Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:50:23.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forming a Faction: The Ḥimāyat System of Khwaja Ahrar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Jürgen Paul
Jürgen Paul
Affiliation:
Orientalisches Seminar, Hamburg University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Students of Islamic history have long demanded that more attention be given to social and economic affairs, and it cannot be denied that substantial progress is being made inthe field. Nevertheless, many gaps remain that will have to be filled in by detailed investigations of various periods and regions, notions, nad relationships. An attempt will be made in this article to elucidate the functioning of a faction, or ṭā⊃ifa in Central Asia in the second half of the 15th century. This ṭā⊃ifa was the system of patronage and protection installedby Khwaja Ahrar, a famous shaykh of the Naqshbandi silsila.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 1991 , pp. 533 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: This article is based on my doctoral dissertation, Die politische und soziale Bedeutung der Naqšandiyya in Mittelasien im 15. Jahrhundert (Hamburg, 1989), to be published in Beihefte zu Der Islam. An abridged version was presented at the symposium, “Timurid and Turkmen Societies in Transition: Iran in the Fifteenth Century,” MESA Annual Meeting, Toronto, November 1989. I wish to thank Audrey Burton for her support.

1 Roy, Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar

2 Claude, Cahen, “Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l'Asie musulmane du Moyen Age,” Arabica, 5 (1958), 225–50; 6 (1959), 23–56, and 233–65;Google Scholaridem, “Notes pour l'histoire de la ḥhimāya,” in Mé;langes Massignon (Damascus, 1956), pp. 287–303.Google Scholar The patronage of artists has been treated for the period in question by Maria, Eva Subtelny, “Alishir Nava'i: bakhshi and beg,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3–4 (1979—1980), 797–807;Google Scholar“Arts and Politics in Early 16th-Century Central Asia,” Central Asiatic Journal, 27 (1983), 121–48; “Socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the Later Timurids,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 20,4 (1988), 479–505;Google ScholarJean, Aubin, “Le mé;cé;nat timouride a Chiraz,” Studia islamica, 8 (1957), 71–88.Google Scholar

3 Khwaja Ahrar (1404—90) is the subject of a relatively large number of scholarly works. For a bibliography, see the article “Ahrar” in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (J. M. Rogers). Further study on Khwaja Ahrar has been done by Jo-Ann Gross, The Economic Status of a Timurid Sufi Shaykh: A Matter of Conflict or Perception,” Iranian Studies 21 (1988), 84–104, which has ample bibliographical references. Further mention should be made of her doctoral dissertation and of the article by Boldyrev, both cited n. 35.

4 Cf. the articles quoted in n. 2.

5 Rashiduddin Abu⊂-Khair, ed.Jahn, K., Geschichte Ġāzān Ḫāns aus dem Ta'riḫ-i Mubārak-i Ġazāni (GMS N.S. 14) (London, 1940), pp. 260, 344;Google Scholar cited hereafter as Rashiduddin/Jahn. Cf. also Bartol'd, V. V., “Persidskaya nadpis' na stene aniyskoy mecheti Manuche,” Sochineniya, vol. 4 (Moscow/Leningrad, 1966), p. 326.Google Scholar

6 Cf. the evaluation of Ghazan Khan's reforms by Petrushevskiy, I. P., Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniya v Irane v XIII-XIV vv. (Moscow/Leningrad, 1960); an abridged version is “The Socio-economic Condition of Iran under the llkhans,” in Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 483–537.Google Scholar

7 Ba-ham-rāhī mushār ilaihi hazāra-yi madhkūra taḥqiq karda az dūd va nafar va jarīb va gāw va tarkhānī va ḥimāyati va ghairihi ham-rā chunān sāzad ki yak barra va yak būz-rā furū-gudhasht nakunad. Egani, Cf. A. and Chekhovich, O. D., “Regesty sredneaziatskikh aktov,” Pis'mennye pamyatniki vostoka. Ezhegodnik, 1974 [publ. Moscow, 1981], doe. 7 (1566).Google Scholar

8 Maktūbāt va asnād, ms. Leningrad IVAN SSSR A 210, fols. 37b, 59b.

9 Ivanov, P. P., Khozyaystvo dzhuybarskikh sheykhov (Moscow/Leningrad, 1954), p. 74, quoting Maḍlab al-ḍālibin. In my copy of this hagiographic source (ms. Berlin Orient Oct. 1540), 1 have not found this passage, but I did find a reference to 25,000 nomads “belonging to” one of the Juybari shaykhs (fol. 110a). Quite a few stories in this book are about ḥimāyat offered by the Juybari shaykhs, and some of them refer to exemptio0n from taxes: fols. 109a. 117a. 140b. Another story mentions that someone called Kök-Göz Bakawul nīz maca jamāca dar gill-i ḥimayat-i ḥazrat-īshān būdand (fol. 11 2b). This is evidently some sort of tribal leader who is under the shaykh's ḥimāyat together with his tribesmen. The Juybari shaykhs were a khwājabān family who amassed great wealth from the second half of the 16th century onwards, after having established close relations to some of the Shaybanid rulers.Google Scholar

10 It is known, for instance, that Rashiduddin had his holdings cultivated by a considerable number of slaves. Rashiduddin, Cf., Mukātabāt-i rashīdi, trans. into Russian by Fauna, , Perepiska (Moscow, 1971), letters 17 and 34, pp. 120, 238.Google Scholar

11 Rashiduddin, / Jahn, , p. 306.Google Scholar Cf. also Petrushevskiy, , Zemledelie, p. 337,Google Scholar n. 9, quoting the Dasiūr alkātib. This practice of ḥimāyat was, in Iran, relatively long-lived, as is shown by documentary evidence: Fekete, L. and Hazai, G., Einführung in die persische Paläographie (Budapest, 1977),Google Scholar doc. 59 (1529) and 65 (1535). Cf. also Renate, Schimkoreit, Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden (Berlin, 1982), doc. 5, 38, 143, 192.Google Scholar

12 Nabiev, R. N., “Istochniki po istorii krepostnogo prava v Sredney Azii,” Arkheograficheskiy ezhegodnik za 1963 g., pp. 87–105. Similar firmans concerning nomads, Maktūbāt va asnād, fols.Google Scholar 26a, 125b. Extracts from one of these firmans have been published by Volin, S. L., “K istorii sredneaziatskikh arabov,” Trudy vtoroy sessii assotsiatsii arabistov (Leningrad, 1941), pp. 111–26.Google Scholar

13 Rashiduddin, / Jahn, , pp. 219, 240.Google Scholar

14 Roemer, H. R., Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit (Wiesbaden, 1952), facsimile fol. 24b, translation p. 54;Google ScholarUrunbaev, A. U., Pis'ma-avtografy Abdurrakhmana Dzhami iz “Al'boma Navoi” (Tashkent, 1982), letter 349 (355).Google Scholar

15 Other meanings of ḥimāyat in 15th- and 16th-century Iran and Central Asia include: protection money taken from merchants by nomad chiefs, cf. Fekete and Hazai, Einführung, doc. 40; Jean, Aubin, “Un Soyurghal Qara-Qoyunlu,” in Stern, M., ed., Documents from Islamic Chanceries (Oxford, 1965), p. 161, 1.Google Scholar 30 sqq.; protection offered against payment in order to get into the lists of sayyids: Busse, H., Untersuchungen zum persischen Kanzleiwesen (Cairo, 1959), doc. 3 1. 29 sqq. Yet another meaning is “asylum for persons threatened by a mob,” Maṭlab al-ṭālibīn, fols. 114b sqq.Google Scholar

16 Mawlana Muhammad Qadi, Silsilat al-⊂⊂ārifin, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 4452/1, fol. 168b; ⊂Ali Kashifi, , Rashaḥāt ⊂ain al-ḥayāt (lithographed edition, Lucknow, 1890), p. 352.Google Scholar

17 Chekhovich, O. D., Samarkandskie dokumenty (Moscow, 1974), p. 24;Google ScholarGross, , Economic Status, p. 97, both referring to the same passage in the hagiographic source Manāqib, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 9730, fol. 6b. This passage, however, does not treat kharāj, but speaks of kharjī “cash,” given to Sultan Ahmad by Khwaja Ahrar. The waqf deeds of Khwaja Ahrar, though mentioning taxes to be paid, never speak explicitly of kharāj. The only instance where kharāj is mentioned in the documents published by Chekhovich occurs in doc. 17 (1546), which is not a document issued by Khwaja Ahrar.Google Scholar

18 E.g., Abu, Tahir b. Qadi Abu Sa⊂id-i Samarqandi, Samariyya (Tehran, 1331 S), p. 9.Google Scholar

19 80,000 mann in the weight of Samarqand, , Rashaḥāt, p. 228;Google ScholarGross, , Economic Status, p. 95.Google Scholar

20 See n. 17.

21 A detailed analysis cannot be given here. Cf., Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 10, lines 231—728, and introduction, p. 25 sq.Google Scholar Rogers has equally given a brief account of this passage: Rogers, J. M., “Waqfiyyas and Waqf-Registers: New Primary Sources for Islamic Architecture,” Kunst des Orients, 11 (1976—1977), 182–96, in particular p. 191. I have myself investigated these passages in some detail in my doctoral dissertation, quoted in the author's note.Google Scholar

22 Chekhovich, , Samarkandske dokumenty, Introduction, p. 22; Boldyrev, Eshchë raz (quoted in no. 35).Google Scholar

23 On tamghä, consult, in addition to Petrushevski's remarks on the subject, Èfendiev, O. A. and Farzaliev, Sh. F., “O podati tamgha i eë znachenii v gorodskoy ėkonomike Azerbaydzhana i sopredel'nykh stran,” in Blizhniy i Sredniy Vostok. Tovarno-denezhnye otnosheniya pri feodalizme (Moscow, 1980),Google Scholar and Minovi, M. and Minorsky, VI., “Nāṣir al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1940), 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 ⊂Abduzzaq-i, Samarqandi, Maṭla⊂ al-sa⊂dain, ed. Shafi⊂, M., vol. 2 (Lahore, 1949), p. 1233;Google ScholarMu⊂inuddin, Muhammad-i Isfizari, Rawẓat al-jannāt fi awṣāf madīnat Harät, ed. Muhammad, Kazim, vol. 2 (Tehran, 1339), p. 250; Manāqib, fol. 17b.Google Scholar

25 Rashaḥāt, p. 300.Google Scholar

26 Cf. the reports of ⊂Abdurrazzaq and in Manāqib (quoted n. 24); and Chekhovich, O. D., “Iz istochnikov po istorii Samarkanda,” Iz istorii èpokhi Ulugbeka (Tashkent, 1965), pp. 308 sqq.Google Scholar

27 Chekhovich, , Samarkandskie dokumenty, pp. 22, 28;Google ScholarNabiev, R. N., “Iz istorii politiko-ėkonomicheskoy zhizni, ” Velikiy uzbekskiy poėt (Tashkent, 1948), p. 39;Google ScholarĖfendiev, and Farzaliev, , O podati, p. 241.Google Scholar

28 E.g., as poll taxes, as levies on cattle or on houses; see the list quoted above in n. 7. All these extra levies were known under various expressions (Gross, , Economic Status, p. 90).Google Scholar

29 In the waqf deeds, the mutavallīs are told to pay the taxes “if it cannot be avoided.” This suggests that there was room for negotiation Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 5, II. 37, 41; doe. 10, 1. 739; doe. 11, 1. 241.

30 The explanation of dahyāzdah given by Chekhovich is: “Literally: 10 percent. Here the expression denotes a levy of ten percent,” Samarkandskie dokumenty, p. 405, n. 266.Google Scholar Another explanation is given by Minovi, and Minorsky, , Nāṣir al-Din Ṭūsī, text p. 762, trans. p. 765. This latter explanation seems better to fit the contexts.Google Scholar

31 Manāqib, fol. 6b.

32 ⊂Abdulavval- i Nishapuri, Masmū⊂āt, Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 3735/2, fols. 172b, 191b.

33 Zahiruddin, Muhammad Babur, Babur-nama, ed. Beveridge, A. (London-Leyden, 1905), fol. 24b.Google Scholar

34 Manāqib, fol. 26a.

35 Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, Introduction; Jo-Ann, Gross, “Khoja Ahrar: A Study of the Perceptions of Religious Power and Prestige in the Late Timurid Period” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1982);Google ScholarBoldyrev, A. N., “Eshchë raz k voprosu o Khodzha Akhrare,” in Dukhovenstvo i politicheskaya zhizn' na Blizhnem i Srednem vostoke v period feodalizma (Moscow, 1985), pp. 47–63.Google Scholar

36 Silsilat, fol. 41b; Rashaḥāt, , p. 293;Google ScholarChekhovich, O. D., “Oborona Samarkanda v 1454 g.,” Izvestiya AN UzSSR, Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 4 (1960), 36–44.Google Scholar

37 Manāqib, fols. 17b—18a; Gross, , Economic Status, p. 93.Google Scholar

38 Both stories, Manāqib, fol. 20a.

39 Ibid., fols. 48a—b.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., fol. 30b.Google Scholar

41 Cf. the collection of letters by Khwaja Ahrar and several of his followers known as Majmū⊂a-yi murāsalāt, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 4245 (copy made by Adilov). I have not been able to obtain an integral copy of this valuable manuscript, but was allowed to have a look at it. On that occasion, I copied some of the letters. The rusūm-i bīgānagān are mentioned, e.g., in letters 24 and 49–50. The summarizing translation and commentary given by Nabiev, , lz istorii politiko-konomicheskoy zhizni, pp. 43 sq.,Google Scholar is misleading; see also Boldyrev, , Eshchë raz, p. 55.Google Scholar

42 See n. 23, and Boldyrev, , Eshchë raz, p. 57.Google Scholar

43 Kazakov, B., “Synov'ya Khodzhi Akhrara i poslednie Timuridy,” Dukhovenstvo, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar

44 Ten out of 14 stories taken from the Rashaḥāt and the Manāqib are about amirs being punished by Khwaja Ahrar. A detailed analysis cannot be given here; see my dissertation quoted in the author's note.

45 Gross, , Khoja Ahrar, p. 72 sqq.Google Scholar

46 Rashaḥāt, pp. 304 sq.; Silsilat, fols. 173b-174b; Manāqib,Google Scholar fols. 39b-41a. The story has been told in detail by Gross, , Khoja Ahrar, p. 77.Google Scholar See also Bartol'd, V. V., “Ulug Bek i ego vremya,” Sochineniya 2/2 (Moscow, 1964), p. 123.Google Scholar

47 Rashaḥāt, p. 326. See also the anonymous compilation concerning Khwaja Ahrar, his followers and descendants, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 1883/3, fol. 93a.Google Scholar

48 This holds true even of Ulug Beg who was by no means entirely condemned by the khwājagān; Masmū⊂āt, fol. 178b; Rashaḥāt, pp. 111, 115, where he is seen as ajudge capable of revising his verdicts.Google Scholar

49 Babur-nama, fol. 19a.

50 Maria-Eva, Subtelny, “Centralizing Reforms and Its Opponents in the Late Timurid Period,” Iranian Studies, 21 (1988), 123–51.Google Scholar

51 Masmū⊂āt, fol. 154a.

52 Ibid., fol. 219b.Google Scholar

53 For example, Rashaḥāāt, p. 329.Google Scholar

54 Silsilat, fol. 68b; Masmū⊂āt, fol. 156b.

55 This complex has been described by Veselovskiy, N. I.. “Pamyatnik Khodzhi Akhrara v Samarkande,” Vostochnye zametki (St. Petersburg, 1895), pp. 321–35;Google ScholarPletnev, I. E. and Shvab, Yu. Z., “Arkhitekturny ansambl' u mazara Khodzhi Akhrara v Samarkande,” Srednyaya Aziya v drevnosti i srednevekov'e (Moscow, 1977), pp. 160–64.Google Scholar

56 Rashaḥāt, p. 20 (“testament” of ⊂Abdulkhaliq).Google Scholar

57 The commentary by Rose, in Brown, , The Dervishes (reprt., London 1969), p. 440, is misleading.Google Scholar

58 For example, Masmū⊂āt, fols. 113a, 114b; ⊂Ubaidullah, Ahrar, Faqarār (lithographed edition, Tashkent, 191(0)), p. 38.Google Scholar

59 Manāqib, fol. 52a; Rashaḥāt, pp. 271, 359.Google Scholar

60 Rashaḥāt, p. 328.Google Scholar

61 Silsilat, fol. 60a; Rashaḥāt, p. 277.Google Scholar

62 According to the numbers of letters written, see Urunbaev, , Pis'ma-avtografy, pp. 15 sqq.Google Scholar

63 Rashaḥāt, pp. 340, 347, 352.Google Scholar

64 Ibid.Google Scholar

65 Silsilat, fols. 60a, 92b; Manāqib, fols. 48a—b.

66 Rashaḥāt, pp. 325, 347.Google Scholar

67 Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 10, I. 741.

68 Ibid., doc. 5, 11, 12 (endowments for these madrasas).Google Scholar

69 Manāqib, fols. 28b, 33a, 51b.

70 Rashaḥāt, p. 228.Google Scholar

71 See n. 21.

72 Nabiev, , Iz istorii politiko-é;konomicheskoy zhizni, p. 38.Google Scholar

73 See n. 41.

74 This story is told by Kazakov, Synov'ya Khodzhi Akhrara, on the basis of Khwandamir, Ḥabīb al-siyar.

75 Ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 1883/3, fol. 93a.

76 Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, docs. 13—17.

77 Robert, McChesney, “The Amirs of Muslim Central Asia in the XVIlth Century,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 26 (1983), 67 sqq.Google Scholar

78 Akhmedov, B. A., “Rol' dzhuybarskikh khodzhey v obshchestvenno-politicheskoy zhizni Sredney Azii XVI—XVII vv.,” in Dukhovenstvo (cited n. 35), pp. 16–31.Google Scholar