but also prose works laden with mystical ideas.4 In view of his
works, he is regarded both as one of the most important early Malay-
Indonesian §´f¥s and a prominent precursor of the Malay literary tradition.
The nature of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥’s relationship with Shams al-D¥n
(d. 1040/1630) is not very clear either. Most scholars are of the opinion that
they were friends.5 This may imply a sort of teacher–disciple relationship,
as suggested by Hasjmi and Abdullah; both assert that Shams al-D¥n was
a disciple of îamzah.6 Whatever the case, Shams al-D¥n and îamzah
certainly met. Sir James Lancaster, the British special envoy to Aceh in
1011/1602, tells us that he negotiated a treaty of peace and friendship
between England and Aceh with two notables appointed by Suln ‘Al’
al-D¥n Ri’yat Shh to discuss this matter on his behalf:
The one of these noblemen was the chiefe bishope of the realme, a man of
great estimation with the King and all the people; and so he well deserved, for
he was a man very wise and temperate. The other was one of the most ancient
nobilitie, a man of very good gravitie but not so fit to enter into these
conferences as the bishop was. And all the Conferences passed in the Arabicke
tongue, which both the bishop and the other nobleman well understood.7
Schrieke8 and Hasjmi9 maintain that the ‘chiefe bishope’ was îamzah
al-Fan§´r¥, 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 al-D¥n. The first opinion seems to be more plausible, as Shams
al-D¥n during this time was in the middle of his career; it was only under the
next Suln, namely Iskandar Muda (r. 1015–1046/ 1607–1636), that he
became ‘chiefe bishope’. Like îamzah, Shams al-D¥n was a prolific writer
and a master of several languages. He wrote in both Malay and Arabic, and
most of his works deal with kalm and Sufism.12 But, unlike îamzah, he
never wrote any mystical poetry.
îamzah and Shams al-D¥n have been categorised as belonging to the
same stream of religious thought. We are not going to describe in detail
their thoughts, but the two were the leading proponents of the waúdat
al-wuj´d philosophical interpretation of Sufism.13 Both were deeply influ-
enced in particular by Ibn ‘Arab¥ and al-J¥l¥, and strictly followed their
elaborate system of wuj´diyyah. For instance, they explain the universe in
terms of a series of neo-Platonic emanations and consider each of the
emanations an aspect of God himself.14 These are the very concepts that led
their opponents, prominent among them al-Rn¥r¥, to accuse them of being
pantheists and, therefore, of having gone astray.
So far as this accusation is concerned, scholars are divided into two
groups. Winstedt,15 Johns,16 Van Nieuwenhuijze17 and Baried18 maintain
that the teachings and doctrine of îamzah and Shams al-D¥n are ‘heretical’
or ‘heterodox’. Therefore, they were ‘heretics’ or ‘heterodox’ mystics as
opposed to the ‘orthodox’ §´f¥s such as al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sink¥l¥. On the other
hand, al-Attas maintains that the teachings of îamzah, Shams al-D¥n and
al-Rn¥r¥ are essentially the same; one cannot categorise the first two as
heretics. Al-Attas, in turn, accuses al-Rn¥r¥ of distorting the thought
of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n and of conducting a ‘smear
campaign’ against them.19 Al-Attas, however, seems to change his assess-
ment of al-Rn¥r¥ in his later book,20 in which he praises al-Rn¥r¥ as ‘a man
gifted with wisdom and adorned with authentic knowledge’, who succeeded
in making clear the false doctrines of wuj´diyyah scholars, whom he calls
the ‘pseudo-§´f¥s’.
In any case, the period before the coming of al-Rn¥r¥ in 1047/1637 was
the time during which mystical Islam, particularly that of the wuj´diyyah,
held sway not only in Aceh but in many parts of the archipelago. Although
there were attempts to apply the precepts of the shar¥’ah, the mystical
doctrine and practices, the salient feature of Malay-Indonesian Islam from
the earliest period, continued to enjoy supremacy. îamzah and Shams
al-D¥n’s writings give further impetus to this tendency. With their position
as Shaykh al-Islm of the Acehnese Sultanate, they were able to exercise
considerable influence. All the sources, local and foreign, are in agreement
that the two scholars dominated the religious and intellectual life of the
Malay-Indonesian Muslims before the rise of al-Rn¥r¥.
AL-RN¡R¡’S BIOGRAPHY AND NETWORKS

A good number of studies have been devoted to al-Rn¥r¥. However, they
mostly deal with his thought; very little attention is paid to the wider context
of his scholarly milieu and to his role in Islamic discourse in the Malay-
Indonesian world. There is no single study devoted to assessing the religious
changes he brought about in the Malay-Indonesian world. Therefore, al-Rn¥r¥
is mostly considered a §´f¥ rather than a renewer (mujaddid ). In fact, he was
obviously one of the most important early mujaddids in the archipelago.
N´r al-D¥n Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ b. îasanj¥ al-îam¥d (or al-îumayd)
al-Shfi’¥ al-Ash’ar¥ al-’Aydar´s¥ al-Rn¥r¥ was born in Rn¥r (modern
Randir), an old harbour on the Gujarat coast. Despite his birthplace,
al-Rn¥r¥ is generally regarded as a Malay-Indonesian ‘lim rather than
Indian or Arab one. His birth date is unknown, but it was probably towards
the end of the sixteenth century. It has been suggested that his mother was
a Malay,21 but his father was of îaèram¥ immigrants with a long tradition
of migrating to South and Southeast Asia. Most of these South Arabian
people settled in the harbour towns on the coast of the Indian Ocean and of
the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.22 His ancestors probably belonged to the
al-îam¥d family of the Zuhra, one of the 10 clans of the Quraysh.23 Among
the prominent members of the Zuhra clan was ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. ‘Awf, a
close companion of the Prophet.24 But it is also possible that al-Rn¥r¥’s
ancestors were of the îumayd family, often associated with Ab´ Bakr ‘Abd
Allh b. Zubayr al-Asad¥ al-îumayd¥ (d. 219/834), known as one of the

prominent native scholars of Mecca.25 Al-îumayd¥ was among the most
famous disciples of al-Shfi’¥. He was also the Muft¥ of Mecca and a leading
traditionist (muúaddith) in the îijz.26
In the first half of the sixteenth century, Rn¥r was an important and busy
harbour that attracted Arabs, Persian, Turks and Malays to trade or settle
there. In 1040/1530, the Portuguese attacked and colonised it. As a result,
Rn¥r experienced a severe blow and was replaced in eminence by Surat.
Although Rn¥r has since that time been under Portuguese rule, most
îaèram¥ immigrants appear to have continued to live there. However, they
maintained their contacts with îaèramawt, Yemen and the îaramayn as
well as with the Malay-Indonesian world. îaèram¥ scholars, in fact,
travelled back and forth to these places, contributing significantly to the
maintenance of close contacts and relations among these Muslim societies.
Furthermore, the îaèram¥s generally sent their children and youth to their
ancestral home and to the îaramayn to pursue their religious studies. When
they completed their studies, most of them returned to their birthplaces or
travelled elsewhere in the Muslim world.
This pattern of life among îaèram¥ immigrants can be observed clearly
in the experience of al-Rn¥r¥’s own uncle. In his Bustn al-Sal¥n f¥ Dhikr
al-Awwal¥n wa al-khir¥n,27 he tells us that his paternal uncle, Muúammad
J¥ln¥ b. îasan Muúammad al-îumaydi, came from Gujarat to Aceh
between 988/1580 and 991/1583, where he taught fiqh, u§´l al-fiqh, ethics
and logic (maniq) and rhetoric. However, people were more interested in
studying mysticism (ta§awwuf ) and theology (kalm). As al-Rn¥r¥ further
relates, his uncle was no expert in mysticism and was therefore not
prepared to meet the people’s demand to learn about it. Muúammad J¥ln¥
then decided to cancel his teaching, and went to Mecca instead to pursue
more advanced studies in mysticism and other related subjects. Having
mastered these, he returned to Aceh during the reign of Suln ‘Al’ al-D¥n
Ri’yat Shh (r. 997–1011/1589–1602) to teach people in the subjects they
wanted to study. It appears that he succeeded to some extent in unraveling
the intricacies of mysticism and kalm, especially of the nature of the
archetypes (al-a’yn al-thbitah).
The account shows us how a îaèram¥ teacher from Gujarat played an
important role in the development of Islam in Aceh. The events surround-
ing him indicate intense contacts and relations among Muslim scholars and
communities in various parts of the Muslim world. As al-Rn¥r¥ relates,
the interest of the Acehnese Muslims in mysticism was generated by a
deadlock in public discussion and debates between two scholars, coming
from Mecca to Aceh in 947/1540, on mystical and philosophical matters, in
particular concerning the permanent archetypes.
The first was Ab´ al-Khayr b. Shaykh b. îajar, the author of a book
entitled al-Sayf al-Qi’,28 which deals with difficult issues concerning the
nature of the third metaphysical category between being and non-being:
the fixed essences, or the permanent archetypes. It seems that in addition

to teaching fiqh, Ibn îajar discusses matters contained in his book that
were very difficult for the common people to grasp. The other scholar was
Muúammad al-Yaman¥, an expert in fiqh and u§´l al-fiqh as well as in
‘ul´m a1-úad¥th and sciences related to the Qurn. Both scholars were
later involved in a heated discussion on these topics, but neither gained the
upper hand by satisfactorily explaining these complicated matters, leaving
the audience in confusion and with an abiding intellectual curiosity. To
make the situation even worse, both Shaykhs left Aceh. And people had
to wait for the coming of Al-Rn¥r¥’s uncle to attempt a conclusion.
Al-Rn¥r¥ followed in the footsteps of his uncle and many other îaèram¥
scholars. He acquired his early education in Rn¥r, and later continued his
study in the îaèramawt region. We have no information on the time he
spent there, or on the teachers with whom he studied. It is not very clear
either whether or not he returned to his home town when he left îaèra-
mawt. But, most probably, he went directly to the îaramayn, as, according
to al-îasan¥, he was in Mecca and Medina in 1030/1620 or 1031/1621,
when he performed the úajj pilgrimage.29 And it is very likely that he also
came into contact with the Jw¥ students and pilgrims there before return-
ing to Gujarat.30
Al-Rn¥r¥’s most prominent teacher in India was Ab´ îaf§ ‘Umar b.
‘Abd Allh B Shaybn al-Tar¥m¥ al-îaèram¥ (d. 1066/1656), who was
also known in the Gujarat region as Sayyid ‘Umar al-Aydar´s.31 There is
no information on his dates of birth or death, but he was born in the Gujarat
region. B Shaybn was, like al-Rn¥r¥, of îaèram¥ origin, more precisely
of the Aydar´siyyah of Tar¥m, one of the most important centres of Islamic
learning in South Arabia. According to al-Rn¥r¥, it was B Shaybn who
initiated him into the Rif’iyyah order, an old Arab ar¥qah.32 He appointed
al-Rn¥r¥ his khal¥fah of the ar¥qah and was therefore responsible for
spreading it in the Malay-Indonesian world.33 But the Rif’iyyah was not
the only order al-Rn¥r¥ was affiliated with. He also had chains of initiation
of the Aydar´siyyah34 and Qdiriyyah35 orders.
B Shaybn first studied in his land of birth but later travelled to Tar¥m,
where he studied with such well-known ‘ulam’ as ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh
al-Aydar´s (d. 1073/1662), a disciple of Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, and ‘Abd
al-Az¥z al-Zamzam¥, and his son, Zayn al-‘bid¥n; Qè¥ ‘Abd al-Raúman b.
Shihb al-D¥n al-Saqqf (945–1014/1538–1605);36 Ab´ Bakr b. Shihb
(d. 1061/1651);37 and his two brothers, Muúammad al-Hd¥ and Aúmad
Shihb al-D¥n. After several years in Tar¥m, B Shaybn continued his
studies in Mecca and Medina for four years, studying with and taking
ar¥qahs from many îaramayn ‘ulam’. Prominent among these were
Sayyid ‘Umar b. ‘Abd Allh al-Raú¥m al-Ba§r¥ (d. 1037/1638),38 Aúmad b.
Ibrh¥m b. ‘Aln (d. 1033/1624)39 and ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Kha¥b
al-Sharbayn¥ (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 Shaybn, also had

connections with the archipelago.
B Shaybn returned to Tar¥m and married. Later he went to ‘Diyr
al-Hind’ (the Hind¥ region=Surat?) to study with Shaykh al-Islm Sayyid
Muúammad b. ‘Abd Allh al-’Aydar´s, who also initiated him into the
‘Aydar´siyyah order. Muúammad al-’Aydar´s41 who was considered by
al-Rn¥r¥ as his spiritual grandfather,42 was born in 970/1561 in Tar¥m
where he studied various branches of Islamic thought. When he was
19 years old he went to Ahmadabad to meet his grandfather, Sayyid ‘Abd
Allh al-’Aydar´s (d. 990/1582), a celebrated §´f¥ and theologian of the
Gujarat region. Muúammad then established himself in Surat, following in
the footsteps of his grandfather as a great §´f¥ and ‘lim, and was known as
the ‘êaú¥b Surat’ (Master of Surat). He died there in 1030/1621.
Another important figure related to B Shaybn was his uncle, ‘Abd
al-Qdir al-’Aydar´s, whose mother was an Indian. Born in Ahmadabad, he
wrote a number of books on ta§awwuf and biography. After travelling
extensively he returned to Ahmadabad, where he died in 1038/1638.43 ‘Abd
al-Qdir had another nephew, who later became a prominent figure in the
religious and political realm in Bijapur. ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-Aydar´s
(d. 1041/1631) was born in Tar¥m. Before migrating to Gujarat in
1025/1616 he studied in Yemen and the îaramayn, where he was initiated
into a number of ar¥qahs including the ‘Aydar´siyyah, Qdiriyyah,
Shdhiliyyah and Suhrwardiyyah orders. He was also recognised as a
muúaddith. After getting spiritual blessings from his uncle in Ahmadabad,
‘Abd Allh soon launched his Islamic renewal in the region.44
The importance of mentioning these major scholars of the Aydar´siyyah
family is to put al-Rn¥r¥ and his renewal in the proper context, for it is
certain that the ‘Aydar´s scholars played an important role in channelling
religious ideas from the Middle East to India and further to the Malay-
Indonesian world. Al-Muúibb¥, for instance, lists no fewer than 30
prominent scholars of the ‘Aydar´s family, who were centred in Tar¥m.
Many of them travelled back and forth from Tar¥m to the îaramayn to
India and the archipelago throughout the tenth-eleventh/sixteenth-
seventeenth centuries.45 B Shaybn was one of the crucial links,
connecting various traditions of Islamic learning. By way of his main disci-
ples, like al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Maqassr¥, he transmitted religious ideas from
Tar¥m and the îaramayn to India and the Malay-Indonesian world (see
Chart 3). B Shaybn lived mainly in Bijapur, one of the leading centres of
Islamic learning and Sufism in India.46 There he enjoyed the patronage of
Suln ‘dil Shh (r. 1037–68/1626–1656) of the Bahmn¥ Sultanate. Later
he moved to Burhnp´r¥, where he produced several books, but he died in
Bilgram.47
Having studied Islamic sciences and been appointed as a khal¥fah of both
the ‘Aydar´siyyah and Rif’iyyah orders, the time had come for al-Rn¥r¥
to begin his career. Some of his works indicate that he was well acquainted
Chart 3 Al-Rn¥r¥’s networks
with the Malay world even before coming to the archipelago. It appears that
he acquired information on it from his involvement in the Jw¥ community
in Mecca. But there is little doubt that his uncle, Muúammad J¥ln¥, who
used to travel back and forth to Aceh, provided him with much information
on Malay cultural and religious tradition.
Al-Rn¥r¥ was certainly the most prominent predecessor of the
‘Aydar´siyyah scholars in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago. We have
mentioned that ‘Abd al-Raúman b. Mu§af al-’Aydar´s (d. 1194/1780 in
Egypt), a teacher of Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥, also travelled to the Malay-
Indonesian world. But unlike al-Rn¥r¥, who left a substantial impact on the
archipelago, Mu§af al-’Aydar´s apparently only passed through it in his
travels to many parts of the Muslim world. However, it is not impossible that
he came into contact and established networks with îusayn b. Ab´ Bakr al-
’Aydar´s (d. in 1213/1798 in Batavia, now Jakarta), another leading scholar
and §´f¥ of the ‘Aydar´s family in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.48
There is no information as to when al-Rn¥r¥ travelled for the first time
to, and lived in, the Malay world. But it is likely that, during the period
between his completion of the pilgrimage in 1029/1621 and 1047/1637, he
lived for some time in the archipelago, probably in Aceh or Pahang in the
Malay Peninsula or both. His sudden rise to the office of Shaykh al-Islm
of the Sultanate of Aceh in 1047/1637 indicates that he had been known
before among the Malay rulers or circles, especially those of the Pahang
Sultanate. The son of Suln Aúmad of Pahang was seven years of age
when he was taken to Aceh by Suln Iskandar Muda, who later married
him to his daughter and treated him as his own son;49 he was later known
as Iskandar Thn¥. Thus, when he succeeded his father-in-law to the throne
of the Acehnese Sultanate, al-Rn¥r¥ was not new to the Suln circle. It is
hard to believe that al-Rn¥r¥ could win the patronage of the Suln and the
office of Shaykh al-Islm as soon as he arrived in Aceh without having
been in close contact beforehand.
If al-Rn¥r¥ had already been in the archipelago before 1047/1637, why
then did he not establish himself in Aceh? To answer this question one
should consider the political and religious situation in Aceh during the
reign of Suln Iskandar Muda (r. 1015–1046/1607–1636). In this period it
was Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥ who occupied the office of Shaykh al-
Islm. Under the patronage of Iskandar Muda, the doctrines of wuj´diyyah
preached by îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n enjoyed their heyday.
Therefore, the time was not yet ripe for al-Rn¥r¥ to challenge the estab-
lished political and religious order; he had to wait until the situation became
more favourable to him.
When Shams al-D¥n and Iskandar Muda successively died, al-Rn¥r¥
came to Aceh, precisely on 6 Muharram 1047/31 May 1637.50 He was soon
appointed Shaykh al-Islm, one of the highest posts in the Sultanate below
the Suln himself, becoming perhaps even more influential than the other
two highest officials, the Qè¥ Malik al-’dil and the Orang Kaya
Maharaja Srimaharaja. The Dutch trade representatives to Aceh called
him ‘the Moorish Bishop’.51 He was, of course, responsible for religious
matters, but Dutch records make it clear that he also played an important
role in economic and political affairs. So when the Gujarat traders once
again tried to dominate trade in Aceh, the Dutch fiercely protested, but to
no avail. It is only through al-Rn¥r¥’s goodwill and mediation that Sulnah
êafiyyat al-D¥n (1051–86/1641–75), the widow of Iskandar Thn¥,
withdrew policies favourable to the Gujarat traders and detrimental to the
Dutch.52
Gaining a firm foothold in the court of the Acehnese Suln, al-Rn¥r¥
began to launch Islamic renewal in Aceh. In his view, Islam in this region
had been corrupted by misunderstanding of the §´f¥ doctrine. Al-Rn¥r¥
lived for seven years in Aceh as an ‘lim, muft¥ and prolific writer,
spending much of his energy in refuting the doctrines of wuj´diyyah. He
even went so far as to issue a fatw, which led to a kind of heresy-hunting:
killing those who refused to dismantle their beliefs and practices, and
reducing to ashes all of their books. He succeeded in retaining the favour
of the court until 1054/1644, when he abruptly left Aceh for his town of
birth, Rn¥r. This is recorded by one of his disciples in the colophon of al-
Rn¥r¥’s work, Jawhir al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m: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 set
out for his native town of Rn¥r.
This short passage provides no clear explanation as to why al-Rn¥r¥

suddenly returned to Rn¥r. This leads Daudy54 to speculate that al-Rn¥r¥’s
abrupt departure had something to do with his dislike of the policies of
Sulnah êafiyyat al-D¥n, designed to persecute people who refused to be
ruled by a woman. These people believed that, according to the local tra-
dition as well as the shar¥’ah, it was inappropriate for a woman to be the
ruler. As a result, there was opposition to her rule; and al-Rn¥r¥’s depar-
ture represented such an opposition. This explanation does not seem
plausible. One may expect some kind of opposition or resistance from a
more shar¥’ah-oriented Muslim society to the rule of a woman; however,
as far as al-Rn¥r¥’s departure is concerned, it is unlikely that his return to
his native town was caused by his alleged dislike of rule by a woman who
had shown favour to him. In fact, many of his works were written to satisfy
the command of the Sulnah, including those written in the last minutes
before his departure.
The enigma of al-Rn¥r¥’s sudden departure was solved when Ito
published a short but very important article,55 based on the diary of the
opperkoopman (‘higher trader’) Peter Sourij, who in 1053/1643 was sent
by 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, Sourij
reports that the coming of a ‘Moorish Bishop’ from Surat, India, to Aceh
gave rise to endless debates between him and al-Rn¥r¥, for the latter had
branded the newcomer’s doctrines as ‘heretical’. The debates put the
Sulnah in an awkward and difficult situation. She had up to then shared
the views of al-Rn¥r¥, but the newcomer’s teachings soon gained
momentum.
Two weeks later Sourij provides us with more background information.
In the entry of 22 August, he again reports the continuing debates between
the two ‘ulam’, now in the presence of the chairman of the Joint Council-
lors of the Sultanate or Orang Kaya Maharajalela. More importantly,
Sourij informs us that the new person was Sayf al-Rijl, a Minangkabau,
who used to study in Aceh with a certain Shaykh Maldin (Jaml al-D¥n?).
The latter was banished from Aceh after the coming of al-Rn¥r¥ because of
his allegedly unorthodox views. Sayf al-Rijl soon won the hearts of many
Acehnese through his erudition and piety. He even made his entire house
and adjoining lands into a pious foundation. Al-Rn¥r¥ himself gives a vivid
account of the whole situation:
Then came Sayf al-Rijl, and he held debates with us over the matters which
had been discussed before. We ask: ‘How could you approve of the people
who assert that wa Allh bi Allh t Allh, man is Allh and Allh is man
Map 1 Al-Rn¥r¥’s itinerary
[sic]?’ He [Sayf al-Rijl] answers: ‘This is my belief and that of the people of
Mecca and Medina.’ Then his words prevail, and many people return to this
wrong belief.56
It is clear that the bitter debates between al-Rn¥r¥ and Sayf al-Rijl
became a divisive political issue. The Orang Kaya failed to settle the issue,
so the Joint Councillors of the Sultanate and the bentaras (ministers) had to
meet again and again to resolve the controversy. But they too failed. The
only thing they could do was to recommend that the case be settled by
Sulnah êafiyyat al-D¥n, who wisely refused to do so, for she acknowl-
edged not having knowledge on religious matters. So she left the case in the
hands of the uleebalangs (adat functionaries).
With the Sulnah’s refusal to use her authority to end the bitter dis-
agreement between the two scholars, some kind of religious and political
confusion soon prevailed among the population. So confused had the situ-
ation been that Sourij complained about the delay in his business. Finally,
Sayf al-Rijl gained the upper hand. Sourij, in his notes for 27 August 1643,
writes that Sayf al-Rijl was finally summoned to the court by the Sulnah
herself, during which time he received honourable treatment. With this, the
door was shut to al-Rn¥r¥, and he was forced to leave the arena.
There is no further information on Sayf al-Rijl, who won the struggle.
But what is clear is that he represents a strong counter-attack against
al-Rn¥r¥, who for about seven years persecuted the followers of îamzah
al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n. Another important point to note is the inter-
national nature of the success of Sayf al-Rijl. In order to win the struggle,
he travelled a long way to Surat, studying. We do not know with whom he
studied there. When he returned, he possessed enough distinction to enable
him to challenge al-Rn¥r¥ and not easily be defeated by him in their bitter
debates.
Al-Rn¥r¥ returned to his native town in 1054/1644–45, as was
mentioned in the colophon of his Jawhir al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m. He
spent the remaining 14 years of his life in Rn¥r. Although he was now far
from Aceh or the archipelago, he maintained his concern for Muslims in the
‘lands below the wind’. Al-îasan¥ relates that after returning to his native
town al-Rn¥r¥ wrote at least three works,57 dealing with the matters he used
to encounter in Aceh. One of the works was written as his answer to ques-
tions put forward by the Bantenese Suln, Ab´ al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir
al-’Al¥. Al-Rn¥r¥ died on Saturday, 22 Dh´ al-îijjah 1068/21 September
1658.58
AL-RN¡R¡’S WORKS AND RENEWAL

Al-Rn¥r¥ was a prolific and erudite writer. According to various sources he
wrote 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 êir
al-Mustaq¥m, was prepared at least partly before he came to Aceh. His
works mainly deal with ta§awwuf, kalm, fiqh, úad¥th, history and compar-
ative religion.
As he wrote much on kalm and ta§awwuf, apparently al-Rn¥r¥ consid-
ers one of the basic questions among Malay-Indonesia Muslims to be their
‘aq’id (fundamentals of belief ). Therefore, he attempts to make clear,
among other things, the relation between the Realities of God and the
universe and man.59 He delineates the Ash’ar¥ doctrine of difference
(mukhlafah) between God and the universe, the origin of the world in time
(iúdth), and God’s absolute transcendence vis-à-vis man. With his loyal
adherence to the Ash’ariyyah it is not hard to understand why he was so
bitter towards îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n, both of whom main-
tained the immanence of God in His creation.
As far as al-Rn¥r¥’s Sufism is concerned, although he is generally
known as belonging to the Rif’iyyah order, he was also affiliated with
the ‘Aydar´siyyah and Qdiriyyah orders. His affiliation, particularly with
the ‘Aydar´siyyah ar¥qah, appears to have been crucial in developing his
radical tendencies. Eaton60 has shown us that the ‘Aydar´siyyah, with its
strong Arabian roots, is one of the most important reformist ar¥qahs in
the Indian subcontinent. It strongly emphasises the harmony between the
mystical way and total obedience to the shar¥’ah. It is also noted for its non-
ascetic and activist attitude.
With these characteristics, the ‘Aydar´siyyah is clearly a ar¥qah of neo-

§´f¥ type. The prominent §´f¥ scholars of the ‘Aydar´siyyah attempted to
impart in India not only the teachings of a more shar¥’ah-oriented Islam but
also certain symbols of Arab culture. ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-’Aydar´s
(d. 1041/1631), for instance, went so far with his reform as to ‘convert’
Suln Ibrhim II (‘dil Shh) from Sh¥’ism to Sunn¥ Islam. Although
the Suln was tolerant of the Sh¥’is, he had never been a Sh¥’¥ himself.
‘Abd Allh also persistently attempted to persuade the Suln to wear Arab
clothing.
Joining in the general tendency in these networks, al-Rn¥r¥ insisted on
the importance of the shar¥’ah in mystical practices by writing the êirt al-
Mustaq¥m in Malay.6l In this work he explicates the basic but fundamental
duties of each Muslim in his life. Using the familiar outline of any fiqh
book, he goes on in detail to explain various matters concerning ablution
(wuè´’), prayers (§alt), ‘alms’ (zakh), fasting (§awm), pilgrimage (úajj ),
sacrifice (qurbn) and the like. Although the book would seem to be a
simple exposition of basic fiqh rules, one should not underestimate its
importance to Malay-Indonesian Muslims during the time when an extrava-
gant Sufism was prevalent.
Most of the al-Rn¥r¥ works are polemical, and to some extent apologeti-
cal. But this should not conceal the important fact that he always makes
good use of standard books and leading authorities. He was certainly an
avid reader. On kalm and ta§awwuf he eloquently quotes al-Ghazl¥, Ibn
‘Arab¥, al-Qunyaw¥, al-Qshn¥, al-F¥r´zbd¥, al-J¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Raúmn
al-Jm¥, Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥ and other leading scholars.62 As for his
fiqh, he based himself on the standard Shfi’¥ books, including Minhj
al-$lib¥n of al-Nawaw¥, Fatú al-Wahhb bi Sharú Minhj al-$ullb of
Zakariyy al-An§r¥, Hidyat al-Muútj Sharú al-Mukhta§r of Ibn îajar,
Kitb al-Anwr of al-Ardbil¥ or Nihyat al-Muútj (il Sharú al-Minhj
—of al-Nawaw¥) of Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥.63 Considering al-Rn¥r¥’s
works and their sources, it is clear that he was more than simply a zealous
Shaykh al-Islm, using his religious and political influence to persecute
wuj´diyyah followers. He was a man of erudition and argument, exploring
the intricacies of the mystical doctrines in order to put those he regarded as
having gone astray on the right track.
In his polemical works, al-Rn¥r¥ vigorously charges wuj´diyyah follow-
ers with heresy and even with polytheism. Thus, as a consequence, they
could be condemned to death if they refused to repent.64 Furthermore, he
challenges protagonists of the wuj´diyyah doctrine to debate the matter.
Al-Rn¥r¥ tells us that debates were held at the court of the Sultanate in the
presence of the Suln or Sulnah. In some instances the debates were
fierce and lasted for several days. However, they obviously failed to settle
the differences. Suln Iskandar Thn¥ repeatedly ordered the wuj´diyyah
followers to change their minds and repent to God for their misbelief, but
this was also fruitless. Finally, the Suln had them all killed and their
books burned in front of the Banda Aceh grand mosque, Bayt al-Raúmn.65
Al-Rn¥r¥ tells us vividly:
Again they say: ‘al-’lam huwa Allh, huwa al-’lam—the universe is God
and He is the universe. After that the King orders them to repent for their
wrong belief. He appeals several times, yet they are not willing [to change
their mind]; they even fight the messengers of the King. Finally, the King
gives orders to kill them all and to gather and burn their books in the field at
the front of the Mosque Bayt al-Raúmn.66
Scholars have tried to explain why al-Rn¥r¥ used his position as the
Shaykh al-Islm of the Sultanate to issue a fatw declaring the wuj´diyyah
people unbelievers (kfirs). Daudy67, for instance, asserts that al-Rn¥r¥’s
uncompromising personality has something closely to do with his past
experience of living in the hostile Hindu environment of India. The long-
standing social and religious conflicts between the Muslim minority and
the Hindu majority created little tolerance within segments of both soci-
eties; and al-Rn¥r¥ was a product of such a society.
Looking at al-Rn¥r¥’s case in this rather wider perspective, this kind of
interpretation has its own validity. However, I would argue that al-Rn¥r¥’s
uncompromising personality is to a great extent related to the reformism in
the networks. In other words, as Drewes68 correctly points out, al-Rn¥r¥’s
radical opposition to îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥,
together with their followers, was not an isolated case of ‘orthodox
reaction’ to unorthodox mysticism. Al-Rn¥r¥’s sojourn in Aceh occurs
during the period in which the doctrines of wuj´diyyah met serious theo-
logical opposition or were reinterpreted by many scholars in the centres, in
a stricter way in light of the shar¥’ah. In this sense, al-Rn¥r¥’s attitude is a
good example of how the reformism of the networks was translated into
renewalism in the Malay-Indonesian world.
The persecution against wuj´diyyah followers left an everlasting mark
on the intellectual life of Islam in the archipelago. It gave rise to a reassess-
ment among the ‘ulam’, in particular al-Sink¥l¥, of such concepts as
‘Muslim’, ‘kfir’ (unbeliever), tasmuú (religious tolerance), and the like,
all of which will be discussed further. More importantly, al-Rn¥r¥’s fatw
of takf¥r and the killing of wuj´diyyah Muslims reached the îaramayn,
where an anonymous manuscript written in 1086/167569 tells us that it was
the writer’s answer to questions coming from an island of the Jwah region
(min ba’è jaz’ir Jwah). The problem put forward was that an ‘lim
coming from ‘above the wind’70 accused a wuj´diyyah §´f¥ of being a kfir.
The case was brought to the attention of the Suln. The ‘lim strongly
demanded that he repent, but he refused. The §´f¥ maintained that he could
not repent as his argument was not understood. But nobody took his words
seriously; and finally the Suln issued an order to kill him, together with
all the people who followed his teachings. All of them were put into the
fire. Was it permissible to do that?
The author of the treatise explains the danger of arguing with people who
cannot comprehend the matter. However, the §´f¥’s statements that he was
not properly understood were indications of his following certain intricate
interpretations of a particular religious doctrine that he himself was not able
to explicate to the ‘lim, who labelled him unbeliever. Whatever the case,
the treatise’s writer argues that it was terribly wrong to kill him and his
followers. He further elaborates that the accusation was obviously based on
a literal understanding of wuj´diyyah doctrine; yet this attitude was not
permissible in Islam. He goes on to quote the Prophet that any statement of
Muslims could not be considered wrong as long as others were able to
interpret it in any other way.
It comes as no surprise that the writer was Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥.71 The ‘lim
from ‘above the wind’ was obviously al-Rn¥r¥; the Suln was Iskandar
Thn¥; and the one who transmitted the problem to the îaramayn was
al-Sink¥l¥. As we describe in greater detail in chapter 4, al-Sink¥l¥ appar-
ently could not accept the way al-Rn¥r¥ launched his reform. Therefore,
without any hesitation he brought the matter to his teacher’s attention
across the Indian Ocean in Medina. And finally he received the teacher’s
response. This event tells us how the intellectual and religious networks of
teacher–disciple played their role in the historical course of Islam in this
part of the Muslim world.
AL-RN¡R¡’S ROLE IN MALAY-INDONESIAN ISLAM

Al-Rn¥r¥ was primarily a §´f¥, a theologian and a faq¥h ( jurist). But he was
also a man of letters, a preacher and a politician. His multifaceted person-
ality could lead to misunderstanding, particularly if one viewed only a
certain aspect of his thought. As a result, until now he has often been
considered more as a §´f¥ who was probably occupied only with mystical
practices, whereas he was in fact also a faq¥h, whose main concern was the
practical application of the very basic rules and regulations of the shar¥’ah.
Therefore, to understand him entirely one should take into consideration all
aspects of his thought, personality and activity.
Although al-Rn¥r¥’s sojourn in the archipelago was relatively short (for
seven years only, 1047–1054/1637–1644), he had a significant role in the
development of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. He played a key role
in bringing the great tradition of Islam to the region, reducing substantially
the tendency to uncontrolled intrusion of local tradition on Islam. Without
underestimating the role of the earlier carriers of Islam from the Middle
East or elsewhere, one can say that al-Rn¥r¥ had a much stronger network
of the ‘ulam’, connecting the Islamic tradition in the Middle East with that
of the archipelago. He was indeed one of the most important transmitters of
Islamic reformism and renewals to this part of the Muslim world.
We do not know much about al-Rn¥r¥’s network of disciples, but there

is little doubt that his most prominent disciple in the archipelago was
al-Maqassr¥. The latter, in a work entitled Saf¥nat al-Najh, gives his
silsilah of the Qdiriyyah ar¥qah from al-Rn¥r¥. Al-Maqassr¥ explicitly
states that al-Rn¥r¥ was his shaykh and teacher (guru).72 Despite this
evidence, there are problems concerning the date and place they met (which
are discussed in chapter 5). We have no names for the disciples of al-Rn¥r¥,
except al-Maqassr¥. After returning to Rn¥r, he apparently devoted
himself to teaching and writing; he even ordered his disciples to complete
his Jawhir al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m, but he mentioned no names for
these disciples.73
Despite the obscurity surrounding the identity of his disciples, al-
Rn¥r¥’s role in the transmission of reformism through his works is
undeniable. His habit of citing numerous well-known authorities and
standard works to support his arguments throughout his writings was a
crucial means of their transmission. In so doing, he introduced these author-
ities to the Muslims in the archipelago. Furthermore, by introducing into
and disseminating in the archipelago the interpretation of Islam held by the
mainstream of ‘ulam’ and §´f¥s in the centres of Islam, he stimulated a
strong impetus for renewal among Malay-Indonesian Muslims. Al-Rn¥r¥’s
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’
wuj´diyyah, al-Rn¥r¥ was the first in the archipelago to clarify the distinc-
tion between the true and the false interpretation and understanding of §´f¥
doctrines and practices. There were, of course, attempts by such scholars as
Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥ to clarify this distinction. But al-Burhnp´r¥
failed to achieve the intended aim.74 On the contrary, his work led to reli-
gious confusion among Malay-Indonesian Muslims, so that Ibrh¥m
al-K´rn¥ felt it necessary to write a commentary on it, as mentioned
earlier. Further attempts were also carried out by îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and
Shams al-D¥n. But, as al-Attas points out, their works again failed to draw
a clear distinction, particularly between God and the universe, or relations
between God and Creation.75 Al-Rn¥r¥ therefore paved the way towards
the rise of neo-Sufism in the archipelago.
A further consequence of his clarification of the types of Sufism was the
intensification of the Islamisation process in the Malay-Indonesian
world.76 The process was pushed further by al-Rn¥r¥’s writings on the
shar¥’ah and fiqh, particularly by his êirt al-Mustaq¥m. Al-Rn¥r¥ was the
first ‘lim in the archipelago ever to take the initiative to write a sort of
standard manual for people’s basic religious duties. Even though the
precepts of shar¥’ah and fiqh had to an extent been known and practised
by some Malay-Indonesian Muslims, there was no single work in Malay
to which to refer. Therefore, it is not hard to understand why the work
became 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 the

Malay Peninsula.77
Al-Rn¥r¥’s concern about the application of the detailed rules of the fiqh
led him to extract sections of his êirt al-Mustaq¥m and issue them as
separate works. The most famous among these extracts are Kaifiyat al-
êalh and Bb al-Nikú; the latter together with the êirt al-Mustaq¥m were
sent by al-Rn¥r¥ himself to Kedah in about 1050/1640. This appears to be
of particular importance in furthering the Islamisation of Kedah.78 For that
reason 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 who
directly brought Islam to the people of Kedah.79
The role of al-Rn¥r¥ in the intensification of the process of Islamisation
is also clear in the political field. During his sojourn in Aceh, in his position
as the Shaykh al-Islm of the Sultanate, among his duties was that of coun-
selling the newly enthroned Suln Iskandar Thn¥ in various matters, either
religious or political. In his Bustn al-Sal¥n, he tells us how he counselled
the Suln in his function as a ruler and khal¥fah (representative) of God on
earth. Quoting various verses of the Qur’n (e.g. 4:59; 6:165; 38:26), he
makes clear to the Suln his responsibility for and duty towards his people;
protecting the weak and providing goodness to the people make him
protected and blessed by God. Probably because of his counsel, Suln
Iskandar Thn¥ abolished un-Islamic punishments for criminals, such as the
‘immersing into hot oil’ (mencelup minyak) and ‘licking the burning steel’
(menjilat besi).80 The Sultn also prohibited his subjects from discussing
the issues surrounding God’s Being with reason.81
According to al-Rn¥r¥, the application of the shar¥’ah could not be
intensified without a deeper knowledge of the tradition (úad¥th) of the
Prophet. Therefore, he compiled in his Hidyat al-îab¥b f¥ al-Targh¥b wa
al-Tart¥b some traditions of the Prophet which he translated from Arabic
into Malay so that the Muslim population would be able to understand them
correctly. In this concise compendium, he interpolates úad¥ths with cita-
tions of the Qur’nic verses in order to support the arguments attached to
the úad¥ths. This work was the pioneer in the field in the archipelago and
introduced the importance of úad¥th in the life of Muslims.
Apart from clarifying the distinction between unorthodox and orthodox
Sufism and emphasising the importance of the shar¥’ah, al-Rn¥r¥ took on
the arduous task of making Muslims understand correctly the articles of
belief (al-’aq’id ). It is true that one of the standard works of the
‘Ash’ar¥s, the Mukhta§ar al-’Aq’id by Najm al-D¥n al-Nasaf¥, was
already in use among certain circles of Malay-Indonesian Muslims.
However, this is not a simple text: in addition to the subject being difficult
to comprehend, its Arabic was hard for the Malays in general to under-
stand. Realising the need for this kind of text, al-Rn¥r¥ prepared its Malay
translation or a partial translation, called Durrat al-Far’id bi Sharú
al-’Aq’id.82 He does not in fact simply translate it; he adds some

commentary, so that it is easier for his Malay readers to understand.
Al-Rn¥r¥ played a crucial role, not only in clarifying to the Malay-
Indonesian Muslims the very basis of Islamic beliefs and practices but in
revealing the truth of Islam in a comparative perspective with other reli-
gions. He was the first ‘lim ever in the Malay world to write a work on
comparative religion, called Tibyn f¥ Ma’rifat al-Adyn,83 as well as
substantial passages touching on the same subject in his other works.84 The
Tibyn, which has been discussed by scholars,85 was apparently planned
according to the Kitb al-Milal wa al-Niúal, the well-known work on
comparative religion by al-Shahrastn¥. But for much of its contents
al-Rn¥r¥ depends on Ab´ Shah´r al-Salim¥’s Kitb al-Tamh¥d. In the first
part of the Tibyn he begins his discussion with non-scriptural religions, to
conclude with the scriptural religions of Christianity and Judaism. The
second part deals with Islam, including the 72 Muslim splinter groups
considered heretical or outside the true Sunn¥ tradition. As one might
expect, he includes the followers of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n
among these ‘heretics’.
The influence of al-Rn¥r¥ in the field of history was no less profound.
Again, he was the first writer in Malay to present history in a universal
context, and to initiate a new form of Malay historical writing. His history
books, collectively called the Bustn al-Sal¥n, are his most voluminous
work, reflecting the author’s special interest in the field. These seven books
show us how he successfully made use of several traditions of the histori-
ography of Islam and introduced them to Malay audiences. The first two
books present the history of the world, mostly from a theological point of
view. While the first book is written following the pattern of al-Kis’¥’s
Qi§a§ al-Anbiy’, dealing with the creation of the Pen, the Tablet, the Light
of Muúammad and the like, the second book is planned according to al-
$abar¥’s Tr¥kh al-Rusul wa al-Mul´k. Thus, he begins with the history of
the Persian, Greek and Arabian people in the pre-Islamic period, followed
by an annalistic history of Islam until the year of the execution of al-îallj
in 309/921. The second book later goes on to describe the history of the
kings of India and the Malay-Indonesian world. The remaining five books
of the Bustn al-Sal¥n follow the pattern of al-Ghazali’s Nas¥úat al-
Mul´k, and therefore were intended to be guiding books for the court
families.
The Bustn al-Sal¥n is one of the most important early Malay-Indone-
sian histories. It has been an indispensable source for the reconstruction of
the early history of Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world. Its significance
becomes enormous in view of the fact that the history of Islam in the region
is mostly written on the basis of Western sources. Al-Rn¥r¥’s acquaintance
with the history of the archipelago is clearly extraordinary. It seems that
one of his major sources for the Bustn al-Sal¥n was the Sejarah Melayu.
In fact, he was apparently an expert in the detailed description of the

Sejarah Melayu, because he probably was well acquainted with its author,
Tun Seri Lanang. He was also familiar with the genealogy of the Sulns of
Pahang.86
Not least important is al-Rn¥r¥’s role in stimulating further development
of the Malay language as the lingua franca of the Malay-Indonesian world.
He is even acclaimed as one of the first pujanggas (men of letters) of
Malay. Although al-Rn¥r¥ was not a native speaker of Malay, his mastery
of the language was undisputed. A. Teeuw, a Dutch scholar who was one
of the prominent experts in the Malay-Indonesian language, maintains that
his classical Malay indicates none of the awkwardness often found in clas-
sical Malay before the seventeenth century.87 Thus, works in Malay are also
considered literary works, and contributed substantially to the development
of Malay as a language of learning.
4
Networks II: ‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥
We have seen how al-Rn¥r¥ sparked the momentum for renewal in the
Malay-Indonesian world. Although the reform he launched underwent a
significant political setback with his fall, there is no doubt that al-Rn¥r¥
had an irreversible impact. Before long the renewal again gained a crucial
stimulus in al-Sink¥l¥ (1024–1105/1615–93), one of the most important
early mujaddids in the archipelago. We have already established that
al-Rn¥r¥ in one way or another had connections with the core of networks
in the îaramayn. Al-Sink¥l¥ surpassed al-Rn¥r¥ in this respect. He
possessed direct and undisputed links with the major scholars of the
networks. For the first time we find, in al-Sink¥l¥, a clear picture of intel-
lectual and spiritual genealogies, putting Islam in the Malay-Indonesian
world on the map of the global transmission of Islamic reformism.
Al-Sink¥l¥ has been the subject of several important studies. However,
these mainly concentrate on his teachings. Some of them do mention in
passing his teachers in the Middle East, but no attempt has been made to trace
further his intricate intellectual connections with the cosmopolitan scholarly
networks centred in Mecca and Medina. There is no study either that seeks to
examine how his involvement in the networks influenced his thought and
intellectual disposition. Furthermore, no critical study has been done to assess
his role in stimulating Islamic renewal in the Malay-Indonesian world. An
attempt will be made in this chapter to deal with all these questions. In that
way we shall be able to gain a better understanding not only of his position
in the historical course of Islam in the archipelago but also of the interplay
between Islam in the Malay-Indonesian world and Islam in the Middle East.
AL-SINK¡L¡’S EARLY LIFE

‘Abd al-Ra’´f b. ‘Al¥ al-Jw¥ al-Fan§´r¥ al-Sink¥l¥, as his name indicates,
was a Malay of Fan§´r, Sinkil (modern Singkel), on the southwestern
70
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS II 71
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 accepted
by most scholars of al-Sink¥l¥.2 We do not have very reliable accounts of
his familial background. According to Hasjmi, ancestors of al-Sink¥l¥ came
from Persia to the Sultanate of Samudra-Pasai at the end of the thirteenth
century. They later settled in Fan§´r (Barus), an important old harbour on
the coast of western Sumatra. He further argues that al-Sink¥l¥’s father was
the older brother of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥.3 We are not sure whether al-Sink¥l¥
was really a nephew of îamzah, as there is no other source to corroborate
it. It appears that he did have some familial relationship with him, for in
some of his extant works al-Sink¥l¥’s name is followed by the statement:
‘who is of the tribe of îamzah Fan§´r¥’ (‘yang berbangsa îamzah
Fan§´r¥’).4
Daly,5 on the other hand, maintains that al-Sink¥l¥’s father, Shaykh ‘Al¥
[al-Fan§´r¥], was an Arab preacher who, after marrying a local woman of
Fan§´r, took up residence in Singkel, where their child, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, was
born. There is of course the possibility that al-Sink¥l¥’s father was non-
Malay, as we know that Samudra-Pasai and Fan§´r had been frequented by
Arab, Persian, Indian, Chinese and Jewish traders from at least the ninth
century.6 But as far as the accounts of al-Sink¥l¥’s father are concerned,
there is no other source to substantiate them.
It appears that al-Sink¥l¥ acquired his early education in his native
village, Singkel, mainly from his father, a supposed ‘lim, who, Hasjmi7
believes, also founded a madrasah that attracted students from various
places in the Acehnese Sultanate. It is also very likely that he continued his
studies in Fan§´r, as it, as Drakard8 points out, was an important Islamic
centre and a point of contact between Malays and Muslims from western
and southern Asia. According to Hasjmi, al-Sink¥l¥ later travelled to Banda
Aceh, the capital of the Acehnese Sultanate, to study with, among others,
îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥. It is clear that
al-Sink¥l¥ could not have met Hamzah, as the latter died around 1016/1607,
at which time al-Sink¥l¥ was not even born.9 However, we cannot rule out
the possibility of al-Sink¥l¥’s studying with Shams al-D¥n. If we assume that
he studied with Shams al-D¥n (d. 1040/1630) in his final years, al-Sink¥l¥
must have been in his teens at that time.
Despite these problematic accounts, there is no doubt that in the period
before al-Sink¥l¥ departed for Arabia, around 1052/1642, Aceh was marked
by controversies and struggles between the followers of the wuj´diyyah
doctrine and al-Rn¥r¥, as discussed in chapter 3. There is no indication
whatsoever that al-Sink¥l¥ met and had personal contact with al-Rn¥r¥, who
was in Aceh in the period 1047/1637 to 1054/1644–45. However, he must
have been aware of the teaching of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n as
well as of al-Rn¥r¥’s persecution of their followers. Al-Sink¥l¥, as we will
see later, apparently attempted to disengage himself from the controversies.
Map 2 Al-Sink¥l¥’s itinerary
Even though the spirit of al-Sink¥l¥’s writings shows that he differs from
îamzah and Shams al-D¥n, we find no evidence in his teachings that explic-
itly opposes their teaching.10 He also has the same attitude towards
al-Rn¥r¥. Only implicitly does he criticise the way al-Rn¥r¥ carried out his
renewal; he has no dispute with his teachings in general.
AL-SINK¥L¥’S ARABIAN NETWORKS

Although al-Sink¥l¥’s early years were obscure, we are fortunate that he has
left us a biographical codicil of his studies in Arabia. In the codicil attached
to the colophon of one of his works, ‘Umdat al-Muútj¥n il Sul´k Maslak
al-Mufrid¥n,11 he provides us with information on the ar¥qahs 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 ‘lim travelled in
search of ‘ilm (religious knowledge). It discloses not only the crisscrossing
of our scholarly networks but also the process of transmission of Islamic
learning among Muslim scholars.
Al-Sink¥l¥ most probably left Aceh for Arabia in 1052/1642.12 He lists

19 teachers from whom he learned various branches of Islamic discipline,
and 27 other ‘ulam’ with whom he had personal contacts and relations.
We are not going to give accounts of all his teachers; we will examine
only the most prominent among them. Al-Sink¥l¥ studied in a number
of places, scattered along the úajj routes, from ëuú (Doha) in the
Persian Gulf region, Yemen, Jeddah, finally to Mecca and Medina (see
Map 2). Thus he began his studies in ëuú, Qatar, where he studied with
‘Abd al-Qdir al-Mawr¥r,13 but it appears that he stayed there for only a
short time.
Leaving ëuú, al-Sink¥l¥ continued his studies in Yemen, chiefly in Bayt
al-Faq¥h [ibn ‘Ujayl] and Zab¥d, although he also had several teachers in
Mawza’, Mukh, al-Luúayyah, Hudaydah and T’izz. Bayt al-Faq¥h and
Zab¥d were certainly the most important centres of Islamic learning in this
region.14 In Bayt al-Faq¥h he studied mostly with scholars of the Ja’mn
family, such as Ibrh¥m b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn,15 Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh
b. Ja’mn and Qè¥ Isúq b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn. In addition, he estab-
lished relations with Faq¥h al-$ayyib b. Ab¥ al-Qsim b. Ja’mn, the Mufti
of Bayt al-Faq¥h, and another Faq¥h, Muúammad b. Ja’mn.16 The Ja’mns,
an eminent §´f¥-’ulam’ family in Yemen or, as al-Muúibb¥ puts it, ‘a prop
of the people of Yemen’, initially lived in Zab¥d before finally moving to
Bayt al-Faq¥h.17 Several of the Ja’mn scholars, mentioned earlier, were
students of Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ and Ibrh¥m al-Kurn¥.
Among al-Sink¥l¥’s teachers from the Ja’mn family, the most important
was Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh Ibn Ja’mn (d. 1083/1672). Mostly known as a
muúaddith and faq¥h, he appears to have studied largely in the Yemen
region before settling down in Bayt al-Faq¥h. He was a prolific author of
fatws and, therefore, one of the most sought-after scholars in the area.
He also had connections with leading ‘ulam’ in the networks.18 al-Sink¥l¥
relates that he spent most of his time with Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh Ja’mn
studying what he calls ‘’ilm al-½hir’ (exoteric sciences), such as fiqh,
úad¥th and other related subjects. It was ‘with his blessing that this faq¥r,
poor [al-Sink¥l¥] was able to continue his studies under the feet [tapak] of
the enlightened wal¥ (saint] who was the authority and Qub of his time;
that is, Shaykh Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ in the City of the Prophet, peace be
upon him’.19
Isúq b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn (d. 1014–1096/1605–1685) was another
major scholar of the Ja’mn family with whom al-Sink¥l¥ studied. Born in
Zab¥d, he got his early education, in Yemen, from his uncle, Ibn al-
$ayyib b. Ja’mn, among others. Later he travelled to the îaramayn,
where he became a student or rather a friend of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, ‘Is
al-Maghrib¥ and Ibn ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥. Returning to Bayt
al-Faq¥h, he gained fame as a leading faq¥h and muúaddith in the region.
He died in Zab¥d.20 Even though al-Sink¥l¥ mentions only ‘Abd Allh b.
Ja’mn, who introduced him to al-Qushsh¥, it is not unlikely that Isúq

b. Ja’mn also recommended him to study with al-Qushsh¥ as well as
with al-Kurn¥.
The network of al-Sink¥l¥’s clearly becomes more complex on the
continuation of his studies in Zab¥d. Among his teachers in Zabid were
‘Abd al-Raú¥m b. al-êidd¥q al-Kh§§;21 Am¥n b. al-êidd¥q al-Mizjj¥, who
was also a teacher of Muúammad al-Qushsh¥;22 and ‘Abd Allh b.
Muúammad al-’Adan¥, whom al-Sink¥l¥ calls the best reciter of the Qur’n
in the region. He also came into contact with prominent Zab¥d¥ or Yemeni
scholars such as ‘Abd al-Fattú al-Kh§§, the Muft¥ of Zab¥d; Sayyid
al-$hir b. al-îusayn al-Ahdal; Muúammad ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥, a
celebrated Naqshband¥ shaykh (d. 1074/1664),23 who was also a teacher of
al-Maqassr¥; Qè¥ Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr b. Muayr (d. 1086/1675);24
and Aúmad Ab´ al-’Abbs b. al-Muayr (d. 1075/1664).25 Most of these
scholars, especially of the Ahdal and Mizjj¥ families, as we have shown,
played an important role in linking scholars in the networks.
Al-Sink¥l¥ 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
Muft¥, ‘Abd al-Qdir al-Barkhal¥.26 He then continued his travels to Mecca,
where he studied with Badr al-D¥n al-Lah´r¥ and ‘Abd Allh al-Lah´r¥.
Al-Sink¥l¥’s most important teacher in Mecca was ‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qdir al-
$abar¥. Al-Sink¥l¥ was introduced to ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥ by one of his teachers in
Zab¥d, ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad al-Dayba’, a muúaddith who had close relation-
ships with the $abar¥ family and other îaramayn leading scholars.27 ‘Al¥
al-$abar¥, like his brother Zayn al-’bid¥n,28 was a leading Meccan faq¥h.
‘Al¥, or the $abar¥ family, had extensive networks with other Yemeni
scholars, especially of the Ja’mn family, who may also have recom-
mended al-Sink¥l¥ to study with ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥ and other prominent
îaramayn scholars.29
In addition to studying with scholars whom he mentioned specifically as
his teachers, al-Sink¥l¥ established contacts and relations with other promi-
nent scholars in Mecca, both resident and visiting. He does not specify the
nature of his relations with them, but there is little doubt that he gained
great advantages from them. They can be assumed, at least, to have inspired
him and brought him a much wider intellectual perspective. Most of these
scholars are familiar names in the networks: they include ‘Is al-Maghrib¥,
‘Abd al-’Az¥z al-Zamzam¥, Tj al-D¥n Ibn Ya’q´b, ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥,
Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥, ‘Al¥ Jaml al-Makk¥ and ‘Abd Allh b. Sa’¥d B
Qash¥r al-Makk¥ (1003–1076/1595–1665).30
The last leg of al-Sink¥l¥’s long journey in his search of knowledge was
Medina. It was in the City of the Prophet that he felt satisfied that he had
completed his studies. He studied in Medina with Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ until
the latter’s death in 1071/1660, and with his khal¥fah, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥.
With al-Qushsh¥, al-Sink¥l¥ learned what he calls the ‘interior’ sciences
(‘ilm al-bin); that is, ta§awwuf and other related sciences. As a sign of his
completion of studying the mystical way, al-Qushsh¥ appointed him his
Shariyyah and Qdiriyyah khal¥fah. Al-Sink¥l¥’s relationship with
al-Qushsh¥ was apparently very cordial. An account of the Shariyyah
silsilah in West Sumatra tells us that al-Sink¥l¥ studied with and served
al-Qushsh¥ for several years. One day the teacher ordered him to return to
Jwah, for he considered that al-Sink¥l¥ possessed sufficient knowledge
to enable him to carry out further Islamisation in his homeland. Having
heard the order, al-Sink¥l¥ burst into tears, as he felt the need to learn more.
As a result, al-Qushsh¥ changed his mind and allowed him to stay with
him as long as he wished.31
Intellectually, al-Sink¥l¥’s largest debt was to Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥. This is
obvious not only in his thought, reflected in his writings, but also in his
personal demeanour, as we will elaborate shortly. In his accounts, al-Sink¥l¥
makes it clear that it was with al-K´rn¥ that he completed his education
after the death of al-Qushsh¥.32 He had no ar¥qah silsilah with al-K´rn¥;
therefore, what he learned from him apparently were sciences, promoting
an intellectual understanding of Islam rather than a spiritual or mystical
one. In other words, for al-Sink¥l¥, al-Qushsh¥ was a spiritual and mystical
master, while al-Kurn¥ was an intellectual one.
There is no doubt that al-Sink¥l¥’s personal relationship with al-Kurn¥
was very close. We have mentioned earlier that Ibrh¥m wrote his master-
piece, the Itúf al-Dhak¥, on the request of his unnamed ‘a§úb
al-Jwiyy¥n’. Considering their close intellectual and personal ties, it is no
surprise that Johns33 suggests that it was al-Sink¥l¥ who asked al-K´rn¥ to
write it. This suggestion becomes more plausible if one takes into account
the fact that al-Sink¥l¥, after returning to Aceh, asked al-K´rn¥’s opinion
on the way al-Rn¥r¥ launched his reform in Aceh. Furthermore, it was
apparently not the only question sent across the Indian Ocean by al-Sink¥l¥
to al-K´rn¥. In the concluding notes to his Lubb al-Kashf wa al-Bayn li
m yarhu al-Muútaèar bi al-’Iyn, which deals with the best type of dhikr
for the dying, he writes:
Let it be known, my disciples, that after I wrote this treatise, I sent a letter to
the City of the Prophet, to our enlightened Shaykh in the science of Realities
(‘ilm al-úaq’iq) and in the science of secret details of things (‘ilm al-daq’iq),
i.e., Shaykh Mawl Ibrh¥m [al-K´rn¥], asking [his opinion] about all matters
described in the beginning of this treatise whether it is correct in the opinion of
the [leading] §´f¥s, and whether this matter on the best dhikr is discussed in
úad¥th books or in any [other] books. After a while, his treatise entitled Kashf
al-Munta½ar was sent by [our] Shaykh, in which he answers all the questions.34
Although al-Sink¥l¥ obviously spent most of his time in Medina studying

with al-Qushsh¥ and al-K´rn¥, he also established contacts and scholarly
relations with several other leading scholars there (see Chart 4). He
Chart 4 Al-Sink¥l¥’s partial networks

includes in his list35 such scholars as Mull Muúammad Shar¥f al-K´rn¥;

Ibn ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥; Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Khiyar¥
al-Madan¥ (1037–83/1638–72), a student of ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥, Ibrh¥m
al-K´rn¥ and ‘Is al-Maghrib¥;36 and ‘Al¥ al-Ba§¥r al-Mlik¥ al-Madan¥
(d. 1106/1694), a muúaddith.37
Al-Sink¥l¥ notes that he spent 19 years in Arabia. The fact that most of
his teachers and acquaintances are recorded in Arabic biographical diction-
aries indicates the incontestable prominence of al-Sink¥l¥’s intellectual
milieu. Coming from a fringe region of the Muslim world, he entered the
core of the scholarly networks and won the favour of the major scholars in
the îaramayn. His education was undeniably complete from shar¥’ah, fiqh,
úad¥th and other related exetoric disciplines to kalm, and ta§awwuf or
esoteric sciences. His career and works after his return to the archipelago
were the history of his conscious efforts to implant firmly the idea of
harmony between shar¥’ah and ta§awwuf.
Like many other scholars in the networks, al-Sink¥l¥ appears to have
begun his teaching career in the îaramayn. This is no surprise, as by the
time he came to Mecca and Medina he already possessed sufficient knowl-
edge to be transmitted to his fellow Malay-Indonesian Muslims. It appears
that al-Sink¥l¥ also initiated Jw¥ disciples into the Shariyyah ar¥qah.
But there were also Shariyyah silsilahs in Java which went straight back
to Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, instead of by way of al-Sink¥l¥. Snouck Hurgronje38
maintains that al-Qushsh¥ appointed his Malay-Indonesian khal¥fahs
during the pilgrimage. If we accept this, then we can believe that al-Sink¥l¥
played a crucial role in introducing them to al-Qushsh¥.
AL-SINK¡L¡’S TEACHINGS AND RENEWAL

Al-Sink¥l¥ supplies no date for his return to his homeland. However, he
indicates that he returned not long after the death of al-Qushsh¥, and after
al-K´rn¥ issued him an ijzah to transmit what he had received from him.
Therefore, most scholars of al-Sink¥l¥ are in accord that he returned to Aceh
about 1072/1661.39 It is useful to recall that Sulnah êafiyyat al-D¥n, who
had patronised al-Rn¥r¥ for about two and a half years before turning to
Sayf al-Rijl, still occupied the throne of the Acehnese Sultanate. We do
not know for sure whether Sayf al-Rijl, powerful exponent of the
wuj´diyyah type of Sufism, was still alive nor how far the doctrine could
be revived by him.
In any case, the arrival of al-Sink¥l¥ from Arabia naturally created curios-
ity, particularly among court circles. Before long al-Sink¥l¥ was attended by
a court official, Ktib Seri Raja b. îamzah al-sh¥, who put unspecified
religious questions to him. Voorhoeve40 points out that al-sh¥’s office was
‘Reureukon Katiboy Mulo’; that is, the Secret Secretary of the Sulnah.
Therefore, Voorhoeve believes that al-sh¥ was assigned by the Sulnah
to assess al-Sink¥l¥’s religious views. It is clear that al-Sink¥l¥ passed the

‘examination’, as he soon won the favour of the court. He was appointed
by the Sulnah to the office of the Qè¥ Malik al-’dil or Muft¥ who was
responsible for administering religious affairs.
Before we proceed with al-Sink¥l¥’s teachings and his renewal, it is
appropriate to discuss briefly the political developments in the Acehnese
Sultanate during his career. The most striking feature of the period was that
the Sultanate was ruled by four successive Sulnahs, well until the close of
the seventeenth century. We already know that the first sulnah was
êafiyyat al-D¥n, who succeeded her husband, Iskandar Thn¥, in
1051/1641. Under her long rule until 1086/1675, the Sultanate’s authority
substantially dwindled; much territory under its control in the Malay Penin-
sula and Sumatra soon broke away.41 In addition to its political decline, the
Sultanate under êafiyyat al-D¥n was marked by religious turmoil.
The next Sulnah, N´r al-’lam Naq¥yyat al-D¥n, after reigning for only
three years (1086–88/1675–8), was succeeded by Zakiyyat al-D¥n
(1088–98/1678–88). Despite the Acehnese political troubles, the Sultanate
was still apparently a respected Muslim political entity in the region. Thus
in 1096/1683 Sulnah Zakiyyat al-D¥n received a delegation from the
Shar¥f of Mecca. The delegation was initially dispatched by the Shar¥f
Barakat to meet the Moghul Suln Aurangzeb, who reportedly refused to
entertain them. As a result, the delegation came to Aceh instead, bringing
letters and gifts for the Sulnah. Feeling very pleased, she asked them to
stay for a while in the capital city, while preparing gifts for the Shar¥f of
Mecca. It is reported that the Acehnese sent gifts and §adaqah (charitable
gifts), consisting of, among other things, a statue made of gold taken from
the ruins of the palace and the Bayt al-Raúmn Mosque, which had both
been destroyed by fire during the period of Sulnah Naqiyyat al-D¥n.42
It is clear that al-Sink¥l¥ was involved in events surrounding the dele-
gation. However, we have no information on his exact role in entertaining
the envoys of the Shar¥f of Mecca. The delegation finally returned to
Mecca, bringing numerous gifts to be presented not only to the Shar¥f of
Mecca, and the Prophet Mosque in Medina, but also to the poor population
in the îaramayn. There was dispute among the sons of the deceased Shar¥f
Barakat concerning the distribution of the gifts. The events surrounding the
delegation, the coming of the gifts from ‘Bandr sh¥’ (Banda Aceh) and
the dispute among members of the Shar¥fian family are not ignored by Arab
historians. Based on a chronicle written about 1700, Aúmad Daúln, an
eminent scholar and historian of Mecca, gave a detailed account of the
events.43
The coming of the delegation from Mecca was to a certain extent a boost
to the prestige of the Sulnah. But it was also taken as a good opportunity
for some Acehnese to ask for an opinion on the question of whether it was
permissible according to Islamic law for a woman to be a ruler.44 The
question had long been an unsolved problem among the Acehnese.

Al-Sink¥l¥ himself appears to have failed to answer it explicitly. In his
fiqh work Mir’t al-$ullb, he does not address the issue directly.
Discussing the requirements for the úkim (judge—by extension, the ruler),
al-Sink¥l¥ seems deliberately to provide no Malay translation for the word
dhakar (male).45 He could possibly be accused of compromising his intel-
lectual integrity, not only by accepting the rule of a woman but also by not
addressing the issue more properly. On the other hand, this case could be a
further indication of his personal tolerance, a trait al-Sink¥l¥ certainly
possessed.
Similarly, the Meccan delegation gave no answer to the matter but appar-
ently brought the question to the attention of the îaramayn ‘ulam’. The
answer finally came from Mecca to the Acehnese court during the reign of
Sulnah Kamlat al-D¥n (1098–1109/1688–99). The Chief Muft¥ of Mecca
reportedly sent a fatw, declaring that it ran contrary to shar¥’ah for an
Islamic kingdom to be ruled by a woman. As a result, Kamlat al-D¥n was
deposed from the throne, and ‘Umar b. Qè¥ al-Malik al-’dil Ibrh¥m was
installed as Suln Badr al-’lam Shar¥f Hshim B al-’Alaw¥ al-Husayn¥,
establishing the ‘Arab Jaml al-Layl dynasty in Aceh.46
Thus, in his entire career in Aceh, al-Sink¥l¥ was patronised by the
Sulnahs. He wrote about 22 works, dealing with fiqh, tafs¥r, kalm, and
ta§awwuf.47 He wrote in both Malay and Arabic. He appears to have
preferred to write in Arabic rather in Malay, acknowledging that his
Malay was not very good because of his long sojourn in Arabia. There-
fore, he was helped by two teachers of the Malay language to write his
works in Sumatran Malay or, as he puts it: ‘in the lisn al-Jwiyyat al-
Samatra’iyyah.’48 Throughout his writings al-Sink¥l¥, much like Ibrh¥m
al-K´rn¥, demonstrates that his main concern is the reconciliation
between the shar¥’ah and ta§awwuf, or in his own terms, between the
½hir and bin sciences.
The major work of al-Sink¥l¥ in fiqh is Mir’t al-$ullb f¥ Tash¥l Ma’rifat
al-Al-Aúkm al-Shar’iyyah li al-Malik al-Wahhb.49 Written on the request
of Sulnah êafiyyat al-D¥n, it was completed in 1074/1663. Unlike the
êir al-Mustaq¥m of al-Rn¥r¥, which deals solely with ‘ibdat (devotional
services), the Mir’t al-$ullb sets out the mu’malat aspect of fiqh, includ-
ing the political, social, economic and religious life of the Muslims.
Covering so many topics, it is a substantial work in the field. Its main
source was the Fatú al-Wahhb of Zakariyy al-An§r¥, a major predeces-
sor in the networks discussed earlier.50 But al-Sink¥l¥ also derives materials
from such standard books as: Fatú al-Jawwd and Tuúfat al-Muútj, both
of Ibn îajar al-Haytam¥ (d. 973/1565); Nihyat al-Muútj of Shams al-D¥n
al-Raml¥; Tafs¥r al-Bayèw¥ of Ibn ‘Umar al-Bayèw¥ (d. 685/1286); and
Sharú êaú¥ú Muslim of al-Nawaw¥ (d. 676/1277).51 With these sources
al-Sink¥l¥ makes clear his intellectual connections with the networks.
Al-Sink¥l¥ was the first scholar in the Malay-Indonesian world who
wrote on the fiqh mu’malat. By way of the Mir’t al-$ullb he shows his
fellow Muslims that Islamic legal doctrines are not confined to purely
devotional services (‘ibdat) but include all aspects of their daily life. The
Mir’t al-$ullb is no longer used in the archipelago today, although in
the past the work was widely circulated. Hooker52 has pointed out that the
Luwaran, ‘Selections’, used by the Muslims of Maguindanao, the Philip-
pines, since the middle of the nineteenth century, made the Mir’t al-$ullb
one of its main references. Another work of al-Sink¥l¥ in fiqh, Kitb al-
Far’iè, presumably taken from the Mir’t al-$ullb, was apparently used
by some Malay-Indonesian Muslims until more recent times.53
The significance of Al-Sink¥l¥ to the development of Islam in the archi-
pelago is irrefutable in the field of Qur’nic commentary (tafs¥r). He was
the first ‘lim ever in this part of the Muslim world to take on the enormous
task of preparing tafs¥r of the whole Qur’n in Malay. A number of studies
have discovered that before him there was only a fragment of commentary
on s´rah 18 (al-Kahf). That work, supposedly written during the period of
îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ or Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥, follows the tradition
of al-Khzin’s commentary. But the style of translation and interpretation
was different from that of îamzah or Shams al-D¥n who, as a rule, inter-
preted passages of Qur’nic verses cited in their works in a mystical
sense.54
Although al-Sink¥l¥ gives no date for the completion of his acclaimed
tafs¥r work, entitled Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d, there is no doubt that he wrote
it during his long career in Aceh. Hasjmi55 maintains that it was written in
India, when he allegedly travelled there. This is a wild supposition, as there
is no indication whatsoever that al-Sink¥l¥ ever set foot in India. Further-
more, it would have been impossible for him to undertake such a huge work
while travelling. The patronage he enjoyed from the Acehnese rulers makes
it more plausible that he wrote the work in Aceh.
Being the earliest tafs¥r, it is not surprising that his work was widely
circulated in the Malay-Indonesian world. Editions are found to be among
the Malay community as far away as South Africa. Of various MSS avail-
able in many collections, Riddell56 has established that the earliest extant
copy of the Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d dates back to the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries. More importantly, the Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d
lithograph and printed editions were published not only in Singapore,
Penang, Jakarta and Bombay but also in the Middle East. It was published
in Istanbul by the Maba’ah al-’Uthmniyyah as early as 1302/1884 (and in
1324/1906); and later also in Cairo (by Sulaymn al-Margh¥) and Mecca
(by al-Am¥riyyah).57 The fact that the Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d was published
in the Middle East at various times reflects the importance of the work as
well as the intellectual stature of al-Sink¥l¥. Its latest edition was published
in Jakarta as recently as 1981. This indicates that the work is still in use
among Malay-Indonesian Muslims today.
The tafs¥r has long been regarded as simply a translation into Malay of
the Anwr al-Tanz¥l of Bayèw¥. Snouck Hurgonje,58 apparently without
having studied the work in greater detail, concludes in his typically cynical
way that it was merely a bad rendering of al-Bayèw¥’s commentary. With
this conclusion Snouck was responsible for leading astray two other Dutch
scholars, Rinkes and Voorhoeve. Rinkes, a student of Snouck, creates addi-
tional errors by stating that al-Sink¥l¥’s works, in addition to the Tarjumn
al-Mustaf¥d, include a translation of the Bayèw¥ Tafs¥r and a translation of
a section of the Jallayn Tafs¥r.59 Voorhoeve, after following Snouck and
Rinkes, finally changed his conclusion by stating that the sources of the
Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d were various Arabic exegetical works.60
Riddell and Harun,61 in their studies, have shown convincingly that the
work is a rendering of the Jallayn Tafs¥r. Only in rare instances did
al-Sink¥l¥ make use of the commentaries of al-Bayèw¥ and al-Khzin
(d. 41/1340). This identification is important, not only for disclosing the
line of transmission from the centres, but for showing the approach
al-Sink¥l¥ used in transmitting what he received from his teachers in the
networks to his Malay-Indonesian audience.
The Jallayn Tafs¥r, it is worth noting, was written by the two Jalls; that
is, Jall al-D¥n al-Maúall¥ (d. 864/1459) and Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥
(d. 911/1505), a major figure to whom most of our leading scholars in the
networks traced their intellectual and spiritual genealogies. Al-Sink¥l¥’s
selection of this tafs¥r as the major source of his own commentary, there-
fore, must be because he possessed isnds connecting him to Jall al-D¥n
al-Suy´¥ through both al-Qushsh¥ and al-K´rn¥. Having had ijzahs to
transmit from al-K´rn¥ all the sciences he received through successive
chains of transmission, which included al-Suy´¥, al-Sink¥l¥ could be
expected to prefer the Jallayn Tafs¥r to other commentaries of the Qur’n.
This argument becomes more plausible when we take into account the fact
that al-Sink¥l¥ also took the Fatú al-Wahhb of Zakariyy al-An§r¥ as the
main source for his Mir’t al-$ullb. His tendency to rely heavily on the
works by scholars in the networks is also clear in his works on kalm and
ta§awwuf.
Furthermore, as Johns argues,62 although the Jallayn Tafs¥r was often
considered as contributing little to the development of the tradition
of Qur’nic commentary, it is a masterly, lucid and succinct exegesis of
the Qur’n. Furthermore, it provides asbb al-nuz´l (the backgrounds to
revelation) of the verses, which are very helpful for a fuller comprehension
of the commentary. With these characteristics, the Jallayn is a good
introductory text for novices in the science of tafs¥r among the
Malay-Indonesian Muslims. In rendering the Jallayn into Malay, al-Sink¥l¥
makes it simple or comprehensible to his fellow Malays in general. As a
rule, he translates the Jallayn word for word, and restrains himself from
giving his own additions. Furthermore, he leaves out the Arabic grammat-
ical explanations and long commentaries that might distract the attention of
his audience. Thus, it is clear that his intention is that the Tarjumn al-
Mustaf¥d 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 Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d in the
history of Islam in the archipelago. Johns63 maintains that ‘it is in more than
one way a landmark in the history of Islamic learning in Malay’. It has
contributed significantly to the study of Qur’nic commentary in the archi-
pelago. It lays the foundation for a bridge between tarjamah (translation)
and tafs¥r,64 and thus stimulates further study on the tafs¥r works in Arabic.
For almost three centuries it was the only full rendering of the Qur’n in
Malay; only in the past 30 years have new commentaries in Malay-
Indonesian made their appearance, but without necessarily detracting from
the Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d. 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 al-Sink¥l¥ inherits the tendency
from the scholarly networks of emphasising the importance of the úad¥th.
He wrote two works in this field. The first was a commentary on the
Arba’ń îad¥th of al-Nawaw¥, written at the request of Sulnah Zakiyyat
al-D¥n.65 The second was al-Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah, a collection of úad¥th
quds¥—that is, God’s revelation communicated to the believers by the
Prophet’s own words. Again, al-Sink¥l¥’s selection of these works reflects
his genuine concern for his fellow Muslims at the grassroots level; all he
wants is to lead them to a better understanding of the teachings of Islam. It
is worth noting that the Forty îad¥th of al-Nawaw¥, a small collection of
úad¥ths concerning the basic and practical duties of Muslims, is clearly
intended for a general audience rather than specialists pursuing religious
studies.
Al-Sink¥l¥’s collection of the úad¥th quds¥ possesses a similar nature. It
delineates 50 teachings (pengajaran) concerning God and His relation
to creation, hell and paradise, and the proper ways for the individual to
achieve God’s favour. Al-Sink¥l¥ particularly emphasises the need for each
Muslim to find harmony between knowledge (‘ilm) and good deeds
(‘amal); knowledge alone will not make a better Muslim: he must do good
deeds as well. He thus appeals to Muslim activism.66 The Maw’i½
al-Bad¥’ah 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 Muslims
in the archipelago.68 With these works, al-Sink¥l¥ set an example for later
Malay scholars to undertake works on small collections of the úad¥th, as
since the nineteenth century such works have been very popular in the
archipelago.69
Al-Sink¥l¥ writes not only for common Muslims (al-’awwm) on the
½hir sciences but also for the elite (al-khaww§) on topics related to
the bin sciences, such as kalm and ta§awwuf. He wrote several works
dealing 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
interest among scholars in exploring them. The works of îamzah

al-Fan§´r¥ and Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥, however, whom Johns calls ‘the
foremost exponents of heterodox pantheistic mysticism’, have been
published. Al-Sink¥l¥’s orthodoxy, he laments further, appeals less to the
imagination of scholars than heresy.72
To begin our discussion of his mystical teachings, al-Sink¥l¥, in his Kifyat
al-Muútaj¥n il Mashrab al-Muwaúúid¥n al-Q’il¥n bi Waúdat al-Wuj´d,73
insists on the transcendence of God over His creation. He refuses to adhere
to the notion of the wuj´diyyah, which emphasises the immanence of God in
His creation. This teaching reminds us of the doctrines developed by the
leading scholars discussed earlier. Al-Sink¥l¥ argues that before God created
the universe (al-’lam) He always thought of Himself, which resulted in the
creation of the N´r Muúammad (the Light that is Muhammad). It is from the
N´r Muúammad that God created permanent archetypes (al-a’yn al-
thbitah), namely, the potential universe, which became the source of the
exterior archetypes (al-a’yn al-khrijiyyah), the creation in its concrete
form. Al-Sink¥l¥ concludes that although the a’yn al-khrijiyyah are the
emanation of the Absolute Being, they are distinct from God Himself: it is
like a hand and its shadow. Although the hand can hardly be separated from
its shadow, the latter is not identical to the former. With this explanation, al-
Sink¥l¥ establishes the transcendence of God over His creation.
The same argument is presented in his short treatise entitled Daq’iq
al-îur´f. The work is a commentary on the so-called ‘two pantheistic
verses’ of Ibn ‘Arab¥.74 There is no need to dwell on al-Sink¥l¥’s discussion
of the verses, as Johns has shown us that al-Sink¥l¥ knowledgeably inter-
prets them in an orthodox sense,75 proving that God and the universe are not
identical. Although al-Sink¥l¥ also makes use of the quasi neo-Platonic
emanation system, also closely associated with the pantheism of Shams
al-D¥n, he carefully distances himself from an unorthodox interpretation.76
Johns concludes:
He [al-Sink¥l¥] affirms at once the intuition of the mystics and the rights of
orthodoxy, recognising the incapacity of human words to express adequately
the dependence of the world upon God and its existence through Him, and the
unspeakable reality of the Divine transcendence.77
Al-Sink¥l¥’s interpretation is clearly reminiscent of Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥,

who emphasises the importance of intuition (kashf) in the mystical way,
while recognising the limit of reason in understanding the Realities of God.
Al-Sink¥l¥ expresses his intellectual links with al-K´rn¥ in a more than
implicit way. In discussing the Unity of God in the Daq’iq al-îur´f,78 he
relies heavily on al-K´rn¥’s concepts of Tawú¥d al-Ul´hiyyah (Divine
Unity), Tawú¥d al-Af’l (Unity of God’s Act), Tawú¥d al-êift (Unity of
Attributes), Tawú¥d al-Wuj´d (Unity of Being), Tawú¥d al-Dht (Unity
of Essence) and Tawú¥d al-îaq¥q¥ (Unity of Absolute Reality).79
Like Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, al-Sink¥l¥ proposes that the most effective way
to feel and grasp the Unity God is by performing ‘ibdat, particularly
dhikr (‘remembrance’ of God), both silently (sirr) and vocally (jahr).
According to al-Sink¥l¥, the aim of the dhikr more specifically is to achieve
al-mawt al-ikhtiyr¥ (‘voluntary’ death), or what is called by al-K´rn¥ al-
mawt al-ma’nw¥ (‘ideational’ death), as opposed to al-mawt al-ab¥’¥
(natural death).80 In his detailed method of dhikr, however, al-Sink¥l¥,
largely follows that of Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, as described in his work al-
Sim al-Maj¥d.81 He also follows al-Qushsh¥’s teachings on the obligation
of disciples towards their master, as he shows in his two treatises called
respectively Risalah Adab Murid akan Syaikh and Rislah Mukhta§arah f¥
Bayn Shur´ al-Shaykh wa al-Mur¥d.82
Having discussed al-Sink¥l¥’s teachings, it is clear that he transmitted
the doctrines and tendencies in the scholarly networks in order to renew the
Islamic tradition in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago. The most salient
feature of his teachings indicates that what he transmitted is neo-Sufism:
his works make it clear that ta§awwuf should go hand in hand with the
shar¥’ah. Only with total obedience to the shar¥’ah can aspirants of
mystical ways gain the true experience of the úaq¥qah (realities).
It is important to keep in mind, however, that al-Sink¥l¥’s approach to
renewal was different from that of al-Rn¥r¥: he was a mujaddid of an
evolutionary type, not a radical. Therefore, like Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, he
preferred to reconcile opposing views rather than to take sides. Even
though he was against the doctrines of wuj´diyyah, only implicitly does he
make clear his views. Similarly, he shows his dislike for the radical
approach of al-Rn¥r¥’s renewal quite simply and not explicitly. Again,
without mentioning al-Rn¥r¥’s name, he wisely reminds Muslims in the
Daq’iq al-îur´f of the danger of accusing others of unbelieving by citing
a úad¥th of the Prophet, stating ‘let no man accuse another of leading a
sinful life or of infidelity, for the accusation will turn back if it is false’.83
Considering al-Sink¥l¥’s gentleness and tolerance, Johns84 rightly concludes
that he was a mirror image of his teacher, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥.
AL-SINK¡L¡’S MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS

The Acehnese have long been proud of their country; they have always
called their country, with pride, ‘Serambi Mekkah’, or the front yard or gate
to the Holy Land, not only because of its crucial role in Islamic learning but
also for its position as the most important transit point for the Malay-
Indonesian pilgrims in their journey to and from the îaramayn.85 Aceh’s
special position was among the main reasons why works of scholars like
îamzah al-Fan§´r¥, Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥, al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sink¥l¥
became widely circulated in the archipelago. The fact that all these scholars
lived in Aceh, together with extensive relations and contacts between
the Acehnese and foreign Muslim scholars, contributed substantially to the
establishment of the identity of the Acehnese as one of the most ardent

Muslim ethnic groups in the archipelago.
Al-Sink¥l¥ appears to have begun teaching while he was in the
îaramayn, but we have no information on his disciples there. It is only
after he returned to Aceh that we are able to trace his Malay-Indonesian
network of disciples. These disciples, in turn, were responsible for spread-
ing al-Sink¥l¥’s teachings and ar¥qahs, particularly the Shariyyah order,
in many parts of the archipelago.
There is no doubt that the type of the Shariyyah order, so often asso-
ciated with the Indian type of Sufism, that was implanted by al-Sink¥l¥ in
the archipelago was the one that had been reformed by such leading
scholars in our networks as Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ and Aúmad al-Qushsh¥.
Archer,86 in his classical study, calls the Shariyyah introduced by
al-Sink¥l¥ the ‘orthodox way’. Although in his silsilah al-Sink¥l¥ refers to
the ar¥qah as the Shariyyah, he also calls it the ‘Qushshiyyah’
ar¥qah.87 The Shariyyah ar¥qah was also known as the ‘Ishqiyyah in
Iran and as the Bismiyyah in Ottoman Turkey, but is not generally known
as the Qushshiyyah.88 The Qushshiyyah ar¥qah was another name for
the reformed Shariyyah and became a unique Malay-Indonesian
phenomenon. This can be taken as an indication of al-Sink¥l¥’s attempts to
disengage his ar¥qah from the early Shariyyah. The Qushshiyyah
ar¥qah was and can still be found in certain parts of the archipelago.89
The most celebrated of al-Sink¥l¥’s disciples in Sumatra was Burhn
al-D¥n, better known as the Tuanku of Ulakan,90 a village on the coast of
the Minangkabau region (now West Sumatra). Local accounts of the devel-
opment of Islam in Minangkabau relate that Burhn al-D¥n (1056–1104/
1646–92) studied with al-Sink¥l¥ for several years before returning to his
home region.91 Burhn al-D¥n was, of course, not the first scholar to intro-
duce Islam to the Minangkabau area, but he undoubtedly played a crucial
role in the intensification of Islamisation among its population.
Soon after his return, Burhn al-D¥n established his Shariyyah surau,
a ribat-type educational institution, in Ulakan. Before long it gained fame
as the sole religious authority in Minangkabau.92 The Ulakan surau
attracted numerous students from throughout the region; they specialised in
various branches of Islamic discipline, and in turn established their own
suraus when they returned to their home villages.93 By the fourth quarter of
the eighteenth century several leading students of Burhn al-D¥n began in
earnest to launch their reforms, which reached a climax at the turn of the
century.94
Another eminent student of al-Sink¥l¥ was ‘Abd al-Muúy¥ of West Java.
It is through the latter’s efforts that the Shariyyah gained a large follow-
ing in Java. Although our sources provide no date of birth, they are in
accord in reporting that ‘Abd al-Muúy¥ studied with al-Sink¥l¥ in Aceh
before embarking on a pilgrimage to Mecca. He was reported also to have
travelled to Baghdad in order to visit the tomb of ‘Abd al-Qdir al-Jayln¥.
Returning from the úajj pilgrimage, on the request of the local leader he
settled in Karang, Pamijahan, West Java, where he played a substantial role
in converting people from animistic beliefs to Islam. ‘Abd al-Muúy¥ was
also very active in preaching the Shariyyah ar¥qah, for many silsilahs of
the order in Java and the Malay Peninsula went through him which he
received directly from al-Sink¥l¥.95
Al-Sink¥l¥ also had a prominent student in the Malay Peninsula: he was
‘Abd al-Mlik b. ‘Abd Allh (1089–1149/1678–1736), better known as
Tok Pulau Manis, of Trengganu. Abdullah points out that ‘Abd al-Mlik
studied with al-Sink¥l¥ in Aceh, and later continued his studies in the
îaramayn. According to local tradition, he studied there also with Ibrh¥m
al-K´rn¥. But this is hardly plausible, because at the time of the latter’s
death (1101/1690) ‘Abd al-Mlik had not even been born. At best, he may
have met with al-K´rn¥’s students. Apart from this problematic account,
‘Abd al-Mlik was obviously a scholar of some distinction. His works deal
mainly with the shar¥’ah or fiqh; he was also very active in teaching.96
The closest disciple of al-Sink¥l¥, without doubt, was Dw´d al-Jw¥
al-Fan§´r¥ b. Ism’¥l b. Agh Mu§af b. Agh ‘Al¥ al-R´m¥. The importance
of citing his long full name is to indicate that he was most likely of Turkish
origin. His father was probably one of the Turkish mercenaries who came in
large numbers to assist the Acehnese Sultanate in their contest with the
Portuguese in the early sixteenth century. The attribution al-Jw¥ indicates
that his mother was probably a Malay, or that he was born in the archipelago.
Despite the obscurity surrounding his origin, Dw´d al-Jw¥ al-R´m¥
was the most favoured student of al-Sink¥l¥. There is a strong indication in
the colophon of al-Sink¥l¥’s Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d that he was ordered by
the teacher to make some addition to the tafs¥r. And there is also a sugges-
tion that he did so under the supervision of al-Sink¥l¥ himself before the
latter’s death.97 Hasjmi98 maintains that Dw´d al-Jw¥ al-R´m¥ was the
main khal¥fah of al-Sink¥l¥. Together with his master, he founded a dayah,
a traditional Acehnese Islamic educational institution, in Banda Aceh. He
was also reported to have written several works.
Al-Sink¥l¥ died around 1105/1693 and was buried near the kuala, or the
mouth, of the Aceh River. The site also became the graveyard for his wives,
Dw´d al-R´m¥ and other disciples. It is after the site of his tomb that
al-Sink¥l¥ later came to be known as the Shaykh of Kuala. Al-Sink¥l¥’s tomb
has become the most important place of religious visitation (ziyrah) in
Aceh until the present time.99
It is important to note that al-Sink¥l¥ was also associated with
al-Maqassr¥. They were in fact friends, studying together with, among
others, al-Qushsh¥ and al-K´rn¥. It is to al-Maqassr¥ that we now turn.
5
Networks III: Muúammad
Y´suf al-Maqassr¥
Our discussion of the Malay-Indonesian connection of the networks of

‘ulam’ up to now has centred mainly on Aceh. The third figure of Islamic
renewal in the archipelago, Muúammad Y´suf al-Maqassr¥ (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 to
get a better grasp of al-Maqassr¥’s role in Islamic development in these
places, we must also deal in passing with the religious and intellectual life
of the Muslims in these respective areas.
There have been a number of studies devoted to al-Maqassr¥, in
both Indonesia and South Africa.1 But most of them centre only on his
career in the archipelago or when he was in exile in South Africa; very little
attention has been given to his scholarly connections within the interna-
tional networks of ‘ulam’. This fails not only to trace the origins of
al-Maqassr¥’s teachings but also to recognise his role as one of the early
transmitters of Islamic reformism to the region where he lived.
FROM SULAWESI TO BANTEN AND ARABIA

Muúammad Y´suf b. ‘Abd Allh Ab´ al-Maúsin al-Tj al-Khalwt¥
al-Maqassr¥, also known in Sulawesi as ‘Tuanta Salamaka ri Gowa’ (Our
Gracious Master from Gowa), according to the Annals of Gowa, was born
in 1037/1627.2 Despite myth and legends concerning the parents and events
surrounding the birth of al-Maqassr¥, 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,
al-Maqassr¥ was educated according to Islamic tradition. He initially
learned to read the Qur’n with a local teacher named Daeng ri Tasam-
mang. Later he studied Arabic, fiqh, tawú¥d and ta§awwuf with Sayyid B
87
‘Alw¥ b. ‘Abd Allh al-’Allmah al-$hir, an Arab preacher who lived in

Bontoala at that time. When he was 15 years of age he continued his studies
in Cikoang, where he studied with Jall al-D¥n al-Aydid, a peripatetic
teacher who was reported to have come from Aceh to Kutai, Kalimantan,
before finally settling down in Cikoang.3
The accounts of al-Maqassr¥’s initial religious education again empha-
sise the nature of Islamic development in Sulawesi, as in many parts of the
archipelago, namely, that wandering scholars, many of them §´f¥s, played a
crucial 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 evidence
of their presence in the region. It was in the early seventeenth century that
these peripatetic teachers, from Aceh, Minangkabau, South Kalimantan
(Borneo), Java, the Malay Peninsula and the Middle East, succeeded in
converting large numbers of the population of Sulawesi. They had much
greater success after the local rulers embraced Islam.4
Thus, in the period of al-Maqassr¥’s birth, Islam was gaining firmer
roots in South Sulawesi. By the third decade of the seventeenth century the
newly Islamised rulers made their attempts to translate some doctrines of
the shar¥’ah into the political organisation of their kingdoms. Religious
posts such as imm (prayer leader), kha¥b (reciter of the Friday sermon)
and qè¥ (judge) were created, and their holders became included among
the nobility.5 With the creation of these offices, many wandering scholars
were encouraged to stay. Al-Maqassr¥ was able to acquire a rudimentary
Islamic education in his own region. However, it is important to note that
doctrines of Islamic law were adopted only to a limited degree, especially
those concerning familial matters, which were incorporated in local
customs variously called pangaderreng or panngadakkang.
Returning from Cikoang, al-Maqassr¥ married a daughter of the Suln
of Gowa, ‘Al’ al-D¥n, also known locally as Mangarangi Daeng Maura-
biya (r. 1001–46/1591–1636). Al-Maqassr¥ had apparently long cherished
an ambition to pursue further studies in the Middle East; it can be expected
that his teachers of Arab origin gave him a further incentive towards
Islamic learning there. Al-Maqassr¥ left Makassar for Arabia in the month
of Rajab 1054/September 1644.6 Makassar, it is worth noting, was an
important harbour in the eastern part of the archipelago, and from the
second half of the fifteenth century it had been frequented by Malay-
Indonesian and foreign traders. It had links, in the interinsular trading
networks, with Banten and other harbours on northern Java as well as with
Malacca and Aceh. Al-Maqassr¥ 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 important
Muslim kingdoms on Java. When al-Maqassr¥ arrived in Banten, the
reigning ruler was Ab´ al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir (r. 1037–63/1626–51),
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN NETWORKS III 89
who was granted the title of Suln by the Shar¥f of Mecca in 1048/1638.
He evidently had a special interest in religious matters; he sent inquiries
about religious matters not only to al-Rn¥r¥ but also to scholars in the
îaramayn, which resulted in special works written by those scholars,
answering his questions.8 As a result, Banten became known as one of the
most important Islamic centres on Java, and it is highly possible that al-
Maqassr¥ also studied there. Not least importantly, he was able to establish
close personal relations with the elite of the Bantenese Sultanate, especially
with the Crown Prince, Pangeran Surya, who would succeed his father,
Ab´ al-Mafkhir, as Suln with the official name ‘Abd al-Fattú, better
known as Suln Ageng Tirtayasa.
Following the route of the interinsular trade, al-Maqassr¥ departed for
Aceh. It is reported9 that while he was in Banten he had already heard about
al-Rn¥r¥ and intended to study with him. Meanwhile, al-Rn¥r¥ had left
Aceh for his home of birth, Rn¥r, in 1054/1644. As al-Maqassr¥ departed
from Makassar in the same year, it is unlikely that they met in Aceh.
However, al-Maqassr¥, in his work Saf¥nat al-Najh, before giving his
complete silsilah of the Qdiriyyah ar¥qah, has the following to say:
As for the chains of initiation of the khal¥fah al-Qdiriyyah, I take it from

my Shaykh and prop (sandaran), the learned and prominent, the wise and
inimitable, who possesses the sciences of shar¥’ah and úaq¥qah, exploring
ma’rifah and ar¥qah, my master and teacher (guru), Shaykh N´r al-D¥n
b. îasanji b. Muúammad îumayd al-Quraysh¥ al-Rn¥r¥; may God purify
his spirit and illuminate his tomb.10
Considering this account, it is likely that al-Maqassr¥ followed al-Rn¥r¥

to India, where, as al-Attas points out, he studied also with ‘Umar b. ‘Abd
Allh B Shaybn, al-Rn¥r¥’s teacher.11 If this is so, he must have been
introduced to B Shaybn by al-Rn¥r¥; and they must have met only in the
Gujarat region as, so far as we are aware, B Shaybn never travelled to the
Malay-Indonesian world.
In all probability it is from the Gujarat coast that al-Maqassr¥ continued
his travels to the Middle East. His first destination was the Yemen, where he
studied mostly in Zab¥d, with Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Naqshband¥,
Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-Zab¥d¥ and Muúammad b. al-Waj¥h al-Sa’d¥ al-Yaman¥.12
We have mentioned earlier that Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥
al-Naqshband¥ (d. 1074/1664), probably the most important scholar of the
Mizjj¥ family in the seventeenth century, was one of the scholars al-Sinkil¥
came into contact with in the Yemen. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ was in fact the prede-
cessor of the Mizjj¥ scholars, who played an increasingly important role in
the expansion of the networks to many parts of the Muslim world.
Volll3 has suggested that by the beginning of the eighteenth century the
Mizjj¥s had been identified with the Naqshbandiyyah order. The associ-
ation certainly began with ‘Abd al-Bq¥, for, as al-Muúibb¥ points out,14
he was initiated into the order by Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥, the leading shaykh of
the Naqshbandiyyah in Mecca. Al-Maqassr¥ tells us that he took the
Naqshbandiyyah ar¥qah from ‘Abd al-Bq¥.l5 He does not make mention
of other sciences he learned from ‘Abd al-Bq¥; therefore, we can assume
that al-Maqassr¥ primarily studied ta§awwuf with him.
The second major teacher of al-Maqassr¥ in Yemen was simply named
Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-Zab¥d¥ or ‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ Bakr, according to al-Maqassr¥’s
silsilah of the B ‘Alwiyyah ar¥qah.l6 It is difficult to identify this scholar
in Arabic sources, because his is a very common name. But his identifi-
cation with Zab¥d helps us in some way. Al-Muúibb¥ mentions two ‘Al¥s,
one of whom could be a teacher of al-Maqassari, because of his connection
not only with al-Sinkil¥ but also with the larger networks; he is ‘Ali bin
Muhammad b. al-Shaybani al-Zabidi, as described later.
To take al-Maqassr¥’s silsilah of the B ‘Alwiyyah into account, it is
possible that Sayyid ‘Al¥ was ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr b. Muayr,
who died in Zab¥d in 1084/1673. The Muayr scholars had played some role
in the networks; two of the Muayr scholars, have already been mentioned
namely, Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr and Aúmad Ab´ al-’Abbs, in connection
with al-Sinkil¥. ‘Al¥ b. Muayr [al-Zab¥d¥] was known as a §´f¥ and muúad-
dith. Al-Muúibb¥, however, simply mentions that ‘Al¥ adhered to the ar¥qah
of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah (the people of the Sunnah and commu-
nity, or the mainstream of the Sunn¥); no explicit mention is made of the B
‘Alwiyyah ar¥qah, although the order can surely be included among the
ar¥qahs with which the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah was affiliated.l7
It is also possible that Sayyid ‘Al¥ was actually ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b.
al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥ (d. 1072/1661). Al-Muúibb¥, citing Mu§af b. Fatú
Allh al-îamaw¥, his colleague, tells us that ‘Al¥ al-Zab¥d¥ was a great
muúaddith of Yemen and the leader of men of learning in Zab¥d. He
initially studied in his home town with Muúammad b. al-êidd¥q al-Kh§§
al-Zab¥d¥ or Isúq Ibn Ja’mn—both mentioned earlier in connection with
al-Sinkil¥. ‘Al¥ continued his studies in the îaramayn, receiving ar¥qahs
from Aúmad al-Qushsh¥. He was also active in teaching úad¥th; among
those who studied úad¥th with him were Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, Ibn ‘Abd
al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ and îasan al-’Ajam¥. He died in Zab¥d.l8 ‘Al¥
al-Zab¥d¥’s connections with these scholars, who were teachers of Jw¥
students, including al-Maqassr¥ himself, made it possible for ‘Al¥ to come
into contact with and teach al-Maqassr¥. We cannot go further, as there is
no indication that he was a shaykh of the B ‘Alwiyyah ar¥qah.
Al-Maqassr¥ does not inform us of the date of his sojourn in Yemen,
but it probably took several years before he continued his travels to the
heart of the networks in the îaramayn. His period of study in Mecca and
Medina coincided with that of al-Sinkil¥. Therefore, it can be expected that
al-Maqassr¥ studied with scholars who were also the teachers of al-Sinkil¥.
The most important among his teachers in the îaramayn were familiar
names in the networks, such as Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ and

îasan al-’Ajam¥.l9
Al-Maqassr¥’s relationship with al-K´rn¥ was apparently close. It is
known that he was entrusted by al-K´rn¥ to copy al-Durrat al-Fkhirah and
Rislah f¥ al-Wuj´d, both works of N´r al-D¥n al-Jm¥ (d. 898/1492), and a
commentary on the first work by ‘Abd al-Ghaf´r al-Lr¥ (d. 912/1506). Al-
K´rn¥ himself later wrote a commentary on al-Durrat al-Fkhirah called
al-Taúr¥rt al-Bhirah li Mabúith al-Durrat al-Fkhirah.20 All of these
works attempt to reconcile opposing positions between the Muslim theolo-
gians and philosophers on several philosophical issues concerning God. It has
been suggested that al-Maqassr¥ studied these three works under al-K´rn¥
when he was copying them.21
Unlike al-Sinkil¥, al-Maqassr¥ does not specify the religious sciences he
studied with the above scholars. He mentions them primarily in connection
with his teachings and ar¥qah silsilahs or in notes towards the end of some
of 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 ta§awwuf,
al-Maqassr¥ studied úad¥th, tafs¥r, fiqh and other branches of Islamic
science with them.
Aside from the above scholars, al-Maqassr¥ mentions his other teachers
in the îaramayn: Muúammad al-Mazr´’ [al-Madan¥], ‘Abd al-Kar¥m
al-Lah´r¥ and Muúammad Muraz al-Shm¥.22 While I have failed to
identify the first scholar, the second was very likely ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-
Hind¥ al-Lah´r¥, who settled in the îaramayn and flourished in the
eleventh/ seventeenth century. He appears also to have been involved in the
networks; he was an acquaintance of ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥, Aúmad al-
Nakhl¥, Tj al-D¥n al-Qal’¥ and Ab´ $hir al-K´rn¥.23 We may expect that
through ‘Abd al-Kar¥m for Muúammad al-Lah´r¥, al-Maqassr¥ learned
much about the Indian tradition of Islamic learning.
As for Muúammad Muraz al-Shm¥, he was most probably Muúammad
Mirza b. Muúammad al-Dimashq¥. This is based on the fact that the
copyists of al-Maqassr¥’s works obviously misspelled the names of
several of his teachers. They, for instance, wrote ‘Muúammad al-Zujj¥ al-
Naqshband¥’ instead of Muúammad [b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥] al-Mizjj¥
al-Naqshband¥, or ‘Muúammad Bq¥ Allh al-Lah´r¥’ instead of ‘Abd al-
Kar¥m al-Lah´r¥ or Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Naqshband¥.24
We have other reasons to identify Muúammad Mirza as a teacher of
al-Maqassr¥. First of all, he was a student of Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥ al-Naqsh-
band¥. Like Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥, Muúammad Mirza was
initiated by Tj al-D¥n into the Naqshbandiyyah order in Mecca; they may be
expected to have been friends. As al-Maqassr¥ had received the order earlier
from ‘Abd al-Bq¥, it is possible that he later recommended al-Maqassr¥
to study with Muúammad Mirza when he left Yemen for the îaramayn.
Muúammad Mirza migrated from Damascus and lived in Medina for 40 years
before he finally moved to Mecca, where he died in 1066/1656, after only two
years there. Muúammad Mirza, mainly known as a §´f¥, 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 world
after studying in the îaramayn, al-Maqassr¥ travelled to Damascus,
another important centre of Islamic learning in the Middle East. It appears
that Muúammad Mirza recommended that al-Maqassr¥ study there. But it
is also possible that Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ encouraged him to go to Damascus
and study with one of its leading scholars, Ayy´b b. Aúmad b. Ayy´b al-
Dimashq¥ al-Khalwat¥ (994–1071/1586–1661). As we have already noted,
al-Qushsh¥ was a close friend of Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ (see Chart 5).
Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ was born and died in Damascus. He was a renowned
§´f¥ and muúaddith of Syria. His education included both exoteric sciences,
such as úad¥th, tafs¥r and fiqh, as well as esoteric sciences like ta§awwuf
and kalm. Both al-îamaw¥ and Al-Muúibb¥ call him ‘al-ustdh al-akbar’
(great teacher), and they claim that nobody else in Damascus was as
learned as he was during his time. Suln Ibrh¥m, the ruler of Syria, often
consulted him in matters relating to Islamic law and mysticism.26
Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ was also a prolific writer. His writings mainly deal
with ta§awwuf, kalm, úad¥th and Khalwatiyyah rituals. He attempted to
give a new interpretation of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s doctrines, particularly concerning
the concept of al-Insn al-Kmil (‘perfect man’ or ‘universal man’), in light
of the shar¥’ah. Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ also had extensive networks by way of
úad¥th studies. His scholarly reputation made his halqahs popular with
students from various parts of the Muslim world, such as the Maghribi
region, Arabia, and South and Southeast Asia.
Al-Maqassr¥ does not tell us when the period of his study with Ayy´b
al-Khalwat¥ took place, but al-Maqassr¥ evidently accompanied him for
some time. After exhibiting his talent for absorbing the exoteric and
esoteric sciences, he was able to win the favour of Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥. The
latter awarded him the title of ‘al-Tj al-Khalwat¥ ’ (the Crown of the
Khalwat¥). Al-Maqassr¥ highly praises Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ in his works
and mentions him in his silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah ar¥qah.27 The way al-
Maqassr¥ refers to Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥ could lead one to assume that this
Damascene scholar was simply a great §´f¥, but in fact he was also a leading
expert in Islamic law.
After studying in Damascus, al-Maqassr¥ is said to have continued his
travels to Istanbul.28 Traditional accounts of al-Maqassr¥’s life that circu-
late in South Sulawesi tell the story of his journey in the ‘Negeri Rum’
(Turkey), but we have no other sources to corroborate them.29
According to Gowa sources, while he was in Mecca al-Maqassr¥ had
begun to teach. As one might expect, most of his students were of Malay-
Indonesian origin, both from the újj pilgrims and the Jwah community in
the îaramayn. Among his students in Mecca was ‘Abd al-Bash¥r al-ëar¥r
al-Rapan¥ (from Rappang, South Sulawesi), who later was responsible for
spreading the Naqshbandiyyah and Khalwatiyyah orders in South
principal teachers
acquaintances
Chart 5 Al-Maqassr¥’s networks

Sulawesi.30 Furthermore, al-Maqassr¥ is reported to have married the

daughter of a Shf¥’¥ Imm in Mecca, but his wife died when she gave birth
to a child, and al-Maqassr¥ remarried a woman of Sulawesi origin in
Jeddah before he finally returned to the archipelago.31
FROM BANTEN TO SRILANKA AND SOUTH AFRICA

It is not very clear when Al-Maqassr¥ returned to the archipelago. Hamid
and Van Bruinessen respectively claim that he returned in 1075/1664 and
1083/1672,32 but we are not able to substantiate this, for other sources do
not supply us with the date of al-Maqassr¥’s return. However, if these
dates are correct, it means that he spent between 20 and 28 years travel-
ling in search for knowledge. There are also conflicting accounts of
whether al-Maqassr¥ returned directly to his homeland, Gowa, or went
via Banten.
Hamka,33 Amansyah,34 Mattulada35 and Pelras36 all maintain that
al-Maqassr¥ initially returned to South Sulawesi before he proceeded to
Banten. Hamid,37 Labbakang38 and Dangor,39 on the other hand, believe
that al-Maqassr¥ settled in Banten when he returned to the archipelago and
never came back to Gowa. We will discuss these two conflicting accounts
and attempt to determine which one is the more plausible.
According to the first opinion, when al-Maqassr¥ returned from Arabia
to Gowa, South Sulawesi, he found that Islamic precepts were not being
practised by the Muslim population; remnants of contra-Islamic local beliefs
continued to hold sway. Although the ruler and nobility had long declared
themselves Muslims, they were reluctant to apply the doctrine of Islamic
law in their realms. They were unwilling or unable to prohibit gambling,
cock-fighting, arrack drinking, opium smoking and the like. They in fact
promoted superstitious practices such as giving offerings to the spirit of the
ancestors in the hope that the latter would bring them prosperity.
Having witnessed such a sorry state of religious life, al-Maqassr¥
appealed to the Gowa ruler and notables to abolish all such practices and to
implement Islamic law. However, the ruler insisted on maintaining the
status quo; abolishing gambling and opium smoking, for instance, would
have meant reducing financial gains.40 As a result, al-Maqassr¥ departed to
Banten, where he established his career. He left behind him, however,
several outstanding disciples, such as N´r al-D¥n b. ‘Abd al-Fattú, ‘Abd
al-Bash¥r al-ëar¥r and ‘Abd al-Qadir Karaeng Jeno.
It is apparent that the account of al-Maqassr¥’s return to Gowa is based
on Hamka’s article, one of the earliest writings on al-Maqassr¥ in the
Indonesian language. The problem with Hamka’s article is that it relies
heavily on an oral tradition that has passed through many generations. It is
difficult to sift fact from myth in such oral histories, and we have no written
sources to substantiate them.
The spread of al-Maqassr¥’s teachings and works in South Sulawesi did

not necessarily require al-Maqassr¥’s physical presence in the region. All
of his students are reported to have studied with him either in the îaramayn
or in Banten. Furthermore, from the middle of the seventeenth century,
Muslims from South Sulawesi came to Banten in large numbers. They also
played an important role in spreading al-Maqassr¥’s teachings and works
when they returned to their own regions.4l
It is more plausible, therefore, that al-Maqassr¥ returned to Banten
rather than to Gowa. He may have planned to stay there temporarily on his
way back to his homeland, but later developments made him change his
mind. After several months in Banten he married the daughter of Suln
Ageng Tirtayasa.42 It is worth remembering that al-Maqassr¥ and the
Suln had been friends before the former left for Arabia. Thus, when al-
Maqassr¥ returned with scholarly credentials and prestige, Suln Ageng
attempted to keep him in Banten by any means, including marriage.
Suln Ageng Tirtayasa (r. 1053–96/1651–83) was undoubtedly the last
great ruler of the Bantenese Sultanate. Under his rule the Sultanate reached
its golden age. Its port became an important centre of international trade in
the archipelago. The Bantenese traded with traders from England,
Denmark, China, Indo-China, India, Persia, the Philippines and Japan. The
ships of the Sultanate sailed the archipelago, representing the last powerful
trading power of the Malay-Indonesian kingdoms.43
Suln Ageng was a fervent enemy of the Dutch; his accession to the
throne resumed the long-standing conflicts between the Bantenese and
the Dutch, who had fought wars in 1028/1619 and 1043–9/1633–9. Peace
settlements achieved after the wars could not hold for very long. Suln
Ageng’s fleet, modelled after those of the Europeans, attacked the Dutch
posts in Sumatra. He made Banten a safe haven for fighters from elsewhere
in the archipelago in wars against the Dutch, as well as for fugitives from
Dutch prisons.44 For the Dutch, who now fortified themselves in Batavia,
Suln Ageng was a major stumbling block in their territorial expansion in
the archipelago.
Suln Ageng Tirtayasa, like his father, Suln Ab´ al-Mafkhir ‘Abd
al-Qdir, had a special interest in religion. The political and diplomatic
relations 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 Suln Ageng was able to establish
relations with Surat and other Muslim kingdoms on the coastal region of
the Indian subcontinent.
Moreover, he sent his son, ‘Abd al-Qahhr, on a diplomatic mission
to Istanbul; this was in conjunction with the latter’s újj pilgrimages to
Mecca, which were undertaken respectively from 1080/1669 to
1082/1671 and from 1085/1674 to 1087/1676. During the time of Suln
Ageng, scholars and students from various parts of the Muslim world
continued to come to Banten. Suln Ageng himself, most of the time,

was accompanied by these Muslim scholars.46 Thus, he was able to
maintain the reputation of Banten as an important centre of Islamic
learning in the archipelago.47
The political and religious situation in the Bantenese Sultanate was
clearly favourable for al-Maqassr¥ to remain there. His marriage to the
daughter of the Suln created a stronger bond with the Sultanate. He rose
to one of the highest positions among the court elite, and became the most
influential member of the Suln’s Advisory Board. He was called opper-
priester or hoogepriester (highest priest) by Dutch sources, and played an
important role not only in religious matters but also in political ones.48
The news about al-Maqassr¥’s presence in Banten soon reached South
Sulawesi. The Suln of Gowa dispatched a delegation to Banten in order
to induce him to return to his homeland. The Suln requested that
al-Maqassr¥ teach the royal family about Islam and thus accelerate the
process of Islamisation in the region. Al-Maqassr¥, however, declined
the invitation. Our sources49 cite him as stating that he would not return to
Gowa until his erudition in Islamic reached perfection. He instead sent
home his student ‘Abd al-Bash¥r al-ëar¥r, who had apparently followed
him from Mecca to Banten. Al-Maqassr¥ appointed al-ëar¥r (‘the blind’)
his khal¥fah of the Khalwatiyyah and Naqshbandiyyah orders.
Thus, while in Banten, although al-Maqassr¥ was increasingly pulled
into the political arena he continued to teach students in the capital city of
Banten as well as to write. Later, when al-Maqassr¥ was involved in wars
against the Dutch, he was reported to have retreated to the village of
Karang, and had some connections with a man named by Dutch sources as
‘Hadjee Karang’.50 Karang was the home of ‘Abd al-Muúy¥, a disciple of
al-Sinkil¥, and he was certainly the ‘Hadjee Karang.’ ‘Abd al-Muúy¥ took
the opportunity of his meeting with al-Maqassr¥ to study with him, asking
his commentary on certain verses of the Qur’n that dealt with mystical
doctrines. ‘Abd al-Muúy¥ also asked al-Maqassr¥ to transmit to him the
silsilah of the ar¥qahs he received in the îaramayn.51
Included among the most prominent students of al-Maqassr¥ was the
heir to the Sultanate, ‘Abd al-Qahhr. There is little doubt that al-Maqassr¥
recommended that he travel to Istanbul after performing his pilgrimage in
Mecca. Al-Maqassr¥’s wide contacts in the Middle East and his possible
visit to Istanbul helped pave the way for the Crown Prince to carry out his
diplomatic mission. We have no further information on the mission. What
is clear is that when the heir Prince returned from the Middle East to Banten
with the new title of Suln îji, he soon appealed to the Bantenese to wear
clothes of Arab style.52
‘Abd al-Qahhr’s insistence on Arab dress is reported by Sasmita53 to
have been the initial reason for the rifts between him and his father, Suln
Ageng. But it appears that the fundamental cause of conflict was the
decision of Suln Ageng to appoint his other son, Pangeran Purbaya, to

succeed him to the throne while ‘Abd al-Qahhr was on his pilgrimage.54
This decision was apparently prompted by ‘Abd al-Qahhr’s predilection
for the Dutch, in contrast to Suln Ageng’s decidedly anti-Netherlands
disposition. Suln Ageng attempted to reach some reconciliation with
‘Abd al-Qahhr: the latter was restored to his original position as heir, and
was assigned to rule the Sultanate from the capital city, Banten, while the
old Suln moved to Tirtayasa. These policies proved to be a great blow to
the old Suln, for ‘Abd al-Qahhr now used his position to embrace the
Dutch even more closely.
Meanwhile, Suln Ageng had reasserted his rule over the Cirebon
Sultanate, and warned the Dutch resident in Batavia in the presence of the
English, French and Danish residents that he would consider every act of
hostility or interference by the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC) in the
affairs of Cirebon as a casus belli for him.55 ‘Abd al-Qahhr did not share
his father’s views. He made it clear that he took the side of the Dutch.
Probably with the connivance of the Dutch, ‘Abd al-Qahhr declared the
abdication of his father from the throne in 1091/1680, and claimed it for
himself. Suln îji soon dismissed supporters of Suln Ageng from their
official positions, and sent envoys to Batavia to negotiate a peace treaty
with the Dutch.
Suln Ageng refused his forced abdication; he gathered his army in
Tirtayasa, and civil war appeared inevitable. Being caught in this difficult
situation, al-Maqassr¥, together with Pangeran Purbaya, chose to take the
side of Suln Ageng. The war finally broke out in the last days of
1092/early 1682, when Suln Ageng’s forces besieged Suln îji in the
capital, Banten. Realising that his position was precarious, Suln îji
appealed for support from Batavia. In return for Dutch help in keeping him
on 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 Suln
îji could escape from being humiliated by Suln Ageng’s army. Fresh
from victories in South Sulawesi, Cirebon and Mataram, the Dutch army
was able to inflict reverses on Suln Ageng’s forces. On 29 December
1682, Dutch troops attacked Tirtayasa, but Suln Ageng, al-Maqassr¥ and
Pangeran Purbaya escaped the siege and took refuge in the southern moun-
tains of West Java. Persistently pursued by forces of the Dutch and Suln
îji, Suln Ageng was finally captured in 1096/1683 and was exiled to
Batavia, where he died in 1103/1692.56
The capture of Suln Ageng, however, did not put an end to the war. His
force was now led by al-Maqassr¥. Conducting a guerilla warfare,
al-Maqassr¥’s forces of 4000 men, consisting of the Bantenese, Makassarese/
Buginese and Javanese, proved difficult to subdue. This attests to al-
Maqassr¥’s dauntless courage and bravery, and to his firm determination
to fight the enemy. After failing to capture al-Maqassr¥ on the battlefield, the
Dutch finally employed the trickery that they were so often to use in their
territorial expansion in the archipelago. According to one version from Dutch
accounts, Van Happel, the commander of the Dutch troops, wearing Arab
garb and disguised as a Muslim, was able to infiltrate al-Maqassr¥’s fortifi-
cation, finally capturing him on 14 December 1683.57 Another version of the
capture is that Van Happel came to al-Maqassr¥’s hiding place with the
latter’s daughter, promising him the pardon of the Dutch if he surrendered.
Persuaded by the promise, which was never honoured by the Dutch, al-
Maqassr¥ and his forces joined Van Happel and followed him to Cirebon,
where he was officially declared a prisoner of war and taken to Batavia. At
the same time, his followers of South Sulawesi origin were sent back to their
homeland.58
With the capture of al-Maqassr¥, the Banten wars practically ended. The
news of al-Maqassr¥’s detention spread through Batavia; he was hailed as
a great hero in the struggle against the Dutch expansionism. He was highly
venerated: even his sepah (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 to
understand, 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-Maqassr¥ stayed in Srilanka for almost a decade,
studies of the Malay-Indonesian Muslim community on that island fail to
disclose his presence and role in the development of Islam there.61 This is
unfortunate, as when he was in Srilanka al-Maqassr¥ produced a sub-
stantial number of works, some of which bear the title of Saylniyyah
(or Sailan = Ceylon) or are mentioned explicitly to have been written
in ‘Sarandib’ (mediaeval Arabic term for Srilanka).62 Furthermore,
al-Maqassr¥ appears to have left some descendants in Srilanka who
possess manuscripts that could be a starting point for future research.63
Such manuscripts would certainly be useful for complementing both
Indonesian accounts and Dutch records of al-Maqassr¥’s life in Srilanka.
It is worth noting that outside the archipelago, Srilanka, ruled by the
Dutch in the period between 1050/1640 and 1211/1796, was the second
centre for banishment after the Cape of Good Hope for Malay-Indonesian
exiles. Due to its proximity to the archipelago, Srilanka had been preferred
by the Dutch to the Cape of Good Hope, which seems to have been reserved
for more dangerous exiles. The Dutch apparently began to transport a
substantial number of Malay-Indonesian exiles to Srilanka as soon as they
established their rule there.64 We know very little about the life of exiles
prior to the seventeenth century, but there is no doubt that al-Maqassr¥ was
the most prominent Malay-Indonesian figure ever banished by the Dutch to
Srilanka.
In a sense, al-Maqassr¥’s banishment to Srilanka was a blessing in
disguise. While he was in Banten he experienced political turbulence, but
he never abandoned his scholarly concerns; he was even able during this
period to produce several works. Now in Srilanka he had the opportunity to
return entirely to the scholarly world. In the introduction to his Saf¥nat
al-Najh, al-Maqassr¥ in retrospect expected that by the grace of God he
would inherit the wisdom of Adam, the prophet, who was, in the Muslim
belief, discharged on Srilanka after his fall from Heaven.65 So al-Maqassr¥
devoted himself primarily to writing.
We can fairly safely assume that al-Maqassr¥ played an important role
in nurturing the hitherto small and inchoate Malay Muslim community on
the island. Al-Maqassr¥ himself expressly mentioned that he wrote his
works in Srilanka to satisfy the requests of his friends, disciples and fellow
Muslims there.66 He also established contact with other scholars there.
Among the Muslim scholars of Indian origin who became his friends were
Sidi Matilaya, Ab´ al-Ma’n¥ Ibrh¥m Minún and ‘Abd al-êidd¥q b.
Muúammad êdiq.
The fact that his Saf¥nat al-Najh was written on the request of Ibrh¥m
Minhan was an indication that Minhan and his fellow Indian scholars were
well aware of al-Maqassr¥’s erudition. It is possible that through these
scholars the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb (1071–1119/1659–1707) learned
about the banishment of al-Maqassr¥ to Srilanka. The Suln reportedly
warned the Dutch authorities there to pay attention to the wellbeing of
al-Maqassr¥.67
Thus, the banishment had failed to cut al-Maqassr¥ off from outside
contacts. No less important than al-Maqassr¥’s relations with the Indian
scholars were his contacts with Malay-Indonesian pilgrims, who made
Srilanka their transit point on their way to and from Mecca and Medina, or
with Muslim traders who came there for business. That the contacts between
al-Maqassr¥ and the pilgrims existed becomes obvious from an explicit
mention in one of his works that he wrote it for his friends the újjis.68
It was these újjis who brought al-Maqassr¥’s works, written in
Srilanka, to the archipelago so that we are able to read them today. They in
turn brought works written by Malay-Indonesian scholars to Srilanka. The
religious works found among the Malays on this island include these of
al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sinkil¥ and al-Maqassr¥ himself.69
Considering the existence of such extensive relations, the Dutch were
right in assuming that al-Maqassr¥ still exerted a considerable influence on
the Malay-Indonesian Muslims. They were suspicious that through those
pilgrims al-Maqassr¥ had established networks, consisting of various
Muslim rulers in the archipelago, who would wage concerted and large-
scale wars against the Dutch. Fearing further political and religious
repercussions from al-Maqassr¥’s relations with his countrymen, the
Dutch authorities decided in 1106/1693 to send al-Maqassr¥ even farther
away, to exile in South Africa. He was already 68 years old when once
again he was forced to embark on ‘De Voetboog’, which would take him to
the Cape of Good Hope.70
Map 3 Al-Maqassr¥’s itinerary

Among the Malays, the Cape of Good Hope was the most notorious
place of banishment. Since colonisation by the Dutch in 1064/1652, a
number of eminent Malay-Indonesian figures, considered by the Dutch to
be the most dangerous, had been exiled there. But, as in Srilanka, not all
Malay-Indonesians brought to the Cape of Good Hope were exiles; some of
them were slaves who were used for work on Dutch farms in the region.71
Prior to the coming of al-Maqassr¥, 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-Maqassr¥ was
the most important Malay-Indonesian exile ever banished to South
Africa.72 Al-Maqassr¥ arrived in the Cape of the Good Hope on 2 April
1694. Most of his retinue of 49 people were those who had followed him
earlier to Srilanka. Two months later the Dutch authorities took him and his
retinue 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 adherents
of the old regime’.73 Bearing historical connections to al-Maqassr¥ and his
followers, this locality today is known as Macassar, and its coastal area is
called Macassar beach.
Generally, al-Maqassr¥ received good treatment and due respect from
the Dutch authorities in the Cape. Governor Simon van der Stel and later his
son, Willem Adriaan, befriended him.74 Despite this, they must have been
aware that al-Maqassr¥ could give them problems. Therefore, the Dutch
attempted to isolate him and his followers from other Malay-Indonesian
exiles who had arrived before them. But their attempts apparently failed. He
once again became the rallying point for the Malay-Indonesians, not to rise
up against the Dutch but to intensify their Islamic beliefs and practices.
Al-Maqassr¥ and his 12 disciples, now called imms, together with other
exiles, carried out teaching sessions and religious services secretly in their
lodges.75 With such activities, al-Maqassr¥ was able not only to preserve
the Islamic belief of his fellow exiles but to gain numerous new converts.76
Al-Maqassr¥ appears to have devoted most of his time to proselytising
activities; there is no evidence that he also spent his time on writing, for
none among his known works contains any indication whatsoever that it
was written in South Africa. This suggests that al-Maqassr¥ considered
direct propagation through teaching to be of the utmost importance to his
Malay-Indonesian community. In short, the maintenance of Islamic belief
was his primary concern.
This is no surprise, as the Dutch not only prohibited Muslims from
openly holding religious services but, worse still, ordered the Christian-
isation of all Muslim slaves in the Cape.77 The Dutch evangelist scholar
Zwemer even regrets the failure of Petrus Kalden, first minister of the Old
Dutch Church at Cape Town, to convert al-Maqassr¥ 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-Maqassr¥ has been hailed by historians of South African Islam as the
founder of Islam in the region. The term ‘founder’ could be misleading:

Islam, or a Malay-Indonesian Muslim community, had clearly existed in
the Cape before he arrived there. Therefore, I would suggest that he is more
appropriately called the ‘reviver’ or ‘revitaliser’ of Islam in South Africa.
His determination to preserve the belief of his fellow Muslims was one of
the crucial factors contributing to the survival and further development of
Islam in the region.
Furthermore, as Zwemer79 points out, there were three §´f¥ orders that
existed among Muslims in South Africa: the Qdiriyyah, Shariyyah, and
Rif’iyyah. It is highly likely that al-Maqassr¥ was responsible for intro-
ducing these orders there, for he was a khal¥fah of all of them. As early as
1186/1772, Thurnberg80 observed a ritual among the Malays that clearly
constituted dhikr, and in the 1860s Mayson81 gives us vivid accounts of the
well-known practices among the Rif’iyyah followers of being invulnera-
ble to fire and weapons.
Al-Maqassr¥, as Colvin82 in his Romance of the Empire asserts, could
not but have longed for the palms and spices of his native land, which he
was fated never again to see. Colvin may be right, but al-Maqassr¥
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 hope
for his freedom. As early as 1103/1689, when al-Maqassr¥ was still in
Srilanka, the Suln of Gowa, ‘Abd al-Jal¥l (r. 1088–1121/1677–1709),
and all the important local notables came to meet the Dutch Governor in
Makassar, asking for the return of al-Maqassr¥ to his homeland. They
brought with them 2000 rijksdaalders, which had been donated by both
notables and commoners to make possible his return. Although the
Governor agreed to meet the request, Batavia annulled his decision.83
‘Abd al-Jal¥l asked the Dutch to return al-Maqassr¥ repeatedly until
1110/1698, when the Dutch Council in Batavia issued a definite refusal
to consider any such request, obviously fearing political repercussions
from his return.84
Al-Maqassr¥ died at the Cape on 22 Dh´ al-Qa’dah 1111/22 May
1699,85 and was buried in Faure, on the sandhills of False Bay, not far from
the farm of Zandvliet. His tomb later came to be known as the ‘Karmat’
Shaykh Yusuf (lit. ‘miracle’). Between 1321/1903 and 1333/1913 the grave
of al-Maqassr¥ was restored by îji Sulaymn Shh Muúammad, a rich
Cape Muslim of Indian origin. A splendid domed mausoleum was erected
over al-Maqassr¥’s grave, which later was complemented by other
buildings, including tombs of four of his disciples. The ‘karmat’ of
al-Maqassr¥ is one of the most beautiful and the most important tomb
buildings in the Cape Peninsula. It became a central point of the Malay-
Indonesian community and the most important place of Muslim religious
visitation (ziyrah) at the Cape; or, as Du Plessis puts it, ‘the tomb has
become the Mecca of the South, where thousands of pilgrims pay their
respects annually to the memory of a noble exile’.86
The death of al-Maqassr¥ was a relief for the Cape Dutch authorities,
both politically and financially. On 1 July 1699, they reported his death to
Batavia; they asked Batavia to lift the financial burden, incurred by the
Cape authorities, for the upkeep of al-Maqassr¥ and his retinue. As a
result, the Council of Batavia decided in October 1699 to grant permission
to al-Maqassr¥’s survivors and followers to return to the archipelago,
should they want to; most of them chose to return, and they departed on
board the ships ‘De Liefde’ and ‘De Spiegel’ in 1116/1704.87
In the meantime, the news of al-Maqassr¥’s death had reached South
Sulawesi. Once again the Suln of Gowa requested the return of
al-Maqassr¥—now, of course, only his remains. Finally, the remains
allegedly belonging to al-Maqassr¥ arrived in Gowa on 5 April 1705, and
were reburied the following day in Lakiung.88 Like his tomb in Faure, this
tomb of al-Maqassr¥ soon became one of the most important places of reli-
gious visitation in South Sulawesi.89
The fact that al-Maqassr¥ has two tombs has led to some speculation.
De Haan believes that the Dutch sent the actual remains of al-Maqassr¥
to Gowa; therefore, his tomb in Faure is empty.90 The Muslims in the
Cape, on the other hand, believe that only the remains of a single finger
of al-Maqassr¥ were taken to his homeland.9l This speculation appears to
contain some truth if one considers a legend in Gowa about the body of
al-Maqassr¥ they reburied. According to the legend, initially only a
handful of dust, which was probably the remains of his finger, was
brought from the Cape. The dust, however, kept growing until it took the
shape of the full body of al-Maqassr¥ when it reached Gowa.92
AL-MAQASSR¡’S NEO-SUFISM
Al-Maqassr¥ was primarily a §´f¥. His life experience makes it clear that
his Sufism did not keep him away from worldly affairs. Unlike earlier §´f¥s
who exhibited strong tendencies to shun worldly life, the whole expression
of al-Maqassr¥’s teachings and practices shows a full range of activism.
Like al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sinkil¥ in the Sultanate of Aceh, al-Maqassr¥ played
an important role in Bantenese politics. Not only that he stepped up to the
forefront of the wars against the Dutch after the capture of Suln Ageng
Tirtayasa. However, like most scholars in the international networks of
scholars in the seventeenth century, al-Maqassr¥ did not employ the ar¥qah
organisation to mobilise the masses, especially for the purposes of war.
Al-Maqassr¥ wrote his works in perfect Arabic; his long sojourn in the
Middle East had enabled him to write in that language. Almost all his
known works deal with ta§awwuf, particularly in its relations with kalm.
Like al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sinkil¥, al-Maqassr¥ in developing his teachings
often cites such scholars and §´f¥s as al-Ghazl¥, Junayd al-Baghdd¥, Ibn
‘Arab¥, al-J¥l¥, Ibn ‘At’ Allh and other authorities.
A central concept of al-Maqassr¥’s ta§awwuf is the purification of belief

(‘aq¥dah) in the Unity of God (tawh¥d). This is his attempt to explain the
transcendence of God over his creation. Such, of course, is a central theme
developed by other scholars in the networks. Citing S´rat al-Ikhl§ (the
Qur’n, chapter 112) and another verse of the Qur’n that states that
nothing can be compared with Him (42:11), al-Maqassr¥ maintains that the
Unity of God (tawú¥d) is infinite and absolute.93 Tawú¥d is the essential
component in Islam; one who does not believe in tawú¥d is an unbeliever
(kfir). He further compares the immaculate tawú¥d with a leafy tree:
gnostic knowledge (ma’rifah) is its branches and leaves, and devotional
services (‘ibdt) are its fruits. One who has no ma’rifah is ignorant (jhil),
and one who does not practise ‘ibdt is sinful (fsiq).94
Despite his insistence on the transcendence of God, al-Maqassr¥
believes that God is all-encompassing (al-iúah) and omnipresent (al-
ma’iyyah) over His creation.95 But he takes great care not to associate
himself with the doctrine of pantheism by maintaining that although God is
present or expresses Himself in His creation, it does not necessarily mean
that the creation is God himself; all creation is simply allegorical being (al-
mawj´d al-majz¥), not the Real Being (al-mawj´d al-úaq¥q¥).96 Thus, like
al-Sinkil¥ he believes that the creation is only a shadow of God, not God
Himself. According to al-Maqassr¥, the ‘expression’ of God in His
creations is not the ‘physical’ presence of God in them.
With the concept of al-iúah and al-ma’iyyah, God descends (tanazzul)
while man ascends (taraqq¥), a spiritual process that brings the two closer.
It is important to note that according to al-Maqassr¥ the process will not
take its form in the ultimate unity between man and God: while the two
may be closely associated, in the final analysis man is man and God is God.
With this, al-Maqassr¥ rejects the concept of waúdat al-wuj´d (‘Unity of
Being’, or ontological monism) and al-úul´l (‘Divine Incarnation’). In his
opinion, God is simply incomparable to anything (laysa ka mithlihi shay,
Qur’n 42:11). Instead he adopts the concept of waúdat al-shuh´d (‘Unity
of Consciousness’, or phenomenological monism).97 Thus, while he care-
fully disengages himself from the controversial doctrine of waúdat
al-wuj´d of Ibn ‘Arab¥ and of al-úul´l of Man§´r al-îallj, al-Maqassr¥
adopts the doctrine of waúdat al-shuh´d, developed mainly by Aúmad
al-Sirhind¥ (971–1034/1564–1624); later, this doctrine was also adopted by
Shah Wali Allah (1114–76/1702–1762).
A salient feature of al-Maqassr¥’s theology of God’s Unity is that he
attempts to reconcile all Attributes or Qualities of God. According to Islamic
belief, God possesses Attributes which may seem to be conflicting one with
another. God is, for instance, believed to be the First (al-Awwal) and the
Last (al-khir); the Exterior (al-ühir) and the Interior (al-Bin); the One
who gives guidance (al-Hd¥), but also the One who allows humans to go
astray (al-Muèill). According to al-Maqassr¥, all these seemingly conflict-
ing Attributes of God should be understood in accordance with the Unity of
God Himself. Emphasising only certain Attributes while ignoring the others
will lead to wrong belief and practices. The Realities of God are the Unity
of pairs of conflicting Attributes, and none will be able to comprehend their
secret but those who have been granted knowledge by God Himself.98
As far as al-Maqassr¥’s theology is concerned, he adheres strictly to the
Ash’ar¥ doctrines. He thus stresses total commitment to all six articles of
belief—that is, belief in the One God, the Angels, the Revelation, the
Prophets, the Day of Judgment and the Will of God. Furthermore, in
connection with impeccable belief in these articles of faith, he appeals to
his fellow Muslims to accept the ambiguous meanings of some verses of
the Qur’n, or al-yt al-mutashbiht.99 Looking for or questioning the
real 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 traveller
on God’s path be able to gain the blessing of God.l00
It is well known that the theology of al-Ash’ar¥ emphasises human
predestination vis-à-vis the Will of God. Al-Maqassr¥ basically accepts
this notion. For instance, he repeatedly asks Muslims to sincerely embrace
their fate and the divine decree (al-Qaè wa al-Qadar), either good or
bad.101 He insists, however, that men must not simply surrender to them. Of
particular importance, men cannot blame God for their bad deeds, for they
should not simply accept them as their fate. Instead, they must make cease-
less attempts to avoid sinful behaviour and improve humanity by thinking
about the creation and doing good deeds.
In this way, al-Maqassr¥ believes, men will be able to create a better life
in this world and the next. More importantly, they will open the way to attain-
ing the highest stage, called al-’ub´diyyah al-mulaqah (unrestricted
adoration). The one who succeeds in achieving this stage reaches the centre
of his being, and is accordingly called the Universal Man (al-Insn
al-Kmil).102 According to al-Maqassr¥, by achieving the stage of Universal
Man a slave strips his allegorical being (al-mawj´d al-majz¥) and gets into
his real ‘nothingness’, non-existence (‘udum al-úaq¥q¥). His nothingness is
taken by God as a mirror (mir’ah) of Himself. God further reveals (tajall¥)
Himself in the slave. In other words, the slave who is absorbed (fan’) in the
existence 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 His
Hands, walks with His Feet, speaks with His Word and thinks with His
Mind.103
Al-Maqassr¥’s notion of the Universal Man reminds us of the similar
doctrine elaborated by al-J¥l¥. The latter says:
If the servant is lifted higher and God fortifies him and conforms him, after his
extinction (fan’), in the state of subsistence (baq’), God will reply Himself
to whoever invokes this servant.
When God reveals Himself to His servant in one of his Qualities, the
servant soars in the sphere of this Quality until he has reached the limit by way
of integration (al-ijml), not by distinctive knowledge, for those who realise

the Divine Qualities do not have distinctive knowledge except by virtue of
integration. If the servant soars in the sphere of a Quality, and he realises it
entirely by (spiritual) integration, he is seated on the throne of this Quality, so
that he assimilates it into himself and becomes its subject; from then on, he
encounters another Quality, and so on until he realises all the Divine Qualities.
To some, God reveals Himself in the Quality of the Sight (al-ba§ar). For,
revealing Himself first by the total intellectual vision which penetrates
everything, 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-Maqassr¥ takes pains not to be trapped in the long and heated
controversy concerning the concept of Unity of Being between the servant
and God. He maintains that even though the servant is able to enter the exis-
tence of God, he nevertheless remains a human being, whereas God
remains God.
Like most other §´f¥s, al-Maqassr¥ clearly holds a positive view of
humankind 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 who
are able to nurture that disposition in the right way.105 Therefore, he appeals
to his fellow believers not to scold or look down on those who do not
believe in God and who live a sinful life; the faithful simply must have a
good opinion (úusn al-½ann) of the unbelievers. Citing Ab´ Madyn
al-Tilimsn¥, he reminds them that the flaws of the unbelievers may be
better than the pitfalls of the faithful.106 With such a view it is not suprising
that nowhere in his works does al-Maqassr¥ accuse the Dutch, who
inflicted great misery on his life.
In accordance with their degree of belief in God, al-Maqassr¥ classifies
the believers into four categories. The first, those who simply utter the state-
ment of faith (shahdah) without really believing, are called the hypocrites
(al-munfiq). The second group is the people who do not only utter the
shahdah but also implant it deep in their souls; this group is called the
common faithful (al-mu’min al-’awwm). The third category is the group
of faithful who fully realise the inward and outward implication of their
statement of faith in their life; they are called the people of the elite (ahl al-
khaww§). The last group is the highest category of the faithful, who come
out of the third group by intensifying their shahdah, mainly by practising
ta§awwuf, in order to get closer to God; they are accordingly called the
select of the elite (kh§§ al-khaww§).107
Al-Maqassr¥ clearly reserves the ta§awwuf for the select of the elite.
Like other scholars in the networks, his ta§awwuf is the one that has been
classified as neo-Sufism; he calls his ta§awwuf by the name the ‘ar¥qat
al-Muúammadiyyah’ or ‘ar¥qat al-Aúmadiyyah’, which is familiar among
scholars in the networks. This very name implicitly conveys their aim
to return to the way of the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Maqassari believes
the ‘ar¥qat al-Muúammadiyyah’ constitutes the right path (êir

al-Mustaq¥m).108 Throughout his writings he makes it clear that the mys-
tical way can be trod only through a total commitment, both outwardly and
inwardly, to the legal doctrine of Islam as well as to the way of the Prophet.
He maintains that committing oneself simply to the shar¥’ah is better than
practising ta§awwuf while ignoring Islamic legal precepts.109 He even goes
so far as to classify as zind¥q (freethinker) and mulúid (heretic) those who
believe that they will be able to get closer to God without practising such
rituals as prayer and fasting.110
It appears that al-Maqassr¥ was rather overzealous in his reconciliation
between the exoteric and esoteric aspects of Islam. In this regard, he repeat-
edly narrates statements of unnamed authorities who assert that those who
stick only to the shar¥’ah without the úaq¥qah are fsiq (sinful), and those
who practise ta§awwuf while ignoring shar¥’ah are zindiq.111 The best that
can be done is to harmonise the two. As al-Maqassr¥ puts it: ‘Let it be
known, my fellows, exoteric devotion without esoteric one is like a body
without a soul (r´ú), whereas esoteric occupation without exoteric devotion
is like a soul without a body’.112 Finally he cites a úad¥th of the Prophet
which states that the Prophet was sent by God in order to bring to the
people both the shar¥’ah and úaq¥qah.113
Al-Maqassr¥ insists that every aspirant in the path of God should
practise all the precepts of the shar¥’ah before he enters ta§awwuf.114 He
then lists the ways to get closer to God. First is the way of the akhyr (best
people), that is by performing numerous prayers, reading the Qur’n and
úad¥th, striving in the way of God (al-jihd f¥ sab¥l Allh) and other
exoteric devotion. The second is the way of the people of mujhdt al-
shaq’ (those who strive against hardship), by way of rigorous training to
get rid of bad habits and to purify the mind and soul. The last is the way of
the people of dhikr (ahl al-dhikr), who love God both outwardly and
inwardly; they take very special care of the two kinds of devotion.115
Al-Maqassr¥, however, discourages the traveller on God’s path (slik)
from treading his own way in seeking after truth; it will only lead him
astray, for Satan will become his master. Therefore, he should look for a
trusted and experienced §´f¥ master, even if he, as a consequence, must
travel to distant places, leaving his family and homeland behind. But there
is no other way; only with the guidance of a trusted §´f¥ master (shaykh)
will he be able to get to God; for the master will show him the correct and
surest way to achieve spiritual progress.116 More than that, §´f¥ shaykhs are
successors of the Prophet; they are his representatives (khal¥fah) both
outwardly and inwardly.117
With such an important position reserved by al-Maqassr¥ for the §´f¥
shaykh, he differentiates himself from most scholars in the networks.
Unlike Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, who encourages a slik to leave his master if
the latter disobeys the shar¥’ah, al-Maqassr¥ adheres to the earlier notion
of the position of the §´f¥ master vis-à-vis his disciples. Thus, for
al-Maqassr¥, once a slik pledges his allegiance (bay’ah) to a certain §´f¥
master, he must totally obey him, even if the shaykh does something that
does not necessarily lead to a closer communion with God. In accordance
with the traditional way, he should behave like a dead body in the hands of
those who clean it. To support this view, al-Maqassr¥ cites Ibn ‘Arab¥, who
maintains that a slik must obey his master, even though he may observe
that the shaykh does something that runs contrary to the precepts of the
shar¥’ah. The reason for this is that the shaykh is not infallible: even some
prophets made mistakes.118 However, when the shaykh makes mistakes by
transgressing certain rules of the shar¥’ah, al-Maqassr¥ reminds the disciple
to keep up his good deeds and not to follow his master’s transgression.119
Al-Maqassr¥ discusses at length some specific religious devotional
services and the steps towards spiritual progress that should be undertaken
by the travellers in God’s path. He puts a special emphasis on dhikr. His
dhikr was mainly the vocal one (jahr), as taught by both Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥
and Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Naqshband¥.120 In accordance with his
concept of the purification of faith, in al-Maqassr¥’s opinion the essence
of the dhikr is the full recognition of the Unity of God. On the preliminary
level (al-mubtad¥’), the one who performs dhikr confirms that in his faith
nothing should be worshipped but God. On the intermediate level (al-
mutawassi), he recognises that he seeks and loves nothing but God. On the
final level (al-muntah¥), he fully believes that there is no other being but
God.121
Although al-Maqassr¥’s teachings are apparently confined to the
ta§awwuf, 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 shar¥’ah-oriented Sufism. Of the various ar¥qahs
al-Maqassr¥ was affiliated with, it was the Khalwatiyyah—later known as
the Khalwatiyyah Y´suf—that found fertile ground, especially in the South
Sulawesi region. If the people of South Sulawesi, and also of West Java,
have been counted generally as among the most fervent Muslims in the
archipelago, one can hardly underestimate the role of al-Maqassr¥ in
developing that identity.
6
Networks of ‘Ulam’ and Islamic
Renewal in the Eighteenth Century
Malay-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 the
Middle East by three of the most important scholars of the Malay-
Indonesian world in the seventeenth century, al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and
al-Maqassr¥. The career and teachings of these scholars clearly show us
that Islamic developments in the archipelago were to an extent influenced
by those in the Middle East. Thanks to al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and
Al-Maqassr¥, the reformist tendencies of the scholarly networks found
their rapid translation in the archipelago.
Despite differences among modern scholars over the definition and
boundaries of the terms ‘reform’ and ‘renewal’, it is clear that not all of the
Malay-Indonesian scholars proposed radical doctrinal changes of Islam that
can be categorised as reform. Their endeavours are more appropriately called
renewal (tajd¥d ) than reform. Their central theme is a return to an orthodoxy
that finds its most salient feature in the harmony between shar¥’ah and
ta§awwuf. With this, these mujaddids contributed substantially to the
strengthening of the Islamic identity of their societies. The immediate result
of this process was the intensification of Islamisation in the archipelago.
I have argued that Islamic renewal began in the Malay-Indonesian world
as early as the seventeenth century, rather than at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century or the early twentieth century, as maintained by some
scholars. Hamka and Federspiel, for instance, believe that Islamic reform
or renewal began in the archipelago only with the rise of the Padri
Movement 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 the
early nineteenth century with the rise, for instance in West Sumatra, of
what he termed ‘a band of religious zealots, outraged by the heterodoxy
109
of local customs’.2 In this reference to the Padri Movement, Geertz clearly

views Islamic reforms very simplistically.
The Padri Movement, as we will discuss briefly later, in fact originated
from the scholarly networks. The birth and growth of this movement reflect a
complicated process of the transmission of reformist ideas, including a ‘tug of
war’ between the forces of reformism and local factors such as adat (custom).
The Padri Movement is an excellent example of how reformism generated by
the networks found one of its extreme manifestations in the archipelago.
Deliar Noer,3 on the other hand, maintains that Islamic reformism started
only in the early twentieth century. Noer overemphasises Islamic
reformism in the period he discusses, concluding without hesitation that
Indonesian Islam before the twentieth century was dominated by ta§awwuf
and was thus no more than a hybrid of Islamic mysticism and remnants of
local Hindu-Buddhist beliefs. He does mention the influences that had
come from Mecca since the eighteenth century, but by using Snouck
Hurgronje’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, because
there is no evidence in the eighteenth century, among scholars in the centres
of the îaramayn or among our Malay-Indonesian scholars, that points to
any attempt to forge a feeling of pan-Islamism in the archipelago. What they
transmitted to this part of the Muslim world was for the most part, indeed,
reformist or renewalist religious ideas rather than political ones.
Our three mujaddids did not explicitly declare that they were launching
reform, nor did they employ the organisation of the ar¥qahs in order to
pursue their ends, but the central theme of their teaching leaves no doubt
about their commitment to renewalism. It is important to note that
reformism or renewal is not an overnight process. Therefore, although by
the 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 by
al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥ was irreversible. Thus, as Federspiel
rightly points out, over the past four centuries Islam in Indonesia has slowly
altered its form: ‘the heterodox religious trends of the early period have
slowed in momentum, and more orthodox Islamic practices and patterns
have slowly gained in importance’.4
Federspiel recognises that contacts between the Malay-Indonesian
world, by way of Jw¥ students and pilgrims, and the Middle East greatly
contributed to the rise of Islamic renewalism in the region. Again, however,
like Hamka, he simply points to the famous example of the Padri
Movement, which gained crucial stimulus from the return of three újjis
from 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 be
traced back to al-Sink¥l¥ and to reformist movements in the centres of the
networks in Mecca and Medina.
NETWORKS OF ‘ULAM’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 111
In the final analysis, the roots of Islamic renewal in the Malay-

Indonesian world are to be found in the teachings of al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sinkil¥
and al-Maqassr¥. Like reformism in the îaramayn, the renewal is genuine
and born as an internal response to prevailing religious conditions among
Muslims 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.
‘ULAM’ IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY NETWORKS

If al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥ have commanded much attention
from scholars, the ‘ulam’ 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 positions
vis-à-vis Islamic developments in the Malay-Indonesian world or their
relationship to the teachings introduced by al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and
al-Maqassr¥. No attempt has been made to trace their connections with the
scholarly networks of the larger Muslim world, which should give us a
better picture of the continuing religious and intellectual relations between
the archipelago and the Middle East.
The ‘ulam’ involved in the eighteenth century scholarly networks
indeed had traceable connections with earlier networks. While they did not
have direct teacher-student connections with al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and
al-Maqassr¥, their teachers in Mecca and Medina were among the promi-
nent figures of the networks in their period and had direct connections with
earlier scholars to whom the three predecessors had also been linked.
Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century, moreover, were well
aware 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-Maqassr¥ and his disciples,
the regions of South Sulawesi and West Java, following Aceh, came into
the picture of Islamic learning in the archipelago in the seventeenth
century. In the eighteenth century, South Sumatra, South Kalimantan
(Borneo) and the Patani region in the northern part of the Malay Peninsula
came to prominence. Therefore, I would argue that the birthplaces and
ethnic origins of Malay-Indonesian scholars in a way reflect the historical
course of Islam in the archipelago through centuries. This points to the fact
that appreciation of the importance of Islamic learning as well as the need
for renewal and reform began to gain ground among various ethnic groups
in the archipelago. These scholars, having acquired substantive credentials
in Islamic learning, in turn stimulated further intensification of Islamisa-
tion, particularly among their respective ethnic groups. In the eighteenth
century such developments continued, so as to become one of the most
distinctive features in the transmission of Islam in the archipelago.
There were several major Indonesian-Malay ‘ulam’ who came from

various regions and ethnic groups in the archipelago in the eighteenth to the
early nineteenth centuries. A prominent group came from the Palembang
region of South Sumatra. The most important among them were Shihb
al-D¥n b. ‘Abd Allh Muúammad, Kemas Fakhr al-D¥n, ‘Abd al-êamad
al-Palimbn¥, Kemas Muúammad b. Aúmad and Muúammad Muúy¥ al-D¥n
b. Shihb al-D¥n. Then came Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥ and
Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥ from South Kalimantan; ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-
Bugis¥ from Sulawesi; ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ al-Ma§r¥ from Batavia
and Dw´d b. ‘Abd Allh al-Fan¥ from the Patani region (South
Thailand). Although information on several of these scholars is sketchy,
their careers and teachings make it clear that they were involved both
socially and intellectually in the networks. Taken together, they constituted
the most important scholars of the archipelago in the eighteenth century.
AL-PALIMBN¡ AND OTHER PALEMBANG SCHOLARS

The fact that there were several scholars of the Palembang region who rose
to prominence in the period under discussion is an interesting example of
the relations between Middle Eastern Muslims and the growth of Islamic
learning in the archipelago.
Arab migrants, particularly from the îaèramawt,6 began to come to
Palembang in increasing numbers from the seventeenth century.
Al-Palimbn¥’s father, although he stayed in Palembang for only a relatively
short time, was among the Arab sayyids who came to this region in the early
seventeenth century. By the middle of the eighteenth century, some Arab
scholars had gained prominent positions in the court of the Palembang
Sultanate. In 1168/1754–5 a certain Sayyid al-’Aydar´s was reported to have
married Suln Maúm´d’s sister, and several unnamed sayyids came to
control 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 the
Sulns 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 is
no evidence that such institutions as madrasah or pesantren existed during
this 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 court
of Palembang become the centre for an extensive collection of religious
works by local scholars. This further indicates the importance of the court in
the scholarly discourse in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.8
Most of the Palembang scholars, such as Shihb al-D¥n, Kemas Fakhr
al-D¥n, Muúammad Muúy¥ al-D¥n and Kemas Muúammad, are known
mostly from their works, preserved initially in the court of the Palembang
Sultanate before being taken by the Dutch and the British. Drewes has
correctly concluded that they lived throughout the second half of the seven-
teenth and the early eighteenth centuries. There is insufficient information
on 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, most
probably in Mecca or Medina, where he wrote his works.9 Most of the
works of these scholars deal with mysticism and theology and are based
largely on the teachings of al-Junayd, al-Qushayr¥ and al-Ghazl¥. They
clearly embraced teachings belonging to neo-Sufism.10
Without doubt, the most prominent among these Palembang scholars
was ‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥. 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 fellow
Palembang scholars, so that we are able to reconstruct his biography. So
far, accounts of al-Palimbn¥’s life are based on the scattered information
he supplied in his works, which have been supplemented by Malay
accounts and Dutch sources. However, there is ample information on him
in Arabic biographical dictionaries, which throw some light on this major
Malay-Indonesian scholar. This is an important finding, for never before
had accounts of a Malay-Indonesian scholar been given in Arabic bio-
graphical dictionaries. This also indicates that al-Palimbn¥ enjoyed a
respected career in the Middle East.
According to Malay sources the full name of al-Palimbn¥ was ‘Abd
al-êamad b. ‘Abd Allh al-Jw¥ al-Palimbn¥, but Arabic sources call him
Sayyid ‘Abd al-êamad b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jw¥.11 We have every reason
to believe that ‘Abd al-êamad b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jw¥ was indeed ‘Abd
al-êamad al-Palimbn¥. As we will show in this chapter, the picture of the
career of ‘Abd al-êamad b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jw¥ in Arabic sources
almost entirely describes that of ‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥ given by
other sources.
Of all the available sources, only the Tr¥kh Salsilah Negeri Kedah
supplies the date of al-Palimbn¥’s birth and death. According to this work,
al-Palimbn¥ was born about 1116/1704 in Palembang to a sayyid father
and a Palembang woman. This, therefore, corroborates the Arabic sources,
which mention that al-Palimbn¥ was a sayyid. Al-Palimbn¥’s father is
said to have come from Sana’a, Yemen, and travelled widely in India and
Java before taking up residence in Kedah, where he was appointed Qè¥.
About 1112/1700 he went to Palembang, where he married a local woman
and returned to Kedah with his new born son, al-Palimbn¥. It is believed
that al-Palimbn¥ acquired his early education in Kedah and Patani,
probably in a pondok (local traditional Islam educational institution), about
which 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-Palimbn¥’s life span was from the first decade
well into the late eighteenth century. Al-Bayr points out al-Palimbn¥
died after 1200/1785.13 But most probably he died in 1203/1789, the date
of completion of his final and most acclaimed work, the Sayr al-Slik¥n.14
When he completed this work he would have been 85 years old. In the
Tr¥kh Salsilah Negeri Kedah, it is reported that he was killed in the war
against the Thais in 1244/1828.15 It is difficult to accept this account, as
there is no evidence in other sources to indicate that al-Palimbn¥ ever
returned to the archipelago. Furthermore, he would then have been about
124 years old—too old to go to the battlefield. Although al-Bayr does not
mention the place where al-Palimbn¥ died, there is a strong suggestion that
he died in Arabia.16
Al-Palimbn¥ almost certainly established his career in the îaramayn
and never returned to the archipelago. He nevertheless maintained a deep
concern for Islam and Muslims in the Malay-Indonesian world. In the
îaramayn, al-Palimbn¥ was involved in the Jw¥ community and was a
fellow student of Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥, ‘Abd al-Wahhb Bugis,
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ and Dw´d al-Fan¥. His involvement in the
Jw¥ community kept him fully aware of the religious and political devel-
opments in the archipelago.
Al-Palimbn¥ and his group all had the same teachers. The most
famous among them were Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-Sammn¥,
Muúammad b. Sulaymn al-Kurd¥ and ‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Damanh´r¥.17
Al-Bayr, in addition to mentioning Muúammad [b. Sulaymn] al-Kurd¥,
lists other teachers of al-Palimbn¥: they were Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s,
Muúammad Murd, Muúammad al-Jawhar¥ and ‘A’ Allh al-Ma§r¥.18
Some of these scholars were also teachers of the four friends of al-
Palimbn¥.
It is important to examine briefly the biographies of these last four
teachers, as they further show us the connections al-Palimbn¥ and his
fellow Malay-Indonesians had with the extensive scholarly networks.
[Ab´ al-Fawz] Ibrh¥m [b. Muúammad] al-Ra’¥s [al-Zamzam¥ al-Makk¥]
(1110–94/1698–1780) was evidently another important scholar from the
Zamzam¥ family.19 As al-Jabart¥ points out, Ibrh¥m al-Zamzam¥ al-Ra’¥s
was well versed in various religious sciences; one of his special subjects
was ‘ilm al-falak (astronomy). Among his teachers were ‘Abd Allh al-
Ba§r¥, Ibn al-$ayyib, Aúmad al-Jawhar¥, ‘A’ Allh al-Ma§r¥ and îasan
al-Jabart¥, the father of the historian al-Jabart¥; he took the Khalwatiyyah
order from Mu§af al-Bakr¥ and the Naqshbandiyyah from ‘Abd al-
Raúmn al-’Aydar´s. No less importantly, he was a student of Murtaè
al-Zab¥d¥20 and êliú al-Fulln¥,21 both major figures of the scholarly
networks in the eighteenth century. Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s was also closely
connected with Mu§af al-’Aydar´s and with scholars of the Ahdal and
Mizjj¥ families, including the father of Sulaymn al-Ahdal, one of al-
Palimbn¥’s students.22
As for Muúammad Murd, there is strong evidence that he was

Muúammad Khal¥l b. ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. Murd al-îusayn¥ (1173–1206/
1759–91). My research on Muúammad Murd in several biographical
dictionaries of the period points to Muúammad Khal¥l al-Murd¥.23 Better
known as al-Murd¥, primarily for his four-volume biographical dictionary
Silk al-Durar,24 he was a contemporary of al-Palimbn¥. Al-Jabart¥, his
good friend, points out that al-Murd¥ mainly lived in Damascus but trav-
elled extensively, including to the îaramayn, in order to collect information
on the scholars he would write about in his biographical dictionary. In the
course of his travels, al-Murd¥ not only advanced his knowledge but taught
students as well.25 Therefore, it is highly probable that al-Palimbn¥ took the
opportunity of al-Murd¥’s visits to the îaramayn to study with him.
Although al-Murd¥ was renowned mostly as a historian, al-Jabart¥
reports that he was a ‘prop of the shar¥’ah’ and a ‘house of knowledge’ in
Syria during his time, who had mastered both exterior and interior sciences
to the fullest extent.26 As al-Baghdd¥ also tells us, he was the Muft¥ of the
îanaf¥ school of law in Damascus, and a Naqshband¥ shaykh.27 He had
wide connections with such major scholars in the networks as Murtaè
al-Zab¥d¥, not only because he had met them in the course of collecting
biographical data but more importantly because of úad¥th scholarship; his
was considered a ‘superior’ isnd in úad¥th studies.28
The next teacher of al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad [b. Aúmad] al-Jawhar¥
[al-Mi§r¥], was the son of a leading Egyptian muúaddith, Aúmad b.
al-îasan b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m b. Y´suf al-Kar¥m¥ al-Khlid¥ al-Jawhar¥
al-Azhar¥ (1096–1181/1685–1767).29 Muúammad al-Jawhar¥ (1132–86/
1720–72), like his father, Aúmad al-Jawhar¥, was known mainly as a tra-
ditionist.30 Although he lived mostly in Egypt, Muúammad al-Jawhar¥ often
travelled to the îaramayn, where besides performing pilgrimages he taught
students. In addition to receiving úad¥th from his father, he possessed isnds
through his father which connected him with such scholars as ‘Abd Allh
al-Ba§r¥ and Aúmad al-Nakhl¥. Therefore, he was among the most sought-
after isnds in the networks during this period. He had also extensive
networks through úad¥th studies down to more recent times.31
The last scholar in the list of al-Palimbn¥’s teachers was ‘A’ Allh
[b. Aúmad] al-Azhar¥ al-Ma§r¥ al-Makk¥, mentioned earlier as a teacher of
Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s. ‘A’ Allh was a renowned muúaddith32 and a colleague
of Muúammad al-Sammn¥, Muúammad al-Jawhar¥ and Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥.
Al-Zab¥d¥ even lists ‘A’ Allh as one of his numerous teachers.33 It
appears that after completing his education at the Azhar, later in his life
‘A’ Allh migrated to Mecca or, in al-Kattn¥’s terms, he was ‘naz¥l al-
îaramayn’, where he was very active in teaching.34 Among his students
were Ab´ al-îasan al-Sind¥ al-êagh¥r and êliú al-Fulln¥, and a number of
Yemeni scholars.35 Like Muúammad al-Jawhar¥, ‘A’ Allh is considered
a superior isnd in úad¥th studies.36
Thus, as al-Sink¥l¥ earlier, al-Palimbn¥ reaped great profit from visiting

scholars in the îaramayn, especially during the pilgrimage season. One
visiting scholar from whom al-Palimbn¥ gained great benefit was Aúmad
al-Damanh´r¥. The latter, whose biography has been provided by Zab¥d¥,
lived mostly in Cairo, though he often travelled to the îaramayn. Based on
notes he took when he attended lectures given by al-Damanh´r¥ in Mecca,
al-Palimbn¥ was able to write one of his earliest works, entitled Zuhrat
al-Mur¥d f¥ Bayn Kalimat al-Tawú¥d. The work, in Malay, deals with logic
(maniq) and theology (u§´l al-d¥n), and it was written at the request of
one of his friends, obviously a Malay, in order to better understand
al-Damanh´r¥’s lectures.37
Considering the status of the scholars he studied with, it is certain that
al-Palimbn¥’s education was a thorough one; he studied úad¥th, fiqh,
shar¥’ah, tafs¥r, kalm and ta§awwuf. Al-Palimbn¥ had a strong disposition
towards mysticism, and it is evident that he studied ta§awwuf mostly with
al-Sammn¥, from whom he also took both ar¥qahs of Khalwatiyyah
and Sammniyyah.38 Abdullah39 believes that al-Palimbn¥ studied with al-
Sammn¥ for five years in Medina. During the course of his studies with
al-Sammn¥, he was entrusted to teach some of al-Sammn¥’s students of
Arab origin. So far as his adherence to ar¥qah is concerned, al-Palimbn¥
was deeply influenced by al-Sammn¥. Conversely, it is through al-
Palimbn¥ that the Sammniyyah ar¥qah found fertile ground not only in
the Palembang region but in other parts of the archipelago; al-Sammn¥ and
the Sammniyyah ar¥qah became principal subjects in the writings of later
Palembang scholars.
Al-Palimbn¥ never returned to the archipelago. He devoted his time in
the îaramayn to writing and teaching. Al-Bayr reports that in 1201/1787
he travelled to Zab¥d, where he taught students, particularly of the Ahdal
and al-Mizjj¥ families.40 This report is in accord with Abdullah’s accounts
of al-Palimbn¥’s travels to Zab¥d and his meetings with local scholars and
students.41 One of his students in Zab¥d was Waj¥h al-D¥n ‘Abd al-Raúmn
b. Sulaymn b. Yaúy b. ‘Umar al-Ahdal (1179–1255/1765–1839), a
muúaddith who later occupied the post of Muft¥ of Zab¥d. Waj¥h al-D¥n
al-Ahdal evidently considered al-Palimbn¥ one of his most important
teachers, as he included his biography in his dictionary, al-Nafs al-Yamn¥
wa al-R´ú al-Rayún¥.42
According to al-Kattn¥, Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Ahdal in his biographical
dictionary put al-Palimbn¥ into his third category (al-abaqat al-thlithah);
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-Palimbn¥, Waj¥h al-D¥n learned from such scholars as Aúmad b.
îasan al-Muqr¥ al-Zab¥d¥, Amr Allh b. ‘Abd al-Khliq b. Muúammad al-
Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥, Sulaymn al-Kurd¥, ‘Abd al-Raúmn Mu§af al-’Aydar´s
and Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥.44 Thus, through Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Ahdal, al-Palimbn¥
was connected to a much wider networks of scholars.
Because of his scholarly connections, al-Palimbn¥ was, without doubt,

the most prominent Malay-Indonesian scholar in the eighteenth century
networks. However, his importance in light of Islamic development in the
archipelago lies not only in his involvement in the scholarly networks but
more importantly in his writings, which were widely read in the Malay-
Indonesian world, particularly in the ‘ulam’ circles, in the pesantren,
pondok and other Islamic educational institutions. In his works
al-Palimbn¥ disseminated the teachings of neo-§´f¥s, but he also appealed
to his fellow Muslims to launch a jihd against Europeans, particularly the
Dutch, who had intensified their attempts to subdue Muslim political
entities in the archipelago.
AL-BANJR¡
With Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥ we now come to South Kalimantan
(Borneo), a region where the development of Islam is still insufficiently
studied. As elsewhere in the archipelago, studies of Islam in South Kali-
mantan have so far mainly concentrated on the questions of when, how and
whence Islam came to this region; there is almost no discussion of the
growth of Islamic institutions and the tradition of learning among its
Muslim population. With regard to this, the importance of Muúammad
Arshad lies not simply in his involvement in the scholary networks but also
in the fact that he was the first scholar to establish new Islamic institutions
as 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 in
the coastal region since the early sixteenth century, but Islam gained
momentum 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 the
Daha Kingdom. On his victory, Pangeran Samudra converted to Islam around
936/1526 and was installed as the first Suln of the Banjar Sultanate. He was
given the name of Suln Surian Shh or Surian Allh by an Arab teacher.45
With the establishment of the Sultanate of Banjar, Islam appears to have
been officially regarded as the religion of the state, although Muslims
constituted a minority of the population. Adherents to Islam, by and large,
were confined to the Malay population; Islam only very slowly made
inroads among the tribal population, commonly called the Dayaks.46 Even
among Malay Muslims, the adherence to Islam was evidently nominal and
did not go beyond the utterance of the confession of faith. Under succes-
sive Sulns down to the period of al-Banjr¥, it is evident that there was no
substantial attempt made by the rulers to advance Islamic life. However,
they did adopt the Arabic script for the Sultanate’s correspondence with
other Malay-Indonesian rulers, the Dutch and the British. There are also
accounts of attempts by wandering scholars to further Islamisation in the
region, but apparently they made little progress.47
A substantial drive for further Islamisation was launched by

Muúammad Arshad b. ‘Abd Allh al-Banjr¥ (1122–1227/1710–1812),
one of the best-known scholars of Kalimantan. Born in Martapura, South
Kalimantan, Muúammad Arshad acquired a rudimentary religious
education in his own village, apparently from his father and local
teachers, for there is no evidence that surau or pesantren existed during
this period in the region. When he was seven years old he is reported to
have been able to read the Qur’n perfectly. He became famous for this,
which led Suln Tahl¥l Allh (1112–58/1700–45) to take him and his
family to live in the court of the Sultanate. Later the Suln married him
to a woman, but almost immediately he sent Muúammad Arshad to the
îaramayn in order to pursue further studies at the Sultanate’s expense.
The Suln seems to have financed him generously; Muúammad Arshad
was even able to buy a house in the Shamiyyah quarter of Mecca, which
is still maintained by the Banjar immigrants even today.48
As we noted earlier, Muúammad Arshad studied with al-Palimbn¥ and
several other Malay-Indonesian students. However, while al-Palimbn¥
had a good number of teachers, Muúammad Arshad’s known teachers
included only al-Sammn¥, al-Damanh´r¥, Sulaymn al-Kurd¥ and ‘A’
Allh al-Ma§r¥. It is possible that he studied with other teachers, especially
with Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s al-Zamzam¥, from whom Muúammad Arshad most
likely studied ‘ilm al-falak (astronomy), a field in which he was a leading
authority among Malay-Indonesian scholars.
With regard to his works and activities after his return to the archipelago,
one might assume that Muúammad Arshad was simply an expert in fiqh or
shar¥’ah, especially due to the fact that his best-known text, entitled Sab¥l
al-Muhtad¥n, is a fiqh book. But this does not necessarily mean that he was
not learned in Sufism; it is known that he also wrote a work entitled Kanz
al-Ma’rifah, dealing with ta§awwuf. Thus Muúammad Arshad was well
versed in the exterior (al-½hir) and interior (al-bin) sciences or, as Steen-
brink writes,49 he was an expert in fiqh as well as in ta§awwuf. Muúammad
Arshad received the Sammniyyah ar¥qah from al-Sammn¥, and he is
considered the scholar most responsible for the spread of the Sammniyyah
ar¥qah in Kalimantan.
Muúammad Arshad studied for about 30 years in Mecca and five years
in Medina before returning to the archipelago. Several years before his
return it is said that he began to teach students in the îarm Mosque of
Mecca.50 However, Muúammad Arshad felt that he did not yet have suffi-
cient knowledge. Together with al-Palimbn¥, ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥
and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥, he asked permission of their teacher, ‘A’
Allh al-Ma§r¥, to advance their education in Cairo. While appreciating
their good intention, ‘A’ Allh suggested that it would be much better for
them to return to the the archipelago, as he believed they already possessed
more than sufficient knowledge to be effective as teachers in their
homeland. They decided to travel to Cairo anyway, but simply for a visit,
not to study.51 It was probably a sign of their connection with ‘A’ Allh
and their visit to Cairo that one of Muúammad Arshad’s friends, ‘Abd al-
Raúmn al-Batw¥, added the laqab (surname) of ‘al-Ma§r¥’ to his name.
Like other Malay-Indonesian scholars, Muúammad Arshad maintained
constant contact and communication with his homeland while he was in the
îaramayn, so that he was well informed about the developments of Islam
there. In this connection he is reported to have asked the opinion of his
teacher, Sulaymn al-Kurd¥, about the religious policies of the Suln of
Banjar. The Suln, he had heard, imposed heavy fines on his Muslim
subjects for failing to perform the Jum’ah (Friday) prayer. Muúammad
Arshad also asked Sulaymn al-Kurd¥ to explain the differences between
zakh (obligatory ‘alms’) and tax, for the Banjar Suln had required the
population to pay tax instead of zakh.52 It is unfortunate that we have no
information on Sulaymn al-Kurd¥’s responses to these questions, but this
account reflects the genuine concern on the part of Muúammad Arshad
about the correct application of the shar¥’ah.
Muúammad Arshad, together with ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ al-Ma§r¥
and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥, returned to the archipelago in 1186/1773.
Before he proceeded to Banjarmasin, at the request of al-Batw¥, Muúammad
Arshad stayed in Batavia for two months. Although in Batavia for a relatively
short time, he was able to launch an important reform for the Batavian
Muslims. He corrected the qiblah (the direction Muslims face when perform-
ing prayers towards the Ka’bah in Mecca) of several mosques in Batavia.
According to his calculation, the qiblah of mosques in Jembatan Lima and
Pekojan, Batavia, were not directed correctly at the Ka’bah, and therefore had
to be changed. This created controversy among Muslim leaders in Batavia,
and as a result the Dutch Governor summoned Muúammad Arshad to explain
the matter. The Governor, impressed by Muúammad Arshad’s mathematical
calculations, happily presented him with several gifts.53 Later, the correction
of the direction of the qiblah was proposed by ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ in
Palembang when he travelled there around 1800; this incited heated discus-
sion as well.54
The reformist impulse in Muúammad Arshad’s personality to introduce
new 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 and
practices. To that end Muúammad Arshad asked Suln Taúm¥d Allh II
(r. 1187–1223/1773–1808) to grant him a large plot of wasteland outside the
capital of the Sultanate. He and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥, who was now
married to Muúammad Arshad’s daughter, built a centre for Islamic educa-
tion, which was similar in characteristics to the surau in West Sumatra or
pesantren in Java. Like many suraus and pesantrens, Muúammad Arshad’s
centre of learning consisted of lecture halls, students’ hostels, teachers’
houses and libraries. This centre was economically self-sufficient, as

Muúammad Arshad together with other teachers and students transformed
nearby lands into productive rice fields and vegetable gardens. Before long,
the centre had established itself as the most important locus for the training
of students, who later became leading scholars in Kalimantan society.55
Muúammad Arshad took another important step in intensifying Islam-
isation in his region by reforming the administration of justice in the
Sultanate of Banjar. In addition to making Islamic legal doctrines the most
important reference in criminal courts, Muúammad Arshad, with the
support of the Suln, established separate Islamic courts to deal with more
purely civil legal matters. He also initiated the establishment of the office
of Muft¥, who was responsible for issuing fatws on religious and social
matters.56 With these initiatives, Muúammad Arshad managed to put
Islamic law into effect in the realm of the Sultanate of Banjar.
Another important Kalimantan scholar is Muúammad Naf¥s b. Idr¥s
b. îusayn al-Banjr¥. Although we do not have much information on his
life, there is no doubt that he was second only to Muúammad Arshad in
terms of the influence he exerted on the Kalimantan Muslims, especially in
the field of ta§awwuf. If Muúammad Arshad was known primarily as an
expert in shar¥’ah, Muúammad Naf¥s was famous as a §´f¥ scholar by virtue
of his well-known work, al-Durr al-Naf¥s f¥ Bayn Waúdat al-Af’l
al-Asm’ wa al-êift wa al-Dht al-Taqd¥s, which circulated widely in the
archipelago. This work was printed several times in Cairo by Dr
al-$ab’ah (as recently as 1347/1928) and by Mu§af al-îalab¥ (1362/
1943), in Mecca by Maba’at al-Kar¥m al-Islmiyyah (1323/1905), and in
various places in the archipelago.57
Muúammad Naf¥s was born in 1148/1735 in Martapura into the Banjar
royal family. Thus, he lived in the same period as Muúammad Arshad.
There is no evidence of the date of his death, although it is known that he
died 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 taught
the basic principles of Islam in his own region. Later, we find him studying
in Mecca, as he writes in his introductory notes to his al-Durr al-Naf¥s:
‘ . . . he who writes this epistle . . . that is Muúammad Naf¥s b. Idr¥s b. al-
îusayn, who was born in Banjar and lives in Mecca’.59 There is no hard
evidence that he studied together with al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad Arshad or
their colleagues, but it is highly probable that his period of study in the
îaramayn coincided with that of al-Palimbn¥ and others. I would suggest
that they studied together at one time or another, particularly if we consider
the following list of Muúammad Naf¥s’ teachers.
Abdullah mentions that Muúammad Naf¥s studied with a number of
scholars in the îaramayn, the most famous of whom were al-Sammn¥,
Muúammad al-Jawhar¥, ‘Abd Allh b. îijz¥ al-Sharqw¥, Muúammad
êidd¥q b. ‘Umar Khn and ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. ‘Abd al-Az¥z al-Maghrib¥.60
Muúammad êidd¥q b. ‘Umar Khn was a student of al-Sammn¥ and ‘Abd
al-Az¥z al-Maghrib¥, and was apparently a close friend of al-Palimbn¥. The

latter even includes the titles of several works of Muúammad êidd¥q in
the list of works that he recommends to be read by aspirants of the §´f¥ path.61
We have already mentioned both al-Sammn¥ and Muúammad
al-Jawhar¥, who were among the teachers of al-Palimbn¥ and his fellows.
The fact that Muúammad Naf¥s studied with al-Sammn¥, al-Jawhar¥ and
Muúammad êidd¥q indicates that he was indeed a fellow student
of al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad Arshad and their other Malay-Indonesian
counterparts.
As for ‘Abd Allh b. îijz¥ [b. Ibrh¥m] al-Sharqw¥ al-Azhar¥
(1150–1227/1737–1812), he was Shaykh al-Islm and Shaykh of the Azhar
from 1207/1794.62 Al-Sharqw¥ was two years younger than Muúammad
Naf¥s. As al-Sharqw¥ mostly lived in Cairo, it is very likely that
Muúammad Naf¥s studied with him during his frequent visits to the
îaramayn.63 We are not so certain whether al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad
Arshad, ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥ also
studied with al-Sharqw¥. But, as we will see shortly, al-Sharqw¥ had
another important Malay-Indonesian student, namely Dw´d al-Fan¥.
Al-Sharqw¥, it is worth mentioning briefly, was himself a student of
important scholars in the networks, including Aúmad al-Damanh´r¥,
Maúm´d al-Kurd¥ and Aúmad al-Jawhar¥. Maúm´d al-Kurd¥ appointed him
as the khal¥fah of the Khalwatiyyah ar¥qah in Cairo. Al-Sharqw¥ then
established himself among reformists of the order. He was well versed in
various branches of Islamic discipline, although he was mainly known as a
leading expert in the shar¥’ah and úad¥th. Like most scholars in the
networks, he emphasised the importance of úad¥th, in terms of its position
not only as the second source of Islamic legal doctrines but also as the
indispensable source of proper moral conduct.64 Therefore, in addition to
being a reformist, and a §´f¥ with numerous khal¥fahs, al-Sharqw¥ was
among the most respected isnds in the networks.65 It is important to note
in passing that Muúammad Maúf´½ al-Tarmis¥ (from Termas, East Java—
1285–1338/1842–1920), an important Malay-Indonesian úad¥th scholar
who lived and died in Mecca, traced his isnds to al-Sharqw¥, among
others.66 Having studied with al-Sharqw¥ as well as with al-Sammn¥ and
Muúammad al-Jawhar¥, Muúammad Naf¥s clearly had strong links with the
networks in the period under discussion.
Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥, like all Malay-Indonesian scholars,
followed the Shfi’¥ school of law and Ash’ar¥ theological doctrines. He
was affiliated with several ar¥qahs: Qdiriyyah, Shariyyah,
Sammniyyah, Naqshbandiyyah and Khalwatiyyah.67 Muúammad Naf¥s
was an expert in kalm and ta§awwuf. His Durr al-Naf¥s, while stressing
the absolute transcendence and Unity of God, refused the notion of the
Jabariyyah, who maintained fatalistic determinism as opposed to free
will (Qadariyyah). In Muúammad Naf¥s’ opinion, Muslims must strive to
achieve a better life by doing good deeds and avoiding evil.68 Thus,
Muúammad Naf¥s was clearly a proponent of activism, one of the basic

characteristics of neo-Sufism discussed earlier. With its strong emphasis on
Muslim activism, it is no surprise that his book was banned by the Dutch,
who feared that it would incite people to launch a jihd.69
There is no information on when Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥ returned
to the archipelago. It appears that he proceeded straight to South Kaliman-
tan. Like Muúammad Arshad, who was the pioneer of the Islamic
educational institution, Muúammad Naf¥s devoted himself to the pioneering
work of propagating Islam in the interior of the South Kalimantan region.
He was indeed a typical wandering §´f¥ teacher and played a crucial role in
expanding Islam in Kalimantan.70
DWÊçD B. ‘ABD ALLH AND THE RISE OF PATANI

SCHOLARSHIP
To conclude this chapter, we will examine the Patani scholars who by the
end of the eighteenth century increasingly came into the picture of Islamic
learning in the archipelago. With the rise of Patani scholars, we can observe
not only the proliferation of the tradition of Islamic learning but also the
further dissemination of renewal and reformism in the Malay-Indonesian
world.
The conversion of the Patani region in South Thailand to Islam took
place from roughly the twelfth to the fifteenth century. The Patani Sultanate
was a populous and prosperous Muslim kingdom in the Malay Peninsula
until 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 after
World War II but little attention has been paid to the growth of Islamic
tradition and institutions among the Patani Muslims in the earlier period.72
Despite Patani’s political weakness as a border state, wandering teachers,
mainly §´f¥s, continually frequented the Patani region. The Hikayat Patani
reports the coming of scholars such as Shaykh Gombak and his student
‘Abd al-Mu’min from Minangkabau,73 and Shaykh Faq¥h êaf¥ al-D¥n from
Pasai in the second half of the sixteenth century. They played a crucial role
in the religious life of the Sultanate. êaf¥ al-D¥n, for instance, urged the
construction of a royal mosque and later became adviser to Suln Mu½affar
Shh on religious matters.74 Again, in the middle of the seventeenth century,
a number of scholars came to Patani: Sayyid ‘Abd Allh from Jerusalem via
Trengganu, îji ‘Abd al-Raúmn from Java, Faq¥h ‘Abd al-Mann, a
Minangkabau from Kedah, and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qdir from Pasai.75 They
are reported to have carried out concerted efforts to spread the hukum Allah
(shar¥’ah) into Patani.76
An important point conveyed by these accounts is that the Patani
Muslims were not isolated among their fellow Muslims in the archipel-
ago. With the coming of scholars to their region, Patani Muslims were
made aware of developments in religious ideas and institutions in other

parts of the Malay-Indonesian world. It is highly plausible that it was
such scholars who stimulated the establishment of the traditional Islamic
educational instititution known in Patani as pondok.77 Furthermore, it is
suggested that the pondok system, which also developed in other parts of
the Malay Peninsula, originated from Patani. 78 Al-Palimbn¥, as
mentioned earlier, is said to have had his early education in Patani,
probably in the pondoks there, but little is known about them in the period
before the nineteenth century. Matheson and Hooker point out that the
pondoks in Patani were very prestigious and that their more advanced
students were welcomed as teachers elsewhere.79 I would argue, however,
that this was true only in the nineteenth century, when native Patani
scholars increasingly came onto the scene and contributed significantly to
the growth of the pondoks.
Shaghir Abdullah, a grandson of Aúmad Zayn al-’bid¥n al-Fatn¥, a
leading Patani scholar,80 lists Muúammad $hir b. ‘Al¥ al-Fan¥ (914–78/
1508–78), the author of the famous Tadhkirt al-Mawè´’t,81 as among the
earliest and most famous scholars of Patani. This is incorrect, as
Muúammad $hir also had a laqab (nickname) of al-Hind¥ (from India), to
be exact, from Patan in the Gujarat region.82 If this claim were true,
Muúammad $hir al-Fan¥ would have been the earliest Malay scholar
involved in the scholarly networks of the îaramayn; that is, a century
ahead of al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥.
The best-known Patani scholar was Dw´d b. ‘Abd Allh b. Idr¥s al-
Fan¥; but he was neither the earliest nor the only scholar from this region
involved in the networks. At least from Dw´d al-Fan¥’s silsilah of the
Sammniyyah ar¥qah we know that he received the order not directly from
Muúammad al-Sammn¥ but by way of two other Patani scholars, namely
‘Al¥ b. Isúq al-Fan¥ and Muúammad êliú b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-
Fan¥.83 They probably came to the îaramayn earlier than Dw´d
al-Fan¥, but Abdullah suggests that the three were contemporaries, with
Dw´d al-Fan¥ the youngest among them.84
Thanks to research done by Abdullah, published in his Syeikh Daud bin
Abdullah al-Fatani, we know more about Dw´d al-Fan¥’s life and
career. According to Abdullah, records kept by families related to Dw´d
al-Fan¥ 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 records
gives his date of death as 1265/1847.85 There is no way we can be certain
which of the dates is the correct one. But because of his studying with
the teachers listed below, I think al-Fan¥ was most probably born in
1153/1740; he is reported to have studied with al-Barrw¥ (d. 1182/1768),
as will be seen shortly. Furthermore, his earliest dated work was
completed in Mecca in 1224/1809, when he was 69 years old and had
established himself as a learned scholar. The date of his last work is
1259/1843.86 This means that he lived a relatively long life. The height of
his career was certainly in the early decades of the nineteenth century—
beyond the period of our discussion. However, as he had direct
connections with the eighteenth century scholarly networks, he must be
included in this discussion.
According to Abdullah, Dw´d al-Fan¥ was born in Kresik (also
spelled Gresik), an old harbour in Patani, where Mawln Malik Ibrh¥m,
one of the famous Wali Sanga, reportedly preached Islam before he
proceeded to East Java. There he built a centre of Islamic propagation also
named Gresik. It said that Dw´d al-Fan¥ had ancestral relations with
Malik Ibrh¥m.87 Abdullah believes that Dw´d al-Fan¥’s grandfather was
a certain Faq¥h ‘Al¥ or Datuk Andi Maharajalela, a prince of the Bone
Sultanate, South Sulawesi, who came to Patani in 1047/1637 from the court
of Bone as a result of political unrest. Later he married a Patani woman and
rose to influence in the Patani Sultanate.88 Although it is difficult to
substantiate 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.
Dw´d al-Fan¥ acquired his early education in his own region, appar-
ently from his father. But Abdullah suggests that Dw´d al-Fan¥ also
studied in the pondoks in Patani.89 He later travelled to Aceh, where he
studied for two years with Muúammad Zayn b. Faq¥h Jall al-D¥n al-Ash¥.90
Muúammad Zayn al-Ash¥, as Hasjmi tells us, was a leading scholar of the
Acehnese Sultanate during the period of Suln ‘Al’ al-D¥n Maúm´d Shh
(r. 1174–95/l760–81). Al-Ash¥ appears to have inherited his father’s
expertise in fiqh, for he wrote several works in this field. There is strong
evidence that al-Ash¥ also studied in the îaramayn. Two of al-Ash¥’s
known works, the Bidyat al-Hidyah and Kashf al-Kirm, were prepared
in Mecca in 1170/1757 and 1171/1758 respectively, and were apparently
completed in Aceh.91
In all probability, Dw´d al-Fan¥ travelled from Aceh directly to the
îaramayn, but we have no information on when he reached the Holy Land.
In the îaramayn, he immediately joined the circle of Jw¥ students already
there. Among them were Muúammad êliú b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Fan¥,
‘Al¥ b. Isúq al-Fan¥, al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad Arshad, ‘Abd al-Wahhb
al-Bugis¥, ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ and Muúammad Naf¥s. Abdullah
tells us that Dw´d al-Fan¥ was the youngest of these scholars.92 All the
older students were also teachers of Dw´d al-Fan¥, or at least assisted
him in his studies with non-Malay teachers.
Abdullah argues that Dw´d al-Fan¥, like al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad
Arshad, ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ and ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥, studied
directly with al-Sammn¥.93 He is also reported to have learned from ‘Is
b. Aúmad al-Barrw¥,94 who died in 1182/1768, seven years earlier than
al-Sammn¥ (d. 1189/1775). In other words, when Dw´d al-Fan¥ studied
with al-Barrw¥, presumably in the last years of his life, al-Sammn¥ was at
the height of his career. Because of his studying with al-Barrw¥ and
al-Sammn¥, Dw´d al-Fan¥ must have reached the îaramayn in the

second half of the 1760s, or when he was in his late 20s.
‘Is b. Aúmad [b. ‘Is b. Muúammad al-Zubayr¥ al-Shfi’¥ al-Qhir¥
al-Azhar¥], better known as al-Barrw¥, was a muúaddith and faq¥h who had
a special expertise in legal úad¥ths and in the comparative study of schools
of Islamic law.95 He lived mainly in Cairo, where he died in 1182/1768. He
was also a frequent visitor to the îaramayn, performing pilgrimage and
involving himself in scholarly activities. He received úad¥th through isnds
which included ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥. Al-Barrw¥ was also a teacher of
Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ and Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ al-Shanwn¥.96 Al-Shanwn¥, as
we will see shortly, was also a teacher of Dw´d al-Fan¥. Al-Fan¥
mostly studied u§´l al-D¥n (lit. ‘roots of religion’) with al-Barrw¥. He
possessed an isnd in this science, which ran from al-Barrw¥ to include
such major network scholars as ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥, ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥,
Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥ and Zakariyy al-An§r¥.97 Considering the fact that
al-Fan¥ wrote a number of works on fiqh, it is highly probable that he also
learned this science mostly from al-Barrw¥.
More than any other Malay scholar who preceded him, al-Fan¥ had
many teachers either of Egyptian origin or with a strong Egyptian connec-
tion. As there is no evidence that al-Fan¥ ever travelled to Cairo, he must
have studied with them during their visits to the îaramayn. In addition
to studying with al-Barrw¥, al-Fan¥ continued his studies with al-
Sharqw¥,98 the Shaykh of Azhar and celebrated Khalwatiyyah reformist
mentioned earlier as a teacher of Muúammad Naf¥s. As al-Sharqw¥ was an
expert in úad¥th, shar¥’ah, kalm and ta§awwuf, it is probable that al-Fan¥
also learned these sciences from him.
The next teacher Dw´d al-Fan¥ studied with was the successor
of al-Sharqw¥ as the Shaykh of al-Azhar. He was Muúammad b. ‘Al¥
Al-Shanwn¥ (d. 1233/1818), better known simply as Al-Shanwn¥, who
was elected President of the Azhar University on al-Sharqw¥’s death.99
During his youth, Al-Shanwn¥ studied with most of the leading scholars of
Egypt, including Aúmad al-Damanh´r¥, al-Barrw¥, al-Sharqw¥ and
Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥. He was an outstanding scholar of úad¥th, fiqh, tafs¥r and
kalm. Although he taught mostly in Cairo, he had a number of students in
Mecca, who studied with him during his visits there.100 With Al-Shanwn¥,
al-Fan¥ advanced his studies in fiqh and kalm.
In addition to studying with the scholars mentioned above, al-Fan¥
learned from Muúammad As’ad, Aúmad al-Marz´q¥ and Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s
al-Zamzam¥ al-Makk¥.101 The latter, as we have seen, was also a teacher of
al-Palimbn¥. Dw´d al-Fan¥ studied various branches of Islamic disci-
pline with Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s as well as receiving the Shdhaliyyah ar¥qah
from him. It is interesting that Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s in turn took this ar¥qah from
êliú Al-Fulln¥, who got it from his teacher, Ibn Sinnah.102
‘Muúammad As’ad’ was most probably Muúammad As’ad al-îanaf¥
al-Makk¥, a muúaddith who is said to have been very proud of having a
úad¥th isnd that went back to ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥.103 Interestingly

enough, al-Fan¥ did not take the isnd but instead took the Shariyyah
ar¥qah from Muúammad As’ad al-Makk¥, who took it from Muúammad
Sa’¥d b. $hir, who took it from his father, Ab´ $hir, who in turn took it
from his father, Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, who took it from Aúmad al-Qushsh¥,
who took it from Aúmad al-Shinnw¥, who took it from êibghat Allh.104
This silsilah is different from that of al-Sinkil¥, who received the ar¥qah
not from al-K´rn¥ but from al-Qushsh¥.
We do not have much information on ‘Aúmad al-Marz´q¥’, the last
in the list of al-Fan¥’s teachers. This scholar very likely was Aúmad
al-Marz´q¥ [al-Makk¥ al-Mlik¥], a student of Al-Shanwn¥. Aúmad al-
Marz´q¥ was known as a muúaddith who taught mostly in Mecca.105 Both
Muúammad As’ad al-îanaf¥ and Aúmad al-Marz´q¥ al-Mlik¥ were al-
Fan¥’s teachers of non-Shfi’¥ madhhabs. This indicates that the
differences among scholars in their adherence to schools of Islamic law, as
in the previous century, were not barriers in the networks of ‘ulam’ in the
eighteenth century.
Considering all the teachers he studied with and the sciences he got from
them, it is clear that Dw´d al-Fan¥’s education was complete and
comprehensive. He possessed more than sufficent knowledge to earn him
fame as a major Malay-Indonesian scholar in the period of transition
between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Al-Fan¥ seems never to
have returned to Patani or elsewhere in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago.
Instead he devoted himself to teaching and writing in the îaramayn until
he died in Ta’if. His numerous Malay-Indonesian students came from all
over the archipelago.106 He has been claimed as a pivotal figure in the
history of Islam in Patani.107
There can be no question that al-Fan¥ was one of the most prolific
among Malay-Indonesian scholars. He wrote at least 57 works, dealing
with almost all branches of the Islamic disciplines.108 The works them-
selves, however, some printed in various places in the Middle East and the
Malay-Indonesian world, have not been sufficiently studied.
The careers of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century,
from al-Palimbn¥ to al-Fan¥, have shown us that the networks among
Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian scholars continued to gain
momentum. More importantly, these indicate the incessant transmission of
reformism from the centres of learning in the Middle East to various parts
of the archipelago. The wide circulation of the writings of these Malay-
Indonesian scholars pushed Islamic reformism in this part of the Muslim
world even further.
7
Renewal in the Network:
The European Challenge
We have seen how ‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad Arshad

al-Banjr¥, Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥, Dw´d al-Fan¥ and other
scholars in the eighteenth century had definite connections with a number
of important scholars in the centres of networks in the îaramayn and in
Cairo. Not only were they the crucial channels of transmission of Islamic
reformism from the Middle East to the archipelago, they also served as
connections for later Malay-Indonesian scholars, who came in ever-
increasing numbers to the îaramayn. Their links with Jw¥ students in the
nineteenth century, which involved a number of leading scholars in the
îaramayn, created similarly complex webs of scholarly networks.1
The connections of al-Palimbn¥ and his group with earlier scholars
were more than simply student–teacher relations; throughout their
writings they showed their intellectual lineage to earlier major scholars by
giving their works as major sources of their thought. It is no surprise to
find that they developed equally reformist teachings.
Al-Palimbn¥ and his fellow Malay-Indonesian scholars also played an
important role in preserving the morale of their fellow Muslims in facing
the continuing encroachment of European colonial powers. This period
marked a painful transition in the history of Malay-Indonesian Muslims:
one after another, the Malay Muslim kingdoms fell into the hands of
foreign 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 it
contributed to the growing concern among our Malay-Indonesian scholars
about the future of Islam in this region. This concern is, in turn, reflected
in their writings. We will first attempt to discuss their teachings, particu-
larly in relation to the intellectual currents in the wider networks. Then we
will assess their impact on Islamic development in the archipelago. Lastly
127
we will examine their response to the intensification of the European

attempts to incorporate the Malay-Indonesian world ino their realm.
SHAR¡’AH AND TAêAWWUF: RECONCILING AL-GHAZL¡ WITH

IBN ‘ARAB¡
In previous chapters we have examined the central theme of al-Rn¥r¥,
al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥, which was the harmony between the legal and
mystical aspects of Islam. This harmony also became the central theme in
the writings of al-Palimbn¥ and his group. Throughout their writings, they
were eager to reconcile Ibn ‘Arab¥’s philosophical mysticism and
al-Ghazl¥’s ta§awwuf. At the same time, the importance of the shar¥’ah
was repeatedly emphasised.
This tendency in the development of Islamic thought is best seen in
Palembang. As Drewes has shown,2 local religious literature in this region
at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century did not
include works of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ or Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥, nor any
writings that had been considered ‘unorthodox’ or that even contained
some ‘heterodox’ teachings. On the other hand, works of al-Rn¥r¥ and
al-Sink¥l¥ circulated widely. Prominent Palembang scholars such as Shihb
al-D¥n b. ‘Abd Allh Muúammad preached neo-Sufism as taught by al-
Junayd, al-Qushayr¥ and al-Ghazl¥. Shihb al-D¥n even went so far as to
condemn the reading of works on the martabat tujuh (seven grades of
being). He opposed this doctrine, it appears, simply because he feared that
it would lead his fellow Muslims astray. He assumed they would mis-
understand it because of their lack of solid grounding in Islamic
knowledge, particularly of the shar¥’ah.3 As we will see, most Malay-
Indonesian scholars in the period, from al-Palimbn¥ to al-Fan¥, in fact
adopted the very same concept of the seven grades of being.
Of all the Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century, it was
Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥ and Dw´d al-Fan¥ who fostered the
entrenchment of the shar¥’ah in the archipelago. We have seen how
Muúammad Arshad played a crucial role in the establishment in the Banjar
Sultanate 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 fiqh, which were widely
circulated in the archipelago.4
Muúammad Arshad’s principal work was the Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n li
al-Tafaqquh f¥ Amr al-D¥n. Without doubt it is one of the major works on
fiqh in Malay after the completion of the êir al-Mustaq¥m of al-Rn¥r¥ and
the Mir’t al-$ullb of al-Sink¥l¥. As Muúammad Arshad states in his intro-
ductory notes, he began to write the Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n in 1193/1779 at the
request of Suln Taúm¥d Allh. It was completed in 1195/1781. The work
is in two volumes, consisting of some 500 pages. It deals with detailed rules
RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK 129
of the ‘ibdah (ritual) aspect of fiqh. It is basically an elaboration, or to

some extent a revision, of al-Rn¥r¥’s êir al-Mustaq¥m, which used many
Acehnese words hardly understood by Malay-Indonesians in other areas of
the archipelago.5
The Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n, printed several times in Mecca, Cairo, Istanbul
and 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 Muúammad Arshad composed a collection of his teachings
on the fundamentals of belief (‘aq’id) and fiqh, entitled Perukunan Besar
al-Banjr¥ or Perukunan Melayu. The work enjoyed similar success and
was subsequently translated into other languages of the archipelago, such
as Javanese and Sundanese.6 The popularity of Muúammad Arshad’s
writings indicates that works explicating Islamic legal precepts were
needed by Malay-Indonesian Muslims as practical guides in their daily life.
It attests to the fact that Muslims in the archipelago also exhibited a deep
interest in the legal aspect of Islam. They were not solely interested in
Islamic mysticism, as had been supposed by some scholars.7
The main sources of the Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n are Zakariyy al-An§r¥’s
Sharú Minhj al-$ullb, Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥’s Nihyat al-Muútj
[il Sharú al-Minhj of al-Nawaw¥], Ibn îajar al-Haytam¥’s Tuúfat
[al-Muútj li Sharú al-Minhj], and Kha¥b al-Sharbayn¥’s Mughn¥
al-Muútj.8 Both al-Rn¥r¥ and al-Sink¥l¥ also made extensive use of these
sources. Al-Rn¥r¥’s êir al-Mustaq¥m, which was printed in the margin of
Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n, was Muúammad Arshad’s starting point; he then made
the works of the scholars mentioned above his major references. Muúammad
Arshad thereby strengthened his intellectual connections with some impor-
tant scholars in the networks. Because of its popularity, the Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n
played an important role in establishing the dominance of the above works as
standard references of the Shfi’¥ school of law in the archipelago.
A substantial contribution to the further spread of Islamic legal doctrines
was made by Dw´d al-Fan¥, the most prolific among the Malay-
Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century. He is the best example of a
scholar successful in his attempts to reconcile the legal and mystical aspects
of Islam. We discuss Dw´d al-Fan¥’s main works on ta§awwuf later,
focusing our attention now on those works dealing with various aspects of
the shar¥’ah or fiqh. The most important among them are the Bughyat
al-$ullb li Mur¥d Ma’rifat al-Aúkm bi al-êawb, which discusses
religious observances (fiqh al-’ibdah), and Fur´’ al-Mas’il wa U§´l
al-Was’il, which deals with rules and guidelines in daily life. Smaller
epistles then follow, such as the Jam’ al-Faw’id, on various obligations of
a Muslim towards his fellows and others; Hidyat al-Muta’allim wa
‘Umdat al-Mu’allim, on fiqh in general; Munyat al-Mu§all¥, on prayer
(§alt); Nahj al-Rghib¥n f¥ Sab¥l al-Muttaq¥n, on commercial transactions;
Ghyat al-Taqr¥b, on inheritance (far’iè), ¡èú al-Bb li Mur¥d al-Nikú
bi al-êawb, on matters relating to marriage and divorce; and a number of

other shorter writings on particular sections of fiqh.9
Coming out of the same intellectual milieu, it is hardly surprising that
al-Fan¥ also derived most of his teachings from the important scholars
referred to earlier. His major sources for Bughyat al-$ullb are, among
others, the Minhj al-$lib¥n of al-Nawaw¥, Fatú al-Wahhb of Zakariyy
al-An§r¥, Tuúfat al-Muútj of Ibn îajar al-Haytam¥, and Nihyat al-
Muútj of Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥. Al-Fan¥’s Bughyat al-$ullb consists
of two volumes of 244 and 236 pages, and was printed several times in
Mecca, Istanbul, Cairo and various places in the archipelago. Delineating
the details of various Muslim religious obligations (‘ibdah), this work has
been acclaimed as the most complete book on this particular aspect of fiqh.
The Bughyat al-$ullb was as popular as the Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n of
Muúammad Arshad, and it is still used in many parts of the Malay-
Indonesian world.10
The Fur´’ al-Mas’il is another ample work on fiqh; a reprinted Meccan
edition (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 adaptation
of both Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥’s al-Fatw and îusayn b. Muúammad al-
Maúall¥’s Kashf al-Lithm, and was written in the form of questions and
answers. By adopting this style of writing, al-Fan¥ introduced a new
method of delineating the intricacies of fiqh in what he considered an
attractive and effective vehicle for teaching fiqh to his Malay-Indonesian
audience.
Al-Fan¥, through his works listed above, played a major role in the
history of fiqh in the archipelago. Although the works bore Arabic titles,
they were in fact written in Malay. This reflects al-Fan¥’s concern that his
Malay-Indonesian co-religionists should be able to understand the precepts
of the shar¥’ah. He underlines the importance of the shar¥’ah or fiqh for
Muslims by citing a úad¥th of the Prophet, which states that a good faq¥h
can better defend himself against evils than a thousand Muslims who
perform religious obligations without sufficient knowledge of fiqh.11 It
must be kept in mind, however, that al-Fan¥ was not simply a great faq¥h
or an expert on the shar¥’ah; he was also a §´f¥ par excellence, devoting a
number of writings to ta§awwuf and kalm.
So far as the eighteenth century is concerned, al-Palimbn¥ was the
scholar most responsible for the further spread of neo-Sufism in the archi-
pelago. He was particularly an expert on the Ghazlian ta§awwuf. As
Al-Bayr informs us, al-Palimbn¥ was renowned among his fellow
scholars in the îaramayn for his outstanding expertise on al-Ghazl¥’s
Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n. He not only taught his students the ta§awwuf of
al-Ghazl¥, appealing to them to study and practise it seriously, but he also
wrote several works about it, including the Faè’il al-Iúy’ li al-Ghazl¥.12
It is known that al-Rn¥r¥, al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥ referred to al-Ghazl¥
in their works, but al-Palimbn¥ more than all of them made the Iúy’
‘Ul´m al-D¥n the basis for his works. Therefore, he can appropriately be
considered the most prominent ‘translator’ of al-Ghazl¥ among Malay-
Indonesian scholars. The immense popularity of the Ghazalian ta§awwuf in
the archipelago can to a great extent be attributed to al-Palimbn¥.
Al-Palimbn¥’s masterpieces, widely circulated in the archipelago, were
two works that have been closely associated with al-Ghazl¥’s writings, the
Hidyat al-Slik¥n f¥ Sul´k Maslak al-Muttaq¥n and Sayr al-Slik¥n il
‘Ibdah Rabb al-’lam¥n. Both works were written in Malay and were thus
intended to be read by the wider Malay-Indonesian audience. The Hidyat
al-Slik¥n, completed in Mecca in 1192/1778, was printed at various times
in Mecca (1287/1870 and 1303/1885), Bombay (1311/1895), Cairo
(1341/1922), Surabaya (1352/1933) and Singapore (n.d.). The Sayr al-
Slik¥n, consisting of four parts, was written in Mecca and $’if between
1193/1780 and 1203/1788. Like the Hidyat al-Slik¥n, the Sayr al-Slik¥n
was printed in Mecca (1306/1888) and Cairo (1309/1893 and 1372/1953),
and later also reprinted in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
The Hidyat al-Slik¥n deals mostly with rules of the shar¥’ah inter-
preted in a mystical way. As al-Palimbn¥ himself points out, it is a
translation of al-Ghazl¥’s Bidyat al-Hidyah. But this work can more
appropriately be termed an adaptation of the Bidyat al-Hidyah, as,
according to al-Palimbn¥, ‘it renders several topics found in al-Ghazl¥’s
[Bidyat al-Hidyah] into the Jw¥ language, while at the same time it
introduces a number of appropriate additional [topics which] are not
addressed in it’.13
Al-Palimbn¥, of course, depends heavily on the Bidyat al-Hidyah, but
at the same time he takes material from other works of al-Ghazl¥, such as
the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n, Minhj al-’bid¥n and al-Arba’¥n f¥ U§´l al-D¥n.
Of particular importance, he makes numerous references to works by
several prominent scholars in the networks, such as the Yawq¥t al-Jawhir
of al-Sha’rn¥,14 al-Durr al-Tham¥n of ‘Abd Allh al-’Aydar´s,15 al-Bustn
al-’rif¥n of al-Qushsh¥16 and Nafúat al-Ilhiyyah of al-Sammn¥.17
In many respects al-Palimbn¥’s Sayr al-Slik¥n is a further elaboration
of the teachings contained in the Hidyat al-Slik¥n. According to
al-Palimbn¥, the Sayr al-Slik¥n is a rendering of the Lubb Iúy’ ‘Ul´m
al-D¥n, an abridged version of the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n, written by
al-Ghazl¥’s brother, Aúmad b. Muúammad.18 But the Sayr al-Slik¥n is not
just a translation of the Lubb Iúy’. As in the Hidyat al-Slik¥n, al-
Palimbn¥ in the Sayr al-Slik¥n takes additional material from works of
such scholars as Ibn ‘Arab¥, al-J¥l¥, Ibn ‘A’ Allh, al-Sha’rn¥,
al-Burhnp´r¥, al-Shinnw¥, al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, al-Nabul´s¥, al-Bakr¥
and al-Sammn¥. Al-Palimbn¥ also makes references to works of his
Malay-Indonesian predecessors, such as al-Sink¥l¥ and even Shams al-D¥n
al-Samatrn¥,19 who had been considered by many an unorthodox scholar.
All this again underlines the fact that al-Palimbn¥ possessed not only
teacher–disciple connections but also intellectual links to many important
scholars in the networks.
We are not going to dwell on the detailed contents of the Hidyat
al-Slik¥n and Sayr al-Slik¥n. It suffices to say that both works elucidate
the principles of Islamic faith and religious duties to which every aspirant
of the mystical way should commit himself. Like many scholars in the
networks, al-Palimbn¥ believes that the grace of God can be attained only
through correct faith in the absolute Unity of God and total obedience to the
shar¥’ah precepts. Although he accepts certain notions of Ibn ‘Arab¥ or
al-J¥l¥, particularly concerning the doctrine of the Universal Man,
al-Palimbn¥ interprets them in light of al-Ghazl¥’s teachings. He puts
emphasis in his ta§awwuf more on purification of mind and moral conduct
than on the exploration of speculative and philosophical mysticism.20
With such an emphasis, al-Palimbn¥ adopted the central teaching of
other scholars in the networks. He maintained that the fulfilment of the
doctrines of the shar¥’ah concerning rituals and good deeds was the surest
way to achieve spiritual progress. At a higher level, further progress would
be attained through the intensification of the dhikr. Al-Palimbn¥ outlines
seven kinds of dhikr, each of which is designed to uplift the nafs (human
soul), which has seven corresponding stages.21 He then goes on to describe
in detail various requirements of the dhikr that will enable the person who
performs it to achieve the intended aims.22
As far as his dhikr is concerned, although al-Palimbn¥ was mostly
known as a Sammniyyah shaykh, he followed the teachings of the Khal-
watiyyah ar¥qah. This is not surprising, as he received this order from
al-Sammn¥.23 In fact, al-Palimbn¥’s teaching of seven kinds of dhikr and
seven stages of the soul was originally developed among the circle of
the Khalwat¥s, and later incorporated by al-Sammn¥ in the body of
Sammniyyah teachings.24
However, in contrast to the tendency among the Khalwatiyyah shaykhs
to encourage a certain degree of individualism and freedom among their
disciples, al-Palimbn¥ subscribes to the older teachings, which emphasise
the absolute position of masters vis-à-vis their disciples. Al-Palimbn¥,
in accord with al-Maqassr¥, also a Khalwatiyyah shaykh, requires total
obedience of disciples to their master. In order for disciples to succeed, they
must pledge their allegiance (bay’ah) to their master and obey him totally,
for he is an heir or representative of the Prophet.25 In the final analysis, the
disciples must submit themselves to the master like ‘a dead body in the
hands of its washers’.26
From these teachings one may gain the impression that al-Palimbn¥
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-
Palimbn¥, like al-Maqassr¥, who was an exemplary activist against Dutch
colonialism, encouraged activism among his fellow Muslims, such as the

jihd against the Dutch.27 It appears that it was al-Palimbn¥’s concern for
disciples who might be led astray if they embarked on the mystical path on
their own that inspired him to adopt these teachings. Therefore, he insisted
that disciples be guided by trusted masters, who would shield them from
confusion about the mystical doctrines.
Al-Palimbn¥ categorises the travellers on the mystical path into three
groups: the beginners (al-mubtad¥), the intermediates (al-mutawassi), and
the advanced (al-muntah¥). For each group, al-Palimbn¥ recommends a
number of readings. His list of readings is interesting indeed. For the
beginnners he lists no fewer than 56 works: among others, six works of
al-Ghazl¥, two works of al-An§r¥, seven works of al-Sha’rn¥, three works
of ‘Abd al-Qdir al-’Aydar´s¥, one work each of al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥,
Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥ and al-Sink¥l¥, some 13 works of al-Bakr¥ and
al-Sammn¥ or their students concerning doctrines and practices of the
Khalwatiyyah and al-Sammniyyah orders, and several works by other
scholars.28 Most of these works were simple elucidations of the fulfilment
of the shar¥’ah in connection with the aim of achieving spiritual progress
in the mystical way. With his selection of such works by these scholars,
al-Palimbn¥ clearly intends to show to every aspirant of the mystical way
that the shar¥’ah constitutes the fundamental basis of Islamic mysticism.
At the intermediate level, al-Palimbn¥ brings the seekers after truth to a
deeper exploration of Sufism. He lists no fewer than 26 works, most of
which are more philosophical and theological.29 He includes the îikam
of Ibn ‘A’ Allh, which must be read along with commentaries by
Muúammad b. Ibrh¥m b. al-’Ibd, al-Qushsh¥ and Aúmad b. ‘Aln. He
then lists the îikam of Rasln al-Dimashq¥. This work is most probably the
same work as the Risalah f¥ al-Tawú¥d, for al-Palimbn¥ mentions its
commentary entitled Fatú al-Raúmn by al-An§r¥.30 Al-Palimbn¥ points
out that he read the îikam and the Rislah f¥ al-Tawú¥d together with the
latter’s commentaries by al-Nabul´s¥ and al-Sammn¥. Al-Palimbn¥ also
includes theological works such as al-Yawq¥t al-Jawhir of al-Sha’rn¥,
Miftú al-Ma’iyyah f¥ al-$ar¥qat al-Naqshbandiyyah of al-Nabul´s¥, and
several works of al-Bakr¥ and al-Sammn¥.31
At the advanced level, the travellers in God’s path are exposed to more
complicated and, therefore, somewhat more controversial works.32 At the
top of the list are the works of Ibn ‘Arab¥, including the Fu§´§ al-îikam,
Fut´út al-Makkiyyah and Mawqi’ al-Nuj´m. Then follows the al-Insn
al-Kmil of al-J¥l¥, the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n of al-Ghazl¥, the Tuúfat
al-Mursalah of al-Burhnp´r¥ together with its commentaries written
by al-K´rn¥ and al-Nabul´s¥, the Lawqih al-Anwr al-Qudsiyyah
of al-Sha’rn¥, the Mir’t al îaq’iq of al-Shinnw¥ and the Maslak
al-Mukhtr of al-K´rn¥. Finally he includes works by Malay-Indonesian
scholars: the Jawhir al-îaq’iq and Tanb¥h al-$ullb f¥ Ma’rifat al-Malik
al-Wahhb of Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥,33 the Ta’y¥d al-Bayn îshiyyah
¡èú al-Bayn f¥ Taúq¥q Mas’il al-A’yn [sic] of al-Sink¥l¥,34 and finally al-
Palimbn¥’s own work, Zd al-Muttaq¥n f¥ Tawú¥d Rabb al-’lam¥n.35
Al-Palimbn¥ states that Zd al-Muttaq¥n was written as an exposition of the
doctrine of waúdat al-wuj´d as he received it from al-Sammn¥ and his
student êidd¥q b. ‘Umar al-Khn.36
Al-Palimbn¥, undoubtedly, was fully aware of the possibility that such
works might lead to intellectual and religious confusion. Therefore, the
above works were reserved for advanced disciples only. Those who did not
totally comprehend and practise the shar¥’ah and its proper relations with
the úaq¥qah might be led astray or even to heresy by such works.37
With regard to the works he recommends, al-Palimbn¥ again demon-
strates his intellectual linkage to the tendencies in earlier networks.
Following the lead of al-Sha’rn¥, al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, al-Sink¥l¥
and al-Maqassr¥, who took great care not to sever their intellectual and
spiritual links with the philosophical-mystical doctrines of Ibn ‘Arab¥, al-
Palimbn¥ made his own attempts to reconcile Ibn ‘Arab¥’s teachings with
those of al-Ghazl¥, emphasising the importance of the purification of
mind and of the fulfilment of religious obligations in the mystical way. Al-
Palimbn¥ was opposed to the uncontrollable speculative notion of
mysticism; he denounced the doctrines of the so-called wuj´diyyah mulúid
(lit. atheistic unity of being) as well as the practice of religious offerings to
the ancestors’ spirits.38 These religious beliefs and practices appear to have
had some followers in South Sumatra during the times of al-Palimbn¥,
which inspired him to try to end them.
In the same way as al-Rn¥r¥, al-Palimbn¥ divides the doctrines
of wuj´diyyah into two kinds: the wuj´diyyah mulúid (atheistic unity of
being), and the wuj´diyyah muwaúúid (unitarianism of unity of being). Al-
Palimbn¥ points out that according to the followers of the doctrine of
wuj´diyyah mulúid, the first article of belief—that is, l ilh ill Allh
(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-Palimbn¥
moreover explains:
They further said inn al-úaq subúnahu wa ta’l laysa bi mawj´d ill f¥
èimn wuj´d al-k’int [sic], that is, the Reality of God does not exist but in the
beings of all created things. Thus they insist that the Unity of God exists only
in the beings of creation. They, in addition, say that ‘we are of the similar
nature (sebangsa) and similar being (sewujud) with God and that the Essence
of God is knowable, for He exists in the external world (khrij) in time and
place’. Such a belief is infidelity (kufr).40
Al-Palimbn¥ apparently did not cite al-Rn¥r¥ for his denunciation of the
followers of wuj´diyyah mulúid. But both scholars share the same teaching.
Al-Rn¥r¥, for instance, states that:
Now I would like to explicate and make you all aware of the falsity of the
belief of wuj´diyyah mulúid and zind¥q. They maintain that our beings and that
of the universe are God’s Being, and [conversely] God’s Being is the being of
us and the universe. Let it be known if such a belief of wuj´diyyah [mulúid] is
correct, 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-Rn¥r¥, al-Palimbn¥ includes the followers of

wuj´diyyah mulúid among the group of people whom he calls pseudo-§´f¥s
(kaum yang bersufi-sufian dirinya). Another group of pseudo-§´f¥s, accord-
ing to al-Palimbn¥, were the followers of úul´liyyah (the doctrine of God’s
incarnation). He maintains that their error was their belief that God incar-
nates Himself into the beings of man and other creations.42
Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥ is known to have written only one work
on Sufism. But because he studied together with al-Palimbn¥ in the same
social and intellectual milieu, there is little doubt that he shared al-
Palimbn¥’s views on the subject. Muúammad Arshad opposed the doctrine
of wuj´diyyah mulúid. According to local tradition, several years after his
return a scholar named îj¥ ‘Abd al-îam¥d Abulung came to South Kali-
mantan. Despite the obscurity surrounding his life, what is clear is that he
introduced to the local Muslims the kind of teachings that have been cate-
gorised by both al-Palimbn¥ and al-Rn¥r¥ as wuj´diyyah mulúid. ‘Abd
al-îam¥d reportedly taught people that ‘there is no being but God. There is
no ‘Abd al-îam¥d but God; He is I and I am Him’.43
As a result, religious confusion spread among the population and ‘Abd
al-îam¥d was summoned to the royal court. But he fiercely held fast to his
belief. This led Muúammad Arshad to issue a fatw declaring ‘Abd al-
îam¥d’s teachings heretical and led Suln Taúm¥d Allh to order his
execution.44 This is reminiscent of the heresy hunting and killing of
Wuj´diyyah followers in Aceh during the time of al-Rn¥r¥.
In al-Palimbn¥’s opinion, the true §´f¥s were followers of the doctrine of
wuj´diyyah muwaúúid. These §´f¥s affirmed the absolute Unity of God in
Himself. They were called the wuj´diyyah because ‘their belief and intel-
lectual disposition centre on the absolute Unity of God’.45 Al-Palimbn¥
does not elaborate his teachings about true §´f¥s. However, it is clear from
al-Palimbn¥’s short statement that true §´f¥s put more stress on the tran-
scendence of God than on His immanence. Although they accept the notion
that God is immanent in creation, it is anathema for them to hear any state-
ment saying that God is identical with creation.
Al-Palimbn¥ shares the view of many scholars in the networks that God
and the universe are two different entities: each possesses distinct realities.
At this stage, al-Palimbn¥ and many scholars in the networks accept the
view of Ibn ‘Arab¥ that the universe is the exterior expression (al-a’yn
al-khrijiyyah) of God. As such, the exterior expression of God is not God
Himself; it is simply a shadow of God’s Being.
In such a view, the doctrine of wuj´diyyah muwaúúid is basically similar

to that of waúdat al-wuj´d of Ibn ‘Arab¥, according to which all created
beings come into existence only when God reveals Himself. Men and other
creatures, in essence, are separate from the Self of God, and it is only
through revelation, as a way opened up by God Himself, that they are able
to 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 stage
where men fully realize the Unity of Being. This stage of waúdat al-wuj´d
is also called by al-Palimbn¥ the stage of tawú¥d al-êidd¥q¥n—that is, the
stage of the tawú¥d of the truthful whose spiritual progress makes them
occupied solely with God; they come to realise that there is no other being
but God. As al-Palimbn¥ points out:
At the fourth stage of tawú¥d, he [who seeks after truth] sees nothing in the
existence of the universe but Dht (Essence) of the One Supreme God, who is
the Necessary Being (al-wjib al-wuj´d) this is the vision of those êidd¥q¥n
(who fully believe), those ‘rif¥n (who are adept); the §´f¥ master calls them
people who experience fan’ (perish) in the tawú¥d they then will not realize
themselves, for their spirit is occupied with the shuh´d (vision) of God, the
Real Being.46
At this point al-Palimbn¥ apparently succeeds in his attempt to reconcile

the tradition of Ibn ‘Arab¥ with that of al-Ghazl¥. The concept of the fourth
stage of tawú¥d of the êidd¥q¥n, taken from al-Ghazl¥,47 is equated by al-
Palimbn¥ with Ibn ‘Arab¥’s waúdat al-wuj´d. But this does not mean they
are identical.
To explicate the revelation of God in accordance with the concept of
waúdat al-wuj´d or to achieve fan’ in the fourth stage of tawú¥d,
al-Palimbn¥ adopts the doctrine of the seven stages of revelation or seven
grades of being (martabat tujuh). This doctrine was originally developed
by Ibn ‘Arab¥ but was later reinterpreted in a more orthodox sense by
al-Burhnp´r¥. According to al-Burhnp´r¥, God reveals (ta’ayyun or
tajall¥) Himself through seven stages of being. The creation of man is the
last stage of God’s revelation.48 While al-Burhnp´r¥ believes that nobody
will be able to grasp the essence of the Real Being,49 al-Palimbn¥ main-
tains that it can be known through ma’rifah (gnostic knowledge), centred in
the qalb (lit. heart = intuition).50 Emphasising the teachings of al-Ghazl¥,
al-Palimbn¥ considers that ma’rifah can be attained through spiritual
purification and concentration, all of which will result in, as al-Ghazl¥ puts
it, ‘the vision of the Essence of God’.51
An attempt to reconcile the tradition of al-Ghazl¥’s shar¥’ah-oriented
ta§awwuf with that of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s philosophical Sufism was also made by
Muúammad Naf¥s in his Durr al-Naf¥s. This work, completed in Mecca
in 1200/1785, apparently enjoyed wide circulation. Printed several times in
various places in the Middle East and the archipelago, it is still used in many
places in the Malay-Indonesian world. The Durr al-Naf¥s was written in the
‘Jw¥ language, so that it can be read by those who do not read Arabic.’ 52
A glance at the Durr al-Naf¥s attests to the fact that Muúammad Naf¥s
made a conscious attempt to reconcile the tradition of al-Ghazl¥ and that
of Ibn ‘Arab¥. In preparing this work, aside from using the oral teachings of
his masters in the îaramayn he makes extensive use of the Fut´út
al-Makkiyyah and Fu§´§ al-îikam of Ibn ‘Arab¥, the îikam of Ibn ‘A’
Allh, the al-Insn al-Kmil of al-J¥l¥, the Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n and Minhj
al-’bid¥n of al-Ghazl¥, the Rislat al-Qushayriyyah of al-Qushayr¥, the
Jawhir wa al-Durar of al-Sha’rn¥, the Mukhta§ar al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah
of ‘Abd Allh b. Ibrh¥m al-Mirghn¥ and the Manúat al-Muúammadiyah
of al-Sammn¥.53
According to Muúammad Naf¥s, the Unity of God (tawú¥d) falls into four
stages: the tawú¥d al-Af’l (Unity of the Acts of God), tawú¥d al-êift
(Unity of God’s Attributes), tawú¥d al-Asm’ (Unity of God’s Names), and
tawú¥d al-Dht (Unity of God’s Essence). At the highest stage, the tawú¥d
al-Dht, seekers after truth will experience fan’, during which they will be
able to have a vision (mushhadah) of God. Like al-Palimbn¥, Muúammad
Naf¥s believes that the Essence of God cannot be known through the five
senses and reason: only with kashf (direct intuition) will one be able to
grasp the Essence of God.54
Muúammad Naf¥s stresses the importance of the fulfilment of the
shar¥’ah both outwardly and inwardly in order to attain the stage of kashf.
It is impossible for anybody to reach that stage without intensifying his
spiritual power through performing the religious rituals and obligations laid
down by the shar¥’ah.
A comprehensive study of Dw´d al-Fan¥’s mystical teachings is not
yet available, but it is clear that he was a great proponent of al-Ghazl¥’s
ta§awwuf as well as a prominent defender among Malay-Indonesian
scholars of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s tradition. Al-Fan¥ is known to have written
several works along the same lines as the doctrines of al-Ghazl¥, bearing
such titles as the Tarjamah Bidyat al-Hidyah and Minhj al-’bid¥n.55
For al-Fan¥, al-Ghazl¥ was the greatest §´f¥. As he puts it: ‘Imm
al-Ghazl¥ is like a very deep sea, containing precious pearls which cannot
be found in other seas’.56
In al-Fan¥’s view, the greatest §´f¥ next to al-Ghazl¥ was al-Sha’rn¥.
He points out in the introductory notes to his Malay translation of
al-Sha’rn¥’s Kashf al-Ghummah that al-Sha’rn¥ was his ‘penghulu’
(master), who guided him in the path of God.57 It is no surprise, therefore,
that al-Fan¥, like al-Sha’rn¥, staunchly defends the doctrine of Ibn
‘Arab¥’s waúdat al-wuj´d and the seven grades of being in a little-known
but important work entitled Manhal al-êf¥ f¥ Bayn Zumar Ahl al-ê´f¥.58
Al-Fan¥ was very critical of people who styled themselves as §´f¥s
while in fact being simply pseudo-§´f¥s (berlagak seperti sufi) and ignorant
of the true teachings of Sufism. According to al-Fan¥, among the groups

of pseudo-§´f¥s were people who claimed to have complete union (ittiúd)
with God. He bitterly denounces them:
The people of ittiúd believe that their essence (dht) becomes the Essence of
God. This is a gross infidelity (kufr). Those who worship idols are much better
than they are, they think that they gain the true vision, [in contrast] they have
come to the presence of ibl¥s (devil).59
In connection with this view, al-Fan¥ conceives the Manhal al-êf¥ as

an answer and explanation of various concepts and terms in ta§awwuf. In
addition to discussing such concepts as waúdat al-wuj´d, martabat tujuh
and other mystico-theological matters, al-Fan¥ complements the work
with a list of some key terms in §´f¥ vocabularies and their meanings. In the
introductory notes to the Manhal al-êf¥, the author again criticises pseudo-
§´f¥s who misunderstood the concept of, for instance, waúdat al-wuj´d
because they simply embraced its literal meaning. For that reason, he
reminds the Muslims that books dealing with such topics should be read
only by experts or by those who have solid grounding in the ‘ar¥qah
Muúammadiyyah’.60
The fact that the Malay-Indonesian scholars in the eighteenth century
continued to cling to the central doctrine of Ibn ‘Arab¥ is hardly surpris-
ing. Despite criticism of the concept of waúdat al-wuj´d, it is in fact the
fundamental and central doctrine of all kinds of Sufism. Criticism of this
doctrine by such scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Subk¥ (d. 745/1344)
and Ibn Khaldń (d. 780/1378) is essentially based on the fact that it can
be 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 could
bring one to a pantheistic belief, which is anathema to legal scholars
(ahl al-shar’¥).
It is important to note that the doctrine of waúdat al-wuj´d, quite surpris-
ingly, was defended by several eminent legal and úad¥th scholars, including
Muúy al-D¥n al-Nawaw¥ (d. 676/1278), Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥ and
Zakariyy al-An§r¥. We have shown how al-An§r¥, for example,
possessed úad¥th isnd which can be traced to Ibn ‘Arab¥. The staunchest
defender of Ibn ‘Arab¥ among neo-§´f¥s was, of course, al-Sha’rn¥, to
whom many scholars in the networks traced their mystical teachings.61
It is of particular importance to keep in mind that many scholars in the
networks, from al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, ‘Uthmn b. F´d¥, al-Sink¥l¥,
al-Maqassr¥, al-Palimbn¥ and Muúammad Naf¥s to al-Fan¥, responded
in a similar fashion to controversy surrounding Ibn ‘Arab¥’s doctrines.
Much like al-Sha’rn¥, they insisted that Ibn ‘Arab¥’s doctrines should not
be taken at face value: they must be understood in connection with other
mystical concepts.
In order to avoid misinterpretation of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s doctrines, these
scholars unanimously urged disciples in the mystical path to read Ibn

‘Arab¥’s books only after they had achieved the degree of the ‘kh§§’
(elite). Disciples must have firm grounding in all aspects of mystico-
philosophical doctrines and understand fully their relations with the legal
teachings of Islam before they can understand the teachings of Ibn ‘Arab¥
in their proper contexts. It is equally important to note that these scholars
took great care not to associate themselves entirely with Ibn ‘Arab¥; they
cited other authorities, unanimously known as ‘orthodox’ scholars, such as
al-Ghazl¥, as their central sources.
JIHD AND THE RADICAL COURSE OF REFORMISM

Sufism, particularly among modernist Muslims, has been regarded as one
of the main causes of regression of the Muslim world. Religiously it has
been accused of being the source of bid’ah (unwarranted innovation) and
takhayyul (delusion) or khurfat (superstitions). Socially, Sufism has been
blamed for pulling the Muslim masses into ‘passivity’ and withdrawal
(‘uzlah) from worldly affairs. It allegedly promoted escapism from the
socioeconomic and political ills of their societies. As a result, so the accu-
sation goes, Muslim societies failed to cope with the advanced but hostile
Western world, which from the early seventeenth century increasingly
penetrated the Dr al-Islm.62
Most of the accusations are ill-founded. There is no need to repeat the
arguments and evidence presented throughout this book: that the central
teaching of the reformed Sufism or neo-Sufism was puritanical in its
nature. It called for the total obedience, both outwardly and inwardly, of
Muslims to orthodoxy, or more precisely to the shar¥’ah. The scholars in the
networks agreed that it was simply impossible for the §´f¥s to achieve their
spiritual goal without committing themselves fully to the orthodox doctrine
of Islam. There were, of course, deviant manifestations of Sufism, particu-
larly at the level of the masses, but these were generated mostly by a lack
of understanding of the correct teachings of Sufism. Therefore, Sufism as
such could not be held responsible for all bid’ahs and khurfats found in
Muslim societies.
Similarly, the modernists’ accusation that Sufism encouraged passivity
and withdrawal from worldly affairs was based mostly on ignorance or
misunderstanding of the whole teachings of Sufism. We have shown
throughout this discussion that none of the scholars in the networks taught
passivity and withdrawal. On the contrary, they appealed to Muslim
activism; for them, the fulfilment of Muslims’ worldly duties was an integral
part of their spiritual progress in the mystical journey.
In the case of Malay-Indonesian scholars in the seventeenth century, we
have seen that al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥ presented themselves as exem-
plary §´f¥s, who were absorbed not only with their own spiritual journeys
but also with worldly affairs, holding the office of Muft¥ in their respective
Sultanates. Al-Maqassr¥ 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 eighteenth
century. We have already mentioned Muúammad Arshad’s reformism and
activism; he was the pioneer of the establishment of the office of Muft¥ and
of Islamic educational institutions in the Sultanate of Banjar. Even though
the Sultanate was, from 1021/1612 onwards, continually harassed by the
Dutch before they finally subdued it in 1237/1860, it is surprising to find
how little Muúammad Arshad had to say about the struggle against the
Dutch; neither his own works nor other sources indicate that he ever
preached the doctrine of jihd (holy war) against the Dutch.63
Appeals for jihd, strangely enough, came from al-Palimbn¥ and
al-Fan¥, who spent most of their lives and died in the îaramayn. This is
strong evidence of their very close attachment to and concern for Islam in
their homelands. It indicates that they were not the §´f¥s pictured by
modernist Muslims merely occupied with their spiritual journeys and
alienated from their societies. This also suggests that contacts and commu-
nications between the Malay-Indonesian world and the îaramayn were
well maintained, so that the Jw¥ scholars were well informed about the
development of Islam in the archipelago, particularly in connection with
the continued encroachment by unbelievers.
On more than one occasion al-Palimbn¥ urged his Malay-Indonesian
fellows to wage jihd against European colonialists. Voorhoeve and
Drewes64 even argue that jihd was one of al-Palimbn¥’s specialties. This
seems to be an exaggeration, which has led to a misunderstanding and
distortion of al-Palimbn¥’s teachings as a whole.
The major work of al-Palimbn¥ on jihd is Na§¥úat al-Muslim¥n wa
Tadhk¥rat al-Mu’min¥n f¥ Faè’il al-Jihd f¥ Sab¥l Allh wa Karmat al-
Mujhid¥n f¥ Sab¥1 Allh.65 The work is unquestionably the first of this type
known widely in the archipelago. However, the Faè’il al-Jihd was
apparently 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 have
deliberately not written it in Malay, so that, he might have assumed, the
Dutch would not understand it. The work, consisting of seven chapters
delineating the virtues of the holy war according to the Qur’n and the
úad¥th, was a concise but substantial writing on the subject. After explain-
ing that it was obligatory for Muslims to wage holy war against hostile
unbelievers, al-Palimbn¥ concludes the Faè’il al-Jihd with a short
supplication (du’’), which would make the mujhid¥n (those who carry out
jihd) invulnerable.
Snouck Hurgronje has maintained that al-Palimbn¥’s Faè’il al-Jihd
was the main source of various works on jihd in the long Acehnese wars
against the Dutch. It became the model of the Acehnese version of admon-
ition to Muslims to fight the unbelievers.66 Known collectively as the

Hikayat Prang Sabi, such works played an important role in sustaining
the fighting spirit of the Acehnese throughout the protracted wars fought
between 1873 and the early twentieth century. Roff67 rightly points out that
the Acehnese resistance to Dutch aggression from the early stages assumed
the character of jihd led by the independent ‘ulam’ who were best fitted
to organise and prosecute a holy war.
Al-Palimbn¥’s appeal to Malay-Indonesian Muslims for jihd was not
confined to writing the Faè’il al-Jihd. He is said to have written letters,
three of which were intercepted by the Dutch. They contained exhortations
to Javanese rulers and princes to wage holy wars against the infidels. The
letters were written in Arabic and later translated into Javanese and then
into Dutch. The writer of the letter called himself Muúammad, but in the
text of the Javanese translation he is referred to as ‘Abd al-Raúmn, a
Palembang scholar in Mecca. Drewes68 has established that the writer was
‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥; according to Arabic sources, al-Palimbn¥
was also called Ibn ‘Abd al-Raúmn.
The first letter, translated into Dutch in Semarang, Central Java, on
22 May 1772, was addressed to the Suln of Mataram, Hamangkubuwana I,
previously known as Pangeran Mangkubumi. After a quite lengthy doxology
in praise of God, al-Palimbn¥ writes:
A sample of God’s goodness is that He has moved the heart of the writer
[al-Palimbn¥] to despatch a letter from Mecca, the Lord has assured that those
Sulns shall enter it [paradise] whose magnanimity, virtue and prowess
against enemies of other religion [sic] are without equal. Among these is the
king of Java, who maintains the religion of Islam and is triumphant over all
potentates, and furthermore excels in good works in the war against those of
other 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, they
are still alive’ [Qur’n 2:154, 3:169]. The Prophet Muhammad says: ‘I was
ordered 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 újjis
for religious positions in the Mataram and mentions that the writer has sent
with them a small quantity of Zemzem (Zamzam) water (from Mecca) for
the Suln.
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) Paku
Nagara, or Mangkunagara, together with a banner reading al-Raúmn
al-Raú¥m, Muúammad Ras´l Allh ‘Abd Allh, meaning ‘the Merciful and
Compassionate [God], His apostle and servant Muhammad’. After praising
God and the Prophet in the opening, the letter runs as follows:
God will forgive the sins of the most pious people like Pangeran
Mangkunagara, whom He has created to win such repute in the world, and also
because Your Highness is a scion of the House of Mataram, upon whom God
has bestowed Abundant mercy beside Muhammad the Prophet, considering
that 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 that
a 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 and
ascends straight up to the heaven. This is a thing all devout people surely
know in their hearts, and more particularly this will be the case with Your
Highness, who is comparable to a flower which gives forth its fragrance from
sunrise to sunset, nay all Mecca and Medina and the Malay countries are
wondering at this fragrance, and pray to God that Your Highness may triumph
over 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 to
your religion’.
Be confident of permanent good fortune and exert yourself in the fear of the
Lord; do not fear misfortune and eschew all evil. One doing so will see the sky
without cloud and the earth without squalor. Derive comfort from the
following words of the Qur’n: ‘Those who have believed and worked the
works 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 forever
in 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 Your
Highness the accompanying jimat [amulet, in the form of banner], the potency
of which is such that when it is used by Your Highness, when campaigning
against your enemies, [with God’s blessing Your Highness] will always be
victorious, which will lead to the protection of the Muslim faith and the
extermination of all its malevolent adversaries.
The reason why this banner has been sent to you is that we in Mecca have
heard that Your Highness, being a truly princely leader, is much feared in
battle. Value it and make use of it, please God, in exterminating your enemies
and all unbelievers. Good wishes and greetings are conveyed to Your Highness
on behalf of the old Godfearing people of Mecca and Medina: Ibrh¥m, Imam
Shfi’¥, Imm îanaf¥, Imm Mlik¥ and Imm îanbal¥, and furthermore on
behalf of all the other people here, whose unanimous wish is that the blessings
of the Prophet and his four great companions Ab´ Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmn and
‘Al, may abide with Your Highness’person.70
Ricklefs71 concludes that these letters were a significant historical

landmark in the history of the struggles of Malay-Indonesian Muslims
against the Dutch. In his opinion, they are the first evidence to come to light
of an attempt from the world of international Islam to foment holy war in
Java in the second half of the eighteenth century. On the other hand,
Drewes72 argues that the letters had only modest purposes: recommending
two scholars for religious posts in the Mataram Sultanate, and sending a
banner to a Javanese prince. Even though Drewes recognises that jihd was
one of al-Palimbn¥’s concerns, he suspects that the letters were simply a
display of the writer’s learning in religious matters, particularly in the holy
war, not really exhortations to wage the jihd.
Even though I do not subscribe to Ricklefs’ view that the letters
contained the spirit of pan-Islamism, I accept the notion that the main
purpose of the letters was indeed to encourage the adressees to lead the
jihd. Al-Palimbn¥ evidently devoted the larger part of the letters to the
virtues of jihd against the unbelievers to incite the Javanese rulers to take
the lead in holy wars. The letters, as Ricklefs believes, reinforced potential
indigenous antagonism towards the Dutch.73
It is worth noting that al-Palimbn¥ did not criticise the Javanese ruling
house for division and quarrels among themselves, nor did he question their
attachment 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, he
recalled the greatness of the Mataram Sultanate and, therefore, appealed to
its rulers to once again revive it by way of jihd. Although al-Palimbn¥
made no explicit mention of the Dutch in the letters, what he calls unbe-
lievers or infidels were undoubtedly the Dutch, who had intensified their
attempts to subdue the Mataram Sultanate: it is the Dutch who were to be
the target of the jihd.
Al-Palimbn¥ failed in his attempts to instigate Javanese rulers to wage
the jihd, for the Dutch intercepted the letters before they reached their
destination. The original letters were subsequently destroyed by order of
the Dutch authorities in Batavia. But it is not impossible that the central
message of the letters was conveyed orally to the addressees by scholars
recommended by al-Palimbn¥. If so, as Ricklefs argues, the oral commu-
nication of the contents of the letters did not immediately affect the course
of events in Java. The 1770s marked the beginning of major steps towards
political stability on the part of the Javanese monarchs. The incendiary
message from al-Palimbn¥ in Mecca did not impede this progress.74
Another leading proponent of the jihd among Malay-Indonesian
scholars in the eighteenth century was Shaykh Dw´d ibn ‘Abd Allh
al-Fan¥. In his case, his period saw the increasing attempts of the Thais to
tighten their grip over the Muslim region of Patani. It is hardly surprising,
therefore, that this sorry political situation in his homeland also became a
main concern for al-Fan¥.75 Abdullah76 even asserts that al-Fan¥ returned
home to lead jihd himself against the Thais before he finally returned and
settled permanently in the îaramayn. We cannot support this assertion, as
there is no evidence to corroborate it. Al-Fan¥ never returned to Patani
from the time he left it in search of knowledge: he spent the rest of his life
teaching and writing in the îaramayn.
Al-Fan¥ appeals to Muslims, especially those in Patani, through his
writings. However, he did not write a special work on the jihd, nor did he
send letters to the Muslim rulers of Patani. He delineated his ideas on the
jihd in his various works. It is known, for example, that his work on prayer
(§alt), entitled Munyat al-Mu§all¥ in Malay, completed in Mecca in
1242/1827, has some political overtones. Matheson and Hooker77 suggest
that the work was written particularly for the Muslims in Patani in order to
support them in their struggles against the Thais.
Al-Fan¥’s teachings on jihd appear to bear some relation to his idea of
the Islamic state. In his opinion, an Islamic state (dr al-Islm) should be
based on the Qur’n and the úad¥th; otherwise it would be called a state of
unbelievers (dr al-kufr).78 We have no details on his notion of the Islamic
state, particularly with regard to its system and administration. However, an
Islamic state must function to protect Islam and the Muslims. Therefore,
apostasy (murtadd) from Islam is not allowed, and those who so deviate
should be killed.79
In connection with the protection of Islam and the Muslims, according
to al-Fan¥, it is an essential obligation (farè al-’ayn) for every Muslim to
wage jihd against hostile unbelievers (kf¥r al-úarb). If an Islamic state is
attacked and annexed by unbelievers, the Muslims are obliged to fight them
until they regain their freedom. As for the jihd to expand the realm of
Islam, which involves the subduing of the unbelievers, it is only a farè
al-kifyah, an obligation which is acquitted in the name of all as long as it
is performed by some. In both cases of the obligation of jihd, al-Fan¥
stresses the need for Muslims to have fighting strategies; they must not
wage jihd if they are ill-prepared militarily.80
Having seen such teachings of Malay-Indonesian scholars, known as §´f¥
scholars, it is no surprise that the Dutch in particular considered these teach-
ings and ar¥qah highly dangerous to their rule. Snouck Hurgronje, the most
prominent adviser on Islamic affairs to the Dutch authorities, points out that
§´f¥ shaykhs were the most dangerous enemies of Dutch rule in the archi-
pelago. He claims that the menace of Malay-Indonesian §´f¥ scholars to the
Dutch was no less than that of the San´siyyah to the French in Algeria.81 For
the Dutch, §´f¥ scholars, whom they also called ‘independent teachers’, were
very difficult to control. It is thus not hard to understand why the Dutch did
whatever they possibly could to contain their influence, including the
banning of their books and interception of their letters.
One of the best-known examples of Islamic renewal and reformism
originating among §´f¥ and ar¥qah circles, which resulted in long wars
between the Dutch and the native population, was the Padri Movement in
Minangkabau or West Sumatra. We have discussed in chapter 4 how
al-Sink¥l¥’s renewalist teachings and ar¥qah, mainly by way of his student
Burhn al-D¥n, spread to this region. Burhn al-D¥n in turn, through his
famous surau of Ulakan, established himself as the most important
Minangkabau scholar towards the end of the seventeenth century, with
whom most of the next generation of Minangkabau scholars studied. After
his death, the tomb of Burhn al-D¥n became a centre of religious visitation,
where pilgrims performed what Hamka82 calls some strange religious prac-
tices but which were in fact the rituals of the ar¥qah people, such as dhikr
followed by dancing or singing.
Despite such practices, Shariyyah writings, such as those of al-Sink¥l¥
and the teachings of Burhn al-D¥n himself, again and again emphasised
the need for the ta§awwuf followers to commit themselves totally to the
precepts of the shar¥’ah.83 It appears that ar¥qah practices in Ulakan,
particularly at the popular level, had become uncontrolled and tended to be
excessive and extravagant; this in turn invited criticism among ex-students
of the Ulakan surau. From this it is evident that the embers of reformism
did not die out.
In the late years of the eighteenth century, clearer signs of religious
reform came to the forefront in Minangkabau society. For instance, among
the Shariyyah suraus, mainly located in the Minangkabau inner highland
(darek), there were conscious attempts to revive al-Sink¥l¥’s teachings,
particularly on the importance of the shar¥’ah in the practice of ta§awwuf.84
Furthermore, as Jall al-D¥n, a contemporary Minangkabau who also took
part in this new wave of renewal and reform, tells us, there were constant
arrivals in Minangkabau of scholars from Mecca, Medina and Aceh, who
contributed to reformism. Jall al-D¥n makes no mention of their names,
but he does state that scholars from the îaramayn were experts in maniq
(logic) and ma’n¥ (ideal realities), both sciences being crucial to under-
standing shar¥’ah as well as ta§awwuf. Meanwhile, an Acehnese scholar
came to teach such sciences as úad¥th, tafs¥r and far’iè (inheritance).85
The leading scholar in Minangkabau in this period was Tuanku Nan Tuo,
the principal teacher of Jall al-D¥n. The latter tells us that Tuanku Nan
Tuo (1136–1246/1723–1830) of Ampat Angkat was a student of Tuanku
Mansiangan Nan Tuo, who was in turn a student of Burhn al-D¥n.86
Tuanku Nan Tuo was also reported to have studied in the Ulakan surau
with other students of Burhn al-D¥n. Later he established his own surau in
Cangking, Ampat Angkat, and gained fame as a scholar of both shar¥’ah
and ta§awwuf.87 For his expertise in these two aspects of Islam, Tuanku
Nan Tuo earned the title of ‘Suln ‘lim Awliy’ Allh’, who was the
‘leader of all Minangkabau ‘ulam’ of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah’
(‘people of the approved way and community’).88
The surau of Tuanku Nan Tuo accordingly became the best-known
centre for the study of fiqh and ta§awwuf in Minangkabau.89 Similarly,
the students of Tuanku Nan Tuo, when they later returned to their own
villages and devoted themselves to teaching in the suraus or in society in
general, stressed the importance of the shar¥’ah. Jall al-D¥n, the
foremost disciple of Tuanku Nan Tuo, for instance, established his surau
in Kota Lawas, which was already the home of another, older,
Shariyyah surau. The aim of Jall al-D¥n in establishing his surau was
to create a genuine Muslim community in Minangkabau by way of total
commitment to the implementation of the Islamic way of life as
prescribed by the shar¥’ah. For that purpose, Jall al-D¥n taught his
students the various aspects of Islamic law.90
Tuanku Nan Tuo committed himself to the cause of the reform of
Minangkabau society. He made clear to the people the differences between
good and evil, as well as between the conduct of Muslims and kfirs. He
impressed on his students the need for the Minangkabaus to follow the path
of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah, who based their lives on the Qur’n
and the úad¥th. At the same time, he warned them that failure to do so
would only lead to social insecurity and disruption.91
Tuanku Nan Tuo was not content with simply lecturing his students in
his surau on the importance of the shar¥’ah; he himself, together with his
students, led the way to the field where un-Islamic practices such as
robbery, arrack drinking and slavery held sway.92 According to Jall al-
D¥n, Tuanku Nan Tuo visited places where robbery occurred and people
were held captive to be sold as slaves, or where the precepts of the shar¥’ah
were violated. He appealed to those who were involved in such things to rid
themselves of those wrongdoings; otherwise they would be attacked and
punished. As a result, peace returned to the region and trade once again
revived in the region; Tuanku Nan Tuo, himself a well-to-do merchant, was
renowned as a ‘tempat pernaungan’ (protector) of the traders.93
The Shariyyah ar¥qah was not the only §´f¥ order in Minangkabau. It
is known that the Naqshbandiyyah ar¥qah was introduced to the region in
the first half of the seventeenth century by Jaml al-D¥n, a Minangkabau
who initially studied in Pasai before he proceeded to Bayt al-Faq¥h, Aden,
the îaramayn, Egypt and India. On his way home he stopped in Aceh before
finally reaching his homeland in West Sumatra, where he was active in
teaching and preaching the Naqshbandiyyah ar¥qah. Jaml al-D¥n’s travels
remind us of al-Sink¥l¥’s earlier. Even though Jaml al-D¥n provides lively
accounts of his travels to these places, unlike al-Sink¥l¥, he makes no
mention of his teachers, so we are not able to trace his scholarly connections.
Both Van Ronkel and Johns94 have suggested that Jaml al-D¥n was the
author of a Naqshband¥ fiqh text entitled Lubb al-Hidyah, which was
based on the teachings of Aúmad Ibn ‘Aln al-êidd¥q¥ al-Naqshband¥. By
the late eighteenth century, the Naqshbandiyyah and the Qdiriyyah
ar¥qahs had made substantial inroads on Minangkabau. Both ar¥qahs, like
the Shariyyah, contributed significantly to Islamic renewal in the period.95
The renewalism of the Shariyyah, Naqshbandiyyah and Qdiriyyah,
best represented by Tuanku Nan Tuo and Jall al-D¥n, met strong opposi-
tion from the penghulus (adat, custom chiefs) as well as from the
followers of the extravagant type of Sufism. More importantly, some disci-
ples of Tuanku Nan Tuo himself considered his reform simply a piecemeal
one. 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 evolutionary
and peaceful approach to Islamic renewal, Tuanku Nan Renceh found
strong supporters in the famous three újjis who returned from Mecca in
1218/1803: Haji Miskin, Haji Sumanik, and Haji Piobang. Their pilgrim-
age coincided with the capture of Mecca by the Wahhb¥s. Therefore, they
are considered to have been influenced by the Wahhb¥ teachings, such as
opposition to bid’ahs, the use of tobacco and silk clothing, which they
attempted to spread by force in the Minangkabau region.
Tuanku Nan Renceh, together with the three újjis, now known as the
Padris, declared jihd against those Muslims who declined to follow their
teachings. As a result, civil war erupted among the Minangkabau; the
suraus, considered the bastion of bid’ahs, were attacked and burned to
the ground, including those of Tuanku Nan Tuo and Jall al-D¥n. The royal
family and the penghulus, who also became a major target, soon asked the
help of the Dutch. With the intervention of the Dutch, the Minangkabau
struggles for reform led to the famous Padri wars, which ended at the close
of the 1830s.96
It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the teachings of the Padris
and the course of events surrounding the Padri wars. Important for our
purpose here is that Islamic renewal and reform in the Minangkabau region,
whether initiated by Tuanku Nan Tuo and the ar¥qah cirles or launched by
Tuanku Nan Renceh and the Padris, found their origins in the scholarly
networks. The differences in their approach to renewal and reform,
peaceful or evolutionary on the one hand and radical on the other, reveal
that the course of reform was not a simple one.
Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhb (1115–1201/1703–87), the pioneer of
the radical wahhbi movement, despite his connection with the networks,
was also influenced by other factors that substantially determined his
approach to renewal and reform. Similarly, although most of the leading
proponents of the Padris in Minangkabau derived their inspiration for
renewal and reform from the ar¥qah circles, at a later stage they were influ-
enced by a string of other factors, such as the ‘success’ of the Wahhb¥s in
Arabia and the local conditions in Minangkabau that led them to adopt radi-
calism.
Despite its excesses, the Padri Movement was a major landmark in the
history of Islamic renewal and reform in the archipelago. Its impact on the
development of Malay-Indonesian Islam was tremendous. The Padri
Movement, in restrospect, not only questioned the degree of renewalism
among the ar¥qah circles but more importantly challenged the established
formulation of relations between the ‘great tradition’ of Islam in the centres
and an Islamic ‘little tradition’ that mixed with the adat (customs) at the
local level. The transmission of reformist ideas and teachings through all
Malay-Indonesian scholars, as we have shown throughout our discussion,
constituted a conscious attempt to bring the great tradition of Islam to
supremacy in the archipelago. This also becomes one of the most distinc-
tive features of Islamic development in the Malay-Indonesian world in
later periods.
Islamic Reform - TEXT -2nd half.qxd 14/01/04 10:15 Page 148
Epilogue
THE LEGACY OF THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH

CENTURY NETWORKS; THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND
BEYOND
This book has been concerned with the transmission of the reformist tra-
dition from the seventeenth and eighteenth century îaramayn to
Southeast Asia. The nature and form of transmission is fundamental to our
understanding of tradition—the latter defined broadly as a body of knowl-
edge. The data, the traditions in this book, are the Arab biographical
dictionaries (tarjim) of the period. The primary research on which this
book is based was completed a decade ago, and during that time knowl-
edge about many of the outstanding Muslim scholars of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries has grown considerably. It has not been possible
to include references to all the new contributions to the fields since the
time I prepared my dissertation. However, in this Epilogue I draw on that
research to offer some preliminary notes on the persistence of the
reformist tradition into the nineteenth century and beyond to the forma-
tion of new traditions originating from the reform movements at the end
of the nineteenth century.
Some preliminary comment on transmission is, however, apposite at this
stage. ‘Transmission’ means to hand on through time, and we thus need
some 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 Islam
the Torah was revealed, as was the Injil, and Islam has completed revelation.
Similarly, the networks of transmission are completed transmissions, datable
in historical time. This last phrase is clearly referring to linear time, but it
also creates two difficulties.
148
EPILOGUE 149
First, from the internal point of view, the Arab biographies are in the
present. By this I mean they are a continuing and present authority in
the pesantren (traditional Muslim boarding schools) and circles of Muslim
scholarship in the fifteenth/twenty-first century in Indonesia. They exist
now and have meaning and authority now because they are how we know
original Islam. Their time is present. This can be seen for instance in the
case of Shaykh Muúammad Ysin al-Padan¥ (originally from Padang, West
Sumatra, died in Mecca in 1990), who had a number of students that are
now kiyais of the pesantrens and ‘ulam’ at the same time. His students
proudly maintain the chain of authority (isnd) from al-Padan¥, who was
regarded as one of the most important authorities of the úad¥th in the
contemporary times. Al-Padan¥ himself produced a manuscript entitled
Tarjim ‘Ulam’ al-Jw¥, in which he gave an account of the isnd he and
his students possessed.
Second, the truths of Islam, which is transmitted, are timeless. This is not
to propose that they are ahistorical, alhough this was the view of much
nineteenth century European historiography. Such a view is to comprehen-
sively misunderstand revelation. Unfortunately, remnants of this position
persist in occasional social science accounts of Indonesian Islam, which fail
to realise that time is historical but that networks are both in the historical
past and in the present.
Transmission through time is achieved by isnd and silsilah (chains of
transmission). Indeed, Islam may be described (up to a point) as a religion
and law formulated by chains of transmission. Accuracy of linkage is thus
fundamental. Here time must be historically demonstrable. However,
linkages are not solely linear, as the Arab biographies show; historical links
are equally important. They indicate sometimes a variability in the material
being transmitted. There are many examples of these, not only in the isnd
‘ilmiyyah (chain of transmission of Islamic learning) but also in the ar¥qah
silsilah (chain of transmission of esoteric sciences of ta§awwuf ). Among
the isnds—both isnd ‘ilmiyyah and isnd ta§awwuf—there exist what are
called as the isnd ‘l¥ (supreme isnds), which indicate that the sources of
authority occupied a higher or even highest position, but also that the
sciences they had transmitted were of the highest values. This can clearly be
seen in some of the isnds of al-Sink¥l¥ (seventeenth century), al-Palimbn¥
(eighteenth century), Muúammad Nawaw¥ al-Bantn¥ (nineteenth century)
and Muúammad Ysin al-Padan¥ (twentieth century).1
NEW TIMES, NEW AUTHORITIES: THE NINETEENTH AND

TWENTIETH CENTURIES
By 1800, the Malay-Indonesian world or, more correctly, the various parts of
what 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
in a different form) until the end of the nineteenth century, Islam itself began
to be redefined in European (Dutch and English) terms. The colonial period
saw the introduction of a new sort of authority, which essentially reduced
Islam 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 this
does not mean that seventeenth and eighteenth century isnds and silsilahs
became irrelevant; of course they did not, and they persist. What it does
mean is that we have to recognise two streams of authority: the traditional
isnd and silsilah, and the new ‘reform’ isnd and silsilah of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.
THE TRADITIONAL ISND 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 here
only 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 to
late nineteenth century. In terms of time, the context is important. These
scholars were writing in the timelessness of revealed Islam, but the context
was the time of European triumphalism. The lines of transmission could no
longer be taken for granted. The zaman Islam, while timeless and true, was
also in European zaman, which imposed its own time. Intellectual Sufism
was 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, which
is even more apparent in the Islamic modernism that began to take roots.
This challenge comes through in the writing of the period. The ‘ulam’ had
to look over one shoulder at the past and, at the same time, to a new future
in a new world.
The Patani ‘ulam’ were no exception. By the early to mid-nineteenth
century, the scholarship coming from this area was overwhelmingly
concerned with fiqh and u§´l al-d¥n; ta§awwuf is poorly represented in the
surviving material. In part, this may be explained as a consequence of what
was happening in Mecca where, as Snouck describes,3 the chief branches of
learning had been reduced to these two. However, there is also the local
factor to take into account. Patani in the nineteenth century was a mere pawn
in the power struggle between Britain and France for political control in
Southeast Asia. Siam itself was desperately trying to retain its status as an
independent 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 ‘ulam’ were well aware of this, and
their priority became the protection of Malay Muslim identity. In this effort,
ta§awwuf had little obvious practicality to offer. This is not to say that it was
neglected—it was not—but that the prior emphasis was elsewhere.
EPILOGUE 151
An excellent example is Shaykh Dw´d ibn ‘Abd Allh al-Fan¥

discussed above. But we can also give an illustration in the life and work
of Shaykh Aúmad Muúammad Zain (1856–1906), one of the greatest
Patani ‘ulam’ in post-Dw´d ibn ‘Abd Allh period. His grandfather, two
of his three uncles and two cousins were all well-known scholars.4 In
Mecca, Shaykh Aúmad studied medicine and later became supervisor of
the Malay (Jw¥) printing press, which published many of Shaykh Dw´d’s
works. He was also a noted teacher and his students went on to fill high
positions in politics, as Muft¥ in various parts of Malaya, Kalimantan and
Cambodia and as teachers and founders of pondok. His influence has
extended into the twentieth century. One of the most prominent of his
students was Che Muúammad Y´suf, better known as Tok Kenali
(1868–1933), who established the Majlis Ugama Islam in Kelantan and was
a leading commentator and teacher of religion in the Malay world. Shaykh
Aúmad’s own writing is distinguished, in particular his al-Fatw al-
Faniyyah. This is a complex collection of fatw and may be compared
with those of Ahmad Hassan in the Persis collections one generation later
in Indonesia. The pressures of time were clearly beginning to transform
isnd and silsilah 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 in
the works of Muúammad al-Nawaw¥ al-Bantan¥ (1813–97). Born in Tanara,
Banten, West Java, al-Nawaw¥ settled in Mecca permanently in 1855,
where he became one of the most important Jw¥ ‘ulam’ in the îaramayn.
Prior to his becoming an ‘lim, he had studied with a number of prominent
‘ulam’ in the îaramayn, among whom were Shaykh Aúmad al-Nahraw¥,
Shaykh Sayyid Aúmad al-Dimya¥, Shaykh Sayyid Aúmad Dahlan, and
Shaykh Muúammad Kha¥b al-Hanbal¥. Many Malay-Indonesian flocked to
him, and many of them later became kiyais of many pesantrens in Java.
They carried with them the isnds and silsilahs of religious learning and
tradition in the time of translation from Islamic traditionalism to
modernism. Among al-Nawaw¥’s prominent students were Kiyai Haji (KH)
Hasyim Asy’ari (founder of Tebu Ireng pesantren and the Nahdlatul Ulama
organisation); KH Khalil of Bangkalan, Madura; and KH Asnawi of
Caringin, West Java. He produced 26 works, some of which are still used
in many pesantrens in Indonesia. His most important work is the Tafs¥r al-
N´r Marah Lbid, which, according to Riddell,5 represents an exegetical
approach in harmony with the new reformist spirit of the time.
THE NEW ISND AND SILSILAH

The new isnd and silsilah could just as well be named the ‘reform’ isnd
and silsilah, and we conventionally date them from about 1900, with the
works of Egyptian reformers (Muúammad ‘Abduh and Rash¥d Riè) plus
the explosion of journals such as al-Imm and al-Manr. Internally within

the Muslim reform groups (Kaum Muda, Sarekat Islam and others), there
began 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 Muslim
thought arose views that were critical of §´f¥ scholars such as al-Bantan¥
and his fellow in Mecca, Shaykh Aúmad Kha¥b al-Minangkabaw¥, which
were widely disseminated in the later nineteenth century. These ‘ulam’ on
the surface would seem staunchly anti-Sufism; but careful examination of
their works reveals that what they opposed was the excessive and escapist
Sufism as practised by certain ar¥qahs. On the other hand they accepted a
more puritan Sufism, which was strongly oriented to the socio-moral
reconstruction 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 good
example.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 religious
and secular subjects as well as working as a journalist, including as an
editor. He was also a novelist, often using religious themes, and a teacher
in religious institutions. His own personal isnd and silsilah, therefore,
were formed from a number of different sources which, in typical nine-
teenth and twentieth century fashion, included new media forms, new
educational methods and new intellectual derivations. Taken together,
these are perhaps a definition of modernism. His Pelajaran Agama Islam
(1984) and Tasawuf Moderen (1987) are good examples, because in them
he attempted to show that orthodox §´f¥ belief and practice were consonant
with modernity, provided that the individual’s response to the latter did not
lead to syncretism, especially with reference to local customs. He was
himself 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 isnd and silsilah are much more marked. He was educated in
both Western and Islamic traditions and is now remembered primarily for
his reforms of the IAIN curricula in the 1960s–70s. His contribution to
Islamic education was notable. But this is not the whole sum of his achieve-
ment. Nasution was a bold and constructive thinker on the place of
revelation in the contemporary state, Indonesia, which was avowedly
secular but populated by Muslims whose intellectual isnd and silsilah
went back many centuries. While he did not dismiss that heritage, he was
concerned to contextualise it in the new circumstances of the time. This
took 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 determinant
because 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,
EPILOGUE 153
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: that
is, 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 either
be ignored or diminished at any stage of history. Indonesia is not the Arabic
Middle East, though it shares the Prophethood of Muhammad. The
temporal factors, therefore, are ‘natural’ and this itself is God-willed. This
allows different temporal expressions of truth but it is the same truth. To
insist on a common or general form for truth is (a) not necessary and
(b), given the diversity of Muslim cultures and societies, actually quite
perverse. Harun is presenting here a form of Mu’tazil¥ argument, which
allows even for ascetism. In his view there is no necessity to force opposi-
tions between reason, revelation and/or Sufism. Reason, for Nasution, is a
God-given capacity, but the ways in which it is exercised are various.
However, variety is always limited by revelation, which imposes its own
intellectual 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 behaviour
and do not deny choice.
This rationalist trend also makes the values of Islam relatively compat-
ible with political ideologies, and Nasution himself was not unsympathetic
to the ideology of Pancasila. He read it as a possible intellectual justifi-
cation for modernisation and development, which also allowed space for
religion. But to hold this position is to come close to a ‘rational’ Islam, and
the danger here is that revelation itself can be made into an ideology or,
worse, reduced to one ideology among others. Pancasila, in fact, becomes
a manifestation of Islam for the nation-state.
There is a serious implication here: are the new isnd and silsilah in
time, are they conditioned in the modern world by the state and by science?
The discussion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was conducted
from within Islam. This is not now a possibility, because with the best will
in the world it is now hard to avoid the objectification of religion. The new
isnd and silsilah are responsive to secularism to the extent that they may
now 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 place
and 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 historical
seventeenth and eighteenth century transmissions are thus still with us.
Notes
INTRODUCTION
1 See, for instance, ‘Abd al-Raúmn Badaw¥, La transmission de
la philosophie gresque au monde Arabe, Paris: J. Vrins, 1964;
F. Gabrieli, ‘The Transmission of Learning and Literary Influences to
Western Europe’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of
Islam, Cambridge: University Press, 1970, II, 851–89. For trans-
mission of learning among Muslims, there are several studies, such as
Jonathan 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 the
Western Sudan’, in J. Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. A recent work is Peter
Riddell, Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and
Responses, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books, 2001.
2 See, for instance, M.M. Azami, On Schacht’s Origins of Muham-
madan Jurisprudence, New York & Riyad: John Wiley & King Saud
University, 1985; Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature,
Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1977; G.H.A. Juynboll,
Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance, and Author-
ship of Early Hadith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983;
J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1979.
3 See, J.O. Voll, Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World,
Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982, esp. 82; N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds),
‘Introduction’, in Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in Islam,
Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 3–20.
154
NOTES—CHAPTER 1 155
4 See, for instance, C. Geertz, The Religion of Java, New York: Free
Press, 1960.
5 J.O. Voll, ‘Muúammad îayy al-Sind¥ and Muúammad ibn ‘Abd
al-Wahhb: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in the Eighteenth
Century Madina’, BSOAS, 38 (1975); ‘îad¥th Scholars and $ar¥qahs:
An ‘Ulam’ Group in the Eighteenth Century îaramayn and Their
Impact in the Islamic World’, JAAS, 15, 3–4 (1980).
6 See, A.H. Johns, ‘Friends in Grace: Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ and ‘Abd al-
Ra’´f al-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), Spectrum: Essays Presented to
Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana on His Seventieth Birthday, Jakarta: Dian
Rakyat, 1978; ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Direc-
tions’, Indonesia, 19 (1975).
7 See bibliography for the complete titles.
8 See, for instance, ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Jabbr, Siyar wa Tarjim ba’è
‘ulamin f¥ al-qarn al-Rbi’ ‘Ashar, Jeddah: Tihama, 1403/1982;
Dur´s min Mdi al-Ta’l¥m wa îdirih bi al-Masjid al-îaram, Cairo:
n.p., 1959. For further discussion on Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ after
the eighteenth century, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘Ulama Indonesia di
Haramayn: Pasang dan Surutnya sebuah Wacana Intelektual’, Ulumul
Qur’an, III, 3 (1992).
1 NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM’ IN THE SEVENTEENTH

CENTURY îARAMAYN
1 Al-Fs¥, Shif’ al-Gharm bi Akhbar al-Balad al-îaram, 2 vols,
Makkahi Maktabat al-Nahdÿat al-îadithah, 1965, I, 329.
2 See al-Nahrawl¥, Kitb al-I’lm, in Wustenfeld (ed.), Die Chroniken
der Stadt Mekka, Brockhaus, 1857, III, 353–4.
3 Al-Fs¥, al-’Iqd al-Tham¥n f¥ Tr¥kh al-Balad al-Am¥n, 8 vols, Cairo,
Matÿba’at al-sunnat al-Muhammadiyyah, n.d., VI, 130. For information
on the Shuj ’ rib, see Al-Fs¥, Shif’ al-Gharm, I, 333.
4 Al-Fs¥, al-’Iqd al-Tham¥n, II, 53–8.
5 Ibid, II, 293; III, 168–9.
6 Ibid, II, 56.
7 See R.H. Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan Aceh: Suatu Pembahasan tentang
Sejarah Kesultanan Aceh berdasarkan Bahan bahan yang terdapat
dalam Karya Melayu, trans. Teuku Hamid, Banda Aceh: Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1982–3, 60. Cf. D. Crecellius & E.A.
Beardow, ‘A Reputed Sarakata of the Jamal al-Lail Dynasty’,
JMBRAS, 52, II (1979), 54.
8 For a discussion of ijzah, see Tritton, Materials on Muslim Education
in the Middle Ages, London, Luzac, 1957, 40–6; Jonathan Berkey, The
Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of
Islamic Education, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992,
esp. 31–3, 176–8.
9 See the case of êliú al-Fulln¥ and his teacher, Ibn Sinnah, in Azyu-
mardi Azra, Jaringan Ulama Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan Nusantara
Abad XVII dan XVIII, Bandung, Mizan, 3rd edn, 1995, 152–4.
10 See ‘Abd al-Raúmn êliú ‘Abd Allh, Tr¥kh al-Ta’l¥m f¥ Makkah
al-Mukarramah, Jeddah: Dr al-Shur´q, 1403/1982, 41; Gibb &
Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, 2 vols, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1957, I:1, esp. 98–100. Cf. C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka in the
Latter Part of the 19th Century, trans. J.H. Monahan, Leyden and
London: Brill & Luzac, 1931, 173–86; W. Ochsenwald, Religion,
Society and the State in Arabia: The Hijaz under Ottoman Control,
Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984, 50–4.
11 Al-Fs¥, al-’Iqd al-Tham¥n, III, 139–42.
12 Ibid, I, 335–63.
13 A biography of ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ will be provided shortly. Cf.
Ochsenwald, Religion and Society, 52.
14 A biography of îasan al-‘Ajam¥ will be given below. For the further
role of scholars of the ‘Ajam¥ family in the religious offices in Mecca,
see al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, 2 vols, al-Mamlakat al-Arabiyyat al-
Su’´diyyah, 1404/1984, II, 469–70.
15 ‘Abd Allh, Tr¥kh al-Ta’l¥m, 41–2; Abdullatif Abdullah Dohaish,
History of Education in the Hijaz up to 1925, Cairo: Dr al-Fikr
al-Arab¥, 1398/1978, 189–90. Cf. C. Snouck Hurgonje, Mekka, 174–5.
16 Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka, 183; Dohaish, History of Education, 180.
17 Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka, 183.
18 For êibghat Allh’s biography and works, see Muúammad Am¥n
al-Muúibb¥ (1061–1111/1651–99), Khul§at al-Athar f¥ A’yn al-Qarn
al-îd¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Cairo, 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut: Dr êdir,
n.d., II, 243–4; ‘Abd al-îayy b. Fakhr al-D¥n al-îasan¥ (d. 1923),
Nuzhat al-Khawir f¥ Buhjat al-Masmi’ wa al-Naw½ir, 7 vols,
Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-’Uthmniyyah, 1931–59, V, 175–7;
êidd¥q b. îasan al-Qann´j¥ (d. 1307/1889), Abjad al-’Ul´m, 3 vols,
Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, n.d., III, 225; Ism’¥l Bsh
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n: Asm’ al-Mu’allif¥n ‘thr al-
Mu§annif¥n, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951, I, 425;
Khayr al-D¥n al-Zarkal¥ (al-Zerekli), al-A‘lm: Qm´s Tarjim, 12
vols, Beirut: n.p., 1389/1969, III, 287. Cf. S.A.A. Rizvi, A History
of Sufism in India, 2 vols, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983,
II, 329–30.
19 Rizvi, A History of Sufism, II, 130.
20 For a list of his works, see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 425.
21 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 234–4; al-îasan¥, Nuzhat
al-Khwir, V, 185–6.
22 See T. Iskandar, De Hikajat Atjeh, ‘s-Gravenhage: Smits, 1959, 167–8;
Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan Aceh, 47.
23 For al-Burhnp´r¥’s complete biography, see Mu§af Fatú Allh

al-îamaw¥ (d. 1123/1711), Faw’id al-Irtiúl wa Nat’ij al-Safar f¥
Akhbr Ahl al-Qarn al-îd¥ ‘Ashar, 3 vols, Cairo, MS. Dr al-Kutub
al-Mi§riyyah, Tr¥kh 1093, I, fols 166–8; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-
Athar, IV, 110–11; al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 352–3;
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 271.
24 See A.H. Johns, The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet,
Canberra: Australian National University, 1965. For its commentaries,
see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 271; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II,
617. In addition to Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, ‘Abd al-Ghn¥ al-Nbulus¥
wrote another commentary on it entitled Nuhabat al-Mas’alah.
25 For al-Shinnw¥’s biography and works, see al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar, I, 243–6; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 165; al-Zarkal¥,
al-A’lm, I, 174–5.
26 On Muúammad al-Shinnw¥’s and Aúmad al-Shinnw¥’s relationship
with al-Sha’rn¥, see M. Winter, Society and Religion in early Ottoman
Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥, New
Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, 30, 51, 57, 95, 98, 99, 126, 129,
138–40. Cf. Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 319, 1052.
27 For a biography of Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥, who played a significant role
in the networks as we will see in due course, see ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-
Sha’rn¥ (899–973/1493–1565), al-$abaqt al-êughr, ‘Abd al-Qdir
Aúmad ‘A (ed.), Cairo: Maktabah al-Qhirah, 1390/1970, 121–3; al-
Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 342–7; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n,
II, 261; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VI, 235; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 418.
28 For further information on Ab´ al-îasan al-Bakr¥’s, see al-Sha’rn¥,
al-$abaqt al-êughr, 78–80. It is curious that, according to
al-Sha’rn¥, al-Bakr¥ died in 950/1543(?). If this is true, Aúmad
al-Shinnw¥ had probably not met him. Or perhaps another
Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ Ab´ al-îasan al-Bakr¥ al-Ma§r¥, died in
1087/1676, who seems to be younger than al-Shinnw¥. In any case,
the Bakr¥ was a noted muúaddith of a §´f¥ family in Egypt. See al-
Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 465–8.
29 For Aúmad al-Shinnw¥’s connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 296, 319; II, 734, 865, 957, 958, 1022, 1051.
30 Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 154-5; Brockelmann, GAL, II,
514; S. II, 534. See also a description of his work, entitled Bughyat
al-Ilq f¥ al-Salsil wa al-Khiraq, in al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 254.
31 Its complete title is al-Sim al-Maj¥d f¥ Sha’n al-Bay’ah wa al-Dhikr
wa Talq¥nih wa Salsil Ahl al-Tawú¥d, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif
al-Ni½miyyah, 1327/1909. A short description of the al-Sim is also
given in al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 1061. For further discussion on the
Sim, see Oman Fathurahman, ‘Tarekat syattariyyah di Dunia Melayu-
Indonesia’, doctoral dissertation, Program Pasca-Sarjana, Universitas
Indonesia, 2003.
32 For al-îamaw¥’s biography, see Muúammad Khal¥l al-Murd¥, Silk

al-Durar f¥ A’yn al-Qarn al-Thn¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Beirut: Dr Ibn
al-îazm, 1408/1988, IV, 178; ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jabart¥ (1169–
1239/1754–1822), Tr¥kh ‘Aj’ib al-Athr f¥ al-Tarjim wa al-
Akhbr, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-J¥l, n.d., I, 125. The last work is
available in several editions, in different numbers of volumes. On the
importance of the ‘Aj’ib al-thr for the history of Arabia, see
Muúammad Maúmud al-Sarwaj¥, ‘Kitb ‘Aj’ib al-Athr f¥ al-
Tarjim wa al-Akhbr li al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jabart¥
ka-ma§dar li Aúdth al-Jaz¥rat al-‘Arabiyyah f¥ al-Qarn al-Thlith
‘Ashar al-îijr¥ (al-Tsi’ ‘Ashar al-M¥ld¥)’, in Ma§dir Tr¥kh al-
Jaz¥rat al-‘Arabiyyah, Riyad: Mab´’t Jmi’ah al-Riyè, 1279/
1979, II, 279–301. It should be noted, however, that al-Jabart¥ also
provides accounts of prominent scholars in the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries.
33 MSS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Cairo, Tarikh, 1093.
34 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fols 320–33.
35 Ibrú¥m al-K´rn¥, al-Umam li ¡q½ al-Himam, MS Dr al-Kutub
al-Mi§riyyah, Mujm¥’ Tal’at 933. For practical reasons, we cite its
published edition in Hayderabad, 1328/1910. Aúmad al-Qushsh¥’s
biographical note is on 125–7.
36 Cf. al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 343–6.
37 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim al-Maj¥d, 181; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I,
fol. 323; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 970–1; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, I, 228.
The same account is also found in Shh Wal¥ Allh al-Dihlaw¥
(1114–76/1702–62), Anfs al-’rif¥n, Delhi: 1315/1897, 179–80.
38 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim al-Maj¥d, 181–2; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl,
I, fol. 231; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 344.
39 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim al-Maj¥d, 182; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I,
fol. 324. On further reasons of the change of his madhhab, see
al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fols 324–6, 327.
40 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 321; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-
Athar, I, 344–5. For Ayy´b b. Aúmad b. Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥
al-îanaf¥’s biography, see al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, II, fols
87–8; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 428–33. We provide Ayy´b
al-Khalwat¥’s detailed biography in connection with al-Maqassr¥ in
chapter 5.
41 Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 161.
42 Brockelmann, GAL, II, 514–15; S. II, 535; Cf. ‘Abd al-Salm Hshim
îafi½, al-Mad¥nat al-Munawwarah f¥ Tr¥kh, Cairo: Dr al-Turth,
1381/1972, 149.
43 A.H. Johns, ‘al-Kushash¥, êaf¥ al-D¥n Aúmad b. Muúammad b. Yńus,
al-Madan¥ al-Dadjn¥’, EI2, V, 525.
44 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 321.
45 For Aúmad al-Qushsh¥’s connections and role in the networks, see

al-Kattn¥, Fahras, 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 Allh b. Shaykh al-’Aydar´s’ biography, see al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, III, 51; al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 53–4. On
Ba Shaybn, al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 214–5; al-îasan¥,
Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 288–9. The role of the ‘Aydar´s scholars and
their connections with Middle Eastern and Malay-Indonesian scholarly
networks are discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.
47 Al-’Ajam¥’s complete biography is given shortly.
48 He later became a leading shaykh of the Chishtiyyah order in Lahore.
See Rizvi, A History of Sufism, II, 267.
49 ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Maúj´b was a good example of the scholars who
were successful in harmonising úad¥th and Sufism. He was reported to
have numerous miracles (karmah) in the îaramayn. For his biog-
raphy, see al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 346–8; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad
al-’Ul´m, III, 166.
50 We examine ‘Is al-Maghrib¥’s biography below.
51 Several leading scholars of these families were also teachers of
al-Sink¥l¥ and al-Maqassr¥. We discuss their role in the networks in
chapter 4 and 5 respectively.
52 The complete biography of al-Barzanj¥ is provided below.
53 Al-Murd¥, Silk al-Durar, I, 6.
54 Ab´ al-$ayyib Muúammad Shams al-îq al-’A½¥mbd¥, ‘Awn al-
Ma’b´d: Sharú Sunan Ab¥ Dw´d, 14 vols, Medina: Maktabat
al-Salafiyyah, 1389/1969, IV, 395. Cf. another 4 volume repr. ed. publ.
in Delhi 1323/1905, Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-’Arab¥, n.d., IV, 181. I am
most grateful to Prof. J.O. Voll, who brought to my attention an article
by Hunwick that mentions these mujaddids. See J.O. Hunwick, ‘êliú
al-Fulln¥ (1752/3–1803): The Career and Teachings of a West African
‘lim in Medina’, in A.H. Green (ed.), In Quest of an Islamic
Humanism: Arabic and Islamic Studies in Memory of Mohamed
al-Nowaihi, Cairo: The American University Press, 1984, 139–53.
55 For an account of preference for Zakariyy al-An§r¥, see for instance,
al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 346. For a biography of Jall al-D¥n
al-Suy´¥, see al-Sha’rn¥, al-$abaqt al-êughr, 17–36; E.M. Sartain,
Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥, 2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1975. For Zakariyy al-An§r¥’s biography, see al-Sha’rn¥, al-$abaqt
al-êughr, 37–45; al-$abaqt al-Kubr, 2 vols, Cairo: Maktabah wa
Maba’ah Muúammad ‘Al¥ êab¥ú wa Awlduh, (1965?), II, 111–3.
56 See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 242.
57 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 494.
58 Al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, I, 28.
59 Al-îamaw¥ devotes a long account to Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥’s biography.

See his Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fols 21–32. Al-K´rn¥’s biography is also
given in the colophon of his own work, al-Umam, 131–3; al-Murd¥,
Silk al-Durar, I, 5–6; al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, I, 117; al-Shawkn¥,
al-Badr al-$li’, 2 vols, Cairo: Maba’at al-Sa‘dah, 1348/1929, I, 11;
al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 167; îfi½, al-Mad¥nat al-
Munawwarah f¥ al-Tr¥kh, 150; A.H. Johns, ‘Al-K´rn¥, Ibrh¥m b.
al-Shahraz´r¥ al-îasan Shahrn¥, al-Madan¥ (1023–1101/1615–90)’,
EI2, V, 432–3; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 166–8, 493–4; al-Zarkal¥, al-
A’lm, I, 28.
60 Al-Mul Muúammad Shar¥f al-K´rn¥ appears to have been a teacher
of numerous scholars in the îaramayn, including Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥.
See his biography in al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 128–9; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id
al-Irtiúl, I, fols 93–3; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 280–1. For
a list of his works which includes a commentary on the Baièw¥ Tafs¥r
(Anwr al-Tanz¥l), see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 291.
61 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, II, fol. 22; cf. Al-Murd¥, Silk
al-Durar, I, 5.
62 Al-Bbil¥’s biography is given shortly.
63 Mainly known as an ad¥b (man of letters) and a qè¥, al-Khafj¥ was
an important chain in the networks. He lived mainly in Cairo, though
he regularly travelled to the îaramayn and other centres for Islamic
learning in the Middle East. He was a disciple of the muúaddith Shams
al-D¥n al-Raml¥, who in turn connected him, among others, to
Zakariyy al-An§r¥. See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 331–43.
For a list of his works, see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 160–1.
64 Al-Mazzú¥ was professor of fiqh at the Azhar after studying with
almost 30 scholars. He was also learned in úad¥th. He wrote a
commentary on the Minhj of Zakariyy al-An§r¥. Among his promi-
nent students were ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥ and N´r al-D¥n
al-Shabrmalis¥. See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 210–1;
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 394.
65 Al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 3–13; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 23.
66 Al-K´rn¥, Maslik al-Abrr il îad¥th al-Nab¥ al-Mukhtr, MS. Dr
al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, îad¥th 2283, Microfilm 14904.
68 Ibid, I, fols 24–5; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 167.
69 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 494. For Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥’s connections in the
networks, see Ibid, 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.
70 The complete account of Al-Nakhl¥ is given below.

71 N´r al-D¥n Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-îd¥ al-Sind¥, better known as Ab´
al-îasan al-Sind¥ al-Kab¥r, was a muúaddith. He was also a student of
al-Bbil¥ and al-Barzanj¥. One of his well-known students was
Muúammad îayyt al-Sind¥, an important figure of in the scholarly
networks in the eighteenth century. For his life and works, see al-
Murd¥, Silk al-Durar, III, 66; al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, I, 135;
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 318. One of his works was a
commentary on the Kutub al-Sittah. See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 148.
Ab´ al-îasan al-Sind¥ (al-Kab¥r) should not be confused with Ab´ al-
îasan al-Sind¥ al-êagh¥r (or Muúammad êad¥q al-Sind¥,
1125–87/1713–73), a disciple of Muúammad îayyt al-Sind¥ and a
teacher of êliú al-Fulln¥. See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 148–9.
72 ‘Abd Allh b. Sa’d Allh al-Lh´r¥, a muúaddith, was known to be
very active in introducing to îaramayn ‘ulam’ the teachings of such
Indian scholars as Mul ‘Abd al-îak¥m al-Siyalk´t¥ and ‘Abd al-îq
al-Muúaddith Dihlaw¥. Among his students in the îaramayn were Ab´
$hir b. Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ and Shh Wal¥ Allh. See Wal¥ Allh,
Anfs al-’rif¥n, 190–2. For al-Lh´r¥’s connections in the networks,
see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 166, 168, 495, 496; II, 948, 949, 951, 953,
957, 958, 960.
73 ‘Abd Allh b. Slim al-Ba§r¥’s complete biography is given shortly.
74 Ab´ $hir’s biography is provided below.
75 The muúaddith ‘Al¥ al-Zab¥d¥ appears to be one of the earliest Zab¥d
scholars involved in the networks in this period. The Zab¥d¥ scholars
increasingly played an important role in the subsequent periods. His
teachers also included al-Qushsh¥, al-Barzanj¥ and al-Nakhl¥. See
al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 192–3.
76 Isúq b. Ja’mn al-Yaman¥, a leading scholar of the Ja’mn family,
was the Qè¥ of Zab¥d. In the îaramayn he also studied with ‘Is
al-Maghrib¥ and al-Barzanj¥. See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I,
394–6; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 202. Among his students in
the networks was al-Sink¥l¥, discussed in chapter 4
77 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. Silk al-Durar, I, 6.
78 Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 35–6.
79 Brockelmann, GAL, II, 505–6; S. II, 520.
80 They are: al-Umam, cited earlier, and Alfred Guillaume, ‘Al-Lum’at
al-San¥ya f¥ Taúq¥q al-Ilq’ f¥-l-Umn¥ya by Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥’,
BSOAS, XX (1957), 291–303.
81 For al-Bbil¥’s detailed biography, see al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl,
I, fols 201–4; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 39–42; al-Qann´j¥,
Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 166. For his works: al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-
’rif¥n, II, 290; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 210–12; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm,
VII, 152.

83 For al-Bbil¥’s connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥, Ibid, 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 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, 41; al-Zarkal¥, al A’lm, I, 152.
85 For Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥’s life and works, see al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar, I, 464–70; al-Bagdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 244. Cf. Rizvi,
A History of Sufism, II, 336–8; Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 93–4.
86 For more information on Aúmad b. ‘Aln, see chapter 3 note 39. For
an account of the prominence of the ‘Aln family in Mecca, see al-
Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 468.
87 On al-Nakhl¥’s becoming a disciple of Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥, see Wal¥
Allh, Anfs al-’Arif¥n, 188. Cf. al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n li Bayn
al-Mash’ikh al-Muúaqqiq¥n al-Mu’tamid¥n, Hayderabad: D’irat al-
Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910, 73–6, 80.
88 For detailed accounts of ‘Is al-Maghrib¥’s career and works, see
al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 240–2; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad
al-’Ul´m, III, 166–7; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, V, 294–5; al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 500–3; II, 589–90, 806–9; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II, 691,
939.
89 Tj al-D¥n ibn Ya’q´b’s career follows shortly.
90 Zayn al-’bid¥n’s biography is given below.
91 ‘Abd al-’Az¥z al-Zamzam¥ was a leading scholar of the Zamzam¥
family, the guardian of the Zamzam well. He was a grandson of the
muúaddith Ibn îajar in the maternal line. As a renowned scholar, he
wrote a number of works. See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II,
426–7; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 379. On the role of the Zamzam¥s in
Islamic learning in Mecca, see al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 470. Cf.
Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat ‘rif¥n, I, 584, 737.
92 ‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ Bakr al-Jaml al-Makk¥, also known as al-Jaml al-Ma§r¥,
was born in Mecca. After studying with various teachers he taught at the
îarm Mosque. Among his students were îasan al-’Ajam¥, Aúmad
al-Nakhl¥ and ‘Abd Allh b. Slim al-Ba§r¥. He wrote numerous works
dealing with various topics. See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III,
128–30; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 759–80. For his connec-
tions in the network, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 194, 252, 502; II, 583,
811.
93 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 242; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m,
III, 166.
94 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 806–7.
95 For a quite lengthy description of the contents of the Kanz al-Riwyat,
see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 500–3.
96 For Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥’s complete biography, see al-Muúibb¥,

Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 204–8; Daúln, Khul§at al-Kalm, 87–104; al-
Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 378–83; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 95, 425–9;
al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VII, 22.
97 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 204–5; Daúln, Khul§at
al-Kalm, 103–4; al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 380.
98 For a description of the contents of these works, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 95, 426–7.
99 See al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 207. Cf. Al-Murd¥, Silk
al-Durar, IV, 82.
100 For detailed accounts of Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥’s connections in the
networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, 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 Ya’q´b’s detailed biography and works, see al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, I, 457–64; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 245;
Brockelmann, GAL, II, 379. For his further connections in the
networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 198, 501; II, 576, 587, 865.
102 Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥’s complete biography is given in al-
Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 195–6. For his connections in the
networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 119, 166, 169, 183, 194, 196, 209,
252, 296, 327, 415, 502; II, 583, 587, 685, 811, 992, 1022.
103 For ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥’s biography and works, see al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, II, 457–64; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I,
600; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, IV, 168–9; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II, 509.
For his further scholarly connections, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 209,
518; II, 685, 781, 935.
104 For biography and works of ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥, see al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar, III, 161–6; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 759;
al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, V, 115. For his scholarly connections, see
al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 194, 415; II, 587, 811, 941–4, 1000.
105 For further accounts of the role of the $abar¥ family in Islamic learning
in Mecca, see al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 466.
106 For a biography of al-Muúibb al-$abar¥, see al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VII,
189.
107 For more detail on al-’Ajam¥, see al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, I, 123;
al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 167–8. His more complete biography
is provided by the editor of his work, Ihd’ al-La’if min Akhbr
al-$’if, Yaúya Maúm´d Junayd S’t¥ (ed.), T’if: Dr Thaq¥f,
1400/1980, 9–24; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 810–3. For lists of his works,
see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 294; and Ihd’ al-La’if,
17–23; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, II, 223; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 209, 4479,
504–5; II, 810–13.
108 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 810–11; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, II, 223.

109 For al-’Ajam¥’s further connections in úad¥th studies, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 209; II, 811–13; III, 66.
110 A short description of the contents of the Rislat al-’Ajam¥ f¥ al-$uruq
is given in al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 447–9. This work is not listed either
in al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 284, or in al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm,
II, 223.
111 For a biography of Tj al-D¥n, who was also known as Muúammad
b. ‘Abd al-Muúsin al-Qal’¥, see al-Kattn¥, I, 978; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad
al-’Ul´m, III, 168–9.
112 For an account of the scholarly role of ‘Ajam¥ family in Mecca, see
al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, I I, 469–70; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, 813.
113 For al-Barzanj¥’s biography and work, see the colophon of his own
work, Kitb al-Ish’ah li Ishrat al-S’ah, Muúammad Badr al-D¥n al-
Na’sn¥ (ed.), Cairo: Maba’at al-Sa’dah, 1325/1907; al-Murd¥, Silk
al-Durar, IV, 65–6; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 303–4; al-
Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VII, 75.
114 Al-Barzanj¥’s connections in the networks is provided in al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 98, 148, 301, 302, 314, 427, 447, 451, 495; II, 767, 828, 840,
1095.
115 Further information on Ja’far al-Barzanj¥ is given in al-Murd¥, Silk
al-Durar, II, 9; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 255; al-Zarkal¥,
al-A’lm, II, 117. For a history of the Barzanj¥ family, see C.J.
Edmonds, Kurds, Turks, and Arabs, London: Oxford University Press,
1957, esp. 68–79.
116 For al-Nakhl¥’s complete biography, see his Bughyat al-$lib¥n li Bayn
al-Mash’ikh al-Muúaqqiq¥n al-Mu’tamid¥n, Hayderabad: D’irat al-
Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910; al-Murd¥, Silk al-Durar, I, 171–2;
al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m, III, 177; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 251–3;
al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, I, 230. Among his works was al-Tafs¥rt al-
Aúmadiyyah f¥ Bayn al-yt al-Shar’iyyah. See al-Baghdd¥,
Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 167.
117 Al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n, 5–9, 65–80.
119 For al-Nakhl¥’s connections in úad¥th studies, see Ibid, 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 Allh b. Slim al-Ba§r¥’s biography and works, see his Kitb
al-Imdd bi Ma’rifah ‘Uluw al-Isnd, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif
al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910; al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, I, 132–3;
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 480; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-’Ul´m,
III, 177; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, IV, 219–20; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II,

521; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 95–6, 193–9.
121 Al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, II, 469.
122 Ibid.
123 For al-Ba§r¥’s connections with his contemporaries and earlier
scholars, see his Kitb al-Imdd. For his connections with later
scholars, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, esp. 95–6, 193–9; III, 113.
124 For Ab´ $hir’s biography and works, see Al-Murd¥, Silk al-Durar,
IV, 27; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 321; al-Qann´j¥, Abjad
al-’Ul´m, III, 168; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 494–6; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm,
6, 195.
125 For Ab´ $hir’s connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras,
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 18th
Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World’, JAAS, XV,
3–4 (1980), 246–73; ‘Muúammad îayy al-Sind¥ and Muúammad Ibn
‘Abd al-Wahhb: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in Eighteenth
Century Mad¥na’, BSOAS, 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, Beyond the Melting Pot, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 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’, Contributions to Asian
Studies, 17 (1982), 1–16.
2 See Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd ed, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979, esp. 193–6, 205–6. For further discussion on neo-Sufism,
see John O. Voll, ‘Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama Group in
the 18th Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World’,
JAAS, XV, 3–4 (1980), 264–72; N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds), ‘Intro-
duction’, in Eighteenth Century Renewal and Reform in Islam,
Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 3–20; L. Brenner, ‘Sufism
in Africa in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in Islam et
Societés au sud du Sahara, 2 (1988), 80–92; R.S. O’Fahey, ‘Neo-
Sufism and Ibn Idris’, in his Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad ibn Idris and the
Idrisi Tradition, Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press, 1990,
1–26; Bernd Radtke, ‘Kritik am Neo-Sufism’, in Frederick de Jong &
Bernd Radtke (eds), Islamic Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries
of Controversies and Polemics, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999, pp. 162–73.
3 Rahman, Islam, 205–6.

4 Fazlur Rahman, ‘Revival and Reform’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The
Cambridge History of Islam, 1970, II, 637.
5 Rahman, Islam, 194.
6 Ibid, 195.
7 For further discussion on this, see Rahman, Islam, 194–5. For argu-
ments against the inclusion of Ibn Taymiyyah among §´f¥s or neo-§´f¥s,
see for instance, F. Meier, ‘Das Sauberste über die Vorbestimmung.
Ein Stück Ibn Taymiyya’, Saeculum, 32 (1981), 74–89. For discussion
on the role of some leading îanbal¥ scholars in Sufism, see G. Makdisi,
‘The Sunni Revival’, D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation,
950–1150, London: Bruno Cassirer, 1973, esp. 161–8; J.S. Triming-
ham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 41–2.
8 L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique de la mystique musul-
mane, Paris: J. Vrin, 1954, 207. A fuller account of Dh´ al-Nń is in
‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥ (d. 973/1565), al-$abaqt al-Kubr,
2 vols, Cairo: Maktabah wa Maba’ah Muúammad ‘Al¥, n.d., I, 59–61.
9 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 46.
10 See Ibn al-îjj al-’Abdar¥ (d. 738/1336–7), al-Madkhal, 4 vols, Cairo:
Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥, 1380/1960, III, 194–8, 218–20.
11 Trimingham, The Sufi Order, 89–90. For Ibn Maymń’s biography,
see Ab´ al-Fallú ‘Abd al-îayy Ibn al-’Imd (d. 1089/1678), Shad-
hart al-Dhahab f¥ Ahkbr man Dhahab, 8 vols, Cairo: Maktabat
al-Quds¥, 1350–1/1931–2, VIII, 81–4. This biographical chronicle
covers the earlier centuries of Islam to the year 1000/1591.
12 For Ibn îajar’s biography, see Ibn al-’Imd, Shadhart al-Dhahab,
VII, 270–3.
13 Ibid, VIII, 51–5 for sources of al-Suy´¥’s biography.
14 Ibid, VIII, 134–6 for sources of Zakariyy al-An§r¥’s biography.
15 The famous Egyptian neo-§´f¥ al-Sha’rn¥ had a common link with all
of them. Zakariyy al-An§r¥ was his direct teacher, who used to study
with Ibn îajar al-’Asqaln¥. Al-Suy´¥, also a student of Ibn îajar, was
a teacher of al-Sha’rn¥’s father. A month before al-Suy´¥ died, al-
Sha’rn¥ himself met him in Cairo. See al-Sha’rn¥, al-$abaqt
al-Kubr, II, 111–3; al-$abaqt al-Sughr. (ed.) ‘Abd al-Qdir Aúmad
‘A (ed.), Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhirah, 1390/1970, 18–20. More to
follow on links between al-Sha’rn¥ and our networks.
16 See ‘Abd al-îayy b. ‘Abd al-Kab¥r al-Kattn¥ (d. 1963), Fahras
al-Fahris wa al-’Athbt, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm¥,
1402/1982, I, 71–94, for a discussion on the importance of the
isnds in úad¥th study and other branches of Islamic discipline, and
on their ranking. Cf. M.M. Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology
and Literature, Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1977,
esp. 58–67.
17 See for instance, his Nihyat al-Muútj il Sharú al-Manhl f¥ al-Fiqh
‘al Madhhab al-Imm al-Shfi’¥, 8 vols, Misr: Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-
îalab¥, 1967, which expressly introduces him by that honorific.
18 For Shihb al-D¥n al-Raml¥’s biography, see al-Sha’rn¥, al-$abaqt
al-Sughr, 67–9.
19 Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, al-Umam li ¡q½ al-Himam, Hayderabad: D’irat
al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910, 3–5; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 952.
20 Al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 10–1.
21 See ‘Abd Allh b Slim al-Ba§r¥, Kitb al-Imdd bi Ma’rifah ‘Uluw
al-isnd, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910,
50–1.
22 For Ibn ‘Arab¥’s further connections in úad¥th studies, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 99, 204, 208, 310, 449, 496; II, 596, 686, 716, 928, 991,
1055.
23 For al-Sha’rn¥’s accounts of Zakariyy al-An§r¥, see al-$abaqt
al-Kubr, I, 111–3; al-$abaqt al-Sughr, 37–45.
24 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 220–5. For a complete discussion on the
neo-§´f¥ al-Sha’rn¥, see Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early
Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhb
al-Sha’rn¥, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, esp. 53–8,
150–200, 219–51. On his initiation into Sufism by Zakariyy al-
An§r¥, see Ibid, 5.
25 Aúmad al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim al-Maj¥d f¥ Sha’n al-Bay’at wa al-Dhikr
wa Talq¥nih wa Salsil Ahl al-Tawú¥d, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif
al-Ni½miyyah, 1327/1909, 45–8, 86.
26 Ibid, 45.
27 Al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 80.
28 Published in Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah,
1328/1910.
29 Al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n, esp. 10–14. He mentions here all
úad¥th books he studied and their isnds through 28.
30 See al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 4–44.
31 Al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n, 31.
32 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 7–8.
33 Mu§af Fatú Allh al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl wa Nat’ij al-Safar
f¥ Akhbr Ahl al-Qarn al-Hd¥ ‘Ashar, 3 vols, Cairo, MS. Dr al-Kutub
al-Mi§riyyah, Tr¥kh 1093, I, fol. 21.
34 Al-Ba§r¥, Kitb al-Imdd, 3.
35 Al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n, 12, 31.
36 Al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 115.
37 This work was published in Cairo: Maktabah wa Maba’ah ‘Al¥ êab¥ú
wa Awlduh, n.d., 2 vols.
38 al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 41, 83–4; al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 125–6; al-
îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 320, 329. Cf. S.A.A. Rizvi,
A History of Sufism in India, 2 vols, New Delhi: Munshiram Manohar-

lal, 1983, II, 330–1.
39 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 320; al-K´rn¥, al-Umam, 166.
40 EI2, V, 525.
41 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 106–10; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 329.
42 Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥ bi Sharú al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il
R´ú al-Nab¥, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Ta§awwuf 2578,
fols 6, 9, 11, 15.
43 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fols 25–6, 28.
44 See Ism’¥l Basha al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n: Asm’
al-Mu’allif¥n wa ‘thr al-Mu§annif¥n, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim
Basimevi, 1951, I, 35–6.
45 A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Directions’,
Indonesia, 19 (1976), 51; ‘Friends in Grace: Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ and ‘Abd
al-Ra’´f al-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), Spectrum: Essays Presented to
Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978, 476. The Itúf al-
Dhak¥ is included in all lists of his works; see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat
al-’rif¥n, I, 35; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II, 520. This work is reserved in
several libraries: Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub, Ta§awwuf 2578, Microfilm
7651, another copy is Ta§awwuf 2954, Microfilm 10200; MS Leiden
University, Or. 7050, 1892; MS India Office, no. 684, 1877.
46 See A.H. Johns, The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet,
Canberra: Australian National University, 1965, 5–7.
48 Ibid, I, fol. 167; Cf. Johns, ‘Reflections’, 50.
49 Al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, fol. 2; Cf. Johns, ‘Reflections’, 51–2.
50 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Review of: A.H. Johns PhD Malay Sufism’, BKI,
115, III (1959), 283.
51 Al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, fol. 2.
52 Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 35; Muúammad Khal¥l al-Murd¥,
Silk al-Durar f¥ A’yn al-Qarn al-Thn¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Beirut: Dr Ibn
al-îazm, 1408/1988, I, 6.
53 See P. Voorhoeve, Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of
the University of Leiden and Other Collections in the Netherlands, The
Hague: Leiden University Press, 1980, 461.
54 Leiden University, MS. F. Or. A13d (17–18); D.A. Rinkes, Abdoer-
raoef van Singkel: Bijdrage tot de kennis van de mystiek op Sumatra
en Java, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909, 95 n. 2.
55 See al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 35.
56 Johns, The Gift, 8–12.
57 Al-Maqassr¥, Zubdat al-Asrr, 47; Tj al-Asrr, 72–4. Both are
included in a collection of al-Maqassr¥’s MSS, Jakarta, National
Library, KBL MS A-101. This collection consists of 20 works of
al-Maqassr¥.
58 The work is listed in both al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 245, and

Muúammad Am¥n al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar f¥ ‘A’yn al-Qarn
al-Hd¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Cairo: 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut: Dr êdir,
n.d., I, 458. For his complete biography and works, see al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, I, 457–64; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 245;
Brockelmann, GAL, II, 379.
59 Al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, fol. 2.
61 Ibid, I, fol. 320.I, 344.
62 Ibid, I, fols 326–7; al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 344.
63 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 118–20; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl,
fol. 329.
64 Al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, fols 11–24; al-Umam, 115–18.
66 Ibid, I, fol. 12.
67 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 305–7; Aúmad Zayn¥ Daúln,
Khul§at al-Kalm f¥ Bayan Umar’ al-Bild al-îaram, Cairo: n.p.,
1305/1888, 102–3; Aúmad al-Sib’¥, Tr¥kh Makkah, Riyad (?): al-
Mamlakah al-’Arabiyyah al-Su’´diyyah, 1404/1984, II, 378–82; G. de
Gaury, Rulers of Mecca, 1951, repr. ed. New York: Dorset Press, 1991,
148, 155–6.
68 Asafiyya State Public Library, Hayderabad, MS Kalm 224 and Kalm
223 respectively, cited in Y. Friedmann, Shaykh Aúmad Sirhind¥: An
Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Poster-
ity, Montreal: Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University Press,
1971, 7–8, 97–101, appendix C; Rizvi, A History of Sufism, II, 339–2.
Only the Qadú al-Zand is included among al-Barzanj¥’s 56 works
given by al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 303. I was not able to
check these MSS myself.
69 Asafiyyah State Library, Kalm, 224, cited in Friedmann, 8. The work
is not listed among al-’Ajam¥’s works listed by al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat
al-’rif¥n, I, 294, nor by Yaúy Maúm´d Junayd S’t¥, editor of
al-’Ajam¥’s Ihd’ al-La’if min Akhbr al-$’if, $’if: Dr Thaq¥f,
1400/1980, 17–24.
70 See Rizvi, A History of Sufism, 339.
71 Friedmann, Shaykh Aúmad Sirhind¥, esp. 13–21.
72 Al-Barzanj¥, Qadú al-Zand, fols 14a28–14bl, cited in Friedmann, Shaykh
Aúmad Sirhind¥, 98. For al-Suy´¥’s work cited by al-Barzanj¥, see Brock-
elmann, GAL, II, 151, no. 135, and I. Goldziher, Zur Charakteristik Gelal
ud-Din us-Suyuti’s und seiner literarischen Tätigkeit, Vienna: 1872.
73 Friedmann, Shaykh Aúmad Sirhind¥, 98–9; Rizvi, A History of Sufism,
II, 340–1.
74 Friedmann, Shaykh Aúmad Sirhind¥, 99. See appendix C of this work,
in which a portion of al-Barzanj¥’s treatises is given.
75 For al-Qushsh¥’s detailed opinion on this question, see Rizvi, A

History of Sufism, II, 339.
76 For discussion on the organisation of ar¥qahs, see for instance, Trim-
ingham, The Sufi Orders, 166–93; Winter, Society and Religion,
126–44.
77 For al-Qushsh¥’s complete silsilah of the respective ar¥qah, see his
al-Sim, 66–135.
78 For his complete silsilah, see his Bughyat al-$lib¥n, 65–81.
79 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 36.
80 This simile was first coined by al-Junayd al-Baghdd¥. See Rahman,
Islam, 137. Initially, it was employed to refer to Muslim’s total
submission (tawakkul) to God. See I. Goldziher, ‘Materialien zur
Entwicklungsgeschichte des Sufismus’, Gesammelte Schriften,
Hildesheim: 1967, IV, 180.
Cf. A. Janson, R. Tol and J.J. Witkam (eds), ‘Mystical Illustrations
from the Teachings of Shaykh Ahmad al-Qusyasyi: A Facsimile
Edition of a Manuscript from Aceh (Cod. Or. 2222) in the Library of
Leiden University’, Manuscripta Indonesica, vol. 5, Leiden: INIS and
Leiden University Library, 1995; Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 167,
on the freedom of each member, provided he adhered at the same time
to regulations for communal life.
82 Al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim, 27–8, 41–5; al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I,
fol. 322, 329.
83 Al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 167, 320; al-K´rn¥, Itúf
al-Dhak¥, fol. 2. Cf. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 175.
84 See Winter, Society and Religion, 129–30.
85 See Ibid, 131–9, and Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 173–4, on the
general tendency among §´f¥ shaykhs to give first priority to their
descendants who will succeed them. This type of succession in some
cases led to the appointment of incompetent or worldly oriented
successors. But in Syria the tendency did not become universal. In
some orders, notably the Khalwatiyyah and Shdhiliyyah, the shaykh
was elected by disciples.
86 See Winter, Society and Religion, 137–41.
87 See Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 22.
89 êidd¥q b. îasan al-Qann´j¥, Abjad al-‘Ul´m, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d., III, 168.
90 Al-K´rn¥, for instance, is reported to have had a big library in his
house. See Ibn al-$ayyib, Nashr al-Mathn¥, Fes: 1310/1892, II,
130–7, cited in Johns, ‘Friends in Grace’, 474.
91 For an account of al-Qushsh¥, who also held teaching sessions in his
house, see al-îamaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl, I, fol. 330.
92 Cf. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, 168.

93 EI2, V, 433.
94 See al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, esp. fols 7–23.
95 See al-K´rn¥’s accounts of his studies of Ibn ‘Arab¥’s works with
Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥, in al-Umam, 122–5.
96 Al-Nakhl¥, Bughyat al-$lib¥n, 27, 45–6.
97 See Winter, Religion and Society, 165–72.
98 Ibn al-$ayyib, Nashr al-Mathn¥, II, 130–7, cited in Johns, EI2, V, 433;
‘Friends in Grace’, 473–4.
99 See P.K. Hitti, N.A. Faris & B. ‘Abd-al-Mlik, Descriptive Catalogue
of the Garrett Collection of Arabic Manuscripts in the Princeton
University Library, 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’, JMBRAS
40, I (1967), 40; The Mysticism of Hamzah Fansuri, Kuala Lumpur:
University of Malaya Press, 1970, 313. Cf. Hasjmi, Kebudayaan Aceh
dalam Sejarah, Jakarta: Beuna, 1983, 195–7.
2 A. Hasjmi, Ruba’i Hamzah Fansuri, Karya Sastra Sufi Abad XVII,
Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1976, 10. A recent dis-
cussion on the date of Hamzah al-Fan§´r¥, based on archeological
evidence calculates that Hamzah al-Fan§´r¥ died in 1527 (see
C. Guillot & L. Kalus, ‘La stèle funéraire de Hamzah Fansuri’,
Archipel, 2000, 3–24). The argument was disputed, however, by
another article of Vladimir I. Braginsky, ‘On the Copy of Hamzah
Fansuri’s Epitaph Published by C. Guillot & L. Kalus’, Archipel, 2001,
20–33. In turn, this Braginsky’s comment led Guillot & Kalus to write
a counter-response, see Guillot & Kalus, ‘En réponse à Vladimir I.
Braginsky’, Archipel, 2001, 34–8).
3 For an account of the places visited by Hamzah, see J. Doorenbos, De
geschriften van Hamzah Pansoeri, Leiden: Batteljee & Terpstra, 1933.
Cf. H. Kraemer, Een Javaansche Primbon uit de zestiende eeuw,
Leiden: 1921, 23–30.
4 Some of his writings are romanised in Doorenbos, De Geschriften,
16–204; al-Attas, Mysticism of Hamzah, 233–353.
5 See for instance, C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-Din van Pasai:
Bijdrage tot de kennis der Sumatraansche mystiek, Leiden: Brill, 1945,
19–20, 234–5; C. Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, 2 vols, trans.
A.W.S. Sullivan, Leyden: Brill, 1906, II, 13 and n. 2.
6 Hasjmi, Ruba’i, 11–3; Hawash Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu
Tasawuf dan Tokoh-tokohnya di Nusantara, Surabaya: Al-Ikhlas,
1980, 41–2.
7 J. Lancaster, The Voyages of Sir James Lancaster to Brazil and the

East Indies, Sir William Foster (ed.), London: The Hakluyt Society,
1940, 96.
8 B.J.O. Schrieke, Indonesian Sociological Studies, The Hague &
Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1955, II, 243.
9 A. Hasjmi, Kebudayaan, 197–8.
10 Van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-Din, 18.
11 T. Iskandar, De Hikajat Atjeh, ‘s-Gravenhage: Smits, 1959, 137, 153,
168.
12 For lists of his works, see Van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-Din, 25–6;
Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf, 35–49; Hasjmi, Kebudayaan,
198.
13 For a detailed exposition and analysis of their thought and doctrine, see
al-Attas, Mysticism of Hamzah; Raniri and the Wujudiyyah of the
17th Century Acheh, Monograph of MBRAS no. 3, Singapore, 1966,
43–79; Van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-Din; Hasjmi, Ruba’i; Abdullah,
Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf, 35–49.
14 A.H. Johns, ‘Aspects of Sufi Thought in India and Indonesia in the first
half of the 17th Century’, JMBRAS, 28, I (1955), 72–7.
15 R.O. Winstedt, ‘Some Malay Mystics, Heretical and Orthodox’,
JMBRAS, 1 (1923), 312–8.
16 Johns, ‘Aspects’, 73–5.
17 Van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-D¥n, 329–39.
18 Siti Baroroh Baried, ‘Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf di Indonesia’, in
S. Sutrisno et al. (eds), Bahasa, Sastra, Budaya, Yogyakarta: Gadjah
Mada University Press, 1985, 2908.
19 Al-Attas, Raniri, esp. 15–42; Mysticism of Hamzah, esp. Chs II, III
and VI.
20 S.M.N. al-Attas, A Commentary on the îujjat al-êidd¥q of N´r al-D¥n
al-Rn¥r¥, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, 1986, xiii, 8–12.
21 S.M.N. al-Attas, Raniri, 12.
22 For a more complete account of the îadram¥ migration to the archi-
pelago, see L.W.C. van den Berg, Le Hadhramout et les colonies
arabes dans l’archipel indien, Batavia: Imprimerie de Gouvernement,
1886; U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds), The Hadrami Traders,
Scholars, and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean 1750–1960s, Leiden:
Brill, 1997.
23 al-Attas, A Commentary, 3.
24 Ibn Khalliqn, Wafayt al-A’yn wa Anb’ al-Zamn. Ed. Iúsn
‘Abbs, 8 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Thaqfah, 1968–72, IV, no. 616.
25 According to G.W.J. Drewes, if ( ) is read ‘al-îumayd’, then
al-Rn¥r¥ could belong to the B îumayd family of îaèramawt. See
his ‘De herkomst van Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, BKI, 111 (1955), 149. For
Ab´ Bakr al-îumayd¥’s biography, see Taq¥ al-D¥n al-Fs¥, ‘Aqd
al-Tham¥n f¥ Tr¥kh al-Balad al-Am¥n, 8 vols, Cairo: Maba’at

al-Sunnat al-Muúammadiyyah, 1385/1966, V, 160–1.
26 Ibn Khalliqn, Wafayt, IV, no. 558.
27 Al-Rn¥r¥, Bustn al-Sal¥n Bab II, 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 al-Sayf al-Qi’ wa al-îi§n al-Mni’ bi Madú al-Ras´l
al-Shfi’ by Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ al-Fs¥. See ‘Abd al-îayy b. ‘Abd
al-Kab¥r al-Kattn¥, Fahras al-Fahris, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Gharb
al-Islm¥, 1402/1982, I, 273.
29 ‘Abd al-îayy b. Fakhr al-D¥n al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir wa
Bahjat al-Masmi’ wa al-Naw½ir. 7 vols. Hayderabad: D’irat
al-Ma’rif al-’Uthmniyyah, 1931–59. V, 349.
30 P. Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, BKI, 107 (1951),
357.
31 Al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 350; Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over
Nuruddin’, 356; Twee Maleische geschriften van N´rudd¥n ar-Rn¥r¥,
Leiden: Brill, 1955, 5–6; Drewes, ‘De herkomst’, 149–50; For B
Shaybn’s biography, see Muúammad al-Am¥n Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar f¥ A’yn al-Qarn al-îd¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Cairo: 1868, III,
214–15.
32 J.S. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1971, 37–40. The Rif’iyyah ar¥qah, one of the most widespread
orders until the fifteenth century, was known for its transitory
annihilation 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 other
parts of the archipelago, see Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II,
249–57; Aboebakar Atjeh, Tarekat dalam Tasawwuf, Kota Bharu:
Pustaka Aman, 1979, 95–8. For dhikr and litanies of the Rif’iyyah in
the archipelago, see Leiden University, MSS Or. 7617, 7618, 1994.
34 See the chains of initiation of the ‘Aydar´siyyah in his Jawhir
al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m, MS Marsden Collection, Text no. 12151,
21v–158r, SOAS, University of London. A microfilm of this is in
Leiden University Cod. Or. A41. Another copy is in Jakarta, National
Library, Ml 795.
35 Al-Rn¥r¥’s silsilah of the Qdiriyyah is given in Saf¥nat al-Najh of
al-Maqassr¥, cited in Hamka, Dari Perbendaharaan Lama, Medan:
Madju, 1963, 40–1; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf Makasar: Riwayat
Hidup, Karya dan Ajarannya, Jakarta: Departemen P&R, 1987, 22–3.
36 ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. Shihb al-Saqqf, born and died in Tar¥m, was a
leading scholar in the îaèramawt region. He was well versed in
úad¥th, tafs¥r, fiqh and ta§awwuf. For his biography, see Al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, II, 359–60.
37 Ab´ Bakr b. Shihb, called by Al-Muúibb¥ the ‘great traditionist’

(al-muúaddith al-kab¥r), had studied in the Yemen and the îaramayn
before establishing his career in Tar¥m. Among his teachers in the
îaramayn were ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Ba§r¥, ‘Abd al-’Az¥z
al-Zamzam¥ and Aúmad b. Ibrh¥m b. ‘Aln. Among his prominent
disciples was ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-’Aydar´s. See Al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, I, 85–6. For his connections in úad¥th studies, see
al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II.
38 ‘Umar al-Ba§r¥, a faq¥h and §´f¥, was perhaps a major link connecting
B Shaybn and al-Rn¥r¥ with Egyptian úad¥th scholarship, for he was
a 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 of
whom were teachers and acquaintances of al-Sink¥l¥. For his biogra-
phy, see Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 210–12.
39 Aúmad b. ‘Aln al-Makk¥ was a noted Naqshbandiyyah shaykh in
Mecca. He received this order from Tj al-Hind¥. His works mainly
deal with the Naqshbandiyyah doctrine and with Tawú¥d such as
Sharú Rislat al-Shaykh Rasln f¥ Tawú¥d. For his biography and
works, see Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 157–8; Ism’¥l Bsh
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim
Basimevi, 1951, I, 165. Y´suf al-Maqassr¥, who was a student of
Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥, another disciple of Tj
al-Naqshband¥, apparently did not meet Aúmad b. ‘Aln while he was
studying in Mecca. But his name is found in Ism’¥l al-Khal¥d¥
al-Minangkabaw¥’s silsilah 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’, TBG 31 (1886), esp. 74. Cf. Ph.S. van
Ronkel, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts
Preserved in the Museum of the Batavia Society of Arts and Sciences,
Batavia & The Hague: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1913, 171–2, for a text of
the Naqshbandiyyah dhikr attributed to Aúmad b. ‘Aln.
It is important to note that Aúmad b. ‘Aln should not be confused
with his nephew, Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ b. ‘Aln al-êidd¥q¥ (996–1057/
1588–1647). Born in Mecca, Muúammad b. ‘Aln was a leading
muúaddith, who studied with, among others, Sayyid ‘Umar al-Ba§r¥,
mentioned above. (For his biography and works, see Al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 184–9; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II,
284–5; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VII, 187; Brockelmann, GAL, S. II, 533.
For his connections in úad¥th studies, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 451; II,
730, 811.) He seems to have been in close contact with Aúmad
al-Qushsh¥, who wrote a work entitled Ijbat al-Akh al-Fèil
al-Kmil bi îall al-Abwb al-Arba’ [sic] min Kitb al-Insn al-Kmil
to answer his questions. Muúammad b. ‘Aln, a prolific writer, was

quick to answer questions posed to him. Among his works was
al-Mawhib al-Rabbniyyah ‘an al-As’ilat al-Jw¥yyah, written as
answer to a question put forward by the Suln of Banten, Ab´
al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir (r. 1037–63/1626–51), concerning
al-Ghazl¥’s Na§¥úat al-Mul´k. See P. Voorhoeve, Handlist of Arabic
Manuscripts, The Hague: Leiden University Press, 1980, 130–1,
204–5. The questions of the Bantenese Suln were apparently brought
to Mecca by his delegation in 1038/1638. The al-As’ilat al-Jw¥yyah
is not listed in Arabic sources.
40 Al-Kha¥b al-Sharbayn¥ was born in Egypt and performed pilgrimages
24 times. During these frequent visits to the îaramayn he also taught
disciples, especially on the subject of Shfi’¥ fiqh. See his biography in
Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 378.
41 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 26–7.
42 Voorhoeve, Twee Maleische, 6.
43 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 440–2; Brockelmann, GAL, II,
418; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 600–1; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I,
340; II, 967, 1021.
44 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 235–6: EI2, Art. ‘Aydar´s’, 780–2.
45 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, 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, Sufis of Bijapur 1300–1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medi-
aeval India, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978; D.C.
Verma, History of Bijapur, New Delhi: 1974.
47 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 215.
48 For îusayn al-Aydar´s, see Van den Berg, Le Hadhramout, 162–3.
For further accounts on Hadhrami ‘ulam’ in Southeast Asia, see
Azyumardi Azra, ‘Hadhrami Scholars in the Malay-Indonesian
Diaspora’, Studia Islamika: Indonesian Journal for Islamic Studies, 2,
II (1995), 1–33; ‘A Hadhrami Scholar in Indonesia: Sayyid ‘Uthman’,
in U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds), Hadhrami Traders,
Scholars and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean, 1750s–1960s, Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1997, 249–63.
49 Al-Rn¥r¥, Bustn al-Sal¥n, Iskandar (ed.), 36. Cf. MS. Leiden
University, Cod. Or. 5443, f. 28–30.
50 Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin’, 357.
51 Daghregister 1641–2, 166.
52 Daghregister 1641–2, Ibid.
53 The Malay text was cited in Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over Nuruddin’, 353.
Cf. A. Daudy, Allah dan Manusia dalam Konsepsi Nuruddin ar-
Raniri, Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983, 45; H. Djajadiningrat, ‘De ceremonie
van het “poela batèë” op het graf van Soeltan Iskandar II van Atjeh
(1636–1641)’, TBG, 69 (1929), 109–11. For further accounts on the

controversy, see A. Vakily, ‘Sufism, Power Politics and Reform:
Al-Raniri’s Opposition to Hamzah al-Fansuri’s Teachings Reconsid-
ered’, Studia Islamika: Indonesian Journal for Islamic Studies, 4,
I (1997), 113–35.
54 A. Daudy, Syeikh Nuruddin ar-Raniri, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978,
17.
55 Takeshi Ito, ‘Why Did Nuruddin ar-Raniri leave Aceh in 1054 A.H.’,
BKI, 134 (1978), 489–91. Ito makes use of the Koloniaal Archief no.
1052, fols 667v–668r.
56 Al-Rn¥r¥, Fatú al-Mub¥n, MS in the Daudy collection, 4, cited in his
Allah, 47. A much longer passage is also cited in A. Hasjmi, Syi’ah
dan Ahlussunnah, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1983, 107–9.
57 See al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 350. For the complete list of al-
Rn¥r¥’s works, see H.N. van der Tuuk, ‘Kort verslag der Maleische
handschriften’, BKI, 13 (1866), esp. 462–6; P. Voorhoeve, ‘Lijst der
geschriften van Rn¥r¥’, BKI, 111 (1955), 152–61; Tudjimah (ed.),
Asrr al-Insn f¥ Ma’rifa al-R´ú wa ‘l-Raúmn, Bandung: al-Ma’arif,
1961, 9–22; Daudi, Allah, 47–58. For a classification of his works
according to the branches of Islamic discipline, see Siti Chamamah
Soeratno et al., Memahami Karya-karya Nuruddin Arraniri, Jakarta:
Departemen P&K, 1982, 16–48.
58 Al-îasan¥, Nuzhat al-Khawir, V, 349.
59 For further discussion on al-Rn¥r¥’s teachings on Sufism, see for
instance, al-Attas, Raniri; A Commentary; Daudi, Allah; Siti
Chamamah Soeratno, Memahami Karya-karya. For a comparison of
his teachings with those of îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ and Sham al-D¥n, see
Van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-Din; ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri als bestrijder
der Wugudiya’, BKI, 104 (1948), 337–411; al-Attas; Mysticism of
Hamzah.
60 Eaton, Sufis of Bijapur, 127–9. Cf. Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II,
235–6.
61 For a detailed discussion on the êir al-Mustaq¥m, see R.S.
Tjokrowinoto, Tindjauan Kitab êir’l-Mustaq¥m (Karangan N´r
ad-D¥n Ar-Rn¥r¥), Unpubl. MA thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Yogyakarta: 1964.
62 For al-Rn¥r¥’s sources of §´f¥ doctrine, see Tudjimah, Asrr al-Insn,
244–87; al-Attas, A Commentary, 15–24; Daudy, Allah, 226, 247.
63 Tjokrowinoto, Tindjauan, 124; Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu
Tasawuf, 29.
64 Al-Rn¥r¥, Tibyn f¥ Ma’rifat al-Adyn, in Voorhoeve, Twee Malei-
sche, 5.
65 Al-Rn¥r¥, Tibyn, in Ibid; Bustn al Sal¥n, Iskandar (ed.), 40–1.
66 Al-Rn¥r¥, al-Fatú al-Mub¥n, MS in the Daudy collection fols 3–4,
cited in his Allah, 41; also in the Hasjmi collection, cited in his Syi’ah
dan Ahlussunnah, 109.
67 Daudy, Allah, 44.
68 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘N´r al-D¥n al-Rn¥r¥’s Charge of Heresy against
îamzah and Shamsudd¥n from an International Point of View’, in
C.D. Grijns & S.O. Robson (eds), Cultural Contact and Textual Inter-
pretation, Dordrecht: Foris, 1986, 54–9. For a comprehensive account
of 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), Islamic
Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and
Polemics, 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 the
Malay-Indonesian archipelago. In contrast, the term ‘land below the
wind’ is employed to designate the whole archipelago. See H. Clifford
& F.A. Swettenham, A Dictionary of the Malay Language, I, Taiping:
1894, 63.
71 MS Leiden University Cod. Or. 2467 (5660), fols 12–21. In the
colophon of the work, ‘Abd Allh al-Jw¥ the copyist prays to God to
give His blessing to Ibrh¥m ibn îasan al-Kurd¥ al-K´rn¥ al-Shahrn¥
al-Sharaz´r¥ al-Madan¥. See folio 12. Cf. Voorhoeve, ‘Van en over
Nuruddin’, 365–8.
72 Hamka, Dari Perbendaharaan, 40–1; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf,
22–3.
73 See colophon of the work printed in Tudjimah (ed.), Asrr al-Insn, 6.
74 See Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥, Tuúfat al-Mursalah il al-Nab¥, Arabic
and Javanese texts, English trans. A.H. Johns, Canberra: The
Australian National University, 1965.
75 For detailed discussion, see Al-Attas, Rn¥r¥; A Commentary;
Tudjimah (ed.), Asrr al-Insn; Daudy; Allah.
76 Al-Attas, A Commentary, 8, 46.
77 There are several editions of this work now available. See al-Rn¥r¥,
êir al-Mustaq¥m, Shaykh Aúmad b. Muúammad Zayn Mu§af
al-Fatn¥ (ed.), Singapore: n.d.; another edition printed in the margin
of Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥’s Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n, Singapore:
Sulayman Mar’ie, n.d. For the spread and use of the êir
al-Mustaq¥m, see Mohd Nor Bin Ngah, Kitab Jawi: Islamic Thought
of the Malay Muslim Scholars, Singapore: ISEAS, 1983; Muhd
Shaghir Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu Fiqh, esp. 29–31; Martin van
Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Fiqh di Pesantren Indonesia dan Malaysia’,
Pesantren, 6, I (1989), 37; ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script
used in the Pesantren Milieu’, BKI, 146 (1990), 249–50.
78 See Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Siti Hawa Saleh (ed.), Kuala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1970, Ch. IV, esp. 115.
79 Al-Attas, A Commentary, 11.
80 Al-Rn¥r¥, Bustn al-Sal¥n, Iskandar (ed.), 38–40.
81 Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, I, 109–10.
82 Al-Attas, A Commentary, 46–7. Cf. S.M.N. al-Attas, The Oldest known
Malay Manuscript: A 16th Century Malay Translation of the ‘Aq’id
of al–Nasaf¥, 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, Twee Maleische. A romanised part
of the work is in K. Steenbrink, Kitab Suci atau Kertas Toilet:
Nuruddin Ar-Raniri dan Agama Kristen, Yogyakarta: IAIN Sunan
Kalijaga Press, 1988.
84 See for instance, Asrr al-Insn, Tudjimah (ed.), 17582; Bustn
al-Sal¥n, MS Raffles no. 8, Royal Asiatic Society, esp. Book II;
Akhbr Akh¥rah f¥ Aúwl al-Qiymah, esp. Ch. IV. Cf. Edwar
Djamaris, ‘Nuruddin ar-Raniri Khabar Akhirat dalam Hal Kiamat’, in
Sutrisno et al. (eds), 131–46.
85 Voorhoeve, Twee Maleische; Ph.S. van Ronkel, ‘Raniri’s Maleische
geschrift: Exposé der religies’, BKI, 102 (1943), 461–80; K. Steen-
brink, Kitab Suci atau Kertas Toilet, ‘Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the
Writings of N´r al-D¥n al-Rn¥r¥’, ICMR, I, no. 2 (1990), 192–207.
86 Al-Attas, A Commentary, 7.
87 A. Teeuw, ‘Pertumbuhan Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Dunia’, in
Harimurti Kridalaksana (ed.), Masa Lampau Bahasa Indonesia:
Sebuah Bunga Rampai, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1991, 125–6.
4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MALAY-INDONESIAN

NETWORKS II
1 D.A. Rinkes, Abdoerraoef van Singkel: Bijdrage tot de kennis van de
mystiek op Sumatra en Java, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909, 25–6.
2 See for instance, T. Iskandar, ‘Abdurrauf Singkel Tokoh Syatariyah
(Abad ke-17)’, in M.D. Mohamad (ed.), Tokoh-tokoh Sastera Melayu
Klasik, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1987, 72–3;
P. Riddell, Transferring a Tradition: ‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Singkil¥’s
Rendering into Malay of the Jallayn Commentary, Monograph
no. 31, Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, Univer-
sity of California at Berkeley, 1990, 4–5; Salman Harun, ‘Hakekat
Tafsir Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d Karya Syekh Abdurrauf Singkel’,
unpubl. doctoral diss., Institut Agama Islam Negeri, Jakarta, 1988,
12–13; Oman Fathurahman, Tanbih al-Masyi, Menyoal Wahdatul
Wujud: Kasus Abdurrauf Singkel di Aceh Abad 17, Bandung: Mizan &
EFEO, 1999.
3 A. Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf Syiah Kuala, Ulama Negarawan yang

Bijaksana’, in Universitas Syiah Kuala Menjelang 20 Tahun, Medan:
Waspada, 1980, 370.
4 See Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 19; P. Voorhoeve, Bayn
Tajall¥: Bahan-bahan untuk Mengadakan Penyelidikan lebih
Mendalam tentang Abdurra-uf Singkel, trans. Aboe Bakar, Banda
Aceh: PDIA, 1980, 3. The original article is in Dutch, ‘Bayn Tadjall¥:
Gegevens voor een nadere studie over Abdurrauf van Singkel’, TBG,
85 (1952), also reprinted in Madjallah untuk Ilmu Bahasa, Ilmu Bumi
dan Kebudayaan Indonesia, 85, IV (1955–7), 87–117.
5 Peunoh Daly, ‘Naskah Mir’atut Thullab Karya Abdur-Rauf Singkel’,
in Agama, Budaya dan Masyarakat, 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’, Archipel, 37 (1989), 53–81;
L. Nurhakim, ‘La Ville de Barus: Etude archéologique préliminaire’,
Archipel, 37 (1989), 4352; Cf. S.D. Goeitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish
Traders, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973, 228–9.
7 Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 369.
8 Drakard, ‘History of Barus’, 54–5; Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 3.
9 Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 370–1. Recent discussion on the date of
Hamzah al-Fan§´r¥, see chapter 3, note 2 above.
10 Cf. Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 19–20; Voorhoeve, Bayn
Tajall¥, 3.
11 For a list of MSS of this work and its location, see Voorhoeve, Bayn
Tajall¥, 42–3. For our purposes, we use MS Jakarta National Library,
M1. 107 B and MS Leiden University, Cod. Or. 1933.
12 See Rinkes, Abdoerraoef, 25.
13 Al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Umdat, 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-Raúmn b. ‘Al¥ al-Dayba’, al-Faèl al-Maz¥’ ‘al
Bughyat al-Mustaf¥d f¥ Mad¥nah Zab¥d, Y´suf Shalhud (ed.), Sana’a:
Markaz al-Dirsat wa al-Buú´th al-Yaman¥, 1983; Ism’¥l b. ‘Al¥
al-Akwa’, Al-Madris al-Islmiyyah f¥ al-Yaman, Beirut: Mu’assasat
al-Rislah, 1406/1986.
15 According to Al-Muúibb¥, Ibrh¥m b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn was the
grandfather 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. See
Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 39; Cf. al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 415.
16 Al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Umdat, MS Ml. 107, fol. 112, 113.
17 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 22.
18 For Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh b. Ja’mn’s biography and works, see
Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 21–2; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat
al-’rif¥n, I, 33; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 131, for his further connections
in the networks.
19 Al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Umdat, M1. 107, fol. 112.

20 For Isúq b. Ja’mn’s biography and works, see Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar, I, 394–6, al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 202; For his
further connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 415.
2l For ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Kh§§’ biography, see Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at
al-Athar, I, 347. It is important to note that ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Kh§§
was also a teacher of îasan al-’Ajami, Zayn al-’bid¥n and ‘Al¥
al-$abar¥. See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 270; II, 554, 811, 992.
22 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 281; ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad
al-Dayba’ [al-Shaybn¥], a muúaddith and reciter of the Qur’n. For
al-Dayba’, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 374, 415, 587, 714.
23 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 283.
24 Ibid, III, 334–6
25 Ibid, I, 252–3.
27 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 587.
29 For ‘Al¥ al-$abar¥, see chapter 1, note 104 and accounts attached to it.
30 ‘Abd Allh B Qash¥r, a muúaddith and poet, was a friend of
Al-Muúibb¥. Among his teachers were ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Raú¥m
al-Ba§r¥, ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥ and Aúmad b. ‘Aln. He has
numerous students from Mecca, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. See Al-
Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 42–4; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat
al-‘rif¥n, I, 478; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 194, 252; II, 583.
3l See the accounts called ‘Pasal pada Menyatakan Silsilah Tuan Syekh
Abdul Ra’uf tatkala Menuntut Ilmu kepada Syekh Abdul Qusyasyi
[sic]’, Ph. S. van Ronkel (ed.), ‘Het Heiligdom te Oelakan’, TBG, 64
(1914), esp. 309–12. Henceforth, Silsilah Abdul Rauf.
33 A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Direc-
tions’, Indonesia, 19 (1975), 48–54; ‘Islam in Southeast Asia:
Problems of Perspective’, in C.D. Cowan & O.W. Wolters (eds),
Southeast Asian History and Historiography: Essays Presented to
D.G.E. Hall, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976, esp. 316–9.
34 See the complete Malay text printed in Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 18.
This text of al-K´rn¥’s is not listed in various bibliographies of his
works. In the Malay-Indonesian world it is known through its trans-
lation into the Jw¥ language by Katib Seri Raja. The work begins with
passages that are said to have been taken from Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥’s
Sharú bi Sharú îl al-Mawt wa al-Qubr, giving a detailed description
of events on the eve of one’s death.
36 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I; 25–8; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 393;
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-‘rif¥n, I, 33; For his further connections in
the networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 169, 183, 211, 212, 386; II,
576, 587, 767, 808.
37 Al-Murd¥, Silk al-Durar, III, 229–30.

38 See Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 10, 18-9. I was unable to
inspect these silsilahs myself.
39 See Rinkes, Abdoerraoef, 25; Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II,
18; Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 2; Iskandar, ‘Abdurrauf’, 72–3; Johns,
‘Reflections’, 47.
40 Hasjmi, ‘Sjekh Abdurrauf’, 375; Cf. K.F.H. van Langen, ‘Susunan
Pemerintahan Aceh semasa Kesultanan’, trans. Aboe Bakar, Banda
Aceh: PDIA, 1986, 42–4, 54–9. The original article in Dutch is ‘De
inrichting van het Atjehsche staatsbestuur onder het Sultanaat’, BKI,
37 (1888), 382–471.
41 R.H. Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan Aceh, trans. Teuku Hamid, Banda
Aceh: Dep. P&K, 1982/3, 27. This is a translation of ‘Critisch
overzicht van de in Maleische werken vervatte gegevens over de
Geschiedenis van het Soeltanaat van Atjeh’, BKI, 65 (1911), 135–265.
42 For complete account of the delegation, see C. Snouck Hurgronje, ‘Een
Mekkaansch gezantschap naar Atjeh in 1683’, BKI, 37 (1888), 545–54;
Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan, 58–9.
43 Aúmad Daúln, Khul§at al-Kalm f¥ Bayn Umar’ al-Balad
al-îarm, Cairo: n.p., 1305/1888, 104–5. Snouck Hurgronje points
out that he based his accounts on Daúln’s work. The information was
also copied by Aúmad al-Sib’¥, Tr¥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¥, Mir’t al-$ullb, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 445,
cited in Harun, ‘Hakekat Tafsir’, 27.
46 Djajadiningrat, Kesultanan, 60. For further accounts of the Jaml al-Layl
Dynasty, see D. Crecelius & E.A. Beardow, ‘A Reputed Acehnese
Sarakata of the Jaml al-Lail Dynasty’, JMBRAS, 52, 2 (1979), 51–66.
47 For a complete list of his works, see Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 35–53;
Cf. Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 377–8.
48 Al-Sink¥l¥, Mir’t al-$ullb, printed in part in S. Keijzer, ‘De spiegel
voor leergierige wetgeleerden’, BKI, 11 (1864), 221; Voorhoeve,
Bayn Tajall¥, 4.
49 For the locations of this work, see Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 36–7.
50 See al-Sink¥l¥, Mir’t al-$ullb, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 445,
1; cf. Zakariyy al-An§r¥, Fatú al-Wahhb bi Sharú Manhaj
al-$ullb, Beirut: Dr al-Ma’rifah, 1978(?).
51 See Daly, ‘Naskah Miratut Thullab’, 137.
52 See M.B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-East Asia, Singapore: Oxford
University Press, 1984, 20, 32, 41 n. 98.
53 See ‘Abd al-Ra’´f b. ‘Al¥ al-Fan§´r¥, Kitb al-Far’id, Singapore/
Jeddah: îaramayn, n.d. Another edition is published in one volume
with Ism’¥l al-Minangkabaw¥’s Kifyat al-Ghulm, Penang: n.d.
54 For further discussion on the growth of the Qur’nic commentary trad-

ition in the archipelago, see P. Riddell, ‘Earliest Quranic Exegetical
Activity in the Malay-Speaking States’, Archipel, 38 (1989), 107–24;
A.H. Johns, ‘Quranic Exegesis in the Malay World: In Search of a
Profile’, in A. Rippin (ed.), Approaches to the History of the Interpret-
ation of the Qur’n, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 257–87; ‘Islam in
the Malay World: An Exploratory Survey with Some Reference to
Quranic Exegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), Islam in Asia:
Volume II, Southeast and East Asia, Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1984, 115–61; R.M. Feener, ‘Notes towards the History of Qur’anic
Exegesis in Southeast Asia’, Studia Islamika: Indonesian Journal for
Islamic Studies, 5, III (1998), 47–76.
55 See Hasjmi, ‘Syekh Abdurrauf’, 378.
56 Riddell, Transferring, 20–5.
57 For complete accounts of various editions of the Tarjumn al-
Mustaf¥d, see Riddell, Transferring, 15-33; Harun, ‘Hakekat Tafsir’,
38–42.
58 Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 17 n. 6.
59 Rinkes, Abdoerraoef, 31–2.
60 See Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 38; ‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥’, in E1, I, 88.
61 His full name was ‘Al’ al-D¥n b. Muúammad b. Ibrh¥m al-Baghdd¥
al-Khzin. For an edition of his commentary, see Tafs¥r al-Khzin,
Cairo: Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥, 1375/1955. The original title of the
commentary is Lubb al-Ta’w¥l f¥ Ma’n¥ al-Tanz¥l.
62 Johns, ‘Quranic Exegesis’, 264.
63 Johns, Ibid, 266.
64 Ibid.
65 Al-Sink¥l¥, Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 341-
A; Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 40; Iskandar, Kesultanan, 59.
66 For an outline of the Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah, see Rinkes, Abdoerraoef,
33–6.
67 Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 40.
68 Printed in one volume with ‘Abd Allh b. ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Fatn¥,
Muhimmah pada îad¥th Nabi, Penang: Sulaymn Press, 1369/1949.
Cf. Mohd Nor bin Ngah, Kitab Jawi: Islamic Thought of the Malay
Muslim Scholars, Singapore: ISEAS, 1982, esp. 27–8, 35, 46.
69 See M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script used in
the Pesantren Milieu’, BKI, 146 (1990), 255.
70 For a complete list, see Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, esp. 39–40, 42–52.
71 A.H. Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f by ‘Abd al-Ra’´f of Singkel’, JRAS, 1,
2 (1955), 55. The same argument is presented by al-Sink¥l¥ in
Shariyyah, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 336D, pp 65–71.
72 Ibid, 55.
73 Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 44; Rinkes, Abdoerraoef, 39.
74 The verses read: Kunn úur´fan ‘liytin lam nuqal//Muta’alliqtin f¥

dhur a’l al-qulal//An anta f¥hi wa naúnu anta wa anta h´//Wa
al-kullu f¥ h´ h´, fas’al ‘amman wa§al. (We lofty letters, (yet) unuttered//
held latent in the highest peaks of the hills//I am you in Him and we are
you, and you are He//and all is He in Him ask those who have attained.)
Cited in Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f’, 61, 69.
75 A. Marie Schimmel similarly praises the way al-Sink¥l¥ interprets the
verses. See Schimmel, ‘The Primordial Dot: Some Thoughts about
Sufi Letter Mysticism’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI),
9 (1987), 354.
76 Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f’, 56.
77 Ibid.
78 See al-Sink¥l¥, Shariyyah, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 336D,
p. 74; Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f’, 154–5.
79 See Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥ bi Sharú al Tuúfat al-Mursalah
il R´ú al-Nab¥, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Ta§awwuf
2578, fols 14, 20. Cf. al-Sink¥l¥, Shariyyah, MS Jakarta National
Library, Ml 336D, 74.
80 Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f’, 150, 157. Cf. al-K´rn¥, Itúf al-Dhak¥, fols
6, 9, 11, 15.
81 For a complete description of al-Sink¥l¥’s method of dhikr, see
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Umdat al-Muútj¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml
375, pp. 35–40; Shariyyah, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml
336D, p. 74; Rinkes, Abdoerrraoef, 59–93. Cf. Aúmad al-Qushsh¥,
al-Sim al-Maj¥d f¥ Sha’n al-Bay’ah wa al-Dhikr wa Talq¥nih wa
Salsil Ahl al-Tawú¥d, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-
Ni½miyyah, 1327/1909, esp. 15–21, 30–1; cf. Fathurahman, Tanbih
al-Masyi, 36–192.
82 See Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 47–8. Cf. al-Qushsh¥, al-Sim
al-Maj¥d, 11–15, 33–6.
83 Johns, ‘Daû’ik al-îur´f’, 143, 153–4. The Arabic text of the úad¥th
runs as follows: ‘L yarm¥ rajulun rajulan bi al-fus´qi wa l yarm¥hi bi
al-kufri ill irtadda alayhi in lam yakun §úibuhu kadhlik.’ The úad¥th
is narrated by al-Bukhr¥. See al-Bukhr¥, êaú¥ú al-Bukhr¥, Cairo:
al-Sha’b, n.d., 44.
84 Johns, ‘Reflections’, 53.
85 See for instance, Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 19.
86 See R. LeRoy Archer, ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’,
JMBRAS, 15, II (1937), 90, 93.
87 The full title of the work is Tanb¥h al-Msh¥ al-Mans´b il $ar¥q al-
Qushsh¥. See Voorhoeve, Bayn Tajall¥, 35.
88 See J.S. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders, esp. 97–8.
89 See Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, II, 10, 18–20, 216; Rinkes, Ab-
doerraoef, 57, 95; S.N. al-Attas, Some Aspects of Sufism as Understood
and Practised among the Malays, Singapore: Malaysian Sociological

Research Institute, 1963, 28–9.
90 ‘Tuanku’ is one of the highest title of ‘ulam’ in West Sumatra. This
title as such cannot be inherited. See Hamka, Ajahku: Riwajat Hidup
Dr. H. Abd Karim Amrullah dan Perdjuangan Kaum Agama di
Sumatra, Jakarta: Djajamurni, 1967, 24 n. 1.
91 See Silsilah Abdul Ra’uf, Van Ronkel (ed.), 312–16; J.J. de Hollander
(ed.), Verhaal van den aanvang der Padri-onlusten op Sumatra door
Sjech Djilal Eddin, henceforth, îikyat Jall al-D¥n, Leiden: Brill,
1857, 5–6. For a fuller biography of Burhn al-D¥n, see Tamar Djaja,
‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’, in his Pusaka Indonesia: Riwajat
Hidup Orang-orang Besar Tanah Air, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965,
282-90; Hamka, Antara Fakta dan Khayal Tuanku Rao, Jakarta: Bulan
Bintang, 1974, 110–2, 128–57.
92 îikyat Jall al-D¥n, 6; Silsilah Abdul Ra’uf, 315. For a complete
account of the surau, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Rise and Decline of
the Minangkabau Surau: A Traditional Islamic Educational Institution
in West Sumatra during the Dutch Colonial Government’, unpubl. MA
thesis, Columbia University, 1988.
93 îikyat Jall al-D¥n, 6–9.
94 See Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Surau and the Early Reform Movements in
Minangkabau’, Mizan, 3, II (1990), 64–85.
95 For complete accounts of ‘Abd al-Muúy¥’s biography and teachings,
see Rinkes, Abdoerraoef, 96–6; ‘De Maqm van Sjech Abdoelmoehji’,
TBG, 52 (1910), 556–89; Mohammad Kosasi, ‘Pamidjahan en zijn
Heiligdom’, Djawa, 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.), Warisan Intelektual Islam Indonesia,
Bandung: Mizan/LSAF, 1987, 105-29; A.W. Mu thi, ‘Tarekat Syat-
tariyah, dari Gujarat sampai Caruban’, Pesantren, 4, III (1987), 7581.
96 H.W.M.S. Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu Fiqh dan Tokoh tokohnya di
Asia Tenggara I, Solo: Ramadhani, 1985, 16, 46–9.
97 See Riddell, Transferring, 42–3.
98 A. Hasjmi, ‘Pendidikan Islam dalam Sejarah’, Sinar Darussalam, 63
(1975), 20–1. Cf. Hamka, Antara Fakta, 179–80.
99 Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese II, 17, 20; Riddell, Transferring, 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 Antropologi
Agama’, unpubl. doctoral diss., Ujung Pandang: Universitas Hasanud-
din, 1990; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf Makasar: Riwayat Hidup,
Karya dan Ajarannya, Jakarta: Dep. P&K, 1987; E.P.J. von Kleist,
‘Ein indonesischer Muslim des 17. Jahrhunderts in Südafrika: Zwei
Sendschreiben des Scheichs Yusuf Makassar’, unpubl. MA thesis,
Kapstadt: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, 1986; Suleman Essop Dangor,
Shaykh Yusuf, Durban: Kat Bros, 1982; H.A. Massiara, Syekh Yusuf
Tuanta Salamaka dari Gowa, Jakarta: Yayasan Lakipadada, 1983; I.D.
du Plessis, Sjeg Joesoep, Kaapstad: Nasionale Boekhandel, 1970;
Nabilah Lubis, Syekh Yusuf al-Taj al-Makasari: Menyingkap Intisari
Segala Rahasia, Bandung: Mizan, EFEO & FS UI, 1996; M.R.
Feener, ‘Syaikh Yusuf and the Appreciation of Muslim Saints in
Modern Indonesia’, Journal for Islamic Studies, 18/19 (1999), 112–31.
2 The work, entitled Lontara Bilang, is the oldest historiography of the
Kingdoms of Gowa and Tallo in South Sulawesi. It is written in
Macassarese according to the hijrah calendar, and has generally been
considered reliable by historians of the region. The Annals is edited
and translated into Dutch by A. Ligtvoet, ‘Transcriptie van het
dagboek der vorsten van Gowa en Tello’, BKI, 28 (1880), 1259 (hence-
forth, Dagboek). Reference to al-Maqassr¥’s date of birth is given on
p. 90. For discussion on the Annals, see J. Noorduyn, ‘Origins of South
Celebes Historical Writings’, in Soedjatmoko et al. (eds), An Intro-
duction to Indonesian Historiography, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1965, 13755; A.A. Cense, “Old Buginese and Macassarese
Diaries”, BKI, 122 (1966), 416–28.
3 Masuknya Islam di Sulawesi Selatan, Ujung Pandang: Balai Penelitian
Lektur, 1985–6, 43. Cf. Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 104–5.
4 For a history of Islamisation of the region, see J. Noorduyn, ‘De
Islamisering van Makassar’, BKI, 112 (1956), 247–66; C. Pelras,
‘Religion, Tradition and the Dynamics of Islamisation in South
Sulawesi’, Archipel, 29 (1985), 107–35; Mattulada, ‘Islam di Sulawesi
Selatan’, in Taufik Abdullah (ed.), Agama dan Perubahan Sosial,
Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983, 209–321; Bugis-Makassar dalam Peta
Islamisasi Indonesia, Ujung Pandang: IAIN Alauddin, 1982.
5 Mattulada, ‘Islam’, 236, 239–40; Pelras, “Religion”, 121–2.
6 Dagboek, 105.
7 Ibid, 105.
8 See discussion in chapter 3 on al-Rn¥r¥.
9 Hawash Abdullah, Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawwuf dan Tokoh-
tokohnya di Nusantara, Surabaya: Al-Ikhlas, 1980, 62–5; Hamka,
‘Sjeich Jusuf Tadju’l Chalwati (Tuanta Salamaka), 1626–1699’, in
Perbendaharaan Lama, Medan: Madju, 1963, 40.
10 Al-Maqassr¥, Saf¥nat al-Najh, cited in Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 40–1.
Cf. Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 22–3.
11 Al-Attas, Rn¥r¥, 13. I was unable to substantiate this account, as
al-Attas gives no reference to it.
12 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, Jakarta National Library, MS

A 101, 25.
13 J.O. Voll, ‘Linking Groups in the Networks of Eighteenth Century
Revivalist Scholars: The Mizjaji Family in Yemen’, in N. Levtzion &
J.O. Voll (eds), Eighteenth Century Renewal and Reform in Islam,
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1987, 72.
14 Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, II, 283.
15 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 25; Saf¥nat
al-Najh, cited in Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 23.
16 See al-Maqassr¥, Saf¥nat al-Najh, cited in Tudjimah et al., Syekh
Yusuf, 23; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 40.
17 See Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, III, 193.
18 Ibid, III, 192–3.
19 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 25; Saf¥nat
al-Najh, cited in Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 23.
20 See MSS Yahuda 2393 and 2395 in R. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic
Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection Princeton
University Library, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977,
205. Al-K´rn¥’s commentary is not mentioned in al-Baghdd¥’s
Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, nor in Brockelmann’s GAL.
21 See N. Heer, The Precious Pearl: Al-Jm¥’s al-Durrah al-Fkhirah
together with his Glosses and the Commentary of ‘Abd al-Ghaf´r
al-Lr¥, Albany: State University of New York Press (1979), 13–15.
22 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 25.
23 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 829.
24 See al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 25; Abdullah,
Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawwuf, 60.
25 For a complete account of Muúammad M¥rz, see Al-Muúibb¥,
Khul§at al-Athar, IV, 202–3.
26 For further details of Ayy´b al-Khalwat¥’s biography and works, see
Mu§af Fatú Allh al-îawaw¥, Faw’id al-Irtiúl wa Nata’ij al-Safar,
3 vols, Cairo, MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Tr¥kh 1093, II, fols
87–8; Al-Muúibb¥, Khul§at al-Athar, I, 428–33. For his connection in
the networks, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 133, 252, 497, 505; II, 558.
27 See al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 25; Saf¥nat al-
Najh, cited in Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 23; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’,
40.
28 Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 19.
29 See Djirong Basang (trans.), Riwayat Syekh Yusuf dan Kisah Makku-
taknang Daeng Mannuntungi, 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, Shaykh Yusuf, 2–3; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 111.
32 Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 111; Martin van Bruinessen, ‘The Origins and
Development of the Naqshbandi Order in Indonesia’, Der Islam, 67

(1990), 157.
33 ‘Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41–2.
34 A.M. Amansyah, ‘Tentang Lontara Syekh Yusuf Tajul Halawatiyah’,
unpubl. typescript, Ujung Pandang: Perpustakaan Universitas
Hasanuddin, 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, KITLV
Or. 545–218, pp 56–7.
39 Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 3.
40 See Mattulada, ‘Islam’, 243–4; Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 41–2; Pelras,
‘Religion’, 123–4.
41 See Daghregister 1679, 429; Daghregister 1680, 705; cf. A.A. Cense,
‘De verering van Sjaich Jusuf in Zuid-Celebes’, in Bingkisan Budi,
Leiden: Sijhoff, 1950, 51.
42 Labbakang, ‘Hikajat’, 65; Dagboek, 154; Massiara, Syekh Yusuf, 62;
Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 4; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 113.
43 B.H.M. Vlekke, Nusantara: A History of Indonesia, The Hague &
Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1959, 177; M.C. Ricklefs, A History of Modern
Indonesia, London: Macmillan, 1990, 175.
44 See Daghregister 1679, 429.
45 Daghregister 1666–1667, 140, 289, 292; Daghregister 1670–1671,
264, 273; Daghregister 1674, 12, 127, 157, 196, 271.
46 Daghregister 1680, 606.
47 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep Makasar’, Djawa, 6 (1926), 84–5;
B.J.O. Schrieke, Indonesian Sociological Studies, 2 vols, The Hague &
Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1957, II, 242.
48 Daghregister 1680, 97, 269, 705.
49 Labbakang, ‘Hikajat’, 56–7; Basang (trans.), Riwayat Syekh Yusuf,
158–60; B.F. Matthes, ‘Boegineese en Makassaarsche Legenden’,
BKI, 34 (1885), 449–52.
50 See F. de Haan, Priangan: De Preanger-regentschappen onder het
Nederlandsch bestuur tot 1811, Batavia & ‘s-Gravenhage, Kolff &
Nijhoff, 1912, III, 282; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 85.
51 For further accounts of the meeting between al-Maqassr¥ and ‘Abd
al-Muúy¥, 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, Musuh Besar
Kompeni Belanda: Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Jakarta: Nusalarang, 1967,
35–6.
53 Ibid, 35–6.
54 F.W. Stapel, Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Indië, 5 vols, Amster-

dam: Joost van den Vondel, 1939, II, 414.
55 Ibid; Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 15.
56 For detailed accounts of Sultan Ageng’s conduct of the war, see De
Haan, Priangan, III, 238–78; Sasmita, Musuh Besar Kompeni, 38–46.
57 De Haan, Priangan, III, 282; Sasmita, Musuh Besar Kompeni, 46–7.
58 De Haan, Priangan, III, 282–3; Dagboek, 154; Drewes, ‘Sjech
Joesoep’, 86. Cf. Sasmita, Musuh Besar Kompeni, 48–9.
59 Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 85.
60 De Haan, Priangan, III, 283; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’, 86.
61 See for instance, A.L. Ab’ Bakar (ed.), Melayu Srilanka, Kuala
Lumpur: Gapena, 1990; B.A. Hussainmiya, Orang Rejimen: The
Malays of the Ceylon Rifle Regiment, Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 1990; ‘A Brief Historical Note on the Malay Migration to
Sri Lanka’, Jebat, 14 (1986), 65–92.
62 Of about 29 works attributed to al-Maqassr¥, no fewer than eight were
written in Srilanka: al-Barakat al-Saylniyyah, al-Nafaút al-
Saylniyyah, al-Manhat al-Saylniyyah f¥ al-Manhat al-Raúmniyyah,
Kayfiyt al-Munghi f¥ al-Ithbt bi al-îad¥th al-Quds¥, îabl al-Qar¥d li
Sa’dat al-Mur¥d, Saf¥nat al-Najh, Malib al-Slik¥n, and Rislat al-
Ghayt al-Ikhti§r wa al-Nihyat al-Inti½r. See the collection of
al-Maqassr¥’s works in Jakarta National Library, MS A No. 101 and MS
A 108; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 20–26; Voorhoeve, Handlist of
Arabic Manuscripts, 539; Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 155–60.
63 According to Hussainmiya, a number of Malay families in Srilanka at
the present time still claim that they are descendants of prominent
Malay-Indonesian rulers and princes who live as exiles on the island.
Among them is Mas Ghaise Weerabangsa, who possesses a manuscript
that states that his family descended from al-Maqassr¥. See Hussain-
miya, Orang Rejimen, 80, 86 n. 15.
64 Hussainmiya, Orang Rejimen, 38–8; T.J.P. Ahtmat J.P., ‘Kedatangan
Orang Melayu ke Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), Melayu Srilanka,
13–15.
65 Al-Maqassr¥, Saf¥nat al-Najh, cited in Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 45.
66 Cf. his introductory notes to his works, written in Srilanka, in
Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 20, 22, 23–5, 26.
67 Hamka, ‘Sjech Jusuf’, 46–7; Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf, 20. I was
unable to substantiate this account from Indian and Dutch sources.
68 See al-Maqassr¥, Risalt al-Ghayt, summarised in Tudjimah et al.,
Syekh Yusuf, 26, 107–10.
69 Among them were the Bustn al-Sal¥n, êir al-Mustaq¥m of
al-Rn¥r¥, Sakart al-Mawt and Kitb al-Far’id of al-Sinkil¥. Rashid
Ahmad also mentions that al-Maqassr¥’s works are found in Srilanka,
but he gives no titles. There is also Hidyat al-Slik¥n of ‘Abd al-
êamad al-Palimbn¥, who is discussed in chapter 6. See Hussainmiya,

Orang Rejimen, esp. 138–40; Rashid Ahmad, ‘Gapena Pelopori Usaha
Menjalin Hubungan yang Terputus’, 26; A.S. Yahya, ‘Budaya Bertulis
Melayu Srilanka’, 67–72; Arifin Said, ‘Manuskrip Melayu di
Srilanka’, 73–6; Abu Hassan Sham, ‘Malay Manuscripts and
Srilanka’, 153–60. All the last four articles are in Abu Bakar (ed.),
Melayu Srilanka.
70 The fact that there were attempts among Malay-Indonesian exiles to
collaborate with their fellow Muslims in the archipelago in struggles
against the Dutch has been shown by Hussainmiya for the period of the
eighteenth century. There is reason to believe that such connections
also existed in the period of al-Maqassr¥. See Hussainmiya, Orang
Rejimen, 42–3.
71 J.S. Mayson, The Malays of Capetown, Manchester: J. Galt & Co,
1861, 11; I.D. du Plessis, The Cape Malays, Johannesburg: South
African Institute of Race Relations, 1946, 2; F.R. Bradlow, ‘The
Origins of the Early Cape Muslims’, in F.R. Bradlow & Margaret
Cairns, The Early Cape Muslims: A Study of Their Mosques, Geneal-
ogy and Origins, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1978, 81–90; C.
Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf, the Founder of Islam in South Africa’,
Religion in Southern Africa, I, 1 (1980), 10–11; M.J. Swart, ‘The
Karamat of Sheik Yussef’, South African Panorama, 6 (1961), 18.
72 See for instance, S.M. Zwemer, ‘Islam at Cape Town’, MW, 15, 4
(1925), 328; Du Plessis, The Cape Malays, 2; F.R. Bradlow, ‘Islam at
the Cape of Good Hope’, Suid-Afrikaanse Historiese Joernaal, 13
(1981), 9; J.M. Cuoq, Les Musulmans en Afrique, Paris: Misoneuve &
Larose, 1975, 490.
73 K.M. Jeffreys, ‘Sheikh Joseph at the Cape’, Cape Naturalist, 6 (1939),
195. For the earliest references to al-Maqassr¥ in South Africa, see
François Valentijn, Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien, Dordrecht/Amster-
dam: 1724–6, III, 208–9; IV, 109, 123; V, 47; K. Scherzer, Narrative
of the Circumnavigation of the Globe by the Austrian Frigate Novara
in the Years 1857, 1858 and 1859, London: 1861, I, 245–8. For later
accounts, see G. McCall Theal, History and Ethnography of Africa
South of the Zambesi, 3 vols, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1909, II,
263; A. van Selms, ‘Yussuf (Joseph) Sheik’, in W.J. de Kock (ed.),
Dictionary of South African Biographies, 1968, 893; Greyling,
‘Schech Yusuf’, 15–6; Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 27–8.
74 Du Plessis, The Cape Malays, 4; Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf’, 16.
75 Du Plessis, The Cape Malays, 4; Dangor, Syekh Yusuf, 29. Cf.
Bradlow, ‘Islam at the Cape’, 16.
76 Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 59; Jeffreys, ‘Sheik Joseph’, 195.
77 Achmat Davids, ‘Politics and the Muslims of Cape Town: A Histori-
cal Survey’, Studies in the History of Cape Town, 4 (1981), 174,
177–9; Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 29; E.A. Walker, A History of Southern

Africa, 3rd edn, London: Longmans, 1962, 72.
78 Zwemer, ‘Islam at Cape Town’, 327.
79 Ibid, 330.
80 See C. Thurnberg, Travels in Europe, Africa and Asia, 4 vols, London:
F. Rivingston, 1795, I, 132–4.
81 Mayson, The Malays, 19–20.
82 Cited in I.D. du Plessis & C.A. Luckhoff, The Malay Quarter and Its
People, 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 Ibid, 273; Jeffrey, ‘Sheikh Joseph’, 195; Dangor, Shaykh Yusuf, 32.
85 Dagboek, 169; De Haan, Priangan, III, 283.
86 For a detailed description of al-Maqassr¥’s karamat (tomb), see I.D.
Du Plessis, The Cape Malays: History, Religion, Traditions, Folk
Tales of the Malay Quarter, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1972, 4–5; du
Plessis & Luckhoff, The Malay Quarter, 35–7; Dangor, Syekh Yusuf,
51–2; K.M. Jeffreys, ‘The Karamat at Zandvlei, Faure. Sheikh Joseph
in the East’, The Cape Naturalist, 5 (1938), 15–17.
87 Van Selm, ‘Yussuf (Joseph), Sheik’, 893; Drewes, ‘Sjech Joesoep’,
86–7.
88 De Haan, Priangan, III, 284; Dagboek, 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, ‘Syekh
Yusuf’, 137–9.
90 De Haan, Priangan, III, 283–4.
91 Greyling, ‘Schech Yusuf’, 17.
92 Matthes, ‘Boeginese’, 451–2.
94 Al-Maqassr¥, Malib al-Slikin, MS A 101, 81–2.
95 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 23; Malib
al-Slikin, MS A 101, 81; Sirr al-Asrr, MS A 101, 86; Zubdat
al-Asrr, MS A 101, 31; Daf’ al-Bal, in Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf,
esp. 99.
96 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 22; Zubdat
al-Asrr, MS A 101, 32.
97 Al-Maqassr¥, Zubdat al-Asrr, MS A 101, 38–9.
98 Al-Maqassr¥, Tj al-Asrr, MS A 101, 76–7; Kayfiyat al-Munghi, in
Tudjimah et.al, 43–4. Cf. Hamid, ‘Syekh Yusuf’, 197–8.
100 Ibid, 28; Qurrat al-’Ayn, MS A 101, 54–5.
101 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Faw’ih al-Y´sufiyyah, MS A 108, 80–1; Tuúfat
al-Abrr, MS A 101, 78–9; al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 8–9.
102 Al-Maqassr¥, Zubdat al-Asrr, MS A 101, 36–7; Faw’ih

al-Y´sufiyyah, MS A 108, 80–1.
103 Al-Maqassr¥, Zubdat al-Asrr, MS A 101, 39.
104 ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-J¥l¥, Universal Man, extracts trans. with commentary
T. Burckhardt, English trans. Angela Culme-Seymor, Paris: Beshara
Publication, 1983, 39, 45, 48.
105 Al-Maqassr¥, Sirr al-Asrr, MS A 101, 95.
107 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Barakat a1-Saylniyyah, MS A 108, 71. Cf.
al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 4–5.
108 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Faw’ih al-Y´sufiyyah, MS A 108, 83; Qurrat
al-’Ayn, MS A 101, 52; Sirr al-Asrr, MS A 101, 94.
109 Al-Maqassr¥, Zubdat al-Asrr, MS A 101, 37.
110 Ibid, 42.
111 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Faw’ih al-Y´sufiyyah, MS A 108, 82; al-Nafúat
al-Saylniyyah, MS A, 101, 4; Tj al-Asrr, MS A 101, 73–4.
112 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 4; Tj al-Asrr,
MS A 101, 74.
113 Al-Maqassr¥, Sirr al-Asrr, MS A 101, 94.
114 Al-Maqassr¥, Malib al-Slik¥n, MS A 101, 85.
115 al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, MS A 101, 23–4.
116 Ibid, 2.
117 Ibid, 24–5.
118 Al-Maqassr¥, al-Nafúat al-Saylniyyah, 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¥, Tuúfat al-Asrr, cited in Tudjimah et.al., Syekh Yusuf,
114.
120 For a detailed exposition of devotional services related to dhikr, see
al-Maqassr¥, Fatú al-Kayfiyyat al-Dhikr, MS A 108, 62-66; Tuúfat
al-Amr f¥ Faè¥lat al-Dhikr, MS A 101, 78–80.
121 Al-Maqassr¥, Tuúfat al-Amr, MS A 101, 79.
6 NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM’ AND ISLAMIC RENEWAL

1 See Hamka, Ajahku: Riwajat Hidup Dr. H. ‘Abd Karim Amrullah dan
Perdjuangan Kaum Agama di Sumatera, Djakarta: Djajamurni, 1963,
esp. 26ff; H.M. Federspiel, Persatuan Islam: Islamic Reform in
Twentieth Century Indonesia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Modern
Indonesia Project, 1970, 4.
2 C. Geertz, Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and
Indonesia, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1968,
65–70.
3 See Deliar Noer, The Modernist Muslim Movement, Singapore: Oxford
University Press, 1973, esp. 10–21, 30–3.
4 Federspiel, Persatuan Islam, 3.

5 Ibid, 4. Cf. Hamka, Ajahku, 26–7.
6 For accounts of the Sultanate Palembang, see M.O. Woelders, Het
Sultanaat Palembang 1811–1825, Leiden: Nijhoff, 1975; P. de Roo de
la Faille, Dari Zaman Kesultanan Palembang, trans. S. Poerbakawatja,
Djakarta: Bhratara, 1971; Husni Rahim, Sistem Ororitas dan Masa
Kesultanan dan Kolonial cli Palembang, Jakarta: Logos, 1998.
7 VOC 2934 Palembang to Batavia 10 Sept. 1758, fol. 70; VOC 3733
Resident’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 supplying
these sources. She and Professor Leonard Andaya have generously shared
some findings of their research concerning Palembang in this period.
8 See ‘Palembang Manuscripts and Authors’, in G.W.J. Drewes, Direc-
tions for Travellers on the Mystic Path, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1977,
198–241; T. Iskandar, ‘Palembang Kraton Manuscripts’, in C.M.S.
Hellwig & S.O. Robson (eds), A Man of Indonesian Letters: Essays in
Honour of Professor A. Teeuw, Dordrecht: Foris Publication, 1986,
67–72; R. Winstedt, A History of Classical Malay Literature, Kuala
Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1969, 152–3, 154.
9 Drewes, Directions, 220.
10 Ibid, esp. 219–21; Winstedt, A History of Classical Malay, 153, 154.
11 See ‘Abd al-Razq Al-Bayr (1253–1335/1837–1917), îilyat al-
Bashar f¥ Tr¥kh al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar, 3 vols, Damascus: Mab´’t
al-Majma’ al-’Ilm¥ al-’Arab¥, 1382/1963, I, 851–2. This is a biographical
dictionary which provides us with accounts of al-Palimbn¥’s career in
Arabia. Al-Palimbn¥’s connections with scholars in the networks are
also mentioned in Muúammad b. Muúammad b. Yaúy Zabrah, Nayl
al-Waar min Tarjim Rijl al-Yaman f¥ al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar,
2 vols, Cairo: al-Maba’ah al-Salafiyyah, 1350/1931, II, 30, and in ‘Abd
al-îayy b.‘Abd al-Kab¥r al-Kattn¥, Fahras al-Fahris, 3 vols, Beirut:
Dr al-Gharb al-Islm¥, 1402/1982, II, 697; III, 106.
12 See M.H. b. Dato Kerani M. Arshad, Al-Tr¥kh Salsilah Negeri Kedah,
Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, 1968, esp. 123–26. This work
should be treated with caution because it contains curious stories which
are difficult to accept. For a discussion of Al-Tr¥kh Salsilah, see Henri
Chambert-Loir, ‘Abdussamad al-Palimbani sebagai Ulama Jawi’, in al-
Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, [vol. I], Romanised by A. Muin Umar,
Banda Aceh: Musium Negeri Aceh, 1985/6, ix–x. An account of the
dates of al-Palimbani’s birth and death is also given in M. Chatib
Quzwain, Mengenal Allah: Studi mengenai Ajaran Tasawuf Syaikh
Abdus-Samad al-Palimbani, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984, 12.
13 Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, II, 851.
14 See al-Palimbn¥’s own notes in the colophon of his Sayr al-Slik¥n il
‘ibdah Rabb al-’lam¥n, 4, Cairo: Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥,
1372/1953.
15 See Arshad, Tr¥kh Salsilah, 149–50.

16 Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, II, 852. Al-Bayr accounts cited in this
book was disputed by Wan Mohd. Shaghir Abdullah in his Penye-
baran Islam & Silsilah Ulama Sejagat Dunia Melayu Jilid 9, Kuala
Lumpur: Khazanah Fathaniyyah, 1421/2000, 6–14. He asserts that the
date of al-Palimbn¥’s birth had not been originally given by Tarikh
Salasilah Kedah nor by al-Bayr, but by a certain Haji Mahmud bin
Muhammad Yusuf Trengganu, whom he claims to be a student of al-
Palimbn¥. According to Shaghir Abdullah Haji Mahmud wrote many
manuscripts, but he fails to mention any.
17 Muhd Shaghir Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush Shamad al-Palimbani,
Pontianak: al-Fathanah, 1983, 6–8; Quzwain, Mengenal Allah, 20.
19 For Ibrh¥m al-Zamzam¥ al-Ra’¥s’ complete biography and works, see
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-Athar f¥ Tarjim wa al-Akhbr,
3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-J¥l, n.d., I, 560–2; Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar,
I, 33.
21 Ibid, II, 903.
22 For Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s’ connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, I, 145, 146, 254, 301, 539; II, 620, 697, 755.
23 See al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, II, 140–2; Al-Bayr, îilyat
al-Bashar, III, 1393–1405; Ism’¥l Bsh al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat
al-’rif¥n, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951, II, 349–50;
al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 355, 480; II, 623, 738, 757, 795, 893, 985, 1005,
1006, 1010, 1148, 1166; III, 183; Khayr al-D¥n al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm:
Qm´s Tarjim, 12 vols, Beirut: n.p., 3rd edn, VI, 352.
24 For lists of al-Murdi’s works, see al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n,
II, 349–50; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VI, 352; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 379;
S. II, 404.
25 Al-Jabart¥, ‘Aja’ib al-Athar, II, 141. Cf. Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar,
III, 1404.
26 Al-Jabart¥, ‘Aja’ib al-Athar, II, 140. Cf. Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar,
III, 1393.
27 Al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, II, 349.
28 For al-Murdi’s further connections in the networks, see al-Kattn¥,
Fahras, III, esp. 623, 738, 795, 985, 1010.
29 It is important to note that Muúammad al-Jawhar¥’s father (Aúmad
al-Jawhar¥) studied with ‘Abd al-Allh al-Ba§r¥ and Aúmad al-Nakhl¥
when he visited the îaramayn in 1120/1708, see al-Jabart¥, ‘Aja’ib
al-Athar, I, 364–6; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, I, 109; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I,
302–3.
30 See Muúammad al-Jawhar¥’s biography in al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-Athar,
I, 426–7.
31 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 199, 229, 377, 406; II, 785, 796, 844–5, 985,
1128, 1147.
32 For more information on ‘A’ Allh, see al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr,
I, 560; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 94, 121.
33 Al-Kattn¥, Ibid, I, 200, 201.
34 Ibid, I, 535.
35 Ibid, I, 149; II, 903, 1128.
36 For ‘A’ Allh’s position in úad¥th studies, see Ibid, II, 903, 985,
1128.
37 See P. Voorhoeve, ‘Abd al-êamad b. ‘Abd Allh al-Palimbn¥’, EI2, I,
1960; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 371; Quzwain, Mengenal Allah, 13.
38 Al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 39, 178, 203.
39 Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush Shamad, 6, 39.
41 Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush Shamad, 39.
42 I find no MS or printed edition of this work, but al-Kattn¥ gives a five-
page description of it in his Fahras, II, 695–700. For a detailed
biography and works of Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Ahdal, see Zabarah, Nayl
al-Waar, II, 30–1; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, IV, 79.
43 Al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 697.
44 Zabarah, Nayl al-Waar, II, 30–1. Cf. Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush
Shamad, 39–40, who mentioned a Sayyid al-Maqr¥, who was very
probably Aúmad b. îasan al-Muqr¥ Al-Zab¥d¥, as having been present
in al-Palimbn¥’s teaching sessions in Zab¥d.
45 J.J. Ras, Hikayat Banjar: A Study in Malay Historiography, The
Hague: Nijhoff, 1968, 49, 438–43; A. Basuni, Nur Islam di Kaliman-
tan Selatan, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1986, 10–33; A.G. Usman, Urang
Banjar dalam Sejarah, Banjarmasin: Lambung Mangkurat University
Press, 1989, 46–53: ‘Kesultanan Banjar’, in Ensiklopedi Islam di
Indonesia, Jakarta: Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II, 487–93. For a
concise treatment of the advance of Islam in Kalimantan as a whole,
see Mrs Samuel Bryan Scott, ‘Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes for
a Study of the Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of Its Influ-
ence on the Native Tribes’, Journal of the American Oriental Society,
33 (1913), 313–44.
46 Scott, ‘Mohammedanism’, 319–27.
47 See Basuni, Nur Islam, 40–2; Zafry Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad
Arsyad al-Banjari sebagai Ulama Juru Da’wah, Banjarmasin: Karya,
1974, 3–4; Scott, ‘Mohammedanism’, 331–5.
48 For a complete biography of Muúammad Arshad, see Zamzam, Syekh
Muhammad Arsyad; Jusuf Halidi, Ulama Besar Kalimantan: Sjech
Muhammad Arsjad al-Banjari, Martapura: Jajasan al-Banjari, 1968;
Tamar Djaja, ‘Sjeich M. Arsjad Bandjar’, in his Pusaka Indonesia,
Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965, 309–17; Shaghir Abdullah, Syeikh
Muhd Arsyad al-Banjari, Matahari Islam, Pontianak: al-Fathanah,

1983; Abu Daudi, Maulana Syekh Moh. Arsyad al-Banjari, Martapura:
Sullamul ulum, 1980; M.S. Kadir, ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad
al-Banjari Pelopor Da’wah Islam di Kalimantan Selatan’, Mimbar
Ulama, 6 (1976), 69–79.
49 K. Steenbrink, ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari: 1710–1812,
Tokoh Fiqh dan Tasawuf’, in his Beberapa Aspek tentang Islam di
Indonesia Abad ke-l9, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984, 91, 96. Cf. Halidi,
Ulama Besar, 13; Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 10; Kadir,
‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad’, 73.
50 Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 6. Cf. Steenbrink, ‘Syekh
Muhammad Arsyad’, 92.
51 Halidi, Ulama Besar, 11–2; Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush Shamad, 11–2.
52 Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 67; Steenbrink, ‘Syekh
Muhammad Arsyad’, 92.
53 Halidi, Ulama Besar, 14–5; Halidi, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 7;
C. Snouck Hurgronje, Nasihat-nasihat C. Snouck Hurgronje semasa
Kepegawaiannya kepada Pemerintah Hindia Belanda, trans. Sukarsi,
Jakarta: INIS, 1991, V, 898–9. This is an Indonesian edition of E.
Gobée & C. Adriaanse (comp.), Ambtelijke adviezen van C. Snouck
Hurgronje, 1889–1936, 2 vols, ‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1959–65.
54 Snouck Hurgronje, Nasihat-nasihat, 900–1.
55 Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 8–9; Halidi, Ulama Besar, 16.
56 Halidi, Ulama Besar, 18; Zamzam, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad,
10–11.
57 See Ph.S. van Ronkel, Catalogus der maleische handschriften, Batavia
& ‘s-Gravenhage: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1909, 403; G.F. Pijper, Frag-
menta Islamica: Studiën over het Islamisme in Nederlandsch-Indië,
Leiden: Brill, 1934, 64; Hawash Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis
al-Banjari’, in his Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawwuf, 121; Anon.,
‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in Ensiklopedi Islam di Indonesia,
Jakarta: Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II, 616; H.M. Laily Mansur,
Kitab Ad-Durun Nafis: Tinjauan atas suatu Ajaran Tasawuf, Banjar-
masin: Hasanu, 1982, 6.
58 For a discussion on Muúammad Naf¥s’ life and work, see Mansur,
Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, esp. 14–59; Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad
Nafis al-Banjari’, 107–22; ‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in Ensiklo-
pedi Islam, II, 614–7.
59 Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥, al-Durr al-Naf¥s, cited in Abdullah,
‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 108.
60 Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 109.
61 See Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, II, 852; Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush
Shamad, 35, 46.
62 For al-Sharqw¥’s complete biography, see al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr,
III, 375–80; Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, II, 1005–7; al-Kattn¥,

Fahras, II, 1071–3; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, IV, 206.
63 For an account of al-Sharqw¥’s visits to the îaramayn and his other
students there, see al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 229.
64 Al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, III, 375–6; Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar,
II, 1005–6. For further discussion of al-Sharqw¥’s reformism, see
P. Gran, Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt, 1760–1840, 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¥,
Fahras, I, 134, 150, 354, 377, 445, 486; II, 578, 713, 754, 776, 777,
778, 826, 890, 1008, 1067, 1143, 1161, 1163.
66 Ibid, I, 503–4.
67 ‘Muhammad Nafis’, Ensiklopedi Islam, II, 616; Abdullah, ‘Syekh
Muhammad Nafis’, 108.
68 For a further discussion of the contents of the Durr al-Naf¥s, see
Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis; Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’,
109–21.
69 Abdullah, ‘Syekh Muhammad Nafis’, 110.
70 Usman, Urang Banjar, 60; ‘Muhammad Nafis’, Ensiklopedi Islam,
615; Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, 4.
71 For an excellent treatment of the rise and decline of the Patani
Sultanate, see Ibrahim Syukri, History of the Malay Kingdom of
Patani, trans. C. Bayley & J.N. Miksic, Athens, OH: Center for Inter-
national Studies, 1985, 13–62.
72 See Syukri, Ibid, 21–38; A. Teeuw & D.K. Wyatt, Hikayat Patani, The
Hague: Nijhoff, 1970, 10–20.
73 Ibid, 76–7.
74 Ibid, 78–9.
75 Ibid, 131.
76 Ibid.
77 ‘Pondok’ literally means ‘hut’, but it has also been generally used to
refer to a cluster of buildings, used collectively as a centre of Islamic
education. The pondok is, thus, similar in characteristics to the surau
and pesantren, existing in other parts of the archipelago. For further
discussion of all of these terms, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Rise and
Decline of the Minangkabau Surau’, unpubl. MA thesis, Columbia
University, 1988, esp. 19–21; for further discussion of the pondok see
Hasan Madmarn, The Pondok and Madrasah in Patani, Kuala
Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1999.
78 Virginia Matheson & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: The
Maintenance of an Islamic Tradition’, JMBRAS, 61, I (1988), 43. Cf.
R.L. Winzeler, ‘The Social Organisation of Islam in Kelantan’, in
W.R. Roff (ed.), Kelantan: Religion, Society and Politics in a Malay
State, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1974, 266, n. 7; cf.
A.A.H. Hasan, ‘The Development of Islamic Education in Kelantan’,
in Khoo Kay Kim (ed.), Tamaddun Islam di Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur:

Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia, 1980, esp. 190–6. For an account of the
Patani Pondok in recent years, see W.K. Che Man, ‘The Thai Govern-
ment and Islamic Institutions in the Four Southern Muslim Provinces
of Thailand’, Sojourn, 5, II (1990), esp. 263–70.
79 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 43; Hamdan Hassan,
‘Pertalian Pemikiran Islam Malaysia-Aceh’, in Kim (ed.), Tamaddun
Islam, esp. 53–5.
80 H.W.M. Shaghir Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah al-Fatani:
Ulama dan Pengarang Terulung Asia Tenggara, Kuala Lumpur: Hizbi,
1990, 3; Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 19, 28.
81 This work deals with úad¥th forgeries: see a Beirut reprint of the
Cairo(?) edition, 1343.
82 For a biography of Muúammad $hir al-Hind¥ al-Fan¥, see Ab´
al-Fallú b. ‘Abd al-îayy Ibn al-’Imd, Shadhart al-Dhahab f¥
Akhbr man Dhahab, 8 vols, Cairo: Maktabat al-Quds¥,
1350–1/1930–1, VIII, 410; êidd¥q b. îasan al-Qann´j¥, Abjad
al-’Ul´m, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, n.d., III, 222–3;
al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 171; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, VII, 42–3; Brockel-
mann, GAL, II, 548; S. II, 601.
83 See Dw´d al-Fan¥’s silsilah of the Sammniyyah ar¥qah in
Abdullah, Syekh Daud bin Abdullah, 36–37.
84 Ibid, 37–8.
85 Ibid, 23–4.
86 P. Voorhoeve, ‘Dw´d b. ‘Abd Allh b. Idr¥s al-Fan¥ or Fan¥’, EI2,
II, 183.
87 Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 22.
88 Ibid, 10–13. Neither the Hikayat Patani nor Syukri’s History of Patani
mentions Faq¥h ‘Al¥ or Datuk Maharajalela. The Hikayat Patani makes
mention only of Faq¥h or Shaykh êaf¥ al-D¥n (pp. 78–9) and Faq¥h
‘Abd al-Mann (p. 131).
90 Ibid, 32.
91 See A. Hasjmi, ‘Pendidikan Islam di Aceh dalam Perjalanan Sejarah’,
Sinar Darussalam, 63 (1975), 20; Sejarah Kebudayaan Islam di
Indonesia, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1990, 230; Abdullah, Syeikh Daud
bin Abdullah, 32; ‘Syekh Muhammad Zain bin Faqih Jalaluddin
Aceh’, in his Perkembangan Ilmu Fiqh, 62–74; Amir Sutarga et al.,
Katalogus Koleksi Naskah Melayu Museum Pusat, Jakarta: Departe-
men P&K, 1972, 264, 276.
92 Abdullah, Syeikh Abdush Shamad, 6; Syeikh Muhd Arshad, 8–9;
Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 32–3.
93 Abdullah, Syekh Abdush Shamad, 6; Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 33.
95 For al-Barrw¥’s biography and works, see Muúammad Khal¥l
al-Murd¥, Silk al-Durar, III, 273; al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, I,

366–7; al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 811; Brockelmann, GAL, S.
II, 445; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lm, V, 283–4; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 223.
96 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 102, 197, 535, 1078.
97 For Dw´d al-Fan¥’s complete isnd of the U§´l al-D¥n, see
Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 39.
98 Ibid, 38.
99 See Al-Shanwn¥’s biography in al-Jabart¥, ‘Aj’ib al-thr, III, 588;
Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, III, 1270–1; al-Zarkal¥, al-A’lam, VII,
190; al-Kattn¥, Fahras, II, 10789.
100 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 229; II, 578, 777, 796.
101 Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 34, 35, 39.
102 See al-Fan¥’s silsilah of the Shdhiliyyah order in Abdullah, Ibid, 41.
103 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 198–99.
105 See al-Kattn¥, Fahras, I, 122–3; II, 1079.
106 See a partial list of his students in Abdullah, Syekh Daud bin Abdullah,
42, followed by accounts of the activities and roles of these students in
furthering reformism in the archipelago on 43–50. Cf. Matheson &
Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 26–35, which gives the names of
the most important Patani scholars together with their works in the
period after Dw´d al-Fan¥.
107 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 19.
108 For lists of his works and descriptions of their contents, see Abdullah,
Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 55–99; Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Liter-
ature in Patani’, 21–6; Winstedt, A History of Classical Malay, 153–4.
7 RENEWAL IN THE NETWORK

1 For a preliminary study of Malay-Indonesian students in the scholarly
networks in the nineteenth century, see Azyumardi Azra, ‘Ulama
Indonesia di îaramayn: Pasang dan Surutnya Sebuah Wacana Inte-
lektual’, Ulumul Qur’an, 3, III (1992).
2 Drewes, Directions, 217. Cf. Iskandar, ‘Palembang Kraton Manu-
scripts’, 68–9.
3 Drewes, Directions, 219.
4 For descriptive lists of Muúammad Arshad’s works, see Abdullah,
Syeikh Muhammad Arsyad, 41–58; Zafry Zamzam, ‘Karya Ar-Raniry
dan al-Bandjari’, Sinar Darussalam, 25 (1970), 449.
5 Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥, Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n li al-Tafaqquh f¥
al-D¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 776, 2–4; Abdullah, Syeikh
Muhammad Arsyad, 51; ‘Syeikh Muhammad Arsyad’, in Perkembangan
Ilmu Fiqh, 81–2; Zamzam, ‘Karya ar-Raniry dan al-Bandjari’, 49;
Mohd Nor bin Ngah, Kitab Jawi: Islamic Thought of the Malay Muslim
Scholars, Singapore: ISEAS, 1982, 5.
6 Zamzam, ‘Karya ar-Raniri dan al-Banjari’, 49; Pijper, Fragmenta
Islamica, 65; Van Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script

used in the Pesantren Milieu’, BKI, 146 (1990), 250–1; ‘Kitab Fiqh di
Pesantren Indonesia’, Pesantren, 6, I (1989), 48.
7 See Geertz, Islam Observed, 12–3; Noer, The Modernist Muslim, 12.
8 Muúammad Arshad, Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n, MS Jakarta National Library,
Ml 776, 2–4. Cf. its printed edn, Cairo: 1343/1925, 3–4.
9 See Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 55–99; Matheson & Hooker,
‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, Winstedt, A History of Classical Malay,
153–4.
10 Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 99–100; Matheson & Hooker,
‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 21; M.B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-
East Asia, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984, 32; Van
Bruinessen, ‘Kitab Fiqh di Pesantren’, 48–9.
11 Dw´d al-Fan¥, Hidyat al-Muta’allim, 5, cited in Abdullah, Syeikh
Daud bin Abdulah, 103–4.
12 Al-Bayr, îilyat al-Bashar, II, 851. The Faè’il al-Iúy’ li al-Ghazl¥
is not listed in Malay sources among al-Palimbn¥’s works.
13 Al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, Surabaya: 1933, 3.
14 See al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, 5. The Yawq¥t al-Jawhir of al-
Sha’rn¥ was printed in Cairo in 1321/1904.
15 Al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, 7–8. I was unable to trace the Durr
al-Tham¥n.
16 Al-Palimbn¥, Ibid, 75. Neither al-Baghdd¥ nor Brockelmann list the
Bustan al-’Arifin of al-Qushsh¥, but both mention Bustan
al-’Abidin wa Rawdat al-’Arifin, which is probably the same work. See
al-Baghdd¥, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n, I, 161; Brockelmann, GAL, II, 515.
17 Al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, 273–4. What al-Palimbn¥ called the
Nafúat al-Ilahiyyah were probably al-Sammn¥’s al-Futuhat
al-Ilahiyyah f¥ al-Tawajjuhat al-R´úiyyah and al-Nafúat al-Qudsiyyah.
See Brockelmann, GAL, S. II, 535.
18 Al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, Cairo: Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥,
1372/1953, I, 3. Cf. H. Ritter, ‘al-Ghazl¥, Aúmad b. Muúammad’,
EI2, II, 1041.
19 See al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 168–84.
20 Some of al-Palimbn¥’s teachings are discussed in Quzwain, Mengenal
Allah, esp. 32–138; M.U. el-Muhammady, ‘The Islamic Concept of
Education according to Shaykh ‘Abdu’s-Samad of Palembang and
Its Significance in Relation to the Issue of Personality Integration’,
Akademika, 1 (1972), 59–83.
21 Al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 12–3.
22 See al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, 270–2.
23 For al-Palimbn¥’s silsilah of the Khalwatiyyah ar¥qah, see his Sayr
al-Slik¥n, III, 39–40.
24 Ibid, III, 12–13. Cf. al-Sammn¥, al-Nafút al-Ilhiyyah, MS Jakarta
National Library, no. DCLII.
25 Al-Palimbn¥, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, 285; Sayr al-Slik¥n, I, 16.

26 Ibid, III, 43–4.
27 See al-Muhammady, ‘The Islamic Concept’, esp. 75–83.
28 See al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 177–9.
29 Ibid, III, 180–1.
30 For a discussion of the îikam or Rislah f¥ al-Tawú¥d and Fatú
al-Raúmn, see Drewes, Directions, 6–38.
31 Al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 180–1.
32 For the complete list of the works, see al-Palimbn¥, Ibid, III, 182–4.
33 Cf. C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu’l-D¥n van Pasai, 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, Bayn Tajall¥, Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1980, 45.
35 The Zd al-Muttaq¥n, which probably summarises al-Palimbn¥’s
Ta§awwuf central doctrines, has not yet been recovered.
36 See al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, III, 183.
37 Ibid, III, 171.
38 See al-Palimbn¥, Tuúfat al-Rghib¥n f¥ Bayn îaq¥qat Imn
al-Mu’min¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml. 719, 2, 25–6.
39 Ibid, 26.
40 Ibid.
41 Al-Rn¥r¥, M’ al-îayyt li Ahl al-Mamt, a full romanised Malay text
in A. Daudi, Syeikh Nuruddin al-Raniri, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978,
44–5. Al-Rn¥r¥’s condemnation of the doctrine of wuj´diyyah mulúid
can be found in many of his other works. See for instance, in Hujjat
al-êidd¥q li Daf’ al-Zind¥q, Malay text in Arabic script, 5–6, 9–10, in
P. Voorhoeve, Twee Maleise geschriften van N´rudd¥n ar-Rn¥r¥,
Leiden: Brill, 1955.
42 See al-Palimbn¥, Tuúfat al-Rghib¥n, 19–26.
43 Halidi, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 11–2; Usman, Urang Banjar, 60–1;
Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, 4.
44 Halidi, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad, 12; Usman, Urang Banjar, 61;
Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, 4.
45 See al-Palimbn¥, Tuúfat al-Rghib¥n, 26.
46 See al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, IV, 103.
47 See al-Ghazl¥, Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n, 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, The Gift Addressed to the Spirit of
the Prophet, Canberra: Australian National University, 196S.
49 See al-Burhnp´r¥, The Gift, 140.
50 See al-Palimbn¥, Sayr al-Slik¥n, IV, 36, 123.
51 See al-Ghazl¥, Ihya’, IV, esp. 85, 240.
52 See Van Ronkel, Catalogus, 402; Ensiklopedi Islam, II, 616; G.F.
Pijper, Fragmenta Islamica, 64; Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, 5–8.
53 For further analysis of the Durr al-Naf¥s, see Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun
Nafis, 14–59; Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Muhammad Nafis’.
54 Mansur, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis, 42, 43, 45–50, 58; Abdullah, ‘Sheikh
Muhammad Nafis’, 112, 116–17.
55 See Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature’, 24; Abdullah, Syeikh Daud
bin Abdullah, 61, 77.
56 Abdullah, Ibid, 109.
57 Ibid, 74, 111, 168. The Kashf al-Ghumma is listed among al-Sha’rn¥’s
works. See Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman
Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥, New
Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982, 8.
58 Abdullah, Ibid, 62. For a lengthy exposition of the contents of the
Manhal al-êf¥, see Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah al-Fathani’,
in his Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawwuf, 121–46.
59 Al-Fan¥, Ward al-Jawhir, 55, cited in Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin
Abdullah, 107.
60 For further discussion of al-Fan¥’s ta§awwuf, see Abdullah, ‘Syeikh
Daud bin Abdullah al-Fathani’, 24–58; Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah,
106–11.
61 For further discussion on al-Sha’rn¥’s defense of Ibn ‘Arab¥, see
Michael Winter, Society and Religion, esp. 160–72. Cf. A. Ates, ‘Ibn
‘Arab¥, Muúy¥’l-D¥n Ab´ ‘Abd Allh b. Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ b.
Muúammad. Al-’Arab¥ al-îtim¥ al-$’¥’, EI2, III, esp. 710–11. For
al-Suy´¥’s defense of Ibn ‘Arab¥ against accusations of heresy and
even unbelief, see E.M. Sartain, Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥, 2 vols,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975, I, 36–7.
62 For a good summary of the modernists’ accusations against Sufism,
see Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd edn, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1966, 212–34, 244–8.
63 See Halidi, Ulama Besar Kalimantan, 6–8; Zamzam, Syekh
Muhammad Arsyad, 17–3; Usman, Urang Banjar, 56–9, 66–80.
64 G.W.J. Drewes, ‘Further Data Concerning ‘Abd al-êamad
al-Palimbn¥’, BKI, 132 (1976), 269, 274.
65 For MSS of this work, see Jakarta National Library, MSS no. CCIX
and V.d.W. 51; Leiden University, F. Or. A 20c. For an outline of the
contents of the Faè’il al-Jihd, see Ph.S. van Ronkel, Supplement to
the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts preserved in the Museum of
the Batavia Society of Arts and Sciences, Batavia & The Hague:
Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1913, 139–40.
66 C. Snouck Hurgronje, The Achehnese, 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’, in
P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge:
University Press, 1970, II, 178–80. Cf. M.C. Ricklefs, A History of
Modern Indonesia, London: Macmillan, 1981, 136–8.
68 See Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 267–9; Cf. M.C. Ricklefs, Jogjakarta

under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749–1792, London: Oxford University
Press, 1974, 134, 150–5.
69 The English translation of this letter is taken from Drewes, ‘Further
Data’, 270.
70 Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 271–3. Most of English translations of this
letter are also supplied by Ricklefs, Jogjakarta under Sultan, 151–2.
71 Ibid, 154.
72 Drewes, ‘Further Data’, 268–8.
73 Ricklefs, Jogjakarta under Sultan, 155.
74 Ibid, 154.
75 See Syukri, History of Patani, esp. 39–56, on renewed Thai attacks on
Patani.
76 Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 94–5.
77 Matheson & Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani’, 25; bin Ngah, Kitab
Jawi, 29 n. 12, 41 n. 3 and n. 5; 42 n. 8 and 9.
78 Abdullah, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 34, 95.
79 Al-Fan¥, Hidyat al-Muta’allim, 17, cited in Abdullah, Syeikh Daud
bin Abdullah, 95.
80 Al-Fan¥, Fur´’ al-Mas’il wa U§´l al-Was’il, MS Jakarta National
Library, Ml 779, 945ff; Bughyat al-$ullb, I, 95, cited in Abdullah,
Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah, 97–8.
81 C. Snouck Hurgronje, ‘Een Arabisch bondgenoot der Nederlandsche
regering’, in Verspreide Geschriften, Bonn & ‘s-Gravenhage: Kurt
Schroder & Nijhoff, 1924, VI, 85.
82 See Hamka, Sejarah Islam di Sumatera, Medan: Pustaka Nasional,
1950, 24; R. LeRoy Archer, ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’,
JMBRAS, 15, II (1931), 103–4.
83 See Abdullah, ‘Syeikh Burhanuddin’, in his Perkembangan Ilmu
Tasawwuf, esp. 57–9; Tamar Djaja, ‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’,
in his Pusaka Indonesia, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1965, 282–90.
84 For a detailed discussion of Islamic reformism, particularly in its relations
to the Minangkabau economy during this period, see Christine Dobbin,
Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy; Central Sumatra,
1784–1847, London: Curzon, 1983, esp. 117–54. See also, Dobbin,
‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau at the Turn of the Nineteenth
Century’, Modern Asian Studies, 8, III (1974), 319–56; Werner Kraus,
Zwischen Reform und Rebellion: über die Entwicklung des Islams in
Minangkabau (Westsumatra) zwischen den beiden Reformbewegungen
der Padri (1837) und der Modernisten (1908), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner,
1984, esp, 13–21, 43–61; Azyumardi Azra, ‘The Surau and the Early
Reform Movements in Minangkabau’, Mizan, 3, II (1990), 64–85.
85 See J.J. de Hollander (ed.), Verhaal van den aanvang der Padri-
onlusten op Sumatra door Sjech Djilal Eddin (henceforth, îikyat
Jall al-D¥n), Leiden: Brill, 1857, 6.
NOTES—EPILOGUE 203

87 For a further biography of Tuanku Nan Tuo, see Tamar Djaja, ‘Tuanku
Nan Tuo’, in his Pusaka Indonesia, 318–27.
88 îikyat Jall al-D¥n, 9.
89 Ibid, 9–10.
90 lbid, 10–13; Dobbin, ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau’, 329–30;
Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy, 127.
92 Ibid, 8.
93 Ibid, 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 in
Sumatra’, BKI, 75 (1919), 363–78; A.H. Johns, ‘Islam in the Malay
World: An Exploratory Survey with Some Reference to Qur’nic
Exegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), Islam in Asia: Volume II,
Southeast and East Asia, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1984, 124–6.
95 See Dobbin, ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau’, 3267; Islamic
Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy, 121–4.
96 For complete accounts of the Padri Wars, see îikyat Jall al-D¥n,
13–54; Dobbin, Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy,
128–87; H.A. Stein Parvé, ‘Oorsprong der Padaries: Eene secte op
de Westkust van Sumatra’, TNI, 1, I (1838), 113–31; ‘De secte de
Padaries (Padries) in de Bovenlanden van Sumatra’, TBG, 3 (1855),
249–78; Ph.S. van Ronkel, ‘Inlandsche Getuigenissen aangaande den
Padrioorlog’, IG, 2 (1915), 1099–1119, 1243–59; M.D. Mansur,
Perang Padri di Sumatera Barat, Djakarta: 1964; M. Martamin,
Tuanku Imam Bonjol, 2nd edn, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1984.
EPILOGUE
1 See Azyumardi Azra, Renaisans Islam Asia Tenggara: Sejarah Wacana
dan Kekuasaan, Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya, 1999, esp. 143–61; For
recent research on al-Palimbn¥, see Michael Feener, ‘Yemeni Sources
for the History of Islam in Indonesia: ‘Abd al-Samad Palimbani in the
Nafs al-Yamani’, La transmission du savoir dans le Monde Musulman
pérephérique, 1999, 19, 128–144. For further accounts of Shaikh
Muúammad Ysin al-Padan¥, who played a prominent role in the educa-
tion of ‘Jw¥’ students after World War II, see Azyumardi Azra, Menuju
Masyarakat Madani, Bandung: Rosda, 1999: 52–5.
2 The Javanese scholarship has to be treated separately. M.C. Ricklefs has
argued convincingly that the religious tendencies discussed in this work
were also taking place in Java; see his The Seen and the Unseen Worlds
in Java 1726–1749: History, Literature and Islam in the Court of
Pakubuwana II, Sydney & Hawaii: Allen & Unwin and University of
Hawai’i Press, 1998. I would argue that at the beginning of the nineteenth
century, Java as a whole had risen to be one of the important centres of
Islamic intellectualism in the archipelago. A number of prominent ‘ulam’
appeared from Java, such as Aúmad Rif’¥ of Pekalongan (1786–1876),
Muúammad al-Nawaw¥ al-Bantan¥ (1813–1897), Muúammad Saleh
Darat al-Samaran¥ (from Semarang, d. 1903) and Muúammad Maúf´½ al-
Termas¥ (from Termas, East Java, d. 1919). For preliminary studies of
each of them, see for instance, Peter Riddell, ‘Muhammad al-Nawawi
al-Jawi 1813–97)’, in his Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Trans-
mission and Responses, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books,
2001, 193–7; Didin Hafiduddin, ‘Tinjauan atas Tafsir al-Munir Karya
Imam Muhammad Nawawi Tanara’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.),
Warisan Intelektual Islam Indonesia, Bandung: Mizan, 1987; Abdul
Djamil, ‘KH Ahmad Rifa’i Kalisalak: Studi tentang Pemikiran dan
Gerakan Islam Abad Sembilan Belas (1786–1876)’, doctoral dissertation,
Program PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 1999; HM Muchoyyar HS,
‘Tafs¥r Faiè al-Raúmn f¥ Tarjamah Tafs¥r Kalm Malik al-Dayyn
Karya KHM Saleh al-Samaran¥’, doctoral dissertation, Program
PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 2002; Abdurrahman Mas’ud, ‘Maúf´½
al-Tirm¥s¥ (d. 1338/1919): An Intellectual Biography’, Studia Islamika,
5, 2 (1998), 27–48.
3 C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth
Century, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1931, 160.
4 Virginia Matheson & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: The
Maintenance of an Islamic Tradition’, JMBRAS, 61, I (1988), 36.
5 See Peter Riddell, Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Trans-
mission and Responses, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon
Books, 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 Islamic
Nationhood and Colonial Indonesia; The Umma below The Winds,
London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003; Azyumardi Azra, ‘The
Transmission of al-Manar’s to the Malay-Indonesian World: The Cases
of al-Imam and al-Munir’, Studia Islamika, 6, 3 (1999), 75–100.
6 See Azyumardi Azra, ‘Prof. Dr. Hamka: Pribadi dan Institusi MUI’, in
Azyumardi Azra & Saiful Umam (eds), Tokoh dan Pemimpin Agama:
Biografi Sosial-Politik, Jakarta: Litbang Depag RI & PPIM IAIN
Jakarta, 1998; cf. Nurwahidin, ‘Pemikiran Tasawuf Hamka’, MA
thesis, Program PascaSarjana IAIN Jakarta, 1995; Karel Steenbrink,
‘Hamka (1908–1981) and the Integration of the Islamic Ummah of
Indonesia’, Studia Islamika, 1, 3 (1994), 119–47.
7. See Harun Nasution, Islam Rasional, Bandung: Mizan, 1995; Saiful
Mujani, ‘Mu’tazilah Theology and the Modernization of the Indo-
nesian Muslim Community’, Studia Islamika, 1, 1 (1994), 91–131;
Richard C. Martin & Mark R. Woodward with Dwi S. Atmaja,
Defender of Reason in Islam: Mu’tazilism from Medieval School to
Modern Symbol, Oxford: Oneworld, 1997, esp. Part II, ‘Harun
Nasution and Modern Mu’tazilism’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABBREVIATIONS
BKI Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
BSOAS Bulletin of School of Oriental and African Studies
EI2 Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition
GAL Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur
IG De Indische Gids
JAAS Journal of Asian and African Studies
JAS Journal of Asian Studies
JIAEA Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia
JMBRAS Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Malaysian Branch
JRAS Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland
JSEAH Journal of Southeast Asian History
TBG Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
TNI Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indie
VBG Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch
Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen
VKI Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde
PRIMARY SOURCES
Manuscripts
al-Banjar¥, Muúammad Arshad, Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n li al-Tafaqquh f¥ Amr
al-D¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 776.
al-Fan¥, Dw´d b. ‘Abd Allh, Fur´’ al-Mas’il wa U§´l al-Was’il, MS
Jakarta National Library, Ml 779.
205
al-Hamaw¥, Musaf Fatú Allh (d. 1123/1711), Faw’id al-Irtiúl wa

Nat’ij al-Safar f¥ Akhbr Ahl al-Qarn al-îd¥ ‘Ashar, 3 vols, Cairo:
MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Trikh 1093.
al-K´ran¥, Ibrh¥m (1023–1101/1583–1660), al-Umam li ¡q½ al-Himam,
Cairo: MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Mujami Tal’at 933 & 5040.
al-K´ran¥, Ibrh¥m, Maslik al-Abrr il îad¥th al-Nab¥ al-Mukhtr,
Cairo: MS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, îad¥th 2293, Microfilm 14904.
al-K´ran¥, Ibrh¥m, Itúf al-Dhak¥ bi Sharú al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah il R´ú
al-Nab¥, Cairo, MSS Dr al-Kutub al-Mi§riyyah, Ta§awwuf 2578,
Microfilm 27651; Ta§awwuf 2954, Microfilm 10200.
al-K´ran¥, Ibrh¥m, al-Taúr¥rat al-Bhirah li Mabhith al-Durrat
al-Fkhirah, MSS Yahuda Section, the Garrett Collection, Princeton
University 2393 and 2395.
al-K´ran¥, Ibrh¥m, untitled [answers to questions coming from min ba’è
jaz’ir Jwah], MS Leiden University, Cod. Or. 2467 (5660), fols.
12–31.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, al-Barakat al-Saylniyyah, MS A Jakarta
National Library, 108.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Fatú al-Kayfiyyat al-Dhikr, MS A
Jakarta National Library, 108.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, al-Faw’ih al-Y´sufiyyah, MS A Jakarta
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Malib al-Slik¥n, MS A Jakarta
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, al-Nafhat al-Saylniyyah, MS A Jakarta
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Sirr al-Asrr, MS A Jakarta National
Library, 101.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Tj al-Asrr, MS A Jakarta National
Library, 101.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Tuúfat al-Abrr, MS A Jakarta National
Library, 101.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Tuúfat al-Amr f¥ Faè¥lat al-Dhikr, MS A
Jakarta National Library, 101.
al-Maqassr¥, Muúammad Y´suf, Zubdat al-Asrr, MS A Jakarta National
Library, 101.
al-Palimban¥, ‘Abd al-êamad, Tuhfat al-Rghib¥n f¥ Bayn îaq¥qat Imn
al-Mu’min¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 719.
al-Palimban¥, ‘Abd al-êamad, Na§iúat al-Muslim¥n wa Tadhkirat
al-Mu’min¥n f¥ Faè’il al-Jihd wa Karmat al-Mujhid¥n f¥ Sab¥l Allh,
MSS A Jakarta National Library, no. CCIX and V.d.W.51; Leiden
University, F. Or. A20C.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, Jawhir al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m, MS Marsden
Collection, SOAS, University of London, Text No. 12151; Leiden
University, Cod, Or. A41; Jakarta National Library, Ml 795.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, Bustn al-Sal¥n, MS Leiden University, Cod. Or.

5443; MS. Raffles No. 8, Royal Asiatic Society.
al-Shm¥, ‘Abd al-Shuk´r, Ziydah min ‘Ibrat al-Mutaqaddim¥n min Ahl
al-Jw¥, Leiden: MS. F. Or. A 13d (17–18).
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Bayn Tajall¥, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml
107B, and Ml 115A; Leiden University, Cod. Or. 1933.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, ‘Umdat al-Muútj¥n il Sul´k Maslak
al-Mufrad¥n, MS Jakarta National Library, Ml 107B, pp 120–227; M1
375, pp 20–141.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Mir’at al-$ullb, MS Jakarta National Library,
Ml 445.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah, MS Jakarta National
Library, Ml 341A.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Shariyyah, MS Jakarta National Library, M1
336D, pp 66–82.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Ahd al-Ra’´f, Tanb¥h al-Msh¥, MS Jakarta National Library,
A101.
Printed
al-Abdar¥, Ibn al-îajj (d. 738/1336–7), al-Madkhal, 4 vols, Cairo: Mu§af
al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥, 1380/1960.
Adat Aceh, Arabic text romanised by R. Harun & T.R.M.A. Gani, Jakarta:
Departemen P&K, 1985.
Adat Atjeh, ed. G.W.J. Drewes & P. Voorhoeve, VKI, 24, Leiden: KITLV,
1958.
al-’Ajam¥, îasan b. ‘Al¥ (d. 1113/1701–2), Ihd’ al-La’if min Akhbr al-
$’if, ed. Yaúy Maúm´d Junayd Sa’at¥, $’if: Dr al-Thaq¥f,
1400/1980.
al-An§ar¥, Zakariyy (d. 925/1519), Fatú al-Wahhb bi Sharú Manhaj
al-$ullb, Beirut: Dr al-Ma’rifah, 1978 [?].
al-Azraq¥, Ab´ al-Wal¥d Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Allh (d. 250/864), ‘Kitb
Akhbr Makkah Sharrafah Allh Ta’l wa m J’a f¥h min an-thr’,
in Wustenfeld (ed.), Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, Leipzig: Brock-
haus, 1858, I.
al-Banjar¥, Muúammad Arshad, Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n li al-Tafaqquh f¥ Amr
al-D¥n, Cairo: 1343/1925.
al-Barzanj¥, Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l (1040–1103/1630–92), Kitb
al-Ish’ah li Ishrt al-S’ah, ed. Muúammad Badr al-D¥n al-Na’sn¥,
Cairo: Maba’at al-Sa’dah, 1325/1907.
al-Ba§r¥, ‘Abd Allh b. Sal¥m (1048–1134/1638–1722), Kitb al-Imdd bi
Ma’rifah ‘Uluw al-Isnd, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah,
1328/1910.
Bello, Muúammad (d. 1243/1827), Infku’l Mays´r¥ [Infq al-Mays´r], ed.
C.E.J. Whiting, London: Luzac, 1957.
Braddell, T., ed. & trans., ‘On the History of Acheen: Translations from the
Majellis Ache’, JIAEA, 5 (1851).
[al-Burhnp´r¥, Muúammad b. Faèl Allh, d. 1031/1620], The Gift
Addressed to the Spirit of the Prophet, ed., trans. from Arabic and
Javanese texts with annot. A.H. Johns, Canberra: The Australian National
University, 1965.
Daghregister gehouden int Casteel Batavia vant passerende daer ter
plaetse als over geheel Nederlandts-India, 31 vols, Batavia & The
Hague, 1888–1931.
al-Dayb, ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. ‘Al¥ (866–933/1462–1536), al-Faèl al-Mzi’
‘al Bughyat al-Mustaf¥d f¥ Akhbr Mad¥nah Zab¥d, ed. Y´suf Shulhud,
San’a: Markaz al-Dirsat wa al-Buh´th al-Yaman¥, 1983.
al-Dihlw¥, Shh Wal¥ Allh (1114–76/1702–62), Anfs al-’rif¥n, Delhi:
1315/1897.
al-Dihlw¥, Shh Wal¥ Allh, îujjat Allh al-Blighah, 2 vols, ed. Sayyid
Sbiq, Cairo: Dr al-Kutub al-îad¥thah, 1964.
al-Dihlw¥, Shh Wal¥ Allh, ‘Wahdatul Wujud and Wahdatul Shuhud:
Unityism and Apparentism’, trans. Fazl Maúm´d al-As¥r¥, in Studies in
Urdu Literature, Santiniketan: Visbharati, 1954.
al-Dimashq¥, ‘Abd al-Qdir, b. Muúammad al-Nu’aym¥ (d. 927/1527), al-
Dris f¥ Tr¥kh al-Madris, 2 vols, ed. Ja’far al-Husn¥, Damascus [?]:
Maktabat al-Thaqfat al-D¥niyyah, 1988.
al-Fs¥, Taq¥ al-D¥n (775–832/1373–1428), al-’Iqd al-Tham¥n f¥ Tr¥kh al-
Balad al-Am¥n, 8 vols, Cairo: Maba’at al-Sunnat al-Muúammadiyah, n.d.
al-Fs¥, Taq¥ al-D¥n, Shif’ al-Gharam bi Akhbr al-Balad al-îaram,
2 vols Makkah: Maktabat al-Nahèat al-îad¥thah, 1965. Also printed in
Wustenfeld (ed.), Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, Leipzig: Brockhaus,
1859, II.
al-Fulln¥, êal¥ú (1166–1218/1752–1803), Qaf al-Thamar f¥ Raf’ Asnid
al-Mu§annafat f¥ al-Funń wa al-thr, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif
al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910.
al-Fulln¥, êal¥ú, Iq½ Himam Ul¥ al-Ab§r, Cairo [?]: Muniriyyah Press,
1355/1937.
al-Ghazl¥, Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n, 4 vols, Cairo: 1347/1967.
Hikayat Atjeh, ed. & annot. T. Iskandar, ‘s-Gravenhage: H.L. Smith, 1959.
[Hikayat Jall al-D¥n], in J.J. de Hollander (ed.), Verhaal van den aanvang der
Padri-onlusten op Sumatra door Sjech Djilal Eddin, Leiden: Brill, 1857.
Hikayat Patani: The Story of Patani, eds. A.E. Teeuw & D.K. Wyatt, The
Hague: Nijhoff, 1970.
Hikayat Raja-raja Pasai, ed. & trans. A.H. Hill, JMBRAS, 33, (1960).
Ibn Ba´tah, Riúlah Ibn Ba´tah, ed. Tall îarb, Beirut: Dr al-Kutub
al-’Ilmiyyah, 1407/1987.
Ibn Ba´tah, The Travels of Ibn Battutah, trans. H.A.R. Gibb, Cambridge:
University Press, 1958.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
Ibn Fahd, ‘Umar b. Fahd b. Muúammad (812–85/1409–80), Itúf al-Wara’

bi Akhbr Umm al-Qurr, 3 vols, Makkah: Jmi’ah Umm al-Qurr,
1404/1893.
Ibn Faraj, ‘Abd al-Qdir b. Aúmad (d. 1010/1602), al-êilat wa al-’Uddah
f¥ Tr¥kh Bandar Juddah—The Bride of the Red Sea: A l0th/16th Century
Account of Jeddah, Arabic text ed., trans. and annot. by G.R. Smith and
A. Umar al-Zayla, Durham, Eng.: Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic
Studies, 1984.
Ibn F´d¥, ‘Abd Allh (1180–1245/1766–1829), ‘Id’ al-Nus´kh man
akhadhtu ‘anhu min al-Shuy´kh, in M. Hiskett, ‘Material relating to the
State of Learning among the Fullani before Their Jihad’, BSOAS, 19, I
(1957).
[Ibn F´d¥, ‘Abd Allh b. Muúammad], Tazy¥n al-Waraqt, ed. & trans. M.
Hiskett, Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1963.
[Ibn F´d¥, ‘Uthmn], Shaykh ‘Uthmn ibn F´d¥ îi§n al-Afhm min Juy´sh
al-Awhm, ed., trans. with a commentary by F.R. Siddiqy, Kano: Quality
Press, 1989.
[Ibn F´d¥, ‘Uthmn], ‘Unbelief in the Western Sudan: Uthman dan Fodio’s
‘Ta’l¥m al-Ikhwn’’, ed., trans. and annot. B.G. Martin, Middle Eastern
Studies, 4 (1967–8).
Ibn al-’Imd, Ab´ al-Fallú b. ‘Abd al-îayy (d. 1089/1678), Shadharat
al-Akhbr man Dhahab, Cairo: Maktabat al-Quds¥, 1350–1/1930.
Ibn Jubayr, ‘Abd al-îusayn Muúammad b. Aúmad, The Travels of Ibn
Jubayr, trans. from Arabic with an introd. and notes by R.J.C. Broad-
hurst, London: Jonathan Cape, 1952.
Ibn Khlliqan, Wafyt al-A’yn wa Anb’ al-Zaman, 8 vols, ed. Ihsan
Abbas, Beirut: Dr al-Thaqfah, 1968–72.
al-Jabart¥, ‘Abd al-Raúmn (1169–1239/1754–1822), Tr¥kh Aj’ib
al-thr f¥ al-Tarjim wa al-Akhbr, 3 vols, Beirut: Dr al-Jil, n.d.
al-Jhiz, Ab¥ ‘Uthmn ‘Amr b. Babr (d. 257/868), Kitb al-Hayawn, ed.
‘Abd al-Salm Muúammad Hrń, Cairo: 1344–58/1925–39, VII.
al-J¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Kar¥m, Universal Man, extract trans. with commentary by
T. Burkhardt, English trans. by Angela Culme-Seymor, Paris: Beshara,
1983.
al-K´rn¥, Ibrh¥m, al-Umam li ¡q½ al-Himam, Hayderabad: D’irat
al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 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’,
BKI, 4, IV (1880).
al-Muhibb¥, Muúammad Am¥n (1061–1111/1651–99), Khul§at al-thr f¥
A’yn al-Qarn al-îd¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Cairo, 1248/1867–8, repr. Beirut:
Dr êad¥r, n.d.
al-Murd¥, Muúammad Khal¥l (1173–1206/1759–91), Silk al-Durar f¥
‘A’yn al-Qarn al-Thn¥ ‘Ashar, 4 vols, Beirut: Dr Ibn al-Hazm,
1408/1988.
al-Nahrawal¥, Muúammad b. Aúmad b. Qutb al-D¥n (d. 949/1542), ‘Kitb

al-I’lm bi A’lm Bayt al-îaram’, in Wustenfeld (ed.), Die Chroniken
der Stadt Mekka, Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1857, III.
al-Nakhl¥, Aúmad (1044–1130/1639–1718), Bughyat al-$lib¥n li Bayn
al-Mash’ikh al-Mutaúaqqiq¥n al-Mu’tamid¥n, Hayderabad: D’irat
al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1328/1910.
al-Palimbn¥, ‘Abd al-êamad, Sayr al-Slik¥n il ‘Ibdah Rabb al-’lam¥n,
4 vols, Cairo: Mu§af al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥, 1372/1953.
al-Palimbn¥, ‘Abd al-êamad, Sayr al-Slik¥n, [vol. I], romanized by A.M.
Umar, Banda Aceh: Museum Negeri Aceh, 1985/6.
al-Palimbn¥, ‘Abd al-êamad, Hidyat al-Slik¥n, Surabaya: 1933.
[Pires, Tomé], The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires, ed. & trans. Armando
Cortesao, London: Hakluyt, 1944.
al-Qushsh¥, Aúmad (991–1071/1583–1660), al-Sim al-Maj¥d f¥ Sha’n
al-Bay’ah wa al-Dhikr wa al-Talq¥nih wa Salsil Ahl al-Tawú¥d,
Hayderabad: Di’rat al-Ma’rif al-Ni½miyyah, 1327/1909.
al-Qutb¥, ‘Abd al-Kar¥m b. Muúibb al-D¥n (d. 1014/1605), I’lm
al-’Ulam’ al-A’lm bi Bin’ al-Masjid al-îaram, ed. Aúmad
Muúammad Jaml, ‘Abd al-Az¥z al-Rif’i & ‘Abd Allah al-Jabur¥,
Riyè: Dr al-Rif’¥, 1403/1983.
al-Qutb¥, ‘Abd al-Kar¥m, al-Barq al-Yamn¥ f¥ al-Fatú al-’Uthmn¥, Riyè:
Dr al-Yammah li al-Bahth wa al-Nashr wa al-Tarjamah, 1967.
al-Ramhurmuz¥, Buzurg b. Shahriyar, Kitb ‘Ajyib al-Hind: Livre les
Merveilles de l’Inde, ed. P.A. van der Lith, French trans., L.M. Devic,
Leiden: Brill, 1883–6.
al-Ramhurmuz¥, Buzurg b. Shahriyar, ‘Ajayib al-Hind: Les merveilles de
l’Inde, trans. L.M. Devic, Paris: Imprimerie de Charles Herissey, 1878.
Also The Book of Marvels of India, trans. P. Quennel, London: Rout-
ledge, 1928.
al-Raml¥, Shams al-D¥n (d. 1004/1596), Nihyat al-Muútj il Shar al-
Manhal f¥ al-Fiqh ‘al Madhhab al-Imm al-Shfi’¥, 8 vols, Mi§r:
Mu§f al-Bb¥ al-îalab¥, 1967.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, Bustn al-Sal¥n Bab II, Fasal 13, ed. T. Iskandar,
Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1966.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, Khabar Akhirat dalam Hal Kiamat, Jakarta:
Departemen P&K, 1983.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, Asrr al-Insn f¥ Ma’rifa al-R´ú wa ‘l-Raúmn, ed.
Tudjimah, Bandung: al-Ma’arif, 1961.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, êir al-Mustaq¥m, ed. Aúmad b. Muúammad Zayn
Mu§af al-Fan¥, Singapore: n.d.
al-Rn¥r¥, N´r al-D¥n, êir al-Mustaq¥m, in the margin of Muúammad
Arshad al-Banjar¥, Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n, Singapore: Sulayman Mar’ie, n.d.
[orig. unknown].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
al-Sakhaw¥, Shams al-D¥n (831–902/1428–97), Tuúfat al-La¥fah f¥ Tr¥kh

al-Mad¥nat al-Shar¥fah, 4 vols, Cairo: Maba’at al-Sunnat al-Muúam-
madiyah, 1376/l957.
al-Samhud¥, N´r al-D¥n ‘Al¥ b. Aúmad (911/1505), Waf’ al-Waf bi
Akhbr Dr al-Mu§af, 3 vols, ed. Muúammad Muúy al-D¥n ‘Abd
al-îmid, Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 1373/1955.
al-Sha’rn¥, ‘Abd al-Wahhb (899–973/1493–1565), al-$abaqt al-êughr,
ed. ‘Abd al-Qdir Aúmad ‘A, Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhirah, 1390/1970.
al-Sha’rn¥, ‘Abd al-Wahhb, al-$abaqt al-Kubr, 2 vols, Cairo:
Maktabah wa Maba’ah Muúammad ‘Al¥ Sab¥h wa Awlduh, [1965?].
al-Shawkan¥, Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ (d. 1205/1791), al-Badr al-Tali’, 2 vols,
Cairo: Maba’at al-Sa’dah, 1348/1929.
Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, trans. C.C. Brown, Kuala Lumpur:
Oxford University Press, 1970.
[Silsilah ‘Abd al-Ra’´f al-Sink¥l¥], Pasal pada Menyatakan Silsilah Tuan
Syekh Abdul Ra’uf [sic] tatkala menuntut Ilmu Kepada Syekh Abdul
[sic] Qusyasyi, ed. Ph. S. van Ronkel in, ‘Het Heiligdom te Oelakan’,
TBG, 64 (1914).
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Mir’at al-$ullb, in S. Keijzer, ‘Spiegel voor
leergierige wetgeleerden’, BKI, 11 (1864).
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Kitb al-Far’iè, Singapore & Jeddah:
Haramayn, n.d.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Kitb al-Far’iè, publ. in one vol. with Ism’¥l
al-Minangkabaw¥, Kifyat al-Ghulm, Penang: n.d.
al-Sink¥l¥, ‘Abd al-Ra’´f, Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah, publ. in one vol. with ‘Abd
Allh b. ‘Abd al-Raú¥m al-Fan¥, Muhimmah pada Hadith Nabi,
Penang: Sulayman Press, 1369/1949.
al-Suy´¥, Jall al-D¥n (d. 911/1505), îusn al-Muúèarah f¥ Akhbr Mi§r
wa al-Qhirah, Cairo: al-Maws´’t, n.d.
al-Suy´¥, Jall al-D¥n, al-Hijj al-Mubayyint al-Tafè¥l bayn al-Makkah
wa al-Mad¥nah, ed. ‘Abd Allh Muúammad al-Darw¥sh, Beirut:
al-Yammah, 1405/1985.
‘Tarikh al-Shihri’, in R.B. Serjeant, The Portuguese off the South Arabian
Coast: Hadrami Chronicles, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Valentijn, F., Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indiën, 5 vols, Dordrecht: J. van Braam,
1724–6.
al-Zbid¥, Murtaè (d. 1206/1791), Tarw¥h al-Qul´b f¥ Dhikr al-Muluk
Ban¥ Ayy´b, ed. êalú al-Munajjid, Damascus: Majma al-Lughat al-
’Arabiyyah, 1388/1968.
al-Zbid¥, Murtaè, Tj al-’Ar´s min Jawhir al-Qm´s, 10 vols, ed. ‘Abd
al-Sattr Aúmad Faraj, Kuwait: al-Turth al-’Arabiyyah, 1385/1985.
al-Zbid¥, Murtaè, Kitb Itúf al-Sdat al-Muttaq¥n bi Sharh Asrr Iúy’
‘Ul´m al-D¥n, 10 vols, Cairo: n.p., 1893.
Unpublished Dissertations and Papers

Abdel 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 Antropologi
Agama’, 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: A
Traditional Islamic Educational Institution in West Sumatra during the
Dutch Colonial Government’, MA thesis, Columbia University, 1988.
Djamil, Abdul, ‘KH Ahmad Rifa’i Kalisalak: Studi tentang Pemikiran dan
Gerakan Islam Abad Sembilan Belas (1786–1876)’, doctoral disser-
tation, Program PascaSarjana IAIN Yogyakarta, 1999.
[Fathurahman, Oman, ‘Tarekat Syariyyah di Dunia Melayu-Indonesia;
Kajian atas Dinamika Perkembangannya melalui Naskah-naskah di Sumatra
Barat’, doctoral diss., Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Indonesia, 2003.
[Galigo, Syamsul Bahri Andi, ‘Syekh Yusuf Makasar dan Pemikiran
Tasawufnya dalam al-Nafúah al-Saylniyyah’, doctoral diss., Universiti
Kebangsaan 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, Reformist
Islam and a Conceptualization of Indonesia’, PhD thesis, University of
Sydney, 2000.
Muchoyyar H.S., H.M., ‘Tafsir Faidl al-Rahman fi Tarjamah Tafsir Kalam
Malik 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 on
the Anthropological and Historical Approaches to the Comparative
Study of Islam, Washington University, St. Louis, 1989.
Sangidu, ‘Wachdatul-Wuj´d dalam M’ul-Chayt li Ahlil-Mamt’, doctoral
diss., Universitas Gadjahmada, Yogyakarta, 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
Tjokrowinoto, R.S., ‘Tindjauan Kitab Sirat ‘l-Mustaqim (karangan Nur ad-Din

ar-Raniri)’, MA thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 1964.
Woodward, M.R., ‘The Shari’ah and the Doctrine: Muslim Law and
Mystical Doctrine in Central Java’, PhD diss., University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, 1985.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Books
‘Abd Allh, ‘Abd al-Raúmn êliú, Tr¥kh al-Ta’l¥m f¥ Makkah al-Mukar-
ramah, Jeddah: Dr al-Shur´q, 1403/1982.
‘Abd al-Jabbr, ‘Umar, Dur´s min Mè¥ al-Ta’l¥m wa îèirih bi al-Masjid
al-îaram, Cairo: n.p., 1959.
‘Abd al-Jabbr, ‘Umar, Siyar wa Tarjim ba’è ‘Ulam’in f¥ al-Qarn
al-Rbi’ ‘Ashar li al-Hijrah, Jeddah: Tihama, 1403/1982.
Abdullah, Hawash, Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf dan Tokoh-tokohnya di
Nusantara, Surabaya: al-Ikhlas, 1980.
Abdullah, H.W.M. Shagir, Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah al-Fatani: Ulama
dan Pengarang Terulung Asia Tenggara, Kuala Lumpur: Hizbi, 1990.
Abdullah, H.W. Muhd. Shaghir, Perkembangan Ilmu Fiqh dan Tokoh-
tokohnya di Asia Tenggara, I, Solo: Ramadhani, 1985.
Abdullah, Muhd. Shaghir, Syeikh Abduh Shamad al-Palimbani, Pontianak:
al-Fathanah, 1983.
Abdullah, Shaghir, Syeikh Muhd Arsyad al-Banjari, Matahari Islam,
Pontianak: al-Fathanah, 1983.
Abdullah, H.W.M. Shagir, Penyebaran Islam dan Silsilah Ulama Sejagat
Dunia Melayu Jilid 9, Pengenalan Siri Ke-10, Kuala Lumpur: Persat-
uan Pengkajian Khazanah Klasik Nusantara & Khazanah Fathaniyah,
2000.
Abu Bakar, Abdul Latiff (ed.), Melayu Srilanka, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena,
1990.
Abu-Nasr, Jamil, The Tijaniyya: A Sufi Order in the Modern World,
London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Ahmad, Aziz, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Ahmad, Z., Sekitar Kerajaan Aceh dalam tahun 1520–1675, Medan:
Manora, 1972.
Ahmed, Munir ud-Din, Muslim Education and the Scholars’ Social Status
up to the 5th Century Muslim Era (11th Century Christian Era), Zurich:
Verlag der Islam, 1968.
al-Akw, Ism’¥l b. ‘Al¥, al-Madris al-Islmiyyah f¥ al-Yaman, Beirut:
Mu’assasat al-Rislah, 1406/1986.
Al-’Amr¥, îusayn b. ‘Abdullh, The Yemen in the 18th and 19th Centuries:
A Political and Intellectual History, London: Ithaca Press, 1985.
Andaya, B.W., To Live as Brothers: Southeast Sumatra in the Seventeenth

and Eighteenth Centuries, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993.
Andaya, L.Y., The Heritage of Arung Palaka: A History of South Sulawesi
(Celebes) in the Seventeenth Century, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1981.
Andaya, L.Y., The Kingdom of Johor: 1641–1720, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
Arberry, A.J., Muslim Saints and Mystics, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1966.
Arnold, T.W., The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the
Muslim Faith, London: Constable, 1913.
Arshad, M.H. b. Dato Kerani, Al-Tarikh Salasilah Negeri Kedah, Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1968.
al-Asam¥, ‘Abd al-Mulk b. îusayn, Sim al-Nuj´m al-’Awal¥ f¥ Abn’
al-Awtil wa al-Tawl¥, 4 vols, Cairo: al-Maba’at al-Salfiyyah,
1379/1959.
Atjeh, Aboebakar, Tarekat dalam Tasawuf, Kota Bharu: Pustaka Aman,
1979.
al-Attas, S.M.N., The Oldest known Malay Manuscript: A 16th Century
Malay Translation of the ‘Aqa’id of al-Nasafi, Kuala Lumpur: Univer-
sity of Malaya Press, 1988.
al-Attas, S.M.N., A Commentary on the Hujjat al-Siddiq of Nur al-Din
al-Raniri, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, 1986.
al-Attas, S.M.N., Islam dalam Sejarah dan Kebudayaan Melayu, Kuala
Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1972.
al-Attas, S.M.N., The Mysticism of Hamzah Fansuri, Kuala Lumpur:
University of Malaya Press, 1970.
al-Attas, S.M.N, Preliminary Statement on a General Theory of Islamiza-
tion of the Malay-Indonesian Archipelago, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan
Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1969.
al-Attas, S.M.N., Raniri and Wujudiyyah of 17th Century Acheh, Singa-
pore, MBRAS, 1966.
al-Attas, S.N., Some Aspects of Sufism as Understood and Practised among
the Malays, Singapore: Malaysian Sociological Research Institute, 1963.
Auni, L., The Decline of the Islamic Empire of Aceh, 1641–1699, Jakarta:
Departemen Agama R.I., 1996/7.
Azami, M.M., On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, New
York/Riyad: Wiley/King Saud University, 1985.
Azami, M.M., Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, Indianapolis:
American Trust Publication, 1977.
al-’Azimabad¥, ‘Ab¥ al-$ayyib Muúammad Shams al-îaq, ‘Awn
al-Ma’b´d Sharú Sunan Ab¥ Dwud, 14 vols, Medina: Maktabat
al-Salfiyyah, 1389/1969.
Azra, Azyumardi, Islam Nusantara: Jaringan Global dan Lokal, Bandung:
Mizan, 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215
Azra, Azyumardi, Menuju Masyarakat Madani, Bandung: Rosda, 1999.

Azra, Azyumardi, Renaisans Islam Asia Tenggara: Sejarah Wacana dan
Kekuasaan, 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-Raúmn, La transmission de la philosophie grecque au
monde arabe, Paris: J. Vrins, 1968.
al-Baghdd¥, Ism’¥l Bsh, Hadiyyat al-’rif¥n: Asm’ al-Mu’allif¥n
‘Athar al-Mu§annif¥n, 2 vols, Istanbul: Milli Egitim Basimevi, 1951.
Baljon, J.M.S., Religion and Thought of Shh Wal¥ Allh Dihlaw¥,
1703–1762, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.
al-Bash¥r, al-$hir Muúammad ‘Al¥, al-Adab al-ê´f¥ al-S´dan¥, Khartoum:
al-Dr al-S´daniyyah, 1390/1970.
Basuni, A., Nur Islam di Kalimantan Selatan, Surabaya: Bina ilmu 1986.
al-Bayr, ‘Abd al-Razzq (1253–1335/1837–1917), îilyat al-Bashar f¥
Tr¥kh al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar, 3 vols, ed. Muúammad Baújat
al-Bayr, Damascus: Mab´’at Majm’ al-’Ilm al-’Arab¥, 1383/1963.
Beg, M.A.J., Persian and Turkish Loan-Words in Malay, Kuala Lumpur:
University of Malaya, 1982.
van den Berg, L.W.C., Le Hadhramout et les colonies arabes dans
l’archipel indien, Batavia: Imprimerie de Gouvernement, 1889.
Berkey, J., The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social
History of Islamic Education, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Bowen, J.R., Sumatran Politics and Poetics: Gayo History, 1900–1989,
New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1991.
Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, 2 vols and
2 supplements, Leiden: Brill, 1943–49.
van Bruinessen, M., Kitab Kuning, Pesantren, dan Tarekat: Tradisi-
Tradisi Islam di Indonesia, Bandung: Mizan, 1995.
van Bruinessen, M., Tarekat Naqsyabandiyah di Indonesia, Bandung:
Mizan, 1992.
Bugis-Makassar dalam Peta Islamisasi Indonesia, Ujung Pandang: IAIN
Alauddin, 1982.
Bulliet, R.W., Islam: The view from the Edge, New York: Columbia
Bulliet, R.W., Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period, Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Bulliet, R.W., The Patricians of Nishapur, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Chatelier, A. le, Le confréries musulmanes de Hedjaz, Paris: Ernest Leroux,
1887.
Chaudhuri, K.N., Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An
Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge: University
Press, 1985.
Clifford, H. & F.A. Swettenham, A Dictionary of the Malay Language,

I, Taiping: 1894.
Coedès, G., The Indianized States of Southeast Asia, ed. W.F.Vella, trans.
S.B. Cowing, Honolulu: East-West Center.
Cuoq, J.M., Les musulmans en Afrique, Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, 1975.
Dahln, Aúmad Zayn¥ (d. 1305/1886), Khul§at al-Kalm f¥ Bayn Umar’
al-Bild al-îaram, Cairo: n.p., 1305/1888.
Dahln, Aúmad Zayn¥, Umar’ Bild al-îaram mundhu Awwlihim f¥
‘Aúd al-Ras´l úatt al-Shar¥f al-îusayn b. ‘Al¥, Beirut: al-Dr
al-Muttaúidah, n.d.
Dangor, Suleman Essop, Shaykh Yusuf, Durban: Kat Bros, 1982.
Daud, Ismail Che, Tokoh-tokoh Ulama’ Semenanjung Melayu, Kota Bharu:
Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Kelantan, 1992.
Daudi, Abu, Maulana Syekh Moh. Arsyad al-Banjari, Martapura: Sullamul
Ulum, 1980.
Daudy, Ahmad, Allah dan Manusia dalam Konsepsi Nuruddin ar-Raniri,
Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983.
Daudy, Ahmad, Syeikh Nuruddin Ar-Raniry, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1978.
Deschamps, H., Histoire de Madagascar, 3rd ed., Paris, 1965.
van Diffelen, R.W., De leer der Wahhabieten, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1927.
Diradjo, Datuk Sangguno, Mustiko Adat Alam Minangkabau, Djakarta:
Kementerian PP&K, 1955.
Djajadiningrat, R.H., Kesultanan Aceh berdasarkan Bahan-bahan yang
terdapat dalam Karya Melayu, trans. T. Hamid, Banda Aceh: Departe-
men P&K, 1982/83. Dutch original is ‘Critisch overzich van de in
Maleische vervatte gegevens over de geschiedenis van het Sultanaat van
Atjeh’, BKI, 65 (1911).
Djajadiningrat, R.H., Critische beschouwing van de Sedjarah Banten,
Haarlem: J. Enschedé, 1913.
Dobbin, C., Islamic Revivalism in a Changing Peasant Economy: Central
Sumatra 1784–1847, London: Curzon, 1983.
Dodge, B., Muslim Education in Medieval Times, Washington, D.C.: The
Middle East Institute, 1962.
Dohaish, Abdullatif Abdullah, History of Education in the Hijaz up to
1925, Cairo: Dr al-Fikr al-’Arab¥, 1398/1978.
Doorenbos, J., De Geschriften van Hamzah Pansoeri, Leiden: Batteljee &
Terpstra, 1933.
Drewes, G.W.J., An Early Javanese Code of Muslim Ethics, Bibliotheca
Indonesica, 18, The Hague: KITLV & Nijhoff, 1978.
Drewes, G.W.J., Directions for Travellers on the Mystic Path, The Hague,
Nijhoff, 1977.
Dunn, R.E., The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveller in
the Fourteenth Century, Berkeley: University of California Press,
1989.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
Eaton, R.M., Sufis of Bijapur 1300–1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval

India, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.
Edmonds, C.J., Kurds, Turks, and Arabs, London: Oxford University Press,
1957.
Efendy, Huseyn, Ottoman Egypt in the Age of the French Revolution, trans.
from the original Arabic with introd. and notes by. S.J. Shaw,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964.
Esin, Emel, Mecca the Blessed, Madinah the Radiant, London: Elek Books,
1963.
Fang, Liaw Yock, Undang-undang Melaka, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1976.
Faroqhi, Suraiya, Herrscher über Mekka: Die Geschichte der Pilgerfahrt,
Munchen: Artemis Verlag, 1990.
Fathurahman, Oman, Menyoal Wahdatul Wujud: Kasus Abdurrauf Singkel
di Aceh Abad 17, Bandung: Mizan & EFEO Jakarta, 1999.
Fatimi, S.Q., Islam Comes to Malaysia, Singapore: Malaysian Sociological
Institute, 1963.
Federspiel, H.M., Persatuan Islam: Islamic Reform in Twentieth Century
Indonesia, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Modern Indonesia Project,
1970.
Fernandes, L., The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: The
Khangah, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1988.
Ferrand, G., Relations de voyages et textes géographiques arabes, persans,
et turks relatifs á l’Extrême-Orient, Paris: Leroux, 1914.
Friedmann, Y., Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a
Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity, Montreal: Institute of Islamic
Studies, McGill University Press, 1971.
de Gaury, G., Rulers of Mecca, 1951, repr. ed., New York: New York:
Dorset Press, 1991.
Geertz, C., Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and
Indonesia, New Haven & London, Yale University Press, 1968.
Geertz, C., The Religion of Java, New York: Free Press, 1960.
Gibb, H.A.R. & H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, 2 vols, Oxford:
Gladney, D.C., Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People’s
Republic, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Glazer, N. & D.P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot, Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1974.
Goldziher, I., Zur Charakteristik Gelal ud-Din us-Suyuti’s und seiner liter-
arischen Tätigkeit, Vienna: 1872.
de Graaf, H.J., De Regering van Sultan Agung, vorst van Mataram,
1613–1645, en die van zijn voorganger panembahan Seda-ing-Krapjak,
1601–1613, VKI, 23, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1958.
de Graaf, H.J. & Th. G. Th. Pigeaud, Kerajaan-kerajaan Islam di Jawa,
Jakarta: Grafiti, 1984, trans. from De eerste Moslimse vorstendommen
op Java: Studiën over de staatkundige geschiedenis van de 15de en 16de
eeuw, VKI, 69, Leiden: KITLV, 1974.
Gran, P., Islamic Roots of Capitalism, Austin: University of Texas Press,

1979.
Gullick, J.M., Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya, London:
Athlone Press, 1965.
de Haan, F., Priangan: De Preanger-regentschappen onder het Neder-
landsch bestuur tot 1811, Batavia & ’s-Gravenhage: Kolff & Nijhoff,
1912, III.
Hfi½, ‘Abd al-Salm Hshim, Al-Mad¥nat al-Munawwarah f¥ Tr¥kh,
Cairo: Dr al-Turth, 1381/1972.
Halidi, Jusuf, Ulama Besar Kalimantan: Sjech Muhammad Arsjad al-
Bandjari, Martapura: Jajasan al-Bandjari, 1968.
Hall, D.G.E., A History of South-East Asia, London: Macmillan, 1964.
Hamid, Abu, Shaykh Yusuf: Seorang Ulama, Sufi dan Pejuang, Jakarta:
Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 1994.
Hamka, Ajahku: Riwajat Hidup Dr. H. Abd Karim Amrullah dan Perd-
juangan Kaum Agama di Sumatra, Jakarta: Djajamurni, 1967.
Hamka, Antara Fakta dan Khayal Tuanku Rao, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1974.
Hamka, Dari Perbendaharaan Lama, Medan: Madju, 1963.
Hamka, Sejarah Islam di Sumatera, Medan: Pustaka Nasional, 1950.
Haron, Muhammed, Muslims in South Africa: an annotated bibliography,
Cape Town: South African Library, 1997.
al-îasan¥, ‘Abd al-îayy b. Fakhr al-D¥n, Nuzhat al-Khawa¥r f¥ Bahjat
al-Masmi wa al-Nawzir, 7 vols, Hayderabad: D’irat al-Ma’rif
al-’Uthmniyyah, 1931–59.
Hashim, Muhammad Yusoff, Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1989.
Hashim, Muhamad Yusoff, Persejarahan Melayu Nusantara, Kuala
Lumpur: Teks Publishing Sdn. Bhd., 1988.
Hasjmi, A., Sejarah Kebudayaan Islam di Indonesia, Jakarta: Bulan
Bintang, 1990.
Hasjmi, A. (ed.), Sejarah Masuk dan Berkembangnya Islam di Indonesia,
2nd ed., Bandung: al-Ma’arif, 1989.
Hasjmi, A., Syiah dan Ahlussunnah saling rebut pengaruh sejak
awal Sejarah Islam di Kepulauan Nusantara, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1983.
Hasjmi, A., Kebudayaan Aceh dalam Sejarah, Jakarta: Beuna, 1983.
Hasjmi, A., Ruba’i Hamzah Fansuri, Karya Sastra Sufi Abad XVII, Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1976.
Heer, N., The Precious Pearl: Al-Jmi’s al-Durrah al-Fkhirah together
with his Glosses and the Commentary of ‘Abd al-Ghaf´r al-Lar¥,
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1979.
Hiskett, M., The Sword of Truth: The Life and Times of the Shehu Usuman
dan Fodio, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Hitti, P.K., N.A. Faris & B. ‘Abd-al-Malik, Descriptive Catalogue of the
Garrett Collection of Arabic Manuscripts in the Princeton University
Library, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
Hodgson, M.G.S., The Venture of Islam, 3 vols, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1974.
Hooker, M.B., Islamic Law in South-East Asia, Singapore: Oxford Univer-
sity 1984.
Hourani, G.F., Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early
Medieval Times, Beirut: Khayats, 1963.
Huntington, R., Gender and Social Structure in Madagascar, Bloomington
& Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988.
Hussainmiya, B.A., Orang Rejimen: The Malays of the Ceylon Rifle
Regiment, Bangi: University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1990.
Ibn Bishr, ‘Uthmn b. ‘Abd Allh, ‘Unwn al-Majd f¥ Tr¥kh Najd, 2 vols,
Riyè: Maktabat al-Riyè al-îad¥thah 1971 [?].
Jalbani, G.N., Life of Shah Wali Allah, Delhi: Idarah-i adabiyat-i Delli,
1980.
Janson, A., Roger Tol, and Jan Just Witkam (eds), Mystical Illustrations
from the Teachings of Syaikh Ahmad al-Qusyasyi, Leiden: INIS, 1995.
Jones, A.M., Africa and Indonesia: The Evidence of the Xylophone and
Other Musical and Cultural Factors, Leiden: Brill, 1971.
de Jong, Frederick & Bernd Radtke (eds), Islamic Mysticism Contested:
Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics, Leiden: Brill, 1999.
[Azra himself has a contribution to this volume, but there are other
pieces relevant to his work in the chapters by Madelung, Peskes, Radtke,
and Lipman, among others.]
de Jonge, J.K.J., De opkomst van het Nederlandsch gezag over Java, The
Hague: Nijhoff, 1870.
Juynboll, G.H.A., Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance,
and Authorship of Early Hadith, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983.
Kartodirdjo, Sartono (ed.), Profiles of Malay Culture, Jakarta: Ministry of
Education and Culture, 1976.
al-Kattn¥, ‘Abd al-îayy b. ‘Abd al-Kab¥r, Fahras al-Fahris wa al-Athbt
wa Mu’jam al-Ma’jim wa al-Mashyakhat wa al-Musalsalat, 3 vols,
Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm¥, 1402/1982.
al-Khrij¥, ‘Al¥, al-’Uq´d al-Lu’lu’iyyah f¥ Tr¥kh al-Dawlat al-Ras´liyyah,
2 vols, Cairo: Maba’at al-Hilal, 1914.
Kennedy, J., A History of Malaya, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1970.
Knysh, A.D., Ibn ‘Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a
Polemical Image in Medieval Islam, Albany: SUNY Press, 1999.
Kraemer, H., Een Javaansche Primbon uit de zestiende eeuw, Leiden: Brill,
1921.
Kraus, W., Zwischen Reform und Rebellion: über die Entwicklung des
Islams in Minangkabau (Westsumatra) zwischen den beiden Reform-
bewegungen der Padri (1837) und der Modernisten (1908), Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner, 1984.
Landon, K.P., Southeast Asia: Crossroad of Religions, Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1949.
van Leur, J.C., Indonesian Trade and Society, The Hague: Van Hoeve,
1955.
Levtzion, N. (ed.), Conversion to Islam, New York: Holmes & Meyer,
1979.
Levtzion, N. & J.O. Voll (eds), Eighteenth-Century Renewal and Reform in
Islam, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987.
Lombard, D., Le carrefour Javanais (3 vols.), Paris: EHESS, 1990. Trans.
into Nusa Jawa Silang Budaya (3 vols.), Jakarta: Gramedia, 1996.
Lombard, D., Le Sultanat d’Atjéh au Temps d’Iskandar Muda, 1607–1636,
Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1967. Trans. into Kerajaan
Aceh Jaman Sultan Iskandar Muda, Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1991.
Lubis, Haji Muhammad Bukhari, The Ocean of Unity: Waúdat al-Wuj´d in
Persian, Turkish and Malay Poetry, Kuala Lumpur: DBD, 1993.
Lubis, Nabilah, Syekh Yusuf al-Taj al-Makasari, Menyingkap Intisari
Segala Rahasia, Bandung: Mizan & EFEO Jakarta, 1996.
Madmarn, Hasan, The Pondok and Madrasah in Patani, Kuala Lumpur:
Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1999.
Majul, C.A., Muslims in the Philippines, 2nd ed., Quezon City: University
of the Philippines Press, 1979.
Makdisi, G., The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian
West, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990.
Mansur, H.M. Laily, Kitab ad-Durun Nafis: Tinjauan atas suatu Ajaran
Tasawuf, Banjarmasin: Hasanu, 1982.
Mansur, M.D., Perang Padri di Sumatera Barat, Djakarta: 1964.
Marsden, W., The History of Sumatra, first publ., London: 1873, repr. of
the 1811 ed., Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Martamin, M., Tuanku Imam Bonjol, 2nd ed., Jakarta: Departemen P&K,
1984.
Martin, B.G., Muslim Brotherhoods in Nineteenth Century Africa,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Martin, R.C. & M.R. Woodward with Dwi S. Atmaja, Defender of Reason
in Islam: Mu’tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol, Oxford:
Oneworld, 1997.
Ma’r´f, Nji, Madris Makkah, Baghdad: Maba’at al-Irshd, 1386/1966.
Ma’r´f, Nji, ‘Ulam’ al-Ni½miyyah wa al-Madris al-Mashriq al-Islm¥,
Baghdad: Maba’at al-Irshd, 1393/1973.
Ma’r´f, Nj¥, Madris qabl al-Ni½miyyah, Baghdd [?]: Maba’at al-Jam’
al-’Ilm¥ al-’Irq¥, 1393/1973.
Massiara, A.H., Syekh Yusuf Tuanta Salamaka dari Gowa, Jakarta:
Yayasan Lakipadada, 1983.
Massignon, L., Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique
musulmane, Paris: J. Vrin, 1954.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221
Masuknya Islam di Sulawesi Selatan, Ujung Pandang: Balai Penelitian

Lektur, Depag R.I., 1985–6.
Mayson, J.S., The Malays of Cape Town, Manchester: J. Galt & Co., 1861.
Meilink-Roelofsz, M.A.P., Asian Trade and European Influence in the
Indonesian Archipelago, The Hague: Nijhoff, 1962.
Muztar, A.D., Shah Wali Allah: A Saint Scholar of Muslim India, Islam-
abad: National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, 1979.
al-Naqar, ‘Umar, The Pilgrimage Tradition in West Africa, Khartoum:
Khartoum University Press, 1972.
Nasution, Harun, Islam Rasional, Bandung: Mizan, 1995.
Ngah, Mohd Nor Bin, Kitab Jawi: Islamic Thought of the Malay Muslim
Scholars, Singapore: ISEAS, 1983.
van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., Samsu’l-Din van Pasai: Bijdrage tot de kennis
der Sumatraansche Mystiek, Leiden: Brill, 1945.
Nock, A.D., Conversion: The Old and the New-Religion from Alexander
the Great to Augustine of Hippo, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.
Ochsenwald, W., Religion, Society and the State in Arabia: The Hijaz
under Ottoman Control, Columbus, O.H.: Ohio State University Press,
1984.
Owen, T. (ed.), Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1997.
Pesce, A., Jiddah: Portrait of an Arabian City, London: Falcon Press, 1974.
Peters, F.E., Jerusalem and Mecca: The Typology of the Holy City in the
Near East, New York & London: New York University Press, 1986.
Pigeaud, T.G. Th., Literature of Java, 3 vols, Leiden: Bibliotheca Univer-
sitatis Leidensis, 1967.
Pigeaud, Th. G. Th. & H.J. de Graaf, Islamic States in Java 1500–1700,
The Hague: Nijhoff, 1976.
Pijper, G.F., Fragmenta Islamica: Studiën over het Islamisme in Neder-
landsch-Indië, Leiden: Brill, 1934.
du Plessis, I.D., The Cape Malays: History, Religion, Traditions, Folk
Tales of the Malay Quarter, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1972.
du Plessis, I.D., Sjeg Joesoef, Kaapstad: Nasionale Boekhandel, 1970.
du Plessis, I.D., The Cape Malays, Johannesburg: South African Institute
of Race Relations, 1946.
al-Qann´j¥, êidd¥q b. îasan, Abjad al-’Ul´m, 3 vols Dr al-Kutub
al-’Ilmiyyah, n.d.
al-Quds¥, ‘Abd al-îmid b. Muúammad ‘Al¥, al-Fut´ht al-Qudsiyyah
f¥ Sharú al-Tawassult al-Sammniyyah, Cairo: al-îmidiyyat
al-Mi§riyyah, 1323/1905.
Quzwain, M. Chatib, Mengenal Allah: Studi mengenai Ajaran Tasawwuf
Syaikh ‘Abdus Samad al-Palimbani, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984.
Raffles, T.S., The History of Java, 2 vols, London: Black, Parburg & Allen,
1817, repr. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Unversity Press, 1965.
Rahim, Husni, Sistem Otoritas & Administrasi Islam: Studi tentang

Pejabat Agama Masa Kesultanan dan Kolonial di Palembang, Jakarta:
Logos, 1998.
Rahman, Fazlur, Revival and Reform in Islam: A Study of Islamic Funda-
mentalism, Oxford: OneWorld, 2000.
Rahman, Fazlur, Islam (2nd Edition), Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979.
Ras, J.J., Hikayat Banjar, A Study in Malay Historiography, The Hague:
Nijhoff, 1968.
Rauf, M.A., A Brief History of Islam with Special Reference to Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1964.
Reid, A., Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680 (Volume
Two: Expansion and Crisis), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Ricklefs, M.C., The Seen and Unseen Worlds in Java, 1726–1749: History,
Literature and Islam in the Court of Pakubuwana II, St Leonard,
Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1998.
Ricklefs, M.C., A History of Modern Indonesia, London: Macmillan, 1990.
Ricklefs, M.C., Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749–1792,
London: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Riddell, P., Islam and the Malay-Indonesian World: Transmission and
Responses, London & Singapore: C. Hurst & Horizon Books, 2001.
Riddell, P., Transferring a Tradition: Abd al-Ra’uf al-Singkili’s Rendering
into Malay of the Jalalayn Commentary, Berkeley: Monograph No. 31,
Centers for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California,
1990.
Rinkes, D.A., Abdoerraoef van Singkel: Bijdrage tot de kennis van de
mystiek op, Sumatra en Java, Heerenveen: Hepkema, 1909.
Riwayat Syekh Yusuf dan Kisah Makkutaknang Daeng Mannuntungi,
Trans. Djirong Basang, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1981.
Rizvi, S.A.A., A History of Sufism in India, 2 vols, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1983.
Rizvi, S.A.A., Shah Wali Allah and His Times, Canberra: Ma’rifat Publish-
ing House, 1980.
van Ronkel, Ph. S., Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts
. . . in the Batavia Society, Batavia & The Hague: Albrecht & Nijhoff,
1913.
van Ronkel, Ph. S., Catalogus der Maleische Handschriften, Batavia & The
Hague: Albrecht & Nijhoff, 1909.
Salam, Solichin, Shaykh Yusuf ‘Singa dari Gowa’: Ulama berkaliber Inter-
nasional, Jakarta, 1994.
Saleh, Siti Hawa (ed.), Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Kuala Lumpur:
University of Malaya Press, 1970.
Sandhu, K.S. & P. Wheatley (eds), Melaka: The Transformation of a Malay
Capital c. 1400–1980, 2 vols, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press,
1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
Sartain, E.M., Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, 2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge

Sasmita, Uka Tjandra, Musuh Besar Kompeni Belanda: Sultan Ageng
Tirtayasa, Jakarta: Nusalarang, 1967.
Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1979.
Scherzer, K., Narrative of the Circumnavigation of the Globe by the
Austrian Frigate Novara in the Years 1857, 1858 and 1859, 3 vols,
London: 1861–63.
Schimmel, A., Pain and Grace: A Study of Two Mystical Writers of Eigh-
teenth Century Muslim India, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
Schrieke, B.J.O., Indonesian Sociological Studies, 2 parts, The Hague &
Bandung: Van Hoeve, 1955.
Sell, Rev. C., Muslims in China, London [etc.]: Christian Literature for
India 1913.
al-Sha’af¥, M.S., The Foreign Trade of Juddah during the Ottoman Period
1840–1916, Jeddah [?]: n.p., 1405/1985.
al-Shamakh, Muúammad ‘Abd al-Raúmn, al-Ta’l¥m f¥ Makkah wa
al-Mad¥nah, Riyè: n.p., 1393/1973.
Shaw, S.J., The Financial and Administrative Organization and Develop-
ment of Ottoman Egypt, 1517–1798, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1962.
Shaw, S.J., The Budget of Ottoman Egypt, 1005–1006/1596–1597, The
Hague & Paris: Mouton, 1968.
Sherwani, H.K., The Bahmanids of the Deccan, Hyderabad: 1953.
Shushud, Hasan, Masters of Wisdom of Central Asia, trans. Muhtar
Holland, Moorcote, Eg.: Coombe Springs Press, 1983.
al-Sib’¥, Aúmad, Tr¥kh Makkah, 2 vols, al-Mamlakat al-’Arabiyyat
al-Su’´diyyah, 1404/1984.
Snouck Hurgronje, C., Nasihat-nasihat C. Snouck Hurgronje semasa
Kepegawaiannya kepada Pemerintahan Hindia Belanda, Trans. Sukarsi,
Jakarta: INIS, 1991, V, from E. Gobée & C. Adriaanse (comp.), Ambte-
lijke adviezen van C. Snouck Hurgronje, 1889–1936, 2 vols,
‘s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1959–65.
Snouck Hurgronje, C., Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century, trans.
J.H. Monahan, Leyden & London: Brill & Luzac, 1931.
Snouck Hurgronje, C., Verspreide geschriften, Hague: Nijhoff, 1924–27.
Snouck Hurgronje, C., The Achehnese, 2 vols, trans. O’Sullivan, Leiden:
Brill, 1906.
Soeratno, Siti Chamamah et al., Memahami Karya-karya Nuruddin
Arraniri, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1982.
Stapel, F.W. (ed.), Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch-Indië, 5 vols, Amster-
dam, Joost van den Vondel, 1938–40, I.
Steenbrink, K., Kitab Suci atau Kertas Toilet: Nuruddin Ar-Raniri dan
Agama Kristen, Yogyakarta: IAIN Sunan Kalijaga Press, 1988.
Sulaiman, Ibraheem, A Revolution in History: The Jihad of Usuman dan

Fodio, London: Mansell, 1986.
Sutaarga, Amir et al., Katalogus Koleksi Naskah Melayu Museum Pusat,
Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1972.
Syukri, Ibrahim, History of the Malay Kingdom of Patani, trans. C. Bailey
& J.N. Miksic, Athens, OH: Center for International Studies, 1985.
Talas, Asad, La Madrasa Nizamiyyah et son Histoire, Paris: Geuthner,
1939.
Tara, V. & J.C. Woillet, Madagascar, Mascareignes et Comores, Paris:
Société Continentale, 1969.
Tarling, Nicholas (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia,
Cambridge University Press, 1992—esp. vol. 1, part 2 and vol. 2, part 1.
Temimi, Abdeljelil (ed.), La vie sociale dans les provinces arabes à
l’époque ottomane, Zoghuan, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches
Ottomanes, Morisques, de Documentation et d’Information, 1988.
Theal, McCall G., History and Ethnography of Africa South of the Zembesi,
3 vols, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1909, II.
Thurnberg, C., Travels in Europe, Africa and Asia, 4 vols, London:
F. Rivingston, 1795, I.
Tibbett, G.R., Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean before the Coming of
the Portuguese, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1981.
Tibbett, G.R., A Study of the Arabic Texts containing Material on South-
East Asia, Leiden & London: Brill & Royal Asiatic Society, 1979.
Trimingham, J.S., The Sufi Orders in Islam, London: Oxford University
Press, 1973.
Trimingham, J.S., Islam in the Sudan, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1965.
Tritton, A.S., Materials on Muslim Education in the Middle Ages, London:
Luzac, 1957.
Tudjimah, Syekh Yusuf Makasar: Riwayat dan Ajarannya, Jakarta: Penerbit
Universitas Indonesia, 1997.
Tudjimah et al., Syekh Yusuf Makasar: Riwayat Hidup, Karya dan Ajaran-
nya, Jakarta: Departemen P&K, 1987.
Usman, A.G., Urang Banjar dalam Sejarah, Banjarmasin: Lambung
Mangkurat University Press, 1989.
al-Uthaym¥n, al-Shaykh Muúammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhb: îaytuh wa
Fikruh, Riyè: Dr al-’Ul´m, n.d.
Vajda, G., La transmission du savoir en Islam (VIIe–XVIIIe siècles), ed.
N. Cottart, London: Variorum Reprints, 1983.
Vansina, J., Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, Chicago:
Aldine, 1965.
Vlekke, B.H.M., Nusantara: A History of the East Indian Archipelago,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943.
Voorhoeve, P., Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the
University of Leiden and Other Collections in the Netherlands, Leiden:
Leiden University Press, 1980.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Voorhoeve, P., Twee Maleische geschriften van Nuruddin ar-Raniri,

Leiden: Brill, 1955.
Voorhoeve, P., Bayan Tajalli: Bahan-bahan untuk Mengadakan Penye-
lidikan lebih mendalam tentang Abdurra-uf Singkel, trans. Aboe Bakar,
Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1980, from Dutch, ‘Bayan Tadjalli: Gegevens voor
een nadere studie over Abdurrauf van Singkel’, TBG, 85, 1952.
Walker, E.A., A History of Southern Africa, 3rd ed., London: Longmans,
1962.
Wink, A., Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Leiden: Brill,
1990.
Winstedt, R.O., The Malay Magician: Being Shaman, Saiva and Sufi,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.
Winstedt, R.O., A History of Classical Malay Literature, Kuala Lumpur:
Winter, M., Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the
Writings of Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani, New Brunswick: Transaction
Books, 1982.
Woelders, M.O., Het Sultanaat Palembang 1811–1825, Leiden: Nijhoff,
1975.
Wolters, O.W., The Fall of Srivijaya in Malay History, Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1970.
Wolters, O.W., Early Indonesian Commerce: A Study of the Origins of
Srivijaya, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967.
Wustenfeld, F., Geschichte der Stadt Mekka, in his Die Chroniken der Stadt
Mekka, Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1861, IV.
Zabarah, Muúammad b. Muúammad (b. 1301/1884), Nubal’ al-Yaman bi
al-Qarn al-Thn¥ ‘Ashar li al-Hijrah, Cairo: al-Maba’at al-Salfiyyah,
1377/1957.
Zabarah, Muúammad b. Muúammad, Nash al-’Arf li Nubal’ al-Yaman
ba’è al-’Alf, Cairo: al-Maba’at al-Salfiyyah, 1359/1940.
Zabarah, Muúammad b. Muúammad, Nayl al-Waar min Tarjim Rijl al-
Yaman f¥ al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar, 2 vols, Cairo: al-Maba’at
al-Salfiyyah, 1348/1929.
Zainuddin, H.M., Tarich Atjeh dan Nusantara, Medan: Pustaka Iskandar
Muda, 1961.
Zamzam, Zafry, Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari sebagai Ulama Juru
Da wah, Banjarmasin: Karya, 1974.
al-Zarkal¥ (al-Zerekly), Khayr al-D¥n, al-A’lm: Qm´s Tarjim, 3rd ed.,
12 vols, Beirut: n.p., 1389/1969.
Articles
Abdullah, Taufik, ‘Modernization in the Minangkabau World: West
Sumatra in the Early Decades of the Twentieth Century’, in C. Holt (ed.),
Culture and Politics in Indonesia, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1972.
Ahmad, Rashid, ‘Gapena Pelopori Usaha Menjalin Hubungan yang

Terputus’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), Melayu Srilanka, Kuala Lumpur, Gapena,
1990.
Ahtmat, J.P., ‘Kedatangan Orang Melayu ke Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),
Melayu Srilanka, Kuala Lumpur, Gapena, 1990.
al-’Ankaw¥, Abdullh, ‘The Pilgrimage to Mecca in Mamluk Times’, in
R.B. Serjeant & R.L. Bidwell (eds), Arabian Studies, I, London:
C. Hurst, 1974.
al-An§ar¥, Ism’¥l Muúammad, ‘îayt al-Shaykh Muúammad ibn ‘Abd
al-Wahhb watharuh al-’Ilmiyyah’, in Buh´th Usb´’ al-Shaykh
Muúammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhb, Riyè [?]: al-Mamlakat al-’Arabiyyat
al-Su’´diyyah, 1403/1983, I.
Anwar, Khairil, ‘‘Ulam’ Indń¥siya al-qarni al-thmin ‘ashar: tarjamah
Muúammad Arshad al-Banjar¥ wa afkruhu’, Studia Islamika, III, v
(1996): 137–164.
Archer, R.L., ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’, JMBRAS, 15, II (1937).
Asiri, Mahmud, ‘Shah Wali Allah’s Views on Wahdatul Wujud and
Wahdatush Shuhud’, al-Hikmah, 1 (1964).
Ates, A., ‘Ibn al-’Arabi, Muhyi ‘l-Din Abu Abd Allah b. Muhammad b.
al-Arabi al-Hatimi al-Ta i’, EI2, III.
al-Attas, S.M.N., ‘New Light on the Life of Hamzah Fansuri’, JMBRAS,
40, I (1967).
Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Transmission of al-Manar to the Malay-Indonesian
World: The Cases of al-Imam and al-Munir’, Studia Islamika, 6, 3
(1999).
Azra, Azyumardi, ‘Prof. Dr. Hamka: Pribadi dan Institusi MUI’, in Azyu-
mardi Azra and Saiful Umam (eds), Tokoh dan Pemimpin Agama:
Biografi Sosial-Politik, Jakarta: Litbang Depag RI & PPIM IAIN
Jakarta, 1998.
Azra, Azyumardi, ‘‘Ulama Indonesia di Haramayn: Pasang dan Surutnya
Sebuah Wacana Intelektual’, Ulumul Qur’an, III, 3 (1992).
Azra, Azyumardi, ‘Syi’ah di Indonesia: Tinjauan Ulang’, Pelita,
11 December, 1990.
Azra, Azyumardi, ‘The Surau and the Early Reform Movements in
Minangkabau’, Mizan, 3, II (1990).
Bachtiar, Harsja W., ‘The Religion of Java: A Commentary’, Majalah
Ilmu-iImu Sastra Indonesia, 5 (1973).
Baried, Baroroh, ‘Shi’a Elements in Malay Literature’, in Kartodirdjo (ed.),
Profiles of Malay Culture, Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture,
1986.
Baried, Baroroh, ‘Perkembangan Ilmu Tasawuf di Indonesia’, in S.
Sutrisno et al. (eds), Bahasa, Sastra, Budaya, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada
Baried, Baroroh, ‘Le Shiisme in Indonesie’, trans., Ch. Pelras, Archipel, 15
(1978).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
Bousquet, G.H., ‘Introduction à l’étude de l’Islam indonésien’, Revue des

Etudes Islamiques, Cahier 11–111, 1938.
Boxer, C.R., ‘A Note on Portuguese Reactions to the Revival of the Red Sea
Spice Trade and the Rise of Aceh, 1540–1600’, JSEAH, 10, III (1969).
Braddell, T., ‘Ceremony Observed at the Court of Acheen’, JIAEA, 4
(1850).
Braddell, T., ‘The Ancient Trade of the Indian Archipelago’, JIAEA, 2,
(New Series), III (1857).
Bradlow, F.R., ‘The Cape of Good Hope’, Suid-Afrikaanse Historiese
Joernaal, 13 (1981).
Bradlow, F.R., ‘The Origins of the Early Cape Muslims’, in F.R. Bradlow
& M. Cairns, The Early Cape Muslims: A Study of Their Mosques,
Genealogy and Origins, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1978.
Braginsky, Vladimir I., ‘On the Copy of Hamzah Fansuri’s Epitaph
Published by C. Guillot and L. Kalus’, Archipel 62, 2001: 21–33.
Brenner, L., ‘Sufism in Africa in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries’, in Islam et Societes au sud du Sahara, 2 (1988).
Brenner, L., ‘Muslim Thought in Eighteenth-Century West Africa: The
Case of Shaykh Uthman b. Fudi’, in Levtzion & Voll (eds), Eighteenth
Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 1987.
van Bruinessen, M., ‘Studies of Sufism and the Sufi Orders in Indonesia’,
Die Welt des Islams, 38.2 (1998): 192–219.
van Bruinessen, M., ‘The Tariqa Khalwatiyya in South Celebes’, Excursies
in Celebes: Een bundel bijdragen bij het afscheid van J. Noorduyn als
directeur-secretaris van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde. Poeze & Schoorl (eds) Leiden: KITLV Uiitgeverij, 1991.
van Bruinessen, M., ‘The Origins and Development of the Naqshbandi
Order in Indonesia’, Der Islam, 67 (1990).
van Bruinessen, M., ‘Kitab Kuning: Books in Arabic Script used in the
Pesantren Milieu’, BKI, 146 (1990).
van Bruinessen, M., ‘Kitab Fiqh di Pesantren Indonesia dan Malaysia’,
Pesantren, 6, I (1989).
Bulliet, R.W., ‘Conversion to Islam and the Emergence of a Muslim
Society’, in Levtzion (ed.), Conversion to Islam, N.Y.: Holmes & Meyer,
1979.
Cense, A.A., ‘De verering van Sjaich Jusuf in Zuid-Celebes’, in Bingkisan
Budi, Leiden: Sijhoff, 1950.
Chambert-Loir, H., ‘Abdussamad al-Palimbani sebagai Ulama Jawi’, in
al-Palimbani, Sayr al-Salikin, [vol. I], Banda Aceh: Musium Negeri
Aceh, 1985/6.
Che Man, W.K., ‘The Thai Government and Islamic Institutions in the Four
Southern Muslim Provinces of Thailand’, Sojourn, 5, II (1990).
Colless, B.E., ‘Persian Merchants and Missionaries in Medieval Malaya’,
JMBRAS, 42, II (1969).
Crecellius, D. & E.A. Beardow, ‘A Reputed Sarakata of the Jamal al-Lail

Dynasty’, JMBRAS, 52, II (1979).
Daly, Peunoh, ‘Naskah Mirtatut Thullab Karya Abdur-Rauf Singkel’, in
Agama, Budaya dan Masyarakat, Jakarta: Balitbang Depag R.I., 1980.
Dames, M.L., ‘The Portuguese and Turks in the Indian Ocean in the
Sixteenth Century’, JRAS, 1921.
Davids, Achmat, ‘Politics and the Muslims of Cape Town: A Historical
Survey’, Studies in the History of Cape Town, 4 (1981).
Djajadiningrat, H., ‘De ceremonie van het “poela-batee” op het graf van
Soeltan Iskandar II van Atjeh (1636–1641)’, TBG, 69 (1929).
Djaja, Tamar, ‘Sjech Burhanuddin (1646–1692)’, in his Pusaka Indonesia:
Riwajat Hidup Orang-orang Besar Tanah Air, Djakarta: Bulan Bintang,
1965.
Djaja, Tamar, ‘Sjech Muhammad Arsjad Bandjar’, in his Pusaka
Indonesia, 1965.
Djaja, Tamar, ‘Tuanku Nan Tuo’, in his Pusaka Indonesia, Djakarta: Bulan
Bintang, 1965.
Djamaris, Edward, ‘Nuruddin ar-Raniri Khabar Akhirat dalam Hal
Kiamat’, in Sutrisno et al. (eds), Bahasa, Sastra, Budaya, Yogyakarta:
Gadjah Mada University Press, 1985.
Dobbin, C., ‘Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau at the Turn of the Nine-
teenth Century’, Modern Asian Studies, 8, III (1974).
Drakard, J., ‘An Indian Ocean Port: Sources for the Earlier History of
Barus’, Archipel, 37 (1989).
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘A Note on Muhammad al-Samman, His Writings, and
19th Century Sammaniyya Practices, Chiefly in Batavia, according to
Written Data’, Archipel, 43 (1991): 73–87.
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri’s Charge of Heresy against Hamzah
and Shamsuddin from an International Point of View’, in S.O. Robson &
CD Grijns (eds), Cultural Contact and Textual Interpretation, Dordrecht:
Foris, 1986.
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Further Data concerning Sabd al-Samad al-Palimbanil’,
BKI, 132 (1976).
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘New Light on the Coming of Islam to Indonesia?’, BKI,
124 (1968).
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘A.H. Johns Ph.D Malay Sufism’, BKI, 115, III (1959).
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘De herkomst van Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, BKI, 111
(1955).
Drewes, G.W.J., ‘Sjech Joesoep Makasar’, Djawa, 6 (1926).
Eickelman, D.F., ‘The Study of Islam in Local Contexts’, Contribution to
Asian Studies, 17 (1982).
Farooqi, Naim R., ‘Moguls, Ottomans, and Pilgrims: Protecting the Routes
to Mecca in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, The International
History Review, 10, II (1988).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
Faroqhi, Suraiya, ‘Ottoman Documents concerning the Hajj during the

Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Temimi (ed.), La vie sociale,
1988, Tôme 3.
Fatimi, S.Q., ‘Two Letters from Maharaja to the Khalifah’, Islamic Studies,
(Karachi), 2, I (1963).
Feener, R.M., ‘Shaykh Yusuf and the Appreciation of Muslim “Saints” in
Modern Indonesia’, Journal for Islamic Studies (Cape Town), 18–19
(1999): 112–131.
Feener, R.M., ‘Yemeni Sources for the History of Islam in Indonesia: ‘Abd
al-Samad Palimbani in the Nafs al-Yamn¥’. La transmission du savoir
dans le monde musulman périphérique, 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’, BKI, 54, 4 (1998): 571–592.
Feener, R.M., ‘Notes toward a History of Qur’anic Exegesis in Southeast
Asia’, Studia Islamika, 4 (1988).
Ferrand, G., ‘Les voyages des Javanais à Madagascar’, Journal Asiatique,
Xe série, 15 (1910).
Fletcher, J., ‘The Taylor-Pickens Letters on the Jahri Branch of the Naqsh-
bandiyya in China’, Central and Inner Asian Studies, 3 (1989).
Fletcher, J., ‘Les “voies” (turuq) soufies en Chine’, in A. Popovic &
G. Veinstein (eds), Les ordres mystiques dans l’Islam, Paris: Ecole des
Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1986.
Fletcher, J., ‘Central Asian Sufism and Ma Ming-hsin’s New Teaching’,
Proceedings of the Fourth East Asian Altaistic Conference, ed. Ch’en
Chieh-hsien, Taipei: National Taiwan University, 1975.
Ford, J.F., ‘Some Chinese Muslims of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries’, Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, 61 (New Series
5), 2 (1974).
Gabrieli, F., ‘The Transmission of Learning and Literary Influences to
Western Europe’, in P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of
Islam, Cambridge: University Press, 1970, II.
Gellens, S.I., ‘The Search for Knowledge in Medieval Muslim Societies: A
Comparative Approach’, in D.F. Eickelman & J. Piscatory (eds), Muslim
Travellers: Pilgrimage, Migration and the Religious Imagination,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Gibb, H.A.R., ‘An Interpretation of Islamic History II’, MW, 45, II (1955).
Gladney, D.C., ‘Muslim Tombs and Ethnic Folklore: Charters for Hui
Identity’, JAS, 46, V (1987).
Goldziher, I., ‘Materialien zur entwicklungsgeschichte des Sufismus’, in
Gesammelte Schriften, Hildesheim: 1967, IV.
Goyung, Nejat, ‘Some Documents concerning the Ka’ba in the 16th
Century’, Sources for the History of Arabia, Riyad: Riyad University
Press, 1979, part 2.
de Graaf, H.J., ‘South-East Asian Islam to the Eighteenth Century’, in
P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1970, II.
Greyling, C., ‘Schech Yusuf, the Founder of Islam in South Africa’,
Religion in Southern Africa, 1, I (1980).
Groeneveldt, W.P., ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca
compiled from Chinese Sources’, VBG, 39 (1880).
Guillaume, A., ‘Al-Lum’at al-Saniya fi Tahqiq al-Ilqa’ fi-l-Umniya by
Ibrahim al-Kurani’, BSOAS, XX (1957).
Guillot, Claude & Ludvik Kalus, ‘La stéle funéraire de Hamzah Fansuri’,
Archipel, 60 (2000): 3–24.
Guillot, Claude & Ludvik Kalus, ‘En réponse â Vladimir I. Braginsky’,
Archipel, 62 (2001): 21–33.
Hafiduddin, Didin, ‘Tinjauan atas Tafsir al-Munir Karya Imam
Muhammad Nawai Tanara’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.), Warisan
Intelektual Islam Indonesia, Bandung: Mizan, 1987.
Hafsi, Ibrahim, ‘Recherche sur le genre “Tabaqat” dans la littérature arabe’,
Arabica, XXIII (1976): 227–265; & XXIV (1977): 1–41, 150–186.
Hallaq, Wael B., ‘On the Origins of the Controversy about the Existence of
Mujtahids and the Gate of Ijtihad’, Studia Islamica, 63 (1986): 129–141.
Hallaq, Wael B., ‘Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?’, International Journal
of Middle Eastern Studies, 16 (1984): 3–41.
Hamka, ‘Sjeich Jusuf Tadju’l Chalwati (Tuanta Salamaka), 1626–1699’, in
Perbendaharaan Lama, Medan: Madju, 1963.
Hasan, A.A.H., ‘The Development of Islamic Education in Kelantan’, in
Khoo Kay Kim (ed.), Tamaddun Islam di Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur:
Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia, 1980.
Hasjmi, A., ‘Syekh Abdurrauf Syiah Kuala, Ulama Negarawan yang Bijak-
sana’, in Universitas Syiah Kuala Menjelang 20 Tahun, Medan: Waspada,
1980.
Hasjmi, A., ‘Pendidikan Islam di Aceh dalam Perjalanan Sejarah’, Sinar
Darussalam, 63 (1975).
Hassan, Hamdan, ‘Pertalian Pemikiran Islam Malaysia-Aceh’, in Khoo
Kay Kim (ed.), Tamaddun Islam di Malaysia, 1980.
Haykal, B., ‘Al-Shawkani and the Jurisprudential Unity of Yemen’, Le
Yémen, passé et présent de l’unité, (ed.) Michel Tuchscherer. Aix en
Provence: Édisud, 1988, pp 53–65.
Heins, E.L., ‘Indonesian Colonization of West and Central Africa?’, BKI,
72 (1966).
Helfrich, O.L. et al., ‘Het Hasan-Hosein of Taboet-feest te Bengkoelen’,
Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie, 1 (1888).
Hess, A.C., ‘The Ottoman Seaborne Empire 1453–1525’, American Histor-
ical Review, 75 (1970).
Heywood, C., ‘The Red Sea and Ottoman Wakf Support for the Population
of Mecca and Medina in the Latter Seventeenth Century’, in Temimi
(ed.), La vie sociale, 1988, Tôme 3.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
Hiskett, M., ‘An Islamic Tradition of Reform in the Western Sudan from
the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century’, BSOAS, 25, III (1962).
Holle, K.F., ‘Mededeelingen over de devotie der Naqsjibendijah in den
Ned. Indischen Archipelago’, TBG 31 (1886).
Hooker, M.B., ‘Introduction: The Translation of Islam into South-East
Asia’, in his (ed.), Islam in South-East Asia, Leiden: Brill, 1983.
Hornell, J., ‘Indonesian Influence on East African Culture’, JRAI, 64, (1934).
Humphries, S., ‘A Cultural Elite: The Role and Status of the ‘Ulam’ in
Islamic Society’, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, Princeton
University Press, 1991, pp 187–208.
Hunt Esq., J., ‘Some Particulars relating to Sulu in the Archipelago of
Felicia’, in J.H. Moors, Notices of the Indian Archipelago and Adjacent
Countries, Singapore, 1837.
Hunwick, J.O., ‘A Bibliography of the Works of Sh. Uthman b.
Muhammad Fudi’, Arabic Literature in Africa, 1, (1985).
Hunwick, J.O., ‘Salih al-Fullani (1752–3–1803): The Career and Teachings
of a West African ‘lim in Medina’, in A.H. Green (ed.), In Quest of an
Islamic Humanism: Arabic and Islamic Studies in Memory of Mohamed
al-Nowaihi, Cairo: The American University, 1984.
Hunwick, J.O., ‘Salih al-Fullani of Futa Jallon: An Eighteenth Century
Scholar and Mujaddid’, Bull. IFAN (Ser. B), 10 (1978).
Hussainmiya, B.A., ‘A Brief Historical Note on Malay Migration to
Srilanka’, Jebat, 14 (1986).
Imamuddin, S.M., ‘Navigation and Maritime Trade in Early Medieval
Egypt’, Hamdard Islamicus, 2, IV (1979).
Iskandar, T., ‘Abdurrauf Singkel Tokoh Syatariyah (Abad ke17)’, in M.D.
Mohamad (ed.), Tokoh-tokoh Sastera Melayu Klasik, Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1987.
Iskandar, T., ‘Palembang Kraton Manuscripts’, in C.M.S. Hellwig & S.O.
Robson (eds), A Man of Indonesian Letters: Essays in Honour of Profes-
sor A. Teeuw, Dordrecht: Foris, 1986.
Ito, T., ‘Why Did Nuruddin ar-Raniri leave Aceh in 1054 A.H.?’, BKI 134
(1978).
Jeffreys, K.M., ‘Sheikh Joseph at the Cape’, Cape Naturalist, 6 (1939).
Jeffreys, K.M., ‘The Karamat at Zandvlei, Faure. Sheikh Joseph in the
East’, Cape Naturalist, 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 Tarjumn al-
Mustaf¥d’, Archipel, 57 (1999): 109–134.
Johns, A.H., ‘The Qur’an in the Malay World: Reflections on ‘Abd al-
Ra’uf of Singkel (1615–1693)’, Journal of Islamic Studies, 9.2 (1998):
120–145.
Johns, A.H., ‘Quranic Exegesis in the Malay World: In Search of a Profile’,
in A. Rippin (ed.), Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the
Qur’an, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Johns, A.H., ‘Islam in the Malay World: An Exploratory Survey with Some
Reference to Quranic Exegesis’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns (eds), Islam
in Asia: Volume II Southeast and East Asia, Boulder: Westview, 1984.
Johns, A.H., ‘From Coastal Settlement to Islamic School and City:
Islamization in Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and Java’, Hamdard
Islamicus, 4, I (1981).
Johns, A.H., ‘Friends in Grace: Ibrahim al-Kurani and Abd al-Ra’uf
al-Singkeli’, in S. Udin (ed.), Spectrum: Essays Presented to Sutan
Takdir Alisjahbana, Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 1978.
Johns, A.H., ‘Islam in Southeast Asia: Reflections and New Directions’,
Indonesia, 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)’, EI2, V, 432–3.
Johns, A.H., ‘Muslim Mystics and Historical Writings’, in D.G.E. Hall
(ed.), Historians of South East Asia, London: Oxford University Press,
1961.
Johns, A.H., ‘Sufism as a Category in Indonesian Literature and History’,
JSEAH, 2, II (1961).
Johns, A.H., ‘Aspects of Sufi Thought in India and Indonesia in the First
Half of the 17th Century’, JMBRAS, 28, I (1955)
Johns, A.H., ‘Daka’ik al-Huruf by ‘Abd al-Ra’uf of Singkel’, JRAS, 1, II
(1955).
Jones, R., ‘Ten Conversion Myths from Indonesia’, in Levtzion (ed.),
Conversion to Islam, New York: Holmes & Meyer, 1979.
de Jong, F., ‘Mustafa Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (1688–1749): Revival and
Reform of the Khalwatiyyah Tradition’, in N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll
(eds), Eighteenth Century Renewal and Reform, Syracuse: Syracuse
Jongejans, J., ‘Taboet of Hasan-Hosein-Feesten’, Onze Aarde, 12 (1939).
Kadir, M.S., ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari Pelopor Da’wah Islam
di Kalimantan Selatan’, Mimbar Ulama, 6 (1976).
Karni, Awis, ‘Al-Ta§awwuf f¥ Indń¥siyy: Dirsat li Nuskhah Kitb
Malib al-Slik¥n ta’l¥f Y´suf al-Maqassr¥’, Studia Islamika, III.2
(1996): 163–189.
Kathirithamby-Wells, J., ‘The Islamic City: Melaka to Yogyakarta, c.
1500–1800’, Modern Asian Studies, 20, II (1986).
Kempe, J.E. & R.O. Winstedt, ‘A Malay Legal Digest compiled for Abd
al-Ghafur Muhaiyuddin Shah, Sultan of Pahang’, JMBRAS, 21 (1948).
Kensdale, W.E.N., ‘Field-notes on the Arabic Literature of the Western
Sudan’, JRAS, 1955.
Kent, R.K., ‘The Possibilities of Indonesian Colonies in Africa with
Special Reference to Madagascar’, in Mouvements de populations dans
l’océan indien, Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1979.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
‘Kesultanan Banjar’, in Ensiklopedi Islam di Indonesia, 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 Sources for the History of
Arabia, Riyad: Riyad University Press, 1979, part 2.
Kosasi, Mohammad, ‘Pamidjahan en zijn Heiligdom’, Djawa, 38 (Oct. 1938).
Kunst, J., ‘A Musicological Argument for Relationship between Indonesia—
probably Java—and Central Africa’, Proceedings of the Musical Associ-
ation, Session 62 (1935–6).
Lane, F.C., ‘The Mediterranean Spice Trade: Further Evidence of Its
Revival in the Sixteenth Century’, The American Historical Review, 45
(1939/40).
van Langen, K.F.H., ‘De inrichting van het Atjehsche staatbestuur onder
het Sultanaat’, BKI, 37 (1888) 236, trans. Aboe Bakar, Susunan Pemer-
intahan Aceh semasa Kesultanan, Banda Aceh: PDIA, 1986.
Lawrence, B. ‘Islam in India: The Function of Institutional Sufism in the
Islamization of Rajasthan, Gujerat, and Kashmir’, Contributions to
Asian Studies, (ed.) R.C. Martin, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982, pp. 27–43.
Lazzerini, E.J., ‘The Revival of Islamic Culture in Pre Revolutionary
Russia: Or, Why a Prosopography of the Tatar ‘Ulema’’, in Ch.
Lemercier-Quelquljay et al. (eds), Passé Turco-Tatar: Présent Sovi-
etique, Paris: Louvain, 1986.
Levtzion, N., ‘Eighteenth Century Sufi Brotherhoods’, Islam: Essays on
Scripture, Thought and Society – a Festschrift in Honour of Anthony H.
Johns (Peter G. Riddell and Tony Street, eds.), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.
Levtzion, N. & J.O. Voll (eds), ‘Introduction’, in Eighteenth-Century
Renewal and Reform in Islam, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,
1987.
Liaw Yock Fang, ‘Undang-undang Melaka’, in Sandhu & Wheatley (eds),
Melaka: The Transformation, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya
Press, 1983, I.
Lofgren, O., ‘Aydarus’, EI2, I.
Lubis, Nabilah, ‘Min ‘Almi ‘Indûn¥siya: al-Shaykh Yûsuf al-Maqsr¥
(1626–1699)’, Studia Islamika, I.3 (1994): 149–175.
Majul, C.A., ‘Theories on the Introduction of Islam in Malaysia’, Siliman
Journal, 2, IV (1964).
Majul, C.A., ‘The Role of Islam in the History of the Filipino People’, AS,
4, II (1966).
Makdis, ‘The Sunni Revival’, in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation,
London: Bruno Cassirer, 1973.
Makdis, ‘Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh Century Baghdad’,
BSOAS, 24 (1961).
Makdisi, G., ‘Tabaqat-Biography: Law and Orthodoxy in Classical Islam’,
Islamic Studies, 32,4 (1993): 371–396.
Marrison, G.E., ‘Persian Influences in Malay Life (1280–1650)’, JMBRAS,

28, I (1955).
Marrison, G.E., ‘The Coming of Islam to the East Indies’, JMBRAS, 24, I
(1951).
Martin, B.G., ‘A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes’, in
N. Keddie (ed.), Scholars, Saints and Sufis, Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press, 1972.
Martin, B.G., ‘Notes sur l’origine de la tariqa des Tijaniyya et sur le début
d’al-Hajj Umar’, Revue des Etudes Islamiques, 37 (1969).
Masri, F.H., ‘The Life of Shehu Usuman dan Fodio before the Jihad’,
Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 2, IV (1963).
Mas’ud, Abdurraham, ‘Mahfuz al-Tirmisi (d.1338/1919): An Intellectual
Biography’, Studia Islamika, 5, 2 (1998).
Matheson, V. & M.B. Hooker, ‘Jawi Literature in Patani: The Maintenance
of an Islamic Tradition’, JMBRAS, 61, I (1988).
Matthes, B.F., ‘Boegineese en Makassaarsche Legenden’, BKI , 34 (1885).
Mattulada, ‘Islam di Sulawesi Selatan’, in Taufik Abdullah (ed.), Agama
dan Perubahan Sosial, Jakarta: Rajawali, 1983.
Mauny, R., ‘The Wakuwak and the Indonesian Invasion in East Africa...’,
Studia, 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.), Islam and the Trade
of Asia, Philadelphia: Bruno Cassirer & University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Mills, J.V., ‘Eridia’s Descriptions of Malacca, Meridonial India and
Cathay’, JMBRAS, lll, III (1960).
Milner, A.C., ‘Islam and the Muslim State’, in Hooker (ed.), Islam in
South-East Asia, Leiden: Brill, 1983.
Millward, W.G., ‘Taqi al-Din al-Fasi’s Sources for the History of Mecca
from the Fourth to Ninth Centuries A.H.’, in Sources for the History of
Arabia, Riyad: Riyad University Press, 1979.
Meier, F., ‘Das sauberste über die vorbestimmung. Ein stuck Ibn
Taymiyya’, Saeculum, 32 (1981).
Moquette, J.P.,‘De grafsteenen te Pase en Grisse vergeleken met dergelijke
monumenten uit Hindoestan’, TBG, 54 (1912).
‘Muhammad Nafis al-Banjari’, in Ensiklopedi Islam di Indonesia, Jakarta:
Departemen Agama, 1987/8, II.
el-Muhammady, M.U., ‘The Islamic Concept of Education according to
Shaykh Abdu’s-Samad of Palembang and Its Significance in Relation to
the Issue of Personality Integration’, Akademika, 1 (1972).
Mujani, Saiful, ‘Mu’tazilah Theology and the Modernization of the Indo-
nesian Muslim Community’, Studia Islamika, 1, 1 (1994).
Mu’thi, A.W., ‘Tarekat Syattariyah, dari Gujarat sampai Caruban’,
Pesantren, 4, III (1987).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
Nakahara, M., ‘Muslim Merchants in Nanhai’, in R. Israeli & A.H. Johns

(eds), Islam in Asia: Volume II Southeast and East Asia, Boulder:
Westview, 1984.
van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., ‘The Legacy of Islam in Indonesia’, MW, 59
(1964).
van Nieuwenhuijze, C.A.O., ‘Nur al-Din al-Raniri als bestrijder
Wugudiya’, BKI, 104 (1948).
Noorduyn, J., ‘Origins of South Celebes Historical Writings’, in Soed-
jatmoko et al (eds), An Introduction to Indonesian Historiography,
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965.
Noorduyn, J., ‘De Islamisering van Makassar’, BKI, 112 (1956).
Nurhakim, L., ‘La ville de Barus: étude de archéologique preliminaire’,
Archipel, 37 (1989).
O’Fahey, R.S. (ed.), Arabic Literature of Africa I: the writings of Eastern
Sudanic Africa to c. 1900, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994, pp.143–144.
O’Fahey, R.S. & Bernd Radtke, ‘Neo-Sufism Reconsidered’, Der Islam,
LXX, 1 (1993): 52–87.
O’Fahey, R.S., ‘Neo-Sufism and Ibn Idris’, in his Enigmatic Saint: Ahmad
ibn Idris and the Idrisi Tradition, Evanston, Ill.: Nortwestern University
Press, 1990.
Othman, Mohammad Redzuan, ‘The Role of Makka-Educated Malays in
the Development of Early Islamic Scholarship and Education in
Malaya’, Journal of Islamic Studies, 9, 2 (1998): 146–157.
Ozbaran, Salih, ‘A Turkish Report on the Red Sea and the Portuguese in
the Indian Ocean (1525)’, in R.B. Serjeant & R.L. Bidwell (eds),
Arabian Studies, IV (1978).
Pelras, C., ‘Religion, Tradition and the Dynamics of Islamization in South
Sulawesi’, Archipel, 29 (1985).
Peters, Rudolph, ‘Reinhard Schulze’s Quest for an Islamic Enlightenment’,
Die Welt des Islams, XXX (1990): 160–162.
Peters, Rudolph, ‘Idjtihad and Taqlid in 18th and 19th Century Islam’, Die
Welt des Islams, XXX, 3–4 (1980): 131–145.
Radtke, B., ‘Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional
Appraisal’, Die Welt des Islams, XXXVI, 3 (1996): 326–364.
Radtke, B., ‘Wat betekent tariqa muhammadiyya in de islamitische mystiek
van de 18e en 19e eeuw?’ Mystiek, het andere gezicht van de Islam,
Marjo Buitelaar & Johan ter Haar, (eds), Bussum, 1999.
Radtke, B., ‘Ijtihad and Neo-Sufism’, Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asia-
tiques, XLVIII, 3 (1994): 909–921.
Radtke, B., ‘Warum ist des Sufi orthodox’, Der Islam, LXXI (1994):
48–66.
Rahman, Fazlur, ‘Revival and Reform’, in P.M. Holt et. al (eds), The
Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1970, II.
Reid, A., ‘Sixteenth Century Turkish Influence in Western Indonesia’, in

Kartodirdjo (ed.), Profiles of Malay Culture, Jakarta: Ministry of Edu-
cation & Culture, 1986.
Reid, Anthony, ‘Islam and the State in Seventeenth Century Southeast
Asia’, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Islamic Civilisation
in the Malay World, Istanbul: IRCICA, 1999.
Ricklefs, M.C., ‘Six Centuries Islamization in Java’, in Levtzion (ed.),
Conversion to Islam, NY: Holmes & Meyer, 1979.
Riddell, P., ‘Earliest Quranic Exegetical Activity in the Malay-Speaking
States’, Archipel, 38 (1989).
Rinkes, D.A., ‘De maqam van Sjech Abdoelmoehji’, TBG, 52 (1910) .
Ritter, H., ‘Al-Ghazali, Ahmad b. Muhammad’, EI2, II.
Roff, W.R., ‘Islam Obscured?: Some Reflections on Studies of Islam and
Society in Southeast Asia’, Archipel, 29 (1985).
Roff, W.R., ‘South-East Asian Islam in the Nineteenth Century’, in P.M.
Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Islam, II, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1970.
van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Raniri’s Maleische geschrift: Exposé der religies’,
BKI, 102 (1943).
van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Een Maleisch getuigenis over den weg des Islams in
Sumatra’, BKI, 75 (1919).
van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Inlandsche getuigenissen aangaande den Padri-
oorlog’, IG, 37 (1915).
de Roo, de la Faille, P., Dari Zaman Kesultanan Palembang, trans. S. Poer-
bakawatja, Djakarta: Bhratara, 1971.
Rosatria, Eri, ‘‘Alqat îarakat Nashr al-Islm wa al-Tarbiyyah al-
Islmiyyah f¥ Sultanah Aceh’, Studia Islamika, III, 1 (1996): 127–155.
Said, Arifin, ‘Manuskrip Melayu di Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.), Melayu
Srilanka, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena, 1990.
Said, Nurman, ‘The Significance of al-Ghazali and His Works for Indo-
nesian Muslims: a Preliminary Study’, Studia Islamika, III, 3 (1996):
21–45.
Santrie, A.M., ‘Martabat (Alam) Tujuh: Suatu Naskah Mistik Islam dari
Desa Karang, Pamijahan’, in Ahmad Rifa’i Hasan (ed.), Warisan
Intelektual Indonesia, Bandung: Mizan & LSAF, 1987.
al-Sarwaj¥, Muúammad Maúm´d, ‘Kitb Aj’ib al-Athar f¥ al-Tarjim wa
al-Akhbr li al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jabart¥ ka-Masdar li Ahdth
al-Jaz¥rat al-’Arabiyyah f¥ al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashar al-Hijr¥ (al-Tsi’
‘Ashar al-M¥ld¥)’, in Ma§dir Tr¥kh al-Jaz¥rat al-’Arabiyyah, Riyè:
Maba’at Jmi’at al-Riyè, 1279/1979.
Schacht, J., ‘Zur Wahhabitischen Literatur’, Zeitschrift für Semitistik und
verwandte Gebiete, 6 (1928): 200-213.
Schimmel, A.M., ‘The Primordial Dot: Some Thoughts about Sufi Letter
Mysticism’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), 9 (1987).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
Schulze, R., ‘Das Islamische 18 Jahrhundert: versuch einer historio-

graphischen Kritik’, Die Welt des Islams, XXX (1990): 140–59.
Scott, (Mrs.) S.B., ‘Mohammedanism in Borneo: Notes for a Study of
the Local Modifications of Islam and the Extent of Its Influence
on the Native Tribes’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 33
(1913).
van Selms, A., ‘Yussuf (Joseph), Sheik’, in W.J. de Kock (ed.), Dictionary
of South African Biographies, 1968.
Sham, Abu Hassan, ‘Malay Manuscripts and Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),
Melayu Srilanka, 1990.
Shellabear, W.G., ‘An Account of Some Oldest Malay MSS now Extant’,
JRAS, 31 (1898).
Snouck Hurgronje, C., ‘Een Mekkaansch gezantschap naar Atjeh in 1683’,
BKI, 65 (1911).
Snouck Hurgronje, C., ‘Een Arabisch Bondgenoot der Nederlandsch
Regering’, in Verspreide Geschriften, Bonn & ’s-Gravenhage: Kurt
Schröder & Nijhoff, 1924, VI.
Steenbrink, Karel, ‘Hamka (1908–1981) and the integration of the Islamic
Ummah of Indonesia’, Studia Islamika, 1, 3 (1994).
Steenbrink, K., ‘Jesus and Holy Spirit in the Writings of Nur al-Din al-
Raniri’, ICMR (Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations), I, 2 (1990).
Steenbrink, K., ‘Syekh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari: 1710–1812, Tokoh
Fiqh dan Tasawuf’, in his Beberapa Aspek tentang Islam di Indonesia
Abad ke-l9, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1984.
Stein Parvé, H.A., ‘Oorsprong der Padaries: Eene secte op de Westkust van
Sumatra’, TNI, 1, I (1838).
Stein Parvé, H.A., ‘De secte de Padaries (Padries) in de Bovenlanden van
Sumatra’, TBG, 3 (1855).
Swart, M.J., ‘The Karamat of Sheik Yussef,’ South African, Panorama 6
(1961).
Teeuw, A., ‘Pertumbuhan Bahasa Melayu menjadi Bahasa Dunia’, in
Harimurti Kridalaksana (ed.), Masa Lampau Bahasa Indonesia: Sebuah
Bunga Rampai, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1991.
Teeuw, A., ‘Some Remarks on the Study of the so-called Historical Texts
in Indonesian Language’, in Kartodirdjo (ed.), Profiles of Malay Culture,
Jakarta: Ministry of Education & Malay Culture, 1976.
Tibbett, G.R., ‘Pre-Islamic Arabia and Southeast Asia’, JMBRAS, 29, III
(1956).
van der Tuuk, H.N., ‘Kort verslag der Maleische handschriften’, BKI, 13
(1866).
Vakily, Abdollah, ‘Sufism, Power Politics, and Reform: al-Rn¥r¥’s Oppo-
sition to Hamzah al-Fans´r¥’s Teachings Reconsidered’, Studia Islamika,
IV, 1 (1997): 113–35.
Valiuddin, Mir, ‘Reconciliation between Ibn Arabi’s Wahdati-Wujud and
the Mujaddid’s Wahdat-i-Shuhud’, Islamic Culture, (Jubilee No.)

(1951).
Voll, J.O., ‘Scholarly Interrelations between South Asia and the Middle
East in the 18th Century’, in P. Gaeffke & G.A. Utz (eds), The Countries
of South Asia: Boundaries, Extension, and Interrelations, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of South Asia Regional Studies, 1988.
Voll, J.O., ‘Linking Groups in the Networks of Eighteenth Century
Revivalist Scholars’, in N. Levtzion & J.O. Voll (eds), Eighteenth
Century Renewal and Reform in Islam, Syracuse: University of Syracuse
Press, 1987.
Voll, J.O., ‘Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: an Ulama Group in the 18th
Century Haramayn and Their Impact in the Islamic World’, JAAS, 25,
III-IV (1980).
Voll, J.O., ‘Muhammad Hayya al-Sindi and Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd
al-Wahhab: An Analysis of an Intellectual Group in Eighteenth Century
Madina’’, BSOAS, 38 (1975).
Voorhoeve, P., ‘Lijst der Geschriften van Raniri’, BKI, 111 (1955).
Voorhoeve, P., ‘Van en over Nuruddin ar-Raniri’, BKI, 107 (1951).
Voorhoeve, P., ‘‘Abd al-Ra’uf b. ‘Ali al-Djawi al-Fansuri al-Sinkili’, EI2, I.
Voorhoeve, P., ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Palimbani’, EI2, I.
Voorhoeve, P., ‘Dawud b. ‘Abd Allah b. Idris al-Fatani or al-Fattani’, EI2, II.
Wake, C.H., ‘Melaka in the Fifteenth Century: Malay Historical Traditions
and the Politics of Islamization’, in Sandhu & Wheatley (eds), Melaka:
The Transformation, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press,
1983, I.
Wake, C.H., ‘Malacca’s Early Kings and the Reception of Islam’, JSEAH,
5, II (1964).
Wilks, I., ‘The Transmission of Islamic Learning in the Western Sudan’, in
J. Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies, Cambridge: University
Press, 1968.
Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Advent of Muhammadanism in the Malay Peninsula
and Archipelago’, JMBRAS, 24, I (1951).
Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Chronicle of Pasai’, JMBRAS, 16, II (1938).
Winstedt, R.O., ‘A History of Malaya’, JMBRAS, 13, I (1935).
Winstedt, R.O., ‘The Kedah Laws’, JMBRAS, 6, I (1928).
Winstedt, R.O., ‘Some Malay Mystics, Heretical and Orthodox’, JMBRAS,
1 (1923).
Winzeler, R.L., ‘The Social Organization of Islam in Kelantan’, in
W.R. Roff (ed.), Kelantan: Religion, Society and Politics in a Malay
State, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University 1974.
Woodward, M.R., ‘The Slametan: Textual Knowledge and Ritual Perfor-
mance in Central Javanese Islam’, History of Religion, 28, I (1988).
Yahya, A.S., ‘Budaya Bertulis Melayu Srilanka’, in Abu Bakar (ed.),
Melayu Srilanka, Kuala Lumpur: Gapena, 1990.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
Zwemer, S.M., ‘Islam at the Cape Town’, MW, 15, IV (1925).

al-Zulfah, Muúammad ‘Abd Allh, ‘I§lúat îas¥b Bsh f¥ Wilyat al-
îijz (1848–1849) kam j’a f¥ al-Wath’iq al-’Uthmniyyah’, in ‘Abd
al-Jal¥l al-Tm¥m¥ (ed.), al-îayt al-Ijtim’iyyah f¥ al-Wilyat al-
‘Arabiyyah ‘Athn’ al-’Ahd al-’Uthmniyyah, Zaghwan: Markz
al-Dirsat wa al-Buú´th al-’Uthmniyyah wa al-Murisikiyyah wa al-
Tawth¥q al-Ma’l´mat, 1988.
Index of Personal Names
‘Abd al-A½¥m al-Makk¥ 15 ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. ‘Abd al-Az¥z al-Maghrib¥ 120

‘Abd al-Az¥z al-Zamzam¥ 22, 28, 74, 56 ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. ‘Awf 54
‘Abd al-Bash¥r al-ëar¥r al-Rapan¥ 92, 94, 96 ‘Abd al-Raúman b. Mu§af al-’Aydar´s 58, 116
‘Abd al-Bq¥ 89–91 ‘Abd al-Raúmn Mu§af al-’Aydar´s 58, 116;
‘Abd al-Fattú 89 Aydar´siyyah family 58; Aydar´siyyah 56;
‘Abd al-Ghaf´r al-Lr¥ 91 ‘Aydar´siyyah 56–8, 62, 63
‘Abd al-îaf¥½ al-’Ajam¥ 12, 27 ‘Abd al-Raúmn Shihdha al-Yaman¥ 20
‘Abd al-Jabbr al-Jarrú¥ 36 ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ 28; al-Barzanj¥
‘Abd al-Jal¥l 102 28, 46–7, 51
‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-Hind¥ al-Lah´r¥ 91 ‘Abd al-êamad al-Palimbn¥ 6, 112–113, 127
‘Abd al-Kar¥m b. Ab¥ Bakr al-K´rn¥ 20 ‘Abd al-êidd¥q b. Muúammad êdiq 99
‘Abd al-Mlik b. ‘Abd Allh 86 ‘Abd al-Shuk´r al-Shm¥ 42
‘Abd al-Mu’min 122 ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Bugis¥ 112, 114, 118–19,
‘Abd al-Muúy¥ 85–6, 96 121, 124
‘Abd al-Mul´k al-’Asm¥ 24 ‘Abd al-Wahhb al-Sha’rn¥ 15
‘Abd al-Mun’im al-Damanh´r¥ 114 ‘Abd al-Wahhb b. ‘Al¥ al-Baghdd¥ 36
‘Abd al-Nab¥ 16 ‘Abd Allh 57, 63
‘Abd al-Qdir 27 ‘Abd Allh al-’Aydar´s 131
‘Abd al-Qdir al-’Aydar´s¥ 57, 133 ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥ 20, 25, 36, 38, 91, 29, 114,
‘Abd al-Qdir al-Barkhal¥ 74 125–6
‘Abd al-Qdir al-Jayln¥ 19, 85 ‘Abd Allh al-Lah´r¥ 36, 74
‘Abd al-Qdir al-Mawr¥r 73 ‘Abd Allh b. ‘Abd al-îakam 34
‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥ 24–5 ‘Abd Allh b. îijz¥ al-Sharqw¥ 120
‘Abd al-Qdir b. Muúammad b. Yahy al-$abar¥ 24 ‘Abd Allh b. îijz¥ [b. Ibrh¥m] al-Sharqw¥ al-A
‘Abd al-Qadir Karaeng Jeno 94 121
‘Abd al-Qahhr 95–7 ‘Abd Allh b. Ibrh¥m al-Mirghn¥ 137
‘Abd al-Ra’´f b. ‘Al¥ al-Jw¥ al-Fan§´r¥ al-Sink¥l¥ ‘Abd Allh b. Muúammad al-’Adan¥ 74
70 ‘Abd Allh b. Sa’d Allh al-Lh´r¥ 20
‘Abd al-Raú¥m b. al-êidd¥q al-Kh§§ 27, 74 ‘Abd Allh b. Sa’¥d B Qash¥r al-Makk¥ 74
‘Abd al-Raúmn 141 ‘Abd Allh b. Slim b. Muúammad b. Slim b.
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-’Aydar´s 114 ‘Is al-Ba§r¥ al-Makk¥ 29
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Batw¥ 112, 114, 118–19, ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-’Aydar´s 17, 63
121, 124 ‘Abd Allh b. Shaykh al-Aydar´s 56–7
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jm¥ 63 ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥ 21–3, 27–9, 35, 37, 47, 74,
‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Kha¥b al-Sharbayn¥ 56 77, 125
240
INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 241
‘Al’ al-D¥n b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥ al-Zab¥d¥ Adam Banuri 46

29 Aúmad 12, 16
‘Al¥ al-Ba§¥r al-Mlik¥ al-Madan¥ 77 Aúmad Ab´ al-’Abbs b. al-Muayr 74
‘Al¥ al-Jaml al-Makk¥ 22, 28 Aúmad al-Balkh¥ 20
‘Al¥ al-Shabrmalis¥ 27 Aúmad al-Damanh´r¥ 116, 121, 125
‘Al¥ al-Shanwn¥ 125 Aúmad al-Jawhar¥ 114, 121
‘Al¥ al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 20 Aúmad al-Khafj¥ 23
‘Al¥ al-Shinnw¥ 15, 37 Aúmad al-Marz´q¥ 125–6
‘Al¥ al-$abar¥ 25, 29 Aúmad al-Marz´q¥ al-Mlik¥ 126
‘Al¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 90 Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ 20–1, 23–5, 29, 37, 49, 50, 91
‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qdir al-$abar¥ 74 Aúmad al-Saúah al-Zaila’¥, Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-Qab’¥
‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s al-’Abbs¥ al-Shinnw¥ 36 16
‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ Bakr 90 Aúmad al-Shihb al-Khafj¥ 22
‘Al¥ b. Ab¥ $lib 24, 27 Aúmad al-Shinnw¥ 15–18, 20, 21, 37, 39, 47, 85,
‘Ali b. Aúmad al-Fuwwiy¥ 10 126
‘Al¥ b. Isúq al-Fan¥ 123, 124 Aúmad al-Sirhind¥ 46, 104
‘Al¥ b. Maymń 34 Aúmad b. al-Faèl b. ‘Abd al-Nfi’ 17
‘Al¥ b. Muúammad al-Dayba’ 74 Aúmad b. ‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s Ab´ al-
‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr b. Muayr 90 Mawhib al-Shinnw¥ 15
‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 90 Aúmad b. ‘Al¥ b. ‘Abd al-Qudd´s al-Shinnw¥ al-
‘Al¥ b. Muayr 16 Mi§r¥ al-Madan¥ 13
‘Ali bin Muhammad b. al-Shaybani al-Zabidi 90 Aúmad b. al-îasan b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m b. Y´suf al-
‘Al¥ Jaml al-Makk¥ 74 Kar¥m¥ al-Khlid¥ al-Jawhar¥ al-Azhar¥ 115
‘A’ Allh al-Ma§r¥ 114, 118 Aúmad b. îasan al-Muqr¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 116
‘A’ Allh (b. Aúmad) al-Azhar¥ al-Ma§r¥ al- Aúmad b. Ibrh¥m b. ‘Aln 56, 133
Makk¥ 115 Aúmad b. Muúammad al-üah¥rah 12
Ab¥ $ayyib Muúammad Shams al-îaq al- Aúmad b. Muúammad b. Aúmad ‘Al¥ al-Nakhl¥
’A½¥mbd¥ 18 al-Makk¥ 28
Ab´ al-Asrr 27 Aúmad Daúln 78
Ab´ al-Fatú al-’Ajam¥ 27 Aúmad Ibn ‘Aln al-êidd¥q¥ al-Naqshband¥ 146
Ab´ al-Fatú al-Kar´kh¥ 36 Aúmad Shihb al-D¥n 56
Ab´ al-Fatú Muúammad al-Margh¥ 36 Aúmad Shihb al-D¥n al-Khafj¥ al-îanaf¥ al-
[Ab´ al-Fawz] Ibrh¥m [b. Muúammad] al-Ra’¥s Ma§r¥ 19
[al-Zamzami al-Makk¥] 114 Aúmad Sirhind¥ 28
Ab´ al-îasan ‘Al¥ al-Wn¥ 36 Aúmad Zayn al-’bid¥n al-Fatn¥ 123
Ab´ al-îasan al-Sind¥ al-Kab¥r 20 Am¥n b. al-êidd¥q al-Mizjj¥ 74
Ab´ al-îasan al-Sind¥ al-Sagh¥r 115 al-Am¥n b. êidd¥q¥ al-Marwú¥ 16
Ab´ al-Khayr b. Shaykh b. îajar 55 Amr Allh b. ‘Abd al-Khliq b. Muúammad al-
Ab´ al-Ma’n¥ Ibrh¥m Minún 99 Bq¥ 116
Ab´ al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir 62, 88–9 As’ad al-îanaf¥ al-Makk¥ 125
Ab´ Bakr 142 al-Attas 54, 89
Ab´ Bakr ‘Abd Allh b. Zubayr al-Asad¥ al- Aurangzeb 99
îumayd¥ 54 Ayy´b b. Aúmad b. Ayy´b al-Dimashq¥ al-
Ab´ Bakr al-Shinnw¥ 21 Khalwat¥ 17, 92
Ab´ Bakr b. Aúmad al-Nasf¥ al-Mi§r¥ 15
Ab´ Bakr b. Shihb 56 B ‘Alwiyyah 90
Ab´ îaf§ ‘Umar b. ‘Abd Allh B Shaybn al- B Shaybn 17, 56–7
Tar¥m¥ 56 Badr al-D¥n al-Lah´r¥ 74
Ab´ Ism’¥l al-An§r¥ al-îaraw¥ 36 al-Baghdd¥ 15, 17, 20, 28, 40, 115
Ab´ Madyn al-Tilimsn¥ 106 al-Bakr¥ 131, 133
Ab´ Shah´r al-Salim¥ 68 al-Bantan¥ 151
Ab´ $hir 126 Baried, Baroroh 53
Ab´ $hir b. Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ 20, 25, 27, 29, 91 al-Barrw¥ 123, 125
Abdullah 53, 116, 123–24 al-Bar´j¥ 13
Adam 99 al-Barzanj¥ 28, 46–7, 51; family 12, 28
Bash¥r al-Jumdar al-N§ir¥ 10 al-îam¥d 54

Ba§r¥ 29 îamzah 54, 72
Bayèw¥ 81; Qur’nic exegesis 15 îamzah al-Fan§´r¥ 52, 53, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71,
al-Bayèw¥ 81 80, 83, 128
al-Bayhaq¥ 37 îanaf¥ 10
al-Bayr 6, 114, 116 îanbal¥ 34, 35
Brockelmann, C. 15, 17 îasan al-’Ajam¥ 12, 17, 21–2, 24–5, 27, 29, 46,
Bruinessen, M. van 94 90; died 27
Burhn al-D¥n 85, 144–5 îasan al-Ba§r¥ 47
Burhn al-D¥n Ibrh¥m b. îasan b. Shihb al-D¥n îasan al-Jabart¥ 114
19 al-îasan¥ 56
al-Burhnp´r¥ 41, 66, 131, 133, 136 al-îumayd¥ 54–5
îusayn b. Ab´ Bakr al-’Aydar´s 58
Che Muúammad Y´suf 151 îusayn b. Muúammad al-Maúall¥ 130
Colvin, I. D. 102 Haan, F. de 103
Hadjee Karang 96
al-ëar¥r (‘the blind’) 96 Haji ‘Abd al-îam¥d Abulung 135
Dw´d al-Fan¥ 112, 114, 121, 123–25, 127–29, Haji ‘Abd al-Raúmn 122
137 Haji Mismin 147
Dw´d al-Jw¥ al-Fan§´r¥ b. Ism’¥l b. Agh Haji Piobang 147
Mu§af 86 Hamka 94, 109–10, 152
Dw´d al-Jw¥ al-R´m¥ 86 Happel, Van 98
Dw´diyyah 22 Harun 81
Daeng ri Tasammang 87 Hasjmi 53, 71, 86, 124
al-Damanh´r¥ 118 Hasyim Asy’ari 151
Daly, Ahmad 71 Hooker, M. B. 80, 144
Datuk Andi Maharajalela 124
Daudy, Peunoh 60, 64 ‘Is al-Maghrib¥ 22–4, 27–9, 35, 73–4, 77
Deliar Noer 110 ‘Is b. Aúmad [b. ‘Is b. Muúammad al-Zubayr¥
Drewes, G. W. J 42, 64, 113, 128, 141–43 125
‘Is b. Aúmad al-Barrw¥ 124
Eaton, R. M. 62 ‘Is b. Muúammad al-Maghrib¥ al-Ja’far¥ al-Makk¥
17
al-Fs¥ 10, 11–3 ‘Is b. Muúammad al-Maghrib¥ al-Ja’far¥ al-Tha’li
Faèl Allh al-Burhnp´r¥ 15, 41, 63, 66 22
al-Fan§´r¥ 52–3, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71, 80, 83, 128 Ibn ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ 20, 29, 73, 77, 90
Faq¥h ‘Abd al-Mann 122 Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab 3
Faq¥h ‘Al¥ 124 Ibn ‘Abd Allh b. Wal¥ al-îaèram¥ 15
al-Fan¥ 125–6, 130, 137–8, 140, 143 Ibn ‘Alan 21
Fazlur Rahman 34 Ibn ‘Arab¥ 15, 19, 20, 29, 36, 40–1, 43–5, 47,
Federspiel, H. M. 109 50–1, 53, 63, 83, 92, 103–4, 108, 128, 131,
al-F¥r´zbd¥ 63 136–39
Friedmann, Y. 46 Ibn ‘A’ Allh 29, 103, 131, 133, 137
al-Fulln¥ 114 Ibn ‘Ujayl 73
Ibn ‘Umar al-Bayèw¥ 79
Geertz, C. 109, 110 Ibn al-îjj al-’Abdar¥ 34
al-Ghazl¥ 3, 20, 29, 33–4, 45, 50, 63, 68, 103, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah 34
113, 128, 130–3, 136–7, 139 Ibn al-$ayyib 51, 114
Ibn al-$ayyib b. Ja’mn 73
îji Sumanik 147 Ibn îajar 24, 36–7, 56, 63
îab¥b Allh al-Hind¥ 15 Ibn îajar al-’Asqaln¥ 21, 13, 15, 35–6
al-Hd¥ 104 Ibn îajar al-Haytam¥ 79, 129, 130
îajar al-’Asqaln¥ 13 Ibn Khaldń 138
al-îallj 68 Ibn Sulaymn 23, 45
al-îamaw¥ 6, 16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 39, 40–3, 45, 92 Ibn Taymiyyah 34, 50, 138
Ibn Ya’q´b 24, 43 al-Madan¥ 19

Ibrh¥m 142 Maúm´d al-Kurd¥ 121
Ibrh¥m al-Hind¥ 15 al-Makk¥ 22, 25
Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ 4, 13, 16–19, 20, 22–3, 25, al-Malik al-N§ir Faraj b. Barq´q 12
28–9, 36–7, 40, 42–4, 50–1, 65–6, 73–4, 77, 79, Mangarangi Daeng Maurabiya 88
84, 86, 90–1, 108, 126 Mangkunagara 141
Ibrh¥m al-Ra’¥s al-Zamzam¥ al-Makk¥ 114–15, Man§´r al-îallj 104
118, 125 al-Maqassr¥ 5, 17–18, 20, 27, 42, 52, 66, 74,
Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd Allh b. Ja’mn 27, 73 86–92, 94–6, 98, 101–4, 106, 108–11, 123, 128,
Ibrh¥m b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Khiyar¥ al-Madan¥ 131–2, 138–40; arrived in Banten 88; died 102
77 al-Ma§r¥ 119
Ibrh¥m b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn 73 Matheson, Y. 144
Imm Mlik¥ 142 Mattulada 94
Imam al-îaramayn 22 Mawln Malik Ibrh¥m 124
Imam îanaf¥ 142 Mayson, J.S. 102
Imam îanbal¥ 142 M¥r Kiln 47
Imam Shfi’¥ 142 al-Mizjj¥ 74, 116
Isúq b. Ja’mn al-Zab¥d¥ 28, 74, 90 Moghul Suln Aurangzeb 78
Isúq b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn al-Yamn¥ 20, 73 Mughn¥ al-Muútj 129
Iskandar Muda 53, 59 Muúammad [b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥] al-Mizjj¥ al-
Iskandar Thn¥ 59, 67, 78 Naqshband 91
Muúammad [b. Aúmad] al-Jawhar¥ [al-Mi§r¥] 115
Ja’far b. Ab¥ $lib 22 Muúammad [b. Sulaymn] al-Kurd¥ 114
Ja’far b. îasan b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-Barzanj¥ 28 Muúammad ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥ 74
Ja’mn 18 Muúammad ‘Abd al-Hd¥ al-Sind¥ 20
al-Jabart¥ 114–15 Muúammad ‘Abduh 151
Jall al-D¥n 145–7 Muúammad ‘Al’ al-D¥n Shams al-D¥n al-Bbil¥
Jall al-D¥n al-Aydid 88 19
Jall al-D¥n al-Maúall¥ 81 Muúammad ‘Al¥ b. ‘Aln al-êidd¥q¥ 28
Jall al-D¥n al-Suy´¥ 18, 25, 35, 81, 138 Muúammad ‘Is b. Kinn al-îanbal¥ 47
Jaml al-D¥n al-üah¥rah 11–2 Muúammad al-’Aydar´s 57
al-Jazir¥ 22 Muúammad al-Ghamr¥ 36
Jeffreys, K. M. 101 Muúammad al-Hd¥ 56
al-J¥l¥ 53, 63, 103, 105, 131, 133, 137 Muúammad al-Jawhar¥ 114–15, 120–1
Johns, A. H. 41, 50, 53, 75, 82, 83 Muúammad al-Lah´r¥ 91
al-Junayd 113, 128 Muúammad al-Mazr´’ 91
Junayd al-Baghdd¥ 103 Muúammad al-Nawaw¥ al-Bantan¥ 151
Muúammad al-Qushsh¥ 74
Ktib Seri Raja b. îamzah al-sh¥ 77 Muúammad al-Sammn¥ 115, 123
Kalden, Petrus 101 Muúammad al-Shinnw¥ 15, 48
al-Kattn¥ 18, 20, 23–4, 27, 29, 116 Muúammad al-Yaman¥ 56
Kemas Fakhr al-D¥n 112–13 Muúammad al-Zujj¥ al-Naqshband¥ 91
Kemas Muúammad b. Aúmad 112 Muúammad Arshad al-Banjr¥ 112, 114, 117–20,
al-Khzin 80–1 122, 124, 127–30, 135, 140
Khlid al-Mlik¥ 24 Muúammad As’ad 125
Kha¥b al-Sharbayn¥ 129 Muúammad As’ad al-îanaf¥ 126
al-Kis’¥ 68 Muúammad As’ad al-Makk¥ 126
al-K´rn¥ 6, 18–9, 21, 27–8, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45–9, Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Bq¥ al-Mizjj¥ al-
74, 77, 83, 86, 91, 126, 131, 133, 138 Naqshband¥ 89, 91, 108
Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Kar¥m al-Sammn¥ 114
Lancaster, Sir James 53 Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Maj¥d al-’Ajam¥ 27
Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l al-Barzanj¥ 18,
Mlik b. Anas 34, 36–7; Mlik¥ 34, 44; madhhab 12, 27, 46
34; Moroccan Mlik¥ 34; muúaddith 35; Qè¥ Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhb 29
12; school of law 16–17 Muúammad b. ‘Al’ al-D¥n al-Bbil¥ al-Qhir¥ 21
Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ al-Shanwn¥ 125 al-Muúibb¥ 6, 16, 18, 24, 57, 73, 89, 90, 92
Muúammad b. ‘Is al-Tilmisn¥ 16 Muúy al-D¥n al-Mi§r¥ 15
Muúammad b. ‘Umar al- îaèram¥ 15 Muúy al-D¥n al-Nawaw¥ 138
Muúammad b. Ab¥ al-îasan al-Bakr¥ 15 Mul Ni½m al-D¥n al-Sind¥ 15
Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr and Aúmad Ab´ al- al-Mul Shaykh b. Ilys al-Kurd¥ 15
’Abbs 90 al-Murd¥ 6, 18, 115
Muúammad b. al-Muúibb al-$abar¥ 25 Murtaè al-Zab¥d¥ 18, 21, 23, 28, 58, 114–16, 125
Muúammad b. al-êidd¥q al-Kh§§ al-Zab¥d¥ 90 Mu§af al-’Aydar´s 58
Muúammad b. Aúmad b. ‘Abd al-’Az¥z al- Mu§af al-Bakr¥ 114
Nuwayr¥ 12 Mu§af al-îalab¥ 120
Muúammad b. ëiy’ al-D¥n al-êghn¥ 10 Musaf b. Fatú 16
Muúammad b. Ibrh¥m b. al-’Ibd 133 Mu§af b. Fatú Allh al-îamaw¥ 90
Muúammad b. îusayn al-’Ajam¥ 27
Muúammad b. Ja’mn 73 al-Nabul´s¥ 131, 133
Muúammad b. Muúammad al-’Amir¥ al-Ghaz¥ 19 al-Nahrawl¥ 13
Muúammad b. Sulaymn al-Kurd¥ 114 Najm al-D¥n al-Nasaf¥ 67
Muúammad b. Sulaymn al-Raddn¥ al-Maghrib¥ al-Nakhl¥ 22, 28, 36, 38
22, 23 al-Nas’¥ 36
Muúammad b. al-Waj¥h 89 Nashr al-Mathn¥ 51
Muúammad Bq¥ Allh al-Lah´r¥ 91 al-Nawaw¥ 63, 79, 82, 130
Muúammad Bq¥ bi Allh 21 Ni’mat Allh al-Qdir¥ 47
Muúammad ëiy’ al-D¥n al-Hind¥ 10 Nieuwenhuijze, C. A. O.van 53
Muúammad Ghauth al-Hind¥ 13, 16 N´r al-’lam Naq¥yyat al-D¥n 78
Muúammad îayyt al-Sind¥ 27, 29, 30 N´r al-D¥n ‘Al¥ al-Shabrmalis¥ 20, 22, 28
Muúammad Jaml al-D¥n üah¥rah 10 N´r al-D¥n al-Jm¥ 91
Muúammad J¥ln¥ b. îasan Muúammad al- N´r al-D¥n al-Rn¥r¥ 52
îumaydi 55, 58 N´r al-D¥n b. ‘Abd al-Fattú 94
Muúammad Khal¥l al-Murd¥ 115 N´r al-D¥n Muúammad b. ‘Al¥ b. îasanj¥ al-
Muúammad Khal¥l b. ‘Al¥ b. Muúammad b. îam¥d¥ 54
Murd 115 N´r Muúammad 83
Muúammad Maúf´½ al-Tarmis¥ 121
Muúammad Mirza 91, 92 Orang Kaya Maharaja Srimaharaja 59
Muúammad Mirza b. Muúammad al-Dimashq¥ 91 Orang Kaya Maharajalela 60
Muúammad Muúy¥ al-D¥n 112
Muúammad Muúy¥ al-D¥n b. Shihb al-D¥n 112 al-Padan¥ 149
Muúammad Murd 114–15 al-Palimbn¥ 6, 42, 115–18, 120–1, 123–4, 126–8,
Muúammad Muraz al-Shm¥ 91 130–2, 134–6, 138, 140–1, 143, 149; died 114
Muúammad Naf¥s al-Banjr¥ 42, 112, 120, 122, Paku Nagara 141
124, 127, 136–7 Pangeran Purbaya 97
Muúammad Naf¥s b. Idr¥s b. al-îusayn 120 Pangeran Samudra 117
Muúammad Naf¥s to al-Fan¥ 138 Pangeran Surya 89
Muúammad Nawaw¥ al-Bantn¥ 149 Pelras, C. 94
Muúammad Ras´l Allh ‘Abd Allh 141 Plato 40, 83
Muúammad êliú b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Fan¥
123–4 Qè¥ ‘Abd al-Raúman b. Shihb al-D¥n al-Saqqf
Muúammad êidd¥q b. ‘Umar Khn 120–1 56
Muúammad Sa’¥d b. $hir 126 Qè¥ Isúq b. Muúammad b. Ja’mn 73
Muúammad $hir b. ‘Al¥ al-Fan¥ 123 Qè¥ Malik al-’dil 59, 78
Muúammad Ysin al-Padan¥ 149 Qè¥ Muúammad b. Ab¥ Bakr b. Muayr 74
Muúammad Y´suf al-Maqassr¥ 4, 87 al-Qshn¥ 63
Muúammad Y´suf b. ‘Abd Allh Ab´ al-Maúsin al-Qann´j¥ 22, 49
87 al-Qunyaw¥ 63
Muúammad üah¥rah al-Makk¥ 15 al-Qushsh¥ [Aúmad al-Qushsh¥] 16–20, 23,
Muúammad Zayn b. Faq¥h Jall al-D¥n al-Ash¥ 27–8, 36–7, 39, 42–4, 46–8, 56, 73–5, 77, 84–5,
124 86, 90–2, 107, 126, 131, 133, 138
al-Qushayr¥ 3, 29, 33, 50, 113, 128, 137 Sayyid Slim b. Aúmad Shaykhn¥ 15
Qub al-D¥n al-Nahrawl¥ 15, 36 Sayyidah Mubrakah 25
Schrieke, B. J. O 53
al-Rn¥r¥ 5, 17, 42, 52, 53–4, 56–61, 63–7, 69, 70, al-Sha’rn¥ 36–7, 39, 47–9, 131, 133, 137–8
84, 89, 103, 109–11, 123, 128–9, 131, 134 Shfi’¥ 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 28–9, 31, 35, 45, 55, 63,
Rash¥d Riè 151 94, 121; little Shfi’¥ 35; Muft¥ 12, 15, 28, 29;
Rasln al-Dimashq¥ 133 muúaddith 35; school of law 121; al-êagh¥r 35
Ricklefs, M. C. 142–3 al-Shfi’¥ al-Ash’ar¥ al-’Aydar´s¥ al-Rn¥r¥ 54
Riddell, P. 81, 151 Shh Shuj’ b. Muúammad al-Yazd¥ 10
Rinkes, D. A. 71, 81 Shh Wal¥ Allh 30, 104
Roff, W. R. 141 al-Shw¥ 51
Shaghir Abdullah 123
êliú al-Fulln¥ 115, 125 al-Shahrastn¥ 68
êliú b. Muúammad al-Fulln¥ 18 Shams al-D¥n 53–4, 59, 62, 66, 68, 72, 83
êaf¥ al-D¥n 122 Shams al-D¥n al-Raml¥ 15, 18–21, 25, 35–7, 63,
êaf¥ al-D¥n Aúmad b. Muúammad Yńus al- 79, 125, 129–30
Qushsh¥ al 16 Shams al-D¥n al-Samatrn¥ 42, 52, 59, 64, 71, 80,
êafiyyat al-D¥n 78 83, 128, 131, 133
êaú¥b Surat 57 Sharaf al-D¥n b. Ibrh¥m al-Jabart¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 36
êibghat Allh 13, 15–16, 20, 22, 37, 47 Shar¥f Barakat 78
êidd¥q b.’Umar al-Khn 134 al-Sharqw¥ 121
Sa’¥d al-Lh´r¥ 27 Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qdir 122
Sa’¥d b. Ibrh¥m Qadd´rah 22 Shaykh ‘Al¥ 71
al-Sakhw¥ 21 Shaykh al-Islm Sa’¥d b. Ibrh¥m Qadd´rah 23
al-Sammn¥ 116, 118, 120–1, 124–5, 131–4, 137 Shaykh Aúmad 151
Sasmita 96 Shaykh Aúmad al-Nahraw¥ 151
al-Sayf al-Qi’ 55 Shaykh Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ 73
Sayf al-Rijl 60, 61–2, 77 Shaykh Aúmad Kha ¥b al-Minangkabaw¥ 152
Sayyid ‘Abd al-êamad b. ‘Abd al-Raúmn al-Jw¥ Shaykh Aúmad Muúammad Zain 151
113 Shaykh Dw´d ibn ‘Abd Allh al-Fan¥ 151
Sayyid ‘Abd al-Khliq al-Hind¥ al-Lh´r¥ 17 Shaykh Faq¥h êaf¥ al-D¥n 122
Sayyid ‘Abd Allh 122 Shaykh Maldin 60
Sayyid ‘Abd Allh al-’Aydar´s 57 Shaykh Mawl Ibrh¥m 75
Sayyid ‘Abd Allh B Faq¥h 17 Shaykh Muúammad ibn Shaykh Faèl Allh al-
Sayyid ‘Abd al-Raúmn 17 Burhnp´r 42
Sayyid ‘Abd al-Raúmn [al-Maúj´b] al-Maghrib¥ 17 Shaykh Muúammad Kha ¥b al-Hanbal¥ 151
Sayyid ‘Al¥ 90 Shaykh Muúammad Ysin al-Padan¥ 149
Sayyid ‘Al¥ al-Shaybn¥ al-Zab¥d¥ 17 Shaykh N´r al-D¥n b. îasanji b. Muúammad
Sayyid ‘Umar al-Aydar´s 56 îumayd al 89
Sayyid ‘Umar b. ‘Abd Allh al-Raú¥m al-Ba§r¥ 56 Shaykh Sayyid Aúmad al-Dinya¥ 151
Sayyid Ab¥ al-Ghayth Shajr 16 Shaykh Sayyid Aúmad Dahlan 151
Sayyid Aúmad al-îusn¥ al-Maghrib¥ al-Mlik¥ 50 Shaykh Suln al-Mazzú¥ 23
Sayyid al-’Allmah al-Wal¥ Barakt al-Tńis¥ 17 Shaykh Suln b. Aúmad b. Salmah b. Ism’il al-
Sayyid al-’Aydar´s 112 Ma 19
Sayyid al-Jal¥l Muúammad al-Ghurb¥ 15 Shaykh Yusuf 102
Sayyid al-$hir b. al-îusayn al-Ahdal 74 Shihb al-D¥n 112
Sayyid Amjad M¥rz 15 Shihb al-D¥n al-Malk’¥ 17
Sayyid As’ad al-Balkh¥ 15, 17 Shihb al-D¥n al-Raml¥ 13, 35
Sayyid B ‘Alw¥ b. ‘Abd Allh al-’Allmah al- Shihb al-D¥n b. ‘Abd Allh Muúammad
$hir 88 112, 128
Sayyid M¥r Kall b. Maúm´d al-Balkh¥ 22 Shihb al-Raml¥ 36
Sayyid Muúammad b. ‘Abd Allh al-’Aydar´s 57 al-Shinnw¥ 18, 36, 47, 131
Sayyid Muúammad Gharb 16 al-Sib’¥ 23, 25, 29
Sayyid êibghat Allh b. R´ú Allh Jaml al- Sibghat Allh 126
Barwaj¥ 13 Sidi Matilaya 99
al-Sink¥l¥ [‘Abd al-Ra’uf al-Sinkili] 4–5, 18, 20, Tj al-D¥n b. Aúmad 24, 42
23, 25, 27, 42–3, 52, 64–5, 70–4, 77–84, 86, Tj al-D¥n b. Ya’q´b al-Mlik¥ al-Makk¥ 22
91–2, 96, 103, 109, 110–11, 116, 123, 126, Tj al-D¥n b. Zakariyy b. Suln al-’Uthmn¥ 21
128–9, 131, 133, 134, 138–9, 144–6, 149; Tj al-D¥n Ibn Ya’q´b 74
Arabian Networks 72; died 86; Malay- Tj al-Hind¥ 47
Indonesian Networks 84 Tack, Captain François 97
al-Sirhind¥ 47 Thurnberg, C. 102
Snouck Hurgronje, C. 2, 12, 77, 81, 110, 140, 150 al-Tirmidh¥ 36
Sourij, Peter 60 Teeuw, A. 69
Steenbrink, K. 118 Tok Kenali 151
Stel, Simon van der 101 Tok Pulau Manis 86
Stel, Willem Adriaan van der 101 Trimingham, J. S. 37
al-Subk¥ 138 Tuanku Mansiangan Nan Tuo 145
Sulaymn al-Ahdal 114, 116 Tuanku Nan Renceh 146–7
Sulaymn al-Kurd¥ 30, 43, 116, 118–19 Tuanku Nan Tuo 145, 146, 147
Sulaymn al-Margh¥ 80 Tuanta Salamaka ri Gowa 87
Sulaymn Shh Muúammad 102 Tun Seri Lanang 69
Suln ‘dil Shh 57
Suln ‘lim Awliy’ Allh 145
al-’Ujaym¥ 25
Suln ‘Al’ al-D¥n Maúm´d Shh 124
‘Umar b. ‘Abd Allh B Shaybn 89
Suln ‘Al’ al-D¥n Ri’yat Shh 52–3, 55
‘Umar b. Qè¥ al-Malik al-’dil Ibrh¥m 79
Suln Ab´ al-Mafkhir ‘Abd al-Qdir 95
‘Uthmn b. F´d¥ 3, 138, 142
Suln Ageng Tirtayasa 89, 95–7
Suln Aúmad 59
Voll, J. O. 89
Suln al-Majz´b 16; al-Mazzú¥ 22, 28
Voorhoeve, P. 81
Suln Badr al-’lam Shar¥f Hshim B al-’Alaw¥
79
Waj¥h al-D¥n 13
Suln îji 96–7
Suln Ibrh¥m 92 Waj¥h al-D¥n ‘Abd al-Raúmn b. Sulaymn b.
Suln Ibrhim II 63 Yaúy 116
Suln Ibrh¥m ‘dil Shh 13 Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Ahdal 116
Suln Maúm´d 112 Waj¥h al-D¥n al-Gujart¥ 13
Suln Mu½affar Shh 122 Wal¥ ‘Umar b. al-Qub Badr al-D¥n al-’dal¥ 17
Suln Surian Shh 117 Winstedt, R.O. 53
Suln Tahl¥l Allh 118
Suln Taúm¥d Allh 128 Yaúy al-Shw¥ 51
Suln Taúm¥d Allh II 119 Yńus al-Qushsh¥ 16
Surian Allh 117
al-Suy´¥ 15, 20, 37, 41, 46 al-Zab¥d¥ 115, 116
Syeikh Daud bin Abdullah al-Fatani 123 Zakariyy al-An§r¥ 18–9, 25, 35–7, 63, 79, 81,
125, 129–30, 138
al-$abar¥ 68, 74 Zakiyyat al-D¥n 78
al-$ayyib b. Ab¥ al-Qsim b. Ja’mn 73 al-Zarkal¥ 19
Tj al-D¥n al-Hind¥ al-Naqshband¥ 21, 28, 90–1, Zayn al-’bid¥n 25, 56, 74
133 Zayn al-’bid¥n al-$abar¥ 22, 24, 27–8, 50, 74
Tj al-D¥n al-Qal’¥ 27 Zwemer, S.M. 101–2
Subject Index
al-’lam 83 aqr 17
‘lim 16, 54, 57, 59, 64–6, 68, 72, 80, 151 Arab 54, 63, 71, 88, 96, 98, 116–7; Arabia 2, 3,
‘Alaw¥ 18 72, 77, 87, 94, 113–14; Arabian 62, 68; Arabian
‘amal 39, 82 Peninsula 34; Arabic 19, 24, 52, 66–7, 137;
‘aq¥dah 104 Arabicke tongue 53; Arabs 1, 55; Jaml al-
‘aq’id 62, 129 Layl dynasty 79; sayyids 112; South Arabia
‘a§r 28 54, 56
‘awwm 48 al-Arba’¥n f¥ U§´l al-D¥n 131
al-’awwm 44 Arba’ń îad¥th 82
al-khir 104 al-Ardbil¥ 63
al-yt al-mutashbiht 105 a§úb al-Jwiyy¥n 75
al-a’yn al-khrijiyyah 83 a§úb al-khalw¥ 45
al-a’yn al-thbitah 55 asbb al-nuz´l 81
Aceh 52–3, 55, 58–9, 60, 62, 71, 75, 80, 84–8, ashab al-Jawiyyin 3
111, 117, 124, 146, 149; Acehnese 66, 79, 129; al-Aslf al-êliú¥n 43
Acehnese Sultanate 11, 59, 71, 77–8, 86, 124; atheism 41
Banda Aceh 64, 71, 78, 86; Bandr sh¥ 78 Aw¥siyyah 47
adat 110 al-Awwal 104
Aden 146 awwm 41
Africa: South Africa 87, 94, 101–2; West Africa Azhar 115
3, 18, 34 Azhar Imm 20
aúwl 39 Azhar University 125
ahl al-úad¥th 33–4, 45
ahl al-úaq¥qah 33 Bb al-Nikú 67
ahl al-kashf 40 Bb al-Salm 28
ahl al-khaww§ 106 al-Bbil¥ 21
ahl al-shar’¥ 138 al-Bhir al-$ar¥qah 15
ahl al-shar¥’ah 33, 40 bin 37, 40, 79, 82
ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah 90, 146 al-bin 41, 104, 118
Ahmadabad 13, 57 Biniyyah 47
Algerian 51 ba’è a§úbin al-Jwiyy¥n 41
Algiers 22 Baghdad 6, 19, 52, 85
al-Am¥riyyah 80 Bahmn¥ Sultanate 57
Ampat Angkat 145 Bangkalan 151
Annals of Gowa 87 Banjar 118, 120
247
Banjar Sultanate 117, 128 Day of Judgment 105

Banjarmasin 120 dayah 86
Banten 52, 87–9, 94–8, 151; Bantanese 140; Dayaks 117
Bantanese war 140; Bantenese Suln 62; Demak Sultanate 117
Bantenese Sultanate 89, 96 Denmark 95
Barus 71 Dht 136
al-ba§ar 106 dht 138
Batavia 58, 97, 103, 112, 119 dhakar 79
bay’ah 48, 108, 132 dhikr 28, 84, 102, 107–8
bayn 19 Dijana 16
Bayt al-Faq¥h 73, 146 Diyr al-Hind 57
Bayt al-Raúmn 64, 78 Doha 73
bid’ah 46, 139, 147 Durr al-Naf¥s 120–1, 136–7
Bidyat al-Hidyah 124, 131 al-Durr al-Tham¥n 131
Bijapur 13, 57 al-Durrat al-Bahiyyah f¥ Jawb al-As’ilat al-
Bismiyyah 85 Jwiyah 43
Bombay 80, 131 al-Durrat al-Fkhirah 91
Bone Sultanate 124 Durrat al-Far’id 67
Bontoala 88 Dutch 69, 95–8, 103, 106, 117, 122, 132, 140–4,
Borneo 88, 111, 117 147, 150; aggression 141; East Indies Company
Britain 150 97; Governor in Makassar 102
Buddhist 110
Bughyat al-$ullb 129–30 East Java 121, 124
Bughyat al-$lib¥n 28, 37 Eerste River 101
Buginese 97 Egypt 10, 13, 15, 19, 23, 27–8, 34–6, 58, 125,
al-Bustn al-’rif¥n 131 146; Egyptian 21–2, 31, 125, 151; Egyptian
Bustn al-Sal¥n 55, 67–8 isnd 19, 35–6; Egyptian úad¥th isnd 37;
Egyptian Maml´k 10; Egyptian muúaddith
Cairo 5, 6, 12, 22, 27, 80, 116, 118, 120–1, 125, 15, 115; Egyptian §´f¥ 49; Egyptian ‘ulam’ 22
127, 129–31 England 53, 95
Cangking 145 English 97, 150
Cape 102–3; of Good Hope 98–9, 101; Malays European 5, 9, 117, 127–8, 149, 150; colonial
101; Peninsula 102 powers 127
Cape Town 101
Caringin 151 fsiq 104, 107
casus belli 97 faè’il 8
Celebes 52 Faè’il al-Iúy’ li al-Ghazl¥ 130
Ceylon 98 Faè’il al-Jihd 140, 141
China 95; Chinese 71 al-Fajr al-Bbil¥ f¥ Tarjamat al-Bbil¥ 21
Chishtiyyah 13, 47 fan’ 38, 40, 105, 136
Christianity 68, 101 Fan§´r 52, 70, 71
Cikoang 88 faqaha f¥ al-D¥n 44
Cirebon 97, 98 faq¥h 27, 28, 65, 73, 125
City of the Prophet 15, 16, 73, 74–5 faq¥r 42, 73
Council of Batavia 103 far’iè 129
farè al-’ayn 144
ëuú 73 farè al-kifyah 144
dr al-Islm 139, 144 al-Fatw 130
dr al-kufr 144 al-Fatw al-Faniyyah 151
dr al-$ab’ah 120 Fatú 27
Daha Kingdom 117 Fatú al-Jawwd 79
Damascus 19, 24, 45, 91–2 Fatú al-Raúmn 133
Dangor 94 Fatú al-Wahhb 63, 79, 81, 130
Daq’iq al-îur´f 83–4 Faure 103
darek 145 fatw 11, 25, 59, 64, 79
SUBJECT INDEX 249
Fawa’id al-Irtihal 6, 16 Hidyat al-îab¥b f¥ al-Targh¥b wa al-Tart¥b 67

fiqh 10, 17, 19–20, 22, 25, 28–9, 36–7, 55–6, Hidyat al-Muta’allim wa ‘Umdat al-Mu’allim 129
62–3, 66–7, 77, 79–80, 86–7, 91–2, 116, 129, Hidyat al-Muútj Sharú al-Mukhta§r 63
150; al-’ibdah 129; mu’malat 80 Hidyat al-Slik¥n 131–2
Firdausiyyah 13, 47 hijrah 37
France 97, 150 Hikayat Patani 122
fuqah’ 33, 50 Hikayat Prang Sabi 141
Fur´’ al-Mas’il 129–30 îilyat al-Bashar f¥ Tr¥kh al-Qarn al-Thlith ‘Ashr
Fu§´§ al-îikam 133, 137 6
Fut´út al-Makkiyah 41, 43, 50, 133, 137 Hind¥ 57
Hindu 64, 110
Gate of al-Wad’ 27 Holy City 1, 22–3
Gate of Peace 28 Holy Mosques 49
Gate of Umm Hn¥’ 27 hoogepriester 96
Ghyat al-Taqr¥b 129 Hudaydah 73
Ghazlian ta§awwuf 130
Gowa 87, 92, 94–6, 102 ‘ibdt 39, 79–80, 104, 129–30
great Egyptian muúaddith 18 ‘ilm 8, 18, 20, 39, 44, 72, 82
great §´f¥ 17 ‘ilm al-úaqiq 75
Greek 1, 40, 68 ‘ilm al-bin 75
Gresik 124 ‘ilm al-falak 114, 118
Gujarat 13, 54, 55, 56, 57, 89, 123 ‘ilm al-½hir 73
guru 66 al-’Iqb al-Hwi ‘al al-Tha’lab al-’w¥ wa al-Nus
51
al-úfi½ 21, 46 ‘Iqd al-Jawhir 28
újj 92, 95, 99 ‘irfn 18
úkim 79 ibl¥s 138
îaèramawt 55–6, 112 Ièú al-Bb li Mur¥d al-Nikú 129
îaèram¥ 54–5 al-iúah 104
úad¥th 8, 10, 15, 17–20, 22–4, 29–30, 32, 34, 36, iúdth 62
40, 42–4, 47, 62, 67, 73, 77, 84, 91, 116, 140, Iúy’ ‘Ul´m al-D¥n 41, 50, 130–1, 133, 137
146, 149; isnd 13, 30–1, 35–6; quds¥ 82; schol- Ihd’ al-La’if min Akhbr al-$’if 27
arship 35 ijzah 10–12, 19, 22, 24, 37, 50, 77
îajar al-’Asqaln¥ 13 al-ijzah al-’mmah 37
úalqah 10, 15, 20, 22, 27–8 al-ijml 106
al-úaq¥qat al-Muwfiqah li al-Shar¥’ah 41 ijtihd 44, 51
îarm 89; Mosque 10–12, 24, 27–9, 118 al-ilúd 41
îaramayn 3, 5, 6, 8–16, 20–23, 25, 27–32, 34–5, imm 88, 101
43, 45, 48, 55–7, 64–5, 70, 73, 77–8, 86, 89–92, al-Imm 152
95–6, 110–11, 115–16, 118–19, 123–5, 127, Imm al-îaramayn 22
137, 140, 143, 146, 148, 151; §´f¥ 48 India 13, 36, 57, 60, 63–4, 68, 89, 95, 146;
úajj 8, 13, 19, 21, 56, 63, 73, 86 Indian 2, 11, 13, 27, 46, 54, 71, 85, 91, 95,
úaq’iq 43 102; Indian Ocean 9, 54, 65; Indian sub-
úaq¥qah 31, 33, 39, 89, 107 continent 27; Indian Sufism 39; muúaddith
úaq¥qat-i aúmad¥ 46 18
úaq¥qat-i muúammad¥ 46 Indo-China 95
îijz 11, 27, 55 Indonesia 131, 149, 151, 153; Malay 112
îikam 133, 137 Insn al-Kmil 44, 92, 105, 133, 137
úujjat al-§´fiyyah 18 Iraq 28
al-úul´l 104 Isfahan 13
úul´liyyah 135 isnd 1, 11, 15, 19, 21–2, 24–5, 29, 36, 38, 47,
úusn al-½ann 106 125, 149, 150; ‘ilmiyyah 149; al-’l¥ 38;
Hamadniyyah 13 ta§awwuf 149
handasah 19 Istanbul 80, 95, 129–30
heresy 41 istikhrah 42
Itúf al-Dhak¥ 40–2, 45, 50, 75 Kashf al-Munta½ar 75

ittiúd 138 Kaum Muda 152
Kedah 52, 67, 113, 122
al-Jdat al-Qaw¥mah il Taúq¥q Mas’alat Kelantan 151
al-Wuj´d 43 Kelua 120
jhil 104 khnqh 35, 49
Jm¥’ al-Faw’id 129 kh§§ 139
Jmi’ al-êagh¥r 41 kh§§ al-khaww§ 106
Jwah 64, 75, 92 al-Khtimat al-Muúaqqiq¥n 41
Jw¥ 42–3, 56, 58, 77, 90, 110, 114, 137 kha¥b 88
Jwiyy¥n 41–2 khal¥fah 10, 17, 20, 56, 67, 74–5, 102, 107
Ja’mn 18, 73–4 khal¥fah al-Qdiriyyah 89
jahr 84 khalwah 35
Jallayn Tafs¥r 81 Khalwatiyyah 13, 28, 47, 92, 96, 114, 116, 121,
Jam’ al-Faw’id f¥ al-îad¥th 24 132–3; Y´suf 108
jam’ah 41 khaww§ 44, 82
Japan 95 al-khirqat al-§´fiyyah 39
Java 52, 85–9, 108, 111, 119, 122, 141, 142, Khul§at al-Athar 6, 16, 24
151; 143; Bild al-Jwah 43; Javanese 129 khurfat 139
al-Jawbt al-Gharwiyyah ‘an al-Mas’il al- Kifyat al-Muútaj¥n il Mashrab al-Muwaúúid¥n
Jwiyyah 42 83
Jawhir al-’Ul´m f¥ Kashf al-Ma’l´m 59, 62, 66 Kitb al-Anwr 63
Jawhir al-îaq’iq 133 Kitb al-Far’iè 80
Jawhir-i Khamsah 13 Kitb al-Imdd bi Ma ‘rifah ‘Uluw al-Isnd 29, 36
Jawhir wa al-Durar 137 Kitb al-Jawhir 16
al-Jazir¥ 22 Kitb al-Milal wa al-Niúal 68
al-Jazair 23 Kitb al-Tamh¥d 68
Jeddah 73–4, 94 kiyai 151
Jembatan Lima 119 Kresik 124
Jerusalem 16, 52, 122 kuala 86
Jewish 71 al-Kubr 39
jihd 117, 122, 140, 143–4; f¥ sab¥l Allh 107 Kubrawiyyah 47
al-Jiúd wa Faè’ilih 21 kufr 138
jimat 142 Kurdistan 19, 28
Judaism 68 Kutai 88
Junayd al-Baghdd¥ 103 Kutub al-Sittah 19, 20, 38, 41
kfir 64, 146, 104; al-úarb 144 Labbakang 94

Ka’bah 46, 119 Lahore 36
kaifiyat al-êalh 67 Lakiung 103
kalm 17, 19, 20, 24, 53, 55, 62–3, 79, 81–2, 92, laqab 16, 119, 123
103, 116 Lawqih al-Anwr al-Qudsiyyah 133
Kalimantan 88, 118, 120, 122; South Kalimantan Lebanon 23
88, 111, 117–9, 135 Light of Muúammad 68
Kanz al-’Amal f¥ Sunan al-Aqwl 29 lisn al-Jwiyyat al-Samatra’iyyah 79
Kanz al-Ma’rifah 118 al-Luúayyah 73
Kanz al-Riwyat 23 Luwaran 80
Karmat 102
Karang 86, 96 ma’n¥ 145
kashf 46, 83, 137 ma’ni 19
Kashf al-Ghummah 137 al-ma’iyyah 104
Kashf al-Kirm 124 ma’rifah 89, 104
Kashf al-Lithm 130 Madriyyah 13
Kashf al-Mast´r f¥ Jawb As’ilah ‘Abd al-Shuk´r madhhab 10, 12, 31–2, 34–5, 44, 48
42 madrasah 6, 9, 10, 12, 24, 33, 45, 71
SUBJECT INDEX 251
Madrasah al-Ghiythiyyah 10 Minangkabau 60, 85, 88, 122, 145–7

Madura 151 Minhj al-$lib¥n 63, 130
Maghrib 22–3, 27–8 Minhj al-’bid¥n 131, 137
Maghrib¥ 22, 28, 34, 92 mir’ah 105
Maguindanao 80 Mir’t al îaq’iq 133
al-Maúj´b 50 Mir’t al-$ullb 79, 80–1, 128
Mahdism 45 mithql 10
majlis 11, 20 Mizn 39
Majlis Ugama Islam 151 Mizjj¥ 74, 116
Makassar 89 Mizjj¥ family/families 89, 114
Makassarese 97 Moghul 99
Malacca 88 Moorish Bishop 59–60
Malay 52, 58–9, 63, 66–7, 69–70, 79, 102, 116–7, Mu’tazili 153
127, 131, 137, 142, 151; Indonesian 3, 4, 5, 7, mu’malat 79
11, 24, 41–2, 52–6, 58, 62–8, 70, 72, 77, 80–2, al-mu’min al-’awwm 106
85, 87–9, 92, 95, 98, 101, 109, 110–1, 114, 119, Mu’tazilite 40, 51
121, 123, 126–31, 133, 137, 139, 140–2, 144, al-mubtad¥ 108, 133
147, 149; Malaysia 149; Muslim 2; Peninsula al-Muèill 104
58, 67, 78, 86, 88, 111; muúaddith 13, 19, 22, 24–5, 27–8, 36, 50, 55, 57,
Maml´k 10, 12; ruler in Cairo 12 73–4, 90, 92, 116
al-Manr 152 muúaddith-§´f¥ 28
Manúat al-Muúammadiyah 137 Muft¥ 11, 22, 55, 74, 78
Manhal al-êf¥ 137–8 muft¥ 59; of Bayt al-Faq¥h 73; Mufti of Mecca 27;
maniq 19, 55, 116, 145 of Zab¥d 116
maqm 39 Mughn¥ al-Muútj 129
martabat tujuh 128, 136 al-mujwirń 45
Martapura 118–9 mujhidt al-shaq’ 107
al-Mas’il al-Jwiyyah 42–3 mujaddid 18, 54, 70, 109–10
Maslak al-Mukhtr 133 mujaddid-i alf-i thn¥ 46
Maba’ah al-’Uthmniyyah 80 mujaddids in the archipelago 54
Maba’at al-Kar¥m al-Islmiyyah 120 mujtahid 19
Mataram 142 Mukh 73
Mataram Sultanate 142–3 mukhlafah 62
Maw’i½ al-Bad¥’ah 82 Mukhta§ar al- ’Aq’id 67
Mawqi’ al-Nuj´m 133 Mukhta§ar al-Tuúfat al-Mursalah 137
al-mawj´d: al-majz¥ 104–5; al-úaq¥q¥ 104 mulúid 107, 135
al-mawt: al-ikhtiyr¥ 84; al-ma’naw¥ 40, 84; al- al-munfiq 106
ab¥’¥ 84; al-muntah¥ 108, 133
Mawza’ 73 Munyat al-Mu§all¥ 129, 144
Mecca 1–3, 5, 8, 10–12, 16, 19, 20–25, 27–9, 43, muqallid 44
45, 49, 52, 55–6, 61, 73–4, 77–80, 82, 85, al-Murd¥ 6, 18, 115
90–92, 94, 96, 110, 113, 115–6, 118–9, 129–31, al-Murabb¥ al-Kamil¥ f¥ man raw ‘an al-Bbil¥ 21
136, 141–2, 144, 147, 150, 152; Meccan 24–5; mur¥d 47
Meccan faq¥h 74; Meccan Shar¥fs 45; Meccan mushhadah 137
§´f¥ 21; Musnad ‘Al¥ al-Tam¥m¥ al-Maw§ul¥ 38
Medina 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 15–6, 18–9, 20–3, 28–9, Musnad al-Bazr 38
34, 36, 43, 52, 56, 61, 65, 73–5, 77–8, 91, 110, Musnad al-Drim¥ 38
113, 116, 142 musnad al-duny 23
middle course 37 Musnad al-Kis¥ 38
Middle East 2, 5, 9, 11, 18, 33, 35, 43, 52, 65, mutakallimń 45
70–1, 80, 88–9, 92, 96, 109–11, 126–7, 136, 153 mutashbiht 45
Middle Eastern 4, 112, 126 al-mutawassi 108
Miftú al-Ma’iyyah f¥ al-$ar¥qat al- Muayr 90
Naqshbandiyyah 133 al-Muwa’ 37
Miúnn b. ‘Awd B Mazr´’ 17 al-Nshirat al-Njirah li al-Firqat al-Fjirah 46
Nabaw¥ Mosque 15, 20, 49 pesantren 112, 117, 149, 151

al-Nabl al-Raq¥q f¥ îulq´m al-Sbb al-Zind¥q 51 Pharaoh 51
Nafúat al-Ilhiyyah 131 Philippines 80, 95
nafs 132 pondok 117, 123, 151
al-Nafs al-Yamani wa al-Ruh al-Rayhani 6, 116 Portuguese 9, 55
Nahdlatul Ulama 151 pujangga 69
Nahj al-Rghib¥n f¥ Sab¥l al-Muttaq¥n 129
al-Nahrawl¥ 13 al-Qaè wa al-Qadar 105
Najm al-D¥n al-Nasaf¥ 67 Qadú al-Zand wa Qadaú f¥ Radd Jahlt Ahl al-
Naqshbandiyyah 13, 20–2, 28, 31, 47, 74, 89–90, Sirhi 46
92, 96, 114, 121, 146 Qadariyyah 51
Nas¥úat al-Mul´k 68 Qatar 73
Nashr al-Mathn¥ 51 Qayt Bey 45
Nawawiyyah 28–9 Qi§a§ al-Anbiy’ 68
Negeri Rum 92 qiblah 8, 119
Neo-Sufism 37, 66, 103, 113 Qdiriyyah 19, 28, 47, 52, 56–7, 62, 66, 75, 89,
Netherlands 97 102, 121, 146
Ni’mat Allh al-Qdir¥ 47 qè¥ 10–2, 22, 27, 88, 113; Chief Qè¥ 11–12
Nihyat al-Muútj 63, 79, 129–30 Qub 73
Nishapur 6 qur 19
Ni½miyyah 33 Quèh 12
non-îijz¥ scholars 13 Qur’n 39–45, 48, 51, 56, 67, 74, 80–2, 87, 96,
North African 22, 31, 34, 36–7 104–5, 118, 140, 142, 146; Qur’nic 67;
North Sumatra 52, 117 Qur’nic commentary 80
Nubian 34 Quraysh 54
qurbn 63
Old Dutch Church 101 qushsh 16
opperkoopman 60 Qushshiyyah 85
opperpriester 96
Orang Kaya 61 r´ú 107
Ottoman 12, 13 al-Raúmn al-Raú¥m 141
Ottoman Empire 2 Rahman 34
Ottoman Turkey 85 Rappang 92
Reureukon Katiboy Mulo 77
Padang 149 rib 6, 9–10, 13, 22–3, 30, 49
Padri 109–10, 147 Rif’iyyah 56–7, 62, 102
Pahang 52, 58 Risalah f¥ al-Tawú¥d 133
Pahang Sultanate 59 Rislah Adab Mur¥d akan Syaikh 84
Paku Nagara 141 Rislah f¥ al-Wuj´d 91
Palembang 112–13, 128 Rislah Mukhta§arah f¥ Bayn Shur´ al-Shaykh
Palembang Sultanate 112 84
Palestine 23; Palestinian 16 Rislat al-’Ajam¥ f¥ al-$uruq 27
Pamijahan 86 Rislat al-Qushayriyyah 137
Pancasila 153 Rislat al-Ta§awwuf 36
pangaderreng 88 riwyah 23
Pasai 122 Rn¥r 54–5, 60, 62
Patani 111–13, 122–4, 126, 144, 151; Sultanate Romance of the Empire 102
124
Pekojan 119 êaú¥b Surat 57
penghulu 137, 146 êilat al-Khalaf bi Maw§´l al-Salaf 24
Persia 2, 19, 71, 95; Persian 13, 19, 52, 55, 66, 68, êir al-Mustaq¥m 62–3, 66–7, 79, 107,
71; Persian Gulf 73; Persian Naqshbandiyyah 128–9
21 êubú 28
Perukunan Besar al-Banjr¥ 129 §´f¥ 8, 15–17, 22, 27, 31, 33–4, 36, 40, 43, 45, 47,
Perukunan Melayu 129 49, 53, 57–8, 66, 88, 90, 92, 102–3, 106, 108,
SUBJECT INDEX 253
144, 152; centre in India 13; ’ulam’ 73; neo- Spain 34

sufism 37, 63, 66, 103, 113; pseudo-§´f¥s 54, Srilanka 87, 94, 98–9, 101–2
135, 137–8 Suhrwardiyyah 13, 57
slik 107–8 Suhrawardiyyah 47
Saú¥ú al-Bukhr¥ 41 Sulawesi 52, 87–8, 94, 112; South Sulawesi 87,
Sab¥l al-Muhtad¥n 118, 128–9 92, 94–6, 103, 108, 111, 124
§adaqah 78 Sulaymniyyah madrasah 10
Saf¥nat al-Najh 66, 89, 99 Suln 53, 63–4, 89, 117, 141; Ab´ al-Mafkhir
Sailan 98 ‘Abd al-Qdir 95; Ageng Tirtayasa 89, 95–7;
Sammniyyah 116, 118, 121, 132–3 ‘Al’ al-D¥n Maúm´d Shh 124; ‘Al’ al-D¥n
Samudra-Pasai 71 Ri’yat Shh 52–3, 55; al-Majz´b 16; al-
Sana’a 113 Mazzú¥ 22, 28; Aúmad 59; Badr al-’lam
Sarandib 98 Shar¥f Hshim B al-’Alaw¥ al 79; ‘dil Shh
Sarekat Islam 152 57; Ibrh¥m 92; Ibrh¥m ‘dil Shh 13; Ibrhim
Saylniyyah 98 II 63; îji 96–7; Iskandar Muda 59; Iskandar
Sayr al-Slik¥n 114, 131–2 Thn¥ 67; ‘lim Awliy’ Allh 145; Maúm´d
Sejarah Melayu 68, 69 112; Mu½affar Shh 122; of Banjar 119; of
Serambi Mekkah 84 Gowa 88, 102–3; Surian Shh 117; Tahl¥l Allh
Shdhaliyyah 125 118; Taúm¥d Allh 128; Taúm¥d Allh II 119
Shdhiliyyah 28–9, 34, 47, 57 Sulnah 63, 77–8; êafiyyat al-D¥n 59–61, 79;
Shrabiyyah 45 Kamlat al-D¥n 79; Kamlat Shh 11; Naqiyyat
Shafi’i 44 al-D¥n 78; Zakiyyat al-D¥n 82
shahdah 106 Sulns: of Aceh 15, 58, 103; of Ahmadnagar 13;
Shahraz´r 28 of Pahang 69
Shahr¥n 19 Sultanate: of Banjar 117, 120, 140; of Banten 88
Sharú Minhj al-$ullb 129 Sumatra 71, 78, 95; South Sumatra 111, 112; West
Sharú êaú¥ú Muslim 79 Sumatra 75, 85, 109, 119, 149
shar¥‘ah 77, 84, 86 Sunan 36
shar¥’ah 3, 24, 28, 31, 34, 36–43, 48–50, 54, 60, al-Sunan al-Kubr 37
64, 66–7, 77, 79, 88–9, 107, 116, 128, 133, 137, Sundanese 129
145, 146; oriented Islam 22, 63; oriented ar¥qah Sunnah 90
31; oriented ‘ulam’ 33 Sunn¥ 63, 68, 90; orthodoxy 33
Shar¥f of Mecca 23, 78, 89, 95 superior isnd 38
Shariyyah 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 28, 31, 39, 42, Surabaya 131
47–8, 75, 85–6, 102, 121, 126, 145–6; Shaykh Surat 55, 57, 60, 62
13; silsilahs 77; silsilahs in Java 77 surau 145, 147
Shaykh: al-îaramayn 11, 12; al-Islm 54, 57–9, Surian Allh 117
63, 64, 67, 121; al-Islm Sa’¥d b. Ibrh¥m Syria 23, 27–8, 34, 92; Sufism 34
Qadd´rah 23; al-’Ulam’ 11, 12; of Azhar 125;
of the Azhar 121; of Kuala 86; of the $’if 27
Qdiriyyah order 28 al-abaqat al-thlithah 116
Sh¥’ism 63 alab al-’ilm 8
Shirz 10 ar¥qah 2–3, 10, 19, 27–8, 30–3, 37, 40, 47, 48,
shuh´d 136 49–50, 52, 56–7, 63, 66, 72, 85–6, 89–91, 96,
Shur´ú al-Fu§´§ l¥ al-Shaykh al-Akbr 29 116, 145; al-Aúmadiyyah 106; Muúam-
Siam 150 madiyyah 106–7, 138; silsilah 13, 27, 30–1, 75,
Silk al-Durar 6, 115 149
silsilah 22, 28, 66, 150 T’izz 73
al-Sim al-Maj¥d 16–7, 84 al-Tj al-Khalwat¥ 92
Singapore 131 Tr¥kh al-Rusul wa al-Mul´k 68
Singkel 70–1 Tr¥kh Salsilah Negeri Kedah 113–14
Sinkil 70 ta’wun 44
sirah 29 ta’ayyun 136
sirr 84 Ta’y¥d al-Bayn 134
Southeast Asia 54, 148 Tablet 68
Tadhkirt al-Mawè´’t 123 Ujaym¥ 12

tafs¥r 17, 20, 29, 79–80, 82, 116 Ulakan 85, 145
Tafs¥r al-Bayèw¥ 79
uleebalangs 61
Tafs¥r al-N´r Marah Lbid 151
al-Umam l¥ q½ al-Himam 16, 19
al-Taúr¥rt al-Bhirah li Mabúith al-Durrat 91
tajall¥ 105, 136 ummah 18, 30
Tajalliyah al-Ba§’ir 16 Urdu 52, 66
tajd¥d 46, 109 u§´l al-D¥n 116, 125
takf¥r 64
u§´l al-fiqh 17, 19, 55–6
takhayyul 139
al-ustdh al-akbar 92
Tam¥m al-Dr¥ 16
Tanara 151
tanazzul 104 VOC 60, 97
Tanb¥h al-$ullb f¥ Ma’rifat al-Malik al-Wahhb
133
al-wjib al-wuj´d 136
taql¥d 40
waúdniyyah 43
tarjim 148
Tarjim ‘Ulam’ al-Jw¥ 149 Waúdat al-wuj´d 53, 104, 134, 136, 138
taraqq¥ 104 Wahhb¥s 147
Tar¥m 56–7 wal¥ 73
tarjamah 82
Wali Sanga 124
Tarjamah Bidyat al-Hidyah 137
waqf 13, 45
Tarjumn al-Mustaf¥d 80–2, 86
ta§awwuf 17, 19–20, 24, 29, 36–7, 55, 62–3, 75, wuè´’ 63
79, 81–2, 84, 87, 90–1, 103, 106–7, 116, 118, Wuj´d 41
128, 145 wuj´diyyah 53–4, 59, 63–6, 71, 83, 135
tasmuú 64
wuj´diyyah mulúid 135
Tasawuf Moderen 152
wuj´diyyah muwaúúid 134–6
Tawú¥d 20, 87, 104; al-Af’l 83; al-af’l 137; al-
asm’ 137; al-Dht 83, 137; al-êidd¥q¥n 136; wuj´diyyah §´f¥ 64
al-êift 83, 137; al-îaq¥q¥ 83; al-Ul´hiyyah 83;
al-Wuj´d 83 Yawq¥t al-Jawhir 131, 133
Tayf´riyyah 47
Yemen 16, 27, 55, 57, 73–4, 89–90; Yemeni
Tebu Ireng 151
6, 17, 74, 115
Termas 121
Thailand 67; South Thailand 112; Thai 114, 143–4
Tibyn f¥ Ma’rifat al-Adyn 68 al-½hir 41, 118
Tirtayasa 97 üah¥rah family 25
Tok Pulau Manis 86
Zd al-Muttaq¥n f¥ Tawú¥d Rabb al-’lam¥n 134
Trengganu 86, 122
zwiyah 49
Tuan Besar 112
Tuúfat [al-Muútj li Sharú al-Minhj] 129 Zab¥d 73–4, 89–90, 116
Tuúfat al-Muútj 79, 130 zahir ½hir 37, 40, 79, 82
Tuúfat al-Mursalah 15, 41–2, 133 zakh 63, 119
Tunis 22
Zamzam 141
Turkey 23, 92; Turkish 19, 86; Turks 55
Zamzam¥ family 114
al-’ub´diyyah al-mulaqah 105 al-zandaqah 41
‘ul´m al-asrr 41 Zemzem 141
‘ulam’ 1, 3–9, 12–13, 16–17, 21–2, 30, 32, 43, zind¥q 107, 135
46, 49, 56, 60, 64–5, 73, 87, 112, 141, 149
Ziydah min ‘Ibrat al-Mutaqaddim¥n 42
‘ul´m a1-úad¥th 56
ziyrah 86, 102
‘ul´m al-úaq¥q¥ 105
‘uluw al-isnd 38 Zuhra 54
‘uzlah 139 Zuhrat al-Mur¥d f¥ Bayn Kalimat al-Tawú¥d 116

Resume Buku Muhammadiyah Itu NU Dokumen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resume Buku Muhammadiyah Itu NU Dokumen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resume Buku Muhammadiyah Itu NU Dokumen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Islamic Reform - TEXT PAGES.

qxd 14/01/04 10:13 Page i

ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM

ASIAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

The Southeast Asia Publications Series (SEAPS) supports the dissemination of

Professor Tony Reid Professor Carl Thayer

THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC

Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern

Asian Studies Association of Australia

First published in 2004

Published in North America by

1. Islam - Asia, Southeastern - History. 2. Ulam -

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

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

Set in 10/11 pt Times by Midland Typesetters, Maryborough, Victoria

Maps and Charts vi

Excepting the common terms such as Islam or Muhammad (the Prophet),

For many of my friends, publication of this book is long overdue. While

The transmission of Islamic renewal and reformism is a neglected area of

2 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Muslim societies. Because of the extensive connections of the networks,

states developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it is probable that

4 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Despite their differences, the networks of scholars in the îaramayn pro-

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

(ii) What was the role of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ in the transmission of

6 THE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIC REFORMISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 9

independent of other developments in the îaramayn and the Muslim soci-

SCHOLARLY DISCOURSES IN THE îARAMAYN: EARLY

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 11

As a rule, they held special majlis (sessions), discussing these matters. In

This is demonstrated in the careers of many ‘ulam’ in the îaramayn.

PERSONAGE AND LINKAGES IN THE NETWORKS

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 13

Chart 1 The core of the seventeenth century networks

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 15

eight orders.19 In Medina, êibghat Allh was active in teaching at the

Tajalliyah al-Ba§’ir îshiyat ‘al Kitb al-Jawhir li al-Ghauth

THE EXPANSION OF NETWORKS

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 17

Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ established his scholarly career. As al-îamaw¥ tells us,

those of the ‘Alaw¥ and Ja’mn families;51 Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 19

al-D¥n al-Raml¥. In addition to úad¥th, he studied tafs¥r (until 1087/1677)

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 21

and taught students as well. We should not underestimate the significance

a much wider audience.86 As for al-Nakhl¥, who was also known as a

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 23

al-’Ajam¥ and Aúmad al-Nakhl¥ were among his best-known students.

Mecca and died in Damascus. We return to Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥’s

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 25

generation of scholars, including îasan al-’Ajam¥, Aúmad al-Nakhl¥, ‘Abd

SCHOLARS AT THE TURN OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Chart 2 The core of the eighteenth century networks

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 27

known as ‘Ab´ al-Asrr’ (‘father of spiritual mysteries’). Born in Mecca,

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 29

THE NETWORKS: BASIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Islam - Asia, Southeastern - History. 2. Ulam -

(ii) What was the role of Malay-Indonesian ‘ulam’ in the transmission of

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 9

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 11

This is demonstrated in the careers of many ‘ulam’ in the îaramayn.

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 13

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 15

eight orders.19 In Medina, êibghat Allh was active in teaching at the

Tajalliyah al-Ba§’ir îshiyat ‘al Kitb al-Jawhir li al-Ghauth

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 17

Aúmad al-Qushsh¥ established his scholarly career. As al-îamaw¥ tells us,

those of the ‘Alaw¥ and Ja’mn families;51 Muúammad b. ‘Abd al-Ras´l

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 19

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 21

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 23

Mecca and died in Damascus. We return to Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥’s

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 25

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 27

known as ‘Ab´ al-Asrr’ (‘father of spiritual mysteries’). Born in Mecca,

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 29

NETWORKS OF THE ‘ULAM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY îARAMAYN 31

his disciples to isolate themselves in khalwah (seclusion) at the khnqh.11

§´f¥s, such as al-Qushsh¥, al-K´rn¥, al-Nakhl¥ or ‘Abd Allh al-Ba§r¥, had

Al-K´rn¥ wrote the Itúf al-Dhak¥ in response to Faèl Allh

Our Shaykh al-Khtimat al-Muúaqqiq¥n Ibrh¥m al-K´rn¥ told me, while we

Al-K´rn¥ himself, in his introductory notes to the Itúf al-Dhak¥,

select (khaww§) friends or disciples. He then goes on to cite some

Although affiliation with numerous ar¥qahs was widely practised, once

another influenced by al-Sha’rn¥’s opposition to the principle of automatic

experience of Sulaymn al-Maghrib¥. In spite of this, there is no evidence

AL-RN¡R¡’S BIOGRAPHY AND NETWORKS

Allh b. Zubayr al-Asad¥ al-îumayd¥ (d. 219/834), known as one of the

seventeenth century and, through others in addition to B Shaybn, also had

Chart 3 Al-Rn¥r¥’s networks

This short passage provides no clear explanation as to why al-Rn¥r¥

Map 1 Al-Rn¥r¥’s itinerary

AL-RN¡R¡’S WORKS AND RENEWAL

With these characteristics, the ‘Aydar´siyyah is clearly a ar¥qah of neo-

AL-RN¡R¡’S ROLE IN MALAY-INDONESIAN ISLAM

We do not know much about al-Rn¥r¥’s network of disciples, but there