The Kubrawī and early Javanese Islam

ABSTRACT

Beyond somewhat vague allusions to Sufi influence, a qualitative sense of early Javanese Islamic praxis remains sadly lacking among scholars. This article attempts to rectify that deficiency by re-assessing the importance of a Kubrawī silsila (spiritual genealogy) found within the 17th- to early 18th-century Javanese chronicle, Sejarah Banten Ranté-Ranté. First identified by Martin van Bruinessen in 1994, this silsila preserves detailed information about two separate Sunni-orientated Kubrawī lineages attributable to the latter’s Central Asian sub-branch, the Hamadānī. Set within the context of other early Javanese Muslim texts containing previously overlooked evidence of Kubrawī praxis, in addition to hagiographical traditions identifying one Jumadil Kubra (a probable cypher for Kubrawī founder, Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā) as the island’s earliest Muslim practitioner and a resident of Gresik, we argue that this silsila indicates considerable Kubrawī influence over Java’s initial Islamisation. Further consideration of the silsila’s specific Hamadānī characteristics set against wider 13th- to 15th-century Islamic history suggests either a north Indian or, more probably, Sino-Muslim origin for that influence. We therefore conclude by interpreting the Sejarah Banten silsila as a possible window onto the substantive nature of Sino-Muslim involvement in early Javanese Islam, adding further nuance to our understanding of that island’s Islamisation.

KEYWORDS:

• Islamisation
• Java
• Kubrawī
• Sejarah Banten Ranté-Ranté
• Sino-Muslim
• Sufism

Acknowledgements

In addition to the journal’s anonymous reviewers, the author would like to thank Kevin W. Fogg, Annabel Teh Gallop, Alan Strathern, and Afifi al-Akiti, all of whom read and made invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any remaining shortcomings are, of course, my own.

Note on contributor

Alexander Wain is Associate Research Fellow at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS), Malaysia. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Notes

1 Here we utilise J. Edel’s 1938 critical edition based on Leiden’s Cod. Or. 1711 (late 18th- to early 19th-century), with additions from MS Raffles Malay 30 (Royal Asiatic Society, London, dated 30 Ramaḍān 1230AH/6 September 1815), MS No. Mal.-Pol. 140 (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, dated 19 February 1892), and Leiden’s Cod. Or. 1746 (undated). Aside from the Sejarah Banten Ranté-Ranté, two additional versions of the Sejarah Banten tradition survive: a late 18th-century Malay translation called Hikayat Hasanuddin and an early 19th-century short version called Wawacan Haji Mangsur. The silsila discussed here appears only within the Sejarah Banten Ranté-Ranté, the earliest form of the text (Edel 1938: 10–11; Pudjiastuti 2015).

2 In Medina, Sunan Gunung Jati supposedly studied under Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Aṭā‘illāh al-Iskandarī, who reputedly initiated him into the Shādhilī, Shaṭṭārī and Naqshbandī ṭarīqa (Edel 1938: 138). The historical Ibn ‘Aṭā‘illāh al-Iskandarī was a Mālikī jurist who taught at al-Azhar and was grandmaster of the Shādhilī ṭarīqa. He died in Cairo in 1309, however, long before Sunan Gunung Jati could have studied under him. He has also never been associated with either the Shaṭṭārī or Naqshbandī (Ibn ‘Ata‘illah al-Iskandari 2010: vii; x). In consequence, this silsila (like the other) likely falls short of constituting real history. Rather, since additional evidence suggests that these three ṭarīqa were introduced into Southeast Asia during the mid 17th century (Azra 2004: 56–57, 85, 90), or contemporary to the composition of the Sejarah Banten, their inclusion therein likely reflects the intellectual currents in which the text’s author(s) operated, which they attempted to trace to their local saint, presumably as a legitimising device.

3 Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas has proposed an alternative identification. Favouring the variant reading Jumadil Kubra (below), al-Attas appeals to an undated handwritten note in the margin of the 18th-century Silsilah Keturunan Raja-Raja Palembang that refers to a Sayyid Jamāl al-Dīn al-Ḥusayn. Identified by the text as a member of the Banī ‘Alawī, this individual reputedly settled in Cambodia during the 14th century; al-Attas equates him with Jumadil Kubra, thereby implicating the Banī ‘Alawī in the wider Islamisation of Southeast Asia (al-Attas 2011: 80-83, 90). That the Sejarah Banten’s silsila is undoubtedly Kubrawī and not ‘Alawī, however, while pre-dating the Silsilah Keturunan Raja-Raja Palembang by a considerable period, renders al-Attas’ hypothesis questionable.

4 This silsila (with van Bruinessen’s corrections in brackets) runs as follows: Ismā’īl al-Qaṣrī; Muḥammad ibn Malik al-Mātikīdī (Muḥammad b. Mānkīl); (Dāwūd ibn Muḥammad khādim al-fuqarā’); Abu‘l-‘Abbās Idrīs; Abu‘l-Qāsim ibn Ramaḍān; (Abū Ya‘qūb al-Ṭabarī); Abū ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Uthmān; Abu‘l-Ya‘qūb al-Nahārī Jūdī (correctly al-Nahrajūrī); Abū Ya‘qūb al-Sūsī; ‘Abd al-Waḥīd ibn Zayd; Kumayl ibn Ziyād; ‘Alī al-Murtaḍā; and Muḥammad.

5 Al-Hamadānī does not appear in the silsila himself, unless he is the unidentified Shāh ‘Alī al-Khaṭīb (‘Alī the Preacher), as suggested by van Bruinessen (1994: 309). Both al-Hamadānī’s principal teacher, Maḥmūd al-Mazdaqānī (d.1359–60), and pre-eminent student, Isḥāq al-Khuttalānī (d.1423), are listed, however (DeWeese 1999: 123, 140).

6 These are: Shaykh ‘Alā al-Dawla Astamāb al-Simnānī, Maḥmūd al-Mazdaqānī, Isḥāq al-Khuttalānī, Shāh ‘Alī al-Bīdūd al-Bīdāwāzī, and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Jāmī.

7 These are: Shaykh Majd al-Dīn al-Baghdādī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Jūrfānī al-Rūdbārī, Shihāb al-Dīn al-Dimashqī, Qāḍī Zakariyā’ al-Anṣārī, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha’rāwī, and Shaykh Aḥmad al-Shinnāwī. The remaining, unidentified names are: Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Khalwafī, Khwāja ‘Azīzān ‘Alī Ramaqatanī, Shaykh ‘Abd Allāh, Shaykh Niẓām al-Dīn al-Ḥawārī, Shaykh Maḥmūd ibn Yūsuf Rashad Ūdahalī, Shaykh Ḥamīd al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Samarqandī, Shāh (… ?), Shaykh Mubārak, Mīr Shāh Rajū, Sayyid Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bukhārī, Shaykh Sāranak, Shaykh Maḥmūd ibn Jalāl al-Dīn al-Bukhārī, Shāh ‘Alī al-Khaṭīb, Badr al-Dīn al-Sa‘īd Qādī Burhān, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Sha‘bān, and Faḍl Allāh Muḥammad Ṣadr.

8 Perhaps for this reason, several early Malay authors (or later copyists) ‘correct’ the kubrā of Jumadil to either kabīr or akbar (al-Attas 2011: 84–85). This tendency is demonstrated below.

9 Here we utilise the Brandes and Rinkes edition, based on manuscript no. 36 (dated 16 March 1877) from Brandes’ own collection. Although late 19th century, this manuscript constitutes the oldest known version of the Babad Cirebon (Brandes and Rinkes 1911: 4; Muhaimin 2006: 163). Later versions, such as the 20th-century ‘Klayan manuscript’, omit all reference to Jumadil Kubra (Hadisutjipto 1979).

10 This (semi-mythical) genealogy runs as follows: Sunan Gunung Jati, Sultan Hut and Queen Fatimah, Sultan Bani Israil, Seh Jumadil Kabir, Seh Jumadil Kubra, Seh Zainal Kubra (or Zainal Kabir), Imam Ja‘far Sadiq, Imam Zainal ‘Abidin, Imam Husain, ‘Ali and Fatimah, and Muhammad (Brandes and Rinkes 1911: 69). See van Bruinessen (1994: 318–320) for a full analysis of its significance. Seh Jumadil Kabir, Seh Jumadil Kubra, and Seh Zainal Kubra are all apparent variations of the same name. Their appearance side-by-side, after a separate reference to Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā, suggests the author(s) of the Babad Cirebon possessed a number of traditions about this individual, between which they had difficulty deciding, prompting an inclusive approach. This likely indicates Kubrawī influence was already in substantial decline by the time the Babad Cirebon was written. As recounted in note 4, the Kubrawī trace their intellectual lineage to the Prophet through Kumayl ibn Ziyād, not Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq.

11 Cited by H. Djajadiningrat (1913). The date and origin of this specific version of the Babad Tanah Jawi remains obscure. J. Ras (1987) traces the Babad Tanah Jawi tradition as a whole to 1612 and an attempt by Mataram’s second ruler, Panembahan Sedaing Krapyak (r.1601–13), to collate the Babad Demak (below). Subsequently, Ratu Pakubuwana (d.1732), the prominent Ratu Ibu (Queen Mother) of Mataram, ordered the revision and expansion of this text into the Babad Tanah Jawi proper, a process that continued until ca.1788 and the emergence of the so-called ‘Major Babad’ (Wieringa 1999: 260; Kouznetsova 2008). This final version, although otherwise extensive, presents only a cursory account of the pre-Mataram period, omitting any and all reference to Jumadil Kubra (see the Balai Pustaka edition 1939-41, Leiden University Library BCB portfolios 30–34). Earlier surviving examples of the text, perhaps datable to the 1730s, include a fuller account of the Wali Songo period (Kouznetsova 2008: 386–387). Closer in form to the chronicles of Java’s northern coast, including the Sejarah Banten, they invariably mention Jumadil Kubra. 

12 Over the 13th century, the Kubrawī facilitated at least two major conversions in Central Asia: Berke Khān (r.1257–66), the third ruler of the Golden Horde, who was converted by Ṣayf al-Dīn al-Bukhārī, and Ghazān Khān (r.1295–1304), the Ilkhanid ruler who converted in 1295 under the aegis of Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Hammuyī of Khurāsān (Razi 1982: 4; Amitai-Preiss 1999).

13 R. Michael Feener and M. Laffan tentatively suggest an early 14th-century Qādirī presence in Southeast Asia based on the 15th-century Sufi biography, Ṭabaqāt al-khawāṣṣ. This mentions an Aden Qādirī shaykh named Abū ‘Abd Allāh Mas‘ūd b. Muḥammad al-Jāwī, who was supposedly a contemporary of the historian ‘Abd Allāh al-Yāfi‘ī (d.1367). In early Arabic texts, the nisba ‘al-Jāwī’ refers to someone with connections (familial or otherwise) with either Java or Sumatra (Feener and Laffan 2005: 185–208; Laffan 2009). Although neither Feener nor Laffan suggest this potential Qādirī link was widespread or continuous, by the 16th century the Sumatran scholar Ḥamza al-Fanṣūrī (d.1527 or ca.1604) could claim initiation into the Qādirī, a distinction several of his immediate Acehnese successors shared (Drewes and Brakel 1986; Azra 2004: 52, 56–57).

14 The text’s opening attributes authorship to ‘Susunan Ratu’, a title used by Sultan Agung from 1636–37, after his victory over Giri. The only surviving recension of this text is a reworked version created between 1729–30 by Ratu Pakubuwana (Ricklefs 2006: 47; 104; Kouznetsova 2008: 384).

15 Rinkes quotes from Jav. Hss. Bat. Gen. No. 575, a manuscript version of the Babad Demak kept at the then Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (now Indonesia’s Museum Nasional). Nothing is known about the date or origin of this manuscript. In general, scholarship has neglected the complex Babad Demak, including the questions of its precise date, origin, and relation to other early works. Although seemingly rooted in the Demak sultanate, current versions of the text are traceable to 1612 and the aforementioned attempt by Panembahan Sedaing Krapyak to organise an earlier chronicle of that name (see Hutomo 1984; Riyadi et al. 1981; Ras 1987: 351–353; Kouznetsova 2006).

16 The entrance to Sunan Bayat’s mausoleum at Tembayat bears a chronogram (sengkala) corresponding to the Śaka year 1488 (approximately 1566AH). While this need not indicate Sunan Bayat’s date of death, it establishes his mausoleum’s existence in that year (Rinkes 1996: 70).

17 Prominent Kubrawī, ‘Alā’ ad-Dawla al-Simnānī (d.1336), who forms part of the lineage of ‘Alī al-Hamadānī, spoke of dark blue light changing to red, then white, yellow, and finally black (representing annihilation in God). After black, the absolute light of God would appear; above any and all association or disassociation, this was colourless and visible only in heaven (Elias, 1993: 73–74).

18 It falls beyond the scope of this article to consider whether other traditions also link Sunan Kalijaga to the Kubrawī. As noted above, however, the Babad Cirebon does make Jumadil Kubra the grandfather of this figure.

19 Since 1870, the sole surviving manuscript copy of this text has been kept at the University of Leiden as Cod. Or. 1928. Here we utilise G.W. Drewes’s 1969 published version.

20 Al-Bārī (the designer) is also one of the 99 names of Allah. ‘Bari’ may therefore be a fragment of ‘Abd al-Bārī, not a nisba at all.

21 Although not identified until 1860, this text is undoubtedly 16th or 17th century; the only surviving copy is written on strips of palm leaf (and one copper plate) in a form of Middle Javanese akin to that of the Pararaton (written ca.1600) (Ras 1986: 192). Since 1860, this sole surviving copy of the text has been kept at the Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea in Ferrara. Here we utilise Drewes’s 1978 published version.

22 Drewes speculates this may be the Mafātīḥ al-rajā’ fi sharḥ maṣābīḥ al-dujā of al-Aqūlī al-Wāsiṭī (d.1394), a commentary on the work of Abū Muḥammad Farrā’ al-Baghawī (d.1117 or 1121), a Central Asian Shāfi‘ī jurist and hadith specialist (Drewes 1978: 4-6). Nothing, however, conclusively proves this.

23 Like ‘Alī al-Hamadānī, al-Barzishābādī does not appear in the Sejarah Banten’s silsila – unless, as again speculated by van Bruinessen (1994: 309), he is the unidentified Shaykh ‘Abd Allāh. By contrast, Isḥāq al-Khuttalānī is explicitly referred to.

24 Van Bruinessen (1994) tentatively suggests Sunan Gunung Jati, a contemporary of ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Jāmī, was among them. This, however, is unlikely. While the Sejarah Banten does claim Sunan Gunung Jati performed the hajj, his journey likely took place prior to 1521–24. According to the text, Sunan Gunung Jati returned from Mecca to find his native Samudera-Pasai under Portuguese occupation, prompting his flight to Java (Edel 1938: 140). The Decades da Asia of Portuguese court historian, João de Barros (d.1570), written between 1552 and 1563, contains a similar episode: during the 1521–24 Portuguese occupation of Samudera-Pasai, a man from that city called ‘Falatehan’ (either Fadhilah Khān or Fatahillāh) returned from Mecca to find the Portuguese in possession of his homeland, prompting his flight to Java, where Barros claims (albeit without going into specifics) that he rose to prominence. This historical figure almost certainly underlies the more hagiographical Sunan Gunung Jati, suggesting any association between the latter and the hajj pertains to a period more than 25 years prior to ‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Jāmī (Ricklefs 2001: 34).

25 Discussed more fully in Wain (2017a: 434–35).

26 For an overview of this position, see Drewes (1968).

27 Although scholars agree Java has always been Shāfi’ī, in his two-volume The history of Java, Raffles (1817: 397) claimed that ‘The doctrines of Sheik Maulana Ishak, the father of Susunan Giri [a resident of Gresik] and one of the earliest missionaries, were those of Abu Hanafa, which is the same as the Persians are said to profess; but these doctrines have, subsequent to the times of Susunan Giri, been changed to those of Shafiki [al-Shāfiʿī]’. Raffles even claimed that a ‘Moharrar’ (muḥarrar, compendium) of Abu Hanifa still circulated on the island. Although tantalising within the context of possible Sino-Muslim links with Java, these claims remain unsubstantiated. The ‘Moharrar’ Raffles refers to could, for example, be a misidentification of ‘Abd al-Karīm b. Muḥammad al-Qazwīnī al-Rāfi’ī’s (d.1226) al-Muḥarrar, an important Shāfi’ī treatise still in use on Java today (van Bruinessen 1990: 245). 

28 The anonymous Risāla-yi khalvat-i ṣūfīhā, written 1813, refers to Kubrawī shaykhs in Khwārazm contemporary to Muḥammad Amīn Inaq (d.1790). These ‘shaykhs’, however, were likely citing genealogical ties, not continuations of practice, for which there is no evidence (DeWeese 2016: 86).

29 The Moroccan traveller Ibn Baṭṭūṭa (d.1368–69) also hints at a Sufi presence well before the 17th century. When recounting his visit to China, he makes two noteworthy observations. Firstly, he claims the Imām of Quanzhou’s mosque inherited his position (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 2003: 262). This is potentially indicative of Sufi influence; the leadership of many Chinese menhuan, including the Kubrawī, descend hereditarily (Israeli and Gardner-Rush 2000: 448; Algar 2009). Secondly, while in Guangzhou Ibn Baṭṭūṭa visited a Chinese-speaking ascetic who lived in a cave outside the city. Although no one could swear to this man’s religion, he spoke well of the Prophet, ‘Umar and ‘Alī, while actively disliking Mu‘āwiya and Yazīd. This was enough for Ibn Baṭṭūṭa and his guides (including the local Shaykh al-Islām and qāḍī) to suspect that the ascetic was a Sufi – although Ibn Baṭṭūṭa cautioned that no one had seen him pray (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 2003: 265–267). This point, however, need not be damning; some Sufis (especially monists) are well known for not observing Islamic orthopraxis. That the ascetic knew no Arabic and/or Persian need also not be problematic as neither Ibn Baṭṭūṭa nor his guides held this against him.