1K O M AT S U Hisao

Dār al‐Islām under Russian RuleAs Understood byTurkestani Muslim Intellectuals

Since the Perestroika period, studies in the modern history of Turkestan
have made great progress. Most of them, with critical attitudes to Soviet
historiography, have been distinguished by their new interpretation andapproaches. While the creation of national histories has advanced in the
newly independent republics of Central Asia, researchers abroad, making use of a great amount of newly obtained source materials, have begun to explore various aspects of political, social, and intellectual historyof modern Turkestan.1
Among these research trends, studies of the intellectual history during
the Tsarist period have great significance and possibilities. They will
enable us to understand the historical dynamism of modern Turkestan
from within; in other words, through the various discourses of Muslim
intellectuals. Faced with a series of great changes following the Russian
invasion in the second half of the nineteenth century, they played aleading role in directing their Muslim communities and sometimes insocial and cultural reform movements such as Jadidism.2 At the same
1 Stéphane A. Dudoignon and KOMATSU Hisao, eds., Research Trends in Modern Central
Eurasian Studies (18th–20th Centuries): A Selective and Critical Bibliography of Works Publishedbetween 1985 and 2000, pts. 1–2 (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 2003–2006).
2 For the details see Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in3

KOMATSU Hisao

time, studies of intellectual history will contribute to examining contemporary issues such as Islamic resurgence and politics in post-Soviet
Central Asia in a historical perspective.3
This paper aims to present some preliminary observations as well as
prospects for further research in this field. Three topics are to be discussed: first, how did Muslim intellectuals, especially the first generation
who witnessed the Russian invasion, understand their own society under Russian rule; second, how did they answer to the Andijan uprisingin 1898 that threatened “the peaceful order” under Russian rule; andthird, how did the next generation conceive the future of their Dāral-Islām [The Land of Islam where Islamic law prevails].

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rule
How did Muslim intellectuals, especially the first generation who witnessed the Russian invasion, understand their own society under Russian rule? According to a strict interpretation of Islamic law, believers
should fight the invasion of infidels to defend the Dār al-Islām and, when
they were put under the rule of infidels, they should leave this Dāral-Harb [the Land of war] to migrate to a nearby Dār al-Islām where theirrights would be protected by an Islamic state. In fact, in the 1820s, theMujāhidīns led by Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (1786–1831) left India, which
turned into a Dār al-Harb due to British occupation, and establishedbases for their jihād movements under the protection of Afghanistan. As
far as we know, however, such rigorous interpretation was rarely foundin modern Central Eurasia, except for the North Caucasus.
One of these rare cases we may cite is that of a renowned Tatar mullah,‘Abd al-Rahim bin ‘Uthman al-Bulghari (al-‘Utuz al-Imani 1754–1835).
Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
3 For example, see Bakhtiyar Babadjanov and Muzaffar Kamilov, “Muhammadjan
Hindustani (1882–1989) and the Beginning of the ‘Great Schism’ among the Muslims of
Uzbekistan,” in Stéphane A.Dudoignon and KOMATSU Hisao, eds., Islam in Politics in Russia
and Central Asia: Early 18th to Late 20th Centuries (London: Kegan Paul, 2001), pp. 195–219; B.
M. Babadzhanov, A. K. Muminov, M. B. Olkott, “Mukhammadzhan Khindustani(1892–1989) i religioznaia sreda ego epokhi (predvaritel’nye razmyshleniia o formirovanii‘sovetskogo islama’ v Srednei Azii),” Vostok 5 (2004), pp. 43–59.

4

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rule
Having studied in holy cities in Ma wara’ al-nahr such as Bukhara andSamarkand, he mastered Islamic teachings that were inaccessible in theVolga-Ural region under Russian rule after the latter half of the sixteenth
century. During his stay in Samarkand he made efforts to repair the famous manuscript of the holy Qur’an preserved in the Khwaja Ahrar
madrasa under the title of Mushaf-i Imām ‘Uthmān. In Bukhara he daredto criticize the religious practices permitted in this holy city, in order toattract the interests of Amir Shahmurad (r. 1785–1800) known as a pious
ruler of the Amirate of Bukhara.4 According to the recent studies by
Michael Kemper, ‘Abd al-Rahim held an exceptionally hard-line positionin the problems of the relationship between Muslims and Christians.
Against the general agreement of the Tatar ulama, he considered theVolga-Ural region under Russian rule not as a Dār al-Islām but as a Dār
al-Harb, and condemned the Friday prayers addressed to any Tsar to beinvalid.5 However, his arguments could not gain the support of a majority of the Muslim community. Rather, we consider that Tatar ulama’s
acceptance of Russian rule as well as the official institution of the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly6 made it easy for Turkestani ulama toadapt to the new conditions of obedience after initial years of confrontation with the Russian army.
In the case of Turkestan we have some treatises written by Muslim
intellectuals who discussed the conditions of Muslim society under Russian rule. Among others, Muhammad Yunus Khwaja Ta’ib’s Persian
work Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib [A Gift of Ta’ib]7 presents us with the most compre4 Shihāb al-Dīn al-Marjānī al-Qazānī, Mustafād al-Akhbār fī A∆wāl Qazān wa Bulghār [TheCollection of Information on Kazan and Bulghar], vol. 2 (Kazan, 1900), pp. 239–241.
5 M. K. [Michael Kemper], “al-Bulgari,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’, vyp. 2 (Moscow: “Vostochnaia literatura” RAN, 1999), pp. 18–19.
6 Since Ivan IV (r. 1533–1584)’s conquest of the Kazan Khanate in 1552, Muslims in the
Russian Empire suffered harsh treatment of the Russian authorities and Islamic institutions
were ignored by them. However Catherine II (r. 1762–1796) introduced rather tolerant
policies toward her Muslim subjects. The Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly, established by her order in 1789, supervised Muslim communities in European Russia and Siberia, and contributed to the integration and revitalization of Muslim communities in the
Russian Empire.
7 Mu∆ammad Yūnus Khwāja b. Mu∆ammad Amīn-Khwāja (Tā’ib), Tu∆fa-yi Tā’ib,
podgotovka k izdaniiu i predislovie: B. M. Babadzhanov, Sh. Kh. Vakhidov, Kh. Komattsu[KOMATSU Hisao], Islamic Area Studies Project Central Asian Research Series 6 (Tashkent

5KOMATSU Hisao

hensive accounts, based on his considerable experience and deep
knowledge of Islamic law. This work, completed in the spring of 1905, isfull of quotations from the Qur’an and the hadīth [record of the sayingsand acts of the Prophet].
Ta’ib (1830–1905) witnessed great changes in Turkestan after the Russian conquest in the 1860s. Born in Tashkent and having studied Islamicteachings in Tashkent and Kokand, he served the commander of the
Kokand army, ‘Alimqul Amir-i Lashkar (?–1865) as a shighāvul (senior
master of ceremonies). Distinguished by his talents as a secretary, heengaged in diplomatic negotiations with Russia, Afghanistan, China,
and Britain, and participated in defensive campaigns led by ‘Alimqul
against the Russian army. After the heroic death of his master and thefall of Tashkent, he emigrated into Kashghar to serve a new Muslim
ruler in Xinjiang, Ya‘qub Bek (?–1877), who appointed him the governorof Yarkand. Losing his second master, he left for India and at the beginning of 1880 returned to Kokand, which was then under Russian rule. In
1886 he was elected a qadi (civil judge) in Kokand and continued towork as a Muslim official under the Russian administration. In his lastyears he dedicated himself to writing historical works and other treatises
including The Life of ‘Alimqul8 and A Gift of Ta’ib.
In this treatise we see his positive evaluation of Russian rule in Turkestan despite his early experiences of battles with Russians. He says:
In those days when the sun of the khanate of Ferghana and Turkestan [theKhanate of Kokand] declined and at last the period of their sovereignty
came to an end, Russian and Christian governors and lieutenants occupied
the regions of this country and the foundations of their authority strengthened. Since then, Russians and Muslims have mingled with each other toreinforce their mutual relationship.9

Having witnessed the military and technical superiority of Russia, Ta’ib
realized that Muslim resistance to the Russian army was futile, as demand Tokyo, 2002).
8 Recently the Chaghatay Turkic text with English translation and notes was published.
Mulla Muhammad Yunus Djan Shighavul Dadkhah Tashkandi [Ta’ib], The Life of ‘Alimqul:
A Native Chronicle of Nineteenth Century Central Asia, ed. and trans. Timur K. Beisembiev(London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003).
9 Tu∆fa-yi Tā’ib, p. 3 [24b].

6

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rule
onstrated by many defeats. While condemning the pointless fights conducted by ‘Abd al-Rahman Aftabachi and Fulat khan against the Russianarmy in the Ferghana Valley, he praises the Bukharan Amir Muzaffar’s(r. 1860–1885) decision of “opening the gate of peace” with Russians “inorder not to lose his country and sovereignty.”10 Here we can rememberthat Ta’ib’s contemporary, a historian of East Turkestan, Mulla Musa
(1836?–1917?), who also participated in the jihād against Qing rule andwitnessed the collapse of the Muslim state established by Ya‘qub Bek in
Xinjiang, in later years justified his fellow Muslims’ submission to the
Qing Emperor, repudiating the attempts of jihād. If Mulla Musa justified
the submission by a moral norm of ancient Turkic origin, the “obligationof salt,” (the obedience of the obligee to his benefactor), Ta’ib did it
based on the Hanafi law school tradition in Turkestan.11
Accepting Russian rule, Ta’ib did not admit to any need of jihād andadmonished against any fitna [rebellion], because he believed that thesituation of Turkestan was Dār al-Islām.
At present, the population of the Ferghana Valley and Turkestan shouldmake use of their positive conditions as much as possible. This country canbe considered Dār al-Islām, where Muslim qādīs and officials work. Islamic
law, Sharī‘a, is enforced by those in power. It is a great situation for them tobe able to solve any legal issues according to Sharī‘a. They should give
thanks . . . [However,] it is known that if [Muslim] officials neither undertake work nor accept the responsibilities of their offices, and Christian governors who rule these countries leave legal matters in the hands of Christianjudges [here the author uses the Russian term sud’ya], and other civil affairs
in the hands of Russians, then this province would become Dār al-Harb. It
would be no use to regret this later on.12

According to Ta’ib, Muslim qādīs and officials were essential to keep order in Muslim society, in other words, to sustain the Dār al-Islām evenunder Russian rule. When Muslim qādīs and officials failed to carry out
their responsibilities, Muslim society turned into Dār al-Harb and lost its
10 Tu∆fa-yi Tā’ib, p. 22 [40a/40b].
11 As to Mulla Musa see HAMADA Masami, “ ‘Shio no gimu’ to ‘seisen’ tono aida de,”Toyoshi kenkyu 52, no. 2 (1993), pp. 122–148; HAMADA Masami, “Jihâd, hijra et «devoir dusel» dans l’histoire du Turkestan oriental,” Turcica 33 (2001), pp. 35–61.
12 Tu∆fa-yi Tā’ib, p. 17 [36a–36b].

7

KOMATSU Hisao

communal identity and social cohesion. We find such understanding inwritings of other intellectuals. For example, one of the first reformists in
the Ferghana Valley, Ishaqkhan Tura ibn Junaydallah Khwaja ‘Ibrat(1862–1937)13 writes in his Turkic treatise Mīzān al-Zamān in a more optimistic way:
In former years [under the reign of the Kokand khans] the guidance of ordinary people [according to Sharī‘a] was under the jurisdiction of the presidentof Islam (ra’īs-i Islām). In these days, all the works belong to the ulama andlearned men, who are leading people to the right way to progress and improvement. Their service is considered a great national contribution.14

As is well known, Russian authorities in Turkestan, avoiding interference in socio-cultural issues in Muslim society, put Islamic jurisprudence
and local administration into the hands of Muslim representatives, civil
judges (qādīs) and county chiefs (mingbāshis) with some institutional reforms such as the introduction of election system. Although Ta’ib elaborated the logic of Dār al-Islām under Russian rule, it is undeniable that inreality the concept of Dār al-Islām was maintained by the Russian policyof “disregarding” Islam in colonial Turkestan introduced by the firstgovernor-general K. P. von Kaufman (r. 1867–1882).
In general, both Ta’ib and ‘Ibrat were receptive to the new civilization
brought about by Russians. The latter, citing an alleged hadīth “Seek forscience even from China,”15 encouraged people to obtain modern science and to spread the New Method schools in Turkestan. They are
13 Born in Turaqurgan, near Namangan, and having studied in a madrasa in Kokand(1878–1886), ‘Ibrat opened a New Method school in his village. On the occasion of the hajj
he traveled extensively in the Ottoman lands and India, and later made a trip into
Kashghar and China. Endowed with extensive learning, he published a wide range ofworks. From 1908 to 1917 he worked as a qādī in his birth place. His treatise Mīzān al-Zamān
is supposed to have been written just after the October Revolution in 1917. Later engaged
in educational works under the Soviet regime, he disappeared in the waves of repression
in 1937.
14 Is∆āqkhān Tūra ibn Junaydallāh Khwāja, Mīzān al-Zamān, podgotovka k izdaniiu,
predislovie, redaktsiia teksta: Khisao Komattsu [KOMATSU Hisao], Bakhtiyar Babadzhanov,
Islamic Area Studies Project Central Asian Research Series 2 (Tashkent and Tokyo, 2001), p.
15 [14a].
15 Mīzān al-Zamān, p. 4 [3b]. Most of the Jadid intellectuals used this hadīth to legitimate
their arguments for introducing foreign but modern culture into Muslim society.

8

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rulecommon in evaluating the economic and cultural development in Turkestan under Russian rule. ‘Ibrat describes a remarkable change in theway of life among the ordinary people who abandoned an idle life toadopt a punctual and diligent way of doing business under the newconditions.16
In his discussion ‘Ibrat does not forget to mention his opponents who
exhibited fanaticism against every innovation and foreign product anddenounced them heretical (bid‘a).17 He describes an example of thesefanatical mullahs who prohibited in a mosque the use of an oil lamp
filled with oil produced in Russia. Despite its usefulness for the public it
was declared unlawful (harām). Only about five years later he found thatthose mullahs were making use of the same oil lamps.18 It is true that
‘Ibrat considered these mullahs as a great obstacle to socio-cultural reform. However, these conservative or simple-minded mullahs were not
the major opponents for Ta’ib.

The Andijan Uprising and Muslim Intellectuals’
Responses to It
In the end of the introductory part of the Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib, after relating thepeaceful relationship between Russians and Muslims, Ta’ib writes asfollows:[However] A group of ignorant Sufis, who neither provided any learning
nor gained any knowledge, was absorbed in hypocritical devotions andself-adoring diversions. . . . According to their corrupt thinking, houses
where Russians and Christians lived, carpets on which they sat, and foodserved on dishes that were touched or used by them were to be considered
impure and deficient . . . [Furthermore] they dared to have contempt andmake fun of qādīs in front of people, although qādīs undertook their legal duties with the consent of Muslims to make legal decisions and to satisfy the

16 Mīzān al-Zamān, p. 20 [19b]. As to positive evaluation of Russian rule see also Mullā‘Ālim Makhdūm Hājjī, Ta’rīkh-i Turkistān (Tashkent, 1915), pp. 164–168.
17 Mīzān al-Zamān, p. 25 [24b].
18 Mīzān al-Zamān, p. 16 [15a/15b].

9

KOMATSU Hisao
needs of believers.19

Despite the established order in Turkestan under Russian rule, Ta’ib wasmuch annoyed with “ignorant Sufis” who hated Russians and every foreign element. Furthermore these hypocritical Sufis publicly held contempt for Muslim judges, probably including Ta’ib himself. Given that
Muslim judges were a pillar of the Dār al-Islām under Russian rule, suchan insult was intolerable for him. Further reading leads us to understand
who the main opponent for the author was. In the latter part of the Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib, reflecting the recent history of Turkestan and Ferghana, Ta’ib
writes as follows:
However, in this country there are so many wretches, rascals, and Sufis who
are worse than mad dogs in bazaars and doing nothing other than mischievous acts . . . Oppressed people, being under their control, could not afford
to eliminate these instigators of fitna [rebellion]. Muhammad ‘Ali, the mischievous shaykh of Mingtepa, once he was poor, was engaged in spindle
making, and later pretended to be a great murshid [spiritual guide in Sufism].
By serving meals to ordinary people, he succeeded in inciting common people to obey him. Mean-spirited men from various groups and tribes rushed
to his khānqāh [monastery]. Due to their extreme ignorance they gave highpraise to this stupid man. Although Russian governors and officials witnessed the great mass of these rascals, they did not take enough measures tocontrol them . . . In 1313 A.H., Muhammad ‘Ali incited a rebellion [against
Russians]. This revolt deprived Islam of its shine, and all the Muslims were
driven away from the house of peace. Peaceful Egypt was damaged and theease of the Nile turned into a mirage. Many people were executed and expelled from the country. The shaykh himself was sentenced to death due tothis disgrace.20

It was Muhammad ‘Ali, widely known as Dukchi Ishan, 21 in theFerghana Valley who Ta’ib described as the main opponent in his Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib. Dukchi Ishan was the leader of the Andijan Uprising in 1898,
which aimed to expel the Russians from the Ferghana Valley to establish
a Muslim state. This rebellion is known as one of the most significant
events in Russian Turkestan. On the dawn of May 18, 1898, two thou19 Tu∆fa-yi Ta’ib, p. 3 [24b/25a].
20 Tu∆fa-yi Tā’ib, p. 23 [41a/41b].
21 Īshān is a Central Asian term for Sufi shaykhs and their “noble” descendants.

10

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rulesand Muslim partisans commanded by Dukchi Ishan attacked Russian
troops stationed at Andijan. This sudden attack ended unsuccessfully
and the leaders, including Dukchi Ishan, were executed; however, it was
the first true threat to Russian rule in Turkestan since its conquest in the
middle of the 1860s. In order to consider the position and thoughts of
Ta’ib regarding the uprising we need to look at Dukchi Ishan and his
followers briefly.22
Muhammad ‘Ali [Madali] was born around 1856 at Chimion qishlaq,
located in the southeastern Ferghana Valley. His father, Muhammad
Sabir, was supposedly an émigré from Kashghar. Many Turkic Muslims
in Xinjiang, called Qashgharlik in the Ferghana Valley, immigrated to thatvalley when Muslim rebellions were suppressed repeatedly by the Qing
authorities during the nineteenth century.23 After serving some local
īshāns, Muhammad ‘Ali became a murīd [disciple] of a NaqshbandiyaMujaddidiya shaykh, Ishan Sultankhan Torä, who enjoyed considerable
status in the eastern Ferghana Valley.24 Through devoted service to thisīshān, Madali succeeded in gaining his master’s confidence, and at last he
was appointed a khalīfa [successor] of his venerable master. After his
death in 1882 Madali began to work as an independent īshān. In the
mid-1890s he was known a prominent Muslim leader in the Ferghana
Valley, the most fertile and densely populated region in Russian Turkestan. We can consider some factors that promoted him to the position ofan eminent īshān.
First, in 1886, when he was thirty-three years old, Dukchi Ishan made22 For the details of the Andijan Uprising, see KOMATSU Hisao, “The Andijan Uprising
Reconsidered,” in SATO Tsugitaka, ed., Muslim Societies: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), pp. 29–61.
23 For example, according to a Russian source, in the late 1820s after an unsuccessfulintervention in the Muslim revolt in Kashgharia, Muhammad ‘Alī Khān of Kokand decided
to immigrate 70,000 Muslim families from Kashgharia under Qing rule to the Ferghana
Valley. Although most of them returned to their homeland after the conclusion of thepeace treaty, the town of Shahrikhan and its suburbs were inhabited mostly by the
Kashgharis. “Obozrenie kokandskogo khanstva v nyneshnem ego sostoianii,” Zapiski Imperatorskogo Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva 3 (1849), p. 196.
24 As to Sultankhan Torä see, KAWAHARA Yayoi, “Kokando hankoku ni okeru Marugiran no tora tachi: Nakushubandi kyodan kei no seija ichizoku ni kansuru ichi kosatsu [TheTūras of Margilan in the Kokand Khanate: A Consideration on a Naqshbandi Saint Family],” Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies, no. 20-2 (2005), pp. 277, 282–283.

11

KOMATSU Hisao

his pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. In general the pilgrimage gaveīshāns an even better reputation among their followers. In Dukchi Ishan’scase he claimed to have received some spiritual instructions from theProphet in a dream during his stay in Medina. According to his work
‘Ibrat al-Ghāfilīn,25 the Prophet, attended by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmanand ‘Ali, appointed him a Caliph to guide fellow Muslims in the rightway.
Second, Dukchi Ishan devoted himself to charitable services such as
feeding the needy and medical care, as noted by Ta’ib. In the 1890s theFerghana Valley went through both outbreaks of cholera, which resulted
in ten thousand deaths in 1892, and repeated large famines. These famines may be considered artificial disasters, because a disorderly spreadof cotton fields had deprived the Ferghana Valley of its original capacity
to be self-sufficient for food. In such a critical situation the devoted īshān
would have been recognized as a “mahdī” by the Ferghani Muslims.
Third, the image of the Mahdī-saint was circulated by many karāmat[miracle] stories created by Dukchi Ishan’s sincere murīds. In fact theyleft an anonymous Turkic work, the so-called Manāqib-i Dūkchī Īshān
[The Miracle Stories of Dukchi Ishan].26 In this collection of miracle stories that succeeded the rich tradition of Manāqib literature in Central Asia,
Dukchi Ishan is given the highest rank of murshid, equal to Baha’ al-Din
Naqshband (1318–1389). His miracle stories are found also in his ‘Ibrat
al-Ghāfilīn, which tells how Dukchi Ishan often dreams of the Prophet
and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, and receives their favors andspiritual instructions. Needless to say, the visible and invisible karāmat
enhanced the charismatic authority of Dukchi Ishan in the Muslim society of the Ferghana Valley.
Fourth, he succeeded in gaining a great number of murīds, not only
among the sedentary population such as Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Kashgharis,
25 As to this work see B. M. Babadžanov, “Dūkčī Īšān und der Aufstand von Andižan
1898,” in Anke von Kügelgen, Michael Kemper, Allen J. Frank, eds, Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, vol. 2, Inter-Regional and Inter-Ethnic
Relations (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1998), pp. 167–191.
26 Manāqib-i Dūkchī Īshān (Anonim zhitiia Dūkchī Īshāna – predvoditelia Andizhanskogo
vosstaniia 1898 goda), vvedenie, perevod i kommentarii: B. M. Babadzhanov, Izdatel’: A. fon
Kiugel’gen (Almaty, 2004).

12

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rulebut also among the nomadic and semi-nomadic Kyrgyz people. Their
Islamization began in the second half of the seventeenth century and thedegree of Islamization was more remarkable in southern Kyrgyzstan
surrounding the Ferghana Valley. It was the Naqshbandi īshāns who
propagated Islam among these nomadic Kyrgyz who held their own
pre-Islamic traditions and beliefs in southern Kyrgyzstan. Īshāns recruited their murīds patiently among Kyrgyz nomads and, visiting them
periodically, received a great amount of livestock as nazr [dedications].
Dukchi Ishan succeeded such predecessors in southern Kyrgyzstan.
Near the Kyrgyz area he built a small mosque, which served as one of
the most active centers of his tarīqa [Sufi order], and every summer hetraveled among his Kyrgyz murīds that constituted the main body of his
tarīqa. At the same time they were enthusiastic advocates of the holy war
to drive out Russian peasant immigrants from the Ferghana Valley.
Dukchi Ishan’s firm position in the Muslim society of the eastern
Ferghana Valley is testified by the following facts. First the khānqāh complex constructed in Mingtepa qishlaq located 35 kilometers south of
Andijan is to be noted. Around his khānqāh with a mosque there existed a
set of structures, such as a minaret 20 meters high, some mihmānkhāna or
hājjīkhānas (guest houses), āskhāna (soup kitchen), maktab (school) for 250
pupils, a large atkhāna (stable) accommodating 500 horses, and someworkshops for brick making and milling. All of them were built andmaintained by his murīds. The large scale of this complex appearing in
the countryside of the Ferghana Valley would sufficiently demonstrate
the prestige of Dukchi Ishan.
Secondly, we have a Persian document of agreement composed in
Safer 1312 AH or August 1894 by ten mingbāshis (volostnoi upravitel’:county chief) and some elders in eastern Ferghana. The contents may besummarized as follows:
As it is all obvious to the almighty God, a part of the Muslim community,
because of their excessive carelessness and complete ignorance, are committing abominable deeds such as abandonment of community (tark-i jamā‘at),
nonfullfilment of religious duties and orders, ingestion of intoxicating drinks,
immorality of women, and injustice in bazaars. Thereupon, we will entrust
Mulla Muhammad ‘Ali Ishan, son of Muhammad Sabir Sufi, with all authority to instruct us on what is approved by canonical law, to prevent us from13

KOMATSU Hisao
committing unlawful acts, and to punish offenders according to Sharī‘a.27

This document clearly shows that Dukchi Ishan was charged with thepurification of the Muslim community from its corrupted situation. This
coincides with the main spirit of the ‘Ibrat al-Ghāfilīn, which lacks any
kind of mystical preaching and instructs fellow Muslims to live in accordance with Sharī‘a. As analyzed by Bakhtiyar Babadjanov,28 Dukchi
Ishan, recalling the glorious days of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs when true Islam prevailed, severely criticized fellow Muslims fortheir corruption, ignorance, and deviation from Sharī‘a. Among others hecriticized Muslim notables, established ulama and hereditary īshāns fortheir ignorance and corruption. We find in his alleged sayings as follows:
Betrayers and those Muslims who act craftily in front of God and people exploit our people and deprave them by every method until they incur God’s
wrath and get a totally bad reputation with the help of Satan. Due to thetemptation of disgusting Satan and the maneuvers of our betrayers, there isno qādī who is fair and impossible to bribe.29

His criticism of qādīs reminds us of Ta’ib’s blame for the “ignorant Sufis”
who “made fun of qādīs in front of people.” There was a clear opposition
between Dukchi Ishan and Ta’ib as to the legitimacy of qādīs. As a matterof fact, the 1886 Statute for the Turkestan region (krai) introduced anelection system for local administrators that replaced the former appointment system and gave extensive powers to the civil judge in placeof qādīs. However, this new election system unfamiliar to Muslim people
brought about all kinds of unlawful acts and misfeasance in the local
administration, especially in judicial matters. It can be said that Dukchi
Ishan’s criticism was not misdirected on this point.
In the introduction of the ‘Ibrat al-Ghāfilīn, he wrote that he aimed to
explain the principles of Islam (such as tawhīd and imān), and to discussapproved acts and objectionable deeds according to the canonical law to
27 Fazilbek Atabekoghli, Dukchi Ishan Vaqeäsi: Färghanädä istibdad jälladläri (Samarkand,1927), p. 29 [Facsimile of the Persian text].
28 Babadžanov, “Dūkčī Īšān,” pp. 167–191; B. Babadzhanov, “Andizhanskoe vosstanie
1898 goda: ‘Dervishskii gazavat’ ili antikolonial’noe vystuplenie?” O‘zbekiston Tarixi 2(2001), pp. 25–30.
29 V. P. Nalivkin, Tuzemtsy ran’she i teper’ (Tashkent, 1913), p. 133.

14

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rulerid their society of its present evils. In this work Dukchi Ishan explained
the most elementary principles of Islam such as the Five Pillars as well as
the manners of purification before worship and religious services. It
seems that his followers did not have any fundamental knowledge ofIslam. In other words, Dukchi Ishan engaged in the re-Islamization of
the people through his preaching of a true Islam based on Sharī‘a and theSunna.
Finally, we must consider the ra’īs office, one of the features of Dukchi
Ishan’s tarīqa. It consisted of some khalīfas, who acted for the īshān in remote places, ra’īses [supervisors of religious order and practice], and approximately twenty thousands common murīds, an outstanding numberin those days. In such a tarīqa, absolute obedience to their shaykh was
generally emphasized and the murīds were often compared to a corpse
before a washer of the dead. But according to a Russian official report,
Dukchi Ishan did not require of his murīds unconditional submission
and compelled neither dedication nor donation. Dukchi Ishan asked ofthem only observance of Islamic law and practice, and it was the ra’īsthat were charged with their supervision. The appointment of ra’īs began
in 1895. They are reported to have carried a darra (whip for punishments) granted by Dukchi Ishan. The comment of Lieutenant General
Korol’kov on this ra’īs office is worth noting, because when “nominees of
the ishan exercised authority parallel to ours,” it meant the existence ofdual power.30 This situation also reminds us of the Adalat, the so-called
Wahhabi organization that emerged in Namangan in the early 1990s.
In the mid-1890s Dukchi Ishan, commanding a large tarīqa based in
his khānqāh, was exercising an authority that paralleled the Russian
power. He had become a prominent Muslim leader in the Ferghana Valley both in name and reality. A contemporary Muslim official, Muhammad ‘Aziz, who was working at the district office of Marghilan at thetime of the Andijan Uprising, describes Dukchi Ishan as follows:
He never spared efforts in offering his hospitality to every guest. The number of his murīds was superior to that of any other groups’ (tāyfa, jamā‘alar)
and a great amount of provisions dedicated to this īshān was generously distributed to the poor. When he found ulama among his guests, he used to ask
30 “Andizhanskoe vosstanie v 1898 g.,” Krasnyi arkhiv 88 (1938), pp. 146, 173.

15

KOMATSU Hisao
questions regarding the regulations of namaz, fasting, and pilgrimage to theholy cities, and discussed issues regarding generosity toward poor widows
and the righteous way of Muslims according to the Qur’an and hadīth.31

The large tarīqa of Dukchi Ishan is worthy of note. It included all theethnic groups in the Ferghana Valley, such as Turks, Kashgharis, Uzbeks,
Tajiks, and Kyrgyz. His active tarīqa succeeded in integrating such various social groups as wanderers, peasants, nomads, and even some notables. It provides us with an example of the formation of a communal order in a Central Asian Muslim society. The tarīqa, which penetrated eveninto the stratum of Muslim officials, would suggest the vitality of Ishanism.
Dukchi Ishan’s activities, while showing many aspects of folk Islam,
clearly proclaimed Islamic orthodoxy, as seen in his adherence to Sharī‘aand the Sunna. In the Ferghana Valley, where there were neither Muslim
political powers nor the judicial organization of ulama who could defend Sharī‘a sufficiently, he could pretend to realize a Muslim communal
identity in social and political spheres. His tarīqa, following the
Naqshbandi tradition in Central Asia, operated for the re-Islamization in
the Ferghana Valley that underwent great changes under Russian rule.
The Andijan Uprising awakened wide responses among Turkestani
Muslims. As far as published works and views are concerned, they were
exclusively negative to Dukchi Ishan and his rebellion as seen in Ta’ib.32
For example, Mirza ‘Abd al-‘Azim Sami (1838–1907), a contemporary
Bukharan historian, condemned “the reckless act” of Dukchi Ishan as
follows:
After drawing his murīds from amongst many people in Ferghana, Tashkent,
Osh and other cities, he was captured by a strong desire to be eminent because of his great wealth and great number of murīds. He decided to assault
Christians and attacked the railway station at Andijan, but because of the
31 Mu∆ammad ‘Azīz Marghilānī, Tārīkh-i ‘Azīzī, Biruni Institute of Oriental Studies,
Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, Manuscript No. 11108, 184a–184b. This work is published in modern Uzbek: Muhämmäd Äziz Märghilaniy, Tärikhi Äzizii: Färghanä charmustämläkäsi dävridä, näshrgä täiyarlovchilär: Shadman Vahidov, Dilaram Sängirova (Tashkent, 1999).
32 For a recent study see also Aftandil Erkinov, “Andizhanskoe vosstanie i ego predvoditel’ v otsenkakh poetov epokhi,” Vestnik Evrazii 1 (2003), pp. 111–137.

16

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rulecounterattack of the Russian army, his attempt ended in total failure. [Theysay,] when a member of a tribe commits a shameful act, all the members of
the tribe, irrespective of age, lose their honor. During the reign of Tsar
Alexander [sic], who brought peace to the country through his justice, thepeople of Andijan caused disturbances against the fatvā-yi musālemat [legal
pronouncement on peace].33

Although Sami gives no detail about the fatvā-yi musālemat, supposedly
most of the Hanafi school ulama in Turkestan approved this legal orderto accept Russian rule as seen in the Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib. They denounced
Dukchi Ishan not only because he brought to Turkestan Muslims suchgreat calamities as a number of Muslim casualties caused by the Russian
repression and the heavy indemnities imposed by the authorities, butalso because he broke the fatva accepted by most of the Turkestani ulama.
The rebellion of Dukchi Ishan was considered nothing other than athoughtless and harmful act by those Muslim intellectuals who had witnessed the overwhelming power of Russia that subjugated Central Asiankhanates a few decades prior. They were keen to prevent any fitna that
could not only break the peaceful order under Russian rule, but also
bring about a great schism among Turkestani Muslims. We suppose
Ta’ib observed the rising of Dukchi Ishan as a terrible challenge against
the established order. His all manners of abuse against Dukchi Ishanmakes it impossible for us to imagine him as a hero of the national liberation movement against the Tsarist rule as described in the recent
Uzbek historiography.
Restraint of rebellion against Russian rule was not only the case ofTurkestani ulama. In 1900 even Abdurreshid Ibrahim (1857–1944), an
ardent Pan-Islamist Tatar intellectual in Russia, preferred enlightenmentof Muslim peoples to any resistance or rebellion against Russian rule. He
writes:It does not matter if Tatars raise a rebellion [against Russian rule]. Indeed,
33 Mīrzā ‘Abd al-‘A√īm Sāmī, Ta’rīkh-i Salāªīn-i Manghītīya, Izdanie teksta, predislovie,
perevod i primechaniia: L. M. Epifanova (Moscow, 1962), 121b–122a. As to Sāmī’s life andthought see Jo-Ann Gross, “Historical Memory, Cultural Identity, and Change: Mirza ‘Abd
al-‘Aziz Sami’s Representation of the Russian Conquest of Bukhara,” in Daniel R. Browerand Edward J. Lazzerini, eds., Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), pp. 203–226.

17

KOMATSU Hisao
internal rebellions bring about much more destruction to a government than
any wars [with external enemies]. However, once a rebellion has been instigated, the people, by totally committing themselves to the cause, can suffer
greater disasters than the government concerned. Look at rebellious peoples.
Most of them were destroyed. For example, remember what dire consequences Chinese Muslims who raised a rebellion [against Qing rule] suffered. The blood of Muslims flowed as a flood. In short, any rebellion is notfree from risk. Therefore, by securing our safety from within the social orderas much as possible and utilizing it to advocate for science and education,
we should avoid a rebellion.34

Needless to say, however, nobody could publicly dare praise or refer
positively to an anti-Russian uprising during the Tsarist period. Among
local Muslim intellectuals we find some that sympathized with or defended Dukchi Ishan and his murīds even in the late Tsarist period. In
fact, four years later the military governor of the Ferghana province(oblast’) wrote in his secret report to the Governor-General of Turkestanthat despite local representative’s efforts to denounce Dukchi Ishan,
Muslim people remembered him as a martyr who sacrificed himself forthe sake of God, and referred to his name with respect.35

A Prospect of the Dār al‐Islām
While Russian authorities’ brutal repression against the Andijan Uprising prevented the Muslim population from raising any banner of ghazavat [holy war] until 1916, Ta’ib’s arguments of the Dār al-Islām might
have been shared by Turkestani intellectuals during the Tsarist period.
However, apart from theoretical arguments of the status of Muslim society, there was no common idea of the future of their society. In otherwords, there remained almost untouched an essential problem: how tosustain and develop the Muslim society threatened by growing
socio-economic changes in the Russian Empire as well as bysocio-political tensions at local levels due to the shortcomings of the34 [Abdurreshid Ibrahim], Rusya’da Müslümanlar yahud Tatar Akvamının tarihçesi, İşbutarihçe Kazan fuzalâsından bir zatın eseridir (Mısır [Cairo], 1318 [1900]), p. 84.
35 Älinäzär Egämnäzärov, Siz Bilgän Dukchi Eshan: Hujjätli qissä (Tashkent, 1994), p. 119.

18

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Rule
Russian administration in colonial Turkestan. The task of elaborating
this strategy was left to a new generation following that of Ta’ib. From
this point of view a document prepared two years after the Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib
is interesting for our consideration.
This is a draft for Muslim ecclesiastic and local administration in
Turkestan (Turkistān idāre-yi rūhānīya va dākhilīyasi), in other words a
proposal of Muslim autonomy in Turkestan. The author was one of themost influential Jadid intellectuals in Turkestan, Mahmudkhoja Behbudiy (1875–1919), who was in those days in charge of mufti [expounderof the Islamic law] in Samarkand and the members of the central committee of the Party of Muslim Union (Ittifāq-i Muslimīn). Encouraged byrevolutionary waves in Russia, especially by political activism among
Russian Muslims, Behbudiy submitted this draft of autonomy to the
Muslim faction of the second and third Duma twice in April and November 1907.36 In its preface he writes as follows:
It is necessary to provide much more autonomy (aftānāmiya) to Turkestan
than to Muslims in European Russia because Turkestanis long ago conducted local administration by themselves and are much more eager to enjoy it than their brothers in European Russia. Turkestanis’ only desire is toorganize a Muslim ecclesiastic and local administration and to have men of
insight as the officials. This administration is not only for ecclesiastic affairs.
It should cover also civil and local administration as well as jurisdictions
that are now at the disposal of qādīs.37

This ambitious draft consists of seventy-four articles that regulate theorganization and functions of the autonomy in detail. Turkestan autonomy was to be supervised by a five-year term Shaykh al-Islām electedfrom amongst the first class ulama who had a profound knowledge ofSharī‘a and contemporary affairs. The central administration of Turkestan autonomy was to be located in Tashkent, and its branches were to
36 Necip Hablemitoğlu and Timur Kocaoğlu, [eds.,] “Behbudi’nin Türkistan Medeni
Muhtariyeti Layıhası / Behbudi’s Project for Turkistan Cultural Autonomy,” in Timur
Kocaoğlu, ed., Türkistan’da Yenilik Hareketleri ve İhtilaller: 1900–1924, Osman Hoca Anısına
İncelemeler (Haarlem: SOTA, 2001), pp. 436–466. The original text is also presented. It is said
that this document was preserved for many years in the archives of Ismail Bey Gasprinskii(1851–1914).
37 Ibid., pp. 439, 450–451.

19

KOMATSU Hisao

be established in each province such as Syr Darya, Ferghana, Samarkand,Semirech’e (Yettisuv), and Transcaspia provinces. It is clear that thisdraft aimed to create a fair and appropriate judicial system which waslacking in Russian Turkestan. The seventh chapter, which contains ten
articles, is dedicated to the detailed regulations of qādīs. The draft does
not fail to mention the status of the Jews and foreigners, waqf endowments, school education, and water and land use in Turkestan. Apparently the author formulated a plan of high-degree autonomy in Turkestan. As for the echoes of the Andijan Uprising, Article 37 attracts ourattention. It says:
To let Sufis, the owners of Sufi lodges, and murīds adapt the norms of Sharī‘a
without violating their freedom of conscience, and by this way to protect thecommon people from superstitions, idle talk, and waste of time.38

It should be noted that this draft pays attention to the strict inspection of
officials and prohibits the migration of non-Muslims into Turkestan
without the request from local people. It is interesting that these two issues were related to the causes of the Andijan Uprising. Although it isunknown whether Behbudiy read the Tuhfa-yi Tā’ib, this draft clearly
aimed to secure the cohesion of Muslim society in Turkestan by reorganizing and enhancing the two pillars of the Dār al-Islām. Here we cansee the starting point of the Muslim autonomous movement in Turkestan.
Behbudiy’s proposal regarding the establishment of Muslim ecclesiastic administration in Turkestan called for some responses from Muslim
intellectuals in Russia. For example Mu‘allim Karīm Qārlī in Alma-Ata
raised a question on the journal Shūrā about the status of this ecclesiastic
administration in Turkestan—whether it should be independent or be
attached to one of the existing Muslim Spiritual Boards in Russia.39 To
this question Behbudiy responded with an article “Turkestan administration” in the same journal in November 1908. In this article he described the characteristics of Russian administration in Turkestan in detail. Although admitting that Turkestani Muslims are enjoying juridical
autonomy (shar‘ī āftānūmiya) at the local level, he criticized disorder and38 Ibid., pp. 442, 457.
39 Mu‘allim Karīm Qārlī, “Ālmātā shahrindan: Āsyā-yi vusªāda muftīlik haqqindasu’al,” Shūrā 20 (1908), p. 631.

20

Dār al‐Islām under Russian Ruleunsuitable conditions in juridical affairs. According to him these defects
should have been attributed to the lack of the examination and control ofqādīs, in other words, to the lack of central administration of juridical
affairs. In conclusion, he argues for the establishment of an independent
Muslim spiritual board in Turkestan. At the same time, he submitted his
proposal to Count K. K. Palen (1861–1923) who conducted an extensive
inspection of Russian administration in Turkestan in 1908–1909.40 Although this plan for Turkestan autonomy was never realized, in 1917 wefind Behbudiy once again in the drafting committee of the Turkic Federalist Party in Turkestan.41

40 Ma∆mūd Khwāja Behbūdī, “Turkistān idārasi,” Shūrā 23 (1908), pp. 720–723.
41 For the details see “The program of the Turkic Federalist Party in Turkistan (1917),”
introd. and trans. KOMATSU Hisao, in H. B. Paksoy, ed., Central Asia Reader: The Rediscovery
of History (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1994), pp. 117–126.

21