Achtung!
Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Aufsatzes„An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ“von Jost Gippert (2013).
Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe in
Ragagnin, Elisabetta / Wilkens, Jens (eds.),
Kutadgu Nom Bitig.
Festschrift für Jens Peter Laut zum 60. Geburtstag(Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 87),
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2015, 163-182
zu entnehmen.

Attention!
This is a special internet edition of the article‘An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ’by Jost Gippert (2013).
It should not be quoted as such. For quotations, please refer to the original edition in
Ragagnin, Elisabetta / Wilkens, Jens (eds.),
Kutadgu Nom Bitig.
Festschrift für Jens Peter Laut zum 60. Geburtstag(Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 87),
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2015, 163-182.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved:
Jost Gippert, Frankfurt 2015

An unusual account of the MiʿrāǧJOST GIPPERT (Frankfurt/Main)
When I published my first notice on a Maldivian copper plate grantcontaining a short account of Muḥammad’s fabulous journey to Jerusalem
and his ascension to heaven, the so-called Miʿrāǧ legend, in 2003,1 JENSPETER LAUT drew my attention to the fact that he had just been supervising
a comprehensive thesis on the Uyghur Miʿrāǧnāme,2 a source that agrees
with the Maldivian account in many a detail indeed.3 This is all the more
remarkable in view of the geographical distance between the Maldive
Islands and the Central Asian homeland of the Uyghurs; it can, however, beregarded as the result of a common background, given that both theMaldivians and the Uyghurs were converted to Islam from Buddhism,4 andthe question as to what extent Buddhist thought may have survived in thepeculiar design of the Uyghur legend has been raised with good reason.5 In
the present paper, I intend to outline the state of knowledge on theMaldivian text that has been achieved during the past 10 years, with aview to make it accessible for comparative studies and thus to gain moreinsights into the text itself, which is still far from being clear in all its
details.
1. The Maldivian lōmāfānu grants
When the Maldives were converted to Islam in the middle of the 12th
century AD, 6 the islands looked back on a timespan of at least five
centuries of literacy, witnessed to by a small set of Buddhist inscriptions
on coral stone written either in Sanskrit or in a Prakrit7 that can be taken
to be the ancestor of the Maldivian language (Divehi).8 In contrast to this,
1
2

3
4

5
6
7
8

GIPPERT 2003, 31–47.
SCHERBERGER 2003. My thanks are due to the author for providing me with acopy of the thesis.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, 40, n. 21 with further reference to SÉGUY 1977, 34.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, passim as to the circumstances of the Islamisation of the Maldives.
Cf. SCHERBERGER 2003, ch. V: „Religionswissenschaftlicher Ausblick“, 123–8.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, passim as to the dating of the Islamisation of the Maldives.
Cf. GIPPERT 2004, 81–109 and forthcoming.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, 31 n. 2 as to the name of the language.

164

JOST GIPPERTthe oldest extant monuments written in Divehi proper are three copper
plate grants issued by the Islamic king Gaganāditya 9 in the late 12th
century, with other grants of this type following up to the 15th century; allthese documents (named lōmāfānu, i.e. “great leaf of copper”, in Divehi)10
concern, as waqf decrees, the donation of land and other properties to
newly-founded mosques. Both by their outer shape, which strongly
resembles that of palm leaf pustakas (cf. Fig. 1), and by their style, whichfinds striking parallels in Buddhist copper plate decrees from Sri Lanka
and Southern India, the lōmāfānus exhibit clear traits of the pre-Islamic
written tradition of the Maldives.
1.1 The dating of the oldest lōmāfānus
Of the three lōmāfānu grants issued by king Gaganāditya, only one contains
the short account on the Prophet’s Miʿrāǧ thematised here. Although thefirst plate of this lōmāfānu (hereafter: L1) has been lost, it is clear from thedating contained on the recto of its second plate (plate “F” = “2”,11 cf. Fig.
2) that it is one of the two oldest documents of this type. The actual dating
as appearing in the three grants is remarkable indeed, given that it is notbased upon the Prophet’s Hiǧra as in most later Maldivian documents12 but
on a twofold calculation, one consisting in an addition of the years of theindividual kings of the ruling dynasty up to the act of decreeing, and one,in a reference to the Prophet’s “attaining heaven”. The bulk of informationassembled in this way can be illustrated by aligning the introductions of
the two complete lōmāfānus issued by Gaganāditya, which are about thefoundation of mosques on the islands of Isdū (L2) and Dam̆bidū (L3) in
Haddummati atoll13; it is obvious that the text of L1, the object of which is
the island of Gamu in the same part of the Maldives, must have contained
9
10

11

12

13

Cf. GIPPERT 2003, 34 n. 13 as to the king’s name and its spelling.
Of a total of eight lōmāfānus that have been identified so far, only four havebeen available for investigation at the National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research at Māle’ during 1999 and 2002. For surveys and former treatises of lōmāfānu documents cf. FRITZ 2002, 215–6; BELL 1940 and 1922–35. The
two most voluminous lōmāfānus (L2 and L3) were edited by scholars from theMaldives and Sri Lanka; cf. Loamaafaanu: Transliteration, Translation and Notes on
Palaeography 1982; and MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA 1986.
The plates are numbered with autochthonous digits applied on their verso; cf.
Fig. 3 for pl. “F”. Cf. GIPPERT 2013, as to details.
Esp. in decrees on paper and wood (so-called fatkoḷus, cf. FRITZ 2002, 217–8) andin inscriptions (tombstones etc., cf. ib., 219–23), which are attested since the16th century AD.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, 34 n. 10 as to the atoll name.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ165

the same information on its lost first plate, given that its text joins that of
the others within the formulaic series of Sanskrit epithets praising the
grantor, Gaganāditya.14
1.1.1 The two complete lōmāfānus begin with the following enumeration ofkings’ reigns:15
svasti śrī somavaṁśa ādipati śrī tīmuge śrī mānābaraṇa mārasun
Hail (to) His Majesty, the ruler of the Moon Dynasty, Mānābharaṇa,16 theMahārāja of the Tīmu (house),puṇa dese reda vuṇadai ekaviṁśatī avurodun ikit vī kal
after 25 years had passed since his having taken over the reign over all
the landreda obun side(and) when (his) reign had passed away,
mi rasunsia beni svasti śrī tribuvanaādītya mārasun
this king’s brother, hail (to) His Majesty Tribhuvanāditya the Mahārāja,
reda vuṇadʰai panṣatriṁśati avurodun ikit vī kal
after 35 years had passed since his having taken over the reign,mi rasunsya mal svasti śrī buvanābarṇa mārasun
this king’s nephew (?), hail (to) His Majesty Bhuvanābharaṇa the Mahārāja,
reda vuṇadai nuvavana avurodun ikit vī kal
after 9 years had passed since his having taken over the reign,mi rasunasya beni svasti śrī darmmānānda nam mārasun
this king’s brother, hail (to) His Majesty Dharmānanda the Mahārāja,
14

15

16

The “common” text printed below represents a simplified transcription; amore fine-grained transliteration is currently being prepared in the frame of acomprehensive edition of Old Maldivian written documents. Bold characters
are used to indicate the common wording of all three lōmāfānus. As to the rendering of Sanskrit and other foreign terms in Maldivian writing cf. GIPPERT 2004
[2005], 173–94, and GIPPERT in print, passim.
This and the following translations are meant to render the original wording
as closely as possible, the left-branching syntax of Maldivian with deeply embedded participle and absolutive constructions causing a rather awkward stylein right-branching English.
Cf. MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899 [1951], 1331 for this Sanskrit compound appearing as
the name of a king in “Inscr(iptions)”; the meaning might be something like“ornament of thought”.

166

JOST GIPPERT

reda vuṇadai nuvavana avurodun ikit vī kal
after 9 years had passed since his having taken over the reign,
reda ni vuṇu side (<<<< L3)(and) when (his) reign no longer existed,
mi rasunsya beni (L3: mal) svasti śrīmat
this king’s brother (L3: nephew), hail (to) His Majesty,
somabaṁśotdaraṇa kanakārocaṇa āsaṁlastamba ṣavālakṣadīparakṣaṇa
the uplifter of the Lunar Dynasty (Skt. somavaṁśoddharaṇa), shining likegold (Skt. kanakarocana), an unmovable pillar (Skt. acalastambha),protector of all 100,000 islands (Skt. sarvalakṣadvīparakṣaṇa),batdracandarabibʰihāvidyāvinoda ṣakaḷakaṁlāṇa anuragesvara
skilful in the recognition of prosperous moon-discs
bhadracandrabimbasaṃvidyāvinoda [?]), with beautiful limbsśakalakalyāṇa), a lord of affection (Skt. anurāgeśvara),

(Skt.
(Skt.

ratunākara maṇimakuṭabandʰita śrīmat gagʰanādītya mārasun(L1: māras[)17
a maker of pearls (Skt. ratnakara), braided with gem(s and) crown(s) (Skt.
maṇimakuṭabandhita), His Majesty Gaganāditya the Mahārāja,
ekarādya vuṇadai (L3; om. L2; << ]ṇadana L1)17
after having become the sole king (L3; om. L2; being [?] L1)
tinvana (L1, L2) / sataruvana (L3) avurodun ...
in (his) third (L1, L3) / fourth (L3) year ...
1.1.2 This enumeration is by and large confirmed by the so-called Rādavaḷi,an autochthonous chronicle compiled before the 18th century, which exists
in several copies. 18 The divergences between the Rādavaḷi and thelōmāfānus, esp. in the name forms, can clearly be explained as resulting
from errors in secondary transmission. The relevant passage of the
Rādavaḷi text can be established as printed below;19 note that the chronicle
provides us with the pre-enthronisation names of the kings, beginning
17

18
19

Of the present plate (“F”) of L1, about one third has been broken off so that
appr. 16 of the average of 48 akṣaras per line are missing.
Cf. FRITZ 2002, 218 as to the three copies known so far (here styled A, B, C).
The text is established on the basis of C, the only copy that has been available
for thorough inspection so far. C2 denotes the repetition of information contained in p. 9 of C (cf. FRITZ 2002, 218). Note that the Rādavaḷi has been preserved in both Dives akuru and Tāna scripts (cf. GIPPERT 2013, as to the interrelationship of the different scripts), which implies that in the transcripts, (Dives
akuru) p and (Tāna) f are equivalents.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

167

with the name of the founder of the dynasty, keimalā (v.ll. keimalei, kēmalā),which obviously represents Skt. ketumāla denoting a ‘wearer of a garlandof banner(s)’ as a bahuvrīhi compound:20
ekkala (ekkalē C, < C2) tīmugē (+ ran B) keimalei (kēmalei C2, kēmalā C) kalōaʾ
(kalegeʾ A)
At this very time, Lord Keimala (+ the Golden B) of the Tīmu house,suvastī sirī tīmuge (> A) rannapireru (ranfirēru C, < AC2) mānābānna (A,miniabāruṇa C, bānābāruna C2) mahāraduna veʾ
was enthroned as – hail (to him)! – His Majesty Mānābharaṇa the
Mahārāja, shining like gold (?),21 of the Tīmu house;mi kalā raskan kuḷa aharu : 21 (20 B) :the reign of this lord (extended over) 21 (20) years.
mi radunāi (rasgeāi AC2) (+ ebbaḍu A) ekkihun ufan henevi māvākiṇage (-kilage
A, -kilege B) fut funei (donei BC2, dovemi A) kalamunjāʾ (kalamijjā̆ʾ AB)(After him,) Prince Funei (Donei, Dovemi), son of Senāpati Māvākila, bornfrom the same (A: belly and) womb as this king,sirī buvanādīttā (-ātītta C) mahāraduna veʾ (+ : 2 : A)
was enthroned as His Majesty Bhuvanāditya the Mahārāja (+ no. 2);
mi kalā islān nu ve raskan kuḷa hai duvahāi
all the days of the reign of this lord not being a Muslim andislān dīnugai (dinaʾ A; kamu C2)22 raskan kuḷa hai duvahāi (+ eku A) aharu :25:23
all the days of the reign of this lord in the Islamic faith (+ altogether)(sum up to) 25 years.
mi abāruṇa rasgeāi ekkihun nufan malei māvākiṇage fut mutei kalamunjān(After him,) Prince Mutei, son of Malei Māvākila, born from the same

20

21

22
23

Cf. MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899 [1951], 309 for a mythical person (son of Āgnīdhra)
and a people bearing the name of ketumāla. The question whether the use of
the compound for “one of the nine great divisions of the known world (thewestern portion or varṣa of jambū-dvīpa, called after ketu-māla)” (ib.) can betaken to indicate the provenance of the founder of the Maldivian dynasty requires further investigation.
The interpretation of ran(na)pireru as “shining like gold” is based upon theassumption that the word is a synonym of kanakarocana, one of the epithets ofking Gaganāditya in the lōmāfānus, with ran(na)pireru representing a formation
like Skt. hiraṇya-prarocana or -prarocita (-purūruc ‘shining brightly’ is less probable as this formation occurs only in Vedic texts).
End of the repetition contained in C2.
End of the transcripts of A and B in BELL 1940, 198–9.

168

JOST GIPPERT

womb as that (first) king (bearing a name with the element) -ābharaṇa
(“ornament”),
sirī buvanaabāruṇa mahāraduna veʾ
was enthroned as Bhuvanābharaṇa the Mahārāja;
mi kalā raskan kuḷa aharu : 19 :the reign of this is lord (extended over) 19 years.
rekehiriā māvākiṇage fut alī kalamunjān(After him,) Prince Alī, the son of Rakṣasūrya (?) Māvākila,sirī furanāda mahāraduna veʾ
was enthroned as Parānanda the Mahārāja;
mi kalā raskan kuḷa aharu : 9 :the reign of this is lord (extended over) 9 years.
fatihiriā māvākiṇage fut donei kalamunjān(After him,) Prince Donei, the son of Prāptasūrya (?) Māvākila,sirī gannādītta mahāraduna veʾ
was enthroned as Gaganāditya the Mahārāja;
mi kalā raskan kuḷa aharu : 7 :the reign of this is lord (extended over) 7 years.
As we can see, the only noteworthy difference between the Rādavaḷi text
and that of the lōmāfānus consists in the amount of years assigned to
Mānābharaṇa = Keimalei (as the last Pre-Islamic king), (Tri)bhuvanāditya(as the king during whose reign the islands were Islamised) and his
successor, Bhuvanābharaṇa, with the sum of the two latter reigns
remaining the same (25 + 19 vs. 35 + 9); there can be no doubt that the
information given in the lōmāfānus is more reliable in this respect, giventhat they are near to contemporaneous.
Another difference consists in the fact that in the Rādavaḷi, theenumeration of the kings is preceded by an explicit reference to theProphet’s Hiǧra, the ascension of the throne by Keimalei being dated into
the 536th year after it:
afurenge (apuremenge B, afunge C) kau muḥammad rasūl (nabīy BCC2)
fētānbarun (kalegepānu B, -nge C, kalōge C2) hiǧrāin24

24

Note that in version A, the word hiǧrāin is paraphrased by furaituru makkāinhubahiriā madīnāaʾ gimaʾ voḍigat ‘(when he) deigned to go from excellent Makkāto sun-radiant Madīna’, a formula found widespread in older Maldivian
sources.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

169

From the Hiǧra of our Lord Muḥammad the Messenger (and) Prophet
fāssatta (passateka B, fassatēka C, fāssatura C2) satirīs (satrīsvana B, tirīsvanaC) aharu (averudu C2) ha mahun (+ ... A)in the five hundred and thirty-sixth (C: thirtieth) year (counted on fromthis), in the sixth month,ekkala (ekkalē C, < C2)...
at this very time...
Taking this dating seriously, we have to assume January, 1142 AD for
Keimala’s enthronisation. Adding the reigns as given in both the lōmāfānus
and the Rādavaḷi, we arrive at a time span of 78 (25 + 35 + 9 + 9) or, at least,73 (20 + 25 + 19 + 9) years that would have passed between this event andthe enthronisation of King Gaganāditya; if these were lunar years, weshould then have to assume that the latter took place in 1217 or 1212 AD
and the acts of decree that are thematised in L1, L2 and L3, in 1220/21 or
1215/16 AD. However, these calculations do not agree with the secondary
dating provided by the lōmāfānu documents.
1.1.3 Of the three copper plate grants, only L1 proceeds immediately after
the common introduction with the dating according to the Prophet’s“attaining heaven”, while the two other lōmāfānus first mention“preparatory” deeds of the Maldivian Mahārāja:25
dʰabuduvu matye (L3) pūṛbbʰe kāpuru rasun isdʰuvu (L2) keruvī verumāna bide
Having destroyed the monasteries built formerly by the infidel kings on
Dam̆bidū / Isdū (islands),
budu upurai
having uprooted the buddha (statue),budāi mi budu vere ganna kulasagumāṇunāi mi emmen māle gen ais (L2)having taken the buddha (statue) and the members of the congregationthat was hosted in this Buddhist monastery all together to Māle,bʰujāi veraṭa mudala din tak māpansodāi rāja baṇḍāra aṭa balai gene (L2)having conspected and confiscated the Buddha (statue) and all thetributes that had been given as taxes to the monastery, for the royalgovernment,sādʰat nu kī kʰāpurun maram evie vidārai (L2)after declaring: ‘I shall kill all infidels that do not proclaim confession’,mahammadu petāmbarunge daruṣaṇa aṭa vadumā vī tak kāpurun nu marai (L2)(but) not killing all infidels that have declared ‘we enter into the faith ofMuḥammad the Prophet’,25

In the following transcript, the text of the two lōmāfānus is aligned with compliant passages printed in bold letters again.

170

JOST GIPPERT

kāpurun (L3) ṣādat kiavai
by causing the infidels to proclaim confession (and),sunnat koṭuby undertaking circumcisionpetāmbarunge ṣeriā tibī alikun roda sipai (L3)by keeping the fasts in the way indicated in the prophet’s šarīʿa,namādu koṭu (L3)by committing the prayer(s and)devatāinaṭa aḷukamu kranaṭa (L3) vīdelai ...
ordering (them) to do a service to God ...
After these statements, L2 and L3 proceed to the dating according to theprophet’s “attaining heaven”, which is styled in quite the same way as in
L1:
śrī mahammadu petāmbarun dunien (L2) / dunie vīdelai (L3) svargga vaḍaigat
After His Majesty Muḥammad the Prophet ascended to heaven from earth /(while / after) ruling on earth,pasuṣattʰa baāsi (L1, L2) / teāsi (L3) avurodu vī side (L2) / avurodun (L3, L1def.)26 ...
when it was (L2) / in (L3) the five hundred eighty-second / -third year
(after this) ...
After this lapidary notice, L2 and L3 continue with the deeds ofGaganāditya in connection with the mosques to be built, L2 resuming this“service” explicitly:śrī gagʰanādītya mārasu devatāinaṭa krana aḷukamak sintā koṭu (L2)
His Majesty Gaganāditya, considering a service to be done to God,śrī isuduvu (L2) / dabudʰuvu (L3) veru vatye bala avasu ṣobum bimak
pennerepāṇu obai
by cleaning the ground ... and the paths leading to the water on themonastery ground of famous Isdū / Dam̆bidū,pāsāṇa kāṭṭa aneka sittʰra karmmaen (L2) masudidʰu karuvai
by causing a mosque to be built in another wonderful act ...27
L1, however, deviates enormously from the common structure at the given
position. First, it adds a few items that may be taken to indicate a moreexact date, comprising the name of a lunar constellation, mraggasīra

26

27

In L1, only the first akṣara of avurodu ‘year’ (Skt. saṃvatsara) has been preserved.
The first two elements of the clause remain unclear.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

171nakṣattra, i.e. the lunar mansion (named) Mṛgaśira,28 possibly with the dayof the respective month being indicated by bārggava = Skt. bhārgava‘Friday’ and *candra ekdi (?) netthi ‘one day missing of (full) moon’. Then it
seems to name a certain kehāḷava as a helper (? karaṇadāti) and “another1000 men (aneka cāsra piri) selected and taken with him (gene ais balai) for
his own help (timan esī)”, before it starts with a lengthy report on God’s
creation of heaven and earth, which also includes the account of the miʿrāǧ
legend but which yields no further dating (cf. below).
We are thus left with the 582 (lunar) years indicated in both L1 and L2 ashaving passed after Muḥammad’s “attaining heaven”, which would yield
AD 1196 if this means his death (in AH 632); if it means the prophet’s miʿrāǧ(in AH 621), we arrive at AD 1185 instead. How, then, to cope with thedifference as to the dating of Gaganāditya’s reign implied in the Rādavaḷi?
Possibly, we have to assume that the hiǧra dating that is associated withthe enthronisation of Keimala/Mānābharaṇa in the chronicle, was rather
meant to indicate the enthronisation of his successor, Tribhuvanāditya,
under whom the islands were converted to Islam. This would roughly
agree with the hiǧra year 548, i.e. AD 1153, indicated for the latter event inanother epigraphical source, the Gan filā fatkoḷu of 1652,29 as well as theso-called Tāriḫ, an account of the history of the Islamised Maldives
compiled in Arabic by a certain Ḥasan Tāǧ ud-dīn in the beginning of the
19th century.30 According to the latter source, Tribhuvanāditya’s (spelt ‫و‬ّ ‫ )آد‬reign ended in AH 561 (~ AD 1165), followed by Bhuvanābharaṇa’s ( ‫و‬‫ت‬‫)آ رن‬, Dharmānanda’s (‫د ّر ج‬, in AH 580 ~ 1184), and Gaganāditya’s (‫ د ت‬,
in AH 588 ~ AD 1192),31 with the last date coming pretty close to theinformation given in the lōmāfānus, even though the extent of theindividual reigns still differs. In any way, we can exclude on this basis thatthe dating of the lōmāfānus was reckoned according to the miʿrāǧ as thiswould again enlarge the differences.
2. The miʿrāǧ and its embedding in L1
As stated above, the account of the Prophet’s miʿrāǧ is included in L1 in alengthy report on God’s creation of heaven and earth. To be more precise,
28

29
30
31

For the names of the lunar mansions and the days of the week in Maldivian cf.
FRITZ/GIPPERT 2000, 139–52.
Cf. GIPPERT 2003, 43–5 as to this source.
Cf. the edition by YAJIMA 1982, 10, l. 18.
Cf. ib. 1984, 11, ll. 20, 22, and 25, and the Table displaying the “Mohammadan
Dynasties of Maldive Islands” printed in App. C, p. 188.

172

JOST GIPPERTthe report is a re-narration of the most important legendary events
extending from creation up to the destruction of the pagan idols at
Madina, which is taken as an incentive or model for Gaganāditya’s
destroying all Buddhist monuments on the islands ruled by him. The
narrative in L1 can easily be divided into three parts, the first thematising
the creation of heaven and earth, the second, of men and former prophets,
and the third, Muhammad’s revelation, his ride to Jerusalem on the steed
Burāq, the miʿrāǧ, and lastly, the destruction of the “Arab triad” of idols,
Al-Lāt, ʿUzzāt and Al-Manāt;32 all three parts are unparalleled in theirverboseness in older Maldivian sources. Unfortunately, much of the firstpart remains unclear, due to the fact that one third of the plate containingit (“F” = “2”) has been broken off and lost and the surface of the remaining
part has been severely damaged; the general lines can be established withconfidence, however.
2.1 The report on God’s creation of heaven and earth
The report on God’s creation begins on line 4 of the recto of plate “F” withthe words ekadevatāinge rahimatun, followed before the breakage of theplate by the two syllables upe, which can be restored to either theabsolutive, upede, or the past participle, upeduvī, of the verb meaning ‘tocreate’;33 together with the syntagm preceding it (‘by mercy of the OneGod’), the participle seems to be preferrable if it was used as an attribute toa governing noun lost in the lacuna (‘X created by mercy of the One God’).
The next line begins with -t birun, obviously to be completed to devatāinaṭa
gat birun ‘by fear of God’, lit. ‘by the fear gained towards God’, a formula
frequently appearing elsewhere;34 what follows is likely to be about the
emergence of water (pen ve ‘having become water’) and steam (kekuṇu
dumu ‘boiled vapour’ ?). Line 6 of plate “F” contains a sequence of six
Arabic names of paradises, possibly introduced by radis- as the last element
discernible in the line before; the items preserved (-ralu salāmu dāralu
karālu dāralu damālu dāralu kuludu dannatalu adin dannatalu na-) obviously
represent dār al-salām ‘House of Peace’, dār al-qarār ‘House of
Steadfastness’, dār al-ǧamāl ‘House of Beauty’, dār al-ḫuld ‘House of
Eternity’, ǧannat al-ʿadan ‘Paradise of Eden’ and ǧannat al-naʿīm ‘Paradise of
32

33

34

Cf. the Qur’ān, Sur. 53.19–20; cf. the articles by FAHD “al-Lāt” and “Manāt”, andby MACDONALD/NEHMÉ “al-ʿUzzā” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Brill
Online, 2013.
Both forms occur later on in the same source, on plates “D” (recto, 2 and verso,
4, resp.); cf. below.
Two times on pl. T (recto, 1, cf. Fig. 6); cf. below.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

173

Happiness’, most of which are attested in the Qur’ān.35 Of the verso of plate“F” (cf. Fig. 3), the first line describes the utmost heaven (utthara svargga
ḷoka, a Sanskritism) as a ‘land made from gold, silver and jewels’ (ran risimaṇikkatun seduṇu raṭu), while the second line remains obscure – it begins
with ‘made from’ again (seduṇu, with the preceding -n obviously
representing the ablative ending) and continues with a list of ‘name(s)received’ (namu ladu) none of which has been identifiable so far.36 In
contrast to this, the next line offers well interpretable text again: it begins
with the names of three of the ‘seven hells’ (sat naraka-), with sairu, sakaru,
and ṣavvā obviously representing the Arabic names al-saʿīr ‘flaming fire’,
saqar ‘hell’, and al-hāwiyat ‘depth, nethermost hell’, all of which areattested in the Qur’ān, too.37 The text continues with the creation of thesun (ādītya mulu koṭu ṣadān ‘making [?] the sun first’, lit. ‘as the root’) andthe earth (pṛtthivi loka upaduv[ai]), and in the following two lines (4–5), it
names first the Kawṯar river (kautar eviana gagu svarggai, ‘the river inheaven named Kawṯar’)38 and then a series of countries of the Muslim
world, comprising Syria (ṣaur eviana raṭu ‘the country named Syria’), Iraq
(erāk eviana raṭu), Babylon ~ Mesopotamia (bābhil evi[ana raṭu]), Persia (if-rīṣ in the beginning of line 5 is a remnant of *pāris ~ ‘Fārs’), the Arabianpeninsula (dadhīra ~ Arab. ǧazīra), the Panjab (sind), and India (jabuduv ~‘Jambudvīpa’), ‘all these countries’ (mitak raṭ[u]).
2.2 The creation of men and former prophets
The last line of the damaged plate “F” introduces Adam as the first humanvitalised (prāna dī, ‘giving breath’)39 and Eve as his derivate (mīn arddha
35

36

37

38

39

Sur. 10.26; 40.42; 41.28; 9.72; 5.70; cf. LEAH KINBERG, “Paradise” in Encyclopaedia of
the Qurʾān, Brill Online, 2013; W. RAVEN (personal communication of 19.5.2004)
draws my attention to the Arabic Kitāb al-ʿAẓama (cf. RAVEN 1993), which contains a similar list of names, here applied to the gates of the garden created by
God on the right hand side of his throne.
Possibly, sākinā contained in the list reflects Arab. sākina ‘tranquillity, peace’,and adamut- appearing as the head noun of seduṇu ‘made’ might represent Arab. ʿaẓamūt ‘power, majesty’.
Sur. 4.10; 54.48, 74; 101.9; cf. CHRISTIAN LANGE, “Hell (Jahannam, nār, saʿīr, saqar,
Zaqqūm) in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. According to W. RAVEN (personalcommunication of 14.5.2004) the names also occur in the Arabic Kitāb
al-ʿAẓama.
The word svarggai appears a first time in the beginning of line 5, possibly pertaining to the mention of the second heavenly river, salsabīl, in the precedinglacuna.
Possibly, the -i appearing before this at the beginning of the line is the rem-

174

JOST GIPPERTaṅgāin śauā upaduvai, lit. ‘creating Ḥawwā from this one’s half body’, Skt.
ardhāṅga) as well as their sojourn in paradise (mi de mapirin svargga vaṣai
‘lodging this [couple consisting of] mother-and-husband in heaven’). The
text continues in the first line of the recto of plate “D” (~ “3”, cf. Figs. 4–5)
with the children born from “Adam the Prophet’s” sperm drop (ādamu
petāmbarun suktrabīdain, Skt. śukrabindu) out of the womb of Eve (ṣauābaḍun upan genīn dari ve), these children constituting mankind on earth(dunie mīsun ve vī). It further relates that after Adam, who is regarded as
the first prophet (ādamu petāmbarun ādi koṭu paṭai ‘starting with Adam theProphet making the beginning’), 124,000 other prophets (eklakka ṣauvīscāśra petāmbarun) were created and died again (upede nivana gat pase, Skt.
nirvāṇa) before Muḥammad the Prophet was born (upan mahammadu
petāmbarun).
2.3 The Prophet’s revelation, his journey to Jerusalem, the miʿrāǧ and thedestruction of the idols
Immediately after mentioning Muḥammad for the first time, the text
relates his revelation by the archangel, Gabriel, which took place in his
fourtieth year (mahammadu petāmbarun ṣāḷīs āvurodun mi petāmbarun kraṭa
dabarīlú ais buṇe gos ‘in the fourtieth year of Muḥammad the Prophet,
Gabriel having come to this Prophet, having talked [to him] and having
gone away [again]’). Without any further dating, the text proceeds withMuḥammad’s being taken by Gabriel and Michael to Jerusalem on a steed
named Burāq (mi dabarailāi mīkailai mi de malāikatun peṇe burāk eviana asupuṭe mahammadu petāmbarun aruvai baitalu magadeṣaṭa gene gosu ‘this
Gabriel and Michael, these two angels, having appeared, having causedMuḥammad the Prophet to mount the back of a horse named Burāq,having taken him to Bait-al Maqdis’) and with the miʿrāǧ proper, i.e.,Muḥammad’s ascension to heaven on a ladder and his meeting first allangels, then God himself residing in his maṇḍala:de pia ran risi sarak puṭe petāmbarun aruvai gene
having caused him to mount upon a ladder40 (consisting) of two wings(made) from gold (and) silver,mārādaṭa gamani ve negī misatuḍu matī tʰibi tak malāikatun deke ṣalāmu dībuṇe(he, Muḥammad), having seen all the angels being on that peak (misatuḍu

40

nant of the absolutive upadavai ‘creating’ as appearing further below.
It remains unclear whether sarak really means ‘ladder’.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

175?), which was built like a residence (gamani ?) for a Mahārāja, andhaving talked to them saying salām,mi ettre tibi tak śevu nu sevu deke
having seen all happy and unhappy (beings) being inside there,
devatāinge veḍe in maṇḍaḷa mi puṭe aneka navaratnain seduṇu sat kaḍattrain ekkaḍattraak māttra tibai vede
having entered upon this (ladder) the maṇḍala where God resides, which
is made from another nine jewels, having the measure of sevenkaḍattras by one kaḍattra,41dʰevatāinge buṇī subaganda bas asai
having listened to the agreeably-scenting (Skt. śubhagandha) words
spoken by God (who),ṣādat kiai musilimān ve ekmasu roda sipai pas namādu koṭu vuṇumahammadu petāmbarunge darivarun svaṛgga vaṣam evie
by saying, “those children of Muḥammad the Prophet who havebecome Muslims by proclaiming profession (Arab. šādat), keeping thefast (Pers. rōza) of one month (and) performing the five prayers (Pers.
namāz) I will lodge in heaven”,
svaṛgga ḷoka mahammadu petāmbarun dakvai
revealed heaven to Muḥammad the Prophet (and who),ṣādat nu kkai musilimān nu ve vuḷe kāprun budu paḷḷi nagai budu ṣadai
mi budu devatāina ve sitai vede gene kūpurukamu koṭu rāsikaru boi
devatāi timan svāmīn bavu nu dene vuṇu timan upeduvī aḷun naraka
vasam evie
by saying, “those servants created by myself who have remained infidel
by not proclaiming confession (and) not becoming Muslims (and) who
do not believe in God being their own lord, performing infidelity inbuilding Buddhist temples, forming Buddha (statues) and persisting in
the belief that this Buddha is a deity (and) by drinking palm wine,(those) I will lodge in hell,”mi petāmbarun naraka {va}su dakvai
revealed the residents of hell to this Prophet,petāmbārun adamut-ul aṭbāi lī side
when (after all this) the Prophet had written down the grandeur of(the one consisting of) eight parts,42
41
42

The provenance and exact meaning of the measure term remains unclear.
It is extremely unclear what is meant by this, the interpretation given here
being tentative. For aṭbāi cf. the term athabhagiya occurring (in relation to the
Buddha’s relics) in the Aśoka inscription of Lumbini (cf. FALK 2012, 204–16;
adamut- is taken to represent Arab. ʿaẓamūt ‘power, majesty, grandeur’ as further above.

176

JOST GIPPERT(His Majesty, Gaganāditya the Mahārāja,)mi mahammadu petāmbarun buṇī apūṛbbʰa asai
having listened to the unparalleled (words) spoken by him, Muḥammad
the Prophet, (having heard about)mi petāmbarun kiaman gene
this prophet having gained resurrection (Arab. qiyāmat),ekadevatāin tedu bavu dene musilimān vī timange ummatnāi gene
having taken with him his own community who had become Muslims byacknowledging that the One God is a true being,kāpurun makā miskit vesī lātu udʰāt evyana mi de budu bidehaving destroyed the two idols named Lāt and ʿUzzāt lodged at theinfidels’ mosque at Makkā,petāmbarun devatāinaṭa gat birun mi43 aṣaihaving heard about (all) these43 (deeds committed) by the Prophet withfear of (lit. gained towards) God,
mahumūdu rasuge devatainaṭa gat birun manāt eviyana budu binnamus asai
having heard about the destruction of the idol named Manāt(committed) by King Mahmūd with fear of (lit. gained towards) God,śrī gagʰanādītya māras
His Majesty, Gaganāditya the Mahārāja,
timās mi de darun peṇe nama devatāinaṭa biru ganvai
gaining fear towards God as if these two children44 had appeared tohimself,
timan ladu kela aḍḍuvu me mede tibī tak raṭu pūrbbʰe kāpuru rasun keruvī
verumāna bʰudu paḷḷi vairoṣanā bide ...
by destroying on all islands hold (lit. received) by himself that are
between Kela and Aḍḍū45 the (Buddhist) monasteries founded (lit.
made) by the former infidel kings, the Buddha temples (and) the
Vairocana (statues) ...
From this position on, the text continues in quite a similar way as that of
the two other lōmāfānus issued by Gaganāditya (cf. 1.1.3 above),mentioning the preparatory work necessary for the foundation of amosque on Gamu Island (including the appointment of ten “wise regents”,
dasa vidiṣa lokapālavarun), and the further circumstances of his waqf
endowment.

43
44
45

Reading very uncertain.
Cf. 3. below.
The northernmost and southernmost islands of the Maldives, in Gaganāditya’s
times as today.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

177

3. Conclusion
It will be obvious from this preliminary treatise that the account of themiʿrāǧ proper plays but a minor rôle in the given context, providing avindicative background for Gaganāditya’s campaign against Buddhist
monasteries and idols. This is especially true for God’s statements on
believers and unbelievers it cites, which are adapted by Gaganāditya forhis purposes in “proclaiming, ‘I will kill the infidels that do not enter thefamily of the community of Muḥammad the Prophet’” (mahammadu
petāmbarunge ummatun kula aṭa nu van kāpurun maram evie vidārai; T1, l. 4).
Another remarkable analogy approaching Gaganāditya to the Prophet isthe explicit reference to Muḥammad’s encounter with the two archangels,
Gabriel and Michael, which Gaganāditya imagines as a miracle for himself(with the curious substitution of “angels” by “children, boys” or, rather,“young men”, darun).
It may be surprising that the lōmāfānu, in addition to the “mythical”
allusions concerning the founder of Islam and his life, also mentions acertain “King Mahmūd”, in connection with the destruction of the third of
the “Arab idols”, Manāt. It is obvious that the text here refers to the raid
by Sultan Mahmūd of Ġazna of the Hindu temple at Somanātha, which was
identified with the pre-Islamic shrine of the Arabian peninsula in popularbelief (via a reinterpretation of its name as representing a compoundsu-manāt).46 The Maldivian copper plate grant may be taken to be one of
the earliest witnesses of this Indian legend.
References
BELL, HARRY CHARLES PURVIS (1922–35): Excerpta Maldiviana 1–14. In: Journalof the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 29 (75)-33(88).
BELL, HARRY C[HARLES] P[URVIS] (1940): The Máldive Islands: Monograph on the
History, Archæology, and Epigraphy, Colombo. [repr. Māle 1985]
BOSWORTH, CLIFFORD EDMUND (1997/2013): Sūmanāt. In: Encyclopaedia ofIslam, Second Edition, Online Edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/sumanat-SIM_7185 [Printed version: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second
Edition, vol IX, 868b-869a]

46

Cf. BOSWORTH’s 1997/2013 article on “Sūmanāt”, according to which the raid
took place in AD 1015/16; other sources indicate AD 1025/26 (cf. e.g. T.W. HAIG
1934/2013). Cf. T. FAHD 1991/2013, as to Manāt proper.

178

JOST GIPPERTFAHD, TOUFIC (1986/2013): al-Lāt. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,
Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/al-lat-SIM_4647 [Printed version: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second
Edition, vol V, 692a-693a]
FAHD, T. (1991/2013): Manāt. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,
Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/manat-SIM_4909[Printed version: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, vol VI,
373a-374a]
FALK, HARRY (2012): The Fate of Ashoka’s Donations at Lumbini. In: PATRICK
OLIVELLE/JANICE LEOSHKO/HIMANSHU PRABHA RAY (eds.), Reimagining
Ashoka Memory and History, New Delhi, 204–216.
FRITZ, SONJA (2002): The Dhivehi Language. A Descriptive and Historical Grammarof Maldivian and Its Dialects. Vol. II. Materials, Würzburg.
FRITZ SONJA/JOST GIPPERT (2000): Towards a Historical Phonology ofMaldivian. In: MICHAELA OFITSCH/CHRISTIAN ZINKO (eds.), 125 Jahre
Indogermanistik in Graz, Graz, 139–152.
GIPPERT, JOST (2003): Early New Persian as a Medium of Spreading Islam. In:
LUDWIG PAUL (ed.), Persian Origins - Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergenceof New Persian. Collected Papers of the Symposium, Göttingen 1999,
Wiesbaden, 31–47.
GIPPERT, JOST (2004): A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of The Maldives. I.:
An Early Prakrit Inscription. In: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens
48, 81–109.
GIPPERT, JOST (2004): Schriftgebrauch zwischen Kontinuität und Wandel.
Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Sprachgeschichte und Schriftlichkeit. In:
Die Sprache 44(2), 173–194.
GIPPERT JOST (forthcoming): A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of The
Maldives. II.: Two Sanskrit Inscriptions. To appear in: Wiener Zeitschrift
für die Kunde Südasiens (55).
GIPPERT, JOST (2013): An outline of the history of Maldivian writing. In:
SHU-FEN CHEN/BENJAMIN SLADE (eds.), Grammatica et verba / Glamour andverve: Studies in South Asian, Historical, and Indo-European Linguistics. A
Festschrift in Honor of Professor Hans Henrich Hock on the Occasion of His 75th
Birthday, Ann Arbor / Mich. 2013, 81-98.

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

179

HAIG, SIR THOMAS WOLSELEY (1934): Maḥmūd. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, First
Edition, Vol. 3, 133-147. Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-1/mahmud-SIM_4447
KINBERG, LEAH (2013): Paradise. In: JANE DAMMEN MCAULIFFE (ed.)
Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Washington DC. Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/paradise-COM_00143
LANGE, CHRISTIAN (2010/2013): Hell (Jahannam, nār, saʿīr, saqar, Zaqqūm). In:
GUDRUN KRÄMER/DENIS MATRINGE/JOHN NAWAS/EVERETT ROWSON (eds.),
Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/hell-jahannam-nar-sair-saqar-zaqqum-COM_23502[Printed version: Encyclopaedia of Islam Three 2010/2, pp. 142-148]
Loamaafaanu: Transliteration, Translation and Notes on Palaeography (1982):
Vol. 1. Māle. [National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research]
MACDONALD MICHAEL C. A./LAILA NEHMÉ (2000/2013): “al-ʿUzzā.” In:
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Online edition, available at
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/al-uzza-SIM_7789 [Printed version: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second
Edition, vol. X, 967b-968a]
MANIKU, H.A./G.D. WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986): Isdhoo Loamaafaanu, Colombo.
MONIER-WILLIAMS, MONIER (1899 [1951]): A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford.
RAVEN, WIM (1993): A Kitāb al-ʿAẓama: On Cosmology, Hell and Paradise. In:
FRANS DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. Dissertationes in
Academia Ultrajectina prolatae anno MCMXC, Leuven, (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 52), 135–42.
SCHERBERGER, MAX (2003): Das Miʿrāǧnāme. Die Himmel- und Höllenfahrt desPropheten Muḥammad in der osttürkischen Überlieferung, Würzburg.
SÉGUY, MARIE-ROSE (1977): Muḥammads wunderbare Reise durch Himmel undHölle, München.
YAJIMA, HIKOICHI (ed.) (1982): Ḥasan Tāj al-Dīn’s The Islamic History of The
Maldive Islands. With supplementary chapters by MUḤAMMAD
MUḤIBB-AL-DĪN/IBRĀHĪM SIRĀJ-AL-DĪN. Volume one. Arabic texts, Tokyo(Studia Culturae Islamicae 16).

180

JOST GIPPERTYAJIMA, HIKOICHI (ed.) (1984): Ḥasan Tāj al-Dīn’s The Islamic History of The
Maldive Islands. With supplementary chapters by MUḤAMMAD
MUḤIBB-AL-DĪN/IBRĀHĪM SIRĀJ-AL-DĪN. Volume two. Annotations andIndices, Tokyo (Studia Culturae Islamicae 22).

An unusual account of the Miʿrāǧ

181

FiguresFig. 1: The “Isdū lōmāfānu” (copper plate grant L2)

Fig. 2: The “Gamu lōmāfānu” (copper plate grant L1), pl. F = 2 recto

Fig. 3: id., pl. F = 2 verso with plate number indicated in the upper left
corner182

Fig. 4: id., pl. D = 3 recto

Fig. 5: id., pl. D = 3 verso

Fig. 6: id., pl. T = 4 recto

JOST GIPPERT