Schweizerische Asiengesellschaft Société Suisse-Asie Asiatische Studien Études Asiatiques LXVII · 3 · 2013 Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft Revue de la Société Suisse – Asie Offprint Peter Lang Bern·Berlin·Bruxelles ·FrankfurtamMain·New York·Oxford·Wien ASIATISCHE STUDIEN / ÉTUDES ASIATIQUES Herausgeber dieser Nummer / Editeurs de ce numéro / Editors of this number Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (Bern), Anke von Kügelgen (Bern) Redaktionelle Mitarbeit / Rédacteurs assistants / Assistant editors: – Beirat / Comité éditorial / Editorial Board Roland Altenburger (Würzburg) – Katajun Amirpur (Zürich) – Norman Backhaus (Zürich) – Johannes Bronkhorst (Lausanne) – Maya Burger (Lausanne) – David Chiavacci (Zürich) – Bettina Dennerlein (Zürich) – Andreas Kaplony (München) – Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (Bern) – Felix Konrad (Kiel) – Eduard Klopfenstein (Zürich) – Anke von Kügelgen (Bern) – Angelika Malinar (Zürich) – Silvia Naef (Genève) – Andrea Riemenschnitter (Zürich) – Markus Ritter (Wien) – Ulrich Rudolph (Zürich) – Gregor Schoeler (Basel) – Reinhard Schulze (Bern) – Raji C. Steineck (Zürich) – Christoph Uehlinger (Zürich) – Nicolas Zufferey (Genève) Sekretariat – Information – Mitgliedschaft / Secrétariat – Renseignements – Adhésion / Office – Information – Membership: Prof. em. Dr. Robert H. Gassmann; Euelstrasse 76; CH-8408 Winterthur; Switzerland E-Mail: [email protected] / Internet: www.sagw.ch/asiengesellschaft Leitbild der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft am Ende der Nummer / Principe Directeur de la Société Suisse-Asie à la fin du numéro / Mission Statement of the Swiss Asia Society at the end of the number Die Zeitschrift Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques erscheint vier Mal pro Jahr. Publikationssprachen sind in der Regel Deutsch, Französisch und Englisch. Manuskripte sind beim Sekretariat einzureichen. Alle Beiträge werden durch Fachgutachter(innen) geprüft. Richtlinien zur Gestaltung der Manuskripte können vom Sekretariat angefordert werden. La revue Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques paraît quatre fois par année. Les langues de publication sont en principe l’allemand, le français ou l’anglais. Les manuscrits sont à envoyer au secrétariat; ils sont soumis à l’appréciation de spécialistes du domaine. Les directives quant à la forme des manuscrits peuvent être demandées au secrétariat. The journal Asiatische Studien/Études asiatiques is published quarterly. In principle, articles are printed in German, French, or English. Manuscripts should be sent to the office. All articles are submitted to peer review. Instructions for the style of articles can be requested from the office. Anschrift des Verlages: Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern Telefon +41 31 306 17 17, Fax +41 31 306 17 27 E-Mail: [email protected] / Internet: www.peterlang.net Einzelhefte und Abonnemente der Zeitschrift können beim Verlag bezogen werden. Vente de numéros individuels ou des abonnements auprès de la maison d’édition. Requests for individual numbers of the journal or subscriptions to be addressed to the publishers. Peter Lang Bern · Berlin · Bruxelles · Frankfurt am Main · New York · Oxford · Wien ISSN 0004-4717 © Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Bern 2013 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Schweiz [email protected], www.peterlang.com Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Hungary INHALTSVERZEICHNIS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES CONTENTS Aufsätze – Articles – Articles KIRILL ALEKSEEV / ANNA TURANSKAYA ............................................................................. 755 An overview of the Altan Kanjur kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia DANIEL BEROUNSKÝ ........................................................................................................................ 783 Bon religion in 11th–12th century Amdo: A case of Kyangphag Mula Drungmu (sKyang ’phags mu la drung mu) ALFRID K. BUSTANOV / MICHAEL KEMPER ......................................................................... 809 Valiulla Iakupov’s Tatar Islamic Traditionalism DEVIN DEWEESE ................................................................................................................................ 837 Earliest reference to Ahmad Yasavi KARÉNINA KOLLMAR-PAULENZ ................................................................................................ 881 A Mongolian Zungdui volume from the Ernst Collection (Switzerland) ANKE VON KÜGELGEN ..................................................................................................................... 927 ‘Progressiver Islam’ im ausgehenden Zarenreich: Das Plädoyer des St. Petersburger Imams und Regierungsbeamten Ataulla Bajazitov (1846– 1911) für die Partizipation der Muslime an der modernen Zivilisation SHAHNOZA NOZIMOVA / TIM EPKENHANS ........................................................................... 965 Negotiating Islam in Emerging Public Spheres in Contemporary Tajikistan Rezensionsaufsatz – Compte rendu – Review article DOMINIC STEAVU .............................................................................................................................. 991 “Taking Form in Response to Stimulus”: Recent Publications in Taoist Studies – A Field in Motion AS/EA LXVII•3•2013 754 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS – TABLE DES MATIÈRES – CONTENTS Rezensionen – Comptes rendus – Reviews REY CHOW ......................................................................................................................................... 1013 Entanglements, or Transmedial Thinking about Capture. (Andrea Riemenschnitter) WIEBKE DENECKE .......................................................................................................................... 1018 The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi. (Ralph Weber) ARIANE KNÜSEL ............................................................................................................................... 1024 Framing China. Media Images and Political Debates in Britain, the USA and Switzerland, 1900-1950. (Nicola Spakowski) GEORG LEHNER ................................................................................................................................ 1030 China in European Encyclopaedias, 1700–1850. (Marc Winter) PETER LORGE (ED.) ........................................................................................................................ 1034 Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms. (LIN Hang) DONALD F. MCCALLUM .............................................................................................................. 1038 Hakuhō Sculpture. (Tomoe Steineck) CHRISTIAN SOFFEL / HOYT CLEVELAND TILLMAN ....................................................... 1043 Cultural Authority and Political Culture in China: Exploring Issues with the Zhongyong and the Daotong during the Song, Jin and Yuan Dynasties. (Viatcheslav Vetrov) Autoren – Auteurs – Authors .................................................................................................... 1053 AS/EA LXVII•3•2013 AḤMAD YASAVĪ IN THE WORK OF BURHĀN AL-DĪN QÏLÏCH: THE EARLIEST REFERENCE TO A FAMOUSLY OBSCURE CENTRAL ASIAN SUFI SAINT Devin DeWeese,Indiana University Abstract1 A recently published Persian Sufi work by a 13th-century Central Asian shaykh of the Farghāna valley known as Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch includes the earliest known reference to Khwāja Aḥmad Yasavī, a prominent Sufi who is associated especially with the Turks of Central Asia, but whose life and Sufi career were not widely recounted in extant sources until the 16th century; the brief account supports the supposition that despite the many different roles assigned to Aḥmad Yasavī in later tradition, it was chiefly as a Sufi shaykh that he was initially known. This article discusses this earliest mention of Yasavī, and its implications, following a survey of what is known of the author of the account, Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch, and his multiple legacies in Central Asia. 1. Introduction Despite the enormous reputation of Khwāja Aḥmad Yasavī as a pivotal figure in the religious history of the Turkic peoples, and as the eponym of a major Sufi tradition of Central Asia, there is remarkably little evidence about him from the first three centuries after the time in which he most likely lived.2This paucity of historical evidence might not seem unusual for a Sufi saint, and indeed the same point could be made regarding the ‘Khwājagān’, the early ‘founding’ figures of 1 This article is an expanded and revised version of a paper presented at a conference in Turkistan in October 2012; the earlier version was included in the volume of draft papers prepared for the conference as DEWEESE, 2012. 2 The issue cannot be taken up here at length, but it may be noted that the date given in most 20th-century scholarship for the death of Aḥmad Yasavī (562/1166–1167) is first recorded only in the late 16th century and appears to have no serious historical basis; other dates are given in earlier sources, and the preponderance of evidence points toward the late 12th century or the early 13th as the most likely time for his death. AS/EA LXVII•3•2013, S. 837–879 838 DEVIN DEWEESE what became the Naqshbandī tradition, who are barely mentioned in any kind of source down to the 15th century. Yet if we consider the 12th- and 13th-century representatives of what came to be defined as the Kubravī Sufi tradition – beginning with the eponym, Najm al-Dīn Kubrā – who left a substantial ‘paper trail’ in the form of their own extensive writings and in the form of references to them in other sources from the period in which they lived, we would be compelled to conclude that the situation with both the Yasavī and Khwāja- gānī/Naqshbandī traditions is indeed unusual, and that tracking down and paying attention to the earliest references to the figures associated with these traditions is an important and worthwhile task. In the case of the Yasavī tradition, it is not until the second half of the 16th century that we find substantial hagiographical narratives recorded by Yasavī shaykhs about the early Yasavī saints, including above all Aḥmad Yasavī him- self. Before this period, the earliest written sources that attempt to give a ‘bio- graphical’ account of Aḥmad Yasavī, and to record substantial narrative material focused on him, date only from the latter 15th century, and were produced outside the Sufi tradition linked with Yasavī. These sources – the Chaghatay Turkic Nasāʼim al-maḥabba of Mīr ʻAlī-shīr Navāʼī, in which the account of Yasavī appears among the entries on the “Turkic shaykhs,” added by Navāʼī to the biographical structure of Jāmī’s Persian Nafaḥāt al-uns (of which the Nasāʼim is to a large extent a translation),3and the Persian Rashaḥāt-i ʻayn al- ḥayāt, a hagiography intended to frame the early history of the tradition just then becoming known as the Naqshbandīya, in which the account of Yasavī appears in a substantial ‘prologue’ to Naqshbandī history4–reflect Yasavī’s renown as a miracle-worker, and the prominence of his shrine, in addition to his status as a Sufi shaykh, and (in the case of the Rashaḥāt) his place in a Sufi silsila. It is sobering, indeed, to recall that Yasavī’s shrine itself attests, in brick and mortar, to his regional prominence a full century prior to the appearance of the accounts of Yasavī in these written sources; the classic 15th-century account of the shrine’s construction by order of Timur, moreover, identifies Yasavī in terms of his natural descent, from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīya, not in terms of his Sufi affiliation,5and might seem to justify an argument that Yasavī’s initial renown was based on his sacred descent, rather than on his prominence as a Sufi shaykh. 3 BROCKELMANN, 1952:222; NAVĀʼĪ, 1996:383; NAVĀʼĪ, 2011:326–327. 4 ṢAFĪ, 1977: 17–19. 5 YAZDĪ, 2008: I, 861; cf. YAZDĪ, 1972: f. 294b, and the translation of the passage in THACKSTON, 1989: 87. AS/EA LXVII•3•2013, S. 837–879 AḤMAD YASAVĪ IN THE WORK OF BURHĀN AL-DĪN QÏLÏCH 839 The relatively late and diverse character of the written references to Aḥmad Yasavī heightens the importance of the scattered sources in which his name is mentioned prior to the 15th century. Until recently, the earliest unequivocal and clearly datable reference to Aḥmad Yasavī6 was found in a passage from the Persian Chihil majlis, a collection of sayings and discourses of the celebrated Sufi shaykh ʻAlāʼ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. 736/1336), compiled around 1325. Sim- nānī belonged to an initiatic lineage typically identified as ‘Kubravī,’ and the account is thus of special importance, in terms of the dates of Aḥmad Yasavī’s life, for portraying him as a contemporary of Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 618/1221) and of the latter’s disciple Rażī al-Dīn ʻAlī Lālā (d. 642/1244); the account is also of significance for depicting Aḥmad Yasavī quite straightforwardly as a Sufi shaykh and khānqāh-keeper in Turkistān.7Works of comparable antiquity offer precisely the same depiction: the Khwājagānī Maslak al-ʻārifīn, from the middle of the 14th century,8and the treatise of Isḥāq Khwāja b. Ismāʻīl Ata,9 from roughly the same period, portray Yasavī as a “working” Sufi master of Turkistān. However, a recently published Persian source, previously unknown, allows us to push back our earliest historical mention of Aḥmad Yasavī into the 13th 6 There is a possible allusion to Aḥmad Yasavī, under the designation “Pīr-i Turkistān,” in the Manṭiq al-ṭayr of the celebrated Persian poet Farīd al-Dīn ʻAṭṭār; the older dating of this work (573/1178, based on a note found in some manuscripts) would have complicated somewhat the later dating for Aḥmad Yasavī (i.e., placing his death in the late 12th or early 13th century), but it is now generally recognized that this early date is not correct. See DE BLOIS, 2004: 239–240; and see the most recent reevaluation of ʻAṭṭār’s oeuvre, which places the Manṭiq al-ṭayr’s composition in the first decade of the 7th/ 13th century, and re-dates ʻAṭṭār’s death to 627/1230 (SHAF ĪʻĪKADKANĪ, 1999: 48–49, 81–83). 7 SĪSTĀNĪ, 1987: 230; SIMNĀNĪ, 1988: 218–219. On Simnānī, who traced his Sufi initiatic line- age to Rażī al-Dīn ʻAlī Lālā through just two intermediaries and was evidently well- informed about affairs in Central Asia – he counted a shaykh from “Turkistān” among his earliest spiritual influences, and later had a prominent disciple from Turkistān – see ELIAS, 1995: esp. 15–31. 8 See, on this work, my discussions in DEWEESE, 1996a, and in DEWEESE, 2011a; see also PAUL, 1998a. 9 On this Turkic work, see the preliminary discussion in DEWEESE, 2009, and my discussion of the Ismāʻīl Atāʼī tradition in DEWEESE, 1996b. The work of Isḥāq Khwāja has been discussed, on the basis of a late manuscript, in TOSUN, 2011: 38–47; as noted there, a text edition based on the same late manuscript was prepared in 2010 by Eshabil Bozkurt as a thesis for Fatih University in Istanbul. A discussion of Isḥāq Khwāja’s work, and of all known manuscripts containing it, appears, in connection with the publication of a shorter text attached to that work, in DEWEESE / MUMINOV,et al., 2013: 55–82. AS/EA LXVII•3•2013, S. 837–879 840 DEVIN DEWEESE century, and indeed into the first half of that century, much closer to his lifetime than any other account that has been brought to light. The source in question bears the title Martaʻ al-ṣāliḥīn va zād al-sālikīn, and survives in two manu- scripts; the older of them identifies its author as Abū Manṣūr ʻUthmān b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ūzjandī al-ʻAjamī, while the later manuscript makes it clear that this figure is none other than the famous ‘patron saint’ of the town of Ūzgand, in the eastern Farghāna valley, Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch (the iden- tification is borne out by references within the text itself, in the older copy, to “Burhān-i Qïlïch”). The present study is intended to discuss the brief but important reference to Aḥmad Yasavī in the work of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch; situating the latter figure as a hitherto unappreciated ‘authority’ on Aḥmad Yasavī, however, requires some discussion of what may be known of this author and his legacy, and in fact reveals some parallels, and some differences, between these two figures and their images that are themselves instructive with regard to the religious history of Central Asia. 2. Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch and his Legacies Compared with Aḥmad Yasavī, whose prominence today stands in such stark contrast to the paucity of evidence on him for several centuries after his lifetime, Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch is quite well-represented in early sources of various kinds, and he left significant legacies that were well-known not only within his native region, but throughout Central Asia. At present he is probably best known in connection with his shrine, in Uzgen (the classical Ūzgand, or Ūzjand, near present-day Osh, in the eastern portion of the Farghāna valley belonging now to Kyrgyzstan),10 but Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch also inspired a substantial narrative tra- dition in local folklore; oral tradition recorded in the late 19th and 20th centuries portrays him as a hero who saved his native Ūzgand by slaying a dragon that was eating the children of the townspeople,11 suggesting that his chief reputation was that of a legendary ‘patron-saint’ of this town. Still earlier, from the 16th 10 On the shrine of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch in Ūzgand, see GORIATCHEVA, 2001: 105–106; earlier references to the shrine are noted below. 11 The version recounted in KARAFFA-KORBUT, 1897, is translated (in connection with the shrine of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch) in CASTAGNÉ, 1951: 80; see also BETGER, 1924: 141, as well as KIRGIZSKIE NARODNYE SKAZKI, 1981: 334–336, and BAIALIEVA, 1985: 195. Other early 20th-century recordings are discussed in ABASHIN, 2003. AS/EA LXVII•3•2013, S. 837–879 AḤMAD YASAVĪ IN THE WORK OF BURHĀN AL-DĪN QÏLÏCH 841 century to the 19th, he was probably best known as one of the saintly ancestors of a widely dispersed familial Sufi lineage most prominently represented by the so- called Aq-taghlïq and Qara-taghlïq ‘dynasties’ of Naqshbandī khwājas active in Eastern Turkistan (as noted below). Such a combination of shrine-lore, tales of heroic miracle-working linked to particular towns or communities, and genea- logical traditions is well known in the case of many Central Asian saints – in- cluding Aḥmad Yasavī –but in the case of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch, we have much earlier attestation of several components of his saintly persona. The most substantial discussion of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch to date appears in a recent article by the Russian ethnographer Sergei Abashin, who paid particular attention to the construction of his image, gathering and analyzing a wide range of historical, genealogical, and folkloric material;12Abashin’s study adduced im- portant evidence and offered a number of valuable correctives to earlier discus- sions of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch, as well as some insightful arguments; but insofar as he missed some sources, and could not yet have known of the newly pub- lished Sufi work of Burhān al-Dīn,13it may be useful to review the evidence we have on this saint. 12 ABASHIN, 2003; see also ABASHIN, 2001. 13 Abashin’s longer article focused chiefly on suggesting a pathway for the transformation of Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch’s image from that of a sober Ḥanafī jurist to that of a Sufi shaykh and miracle-working saint; to a large extent, the discovery of Burhān al-Dīn’s Sufi work renders such a pathway unnecessary, and I would argue that it makes more sense to assume that his earliest reputation – like that of Aḥmad Yasavī, incidentally– was as a regionally prominent Sufi shaykh. Even without the evidence that work provides, we might object that there was no compelling reason to suppose that Burhān al-Dīn could not have been both a sober jurist and a Sufi teacher (his Ḥanafī affiliation, meanwhile, remains purely conjectural). Abashin discussed many of the written sources and epigraphic recordings noted below, and rightly argued against the 11th-century dating proposed for Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch in some works (going back to Bartol’d; see ABASHIN, 2003: 216); at the same time, his discussion of certain aspects of Sufi history in Central Asia is somewhat confused (e.g., the discussion of ʻIshqī history, ABASHIN, 2003: 230, and his broader handling of the ‘Uvaysī’ notion), and the treatment of some written sources is incomplete (e.g., the discussion of sources produced in the lineage of Makhdūm-i Aʻẓam, ABASHIN, 2003: 231–234) or insufficiently critical. In the latter regard the nature of two works Abashin uses extensively is quite problematical. First, he accepts without comment that a certain “Aḥmad Uzgandī” was the author of the Persian hagiography (in which Burhān al-Dīn Qïlïch appears) known as the Tadhkira-yi Bughrā- khānī or Tadhkira-yi uvaysīya, based evidently on the summary description of this work in BALDICK, 1993 (which he cites); as outlined already in my review article on Baldick’s book (DEWEESE, 1996c: 94–96), the question of this work’s authorship is much more complicated than Baldick’s discussion suggests: “Aḥmad al-Uzghanī al-Namanghānī” is indeed men- AS/EA LXVII•3•2013, S. 837–879