t h e se venteenth-century i ndia n o ce a n

|

53

3
Sufi Cosmopolitanism in theSeventeenth-century Indian Ocean:
Sharıˉʿa, Lineage and Royal Power inSoutheast Asia and the Maldives
A. C. S. PeacockS

ufi networks have been seen as constituting one of the prime means
through which cosmopolitanism in a variety of senses was articulated in
the pre-modern Islamic world. In emulation of the Prophetic ªadīth, ‘seek
knowledge though it be in China’, travel was one of the key duties of theSufi, both in theory and in practice, and Sufi literature was permeated withthe vocabulary of voyaging.1 Through shared texts, holy men and genealogies both spiritual and blood, †arīqas bound together the Islamic world ina way that political and commercial links never rivalled. Itinerant holy
men criss-crossed the dār al-Islām, and from an early date some specificallysought out contested zones on the border with non-Muslims, far from theurban centres of Islamic civilisation, to devote themselves to contemplationand holy war.
As a type of religiosity that thrived on these contested peripheries, Sufism
has often been characterised as especially receptive to non-Muslim influences,2
which for some modern scholars constitutes a form of cosmopolitanism.3
This presumed aspect of Sufism is often seen as underlying its alleged role inconverting non-Muslim populations, by providing a sort of common groundwhereby pre-Islamic practices could be incorporated into a Muslim society.4
One scholar has written that analysis of Sufism in the Indian Ocean is ‘more
53

54 |

cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

apt to speak of an acceptance of Islamic practices into pre-Islamic cosmology
and customs rather than conversion to a new orthodoxy’.5 However, as Nile
Green has put it, ‘to a very large extent, Sufism was Islam in its medieval
form’ and it cannot easily be detached from other forms of Islamic piety.6
Sufi Islam encompassed a wide variety of practices, the distinctive unifying
component being a belief in the efficacy of the blessing power (baraka) of
holy men. Thus, whatever the reasons for the widespread appeal of Sufism toMuslims and converts throughout post-classical Islamic history, it would bewrong to assume that it was in any uniform sense especially (or at all) accommodating to pre-Islamic practices.
If claims that Sufism is cosmopolitan by virtue of openness to otherreligions are questionable, so is the idea that travel necessarily engenders
cosmopolitanism, except perhaps in a very limited sense where it becomeslittle more than a synonym for itinerancy.7 The early modern Indian Ocean,for instance, is characterised by an intensification of links between its various
parts, with ever greater numbers of itinerant scholars and Sufis.8 Yet theselinks, far from promoting openness to diversity, in fact brought an unsettling
realisation of the variety of Muslim practices – often merely local variants
rather than true survivals of pre-Islamic tradition – which in turn have been
linked to a prevailing trend over the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries thatsought to criticise and eradicate bidʿa (innovation), or diversity in religious
practice.9 Some recent scholarship has sought to identify these competinginterpretations of Islam as rival forms of cosmopolitanism, in the sense ofcosmopolitanism as the challenge of ‘how to create or envisage wider unity
when faced with social diversity’.10 In this sense, cosmopolitanism could thus
constitute a religious or even a political project, and one far removed fromthe utopian ideas of open-mindedness and mobility that characterise many
discussions of the phenomenon. Indeed, like many universalist religious andpolitical projects, such a cosmopolitanism might overlap with, and indeed
require, coercion. Although Sufis are characterised in some scholarship asother-worldly ‘Muslim mystics’, recent work has drawn attention to theintense political connections of Sufis in diverse areas of the Muslim world,such as, for instance, on the peripheries of the dār al-Islām where Sufis played
an important role in turning frontier regions such as Bengal, the Deccan
and the Balkans into Muslim space, receiving in return support and patron-

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

55

age from political elites, and thus participating in and facilitating imperial
expansion.11
In at least some times and places Sufism supported imperial politicalpower by offering through its philosophical theology a legitimation of sultanic authority. This is associated, in particular, with various developments ofthe thought of Ibn ʿArabī (d. 1240). In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman
Empire claimed its very foundation had been predicted by this great Sufi
thinker,12 while in newly Islamising territories like Southeast Asia the doctrine of the perfect man (al-insān al-kāmil) associated with Ibn ʿArabī hasbeen interpreted as offering a means of perpetuating the pre-Islamic, divine
status of the ruler and justifying it in Islamic terms.13 Studies of Southeast
Asia have often seen this political function of Sufism as linked to an elite
court culture. Martin Van Bruinessen argues that in Southeast Asia until
the eighteenth or even the nineteenth century, Sufism had no wider appeal.
For him, Sufism is intimately bound up with efforts to support the ruler’s
legitimacy, or as he puts it, ‘The tarékat [i.e., †arīqa] was perceived as a sourceof spiritual power, at once legitimating and supporting the ruler’s position. It
was obviously not in the rulers’ interest to make the same supernatural power
available to all their subjects.’14
However, during the seventeenth century, a critical phase in the spreadof Islam in the Indian Ocean region, a certain sharīʿa-minded Sufi piety
was disseminated that had little connection with the speculations of theschool of Ibn ʿArabī. This phenomenon, sometimes called ‘neo-Sufism’, hasbeen attributed to the efforts of scholars from the Óaramayn, the two greatMuslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina which in the seventeenth century
were major intellectual centres,15 and is often seen as associated with a more
popular rather than courtly religiosity. As Michael Laffan puts it, ‘Sufism
was formally restricted to the regal elite, while adherence to the sharīʿa wascommended to their subjects.’16 Yet beyond constituting a reaction to theperception of bidʿa mentioned above, this sharīʿa-minded piety had profound political consequences, seeking to shape societies in accordance with
the norms of an idealised Islamic Middle East and sweep away existingdynasties. Here cosmopolitanism, in the sense of an attempt to impose unity
over diversity, appears as both a disruptive and a coercive force. Yet thepolitical consequences of the rise of this sharīʿa-minded piety in the Indian

56 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

Ocean have received little attention. In this chapter, I focus on the sultanatesof Banten in Java, Aceh in Sumatra and the Maldive Islands in the Indian
Ocean. All fell outside the compass of the great imperial projects of the Asian
mainland – the Mughal, Ottoman and Safavid empires; all were societies still
undergoing a process of Islamisation (culturally, if not demographically); andall were, from the perspective of the Middle East, remote frontiers of Islam,even if their self-image was otherwise.17 Furthermore, although geographically disparate, cultural and commercial ties – especially but not exclusively
the spice trade – bound Banten closely to Aceh, and Aceh to the Maldives.18
These lands thus shared a relationship with one another, as well as with the
Middle East.
I will draw on some neglected Arabic texts to argue that promoting theuniversalist project of sharīʿa-minded Sufism was a prime concern not just ofÓaramayn ʿulamāʾ but more importantly local actors, including royal courts.
Promotion of sharīʿa was a component of efforts to promote themselves as
Islamic, and sometimes more specifically as Middle Eastern-style, monarchies,19 and in this sense can itself be seen as a cosmopolitan venture in thesense outlined in the previous paragraph. First, I will look at the evidence of
the Arabic texts composed in the Hijaz for the royal library of the Banten
sultanate, which can help us to understand better the Sufi interests of at least
some Southeast Asian rulers, which are suggestive of the intimate relationship between the sharīʿa, Sufism and the court. I will then in the second
part of this chapter develop the argument by turning to a practical example
of a Sufi in action in late seventeenth-century Aceh and the Maldives, theSyrian Qādirī shaykh Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, a descendant of the famed
Baghdadi saint ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 1166). While in both locations our
Syrian Qādirī received the support of the political elite for a programme that
aimed at enforcing a more rigorous interpretation of the sharīʿa, and rejectionof local customs, he also played a part in destabilising royal power. Hereanother component of Sufism, genealogical links as embodied in a holy man,play a crucial role, as will be discussed in further detail below.
God’s Law at the Royal Court of Banten: the Evidence of Texts
One of the early Islamic monarchies of Southeast Asia was Banten, a richtrading city on the island of Java whose commercial links stretched as far

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

57west as Mecca and as far east as Manila. From the sixteenth century onwards,
the sultans of Banten sponsored the development of Islamic institutions innortheast Java. For instance, as van Bruinessen notes, the position of qā∂ī was
especially politically important in Banten compared with other Javanese sultanates where it had a more limited role. 20 Moreover, as the Javanese chronicle the Sejarah Banten relates, two sultans visited Mecca in person, receiving
recognition from the Sharīf of Mecca; one, indeed, was subsequently known
as Sultan Hajji. The Sejarah Banten also recounts how in 1638 a Bantenese
embassy, after passing through the Maldives, the Coromandel Coast, Surat,
Mocha and Jeddah, reached Mecca to ask the Sharīf to explain for themcertain tracts. This report has attracted attention from scholarship because
these tracts have been identified with the debates over the doctrine of waªdat
al-wujūd attributed to Ibn ʿArabī that rocked Southeast Asian learned circles.
This has often been taken as further evidence for the association of courts,
and that of Banten in particular, with a high-flown philosophical mysticism, evidence of Sufism’s ‘elite’ nature and its appeal to royal legitimation
strategies.21
An examination of the texts themselves, however, suggests rather different
conclusions. The royal library of Banten, preserved in the National Libraryin Jakarta, contains copies of the works commissioned by the Sharīf fromthe leading Meccan scholar Ibn ʿAlān (d. 1647 or 1648) for the Bantenese
embassy. The Bantenese had tried to persuade Ibn ʿAlān to make the long
journey to Java with them but he declined.22 Although Ibn ʿAlān was awell-known Hijazi scholar, some of whose works remain in print today, his
compositions written at the behest of the sultan of Banten, Abū l-Mafākhir,apparently only circulated in Southeast Asia, for their titles never feature inbiographical notices of Ibn ʿAlān from the Middle East, such as the detailed
one given by the seventeenth-century biographer al-Muªibbī in his Khulā‚atal-Athār.23 Perhaps most importantly for the Bantenese purposes, Ibn ʿAlān
was not just a well-known scholar, known as the muªyī al-sunna, or ‘reviverof the Prophet’s custom’, but possessed a distinguished lineage as a direct
descendant of Caliph Abū Bakr.24
In an unpublished commentary on a work on eschatology attributed to
al-Ghazālī, al-Durra al-Fākhira, Ibn ʿAlān provides a detailed account of how
the work’s composition came about, confirming the reality of the sultans’58 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is mcontacts with the Sharīfs. He starts by describing how Ghazālī’s reputation
reached Southeast Asia (Jakarta, MS A32, p. 3):
And the ʿulamāʾ of distant regions (ʿulamāʾ al-a†rāf ) became aware of
the precious fine pearls [of his writings] and wanted to copy these lights[of knowledge], and these delightful gems. The righteous, noble ʿulamāʾ
of Java, highly respected, raised a petition to their king, the noble sultan
who defends Islam and Muslims, whose task it is to spread noble justiceover the succession of the years; the glorious, fortunate Abu l-Mafākhir
ʿAbd al-Qādir [sultan of Banten]. The king contemplated and examined
then cogitated and considered; he knew that light had not been granted
to [al-Ghazālī] nor had he reached this knowledge except by the guidanceof the Prophet Muªammad, born in the Holy Land; and he realised that
this [knowledge] could not be acquired except from the family of theProphet . . .

The king therefore sought to acquire his desire, and ‘the finest man of his
age urged him to realise his desire’ – this was, Ibn ʿAlān tells us, the Sharīf ofMecca, Zayd b. Muªsin. The sultan wrote Zayd ‘a letter which asked him, of
his good grace, requesting what he wanted. His request was well-received, thatthe book entitled al-Durra al-Fākhira fī ʿUlūm al-Ākhira should be explained
to him, along with the book Na‚īªat al-Mulūk (“Advice for Kings”).’
Ibn ʿAlān then relates how the Sharif Zayd b. Muªsin chose him toundertake this task, being qualified by virtue both of caliphal descent and hislearning. The commentary on al-Durra al-Fākhira survives only in this one
manuscript, with occasional annotations in Arabic-script Javanese (pegon).
The Na‚īªat al-Mulūk, also by al-Ghazalī, was copied in Banten, and two
manuscripts of the Arabic text survive in Jakarta.25 In addition, Ibn ʿAlān supplied another work of his own composition, titled al-Mawāhib al-Rabbāniyya
ʿalā l-Asʾila al-Jāwiyya (‘The divine gifts in response to Javanese questions’).26
These questions, posed by Sultan Abū l-Mafākhir, all arise from the Na‚īªat
al-Mulūk, and al-Mawāhib al-Rabbāniyya in many ways reads like a commentary on the Na‚īªat al-Mulūk.
The Na‚īªat al-Mulūk is designed as a practical primer on how to governin accordance with Islamic precepts. Many examples of this type of ‘mirror
for princes’ are known, although some place much more emphasis on Persian

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

59

courtly traditions. The central idea of the text is that ‘the tree of faith has
ten roots and ten branches, its roots being the beliefs of the heart and its
branches actions of the body’. Al-Ghazālī outlines these ten roots of faithbut devotes most attention to the ten ‘branches’ – that is, actions, which
he illustrates with anecdotes usually drawn from early Islamic history. The
Na‚īªat al-Mulūk thus aims to show the sultan how to behave, above all how
to act with justice. Through its anecdotes, it offers something of a manual
for relatively recent converts to Islam, and its popularity in Mamluk times
suggests that its appeal for new Muslims was enduring. It is easy to see thenwhy it might have appealed to the rulers of Banten, at a time when it was stilla peripheral area of the Muslim world.
The questions that Ibn ʿAlān addresses in his al-Mawāhib al-Rabbāniyyaalso revolve around justice and, in particular, the implementation of theªudūd, divinely prescribed punishments.27 Just like al-Ghazālī, Ibn ʿAlān
draws on ªadīth and anecdotes of early Islamic history to illustrate his
points, although he occasionally also relates anecdotes concerning the
behaviour of recent Sharīfs of the Hijaz. Both the Na‚īªat al-Mulūk and
al-Mawāhib al-Rabbāniyya are thus designed as practical guides on how tobehave, and in particular how to rule as a Muslim. The very lack of mystical content in al-Durra al-Fākhira has been noted and the texts describedby its English translator as ‘presenting a series of ethical teachings that are
intended less as descriptions of the future life than as injunctions for theliving of this life in order to be ready for the Day and the Hour’.28 In a
Southeast Asian context, it has also been noted that the works of al-Ghazālī
are sometimes invoked precisely in opposition to Ibn ʿArabī and thedoctrine of waªdat al-wujūd.29
In other words, the evidence of these texts is that, for the court of Banten,
Sufism was not a source of legitimacy through esoteric doctrines. On thecontrary, the texts show a preoccupation with the sharīʿa, with the ªudūd
and with obedience to the external forms of Islam, not with metaphysicalspeculation. Moreover, Ibn ʿAlān’s testimony suggests that the mission to
Mecca was prompted ultimately by the ʿulamāʾ of Banten rather than by
their court. Nonetheless, the preservation of these texts in the palace library,sometimes in fine presentation copies, with careful Arabic vocalisation alongside pegon translations, indicates their enduring importance for the royal60 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is mcourt of Banten and suggests that they had ritual as well as purely functional
uses, perhaps for public declamation.
The key point, though, as Ibn ʿAlān underlines in his introduction to hiscommentary on al-Durra al-Fākhira, is that these texts, and their transmission from Mecca via the agency of the Sharīf and Ibn ʿAlān, served to link
them, and the dynasty of Banten, to the Prophet himself. In this context, it
is worth recalling that, as one scholar has put it, ‘Sufi Islam was a religiosityof embodied holy men who re-presented the blessing power that via genealogical memory believers traced through space and time back to the Prophet
Muhammad in Mecca.’30 When a physical holy man was lacking – or could
not be persuaded to move, as in the case of Ibn ʿAlān – texts stood in for
him and served to ‘re-present the blessing power’, hence the emphasis Ibn
ʿAlān gives to both his and the Sharīfs’ lineage. In this sense, the exampleof Banten suggests that a simple disjunction between sharīʿa for masses andSufism for the court is untenable, nor can we see these missions as simply
an attempt to raise the standards of Southeast Asian Islam by Hijazi scholars
and their sympathisers, as has been suggested.31 Rather, embracing and supporting the sharīʿa and the ªudūd as promoted by texts such as al-Mawāhibal-Rabbāniyya was a source of legitimacy, reinforcing the link to the sacred
land of the Hijaz and to the family of the Prophet that was provided by
the association with the Sharīf and Ibn ʿAlān. This is a point that we will
see more clearly in our second case, that of the itinerant Qādirī preacher
Muªammad Shams al-Dīn.
Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Late Seventeenthcentury Aceh and the Maldives
The Qādirī Sufi †arīqa, taking its name from the Prophet’s descendant ʿAbdal-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 1166), is often credited with a major role in the spreadof Islam in Southeast Asia. As early as the fourteenth century, the Arabic
author al-Yāfiʿī recalls being initiated into the Qādiriyya in Aden by a certain
Masʿūd al-Jāwī, a Southeast Asian, and al-Yāfiʿī’s Qādirī hagiographic texts
such as the Khulā‚at al-Mafākhir obtained a widespread currency in thearchipelago.32 The poems of the sixteenth-century Acehnese mystic Óamzah
Fan‚ūrī in several places mention ʿAbd al-Qādir, suggesting Óamzah’s affiliation to the Qādirī order. By the mid-eighteenth century saraka (investiture

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

61

documents issued by the sultan) from Aceh were invoking ʿAbd al-Qādir
al-Jīlānī directly after God, the Prophet and his four companions,33 while
allusions to ʿAbd al-Qādir may also be found in documents from the
Minangkabau sultanate of south Sumatra.34 The Qādiriyya may also have had
an important place in the sultanate of Banten – van Bruinessen has suggested
that the name of Sultan ʿAbd al-Qādir indicates an affiliation with the order.
Similarly affiliated to the Qādiriyya (in addition to other †arīqas such as the
Rifāʿiyya) were two of the leading figures in seventeenth-century Southeast
Asian Islam, Nūr al-Dīn al-Rānīrī (d. 1658) and Shaykh Yūsuf al-Maqassārī(1629–99).35
The careers of both al-Rānīrī and al-Maqassārī are emblematic of theinterconnected nature of the Indian Ocean world in this period, the close
association of leading ʿulamāʾ with royal power and the growing influenceof sharīʿa-minded piety. Al-Rānīrī, born in Gujarat to a Hadrami family,
made his career at the sultanate of Aceh, for whose ruler, Iskandar Thānī(r. 1636–1641), he composed a vast compilation of Arabic texts in Malaytranslation, the Bustān al-Salā†īn, which aimed at promoting acculturation toa Middle Eastern Islamic cultural ideal.36 Al-Rānīrī is notorious for launchinga campaign against the teachings of two earlier Acehnese Sufis, Óamzah
Fan‚ūrī and Shams al-Dīn al-Sumatrāni, condemning them as unbelievers(kāfir) and burning their books.37 Al-Maqassārī, meanwhile, was born into
the royal family of the kingdom of Goa in Sulawesi, and was educated in thepalace. He travelled to Banten and then Aceh, before continuing to Arabia tocomplete his education and to undertake the pilgrimage. One of his teachers
was al-Rānīrī, who inducted him into the Qādirī order.38 On al-Maqassārī’s
return to Southeast Asia, he was employed at the court of Banten and married
into the royal family. After the revolution in 1682 in which Sultan Ageng was
overthrown by the Dutch, al-Maqassārī himself was also captured. Regarding
him as a grave security risk, the Dutch exiled him, first to Ceylon then to theCape of Good Hope. Although al-Maqassārī’s travels in his later life werethus coerced, he nonetheless remained part of Muslim networks. Indeed, thedevelopment of the Qādiriyya and Rifāʿiyya Sufi orders in the Cape has been
attributed to his exile there.39
Both al-Rānīrī and al-Maqassārī emphasised a sharīʿa-minded piety,40 yet
the Qādiriyya †arīqa to which they adhered is often considered by modern

62 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is mscholarship to be in some sense opposed to sharīʿa-minded Islam. Anthony
Reid remarks that ‘An orthodox Muslim code of ethics from sixteenth-century Java warns its readers against the most popular of all the [Sufi] orders,the Kadiriyya’,41 while van Bruinessen, for instance, has noted the association between the reading of ʿAbd al-Qādir’s manāqib and the debus cult of
invulnerability involving the adept striking himself with metal spikes.42 The
Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on the Qādiriyya is also devoted almost exclusively to discussing such exotic practices.43 In this sense, the Qādiriyya may
be said to embody the tendency to view Sufism as in some sense opposed tosharīʿa. Such a view though, hardly does justice to the historical practice of
the Qādirī †arīqa, which, following ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī’s own custom,emphasised adherence to the Qur’ān and sharīʿa, as is suggested by the activities of the seventeenth-century Qādirī Sufi Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, whoforms the focus of the remainder of this chapter.
Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s career underlines the intricate relationshipbetween Sufis and royal power. To my knowledge, the sole source to discuss
him is the eighteenth-century Arabic chronicle of the Maldive Islands byÓasan Tāj al-Dīn, himself a disciple of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn. Althoughan edition of the Arabic text was published in Tokyo in 1982, the chronicle
seems to have attracted very little attention subsequently.44
Óasan Tāj al-Dīn relates that Muªammad Shams al-Dīn was originallyfrom Hama in Syria, where a famous branch of the descendants of ʿAbdal-Qādir al-Jīlānī had settled.45 We are told that he had studied at the alAzhar in Cairo, the premier institution of learning in the Arabic-speaking
world, and then travelled with his brother ˝āhā to Mocha in Yemen. From
there they went to the Coromandel coast of India and on to Sumatra. Óasan
Tāj al-Dīn recounts the circumstances of his arrival in Aceh:
He sailed from Muªammad Bandar [Parangipettai on the Coromandel
coast] to Banda Aceh. When he arrived there the people of Aceh received
him with the highest honours. As long as he was in Aceh, he used tocommand what is right and forbid what is wrong [ya’muru bi l-maʿrūf
wa-yunhī ʿan al-munkar]. Many of its notables [akābiruhu] were his disciples [murīdīn lahu], and they gave him slaves and much money. He
was brave and feared no one in abolishing things that are forbidden andt h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

63

destroying innovation [bidʿa] and in reviving the sublime practice [sunna]of the Prophet. He used to progress in the land, he and his brother carriedon two thrones, accompanied by a great green flag on the middle of which
was written the name of their ancestor Shaykh Muªyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Qādir
al-Jīlānī. Sayyid Muªammad Shams al-Dīn would only go out under a great
green parasol like a king of great rank. He continued to order what is rightand forbid what is wrong, to abolish shameful innovation and detestablewrongdoing until he heard that the Maldives were worse than Aceh interms of wrongdoing, innovation, corruption and promiscuous behaviour.
So he sailed from Banda Aceh making haste with his army of slaves anddisciples, and reached the Maldives . . . [Rabīʿi 1097/1686 ce].

Óasan Tāj al-Dīn’s account of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s activities in
Aceh draws our attention to several elements that will resurface in his moredetailed account of the Maldives. First, his account explicitly compares thisSufi’s conduct to that of a ‘king of great rank’, accompanied by his parasoland banner with the name of his illustrious ancestor; it underlines how
Shams al-Dīn derived prestige from his lineage and suggests his potential
to destabilise existing structures of rulership. In addition, the account suggests that Shams al-Dīn’s sharīʿa-minded agenda of rooting out ‘innovation’had an appeal both to the elite and the wider population. We are not told
anything more of the direct consequences of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s
visit, but it does serve to provide a context to the events that would follow
shortly in Aceh, when sixty years of female rule was brought to an end anda Hadrami sayyid dynasty was brought to power.46 Although in the earlyseventeenth century, Sultan Iskandar Muda (r. 1606–36) had attempted tocreate an autocratic monarchy in Aceh, albeit one in which the ʿulamāʾ hadsignificant influence,47 royal power there was rather weak in the second halfof the century.48 Doubts about the legitimacy of female rule under the fourqueens who reigned between 1641 and 1699 may have contributed both to
this weakness and to the subsequent Hadrami coup, and the immigration
to Aceh of Arabs with different ideas of political legitimacy may also haveundermined the queens’ position.49
The Hadrami coup was orchestrated by the Acehnese noble elites; doubtless, practical considerations may have played a part, but Tāj al-Dīn’s accountMocha

a
Sw

D
HA

st

Aden

oa

li C
hi

Medina
HIJAZ
Jeddah
Mecca

M
RA

AW

T

GU

Delhi

MuhammadBandaroastIndian Ocean

Malé

CEYLONl

Hooglydeantmr o asCo Co

THE DECCAN

Surat

RA
T

MUGHAL EMPIREJAMALDIVES

Arabian Seas

SAFAVID PERSIAM
ar C

ETHIOPIA

Suez

Hama
SYRIA
Damascus

Tabrizalab

BENGAL

Aceh

R
AT
A
BantenJAVA

Malacca

SIAM

Makassar
SULAWESIBORNEO

The travels of Sayyid Muhammad
Shams al-Dın.

M

Map 3.1 The travels of Sayyid Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, 1686–92.

EGYPT

Cairo

Mediterranean
Sea

AleppoOTTOMAN EMPIRE

IstanbulSUt h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

65also points to a thirst for sharīʿa-minded piety and leadership by a foreignerof noble, Prophetic lineage among this same constituency – the akābir (i.e.,
notables or orangkaya) who became Shams al-Dīn’s murīds. Yet Muªammad
Shams al-Dīn’s greatest effect was in the Maldives, where, in contrast, astrong monarchy under Sultan Ibrāhīm Iskandar portrayed itself as a vigorous defender of Islam. However, royal power was decisively undermined by
Muªammad Shams al-Dīn and the appeal of his sharīʿa-minded agenda andhis prestigious lineage, as we shall see. Before examining Óasan Tāj al-Dīn’s
account in more detail, however, it is worth briefly reviewing the historicalsituation in the archipelago.
The Maldives have long served as an intermediary stop on routes linking
Southeast Asia and the Middle East, although their importance seems tohave developed especially from the sixteenth century as a consequence of
the Portuguese disruption of established routes via India. The Maldivans
themselves claim Islam was brought by a twelfth-century Sufi saint from
Iran, Shams al-Dīn of Tabriz; the name points to connections both east
and west, for Shams al-Dīn is also claimed by Javanese legend as one of theforerunners of Islam in Java.50 The French traveller Pyrard de Laval visited in
the early seventeenth century, leaving an account that attests the importanceof Sufis in court and society.51 Óasan Tāj al-Dīn’s chronicle points to the late
sixteenth century as a turning point in the Islamisation of the Maldives, with
Jamal al-Din, a scholar from the main Maldivan town of Malé, returning
after studies in Hadramawt in 1573, and founding a khānqāh (Sufi lodge) of
his own at Vadu, which played a crucial role in the promotion of Islam in thearchipelago.52 Another factor in the increasing Islamisation of the Maldives
was doubtless the bitter struggle with the Portuguese in the sixteenth andearly seventeenth centuries, led by the prayer leader (kha†īb) Muªammad
Takurufānu who founded a new ruling dynasty. The struggle also intensified
the Maldives’ links across the Indian Ocean, for Aceh was an important pointfrom which the fort of Malé was supplied with munitions to defend itself
against the Portuguese, and there were important commercial connections
too between the two regions.53
These developments laid the ground for the reign of Sultan Iskandar
Ibrāhīm I (1648–1687), who styled himself ghāzī (holy warrior) and sponsored the building of mosques and the endowment of waqfs. A waqf deed for66 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

the mosque of Gan Fat-Kolu island dated 1652/3 describes the sultan in traditional Indian terms as a kshatriya, the name given to members of the warrior
elite, but its content is thoroughly Islamic, praising the destruction of pagan/
Buddhist temples and relating the glorious conversion of the Maldives underShams al-Dīn Tabrīzī.54 Indeed, in the view of the local Maldives chronicle,
Islam and military values seem to have been intertwined. Ibrāhīm studied in
his youth with a shaykh who ‘taught him the Qurʾān, the conditions of theobligatory rituals and pillars of Islam, and then the wisdom of cannon guns,arrows, the sword, shield and spear’.55 During his reign, Ibrāhīm continued
the marriage of Islamic and military values, as according to the chronicle: ‘he
was a teacher to the people of his time; from him people learned the wisdomof the sword, shield, arrows, cannon, guns and fighting, and he used to makethe ʿulamāʾ happy to teach the people knowledge [al-ʿilm], so that the landshould not be empty of ʿulamāʾ out of fear of God’s revenge’. As well as
piety, practical politics may have encouraged Ibrāhīm’s attempts to deepen
the Islamic character of the Maldives, for his relatives, the descendants of theapostate Sultan Óasan IX who converted to Christianity and fled to Goa, hadsought to topple him with Portuguese support.56
The Maldives also became ever more closely linked to the Middle Eastover the course of the seventeenth century. It was also a time of growing cosmopolitanism: ‘the port of Malé in his times was a blessed port, a harbour towhich ships from India, Aceh and other ports brought money, foodstuffs andother products’.57 Sultan Ibrāhīm himself undertook the ªajj in 1666, and his
visit to the Hijaz may have inspired the import of Arabian architectural styles,
for the chronicler notes that on his return he built a madrasa and a minaret‘in the style of Meccan minarets’.58 He undertook a further visit to the Hijaza few years later, in 1093/1683, the thirty-fifth year of his reign, visiting thetomb of the Prophet at Medina as well as Mecca for a second time.59 Perhaps
copying Middle Eastern rulers’ practice, on the death of his wife Ibrāhīm
resolved not to re-marry but instead adopted a series of concubines for hisharem.60
With his cosmopolitan Islamic horizons, it is thus natural that Sultan
Ibrāhīm should welcome the Syrian Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, with his
prestigious descent from ʿAbd al-Qādir Al-Jīlānī, when he arrived in Maléfrom Aceh in Rabīʿ I 1097/1686, as Óasan Tāj al-Dīn describes:

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

67

The sultan Ibrāhīm Iskandar lodged him in a blessed lodging, and honoured him as much as possible . . . When the sultan sat on his throne in
the court of the palace [dār al-sal†ana] he sent his ministers and soldierswith weapons and drums of honour to the sayyid, asking him to embrace
him and kiss his hand. And sayyid Muªammad came to him carried on his
throne/litter [sarīr] with his green Qādirī flag before him and the parasol
above his head, with his murīds praising his ancestors the Prophet and ʿAbdal-Qādir al-Jīlānī before him, until they put the sayyid’s throne oppositethat of the sultan.61

It was thus with the encouragement and support of the sultan that Muªammad
Shams al-Dīn started his campaign of ‘commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong, reviving the sunna, and destroying innovation, andabolishing customs contrary to Muhammadan sharīʿa in deed and word byforce and strength’.62 These included forbidding the shaving of beards and thewearing of silver belts, both of which were local customs. The latter prohibition was enforced by the sayyid’s brother ˝āhā, who with his assistants ‘would
break the belt from the middle of any man they saw wearing it, whether heliked it or not. They did this as the sayyid ordered, not distinguishing between
great and little people.’63 Women were also ordered to cover their heads andstay at home. Despite this enforcement of a fairly rigorous interpretationof the sharīʿa, we are told Sayyid Muªammad’s popularity increased, andnumerous Maldivans joined the Qādirī †arīqa. Next, Sayyid Muªammad
directly challenged Sultan Ibrāhīm, writing to him that:
God created you, raised you, gave you kingship and entrusted you with theaffairs of the Muslims. You were preoccupied, however, with other affairs,
and were concerned with seizing their money by plunder and expropriation,and you have appointed corrupt viziers and adopted oppressive assistants,
and have strengthened them in oppressing God’s servants. You did notlisten to the complaint of the oppressed but you prevented them fromentering into your presence, and you veiled those in need from yourself.
You rendered the mosques inactive with your seizure of their endowmentsof land and date palms, and prevented free women from marriage, and did
not marry them but demanded they become your prostitutes . . .64

68 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

The sultan, unsurprisingly, reacted with fury (ishtaddat ªamiyyatuhual-jāhiliyya), attempting to ban the populace from frequenting the sayyid.
This was, however, to no effect for, we are told, ‘they listened to [Muªammad
Shams al-Dīn’s] advice and entered his †arīqa and loved him very much, andthey continued to attend the sayyid every Friday and Monday for Qādirī rituals’.65 One of his adepts was the sultan’s nephew, with whom he was staying,
and whom the sayyid proclaimed to be the true sultan. Evidently, however,the Maldives became sufficiently uncomfortable that Muªammad decided
to leave for Hoogly (Calcutta) – other branches of the al-Jīlānīs were alreadyestablished in India,66 which may have made it an attractive location for him
to continue his work.
Upon the holy man’s departure, the sultan instituted the persecutionof the Qādiriyya. However, shortly afterwards the sultan died of poisoningat the hands of his senior concubine (umm walad), Mariyam.67 A period of
turbulence followed, as his son, Sultan Muªammad, was only six years old,and power ended up in the hands of the umm walad Mariyam – who wasvehemently denounced by Óasan Tāj al-Dīn as a pleasure-loving fornicator
who sought to corrupt the morals of the people and royal family. Sultan
Ibrāhīm’s nephew (also called Muªammad) nevertheless remained faithful tothe teachings of his murshid, Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, and was imprisoned
for resisting her. A number of ʿulamāʾ fled to India or Arabia, including thehistorian Óasan Tāj al-Dīn himself, while his shaykh, al-Kha†īb Muªammad
Sirāj al-Dīn, was grievously persecuted by the umm walad’s regime.68
Eventually, the umm walad and her son Sultan Muªammad died in a fire in
1102/1691. The nobility then bestowed the throne on Muªammad Shams
al-Dīn’s disciple, Sultan Ibrāhīm’s nephew Muªammad, with the regnal title
Muªyī al-Dīn. On gaining power, the latter immediately summoned hismurshid from Hoogly, writing to him that ‘The kingdom of the Maldives ismine, just as you predicted when you sat in my house; now I desire to see
your blessed face, come in the next sailing season.’69
In his brief reign, Muªyī al-Dīn sought to follow the example of his
mentor by imposing Islamic law and trying to abolish local habits that were
contrary to it. However, he died after only a year. Óasan Tāj al-Dīn recounts
what happened next:

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

69

When Sultan Muªammad Muªyī al-Dīn was buried next to his uncle
Sultan Muªammad son of Sultan Iskandar [Ibrāhīm] by the congregationalmosque, Sayyid Muªammad [Shams al-Dīn] proclaimed to them that, ‘I
am entitled to the succession/caliphate [mustaªiqq al-khilāfa], you should
not give oaths of obedience to anyone but me. For I am at your head in
accordance with the Prophetic ªadīth, “Let the Quraysh lead [do not leadthem] (qaddimū qurayshan al-ªadīth).”’ Then they sought out the sayyid
and gave oaths of obedience to him and seated him on the throne of kingship, and he took the title Sultan Muªammad al-Sayyid Shams al-Dīn, andthe oaths were given to him at the beginning of Jumada II 1103 [February1692]. And he undertook the duties of the khilāfa perfectly, and was agenerous, prudent king, and a noble, great, knowledgeable, virtuous, just,pious, and ascetic sultan. He ordered what is right and forbade what iswrong, and abolished customs contrary to sharīʿa . . . He preached to thepeople every night between ʿishā and maghrib prayers, and after ʿishā hetaught Qā∂ī Muªammad, the Kha†īb Muªammad Sirāj al-Dīn and Óasan
Tāj al-Dīn fiqh, grammar and other sciences.70

Even in the sympathetic account of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s pupil Óasan
Tāj al-Dīn, it is clear that adherence to Islamic law had to be imposed byforce. Óasan describes how his teacher:sent him out every Friday with the qadi’s assistants and a troop of soldiers
to go around the streets of the town to command what is right and forbid
what is wrong and to command the people to gather together to undertakethe prescribed prayers at the first opportunity, and to reprimand anyone
who opposed him. [He ordered him] to bring him anyone who failed toperform the prescribed prayers so that he could kill him with the shining
sword of sharīʿa.71

As under Sultan Ibrāhīm, Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s efforts to enforce
the sharīʿa had to be accompanied by force. Coercion was a vital elementin propagating sharīʿa-minded piety in the Maldives, as elsewhere in the
expanding Muslim world of the seventeenth century.
Muªammad Shams al-Dīn did not rule for long, dying after only six
months. On his death he was afforded the signal honour of burial next to70 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

the tomb of the apostle to the Maldives, Shams al-Dīn of Tabriz. As he did
not leave any descendants, only marrying Muªyī al-Dīn’s widow on his
deathbed, he did not found a dynasty. Nonetheless, his prestige is reflected in
the fact that his regnal title was adopted by two subsequent sultans,72 and thaton his death the nobles of Malé again sought to appoint a religious leader,
the Kha†īb Muªammad, as sultan. Although the Kha†īb refused, eventually a qā∂ī, Muªammad, was appointed as ruler, the first of the new Isdu
dynasty. Muªammad did have some distant royal ancestry as a descendantof Muªammad Takurufanu (r. 1573–85), the leader of the sixteenth-century
struggle against the Portuguese,73 who had also been a kha†īb – anotherindication of the extent to which the religious and royal establishments wereintertwined.
Óasan Tāj al-Dīn’s account of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn’s activities
clearly must be treated with a certain degree of circumspection: the author
was a student of, and clearly sympathetic to, the sayyid. Nonetheless, it doessuggest several features to which we have alluded in the first part of the chapter. First, the sort of Sufism being espoused by this Qādirī was clearly sharīʿaorientated, and appealed both to and beyond the royal court. Although
the universal adoption of this rigorous piety was evidently secured only byforce, the chronicle repeatedly emphasises the popular appeal of Muªammad
Shams al-Dīn, while his conversion of the youthful future Sultan Muªyī
al-Dīn and the fact of his own apparently unchallenged rise to power suggests that he also won over the elite. Secondly, the chronicler underlines
the importance of genealogy, in particular Prophetic descent, in providing
a new form of legitimacy that could trump existing political structures: note
how Muªammad Shams al-Dīn even included his title of sayyid in his regnal
laqab, underlining this point, as well as drawing on the authority of ªadīth in
his speech claiming the right to rule.
Sultan Ibrāhīm Iskandar’s reign featured an attempt to turn the Maldivesinto an Islamic monarchy based on Middle Eastern patterns, suggested by avariety of reforms and innovations: the endowment of waqfs; the building ofMeccan-style minarets; the abolition of sultanic marriage and the introduction of concubinage (polygyny being almost unknown in the Maldives);74 andthe consequent institution of umm walad. Yet far from securing the ruler’s
position as an autocrat (if that was the intention), bringing the Maldives

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

71closer in line with the Middle East had precisely the opposite effect, undermining the legitimacy of royal power and reminding the inhabitants thatthe thing they really lacked was a ruler of Qurayshi descent. Muªammad
Shams al-Dīn’s challenge to Ibrāhīm seems to have been rooted not in any
fundamental difference of approach, but rather in the fact that the holy man,with his distinguished lineage, more precisely embodied the Islamic values
that the sultan had spent his reign promoting than the sultan himself did.
Conclusion
The story of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn and his coup reminds us of the
figure of the ‘stranger-king’, well known to the historiography of Southeast
Asia. However, studies have tended to emphasise the ability of such strangers
to seize power as resting in their ability to form marriage alliances withlocal elites and to impress the populace by performing impressive feats ofmagic.75 In common with many of these stranger-kings Muªammad Shams
al-Dīn boasts his own prestigious sayyid lineage. However, his ancestor ʿAbdal-Qādir al-Jīlānī seems to have played an almost equally important role as
his sayyid status. In both Aceh and the Maldives, Muªammad Shams al-Dīn
is paraded around under the great green banner with ʿAbd al-Qādir’s nameinscribed on it. His reception indicates that the name was already known andprestigious in both locations, suggesting perhaps a rather broader diffusionof the Qādirī †arīqa in the Indian Ocean in the seventeenth century thanis sometimes admitted, and indeed the popular appeal of the cosmopolitan
networks of Sufis that linked the Indian Ocean world to the Middle East.
This Sufi and sharīʿa-minded religiosity appealed to the elite, but also
more widely, and rather than Sufism offering a way of combining pre-Islamic
and Islamic practices and legitimising traditional royal power in Islamic
terms, this chapter has suggested that on occasion we can see it achieving
almost the opposite. Through sharīʿa-orientated Sufi texts and holy men,
Indian Ocean courts sought to link themselves to the Hijaz and to theProphetic sunna. In Banten, the texts stood in for the absent holy man, Ibn
ʿAlān, but by virtue of being composed by a scholar of Caliphal descent,served to bestow some measure of their baraka on the royal court, as isindicated by the careful copies made of them in the eighteenth century. Yet,as Ibn ʿAlān states, this was ultimately a project of local, Bantenese origin,

72 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

not the initiative of Óaramayn scholars. It was by emulating the practices ofkings as laid down by al-Ghazālī, as implemented by the Sharīfs of Mecca
and as interpreted and explained by Ibn ʿAlān that the sultans of Banten
aspired to assert their legitimacy. In our second case, the holy man in person
is embraced and honoured by Sultan Ibrāhīm Iskandar, doubtless seeking toharness him for his own purposes of building a Middle Eastern-style monarchy in the Maldives. Yet this project rebounded against the sultan, suggestingthat this emergent sharīʿa-orientated piety had a popular purchase that in fact
allowed it to undermine traditional power structures, as is also suggested by
the sayyid coups in both the Maldives and Aceh at the close of the seventeenth
century. (The case of Banten is rather different as royal power was sapped byeffectively being made into a Dutch protectorate in the same period).76
Finally, it is worth noting that this phenomenon of a rising sharīʿaorientated piety is of broader currency in the seventeenth-century Muslim
world, often with similar consequences. The Ottoman Empire was convulsed
for much of the seventeenth century by the partisans of the sharīʿa-minded
Kadızadeli movement, whose leaders achieved great influence in the palace– and the period is noted for the dissipation of sultanic power.77 In Safavid
Iran, the late seventeenth century sees the growth of an increasingly powerful clerical movement led by Muªammad Bāqir Majlisī (d. 1699), which
dominated the court and politics; this clerical dominance has often been
attributed with a decisive role in the fall of the dynasty.78 In India, too, thelast great ruler of the Mughal dynasty, Aurangzeb, is generally thought tohave espoused a much more sharīʿa-orientated piety than his predecessors.79
Whether the occurrence of these comparable phenomena in these disparate
places is not coincidental or needs further research, Sufi networks certainly
seem to have ensured that Islam’s frontier in the Indian Ocean world wasincreasingly integrated into the broader Muslim world and its political andreligious trends.
Acknowledgement
I am very grateful to the editors of this volume, Michael Feener and Joshua
Gedacht, as well as to Annabel Teh Gallop and Alan Strathern for comments
on earlier drafts of this chapter.

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n

|

73

Notes
1. Green, Nile, ‘Saints, Rebels, Booksellers: Sufis in the Cosmopolitan Western
Indian Ocean, ca. 1780–1920’, in Edward Simpson and Kai Kresse (eds),
Struggling with History: Islam and Cosmopolitanism in the Western Indian Ocean(London: Hurst, 2007), p. 159; for an example of the connection between
Sufism, scholarship and travel in one †arīqa, see Le Gall, Dina, A Culture of
Sufism: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450–1700 (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2007), pp. 17–23, 169–75; and in general on
travel and piety in Islam, see the essays in Eickelman, Dale F. and James Piscatori(eds), Muslim Travelers: Pilgrimage, Migration, and the Religious Imagination(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990).
2. See, for instance, Ricklefs, M. C., Mystic Synthesis in Java: a History of Islamizationfrom the Fourteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries (Norwalk, CT: Eastbridge,2006), esp. pp. 21–2.
3. For a discussion and critique of various conceptions of cosmopolitanism in thefield, see Hanley, Will, ‘Grieving Cosmopolitanism in Middle East Studies’,
History Compass 6(5) (2008): 1346–67.
4. See, for instance, Letvzion, Nehemia, ‘Toward a Comparative Study ofIslamization’, in Nehemia Levtzion (ed.), Conversion to Islam (New York:
Holmes & Meier, 1979), pp. 16–18. For ideas of syncretism in more recent
scholarship, see, for example, Green, Nile, Sufism: A Global History (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 102–3, and see also the discussion by
Simon Kemper, Chapter 4, this volume.
5. Prange, Sebastian R., ‘Like banners on the Sea: Muslim Trade Networks andIslamization in Malabar and Maritime Southeast Asia’, in R. Michael Feener
and Terenjit Sevea (eds), Islamic Connections: Muslim Societies in South andSoutheast Asia (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), pp. 36–7,
citing Parkin, David, ‘Inside and Outside the Mosque: A Master Trope’, in D.
Parkin and S. C. Headley (eds), Islamic Prayer across the Indian Ocean: Inside andOutside the Mosque (Richmond: Curzon, 2000), p. 3.
6. Green, Sufism, p. 126. For this reason, in this chapter I deliberately do not makethe distinction between ʿulamāʾ and Sufis that we find in some scholarship;
if certainly not all Sufis were ʿulamāʾ, yet in one sense or another almost allʿulamāʾ were Sufis. See also note 77 below.
7. See, for instance, the comments in Simpson, Edward and Kai Kresse,‘Cosmopolitanism Contested: Anthropology and History in the Western Indian

74 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

Ocean’, in Edward Simpson and Kai Kresse (eds), Struggling with History: Islamand Cosmopolitanism in the Western Indian Ocean (London: Hurst, 2007), p.
13, and for a more detailed critique of reductive ideas of cosmopolitanism, seeHanley, ‘Grieving Cosmopolitanism’.
8. For a discussion of some of these links, see Azra, Azyumardi, The Origins ofIslamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of Malay–Indonesian and MiddleEastern ʿulamāʾ in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press, 2004); Tschacher, Torsten, ‘Circulating Islam:
Understanding Convergence and Divergence in the Islamic Tradition ofMaʿbar and Nusantara’, in R. Michael Feener and Terenjit Sevea (eds), Islamic
Connections: Muslim Societies in South and Southeast Asia (Singapore: Instituteof Southeast Asian Studies, 2009), pp. 48–67; Laffan, Michael, The Makings ofIndonesian Islam: Orientalism and the Narration of a Sufi Past (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2011), esp. ch. 1.
9. Green, Sufism, pp. 155–6.
10. Simpson and Kresse, ‘Cosmopolitanism Contested’, p. 3, for quotation andsee further discussion on pp. 24–6; cf. Hanley, ‘Grieving Cosmopolitanism’,pp.1346–7.
11. Green, Nile, Making Space: Sufis and Settlers in Early Modern India (NewDelhi: Oxford University Press, 2012); Eaton, Richard, The Rise of Islam andthe Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
1993); Barkan, Ömer Lüfti, ‘İstila devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve
Zaviyeleri’, Vakıf Dergisi 2 (1942): 279–353.
12. See Masters, Bruce, The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire 1516–1918: a Social andCultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 114–20.
13. See Gibson, Thomas, Islamic Narrative and Authority in Southeast Asia: From the16th to the 21st Century (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), ch. 2; Milner, A.
C., ‘Islam and the Muslim State’, in M. B. Hooker (ed.), Islam in Southeast Asia
(Leiden: Brill, 1983), pp. 23–49.
14. Van Bruinessen, Martin, ‘The Origins and Development of Sufi Orders (tarekat)
in Southeast Asia’, Studia Islamika: Indonesian Journal for Islamic Studies 1(1)(1994): 1–23.
15. Azra, Azyumardi, ‘Opposition to Sufism in the East Indies in the Seventeenthand Eighteenth Centuries’, in Frederick de Jong and Bernd Radtke (eds), Islamic
Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics (Leiden:
Brill, 1999), pp. 665–86.
16. Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, p. 24.

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

75

17. The description of Aceh by the secretary to the seventeenth-century Iranianembassy to Siam starts off by praising the wealth of the place but soon moves
on to describe it as an alien and remarkable land, remarking how ‘the kingand people have a very strange sense of morals and proper behaviour . . . On
the island of Aceh stealing is most common and this basic flaw of character
has infected all the inhabitants, young and old.’ Moreover Aceh is described
as equipped with wonders such as a booming mountain. Likewise, while theMaldives is reported to have a Muslim king who seats his Qur’ān on an amber
throne, the author remarks that ‘they do their trading with various bits ofbroken sherds’ (The Ship of Sulaiman, trans. J. O’Kane (London: Routledge,1972), pp. 177, 178, 225).
18. On Aceh–Banten links, see Lieberman, Victor, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia
in Global Context, vol. 2: Mainland Mirrors. Europe, Japan, China, South Asia,and the Islands (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 849–50;
Kathirithamby-Wells, J., ‘Banten: A West Indonesian Port and Polity’, in J.
Kathirithamby-Wells and John Villiers (eds), The Southeast Asian Port and Polity(Singapore: National University of Singapore, 1990), pp. 107–25, esp. p. 117.
On the Maldivian connection to Aceh, which at times also seems to havebeen political, see Maloney, Clarence, People of the Maldive Islands (Hyderabad:
Orient Blacksong, 2013), pp. 111–14, also n. 53 below.
19. This is not, of course, to suggest that contemporaries thought specifically ofa Middle East; yet disparate influences such as the prestige of Ottoman royal
power, of the holy cities of Arabia, of descent from the Prophet, and of Persian
culture and even literature, which were to make themselves felt in Southeast Asiaand other parts of the Indian Ocean world in this period are most conveniently
summed up under this neologism.
20. For an overview, see van Bruinessen, Martin, ‘Shariʿa Court, Tarekat andPesantren: Religious Institutions in the Sultanate of Banten’, Archipel 50 (1995):
165–99; and also Yakin, Ayang Utriza, ‘Undhang-Undhang Bantěn: a 17th- to
18th-century Legal Compilation of the Qadi Court of the Sultanate of Bantěn’,Indonesia and the Malay World 44(130) (2016): 365–88.
21. Van Bruinessen, ‘Shariʿa Court’, p. 193, n. 10, for the proposed identity of thesethree treatises. Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, p. 17, with further references; Djajadiningrat, Hosein, Critische Beschouwing van de Sedjarah Banten(Haarlem: Joh. Enschiedé en zonen, 1913), pp. 50–1.
22. Djajadiningrat, Critische Beschouwing, p. 50.
23. Al-Muªibbī, Khulā‚at al-Āthār fi Aʿyān al-Qarn al-Óādī ʿAshar, ed. Muªammad

76 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is mÓasan Ismāʿīl (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2006), vol. 4, pp. 183–8;
for further references, consult al-Hayla, Muªammad al-Óabīb, al-Ta’rīkh wa’l-

Mu’arrikhūn bi-Makka (London: Mu’assasat al-Furqān, 1994), pp. 314–30.
24. Al-Muªibbī, Khulāsat al-Āthār, vol. 1, pp. 185–6; vol. 4, p. 183. His uncle wasalso a well-known Naqshbandi, known as the ʿimām al-ta‚awwuf fī zamānihi’(ibid., vol. 1, p. 186), and this may have provided a further link to the Banten
court, where the Naqshbandi †arīqa was much in vogue (on this point, see vanBruinessen, ‘Shariʿa Court’, pp. 178–80).
25. National Library, Jakarta, MSS A102 and A103.
26. National Library, Jakarta, MS A105. For a more detailed discussion of thistext, see Tim Peneliti, ‘Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin’ Banten, ‘Al-Mawahib
ar-Rabbaniyah ‘An Al-As’ilah al-Jawiyah dan Etika Kekuasaan’, in Fadhal A. R.
Bafadal and Asap Saefullah (eds), Naskah Klasik Kegamaan Nusantara: Cerminan
Budaya Bangsa II (Jakarta: Pulitbang Lektur Keagamaan Badan Litbang dan
Diklat, 2006), pp. 55–96.
27. Also on the ªudūd in Banten, see Yakin, ‘Undhang-Undhang Bantěn’, pp.
382–83.
28. Smith, Jane Idleman, The Precious Pearl: a Translation from the Arabic(Cambridge: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 8–9.
29. Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, pp. 9–10; cf. Azra, ‘Opposition to
Sufism’, pp. 671, 682.
30. Green, Making Space, p. 1.
31. Azra writes that Sultan Abū l-Mafākhir ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘had a special interest in
religious matters; he sent inquiries about religious matters not only to al-Raniri
but also to scholars in the Óaramayn, which resulted in special works being
written by those scholars, answering his questions. As a result, Banten became
known as one of the most important Islamic centres on Java’, The Origins ofIslamic Reformism, p. 89. Of his son Sultan Ageng, Azra writes that ‘he had a
special interest in religion’ (ibid., p. 98).
32. Feener, R. Michael and Michael F. Laffan, ‘Sufi Scents across the Indian Ocean:
Yemeni Hagiography and the Earliest History of Southeast Asian Islam’, Archipel
70 (2005):185–208.
33. Gallop, Annabel Teh, ‘Sultanah Tajul ‘Alam’s tarakata of 1666: the Earliest
Known Original Royal Decree from Aceh’, in M. Hasbi Amiruddin,
Kamaruzzaman Bustaman-Ahmad and Baiquni (eds),Yusny Saby Sang Motivator:
menelusuri karakter pemimpin jujur dan ikhlas dalam membangun umat (Banda
Aceh: Lembaga Studi Agama dan Masyarakat Aceh, 2009), p. 319.

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

77

34. Gallop, Annabel Teh, ‘Royal Minangkabau Seals: Disseminating Authority in
Malay Borderlands’, Indonesia and the Malay World 43(126) (2015): 284.
35. Van Bruinessen, Martin, ‘Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qadir al-Jilani and the Qadiriyya
in Indonesia’, Journal of the History of Sufism 1/2 (2000): 362–5, 367; also
Gibson, Islamic Narrative and Authority, pp. 55, 60–3. The Leiden collection ofmanuscripts from Banten, many of which also have a royal connection, contains
the following manuscripts that deal with the Qādiriyya in some form: Or 5601,
Or 5658, Or 5660, Or 5669, Or 5701.
36. On al-Rānīrī and the contents of the Bustan al-Salā†īn, see Wormser, Paul,Le Bustan al-Salā†īn de Nuruddin ar-Raniri: réflexions sur le rôle culturel d’unétranger dans le monde malais au XVIIe siècle (Paris: Cahiers d’Archipel, 2012),
p. 41.
37. al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naguib, Rānīrī and the Wujūdiyyah of 17th Century
Acheh (Singapore: Monographs of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1966), pp. 14–17; Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism, pp. 66–9;
Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, pp. 12–17.
38. On this point, see Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism, pp. 66, 89; also see
Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, p. 248, n. 61.
39. On Maqassāri’s travels and career, see Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism, pp.
87–108; Ward, Kerry, Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East
India Company (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 199–208,
231–6; Laffan, The Makings of Indonesian Islam, pp. 19–22.
40. Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism, pp. 66–7, 107–8.
41. Reid, Anthony, ‘The Islamization of Southeast Asia’, in Anthony Reid, Charting
the Shape of Early Modern Southeast Asia (Chiang-Mai: Silkworm Books, 2000),
p. 20.
42. Van Bruinessen, ‘Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qadir’, pp. 374–5.
43. D. S. Margoliouth, ʿK ādiriyya’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn (Brill
˙
online), available at: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclo​pae​
dia-of-islam-2.
44. Yajima, Hikoichi (ed.), Óasan Tāj al-Dīn’s The Islamic History of the Maldive
Islands (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of the Languages and Cultures of Asia
and Africa, 1982), (hereafter Óasan Tāj al-Dīn, History). The History was summarised in English by Bell in his classic study: Bell, H. C. P., The Maldive
Islands: Monograph on the History, Archaeology and Epigraphy (Malé: Novelty
Printers and Publishers, 2002; originally Colombo: Ceylon Government Press,
1940), pp. 18–43. However, the activities of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn are78 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is mtreated only very scantly in this summary. Unfortunately, the chronicle is thesole narrative source for many aspects of Maldivian history, including the activities of Muªammad Shams al-Dīn, so it is not possible to compare its information against other sources.
45. Although both the earlier and later history of the Hama Jīlānīs is well known, theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries represent something of a black hole. See
Khenchelaoui, Zaïm and Thierry Zarcone, ‘La famille Jîlânî de Hamâ (Syrie):
Bayt al-Jîlânî’, Journal of the History of Sufism 1/2 (2000): 53–77.
46. Khan, Sher Banu A. L., Sovereign Women in a Muslim Kingdom: the Sultanahs ofAceh, 1641–1699 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2017), pp. 248–53.
47. Takeshi, Ito, ‘The World of the Adat Aceh: a Historical Study of the Sultanate of
Aceh’, PhD thesis, Australian National University, 1984, pp. 248–62.
48. Takeshi, ‘The World of the Adat Aceh’, pp. 31–2, 66–8. For a different interpretation see Khan, Sovereign Women, p. 226, who argues that the consensual styleof rulership practised by Aceh’s queens accorded with Malay tradition and was asign of exemplary behaviour. Nonetheless, Khan does agree that the exercise of
power by the queens was qualitatively different that that practised by rulers suchas Iskandar Muda; cf. Khan, Sovereign Women, pp. 247, 255–6.
49. Khan, Sovereign Women, pp. 251–3.
50. Djajadiningrat, Critische Beschouwing, pp. 188–97; see also Kalus, Luvik and
Claude Gilliot, ‘Inscriptions islamiques en arabe de l’archipel des Maldives’,
Archipel 70 (2005): 15–52, at pp. 39–40. A conflation with Shams al-Dīn
al-Tabrīzī, the great companion of Rūmī, has prompted suggestions that Sufism
in the Maldives was Mevlevi in orientation (see also n. 51 below). It seems
unlikely, however, that this aristocratic Ottoman order, which had a limited
presence outside Anatolia, would have spread to the Maldives.
51. de Castro, Xavier (ed.), Voyage de Pyrard de Laval aux Indes orientales (1601–
1611), vol. 1 (Paris: Chandeigne, 1998), pp. 163–5; Nasheed, Mohamed,
Maldives: a Historical Overview of the Traditional Dhivehi Polity, 1800–1900(Malé: Orient Academic Centre, 2003), pp. 51–6.
52. Nasheed, Maldives, pp. 47–69; Óasan Tāj al-Dīn, History, vol. 1, p. 24.
53. Óasan Tāj al-Dīn, History, vol. 1, p. 28; further on trade links between Aceh andthe Maldives, see Takeshi, ‘The World of the Adat Aceh’, pp. 332–3 nn. 141,
144, p. 429, n. 29.
54. Bell, The Maldive Islands, pp. 190–3. Formulas praising the ruler as a kshatriya(an Indic term denoting a warrior) continued to be used in Maldivan waqf documents into the twentieth century. See Ahmed Nazim Sattar, King Kalaafaan

t h e se venteenth-century i ndi a n o ce a n|

79

Manuscripts (Malé: National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research,2009), pp. 67, 68, 70. I am very grateful to Michael Feener for providing mewith a copy of this publication. Cf. the discussion of the term ghāzī by Simon
Kemper in Chapter 4, this volume.
55. Óasan Tāj al-Dīn, History, vol. 1, p. 29.
56. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 30.
57. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 30–1.
58. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 32: thumma ibtada’a binā’ al-mināra wa banā hādhihi al-mināra
fi uslūb al-manābir al-makiyya.
59. Ibid..
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 35.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 36.
65. Ibid.
66. Khenchelaoui and Zarcone, ‘La famille’, p. 71; Buehler, Arthur, ‘The IndoPakistani Qadiriyya: An Overview’, Journal of the History of Sufism 1/2 (2000):
339–60, at pp. 345–53.
67. Óasan Tāj al-Dīn, History, vol. 1, p. 37.
68. Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 39–40.
69. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 44.
70. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 45.
71. Ibid.
72. Shams al-Dīn Muªammad II (r. 1773–4); Shams al-Dīn Muªammad III (1893,
1903–1934). See Bell, The Maldive Islands.
73. Bell, The Maldive Islands, pp. 27, 33.
74. Maloney, People of the Maldive Islands, pp. 336, 342.
75. See, for example, Kathirathamby-Wells, Jeyamalar, ‘“Strangers” and “Strangerkings”: the Stranger-king in Eighteenth-century Southeast Asia’, Journal ofSoutheast Asian Studies 40 (2009): 567–91.
76. Cf. Kemper’s discussion of the power of karamat at the court of Mataram,
Chapter 4, this volume.
77. On the Kadızadelis and their Sufi links, see Le Gall, Diana, ‘Kadızadelis,
Naksbendis and Intra-Sufi Diatribe in Seventeenth-century Istanbul’, Turkish
Studies Association Journal 27 (2004): 1–28. For the circulation of texts by
the proto-Kadızadeli Ottoman author Birgevi in Southeast Asia (Sumatra), see80 |cha lleng i ng cosmo p o l ita n is m

Fathurahman, Oman, ‘New Textual Evidence for Intellectual and Religious
Connections between the Ottomans and Aceh’, in A. C. S. Peacock and Annabel
Teh Gallop (eds), From Anatolia to Aceh: Ottomans, Turks and Southeast Asia
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 306–7.
78. Matthee, Rudi, Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan (London:
I. B. Tauris, 2011), pp. 201–2, 248.
79. Pirbhai, M. Reza, Reconsidering Islam in a South Asian Context (Leiden: Brill,2009), pp. 91–116.