Bukhara and the Muslims of Brill’ Inner Asian Library

Editors Michael . Drompp Devin DeWeese

VOLUME 26

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bial Bukhara and the Muslims of Russia

Sufism, Education, and the Paradox of Islamic Prestige

By Allen . Frank

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 Cover illustration: A tombstone of the Ming with the mausoleum of Husayn-Bek Turkistani in the background, near Chishmy, , 1994. Photo by ‑Allen J. Frank.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Frank, Allen J., 1964- Bukhara and the Muslims of Russia : , education, and the paradox of islamic prestige / By Allen J. Frank. p. cm. — (Brill’s inner Asian library ; v. 26) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-23288-4 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-23490-1 (-book) 1. —Russia (Federation) 2. Muslims—Russia (Federation) 3. Sufism—Russia (Federation) I. Title.

BP63.R8F73 2012 305.6’9709587—dc23 2012025551

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1566-7162 ISBN 978 90 04 23288 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 90 04 23490 1 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. contents v

Contents

Acknowledgements...... vii

Introduction ...... 1 Islamic Manuscripts...... 8

One. Sources...... 11 The Tarikh-i Barangawi ...... 15 The Work’s Author...... 16 Contents and Structure...... 20 The Sources of the Tarikh-i Barangawi ...... 25 Two. The Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige...... 27 Sufi Tradition and Holy Cities in ...... 29 Bukharan Communities in Imperial Russia: Official Privilege and Exalted Status...... 43 Bukharan Fashion among Muslims in Russia ...... 64 Three. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara...... 77 “Bulghar” Saints and Legendary Scholars in Central Asia ...... 77 The Tatar and Bashkir Presence in Bukhara...... 80 Resident “Bulghar” Scholars and Sufis in Central Asia . . . 86 Four. The Student Experience I...... 95 The Journey There...... 98 Arrival and Lodging...... 99 Instructors...... 102 Study Outside of Bukhara ...... 107 Students as Teachers...... 109 Sufi Shaykhs and Their Murids...... 110 Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani...... 113 Ishan-i Pir ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi al-Balkhi . . . . . 117 Other Sufi Figures...... 119 Curriculum...... 120 Manuscripts and Literary Activity...... 125 vi contents

Five. The Student Experience II ...... 131 Daily Life and Finances ...... 131 Health...... 137 Pilgrimage and Travel...... 138 Language Issues and Relations with Bukharans...... 142 “Bokharis” in Russia...... 147 Six. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia...... 151 The Economic and Political Eclipse of Central Asia. . . . . 151 Reformist Critics: Qursawi, Fayzkhanov, and Marjani. . . 155 Critiques of Bukhara...... 160 Arab Critics of Bukhara and Tatar Reformists...... 170 Bukharan Decline in Question ...... 174 From Islamic Reformism to Cultural Revolution ...... 180 Full Circle: Bukhara as a Rationalist Symbol in Soviet and Post-Soviet Islam ...... 185

Conclusion...... 191

Bibliography ...... 195 Index...... 205 acknowledgements vii

Acknowledgements

It is my pleasure to be able to thank Dilyara Usmanova for her gracious assistance while visiting in 2006, as well as Marsel’ Akhmetzianov, who generously provided me access to the Tarikh-i Barangawi at that time. Al’frid Bustanov brought to my attention and kindly made available a number of important sources. I would also like to thank Devin DeWeese for his interest in the manuscript. Finally, I am especially grateful to Joe Randall and Rob Szpak for their insightful and supportive comments. viii acknowledgements

Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Introduction Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 1 Islamic Manuscripts 8

Chapter one 11 Sources 11 The Tarikh-i Barangawi 15 The Work’s Author 16 Contents and Structure 20 The Sources of the Tarikh-i Barangawi 25

Chapter two 27 The Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 27 Sufi Tradition and Holy Cities in Central Asia 29 Bukharan Communities in Imperial Russia: Official Privilege and Exalted Status 43 Bukharan Fashion among Muslims in Russia 64

Chapter three 77 “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 77 “Bulghar” Saints and Legendary Scholars in Central Asia 77 The Tatar and Bashkir Presence in Bukhara 80 Resident “Bulghar” Scholars and Sufis in Central Asia 86

Chapter four 95 The Student Experience I 95 The Journey There 98 Arrival and Lodging 99 Instructors 102 Study Outside of Bukhara 107 Students as Teachers 109 Sufi Shaykhs and Their Murids 110 Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani 113 Ishan-i Pir ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi al-Balkhi 117 Other Sufi Figures 119 Curriculum 120 Manuscripts and Literary Activity 125

Chapter five 131 The Student Experience II 131 Daily Life and Finances 131 Health 137 Pilgrimage and Travel 138 Language Issues and Relations with Bukharans 142 “Bokharis” in Russia 147

Chapter six 151 The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 151 The Economic and Political Eclipse of Central Asia 151 Reformist Critics: Qursawi, Fayzkhanov, and Marjani 155 Jadid Critiques of Bukhara 160 Arab Critics of Bukhara and Tatar Reformists 170 Bukharan Decline in Question 174 From Islamic Reformism to Cultural Revolution 180 Full Circle: Bukhara as a Rationalist Symbol in Soviet and Post-Soviet Islam 185

Conclusion 191

Bibliography 195 Abbreviations 195 Manuscripts 195 Publications 195

index 205 Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 1

Introduction Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara

“Bokhara donne le ton à tout le Turkestân.” Jean Potocki, Voyage dans les Steps ’Astrakhan et du Caucase I, (Paris, 1829) The city of Bukhara, known in much of the Islamic world by its Persian epithet Bukhara-yi sharif (Bukhara the Noble), is today an internationally renowned urban historical monument. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, famed not least for its ancient architecture. In tourist guides it is identified as a “Silk Road” city, and its past glory is commonly credited to the free exchange of goods that the Silk Road supposedly symbolizes. This secular‑ ized and popular image partially stems from Enlightenment assumptions about Central Asian history, in which the Silk Road has become a historical precursor for modern commercial exchange. Similarly, in the modern Islamic world, especially in religious contexts, Bukhara is known above all as the home of the great hadith scholar Imam Ismaʿil Bukhari. While not exactly secularized, Bukhara’s image among modern Muslims bears the strong imprint of the Islamic reformism and rationalism that came to so thoroughly dominate Muslim religious thought over the course of the 20th century, and that shares many features with Enlightenment thought, not least a rationalist outlook. Imam Bukhari himself has come to symbolize, among other things, this sort of rationalism. Particularly for Muslims outside of Central Asia this modern reformist image of the city has largely (but not completely) displaced Bukhara’s older image as a sacred city of Islam, sanctified by its Sufis and their tombs.1 Beginning in the medieval era, and through the 20th century, Bukhara and its environs were renowned among Muslims for its holy places, based on the reputation as the abode of great Sufi shaykhs, and the site of innumer‑ able shrines and saint’s tombs. This sacred reputation extended far beyond Central Asia proper, and was especially evident in Russia. As Muslim com‑ munities in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia embarked on their own in‑ digenous religious, economic, and political revival over the course of the

1 For a discussion of the continuity of Bukhara’s sacred status among Muslims in inde‑ pendent cf. Maria Elisabeth Louw, Everyday Islam in Post Soviet Central Asia, (London & New York, 2007), especially chapters Three and Four. 2 Introduction eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Bukhara became an important symbol to be invoked and imitated. Historically among Muslims in Eastern Russia (that is, and Bashkirs in modern parlance) Bukhara’s religious significance derived above all from the city’s Sufi associations as an abode of saints and a source of sanctity, rather than from the more restricted intellectual associations that emerged later. Bukhara was not the only such holy city in Central Asia. In Tatar and Bashkir sources we can also identify Urgench, Samarqand, , Farab, and Turkistan as cities enjoying similar reputations. Central Asians accorded the same sort of status to many more cities, particularly in the Ferghana Valley, Kashgaria and Northern Afghanistan.2 Central Asia’s strong association with jurisprudence further contributed to its reputation for sanctity among Muslims in Russia and elsewhere. How­ ever, a number of related events occurring both within Bukhara and out‑ side of it resulted in the gradual amplification of Bukhara’s sacred status in the Islamic world at large, and especially in Russia where its religious prestige became closely associated with the growth of its economic sig‑ nificance. First of all, among these events we can point to the revival of the Naqshbandiya Sufi order in India beginning in the seventeenth century. The broad expansion of the Naqshbandiya-Mujaddidiya and Khalidiya orders throughout the Islamic world, and especially in India, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and in Central Asia itself, amplified Bukhara’s interna‑ tional prestige as a holy city. The tomb of the order’s founder, Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, is located near Bukhara, and became Bukhara’s premier pil‑ grimage site and in the nineteenth century a lightning rod for reformist criticism. At the same time beginning in the seventeenth century, Bukhara began a gradual economic expansion by means of trade with Muscovy and the Oirat Khanate. This expansion continued after the annihilation of the Oirat Khanate in the 1750’s, and up to the Russian conquest of Central Asia in the second half of the nineteenth century.3

2 Several pilgrimage sites in Central Asia were known as “Second Meccas” and “Kaʿbas” equivalent, or partially equivalent, to Mecca; cf. Thierry Zarcone, “Pilgrimage to the ‘Second Meccas’ and Kaʿbas’ of Central Asia,” Central Asian Pilgrims: Hajj Routes and Pious Visits between Central Asia and the Hijaz,” Alexandre Papas, Thomas Welsford, Thierry Zarcone, eds. (Berlin, 2011), 251-271. 3 Audrey Burton, The Bukharans: a Dynastic, diplomatic, and Commercial History, 1550- 1702, (Richmond, Surrey, 1997); .. Potanin, “ karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei v XVIII stoletii,” Chteniia istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom Universitete, April-June 1868, Kniga vtoraia, 21-113; Kh. Z. Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi Srednei Azii s Sibir’iu v XVI-XIX vv. (Tashkent, 1983), G.A. Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi Rossii so sredneaziatskimi khanstvami cherez Orenburg, (Tashkent, 1982). Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 3

The question of Bukhara’s “stagnation” under Ashtarkhanid and Manghït rule has been a topic of some scholarly debate. Ron Sela, in de‑ scribing the social and political contexts in which the apocryphal ­ nama genre was compiled, effectively defends the “decline paradigm” that was articulated by Russian orientalists such as V.V. Bartol’d and others at the beginning of the 20th century. He emphasizes that the era of Ashtar­ khanid rule, particularly the first half of the 18th century, was a period of profound political, military, social, and economic crisis for Bukhara, and he convincingly dismisses much recent scholarship that would depict the Ashtarkhanid era economically, politically, and culturally vibrant.4 For the historiography concerning the Manghïts we can see a reverse image of what Sela describes for the Ashtarkhanids. Many scholars, espe‑ cially Western scholars strongly influenced by Islamic modernist and re‑ formist assumptions such as Hélène Carrère-d’Encausse and Adeeb Khalid have tended to characterize Manghït rule in Bukhara as generally stagnant intellectually and economically, partly to establish a contrast with the jadid program.5 However it is evident from a variety of sources, both Central Asian and Russian, that under the Manghïts Bukhara enjoyed considerable economic and cultural growth, particularly during the reigns of Daniyal- Bek (r. 1758-1785), Shah-Murad (r. 1875-1800), and Emir Haydar (r. 1800- 1825). Similarly, there is no doubt that trade, particularly with Russia, and Islamic learning expanded significantly under the Manghïts. Scholars chal‑ lenging the Manghït “decline paradigm” have generally done so more convincingly than those challenging it for the Ashtarkhanids.6

4 Ron Sela, The Legendary Biographies of Tamerlane: Islam and Heroic Apocrypha in Central Asia, (New York, 2011), 117-140. 5 Influential in this regard are the writings of the Bukharan jadid Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni; cf. his Bukhara I-II, (Dushanbe, 1980-1981) and his Bukhara inqilabining ta˒rikhi, Shizuo Shi‑ mada and Sharifa Tosheva, eds. (Tokyo-Tashkent, 2010); for a typical Soviet summary of the cultural decline of Bukhara under the Manghïts, cf. Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR II, (Tashkent, 1968), 91-108, 377-388; Adeeb Khalid emphasizes the isolation of Bukhara under the ­Manghïts. While he admits that there was a “cultural florescence” under that dynasty, he argues, without elaboration, that its central preoccupation was with “writing poetry on the models of Timurid or earlier poets, and writing commentaries on existing works.” He blames Cen‑ tral Asia’s supposed isolation on its exclusion from the globalization of the world economy, but then argues that it was, in fact, not isolated; cf. Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, (Berkeley, California, 1998), 40-44. 6 Cf. Anke von Kügelgen, Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie in den Werker ihrer Historiker, (Istanbul, 2002); Stéphane Dudoignon, “La question scolaire à Boukhara et au russe du ‘premier renouveau’ à la soviétisation (fin du XVIIIe siècle-1937),” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 133-210; Baxtiyor Babadžanov, “On the History of the Naqšbandiya mujaddidiya in Central Mawara’annahr in the 18th and Early 19th Centuries,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 4 Introduction

This monograph is not a study of Bukhara as such. Rather, it addresses the religious relationship of one group of Muslims with the city of Bukhara, namely, the large Muslim communities inhabiting Siberia and the Volga- Ural region of Russia. It is an inquiry into the foundations and evolution of Bukhara’s prestige among Muslims in Russia during this still incom‑ pletely understood era of Bukharan and Central Asian history. During this era Muslims from Russia traveled to Bukhara in large numbers for eco‑ nomic and religious reasons (the two being often indistinguishable). But even those who would never travel there came to be strongly influenced by Bukharan scholarship, Bukharan goods, and even Bukharan fashion. Bukhara’s prestige in Russia’s Islamic communities in many respects even overshadowed that of the more remote holy cities of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. The elevation of Bukhara’s prestige also created certain para‑ doxes. As Russia’s economy industrialized over the course of the nine‑ teenth century, Tatars and Bashkirs became increasingly aware of the economic, social, and political contrasts that distinguished an industrial‑ izing Russia from a seemingly stagnant Emirate of Bukhara. With the rapid expansion of the Russian economy in the second half of the nine‑ teenth century, and especially with the emergence of industrialization, better-capitalized Tatar and Bashkir merchants were gradually displacing Bukharan merchants from their positions of dominance in the Eurasian commerce. Bukhara’s madrasas, and its scholarly environment as a whole, signifi‑ cantly affected the great Islamic revival that emerged in Russia beginning in the middle of the eighteenth century, and that lasted down to the Soviet era. The role of neutral and even benign imperial policies in fostering the growth of Islamic institutions and Islamic education in Russia has been widely acknowledged.7 Several recent studies have emphasized the

20th Centuries, Michael Kemper, Anke von Kügelgen, Dmitriy Yermakov eds., (Berlin, 1996), 385-413; Anke von Kügelgen, “Die Entfaltung der Naqšbandiya mujaddidiya in mittleren Transoxanien vom 18. Bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ein Stück Detektivarbeit,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 2, Anke von Kügelgen, Michael Kemper, Allen J. Frank eds. (Berlin, 1998), 101-151; Anke von Kügelgen, “Sufimeister und Herrscher in Zwiegespraech: Die Schreiben des Fadl Ahmad aus Peschawar an Amir Haydar in Buchara,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 3, Anke von Kügelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper, eds. (Berlin, 2000), 219-351. 7 A. Dobrosmyslov, “Zaboty imperatritsy Ekateriny II o prosveshchenii kirgizov,” Trudy Orenburgskoi Uchenoi Arkhivnoi Kommissii IX (1902), 51-63; Alan . Fisher, “Enlightened Despotism and Islam under Catherine II,” Slavic Review, vol. 27 (4) (1968), 542-553; Robert D. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia, (Cambridge, Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 5

­indigenous engines of the Islamic revival, depicting it as self-conscious and self-financed, with Tatars and Bashkirs engaging in debates relevant to the religious, social, and political circumstances peculiar to Russia. They cre‑ ated a wide range of original works in virtually all the disciplines of Islamic learning, including dogmatic theology, Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, Sufism, ethics, and historiography, to name the most prominent fields.8 While these studies of Islamic intellectual life have acknowledged the role of Bukhara, and Bukharan Sufism in particular, in stimulating this revival, these authors have focused on the internal aspects of the revival, rather than the bonds with Central Asia. If the Islamic revival in Russia was noteworthy for its internal stimuli and its dynamism, Bukhara contributed to this revival, too. Bukhara’s madrasas were the foremost foreign destination for Tatar and Bashkir students. To be sure, many students traveled to cities in the Ottoman Empire, Dagestan, Afghanistan, the Hijaz, Egypt, and India, but no single destination approached Bukhara either in numbers of students, or, more significantly, in the prestige accorded to its graduates. 9 Bukharan educa‑ tion was highly regarded and respected among Muslims in Russia, and the foremost and most influential reformists, most notably Shihab ad-Din Marjani (1818-1889) and Galimjan Barudi (1857-1921) were trained, taught, and formulated their arguments there. Tatar sources demonstrate that despite allegations of intellectual stagnation, Bukhara under the Manghït dynasty was in fact a center of intellectual ferment and debate. Precisely for these reasons Bukhara presented somewhat of a paradox, not least for

Massachusetts, 2006), 31-91; Aidar Nogmanov, Samoderzhavie i tatary, (Kazan, 2005), 94-131; D.D. Azamatov, Orenburgskoe magometanskoe dukhovnoe sobranie v kontse XVIII-XIX vv. (, 1999), 12-39. 8 Michael Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrtein Tatarien und Baschkirien, 1789-1889: Der isla- mische Diskurs unter russischer Herrschaft, (Berlin, 1998); Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910, (Leiden-Boston, 2001). 9 A number of authors have addressed the presence of Tatar and Bashkir students in other cities of the Islamic world, primarily for the period before the First World War. these include Stéphane Dudoignon, “Echoes to al-Manar among Muslims of the Russian Empire: a preliminary research note on Riza al-Din . Fakhr al-Din and the Shura (1908-1918),” Intel- lectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, transformation, communication, Sté‑ phane Dudoignon, Komatsu Hisao, Kosugi Yasushi eds. (London & New York, 2006), 85-116; Volker Adam, Rußlandmuslime in Istanbul am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges: die Berich- terstattung osmanischer Periodika über Rußland und Zentralasien, Heidelberger Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des modernen Vorderen Orients, (Frankfurt am Main, 2002); for a broader discussion of Muslim immigration from Russia to cf. James . Meyer, “Im‑ migration, Return, and the Politics of Citizenship: Russian Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, 1860-1914,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39 (2007), 15-32. 6 Introduction

Tatar and Bashkir scholars in Russia. Many of the most prominent and influential scholars in the revival who were trained in Bukhara’s madrasas had obtained elevated status and authority precisely for their mastery of Islamic disciplines in Bukhara. At the same time, another of the outcomes of the Islamic revival in Russia was an increased awareness of a separate regional identity linked politically to Russia and the Russian monarchy, and communally to the emergence of regional identities, such as “Bulghar” identity, and later “Tatar” and “Bashkir” ethnic nationalism. The econom‑ ic and political marginalization of the emirate of Bukhara following the Russian conquest only accentuated this tension, with the result that Muslim modernists and reformers in Russia, the so-called , made the critique of Bukhara, and by extension, Bukhara’s prestige and its reputation for sanctity, as a centerpiece of their arguments for social and religious reform. In so doing, they commonly described Bukharan education as “worthless” and stultified by “fanaticism” and “scholasticism,” even if the fathers of Tatar jadidism were themselves trained in Bukharan madrasas, and derived much of their authority from that association. Ultimately Tatar jadids were to play a prominent role in the Soviet conquest and annexation of Bukhara, and in the Cultural Revolution that followed. Historians addressing the Islamic revival in Russia so far have naturally focused their attention on the Islamic scholarly environment and the ʿulama, and as a result they have tended to see the Tatar and Bashkir ­relationship with Bukhara as primarily an intellectual one.10 However, the relationship between Muslims in Russia and Bukhara was also an

10 In an article Hisao Komatsu examines in detail the phenomenon of Tatar studies in Bukhara, and the intellectual relationship between the Volga-Ural ʿulama and Bukhara. His study is primarily based on Shihab ad-Din Marjani’s Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa Bulghar (Kazan, 1885); cf. Komatsu Hisao, “Bukhara and Kazan,” Journal of Turkic Civi- lization Studies 2 (2006), 101-115; Michael Kemper has examined in a series of works the scholarly influence of Bukhara on the Islamic Revival that took place in the Volga-Ural region in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; cf. Michael Kemper, “Entre Boukhara et la Moyenne-Volga: ʿAbd an-Nasir al-Qursawi en conflit avec les oulémas traditionalistes,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 41-52; cf. also Sufis und Gelehrte; Michael Kemper, Šihabaddin Marjani über Abu n-Nasr al-Qursawis Konflikt mit den Gelehrten Bucharas,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 3, Anke von Kügelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper eds., (Berlin, 2000), 353-383; Mirkasym Usmanov addresses the intellectual relationship between Kazan and Bukhara in a chapter of a monograph devoted to the Kazan reformist scholar Husayn Fayzkhanov; cf. Mirkasym Usmanov, Zavetnaia mechta Khusaina Faizkhanova, (Kazan, 1980), 20-28; reprinted as “Bukhara byla uzhe ne ta,” in: Raif Märdanov, ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov, (Kazan, 2006), 583-592; cf. also Uli Schamiloglu, “İctihad or Millät? Reflections on Bukhara, Kazan, and the Legacy of Russian Orientalism,” Reform Movements and Revolutions in Turkistan: 1900-1924. Studies in Honour of Osman , (Haarlem, 2001), 347-368. Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 7 emotional one, rooted in Sufism and expressed in terms of kinship and Islamization. Many Tatars and Bashkirs claimed descent from sayyids and saints from Bukhara (and from other Central Asian holy cities). Communities not claiming direct descent from Bukharans or other revered Central Asians could claim a religious connection through Islamization narratives in which saints from Bukhara converted their ancestors. Muslims in Russia venerated the tombs of saints who were believed to have come from Central Asia, particularly in Siberia, but in the Volga-Ural re‑ gion, too. It bears emphasizing that it was not only jadids who challenged the older religious bonds with Central Asia. The most influential and popular work emerging from the Islamic revival in Russia that defined a broad regional identity, the Tawarikh-i Bulghariya of Husam ad-Din al- Bulghari (compiled at the beginning of the nineteenth century), clearly sought to establish a single conversion narrative linked to the city of Bulghar, and originating not with a Central Asian saint, but with the Prophet Muhammad himself.11 If the jadids sought to isolate Bukharan prestige by intellectualizing and isolating religious belief, it should be evi‑ dent that Sufi-inspired works such as the Tawarikh-i Bulghariya were also effective in reorienting the emotional bonds that linked Muslims in Russia to Bukhara-yi sharif. Another aim of this study is to better appreciate how Muslims, particu‑ larly the large majority who did not subscribe to the jadid program, under‑ stood their community’s connection with Bukhara, and how they addressed the paradoxes that Bukhara presented. Most Muslims in Russia would only experience Bukhara indirectly. However, many Tatars and Bashkirs, par‑ ticularly merchants and scholars (and following the conquest of Central Asia, soldiers and officials) traveled to Bukhara, resided there, and studied in its madrasas. Already by the 1820’s there were perhaps as many as 3,000 Tatars and Bashkirs residing in Bukhara as students, scholars, merchants, and craftsmen, making Bukhara one of the largest urban of concentrations of Tatars and Bashkirs anywhere. No other Central Asian city, with the exception of Tashkent following the Russian conquest, attracted Tatars and Bashkirs in numbers that even remotely approached those of Bukhara.

11 On this conversion narrative cf. Allen J. Frank, Islamic Historiography and ‘Bulghar’ Identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia, (Leiden-Boston, 1998). 8 Introduction

Islamic Manuscripts

A key element in more fully analyzing the Tatar and Bashkir experience in Bukhara are the manuscripts produced in the communities under investi‑ gation. The writings of reformists and modernists, who made use of mod‑ ern printing, have been widely accessible, and in the case of the jadids their rationalism and Europhilia earned them a sympathetic, and often insuf‑ ficiently critical, reception among modern scholars. To the extent that scholars examining the Tatar and Bashkir relationship with Bukhara have used Muslim sources, they have primarily used printed sources, naturally including the major Tatar biographical dictionaries, whose authors ad‑ hered to the reformist current, but which remain essential sources for Russia’s Islamic history. As important as these printed sources are, it is important to remember that Muslims in Imperial Russia recorded and disseminated their religious knowledge above all by means of manuscripts. This was particularly true of the majority who remained skeptical of, or indifferent to, reformist and modernist currents well into the 20th century. To be sure, print was by no means a monopoly of reformists and modern‑ ists. However, Islamic manuscripts themselves were believed to have an inherent sacred significance absent in printed texts, and copying them was seen as a pious deed. Beyond the manuscript’s sacred qualities as religious artifacts, it must be emphasized that a vast number of original works com‑ posed in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia have come down to us only as manuscripts. Manuscripts are essential for any informed and well-round‑ ed inquiry into the Islamic history of Imperial Russia, but for a variety of reasons their use in studying the history of Tatars and Bashkirs remains still poorly developed. The main source for this study is one such manuscript, a substantial work of 223 folios. This is the Tarikh-i Barangawi (History of Baranga), compiled in 1914 by Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi (1877-1930), an imam in the village of Baranga, in Viatka Province. Ahmad, his father, and his uncle Burhan ad-Din b. Nasir ad-Din az-Zoyabashi, spent considerable time in Bukhara as teachers and students between 1840 and 1905. The Tarikh-i Barangawi is above all a family history that contains a wealth of documentation, including letters, diplomas, and biographical data ad‑ dressing the Tatar experience in Bukhara. Ahmad and his father were both skeptical of many aspects of Islamic reformism. As such they represent an outlook more typical of the religious mainstream of their communities, and provide us with a nuanced view of the Tatar relationship with Bukhara. Muslims in Russia and the Paradox of Bukhara 9

This monograph is divided into six chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the sources used in this study, and includes a detailed de‑ scription of the Tarikh-i Barangawi. The second chapter addresses the religious and social contexts of Bukharan prestige, focusing on the sacred foundations of the relationship between Muslims in Russia and Bukhara. This chapter also examines the elevated legal status and privileges of Central Asian merchant communities in Russia in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who were generally classified as Bukharans, and the link between their privileged legal status and their prestige among Muslim communities in Russia. It also examines the rise of fashion trends among Tatars and Bashkirs who sought to emulate Bukhara’s clothing, cosmetics, and cookery. The third chapter examines Tatar and Bashkir institutions, including legendary scholars and saints, the Tatar and Bashkir community in the city under the Manghïts, and permanently-established scholars and Sufis. The fourth and fifth chapters address the Tatar and Bashkir experi‑ ence in Bukhara, focusing on the student experience there, including its cultural and economic aspects, as well as the educational experience itself. The sixth chapter addresses the decline of Bukharan prestige in Russia, the jadid critique Bukhara’s sacred status among Tatars and Bashkirs, and the response of non-jadids to these critiques. 10 Introduction sources 11

Chapter one

Sources

Tatar and Bashkir literary works constitute a particularly rich body of in‑ digenous historical sources of Inner Asia, particularly for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when Tatars and Bashkirs were directly involved in Russian economic and political expansion throughout Central Eurasia, including beyond the borders of the Russian empire proper. These sources were composed against the backdrop of a remarkable Islamic intellectual and institutional flowering directly benefiting from Russian economic expansion and policy changes regarding Muslims that Catherine II imple‑ mented in the latter half of the eighteenth century. A strong religious orientation dominated this literature down to the 1920’s, but at the same time it was written above all for an internal audience. While doctrinal, theological, and Sufi works were typically written in Arabic and Persian, historical works tended to be written in the vernacular. Our sources for the Tatar and Bashkir experience in Bukhara and Central Asia fall almost en‑ tirely within the latter category of Tatar and Bashkir historical literature. While the experience of Muslims from Russia in Bukhara can without a doubt inform our understanding of economic and cultural dynamics with‑ in the Russian empire, Russian sources per se are largely mute on the topic, and the few Russians who recorded their observations of the Tatar and Bashkir cultural and religious relationship with Bukhara generally have betrayed a sketchy and superficial understanding of these dynamics. For the Tatar and Bashkir relationship with Bukhara we must rely on Tatar and Bashkir sources. Tatars and Bashkirs recorded their experiences in Bukhara in a broad range of literary genres, chief of which were biographical works, memoirs, and poetry. Printed media developed rather rapidly among Tatars and Bashkirs, beginning with books at the beginning of the nineteenth cen‑ tury, and by the beginning of the twentieth century comprising pamphlets, journals, and newspapers. Nevertheless a substantial body of literary activ‑ ity remained within the manuscript medium, particularly since manu‑ scripts themselves were believed to have religious authority and significance. Scholars today have only scratched the surface of the Tatar and Bashkir manuscript tradition, in terms of publishing catalogs of 12 chapter one

­collections; indeed, many manuscripts remain in private collections, and basically inaccessible.1 As a result we possess very few catalogs or even descriptions of Tatar or Bashkir manuscripts, and relatively few historians have made use of manuscripts among their sources. It is difficult to venture even an educated guess as to the proportion of manuscript material that was produced versus printed material. Nevertheless, we do know that through the 1920’s the production of manuscripts was very widespread, and remained an important medium for disseminating literary works. Tatars and Bashkirs discussed their experiences in Bukhara in a broad variety of printed and manuscript literary genres. Chief among these are biographical sources that include biographical dictionaries, memoirs, stand-alone biographies, and autobiographical poetry. We also possess some histories of Bukhara and the other Central Asian khanates, composed primarily in the nineteenth century by Tatars who resided there. Let us examine these historiographical genres individually. The biographical dictionary is strongly represented in Tatar historical literature, and all of them address numerous scholars who studied in Bukhara. The most extensive biographical information on Tatars in Bukhara is to be found in the second volume of Shihab ad-Din Marjani’s Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa Bulghar. Marjani himself studied in Bukhara from 1838 until 1849, and has left us with detailed information on Tatars and Bashkirs (or rather, “Bulghars”) who studied there, as well as on his own experiences in Central Asia. He also included in the first volume a history of the Manghït Dynasty that ruled Bukhara from the middle of the eighteenth century until 1920. These works were first pub‑ lished in Kazan in 1885. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din’s biographical diction‑ ary Asar also contains biographies of dozens of scholars who studied in Bukhara. The first two volumes, subdivided into fifteen sections, were published in Ufa and Orenburg between 1900 and 1908. Two additional volumes remain unpublished as manuscripts housed in the Bashkortostan Academy of Sciences in Ufa, and were only published in Cyrillic-script Tatar in 2010.2 Whereas Marjani’s and Riza˒ ad-Din’s works encompass the

1 On the manuscript tradition among the Tatars and Bashkirs see .A. Gosmanov, Qaurïy qaläm ezennän, 2nd ed. (Kazan, 1994); Iu. E. Bregel’, “Vostochnye rukopisi Kazani,” Pis’mennye pamiatniki Vostoka 1969, 255-273; Iuzhnoural’skii arkheograficheskii sbornik I, (Ufa, 1973); M.A. Usmanov and R.A. Shaikhiev. “Obraztsy tatarskikh narodno-krae‑ vedcheskikh sochinenii po istorii zapadnoi i iuzhnoi Sibiri,” Sibirskaia arkheografiia i is- tochnikovedenie, (Novosibirsk, 1979), 85-103. 2 Cf. Liliia Baibulatova, ʿAsar’ Rizy Fakhreddina, (Kazan, 2006); cf. also A.I. Kharisov, “Kollektsiia rukopisei Rizaitdina Fakhretdinova v nauchnom arkhive BFAN SSSR,” sources 13

Volga-Ural region as a whole, Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi’s biographical dictionary focuses primarily on Tatar and Bashkir scholars of the eastern Qazaq steppe and Zungharia. This text was published in the Netherlands in 2005, and provides information on the religious bonds that connected the Tatar and Bashkir scholars in eastern and with Bukhara.3 In addition, we possess smaller, more laconic, biographical dictionaries, such as those of Husayn b. Amirkhan (1883) and of Jahan-Shah al-Hajji‑ tarkhani (1907) containing information on Tatar religious connections with Bukhara.4 We can also add Murad Ramzi’s Arabic language work Talfiq al-akhbar wa talqiʾ al-athar fi waqaʿi qazan wa bulghar wa muluk at- tatar, supplementing Marjani’s original work.5 Beyond the biographical dictionaries, we also have several stand-alone biographies of reformist scholars who studied in Bukhara, in which con‑ siderable attention is devoted to their time there. These include Shähär Shäräf’s biography of Marjani, published in Kazan in 1915,6 and Yusuf Aqchura biography of Galimjan Barudi, published in Kazan in 1907,7 as well as Barudi’s own manuscript memoirs, published in Kazan in 2000.8 Autobiographical verse works constitute another body of sources. These include the verse works of ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Utïz-Imäni, from the first half of the nineteenth century, as well as the verses of Muhammad-Sadiq Imanqoli from the 1920’s.9 Tatars and Bashkirs were not the only Muslims to record their experiences as students in Bukhara. For the purposes of this

­Tvorchestvo Rizy Fakhretdinova,( Ufa, 1988), 78-85; Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, M.A. Gosmanov et al. eds. (Kazan, 2010). 3 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Kazakh Steppe (1770-1912), edited by Allen J. Frank and M.A. Usmanov. (Boston-Leiden, 2005). 4 Jahan-Shah b. ʿAbd al-Jabbar an-Nizhgharuti, Tarikh-i Astarkhan, (Astrakhan, 1907), 43-47; Husayn b. Amirkhan, Tawarikh-i Bulghariya, (Kazan, 1883), 40-52. 5 Murad Ramzi, Talfiq al-akhbar wa talqiʾ al-athar fi waqaʿi Qazan wa Bulghar wa muluk at-tatar II (Orenburg, 1908); N.G. Garaeva, “Traditsii tatarskoi istoriografii v ‘Talfik al-akhbar’ M. Ramzi,” Problema preemstvennosti v tatarskoi obshchestvennoi mysli, (Kazan, 1985), 84-96. 6 Shähär Shäräf ed., Marjani, (Kazan, 1333/1915); A modern Tatar edition of Shäräf’s biography of Marjani appeared in 1998. Cf. Raif Märdanov et al. eds. Shihabetdin Märjani, (Kazan, 1998). 7 Yosïf Aqchura, Damella Galimjan Äl-Barudi, (Kazan, 1997). 8 Galimdzhan khazrat Barudi, Pamiatnaia knizhka (Khäter däftäre) (Kazan, 2000); the work is based on a previously unpublished manuscript titled “Memoirs,” housed in the Manuscript Division of Kazan University Library, inventory number 1604T. Cf. Al’bert Fätkhi N.I. Lobachevskii isemdägi fänni kitapkhanä qulyazmalarïnïng taswirlamasï X/2 (Ka‑ zan, 1962), 7-8. 9 Gabderäkhim Utïz-Imäni äl-Bolgari, Shigïr’lär, poemalar, Änwär Sharipov and M. Gosmanov eds., (Kazan, 1986); Sadiq Imanqolïy, Mönäjätlär, ghazällär, qasïydälär, Mäsgud Gaynetdin ed. (Kazan, 2000). 14 chapter one study, the widely cited memoirs of the Bukharan intellectual Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni have proven particularly useful.10 Also, the Qazaq poet and historian Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï (1858-1931) has left us his memoirs (in verse) of his student years in Bukhara.11 We must add to our list of sources on Bukhara the broad genre of Tatar local histories, which developed into a consistent and recognizable genre documenting the Islamic institutions of specific districts, cities, or villages, and containing broad biographical information on clerics in those institu‑ tions. The origins and development of the genre have been addressed elsewhere,12 but for our purposes we can identify a number of specific works that contain detailed information and more or less representative statistical information on clerics who studied in Bukhara. These include histories of the largest and wealthiest Tatar religious centers in the Volga- Ural region and the Qazaq steppe. Marjani and Husayn b. Amirkhan in‑ clude in their histories detailed accounts of Kazan’s imams and Sufis, while Marjani also includes a number of villages in the Kazanka Valley.13 ʿAbd al-Wali al-Qazani and Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi provide information on the imams and Sufis of Semipalatinsk.14 Galimjan Barudi provides information on the imams of Petropavlovsk.15 ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi addresses the town of Orsk and the Saqmar Valley.16 Mutahhar b. Mulla Mir-Haydar discusses the village of Iske Qïyïshqï in Ufa district, and the links of its scholars with Orenburg.17 Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef’s history of Sterlibashevo pro‑ vides information on a local Sufi dynasty’s links with Bukhara and .18 Along with large and prosperous urban centers, other histories address

10 Sadriddin Aini, Bukhara I-II, (Dushanbe, 1980-1981); much additional information is also available in ʿAyni’s Uzbek work Bukhara inqilabining ta˒rikhi, SHIMADA Shizuo and Sharifa Tosheva eds., (Tokyo, 2010). 11 Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï, Shïgharmalarï IV, (Pavlodar, 2004), 249-258. 12 Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910, (Leiden-Boston, 2001), 21-29; R. Shaikhiev, Tatarskaia narodno-kraevedcheskaia literature XIX-XX vv. (Kazan, 1990). 13 Husayn b. Amirkhan, Tawarikh-i Bulghariya, 55-72. 14 Allen J. Frank and Mirkasyim A. Usmanov, eds. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk: Two Manuscripts by Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani and Qurbanʿali Khalidi, ANOR 11 (Halle-Berlin, 2001). 15 Galimjan Barudi, Qïzïlyar säfäre, Mäsgud Gaynetdin ed. (Kazan, 2004); this work is based on a previously unpublished manuscript titled Khatira (Memoirs), housed in the Manuscript Collection of Kazan University Library, inventory number 1682T. Cf. Al’bert Fätkhi N.I. Lobachevskii isemdägi fänni kitapkhanä qulyazmalarïnïng taswirlamasï X/2 (Kazan, 1962), 7. 16 ʿAbdullah b. Muhammad-ʿArif al-Muʿazi, Tarikh-i Muʿaziya, (Orenburg, 1908). 17 Mutahhar b. Mulla Mir-Haydar, Iske Qïyïshqï Tarikhi, (Orenburg, 1911). 18 Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Istarlibash, (Kazan, 1899). sources 15 rural districts, which provide us with a better understanding of links with Bukhara in areas further removed from major trade routes. These include the Tawarikh-i Alti Ata of Muhammad-Fatih and Muhammad al-Ilmini, covering Novouzensk district and a portion of the Qazaq Inner Horde.19 However, the richest source on the Tatar and Bashkir relationship with Bukhara is a manuscript history of the village of Baranga titled Tarikh-i Barangawi.

The Tarikh-i Barangawi

The Tarikh-i Barangawi was completed in 1914 by Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi, an imam in the village of Baranga. This village, known as Paran’ga in Russian sources, was formerly located in Viatka Province’s Urzhum District, and is today a raion center in the Republic of Mari El, in the Russian Federation. The village was closely connected historically and economically to the Tatar villages of the Qazan Artï (or Zakazan’e in Russian sources) and to the city of Kazan.20 Biographical information on scholars from several villages in the vicinity of Baranga, such as Tashkichü, Mazarbashï, and others are included in Marjani’s biographical sources. The Tarikh-i Barangawi has come down to us in one complete and two defective copies, all housed in the Manuscript Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Kazan.21 The work is unpublished, uncatalogued and remains virtually unstudied.22 The complete copy comprised 223 foli‑ , in effect making the largest of the pre-Revolutionary Tatar manuscript

19 Allen J. Frank, “A Chronicle of Islamic Communities on the Imperial Russian Frontier: the Tavārıx-i Āltī Ātā of Muhammad-Fātih al-Īlmīnī,» Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the eighteenth to the Early 20th Centuries. Vol. 3: Arabic, Persian, and Turkic Man- uscripts (15th-19th Centuries), Anke von Kügelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper, eds., (Berlin, 2000), 429-518; cf. also Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions. 20 On the history of Baranga, cf. N.S. Popov, ed., Paran’ginskii raion: sbornik dokumental’nykh ocherkov, (Ioshkar-Ola, 2004), 194-197. 21 The Manuscripts Institute of the Tatar Academy of Sciences was formerly known as the Archive of the Kazan Branch of the Institute of Language, Literature and History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Kazanskii Filial Instituta Iazyka, Literatury i Istorii Akademii Nauk SSSR). 22 Marsel’ Akhmetzianov briefly described the manuscript is in 1995, in a study of Tatar genealogies; cf. M. Äkhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, (Kazan, 1995), 118. Yuri Bregel also mentioned the work in his survey of Islamic manuscripts in Kazan; cf. Iu. Bregel’, “Vostoch‑ nye rukopisi v Kazani,” 365; it is mentioned in a survey discussion of the Tatar village his‑ tory genre, cf. Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions, 29. The work is also mentioned in the local history N.S. Popov ed., Paran’ginskii raion, however the editors evidently did not consult it as a source for their study. 16 chapter one histories. The author clearly conceived of his work, at least structurally, as a “village history,” since it follows the same structural format that we see in all the regional histories listed above. This genre’s characteristic structural features include a restricted geographical scope, listing in nu‑ merical order a specific area’s mosques, mahallas, madrasas, and above all its ʿulama, along with general information about the area’s geography, economy, and ethnography. However, the genre also allowed consider‑ able flexibility and could include extensive biographical and documen‑ tary material. Structurally the Tarikh-i Barangawi covers the four mosques and mahallas of the village of Baranga, and the imams assigned to them. However, despite its limited formal geographic scope as a village history, the author includes extensive biographical and documentary material on imams in Baranga who studied in Bukhara, including relatives who lived outside of Baranga. Ahmad himself studied in Bukhara at the beginning of the twentieth century, and provides considerable autobiographical in‑ formation about his experiences there. Indeed, he provides us with one of the most extensive autobiographies in Tatar Islamic literature. He also in‑ corporates a large amount of documentary material in his history, includ‑ ing dozens of letters send to and from Bukhara, as well as various licenses (ijazatnama and khatt-i irshad), Central Asian pilgrimage narratives, and other materials excerpted and copied from manuscripts produced in the village. In this regard the Tarikh-i Barangawi is as much a family chronicle as it is a village history. The work is similar to other local histories, such as the Tarikh-i Istarlibash and the Tarikh-i Muʿaziya that focused on locally prominent families. Ahmad al-Barangawi’s family dominated Baranga’s Islamic institutions for most of the nineteenth century, and for the first several decades of twentieth. The Bukharan experience was clearly a cen‑ tral factor in the family’s religious authority, and the author focuses con‑ siderable space and attention to it.

The Work’s Author

Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din al-Barangawi served as imam of Baranga’s Fourth Mosque from 1907 presumably until his death in 1930. In the manuscript Ahmad provides his genealogy as follows: sources 17

Ahmad b. Mullā Hafiz ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din b. ʿAbd as-Salam b. ʿAbd ar- Rahman b. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz b. Rafiq b. Makay b. Mamatay b. Mamkay b. Walid b. Qutli b. Ukachi b. Yanghurchi b. Yar-Salan b. Sultan-Ay b. Ahmat b. Urmat.23 Ahmad al-Barangawi was from a long line of scholars in the region active already at the beginning of the eighteenth century. His ancestor Rafiq b. Makay b. Mamatay was a student of Murtaza b. Qutlighïsh as-Simati (d. 1722), and according to Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, he was the author of an early treatise on the necessity of the Night (yastu) Prayer.24 Ahmad identifies this ancestor as having served as imam and mudarris in the vil‑ lage of Qursa Pochmaghï. His great-grandfather ʿAbd as-Salam (d. 1821) was from Qursa Pochmaghï, and became imam in Tashkichü in 1780. One of his teachers was Bikchantay b. Ibrahim al-Baraskawi (d. 1800), who served as imam in the village of Bäräskä, and was also one of the three qazis in Orenburg appointed by the first mufti Muhammad-Jan b. al-Husayn.25 It appears that because Ahmad’s great-grandfather, ʿAbd as-Salam, had come from Tashkichü, the family was to some degree seen as outsiders in the village. Ahmad includes the genealogies of the village’s major descent groups, which he calls “tribes” [qabila] and his family remained outside of this structure.26 At the same time, we can see that ʿAbd as-Salam’s descen‑ dants dominated the village’s religious institutions as imams. Ahmad is largely silent regarding the imams in Baranga who came from local fami‑ lies, and there can be little doubt that his emphasis on his family’s connec‑ tion to Bukhara was a way of establishing their Islamic legitimacy in the village, albeit as “outsiders.” His grandfather, Nasr ad-Din (1796-1868), subsequently became imam of Baranga’s First Mosque in 1824,27 and also earned meshchanin status, which freed his descendants from the poll tax. He served as mukhtasib for Urzhum district, which signifies that he was responsible for collecting cadasters (metricheskie knigi) for the district. He studied in Qarghalï (Seitovskii Posad) with the influential scholars Waliʾullah al-Baghdadi and

23 TB fol. 13ab. Marsel’ Akhmezianov published this genealogy, which he labeled the Urmat shajara, in 1995, evidently on the basis of the same manuscript; cf. Äkhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, 116-118. 24 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:2, 38; Riza˒ ad-Din identified him as Rafiq b. Tayyib al-Qursawi; the yastu or ʿisha˒ prayer was a topic of considerable theological debate in the Volga-Ural region in the eighteenth century; cf. Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 278-286. 25 TB fol. 14b; Marjani, Mustafad II, 128-129; Riza˒ ad-Din, Asar I:3, 154. 26 Ahmad mentions three such “tribes,” the Tughanay, Rahimqul, and Banu Abdali; TB, ff. 5b-7a. 27 In literary and scholarly documents his named appears as Nasr ad-Din al-Bulghari. 18 chapter one

Muhammad-Sharif al-Kirmani, but also studied by correspondence with the Bukhara-based Mujaddidiya Sufi Shaykh Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani.28 Two of Nasr ad-Din’s sons, both of whom studied in Bukhara and be‑ came renowned scholars in their own right, figure prominently in Ahmad’s history. These are Ahmad’s father, Hafiz ad-Din (1827-1917), and his uncle Burhan ad-Din (1829-1901). 29 Hafiz ad-Din studied with his father, and then from the age of 12 in the nearby village of Mazarbashï with Ahmadi b. Ihsan al-Mamsawi (d. 1871).30 He then studied briefly in Machkara at the ma- drasa of ʿAbdullah al-Chirtushi, and at age 18 he travelled to Bukhara, ar‑ riving there in December 1846.31 In addition to studying with Marjani, Hafiz ad-Din’s masters in that city included ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja b. Uzbek Khwaja al-Afshanji, Shaykh Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani, and the Sufi shaykh ʿAbd al-Karim b. ʿAbd al-Ghafur ash-Shahrisabzi, also known as Ishan-i Pir.32 Elsewhere in Central Asia Hafiz ad-Din traveled to Khotan and Kashghar, in Eastern Turkestan, and in Khotan studied under Mufti Habibullah al-Khotani.33 From there he returned to Bukhara, and with his brother travelled to Samarqand, where Hafiz ad-Din studied under the Tatar Sufi Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar al-Bulghari as-Samarqandi.34 He returned to Russia in 1865, residing first in Petropavlovsk for several years, where he married. Then he returned to Baranga, where he assumed the duties of imam of the First Mosque.35 Hafiz ad-Din was initially a close associate of Shihab ad-Din Marjani, but later broke with his former teacher. Shähär Shäräf acknowledges that to have been the case, but does not provide details on the nature of their disagreement. Ahmad indicates that his father had written a work titled Risala al-iʿtizal, which was a refutation (raddiya) directed against Marjani’s works, but which was not hostile to Marjani

28 TB ff. 18ab, 21a; a copy of Jalal ad-Din’s Persian ijazatnama appears on ff. 21a-22a. Ahmad believes the document dates to 1273 ah (1856/7 ce). Jalal ad-Din’s silsila appears on fol. 141a. 29 Shähär Shäräf provides some biographical information on Hafiz ad-Din where he lists Marjani’s students in Bukhara, however it appears his source of this information is the Tarikh-i Barangawi; cf. Märdanov ed., Shihabetdin Märjani, 105. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din includes both Hafiz ad-Din and Burhan ad-Din in the unpublished third volume of Athar; cf. Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 261-264, 341-346. 30 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din identifies him as Ahmad b. Ihsan al-Mamsawi; cf. Asar II:15, 509. 31 TB ff. 97b-98a. 32 TB ff. 99ab, 101a. 33 TB ff. 144b-145b. 34 TB fol. 138ab. 35 TB ff. 104b-105a. sources 19 personally.36 Ahmad adds that there were “countless” refutations directed against Marjani’s works written by his contemporaries. Nevertheless his father respected and honored Marjani, and made no secret that he used Marjani’s books. Ahmad, probably reflecting his father’s critiques, charac‑ terized as “unconsidered” (muhakamasiz) the harsh tone evident in Marjani’s writings, in which Marjani accused his opponents of being “athe‑ ists” (dahri), hypocrites (zindiq), and of “introducing innovations” (mujad- did bidʿa).37 At the same time, Hafiz ad-Din was no reactionary, and by no means blindly aligned himself with Marjani’s critics. For example, he re‑ veals his father’s skepticism regarding Marjani’s most well known critic (at least in jadid accounts), Ish-Muhammad b. Din-Muhammad at-Tuntari, commonly known as Ishmi Ishan.38 Ishmi Ishan wrote numerous refuta‑ tions directed against Marjani, and presented copies to Hafiz ad-Din. However, Hafiz ad-Din would reject them, and Ahmad categorizes Ismi Ishan as a “pseudo-Sufi and a pseudo-shaykh.”39 Like his brother, Burhan ad-Din b. Nasir ad-Din also studied in Mazarbashï with Ahmadi al-Mamsawi, but travelled to Bukhara somewhat later, reaching that city in January 1849. In Bukhara he also studied with ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja b. Uzbek Khwaja al-Afshanji and Shaykh Jalal ad- Din al-Khiyabani, among others, and returned to Petropavlovsk together with his brother in 1865. Soon after he obtained the position of imam in the village of Zoyabashï (Staroe Timoshkino in Russian sources) in Simbirsk province, and established himself there. This village was the residence of the Akchurin family, who were influential industrialists and patrons of Islamic institutions. Burhan ad-Din in fact married the sister of Timur-Pulat b. Khurrum-Shah Aqchurin. Hafiz ad-Din also maintained close ties with that family. In 1890 Burhan ad-Din moved for a time to Ufa to serve in the Orenburg Spiritual Assembly as qazi, before returning to Zoyabashï.40 Burhan ad-Din was also a prominent hadith scholar. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, who worked with Burhan ad-Din at the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly in Ufa, acknowledged Burhan ad-Din’s ­scholarly

36 TB ff. 119b-120a. 37 TB ff. 151b-152a; Marjani’s truculence elicited criticisms from other scholars as well; cf. Rizaeddin Fakhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 187-190. 38 On Ishmi Ishan cf. R.G. Mukhametshin, Tatarskii traditionalism: osobennosti i formy proiavleniia, (Kazan, 2005), 59-75; he was born in the 1840’s and shot by the Bolsheviks in 1919. 39 TB ff. 138b-139a. 40 TB ff. 34a-36a, 140ab; for a study of the Akchurin family cf. Nail’ Tagirov, Akchuriny, (Kazan, 2002). 20 chapter one accomplishments, but described him as two-faced, a quality Riza˒ ad-Din attributed to Burhan ad-Din’s Bukharan education.41 Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din was born in Baranga in 1877, studied with his father, and later went to Kazan where he studied in the madrasa of ʿAbd al-ʿAllam Hazrat b. Salih al-Qazani (d. 1899).42 He travelled to Bukhara in 1901, and remained there until 1905. In Bukhara he studied chiefly under a Tatar scholar, Mir-Siddiq al-Qazani. He also studied Sufism under Mahmud Khalifa, the grandson of his father’s master Ishan-i Pir.43 He returned to Baranga in 1905, and obtained the position of imam of the Fourth Mosque. In addition to the Tawarikh-i Barangawi, Ahmad is known to have written one other work, a treatise on Turkic spelling conventions titled Adab-i katib, compiled in 1909.44 Several of Ahmad’s brothers also served as imams in Baranga, although he was the only one to study in Bukhara. These brothers included Sultan Muhammad-Fatih, who studied under his uncle Burhan ad-Din, and in Kazan under Shihab ad-Din Marjani. Around 1880 he returned to Baranga and succeeded his father as imam of the First Mosque.45 Another brother, Ghiyas ad-Din, studied under the same teachers as Sultan Muhammad- Fatih, and became imam of Baranga’s Third Mosque.46

Contents and Structure

Ahmad’s history, as noted above, has come down to us in three copies, all autographs, and all of which housed in Manuscript Institute of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences in Kazan. Two of the manuscripts, inven‑ tory numbers 39/567 and 39/581 are defective. The third copy, inventory number 39/34, is the complete copy, and evidently was the author’s final copy, because inside the cover of the manuscript a marginal note in pencil signed by Shähär Shäräf indicates that Ahmad had loaned him the

41 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 262. 42 On this scholar cf. Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 248-250. 43 TB fol. 204ab. 44 The manuscript is housed in the Manuscript Division of Kazan University Library, inventory number 2203T; for a catalog description cf. A.S. Fätkhiev, Tatar ädipläre häm galimnäreneng qulyazmalarï, (Kazan, 1986), 54-57. 45 TB fol. 171ab. 46 TB fol. 178b. sources 21

­manuscript as a source for his volume on Marjani.47 However, according to Marsel’ Akhmetzianov, the manuscript had been intended for publi­ cation.48 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din used the manuscript extensively in the third and fourth volumes of his biographical dictionary Asar, which was unpublished during his lifetime, only appearing in print in 2010. He uses the work as a source in his entries on Hafiz ad-Din, Burhan ad-Din, Muhammadi b. Ihsan al-Burbashi, Fathullah b. Bikchantay al-Quyani, and Shihab ad-Din Marjani.49 The manuscript is written in a highly legible hand, in essentially modern literary Tatar with a modernized Arabic-script spelling, in which the pho‑ neme “ä” is usually indicated by the Arabic letter “ha” and in which the phoneme “ng” is usually indicated by the letter “kaf” with one or three dots placed above. The author’s spelling conventions are presumably explained in his earlier treatise Adab-i katib, in which he seeks to conform spelling conventions to vernacular usage. In this regard, in the Adab-i katib he calls the Turkic language he uses “Bulghar Turki,” or “Tatari.”50 However on the whole the orthography adheres to the conventions of late-nineteenth century Volga-Ural Turki, including the prominent use of Ottoman spelling conventions. When copying Turki documents of previous generations, Ahmad usually leaves the original spellings unchanged. Many of the letters, marginalia, licenses, and wills inserted into the text remain in the original Persian or Arabic. The Tarikh-i Barangawi closely conforms to the structural conventions of the Tatar village history, which are discussed above, and is divided into the following chapters: Muqaddima (Historical and geographical introduction, ff. 2a-6a). The chapter contains a general description of the village of Baranga, and its economy and geography, and an account of its founding. Al-bab al-qaba˒il wa’-shuʿub (Chapter on the clans and genealogies, ff. 6a-10a). This section contains genealogies of the village’s extended families,

47 R. Märdanov, ed., Shihabetdin Märjani, (Kazan, 1998); while Shäräf does include some biographical information on Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi, who was one of Marjani’s students in Bukhara, he does not cite the work. 48 Personal communication, October 15th 1996. 49 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 143, 260-262, 341-346, 453-454. 50 Fätkhiev, Tatar ädipläre, 54. 22 chapter one which were known as “tribes” (qaba˒il).51 As the descendants of relatively recent arrivals, Ahmad and his family were outside of these descent groups. al-qism al-awwal fi’l-masjid al-awwal (The first part on the First Mosque) fol. 10ab. al-fasl al-awwal fi zikr al-imam al-awwal (The first section addressing the first imam, ff. 10b-11b). The first imam was Mulla ʿAbid b. Tuqtar-ʿAli (d. 1824). al-fasl ath-thani fi’l-imam ath-thani (The second section on the second imam, ff. 11b-13a). This imam was Habibullah, the son of the first imam. al-fasl ath-thalith fi’l-imam ath-thalith (The third section on the third imam, ff. 13a-92b). This section is devoted to Ahmad’s grandfather, Nasr ad-Din, who became imam in 1824, but also includes a family history. Typically Ahmad also includes biographical information on the descen‑ dants of various family members. In this case, folios 13a-17b include bio‑ graphical information on Nasr ad-Din’s ancestors, and his brothers and sisters. Folios 18a-23b contain general biographical information on Nasr ad-Din, including an ijazatnama from the Bukharan shaykh Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani. There follows seven letters in Turki from Nasr ad-Din to Hafiz ad-Din dated from 1863 to 1865 (ff. 23b-28a). Folio 28 contains biographical information of Nasr ad-Din’s wife, and Ahmad’s grandmother Habib al- Jamal abistay. He also includes three letters in Tatar she wrote to her son Hafiz ad-Din while he was in Petropavlovsk (ff. 29b-31a), and her will (wa- siyatnama) (ff. 31a-34a). There follows an extensive section on Burhan ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din. Fo‑ lios 34b-35b address his studies and his time spent in Bukhara. Folios 36a- 40a address his activity in Zoyabashi, and his scholarly activity there, in‑ cluding the compilation of two commentaries, one devoted to poetry and another to specific issues of inheritance laws, both of which were pub‑ lished in Kazan, and the preparation of an unfinished Turkic translation of the Sahih Bukhari, commissioned by Hasan Akchurin. Ahmad includes in this section five letters, in Turki and Persian, that Burhan ad-Din sent from Bukhara (ff. 40b-54a). The also includes 18 Turki and Persian letters that Burhan ad-Din wrote after returning to Russia in 1865, mainly written when he was imam in Zoyabashi (ff. 54a-74a).

51 There is no satisfactory English equivalent of the Tatar term qaba˒il (singular: qabila) In Muslim sources it is used in a manner similar to the Russian term rod, which com‑ monly signifies a kinship-based descent group. sources 23

Folios 74b-89a concern Nasr ad-Din’s daughter, Badr-i Jahan, who mar‑ ried the prominent scholar Sibghatullah b. ʿAbd al-Qadir ash-Sharifi (d. 1873)52 in the village of Baylar Orïsï (Nizhniaia Ura in Russian sources). Badr-i Jahan was the mother of several prominent scholars from the village, including Shujaʿ, Samiʿullah, and Fakhr al-Banat. He includes six letters in Turki from these relatives. The chapter’s last section (ff. 89a-92b) is de‑ voted to Sibghatullah b. ʿAbd al-Qadir ash-Sharifi, and includes six letters that he wrote to Hafiz ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din. al-fasl ar-rabiʿ fi’l imam ar-rabiʿ(The fourth section on the fourth imam, ff. 92b-97a) This brief section is devoted to Jalal ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din (1837-1865), who served briefly as imam with his brother Hafiz ad-Din. The section includes several letters from Jalal ad-Din to Hafiz ad-Din. al-fasl al-khamis fi’l-imam al-khamis(The fifth section on the fifth imam, ff. 97a-170a) This extensive section is devoted to Hafiz ad-Din, and includes a substantial portion of information relating to Bukhara and Central Asia. Folios 97a-98b cover his childhood until his journey to Bukhara. Folios 98b-105a describe in broad terms his studies and travels, identifying his teachers in Bukhara and Samarqand, and including a pilgrimage narrative written by Hafiz ad-Din in Persian, and describing the shrines he visited in Bukhara, Samarqand, Khojand, Osh, , Artush, Khotan, and Yarkand. A description of his hajj pilgrimage in 1871 occupies ff. 98b-107a, including a list of twenty-eight books he brought back from his journey. There follows a discussion of his personal qualities, a description of his house, and other descriptions of his daily life (ff. 107a-112a). Ahmad then lists the titles of sixteen volumes of manuscripts his father copied (ff. 112a-114a), and lists the titles of twenty-nine original works, including his ar-Rububiyat al- kashfiyat wa’l-ʿubudiyat al-khalisat, whose marginalia he cites extensively as a source of family history (ff. 114a-122b). The subsequent section provides biographic information on four women he had married over the course of his life, two of whom he married while in Kashgaria, as well as on several of his sons (ff. 122b-131b). Ahmad includes an appendix on the family of his mother, Mah-i Kamal, who was Hafiz ad-Din’s third wife (he had divorced his Kashgari wives before returning to Bukhara). This section also contains six letters in Turki to Mah-i Kamal from her father Mulla ʿUmar, a muezzin in Petropavlovsk (ff. 132a-137a). One of the most remarkable sections of the history is a rather detailed biographical dictionary containing entries on twenty-two prominent

52 On this figure, see Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:15, 548-549. 24 chapter one

­people Ahmad’s father had been acquainted with during his life, including Central Asian scholars (ff. 137b-169b). This section is titled khatima al-fasl al-khamis (Conclusion to Section Five), and includes extensive biographi‑ cal and documentary material on Central Asian Sufis such as Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani, ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi (Ishan-i Pir), Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar al-Bulghari as-Samarqandi, and Kashgari and Khotani scholars such as ʿAshur-Muhammad at-Turki and Mufti Habibullah al-Khotani. In this section he also devotes an entry to Shihab ad-Din Marjani, and includes five letters that Marjani sent to his father.53 al-fasl fi’s-sadis al-imam as-sadis (The sixth section on the sixth imam, ff. 170a-171a) The First Mosque’s sixth imam was Hafiz ad-Din’s eldest son Sultan Muhammad-Fatih (b. 1863). He did not study in Bukhara, but rath‑ er his advanced training was in Kazan, in the madrasa of Shihab ad-Din Marjani. The section on the First Mosque concludes with an appendix (zil) de‑ voted to Mulla Muhammadi b. Ihsan al-Burbashi (1822-1901),54 appearing on ff. 171a-174b. This section also includes copies of four letters sent evi‑ dently to Hafiz ad-Din. al-qism ath-thani fi’l-masjid ath-thani(The second part on the Second Mosque) ff. 174b-178a. This portion of the manuscript addresses the vil‑ lage’s Second Mosque, which was the only one of the village’s four mosques that was not dominated by Ahmad al-Barangawi’s family. Rather, its imams came from a local family belonging to the Churash “tribe.” al-fasl al-awwal fi’l-imam al-awwal (the first section on the first imam) ff. 174b-175a. This figure was Mulla Ibrahim b. Bik-Qul b. Irma al-Bulghari. Ahmad does not provide his dates, but he copied a commentary on the Haft-i Yak in the madrasa of ʿAbd an-Nasir b. Sayf al-Muluk al-Ashiti in 1808.55 al-fasl ath-thani fi’l-imam ath-thani(the second section on the second imam) ff. 175b-176b. This imam was Mulla Nuʿman b. Ibrahim al-Irmashi (d.1894), the son of the mosque’s first imam. He had studied in Qishqar with Mulla Yaʿqub b. Yahya b. Jaʿfar at-Tubyazi,56 and died in Mecca, while performing the hajj.

53 Two of these letters, evidently copied from the Tarikh-i Barangawi, were included in Volume Four of Asar; cf. Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 453-454, 463-464. 54 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 260-261. 55 On ʿAbd an-Nasir al-Ashiti cf. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:6, 295-296. 56 On Yaʿqub b. Yahya at-Tubyazi cf. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:10, 128-135. sources 25

al-fasl ath-thalith fi’l-imam ath-thalith (the third section on the third imam) ff. 177a-178a. This was Nuʿman’s son, Ahmad-Giray al-Irmashi. His teachers included Ziya˒ ad-Din al-Mangari, Manhaj ad-Din al-Jabali al-Iske Awili, and Shihab ad-Din al-Marjani in Kazan, and he taught in Kazan and in Khanskaia Stavka, in the Qazaq Inner Horde, before returning to Baranga. al-qism ath-thalith fi’l-masjid ath-thalith (the third part on the Third Mosque) ff. 178a-179a. This brief chapter covers Ahmad’s brother, Ghiyas ad-Din al-Barangawi (b. 1861). He became imam in 1888, and was sole imam to this mosque. Unlike his brother Ahmad and his father Hafiz ad-Din, Ghiyas ad-Din never traveled to Bukhara to study, but rather acquired his learning from his father and uncle in Baranga and Zoyabashi respectively, and in Kazan from Shihab ad-Din Marjani. His son Muhammad-Najib also became an imam in the village of Iske Awïl Pochinkasï. al-qism ar-rabiʿ fi’l-masjid ar-rabiʿ (the fourth part on the Fourth Mosque) ff. 179a-223a. The sole imam of this mosque is the work’s author, Ahmad al-Barangawi, who acquired the position in 1907, the year the mosque was built. After a brief introductory section on the mosque’s con‑ struction, Ahmad explains that he had been appointed imam while he was in Bukhara. The work then presents Ahmad’s autobiography, with the first section devoted to his childhood (ff. 180b-185a), his student years in Kazan (ff. 185a-194b), and his time in Bukhara from 1901 until 1905 (ff. 194b-204b), as well a narrative of his pilgrimages in the emirate of Bukhara to Kermine, Kharaqan, Vafkand, Ghijduvan, and the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband (ff. 204b-209b, 215a-216b). He includes an additional travel narrative of a month’s time he spent among a group of Qazaq nomads subordinate to the Emirate of Bukhara (ff. 209b-215a). The final portion of the manuscript addresses his return to Baranga and his time as imam of the Fourth Mosque (ff. 216b-223a).

The Sources of the Tarikh-i Barangawi

Ahmad is generally conscientious in citing his sources, and he provides us with a fairly detailed picture of the sorts of sources that were available to him. While many authors of Tatar village histories depended primarily on oral sources for their works, the Tarikh-i Barangawi stands out for its au‑ thor’s reliance on documentary material, although he, too, makes exten‑ sive use of oral material. Since the work is primarily a family history, albeit set within the framework of a village history, Ahmad is able to rely 26 chapter one extensively on his family papers, including his father’s manuscripts, and particularly his father’s and grandfather’s autographs, even though much of his personal archive was destroyed in a fire in 1906.57 Among the most important sources of information for Ahmad are the marginalia of his fa‑ ther’s manuscripts, particularly the Rububiyat al-kashfiyat, which he relies on heavily for biographical information on his father’s acquaintances.58 As we have seen, Ahmad also copies directly into his history dozens of letters, in both Persian and Turki to and from his father and uncle. The authors of this letters include female relatives, and numerous Bukharan and Tatar scholars and Sufi shaykhs. The documentary material also includes his father’s and uncle’s licenses (ijazatnama) from various Sufis and scholars in Bukhara, Samarqand, and Kashgaria.

57 TB fol. 214a; a number of his father’s works were destroyed in this fire as well; cf. TB, fol. 98a. 58 TB, ff. 101b, 118b-119a, 131a, 140b, 144b, 146a, 163b. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 27

Chapter two

The Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the elevation of Bukhara’s social and religious status within Muslim society in Russia stemmed in large measure from the sacred status that Central Asia already enjoyed and that was evident in Tatar and Bashkir legends, genealogies, and Sufi tradi‑ tion. The sacred bonds between Central Asia and Muslims in Russia are of considerable antiquity. Moreover, Sufi tradition, which Tatars and Bashkirs understood in large measure to have originated in Central Asia, perme‑ ated Islamic practice throughout the Islamic world, emphasizing rituals such as hagiolatry and pilgrimage, which were also important factors in reinforcing the connections between Central Asia and Muslim communi‑ ties in Russia. Following the Mongol conquests the close political, ethnic, and kinship ties between the Volga-Ural region and Siberia on the one hand, and Central Asia on the other, served to amplify Bukhara’s Sufi leg‑ acy among Muslims in Russia. If religious and especially Sufi conceptions constituted the foundation for Bukhara’s sacred status among Muslims in Russia, the shifting eco‑ nomic and social relationship between Central Asians and Muslims in Russia further amplified it. As late as the First World War a Russian Orthodox missionary in Siberia complained of the extraordinary religious influence and authority Siberian Bukharans still exerted over native . This missionary, exhibiting the islamophobia that was common in late Imperial Russia, blamed this influence and authority on eighteenth century Russian state policies that granted broad privileges to the ancestors of these Siberian Bukharans, and argued that the elevation of their legal and communal status led to a rise in their religious authority among the Siberian Tatars.1 In fact, as early as the 1590’s it had been Muscovite policy to stimulate trade with Central Asia, and this policy was reemphasized beginning in the reign of Peter the Great (r. 1689-1725), and maintained will into the reign of Nicholas I (r. 1825-1855). Until the

1 Ioann Petrov, “Kratkii ocherk istorii propagandy magometanstva sredi Sibirskikh tata­r-iazychnikov,” Pravoslavyi sobesednik 1915 (12), 116-118. 28 chapter two

­eighteenth century this trade was mainly conducted through Siberia and Astrakhan, following trade routes that long predated the Russian con‑ quests. Expanding trade with the Central Asian khanates was also one of Peter the Great’s policy ambitions, and he put into motion numerous ini‑ tiatives that would redirect trade between Central Asia and Russia to a series of Russian outposts along the northern rim of the Qazaq steppe.2 One of the methods to attract Central Asian caravans was to grant them generous privileges, eventually making Central Asian merchants among the most privileged estate groups in the entire Russian empire. The Muscovite authorities had in fact begun granting these privileges to Bukharans in Siberia at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but in the eighteenth century they were broadly expanded to virtually all Central Asian merchants living in Orenburg, Petropavlovsk, Semipalatinsk, and other settlements along the Russian fortified lines along the northern Qazaq Steppe. The settlement of wealthy and influential Central Asians in Russia, and the increasing volume of travel of Tatar and Bashkir merchants to Central Asia intensified contacts between the groups. Furthermore, the extension of substantial privileges to Central Asian merchants in the eigh‑ teenth century took place at a time when the Russian authorities were broadly diminishing the privileges of native Muslim elites in the Volga-Ural region, thereby increasing the contrast between the groups’ respective levels of status. Marxist historians have, with some justification, character‑ ized the eighteenth century as the period of the collapse of the old Tatar feudal elites, and the rise of Tatar merchant capital; however the decline in status and privilege affected not only the gentry, but many peasants as well. Beginning in the Petrine era formerly tribute-paying communities of Muslim peasants were becoming state peasants, or were being resettled and saddled with new labor obligations.3 In 1713 the Muslim gentry was

2 R.G. Bukanova has examined in detail the Petrine origins of the trading forts in Bash‑ kiria and along the Qazaq steppe, which became the main venues for trade between Russia and Central Asia; cf. her Goroda-kreposti iugo-vostoka Rossii v XVIII veke, (Ufa, 1997); the cities of the Irtysh line in Siberia, including Semipalatinsk also date from the Petrine era; cf. Kh. Z. Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi Srednei Azii s Sibiri’iu v XVI-XIX vv. (Tashkent, 1983), 83-100; cf. also P.I. Rychkov, Istoriia Orenburgskaia 2nd ed. (Orenburg, 1896), 2-5; A. Popov, Snosheniia Rossii s Khivoiu i Bukharoiu pri Petre Velikom, (St. Petersburg, 1853). 3 For a broad and detailed discussion of progress of Russian legal policy regarding Muslim communities cf. Aidar Nogmanov, Samoderzhavie i tatary, (Kazan, 2005); cf. also . Kh. Gumerov, ed. Zakony Rossiiskoi imperii o bashkirakh, mishiariakh, teptiariakh, i bob- yliakh, (Ufa, 1999). Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 29 stripped of its right to own serfs, and often lost its noble status altogether.4 Similarly, most Service Tatars (sluzhilye tatary) lost their privileged rank and became categorized as lashmany. As such, they became a labor force registered to the Admiralty. This group’s labor obligations were onerous, and involved felling trees and building naval craft.5 In many respects, the eighteenth century can be considered a turning point in Tatar and Bashkir social history. Bukharan prestige was also manifested through the strong influence of Central Asian material culture—the penetration of Central Asian fash‑ ion—on Russian Muslims in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twen‑ tieth centuries, providing additional evidence of newly elevated Bukharan social and economic status, along with the city’s already considerable and dominant religious status. During this period it should not be surprising to discover that Russian Muslims were emulating Central Asians. They cultivated a strong taste for Bukharan clothing, food, cosmetics, and many other aspects of material culture, fueled by expanded trade with Bukhara and other Central Asian cities. Clearly the conspicuous consumption of Central Asian goods conferred social and religious prestige upon their consumers.

Sufi Tradition and Holy Cities in Central Asia

The foundations of the prestige that Muslims in Russia accorded Bukhara and its inhabitants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are rooted in the Central Asian Sufi traditions that entered the Volga-Ural region and Siberia during the era of the , and dominated Islamic culture in Russia until the twentieth century. Narrowly speaking, Sufi traditions include, of course, the transmission of the Sufi discipline from masters to students, the maintenance of Sufi brotherhoods, lodges, and other institu‑ tions, and the composition and circulation of Sufi literature.6 But Sufi conceptions and practices found their way into a broader set of Muslim

4 On the Muslim gentry cf. Kh. Alishev, “Sotsial’naia evoliutsiia sluzhilykh tatar vo vtoroi polovine XVI-XVIII vekov,” Issledovaniia po istorii krest’ianstva Tatarii dooktiabr’skogo perioda, (Kazan, 1984), 52-69; cf. also G. Gaziz, Istoriia tatar, (Moscow, 1994), 143-144; Ta- tarskie murzy i dvoriane: istoriia i sovremennost’ vyp. 1, (Kazan, 2010). 5 Nogmanov, Samoderzhavie, 82. 6 For discussions of Sufi and especially Central Asian influences on Islamic literature in the Volga-Ural region cf. Sh. Sh. Abilov, “Sufichïlïq,” Tatar ädäbiyät tarikhï I, (Kazan, 1984), 356-366; A.I. Kharisov, Literaturnoe nasledie bashkirskogo naroda (XVIII-XIX veka), (Ufa, 1973), 153-171. 30 chapter two practices, above all through the veneration of saints and their shrines, and through the establishment of ancestral and genealogical connections with saints.7 The relationship between Muslims in Russia, and the city of Bukhara should not be restricted to the types of intellectual relationships Islamic reformers tried to portray it in the late nineteenth and early twen‑ tieth centuries. The relationship was also emotional and sacred. It affected the Muslims of Russia in a variety of ways that influenced their daily lives, their status, and, of course, their self-conceptions as a Muslim community. For Russian Muslims, as for Muslims in many other parts of the Islamic world, the religious significance of Central Asia was as the abode of the great Sufis and of the holiest Sufi shrines in Islam. Many communities within Russia claimed descent from Central Asian, and especially Bukha­ ran, saints and ancestors. However the spirits of Sufi saints also played prominent parts in the collective lives of Muslims, regardless of ancestry. They were frequently remembered as Islamizers who brought the com‑ munities their status as Muslims. Sufis figured prominently as pirs, or pa‑ tron saints, of livestock, crops, and crafts, protecting the livelihoods of Muslim communities. Finally, the tombs of many Central Asian saints were found throughout Russia, most especially in Siberia, but throughout the Volga-Ural region as well, and Central Asian saints feature prominently in their legends.

Holy Cities The association of specific cities with varying degrees of holy status has a long history in the Islamic world; it is strongly evident in Sufi tradition, even if it is viewed with suspicion, or hostility, in reformist circles. Throughout the Islamic world, but especially in Central Asia, the tombs of saints became significant, and at times dominant, features in the urban and rural topography of the region. Shrines affected settlement patterns and trade routes, and most certainly created an awareness of sacred geog‑ raphy.8 Consequently, Central Asian urban histories were typically written

7 For an informed and thorough discussion of the range of Sufi conceptions and their application in belief and practice among the Qazaqs see Bruce Privratsky, Muslim Turkistan, (Richmond, Surrey, 2004). 8 The economic and political significance of shrines in Central Asia receives consider‑ able attention in Robert McChesney’s discussion of the tomb of Mazar-i Sharif in Northern Afghanistan; cf. his Waqf in Central Asia: Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 1480-1889, (Princeton, 1991); cf. in particular Chapter V of B.M. Babadzhanov, Kokan- dskoe khanstvo: vlast’, politika,religiia , (Tokyo-Tashkent, 2010), 626-674; Sugawara Jun and Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 31 as shrine catalogs containing lists of saints and shrines.9 Although Bukhara and Samarqand stand out as the most prominent of these holy cities in Central Asia, we can also count among these Khiva, Urgench, Sayram (Isfijab), Turkistan, Osh, and Farab () among those that figure prom‑ inently in the historical legends of Inner Asian Muslims. For some Inner Asian Muslim communities located very much at the geographic limits of the Muslim world the holy cities of Central Asia be‑ came particularly important for affirming Muslim status through the as‑ sertion of religious, and especially ancestral, bonds. The significance of Central Asian holy cities is evident among the Tatars and Bashkirs of the Volga-Ural region and Siberia, but also in the origin myths of the Hui10 and Salars11 in China who traced the founding of their communities to ances‑ tors who came from the city of Samarqand. Even, or perhaps especially, the most isolated Muslim communities in Inner Asia retained memories of their communities’ links to these holy cities. A case in point is the Mongol-speaking Khotong Muslims of western Mongolia, who were prob‑ ably descendants of eighteenth century Turkic Muslim captives of the Oirats. By the late nineteenth century they had largely lost their Turkic language, having become linguistically Mongolized, but retaining their Muslim identity. In a state of apparently total isolation from the Islamic

Kawahara Yayoi, eds. Mazar Documents from Xinjiang and Ferghana: Facsimiles I, (Tokyo, 2006). 9 For a discussion of the development of sacred urban histories see, Devin DeWeese, “Sacred History for a Central Asian Town: Saints, Shrines, and Legends of Origin in Histories of Sayrām, eighteenth-nineteenth Centuries,” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditer- ranée 89-90 (2000), 245-246; modern variants of these sorts of sacred urban histories are evident in post-Soviet Central Asia; cf. Stéphane Dudoignon, “Local Lore, the Transmission of Learning, and Communal Identity in late 20th Century Tajikistan. The Khujand-Nāma of ‘Ārifjān Yahyāzād Khujandī,” in: Devout Societies vs. Impious States? Transmitting Is- lamic Knowledge in Russia, Central Asia, and China, through the Twentieth Century, (Berlin, 2004), 213-242. 10 Turkic historians commenting on the origins of the Hui have recorded legends in which the ancestors of the Hui came from Samarqand. However, this is only one of numer‑ ous origin legends that circulated among the Hui; cf. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, Kitab-i jarida-yi jadida, (Kazan, 1889), 56; ʿUsman-ʿAli Sidikof, Tarikh-i Qirghiz-i Shadmaniya, (Ufa, 1914), 130-134; many shrines among the Hui also are connected to later Sufi figures said to have come to China from Central Asia; cf. Dru Gladney, “Muslim Tombs and Ethnic Folklore: Charters for Hui Identity,” Journal of Asian Studies, 46/3 (1987), 495-532. 11 Salars are a Turkic people probably descended from the ; on Salar traditions regarding Samarqand cf. E.R. Tenishev, Salarskie teksty, (Moscow, 1964), 3, 67-68, 119-121; G.N. Potanin, Tangutsko-Tibetskaia okraina Kitaia i Tsentral’naia Mongoliia II, (St. Peters‑ burg, 1893), 295; Marat Durdyev, Turkmeny Kitaia, (Ashgabat, 1992), 33-35. 32 chapter two world, the only cities these Muslims could identify as belonging to the Islamic world were Osh and Bukhara.12

Central Asian Ancestors among the Tatars and Bashkirs In the same manner as Muslim communities in China and Mongolia, Muslim communities in Russia also commonly identified Central Asian cities as sources of their Islamic status. Such Islamic status could originate either genetically, from an ancestor, or from a saint who brought about the Islamization of a community’s ancestors. Communities claiming ancestry from prominent saints or their disciples are commonly encountered throughout Inner Asia.13 Similarly, it is not unusual to find Central Asian saints as ancestral figures in Tatar and Bashkir genealogies. Among Tatars and Bashkirs these ancestral figures include Pahlawan Ata, the patron saint of Khiva, and Qorqut Ata, a prominent saint in Turkmen and Qazaq tradi‑ tion whose tomb was located along the middle course of the Syr-Darya River.14 Central Asian saints also figure prominently as Islamizers. In a Bashkir legend Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi, identified as a ruler of Bukhara, sent his student Husayn-Bek to convert the Bashkirs to Islam. The mausoleum of Husayn-Bek, located near the city of Chishmy in Bashkortostan, remains a major pilgrimage site in the region to this day.15 Another version of this legend links that mausoleum in Chishmy to a son of the Central Asian Sufi ʿAbd al-Khaliq Ghijduvani, whose tomb is a pilgrimage site in the town of Ghijduvan, near Bukhara.16 Muslims in Perm’ province have preserved a

12 G.N. Potanin, Ocherki Severo-Zapadnoi Mongolii, II (St. Petersburg, 1881), 16; the shrine of Taht-i Sulayman near Osh was a holy site known among Central Asian Muslims as a “Second Mecca;” cf. Zarcone, “Pilgrimage to the ‘Second Meccas’ and ‘Kaʿbas’” 254-256. 13 This phenomenon is of course well known in the political and includes countless examples, such as among the descendants of Makhdum-i Aʿzam in Mavarannahr, Eastern Turkestan, and the Qazaq Senior Horde. However the closest paral‑ lels with the Volga-Ural region and Siberia are to be found among the nomadic peoples, and are well documented for the Qazaqs in particular; cf. R.M. Mustafina, Predstavleniia, kul’ty, obriady u kazakhov, (, 1992), 91-94, who describes Qazaq clans in the Syr-Darya Valley claiming descent from students of Ahmad Yasavi. 14 Marsel’ Äkhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, (Kazan, 1995), 39-40, 48-49; on Pahlawan Ata cf. G.P. Snesarev, Khorezmskie legendy kak istochnik po istorii religioznykh kul’tov Sred- nei Azii, (Moscow, 1983), 169-199; on Qorqut Ata cf. I.A. Kastan’e, Drevnosti Kirgizskoi stepi i Orenburgskago kraia, Trudy Orenburgskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii XXII, (Orenburg, 1910), 216-218. 15 “Ak-ziiarat” Protokoly Turkestanskago kruga liubitelei arkheologii V (1900), 93-95; Petr Pavlovskii, “Mechet’ Khussein-beka.” Moskvitianin, 1843 (3), 234-245. 16 Kazan University Library MS 1388T, Appendix to the Tarikh Nama–yi Bulghar, folio 13b. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 33 conversion narrative in which three Companions of the prophet Muhammad (sahabas) came to their region from Samarqand, and con‑ verted their ancestors to Islam.17 Other Perm’ Tatars considered their an‑ cestors to have come from Bukhara.18 Kazan Tatar conversion narratives featuring Bukharans were recorded in the nineteenth century. One shrine, near the village of Karaduvan, in Kazan province, was a tomb belonging to “missionaries” who came from Bukhara and converted the local populace.19 Muslims near Elabuga, on the Kama River, traced their Islamization to a local ruler who had come from both Bukhara and Samarqand.20 Some Bashkir tribes traced their ancestry to the “Bashqort Mountains” said to be in the vicinity of Bukhara.21 Memories of Bukharan origins and their con‑ nection to Islamic status are also evident among the Noghays of the North Caucasus steppe, who share much of their ethnic and political history with Tatars and Bashkirs.22 Legends recorded in the nineteenth century among the nomadic Noghays in the Stavropol’ region relate that the ancestors of Noghays were who lived in the Bukhara region. A saint named Babatkul came there and preached to the Uzbek people to accept Islam, and a number of Uzbek tribes, including the Manghït, Qïpchaq, Nayman, Yedishqul, and Yedisan followed Babatkul’s teachings and became Muslims.23 The sacred bond with Bukhara was probably the most explicit among Siberian Muslims. A substantial proportion of this community was

17 Ämir Fatïykhov, Gäyne ile, (Barda, 1995), 37; this is evidently a local adaptation of the Bulghar conversion narrative. 18 Marsel’ Äkhmätjanov, Nughay urdasï, (Kazan, 2002), 264. 19 I.A. Iznoskov, “Zametki o gorodakh, kurganakh i drevnikh zhilishchakh, nakhodia‑ shchikhsia v Kazanskoi gubernii i o vstrechaiushchikhsia v nikh nakhodkakh,” Izvestiia Obshchestva Arkheologii, Istorii i Etnografii pri Kazanskom Universitete, II (1879), 106; Tatar khalïq ijatï: rivayat’lär häm legendalar, (Kazan, 1987), 260-261. 20 Kap. Nevostruev, O gorodishchakh drevniago volzhsko-bolgarskago i kazanskago tsarstv v nyneshnikh guberniiakh kazanskoi, simbirskoi, samarskoi i viatskoi, (Moscow, 1871), 58-59. 21 R.G. Kuzeev, Proiskhozhdenie bashkirskogo naroda, (Moscow, 1974), 129-131. 22 On ethnic ties between the Noghays and Volga-Ural Muslims cf. M. Akhmetzianov, “ etnolingvisticheskim protsessam v basseine r. Ik (po materialam shedzhere),” K formirova- niiu iazyka tatar Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia, (Kazan, 1985), 58-75; F.G. Garipova “Nekotorye is‑ tochniki dlia raskrytiia nogaiskogo (kipchakskogo) plasta v toponimii Tatarskoi ASSR,” Issledovaniia po istochnikovedeniiu istorii Tatarii, (Kazan, 1980), 136-149; Äkhmätjanov, Nughay urdasï, passim; on Noghay political connections with the Volga-Ural region cf. V.V. Trepavlov, Istoriia Nogaiskoi Ordy, (Moscow, 2002), 133-139. 23 I. Bentkovskii, Nogaitsy, Istoriko-statisticheskoe obozrenie inorodtsev-magometan kochuiushchikh v Stavropol’skoi gubernii I, (Stavropol’, 1888), 3; the reference to Babatkul is likely a reference to the saint and Islamizer of the Golden Horde Baba Tükles. 34 chapter two

­descended from Central Asian migrants, known collectively and officially as “Bukharans.” The sacred significance of Bukharan status was amplified by the highly privileged status (to be discussed in more detail below) that Siberian Bukharans enjoyed under Russian rule, from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Siberian Muslim sacred geography along the Tobol’ and Irtysh Rivers was based on a network of tombs believed to be‑ long to saints from Bukhara who had died waging holy war against local infidels. Typically the guardians of these shrines were local sayyids. In addition, there exists among Siberians a large body of related legends, in‑ cluding genealogies identifying Bukhara and its rulers as the locus from which Islam came to these communities.24 Small Muslim groups in Russia sometimes claimed Central Asian an‑ cestry as a means of seeking favored status compared to other communi‑ ties. Some Baraba Tatars, located in southern Siberia, explained the name “Baraba” as being derived from the city of Farab (Otrar) on the Syr-Darya River. They explained that their ancestors had come from this city, and in petitions to the Russian authorities emphasized their “Bukharan” status to reinforce their claims for privileges.25 Similarly, at the western extreme of the Qazaq steppe, another nomadic community, know as the Astrakhan Qaraqalpaqs, claimed Bukharan ancestry as well. The origins of the group are not completely clear, although observers generally agree that these Astrakhan Qaraqalpaqs did not originate among the Qaraqalpaq peo- ple around the Aral Sea. Pavel Nebol’sin, who visited them in the middle of the nineteenth century relates that they appeared in the region only in 1817, and became known to the Russian authorities in 1827 when their leader, Muhammad Bektemirov petitioned to have his 61 “Qazaqs” regis‑ tered as Kundrov Tatars, and to become Russian subjects, rather than subjects of the Qazaq Inner Horde. In their legends they claimed to have been Bukharans and to have come from the “Bukharan Steppe.” Other Astrakhan Qaraqalpaqs claimed to have been Qazaqs or Qaraqalpaqs,

24 Cf. Allen J. Frank, The Siberian Chronicles and the Taybughid Biys of Sibir’, Papers on Inner Asia 27, (Bloomington, Indiana, 1994), 11-12; N.F. Katanov, “O religioznykh voinakh uchenikov sheikha Bagauddin protiv inorodtsev Zapadnoi Sibiri,” Uchenye zapiski Kazan- skago Universiteta (1903), 133-146; cf. also R. Kh. Rakhimov, Astana v istorii Sibirskikh tatar: mavlzolei pervykh islamskikh missionerov kak pamiatniki istorii-kul’turnogo naslediia, (Tiumen’, 2006), passim. 25 On Islamization narratives among the Baraba Tatars, cf. Allen J. Frank, “Varieties of Islamization in Inner Asia: the Case of the Baraba Tatars, 1740-1917,” En Islam sibérien (Ca- hiers du monde russe, vol. XLI/2-3, 2000), 29-46. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 35 although they do not appear in the genealogies of either of these groups.26 Subsequent ethnographic research suggests this group was most likely descended from Kazan Tatar and Mishar fugitives who lived among the Qazaqs.27 As we shall discuss below, in Russia at that time legal status as “Bukharans” conferred a number of privileges and benefits to the com‑ munity that obtained it. But obtaining legal and communal benefits based on holy ancestry was well established in Islamic Inner Asia, and although some observers see it as legal manipulation, the benefits of being classified as “Bukharans” could equally be understood within these groups as provid‑ ing evidence of the ancestor’s holiness.

Sayyids and Sufis While straightforward claims of Central Asian ancestry are certainly evi‑ dence of an emotional, communal, and thereby religious bond with Central Asia, some Muslim communities in Russia understood their links with Central Asia—and with Bukhara in particular—in even more explicitly sacred terms. Such sacred links are evident in the genealogies of groups claiming descent from Central Asian saints and Bukharan sayyids, that is, from ancestors descended from the family of the prophet Muhammad or from the four Righteous Caliphs. Sayyid communities, also known as kh- wajas, are well documented throughout Central Asia among both no‑ madic and sedentary communities where their influence in the political, social and religious history of Central Asia has been profound.28 In Siberia and the Volga-Ural region sayyids have only been studied in any detail for their political and religious role in the successor states of the Golden Horde.29 However sayyid communities have retained a strong presence in the Volga-Ural region and especially Siberia down to the present day, and their genealogies emphasize strong sacred links with Bukhara and its saints.30 In addition to the sayyid genealogies, we can also include in this

26 Pavel Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia (St. Petersburg, 1852), 118-124. 27 On this group cf. Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910, (Leiden-Boston, 2001), 93-94. 28 For an informed discussion of the sayyid phenomenon in Central Asia, and a survey of the relevant literature, see the Foreword by Devin DeWeese in Islamizatsiia i sakral’nye rodoslovnye v Tsentral’noi Azii, Ashirbek Muminov, ed., (Almaty, 2009), 6-33. 29 Damir Iskhakov, Seidy v pozdnezolotoordynskikh tatarskikh gosudarstvakh, (Kazan, 1997), 71-74; Marsel’ Äkhmätjanov, “Säyed Shakulovlar,” Vatanïm Tatarstan, 10 June 1995. 30 Particularly useful studies of the sayyid phenomenon in Siberia include, A.K. Bustanov and S.N. Korusenko, “Rodoslovnye Sibirskikh bukhartsev: im’ianinovy,” Arkheologiia, etno- grafiia i antropologiia Evrazii 2 (42) 2010, 97-105; Alfrid Bustanov, “Sacred Texts of Siberian 36 chapter two category genealogies documenting descent from Companions (sahabas) of the prophet Muhammad. While not sayyids strictly speaking, the mem‑ bers of these descent groups nevertheless distinguished themselves by their descent from individuals directly connected to the prophet Muhammad. As with the sayyids, their genealogies typically pass through Bukhara. Several lines of sayyids in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia trace their ancestry to figures active in the successor states of the Golden Horde, specifically in the Siberian Khanate and the Kasimov Khanate. In both regions the genealogies document the Central Asian origins of these fam‑ ilies. In the Volga-Ural region a number of quite similar genealogies belong‑ ing to the Shah-Qol (Shakulov) family have come down to us. This family was active in the Kasimov Khanate in the seventeenth century. Their ge‑ nealogy establishing them as descendants of Husayn b. ʿAli lists thirty-nine generations, beginning with the ancestor of the Quraysh Tribe, ʿAbd al- Mannan. The twentieth generation, Sayyid Ahmad Khisarayi Ata, was ‑ tablished in Bukhara. He is linked to the Yasavian figure Hakim Ata, and his descendants are said to have lived along the River.31 The twenty-third generation, Sayyid Muhammad Bukhari, is also linked to that city, and his descendants are said to have lived in Bukhara, India, and Sindh. The descendants of Muhammad Bukhari’s brother, Sayyid Mahmud, are said to have lived in Turkistan, Khoqand, and Qarshi. The descendants of the twenty-eighth generation, of Shah-Khan, lived in Dagestan, the Kuban, and the Crimea. The descendants of Shah-Bay, Shah-Khan’s broth‑ er, lived in “the Bulghar country,” Kasimov, Astrakhan, and along the Volga. Shah-Bay’s grandson was Shah-Qoli, from whom the Shakulovs take their name.32 An even more immediate connection with Central Asia is evident in the genealogies of the Siberian sayyids who even today retain an important place in the religious life of Siberian Muslims as the caretakers of shrines

Khwaja Families. The Descendants of Sayyid Ata,” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 2 (2011), 70-99. 31 The Amu Darya River figures prominently in a series of legends recorded in the Hakim Ata Kitabï connected to Hakim Ata and one of his sons, Hubbi Khwaja who was also venerated in Khorezm as a patron saint of the Amu Darya River; cf. Devin DeWeese, “Three Tales from the Central Asian ‘Book of Hakim Ata,’”, Tales of God’s Friends: Islamic Hagiog- raphy in Translation, John Renard, ed., (Berkeley, California, 2009), 121-135. 32 Äkhmätjanov, Nughay Urdasï, 222-226. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 37 connected to the Islamization of Siberia.33 These genealogies exist in sev‑ eral versions, but generally they relate how during the reign of Küchüm Khan (r. 1563-1581), Küchüm’s brother Ahmad-Giray appealed to the khan of Bukhara to send a shaykh al-islam to Siberia. The khan of Bukhara (in some versions he is identified as ʿAbdullah Khan) sent a certain Shirbeti Shaykh who came from Urgench, accompanied by other sayyids, and to‑ gether they achieved out the Islamization of Siberia. In one version, the Siberian shaykhs claim descent from the Yasavian saint Sayyid Ata.34 In the historical legends of the Siberian Tatars the two Muslim dynasties that pre-dated the Russian conquest are linked explicitly to Bukhara. In the case of the Chingisid Küchüm, he is said to have received strong support from the Shïbanid rulers of Mavarannahr, particularly ʿAbdullah II (r. 1583-98).35 Similarly, several accounts in West Siberian Turkic manuscripts relate an account of the history of the dynasty that Küchüm displaced, the Taybu­ ghids. These legends share certain features with the account of Sherbeti Shaykh, and state that the founder of the Taybughid dynasty, Taybugha Biy, came from Bukhara, and was the son of a ruler there. Taybugha Biy brought a number of religious scholars with him, and they were respon‑ sible for the Islamization of Siberia.36 During the eighteenth century Gerhard Miller remarked on the presence of sayyid families in Siberia. He included among these the sayyid families who were present before the Russian conquest, and those who arrived from Central Asia afterwards. Among the former he counted the descendants of Din-Ali Khwaja, who was from Urgench, but came from Bukhara with Küchüm Khan. According to legends that Miller recorded in the eighteenth century, Din-Ali Khwaja was married to Küchüm’s daughter, Nal-Khansha. Their children founded sayyid lineages in several villages in the environs of Tobolsk.37 Central

33 On shrines and Islamization narratives in Siberia cf. A.K. Bustanov, “Sufiiskie legendy ob islamizatsii Sibiri,” Tiurkologicheskie Sbornik 2009-2010, (Moscow, 2011), 33-78; A.G. Seleznev et al. Kul’ sviatykh v sibirskom islame: spetsifika universal’nogo, (Moscow, 2009). 34 Alfrid Bustanov, “The Sacred Texts of Siberia Khwaja Families,” 97-98; Iskhakov, Seidy, 53-57; Hadi Atlasi, Sibir tarikhi, (Kazan, 1911), 86-91; V.V. Radlov, Obraztsy narodnoi literatury tiurkskikh plemen IV (narechie barabintsev, tarskikh, tobol’skikh i tiumenskikh tatar), (St. Petersburg, 1878), 212-213, 217-220; N.F. Katanov,”Predaniia Tobol’skikh tatar o pribytii v 1572 g. mukhammedanskikh propovednikov v g. Isker,” Ezhegodnik Tobol’skago gosudarst- vennago muzeia VII (1897), 51-61; Shirbeti Shaykh’s tomb in Isker, near Tobolsk, remains an important shrine among Siberian Muslims; Rakhimov, Astana v istorii sibirskikh tatar,32 -33. 35 Iskhakov, Seidy, 57. 36 Frank, The Siberian Chronicles, 12. 37 G.F. Miller, Opisanie Sibirskago tsarstva I, (St. Petersburg, 1750), 58; for a discussion of present-day genealogies connecting Siberian Bukharan families with Din-Ali Khwaja cf. 38 chapter two

Asian sayyid families continued to migrate to Siberia after the Russian conquest. One of the most prominent sayyid families in Siberia was the Shikhov family. Probably at the beginning of the eighteenth century the founder of this family, Abaz-Bakchi Sheikh, moved from Sayram to Tara. The family traced its ancestry back to Zayn al-ʿAbidin, the son of Imam Husayn, and counted itself as descended from the rulers of Sayram.38 It should be added that khwajas from the Volga-Ural region were pres‑ ent in Siberia, too. In Petropavlovsk one of that city’s most prominent imams, Sayfullah b. Utagan, claimed sayyid descent.39 Similarly, members of the Shakulov family from Kasimov were established in Tara as mer‑ chants in the 1780’s.40 In Russia individual families, entire villages, or even groups of villages could claim sayyid status. The inhabitants of the village of Qumirguja in Kazan province claimed descent from the Caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khattab.41 The largest single group that could claim sayyid status in Russia appears to have been the Bashkir Sart-Äyle clan (Hart-Äyle in Bashkir orthography), which inhabited portions of the Trans-Ural steppe. Äyle oral tradition generally identified its ancestors as Central Asians, specifically from the Syr-Darya or Amu-Darya valleys. The historian Taj ad-Din b. Yalchighul (1768-1832) was himself a member of the Äyle tribe, and the Central Asian cities that feature so prominently in his history, the Tarikh Nama-yi Bulghar, are probably linked to these traditions. However, Sart-Äyle Bashkirs claimed both genealogical and sacred connections with Bukharan sayyids. The Sart-Äyles believed their ancestor was a Bukharan sayyid named Malek-khuzha whose six sons founded the six villages in‑ habited by the clan. Malek-khuzha is identified as a “missionary” who brought Islam to the region.42 In the case of the Sart-Äyle clan we can detect the same sort of bond with Bukhara evident among the Siberian

Bustanov and Korusenko, “Rodoslovnye Sibirskikh bukhartsev,” 97-105. 38 G.N. Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei v XVIII stoletii,” Chteniia istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom Universitete April-June 1868, Kniga vtoraia, 71. 39 Shihab ad-Din Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa BulgharII, 260; Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:11, 231-232. 40 I.G. Andreev records how a “Tara Tatar mirza” named Shakulov had 700 rubles worth of goods stolen by Qazaq raiders in 1781; cf. I.G. Andreev, Opisanie Srednei Ordy Kirgiz- Kaisakov, (Almaty, 1998), 113. 41 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:11, 231-232. 42 Kuzeev, Proiskhozhdenie, 199; Kuzeev’s information evidently derives from a Sart-Äyle genealogy recorded in Kurgan oblast’ in the 1920’s; cf. A. Fattakhutdinov, “Bashkirskie shezhere (kratkoe arkheograficheskoe opisanie),” Bashkirskie shezhere (filologichekie issle- dovaniia i publikatsii), (Ufa, 1985), 117. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 39

Tatars, including claims of Bukharan origins, of Islamization originating from Bukhara, as well as of descent from Bukharan sayyids. In his autobi‑ ography the Siberian reformist ʿAbd ar-Rashid Ibrahim provides a different version of these Bashkirs’ Bukharan origins. He indicates that in the early seventeenth century a group of Bukharans went to some Bashkirs and “preached Islam” among them. Later they were registered as Bashkirs and obtained Bashkir status, and the Sart and Qalmaq clans are descended from these Bukharans.43 However, the German traveler Johann Georgi, who visited Bashkiria in the 1770’s, cited yet another legend of the Sart Bashkirs regarding their origins, as well as Russian government decrees confirming the Bukharan status of these “Sarts.” Georgi includes them in his discussion of the “Bougharians,” that is, Bukharans, and says the ­fol­lowing: The two Bougharian volosts of Baschkiria are called Sarti, and the chancer‑ ies of the government note them under that name, which signifies merchants who travel with caravans. According to their traditions the Bougharian khan, in the time of the Russian conquests, sent the murza Reingoul to the tzar, who remained twelve years at the court of Russia in quality of agent for the Bougharian nation; who, on his journey back again, was so charmed with the country about Oufa, that he took the resolution of settling there for the rest of his life. His family and those of his followers multiplied very fast, and were joined by so great a number of Bougharians who deserted from the bondage of the Kirguisians [Qazaqs] to him and his descendants, that in the year 1771 these two volosts were composed of 50 families in the province of Oufa, and in that of Iset, 52, besides many fugitives not taken into the account. […] The Sarti of the province of Oufa resemble in all respects the Tartar villagers of Oufa. Those found among the Baschkirians, of the province of Iset, have reformed their ancient pastoral life, though, in imita‑ tion of the Baschkirians, they have fixed villages wherein they pass the win‑ ter. Although at present they resemble the Baschkirians. As to their way of life, dress, customs, &c. they have nevertheless preserved a greater taste for neatness, together with their own Bougharian character.44 Another group of Bashkirs claiming descent from Central Asian sayyids were the so-called Qïrghïz Bashkirs, inhabiting the village of Tashlï in Bugulma district, in modern-day southeastern Tatarstan. According to their genealogy, their ancestor was Qorqod-Ata, whom they identify as having been from among the sayyids (sayyid-zadas) in the Qïrghïz (i.e.

43 Gabderäshit Ibrahimov, Tärjemäi khälem, (Kazan, 2001), 10. 44 Johann Gottlieb Georgi, Russia, or, a Compleat Historical Account of All the Nations Which Compose that Empire II, (London, 1780), 128, 152-153. 40 chapter two

Qazaq) country, on the “Bukhara Road,” along the banks of the Syr Darya.45 This is a reference to the famous saint Qorqut-Ata whose tomb had been in Kazakhstan, along the middle course of the Syr-Darya River, and who figures prominently in Qazaq and Turkmen tradition as a patron saint of shamans.46 He is also known in Turkish and Turkmen tradition as Dede Korkut, after whom the well-known sixteenth century Turkish epic is named.

Sahabas as Ancestors In the Volga-Ural region we also find genealogies of groups claiming de‑ scent from the sahabas Salman Farsi, Anas b. Malik, and their Central Asian descendants. The traditions concerning Anas b. Malik appear to be of some antiquity, as he is also remembered among the Qazaqs as their direct ancestor. Numerous Qazaq genealogies feature Anas b. Malik as the ancestor not only of the Qazaqs, but of other Inner Asian peoples as well. In an account recorded by the poet Mashhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï the geneal‑ ogy is as follows: Alash b. Alaman b. Quray b. Sehil b. Maghaz b. Zhabal b. Anas.47 Among the Aday Qazaqs of the Junior zhüz, Anas b. Malik is known as Anqas Sakhaba, and appears in a series of genealogies among them as the ancestor of the three Qazaq zhüzes as well.48 One Tatar genealogy stemming from Anas b. Malik comes from the village of Qalmash, in Chishmy district, Bashkortostan, and unlike the Qazaq variants, it links Anas’ descendants with Bukhara. Nevertheless in its other details the ge‑ nealogy corresponds closely Mashhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï’s version. It states that Änäs Sahaba is buried in Basra, but one of his descendants was Jayilkhan, who was the ancestor of the Turkmens. Uzbak b. Mayqi b. Jayilkhan married a Sart girl in Bukhara where he remained. Erqaltaq b. Jantaka b. Uzbak had two sons, Qazaq and Suzaq, both of whom were Qazaqs. Uzbak’s son Jantaka left Bukhara and moved to Ufa. The account

45 Äkhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, 48-49. 46 V.N. Basilov and Dzh. Kh. Karmysheva, Islam u kazakhov, (Moscow, 1997), 46-48. 47 Mashhür-Zhüsip Köpeev, Shïgharmalarï X, (Pavlodar, 2006), 220-221; a similar version can be found in Zayir Sadibekov, Qazaq shezhiresi, (Tashkent, 1994), 22; Alash is typically considered among Qazaqs the ancestor of the Qazaq people as a whole. 48 O. Kh. Khalidullin and N. Kh. Sangispaev, Qazaqtïng birtutas shezhiresi—Genealo- giia kazakhov Adai, (Almaty, 2004), 15-21; an essentially identical account is found in a verse genealogy of the Junior Horde; cf. Khamit Maddanov, Kishi zhüzding shezhiresi, (Almaty, 1994), 12. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 41 then indicated that Jantaka’s descendants became Mishars, and later be‑ came “Bashkirs from among the Mishars.”49 The sahaba Salman Farsi (568-644 ce) is remembered in the Volga-Ural region as an Islamizer, ancestor, saint, and tutelary figure for sunnat ba- bays, that is, for those who perform the circumcision ritual. He is remem‑ bered as the founder and Islamizer of the village of Iske Salman (Starye Salmany), near the site of Bulghar. According to a legend from that village the prophet Muhammad sent Salman Farsi, who is locally known as Söläyman-khuja, from Mecca to Bulghar. When he reached Bulghar Söläy­ man-khuja became khan, opened a madrasa, and taught students who spread out throughout the region, bringing Islam with them, and, it is said, he so loved the Bulghar people that he remained.50 Three additional, and probably older, versions of genealogies connect‑ ed to Salman Farsi that place his descendants in Central Asia, have come down to us. These genealogies are found throughout the Volga-Ural region, on the east and west banks of the Volga and among the Bashkirs. One reason that these genealogies have been preserved is that the descendants of Salman Farsi were recognized in the region as specialists in circum­ cision. The most extensive of these genealogies is from the village of ­Qosh­man, on the western bank of the Volga. This genealogy begins with Salman Farsi and one of his descendants was a certain Aghïs, who went to live in Sayram, where, we learn, his descendants are still located. Of these Arslan and Ayas went to the Urals. Their descendants live among the Bashkirs (Ishtäk), and they went to Bulghar. The compiler acknowledges­ the differing identities of Salman Farsi’s descendants in the region: Mishar, Bashkir etc., but he emphasizes that they should not forget that their genuine identity is as descendants of Salman Farsi. A related version known as Shaykh Dirbesh’s genealogy claims their ancestors are also de‑ scendents of Salman Farsi, and came from the city of Turkistan. Mökham­ mat Khamitov’s genealogy is essentially the same as the ones above. The genealogy is expli­citly connected to a family of sunnat-babays from the villages of Qoshman in Apas district, Bishmuncha in Almet’evsk district,

49 Äkhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, 54-55; “Bashirs from among the Mishars” here signi‑ fies communities identifying themselves as Mishars whom the imperial authorities in 1866 reclassified as “Bashkirs.” 50 Tatar khalq ijatï: rivayät’lär häm legendalar, (Kazan, 1987), 26-27; clearly, this is a variant on the well-known “Bulghar” conversion narrative in which the prophet Muhammad sends three of his Companions to Bulghar, and who effect the conversion of the Bulghar khan and his people. However, it appears to be a case of adapting an existing lineage to a popular and influential conversion narrative. 42 chapter two and Iske Salman. The names in the genealogy are connected with villages in Apas district, such as Qaratun, Qarmïsh, Keläwle, Uraq, and Asan. Also, according to legends circulating among these communities it was the prophet Muhammad who gave Salman Farsi the right to perform circum‑ cisions.51

Central Asian Saints in the Lives of Russian Muslims While some communities distinguished themselves by the presence of Central Asian saints and sayyids in their ancestries, Central Asian saints could affect in a variety of significant ways all Muslim communities in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia, regardless of ancestry. Muslim patron saints (pirs) were believed to protect crops and livestock, but were also linked to a wide range of economic activities, such as craft production, fishing and beekeeping.52 Specific saints who protected Muslims from the dangers such as childbirth and broken bones were also considered as pirs. However, a number of pirs universally recognized in Central Asia, particularly among the Qazaqs and Tatars, were the protectors of livestock, several of whom were identified as descendants or disciples of Ahmad Yasavi. These in‑ cluded Zangi Baba, the protector of cattle.53 He is often identified as the murid of Sulayman Baqïrghani, who is also known as Hakim Ata, and Zangi Baba’s tomb is a well-known shrine located in the vicinity of Tashkent. After the death of Hakim Ata, Zangi Baba became his successor, and in some accounts married Hakim-Ata’s widow, Anbar-Ana.54 Hakim- Ata and Anbar-Ana also figure in Tatar tradition as the protectors of ­domestic fowl.55

51 Akhmätjanov, Tatar shäjäräläre, 57-60. 52 Allen J. Frank, “Muslim Patron Saints (Pirs) in Tatar Religious Belief and Practice: a Preliminary Inquiry,” Istochniki i issledovaniia po istorii tatarskogo naroda, (Kazan, 2006), 339-345. Tatar practice with respect to pirs appears to follow closely Qazaq practice; for the veneration of pirs among the Qazaqs cf. Mustafina, Predstavleniia, 102-103; G.N. Potanin, Ocherki severo-zapadnoi Mongolii II (St. Petersburg, 1881), 152-153. 53 Zangi Ata is primarily known among Tatars as the protector of cattle, but in some regions he is known as the protector of horses or camels, and also as the protector of trav‑ elers; cf. Frank, “Muslim Patron Saints,” 342-343. 54 On legends that circulated among Tatars and Bashkirs regarding the connections of these saints with Ahmad Yasavi, cf. K.G. Zaleman, “Legenda pro Khakima-Ata,” Izvestiia imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1898, sentiabr’, vol. IX, no. 2, 1-46; for a concise account of the traditions concerning these Yasavian figures cf. Sergei Abashin, “Zangi-ata,” Islam na ter- ritorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii I, 150-153, and J. Castagné, “Le culte des lieux saints de l’islam au Turkestan,” L”Ethnographie n.s. 46 (1951), 53-54. 55 F.S. Bayazitova, Tatar khalqïnïng bäyräm häm könküresh yolalarï, (Kazan, 1995), 116. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 43

Several Bukharan saints figure prominently in the hagiolatry of Muslims in Russia. Their significance in Siberia had already been indicated, as well as their prominence in Islamization legends, but the tombs of several “Bukharan” saints are also known in the Volga-Ural region, including in the Bulghar shrine catalogs. The Tawarikh-i Bulghariyya, a sacred history of the Volga-Ural region compiled early in the nineteenth century, lists sev‑ eral saints associated specifically with Bukhara. These include Hajji Habi­ bullah Bukhari, buried in the village of Berdibiakovo, Niyaz b. Choqmaqi Bukhari in the village of Qutlï Bükäsh, and Fayzullah Bukhari, a legendary Sufi, in Kazan.56 Another Bukharan saint is Shaykh Zaman Bukharlï, buried by the village Mashaikovo near Astrakhan.57

Bukharan Communities in Imperial Russia: Official Privilege and Exalted Status

The expansion of commercial and religious contacts between Bukhara and Muslims in Russia, and the elevation of Bukharan status among Muslims in Russia, began to gather momentum in the middle of the eighteenth century. As we have seen, religious bonds between Russian Muslims and Central Asia predate the eighteenth century and even the Russian con‑ quest of the region in the sixteenth century. The same is true for eco‑ nomic ties.58 Trade routes between the Volga-Ural region and Central Asia, and between Siberia and Central Asia, certainly existed during the time of Golden Horde, and earlier. The presence of Bukharan merchants near Nizhnii Novgorod was recorded already in 1348.59 The Russian conquests of the Volga-Ural region and Siberia not only did not alter these trade routes, but the maintenance and expansion of these caravan routes

56 Tawarikh-i Bulghariya, St. Petersburg IVRAN, B749, ff. 23b-24a. Curiously, the vil‑ lages of Qutli Bukash and Berdibak were inhabited by Orthodox Christian Tatars, the de‑ scendants of sixteenth-century converts to . It is significant that the compiler of the Tawarikh-i Bulghariya appealed to the legacy of Bukhara to emphasize the Islamic heritage of these non-Muslim communities, evidently with the intention of attracting them back to Islam. 57 N. Matorin, Religiia u narodov Volzhsko-Kamskogo kraia, (Moscow, 1929), 88; A.V. Syzra­nov, “Kul’t musul’manskikh sviatykh v Astrakhanskom krae,” Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2006 (2), 19. 58 For a general discussion on Bukharan commerce in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries cf. Audrey Burton, The Bukharans: a Dynastic, Diplomatic, and Commercial His- tory, 1550-1702 (New York, 1997), which covers trade with Muscovy and Siberia. 59 S.V. Zhukovskii, Snosheniia Rossii s Bukharoi i Khivoi za poslednee trekhsotletie, (Petro‑ grad, 1915), 2. 44 chapter two became an important aspect of Russian economic and diplomatic policy already by the end of the sixteenth century, and remained so until the establishment of railroads in the Russian Empire. A key element in guar‑ anteeing and expanding these caravan routes was the establishment of permanent communities of Central Asians at the Russian terminus points, and in fact there is evidence that as early as the 1650’s an established Bukharan community may have existed in Kazan.60 In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Russian authorities sought to attract Central Asian merchants, first to Siberia and Astrakhan, and in the eighteenth century to the newly-built cities along the Qazaq steppe, such as Orenburg, Petropavlovsk, and Semipalatinsk, by granting far-reaching privileges and extraterritorial rights to subjects of the Central Asian khanates. As a result, Central Asian communities became among the most privileged estates in the Russian empire, and remained so well into the nineteenth century. The Central Asians in Russia generally maintained very close economic, com‑ munal, and family ties both with their home communities and with local Muslims. For Tatars and Bashkirs the elevation of Central Asian social and legal status by the Russian state coincided with the augmentation of Bukhara’s religious prestige, and it further encouraged Muslims in Russia, not least in official documents, to at times blur the distinction between the communities. The Bukharans’ prominence and ubiquity in Inner Asian commerce in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from Persia to China, and the generally high degree of education and sophistication of many Bukharan merchants (repeatedly attested in Russian sources) com‑ plemented Bukhara’s prestige. The prestige, and significance accorded the city of Bukhara proper is also evident in the Russians’ often indiscriminate use of the term “Bukharan” (bukharetin, bukharets) to apply to sedentary Central Asian Muslims, whether they were from Bukhara, Khorezm, the Ferghana Valley, Tashkent, or even Kashgaria. For example, Ivan Unkovskii, Peter the Great’s envoy to the Oirat Khanate in 1722 referred to both the Siberian Bukharans who guided him to the Oirat capital, and the Muslims of Kashgaria who were subjects of the Oirats, as “Bukharans.”61 In the

60 A Russian customs list from the 1650’s documenting trade between Siberia and Central Asia lists numerous “Kazan Service Tatars” and Kazan Tatars among merchants bringing Central Asian goods to the city. But the list also includes one unnamed “Kazan Bukharan” (kazanskii bukharetin); cf. S. Kh. Alishev, ed. Istochniki po istorii Tatarstana, (Kazan, 1993), 110. 61 N.I. Veselovskii, ed., Posol’stvo k ziungarskomu khun-taichzhi Tsevan Rabtanu kapi- tana ot artillerii Ivana Unkovskago i putevoi zhurnal ego za 1722-1724 gody, (St. Peterbsurg, 1887), 186. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 45 nineteenth century the French orientalist J. Klaproth reported meeting “Bukharans” in Kiakhta, in Eastern Siberia, who were from Turfan and Hami in Eastern Turkestan;62 it was also customary in Russian usage in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for Bukhara proper to be referred to as “Greater Bukharia” (Velikaia Bukhariia) and Kashgaria to be referred to as “Lesser Bukharia” (Malaia Bukhariia) or Oirat Bukharia (Dzungarskaia Bukhariia).

The Siberian Bukharans The oldest, largest and most influential concentrations of Central Asians in the Russian empire were in Siberia, Astrakhan and Orenburg. In these places where the bulk of the trade was with Bukhara, it was Bukharans who predominated among Central Asians. Further to the east, in Petropavlovsk, Semipalatinsk, and Ust’-Kamenogorsk, where much of the trade was with Tashkent, Central Asian merchants were sometimes known in Russian documents as Tashkendis (tashkentsy). The clearest evidence of the paral‑ lel elevation of Central Asian social and religious status in Russia is the example of the so-called Siberian Bukharans. As we have seen, Central Asian religious figures and merchants occupied an important position in Siberia already under Küchüm Khan, possibly arriving, according to local genealogies, in 1572. Following the Russian conquest of Siberia, the au‑ thorities in Moscow soon realized that the trade relations between Central Asia and the newly founded Russian settlements and fortresses in western Siberia would have to be maintained and even expanded because of the difficulties of maintaining lines of communications between Siberia and central Russia. Although the earliest Russian legislation concerning the Bukha­ran community in Siberia was mainly aimed at restricting the weap‑ ons trade between these merchants and Küchüm Khan, already by 1596 the Bukharan community had successfully petitioned the tsar to authorize and facilitate commercial contacts with Bukhara. In their petition they requested that the tsar send ambassadors to Bukhara and the Noghay Horde to request sending merchants to Siberia. They also requested that the tsar send a group that included a mullah and a shaykh (that is, a local sayyid) to Bukhara. The same year the tsar directed that the voevoda of Tara, F. Eletskii, establish a market in that city so that “Bukharans, Noghays, and Tajik merchants” would come to trade with local Tatars and Russians. The tsar also directed that these Bukharan merchants be treated well, and

62 J. Klaproth, “Sur les Boukhares,” Journal Asiatique II, 1823, 160. 46 chapter two decreed that all trade taking place in Tara be tax exempt. These Bukharans were also permitted to travel throughout Siberia.63 During the sixteenth century the expansion of trade between Siberia and Central Asia became an important feature of Russian economic policy, and the privileges ac‑ corded to Central Asian merchants rapidly expanded. The economic and political dislocation in Muscovy during the Time of Troubles (1603-1611) further isolated Siberia from Russia, especially economically. As a result during the first two decades of the seventeenth century Siberian trade with Central Asia gained an important strategic dimension for Muscovy, and the tsar at that time permitted Central Asian merchants to settle in Siberia. These communities became known in Russian documents as “tobol’skie and tiumenskie torgovye bukhartsy,” (Tobol’sk and Tiumen’ Merchant Bukharans) and as “iurtovskie bukhartsy,” (Bukharans of the Yurt); Central Asian merchants coming to Siberia to trade were called “priezzhie bukhart- sy,” (Visiting Bukharans).64 As early as 1621 Bukharans were working for Russia as customs officials and tax collectors. In the 1630’s Bukharans merchants were traveling beyond Siberia to Arkhangel’sk, Kazan, and Moscow. In 1645 a Bukharan merchant successfully petitioned the tsar complaining of mistreatment at the hands of Siberian authorities, citing excessive taxation, and indicating that Siberian Bukharans were consider‑ ing going back to Bukhara. The same year the tsar forbade the voevoda of Tobol’sk from collecting taxes from Bukharans. In fact, throughout the seventeenth century the tsar regularly upheld the privileges of the Bukharans in disputes with Russian authorities and the Russian merchants in Siberia.65 A series of royal decrees issued over the course of the seven‑ teenth century sought to encourage the settlement of Central Asians in Siberia, and accorded substantial privileges to these communities. A de‑ cree from 1644 guaranteed official support to Bukharan trade caravans, and removed them from the jurisdiction of local officials in Russia proper. They were also immune from postal duties (iamskaia povinnost’).66 A decree from 1686 allowed them to travel to Russia as far as Arkhangel’sk and Astrakhan, and made them immune from all but criminal courts. In 1701

63 O.N. Vilkov, “Bukhartsy i ikh torgovlia v zapadnoi Sibiri v XVII v.,” Torgovlia gorodov Sibiri kontsa XVI-nachala XX v., (Novosibirsk, 1987), 171-173; V.P. Shpaltakov, “Sredneaziatskie torgovye liudi v Sibiri v XVIII-XIX vv.,” Torgovlia gorodov Sibiri, 215-224; Ziiaev, Ekonomi- cheskie sviazi Srednei Azii s Sibi’iu, 24-25. 64 Vilkov, “Bukhartsy i ikh torgovlia,” 175; Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 26. 65 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 29-30, 32. 66 Gmelin was present in 1734 when a group of Siberian Bukharans refused to supply horses to Russian officials, citing their exemption from these duties; cf. Johann Gottlieb Gmelin, Voyage en Siberie I, (Paris, 1767), 52. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 47 they became immune from taxes and dues on land that they had pur‑ chased. The effect of these policies was to expand settlements of Siberian Bukharans, and by the end of the seventeenth century they were found in Tobol’sk, Tiumen’, Tara, Tomsk, and Kuznetsk.67 The Bukharans in Siberia not only maintained Siberia’s trade with Central Asia, but also maintained the region’s internal trade networks. For example, the biggest buyer of moose hides in Tomsk in 1682 was the Bukharan Safar Abdulin, who shipped them to Tobol’sk. At the same time, he and another Bukharan named Azeika-Baba Seitov, evidently a sayyid, were the only suppliers of rye to Tomsk.68 In addition to being merchants this community also pro‑ vided numerous other services to the Russian authorities. They worked as customs officials at various fairs, appraised and sold government goods both in Siberia and Central Asia, and served as leaders of caravans and interpreters assisted Russian diplomatic missions to Central Asia, Mon­ golia, and China.69 Bukharan merchants appear to have played a similar role in the Oirat Khanate. The German traveler Johann Gmelin, who visited Tomsk in the 1730’s, commented on the close relationship in that town between the Bukharan merchants and Oirat rulers.70 Well before the Russians, in the seventeenth century the Oirats were making use of intelligence reports submitted by Bukharan merchants. As a result, one Russian historian be‑ lieves that the Oirat ruler Galdan Tseren was certainly better informed about events in Siberia than the Siberian authorities were aware of events in Zungharia.71 Following the collapse of the Oirat Khanate in the 1750’s, many Bukharans shifted over to Russian service as intermediaries for Russia’s commercial and diplomatic relations with China. Bukharans re‑ mained involved in the caravan trade in Mongolia, retaining a prominent position in the Kiakhta fair, in Eastern Siberia, and establishing themselves as far as Irkutsk.72 Similarly, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Bukharans were guiding Russian trade and diplomatic missions into

67 Vilkov, “Bukhartsy i ikh torgovlia,” 201-202. 68 Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 70. 69 Vilkov, “Bukhartsy i ikh torgovlia,” 203-204; Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c ­dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 75. 70 Johann Gottlieb Gmelin, Voyage en Sibèrie I, (Paris, 1767), 166. 71 Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 69. 72 N.M. Iadrintsev, Sibirskie inorodtsy, ikh byt i sovremennoe polozhenie, (St. Petersburg, 1891), 39; Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 69. 48 chapter two

Zungharia and to .73 The role of Siberian Bukharans as mediators between the Russia and the Oirat Khanate is particularly evident in Ivan Unkovskii’s report of his diplomatic mission to the Oirat capital in the Ili Valley in the 1720’s. His embassy was accompanied by twelve Siberian Bukharan merchants, who also served as guides. In the Oirat capital Unkovskii was host to numerous visits by merchants from Bukhara proper seeking authorization to trade in Russia.74 A series of imperial decrees over the course of the eighteenth century cemented the status of Siberian Bukharans as the most privileged Muslim community in Russia, and possibly one of the most privileged communities in Russia as a whole. In 1701 Peter I decreed that henceforth Siberian Bukharans of Tobol’sk should be immune from all taxation and obligations. Under pressure from Russian merchants in Siberia, Catherine II in 1764 reduced their privileges, and decreed that they were liable to yasak, a type of tribute paid by subject communities.75 As a result of these changes, the commercial activity of this community briefly declined, and in 1787, not only did Catherine fully reinstate their original privileges, but she ex‑ panded them to grant the Siberian Bukharans the right of internal self- administration (samoupravlenie). At that time the Siberian merchants not only enjoyed full status as members of the merchant estate (meshchane), but they also had rights properly belonging to the gentry (dvoriane). Namely, they had the right to trade in any goods anywhere in Russia with‑ out paying guild taxes. They were allowed to purchase land from Tatars. They remained exempt from labor dues (obrok), postal obligations, emer‑ gency levies, and other taxes and duties, and they were able to maintain these privileges intact until well into the middle of the nineteenth centu‑ ry.76 Following the legal and administrative reforms of the Qazaq Steppe in 1822 and 1824, the Siberian Bukharans’ importance to the imperial au‑ thorities began to wane, and the efforts of Russian merchants in Siberia to

73 A.I. Timofeev, ed., Pamiatniki Sibirskoi istorii XVIII veka I, (St. Petersburg, 1882), 118- 120; Iadrintsev, Sibirskie inorodtsy, 37. 74 Veselovskii, ed., Posol’stvo kziungarskomu khun-taichzhi Tsevan Rabtanu, 18-19, 28, 61, 63, and passim. 75 The position of yasak-paying communities was relatively privileged, as these com‑ munities were immune from military recruitment and other obligations. Beginning in the reign of Peter the Great, yasak status was gradually revoked among Turkic and Finno-Ugric communities west of the Ural Mountains, transforming them into serfs or state peasants, who were subject to the poll tax and military service. 76 Shpaltakov, “Sredneaziatskie torgovye liudi,” 215-216. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 49 repeal these privileges became more effective. In 1824 Alexander I issued a decree establishing duties for all merchants, including Siberian Bukha­ rans. The following year, the Siberian administration divided the Bukharans into two estates (sosloviia), one commercial and the other agricultural. In 1832 Nicholas I decreed that all Siberian Bukharans would have to declare themselves Russian subjects and apply for membership in a merchants’ guild. Those who refused were to return to Central Asia. In 1834 Nicholas I established “The Statutes for Bukharans and Tashkendis Inhabiting Western Siberia,” which formalized the division of the Bukharans into commercial and agricultural estates. Tax-free trade was only authorized for the sale of Central Asian goods in Russia, and the sale of Russian goods in Central Asia. Similarly, Bukharan farmers obtained the status of “settled natives” (osedlye inorodtsy), which was essentially similar to their former status as a tribute-paying community. Consequently Siberian Bukharans remained immune from military recruitment, and public works levies.77 In addition to their diplomatic and economic activities, Bukharans exerted a strong cultural influence on Siberia, which contributed to their prestige among both Muslims and non-Muslims. The eighteenth century traveler Johann Georgi credited Bukhara’s madrasas as the cause for the Bukharan’s high level of cultural and civic distinction among the “Tartarian nations:” The language of this people [the Bukharans] passes for one of the sweetest dialects of the Tartarian language, and somewhat resembles the Persian. The Bougharians schools are so famous throughout the Tartarian nations, that they send thither much of their youth as are destined to the priesthood, where they are taught history and geography, as well as the Tartarian and Arabic languages. The Bougharian priests are in high estimation; even their merchants are versed in Arabic, and speak it with great facility. […] In their conduct they discover plain good sense, uprightness, and modesty; are la‑ borious, sober, and cleanly; all which good qualities may partly be attrib‑ uted to their schools, which are well conducted.78 Potanin estimates that until the arrival of Swedish prisoners to Siberia following the Battle of Poltava in 1709 Bukharans were the most educated and cosmopolitan element in Siberia (Potanin does not reveal the basis for determining the Swedes to have been more educated that the Bukharans). In addition to receiving praise for their politeness and sophistication, they

77 Shpaltakov, “Sredneaziatskie torgovye liudi,” 219-221; Kh. Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, (Tash‑ kent, 1968), 37. 78 Georgi, Russia II, 131-132, 149. 50 chapter two brought important books with them from Central Asia. For example, Abu’l- Ghazi Khan’s history, the Shajara-yi Turk, became known in Europe after the Swedish prisoner Tabbert von Strahlenberg brought the work back from Tobol’sk and translated it. Similarly, the German scholar Kenigsfel’d obtained a treatise on astronomy from a Tatar scholar in Tobol’sk named Gabis-Alim.79 The social prestige of Central Asians, as well as their economic signifi‑ cance exerted a strong cultural influence not only on Siberian Tatars, but on Ostyaks (Khanty) and Samoyeds (Selkups) as well. Potanin argues that when the authorities banned the export of sable furs in the seventeenth century, which the Siberian natives depended on to purchase essential goods, the Bukharans began to smuggle sable pelts out of Siberia, cement‑ ing ties between the two groups. Potanin attributes the spread of Islam among the Ob-Ugrians and Samoyeds to this practice.80 We know that in 1751 Sylvester, the Metropolitan of Tobol’sk, credited (or rather blamed) a Siberian sayyid, the akhun of Tara, with effecting the Islamization of the Baraba Tatars in the middle of the eighteenth century.81 Similarly, in 1734 Gerhard Miller explained how the Eushta Tatars, living in the vicinity of Tomsk, had been converted to Islam about twenty years earlier by a certain “Said,” described as the head of the Muslim clergy in Tomsk. Those Eushta Tatars not converted at that time were converted in 1733 by “Said,” who lived in Tara and was the son of the Said who had carried out the initial conversion.82

Astrakhan The expansion of trade between Russia and Central Asia was one of the major legacies of the Petrine era. Before the beginning of the eighteenth century trade between European Russia and Central Asia took place pri‑ marily through the city of Astrakhan.83 Just as with Siberia, following the Russian conquest of Astrakhan in 1556 the Muscovite authorities sought

79 Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 72-73; for the background on Strahlenberg’s role in introducing the Shajara-yi turk to European scholarship cf. H.F. Hof‑ man, Turkish Literature: a Bio-Bibliographical Survey III/I, vol. 1-3 (Utrecht, 1969), 26-31. 80 Potanin, “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei,” 69-70; Iadrintsev, Sibirskie inorodtsy, 34. 81 G.N. Potanin, ed. Materialy dlia istorii Sibiri (Moscow, 1867), 36. 82 A. Kh. Élert, “Istoriko-geograficheskoe opisanie Tomskogo uezda G.F. Millera (1734 g.),” Istochniki po istorii Sibiri dosovetskogo perioda (Novosibirsk, 1988), 84. 83 A. Semenov, Izuchenie istoricheskikh svedenii o Rossiiskoi vneshnei torgovle i pro- myshlennosti s poloviny XVII-go stoletiia po 1858 god III, (St. Petersburg, 1859), 178-179. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 51 to preserve Astrakhan’s trade networks with Central Asia. Trade between Central Asia and Astrakhan was maintained primarily by ship, between Astrakhan and ports on the Mangïshlaq Peninsula, and from there by caravan to Khorezm and Bukhara. The English traveler Anthony Jenkinson, who visited Astrakhan in 1558, very soon after the Russian conquest, re‑ marked that long-distance trade there was minimal.84 However this period of economic decline was certainly short-lived. As early as 1557 and 1558 the rulers of Khorezm and Samarqand had sent embassies to Ivan IV to obtain trading rights for their merchants, and in 1567 and 1569 Ivan had con‑ cluded trade treaties with Bukhara itself.85 By the beginning of the seven‑ teenth century, during the reign of Boris Godunov (1598-1605), there were colonies of foreign merchants in Astrakhan, and Russian ships were sailing to the Mangïshlaq Peninsula. In 1616 Russian sources mention merchants and craftsmen from Bukhara, Urgench, and Kashan living in the Bukharskii Dvor, including some that had been residents for ten years. Some of these merchants were granted the privilege of trading in Kazan. These merchants also accompanied embassies from the Central Asian khanates returning from Kazan and Ufa.86 Such resident merchants in Astrakhan included Central Asians, who appear in Russian sources as “Teziki,” “Bukhartsy,” and “Iurgentsy,” as well as Persian merchants from Shemakha, Baku and Derbent. At that time all of these merchants had the right to come freely to Astrakhan, and by the time of the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich (1613- 1645) there were two “Tezich’i dvory” in the city where foreign merchants resided. These were the Bukharskii Dvor for Central Asians, and the Gilianskii Dvor for Persians.87 There was also a third dvor inhabited by Hindu merchants and their Muslim descendants known as the Agrzhan Tatars.88 These communities in Astrakhan, the so-called Giliani Tatars, Bukharan Tatars, and Agrzhan Tatars retained the same sorts of privileges as the Siberian Bukharans.­ Similarly, they lost their elevated estate status in 1836, only two years after the Siberian Bukharans lost theirs.89 According

84 Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia by Anthony Jenkinson and other Eng- lishmen, vol. 1 (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1856), 58. 85 N.I. Kostomarov, Ocherk torgovli Moskovskago gosudarstva v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh, 2nd ed., (St. Petersburg, 1889), 48-49. 86 N.I. Veselovskii, ed., “Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh i torgovykh snoshenii Moskov­ skoi Rusi s Persiei III,” Trudy Vostochnago Otdeleniia Russkago Arkheologicheskago ObshchestvaXX II (1898), 85,122, 641-644. 87 Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, 110-112. 88 Nikolai Ozeretskovskii, Opisanie Koly i Astrakhani, (St. Petersburg, 1804), 127-129; Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, 112. 89 Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, 110-111. 52 chapter two to a census made by a German traveler to Astrakhan in 1771, the Bukharan Dvor formed the largest community, numbering 374 inhabitants. The Giliani Dvor numbered 178, and the Agrzhan Dvor 105. Among the Bukharans, there were also 25 families, or 79 people, who lived as nomads among the Noghays (iurtovye tatary).90 However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, the Sunnis, that is, the Bukharan and Agrzhan Tatars had become largely assimilated among the city’s Kazan and Kasimov Tatar community.91 As with the Siberian Bukharans, the skill and resourcefulness of the Astrakhan Bukharans made them useful to Russian authorities, sometimes at the highest levels of government. A case is point is the career of Makhmet Isup Kasimov (according to the Russian spelling of the time), who was a resident of Astrakhan’s Bukharskii Dvor, and who provided exemplary service to the Russian authorities on two occasions.92 In 1666 and 1667, while in the Persian city of Shemakha, he assisted two Orthodox patriarchs, Paisii of Alexandria and Makarii of Antioch, whom the Patriarch Nikon had invited to Moscow, accompanying them from Shemakha to Astrakhan. As a reward for these services the tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich awarded Kasimov and his brother a patent dated 13 June 1667 allowing them to trade in Astrakhan and Moscow free from duties for five years on goods amount‑ ing to 500 rubles. In 1675 Aleksei made Kasimov an ambassador, and in‑ structed him to take a letter to the Moghul Emperor in India, Aurangzib. Kasimov was to return to Bukhara with the Bukharan ambassador, who was returning from Moscow, and from Bukhara travel on to India.93

Orenburg and Qarghalï Evidently using the highly successful Siberian experience as a model, the Imperial Russian authorities sought to establish new Central Asian mer‑ chant colonies in the Russian settlements being founded along the Qazaq steppe in the eighteenth century. In so doing, they offered the same sorts of privileges as they had for the Siberian Bukharans.94 Chief among these

90 Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, 114-115. 91 Nebol’sin, Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, 113. 92 Dmitrii Kobeko, ed. Nakaz Tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha Makhmetu Isupu Kasimovu poslannomu 1675 godu k Velikomu Mogolu Aurenzebu, (St. Petersburg, 1884), iv; Kobeko identifies Kasimov as a Tatar; but as a resident of the Bukharskii Dvor his official status was surely that of a Bukharan. 93 Kobeko, ed. Nakaz Tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, iv-v; Kasimov only went as far as Kabul, and never reached India. 94 During the eighteenth century the authorities also settled in Russia “Asiatic” fugitives, primarily Persians, Afghans, and Central Asians who had escaped from Qazaq or Turkmen Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 53 settlements, where substantial communities of Central Asians settled, were Orenburg, whose commercial ties were overwhelmingly with Bukhara, but with Khorezm as well. Several major commercial centers along the fortified line along the northern edge of the Qazaq steppe, or the Siberian Line, as it was known, were founded in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. These settlements traded primarily with Tashkent, the Ferghana Valley, and Kashgar. They included initially Iamyshevo Ozero, and later Petropavlovsk, Semipalatinsk, and Ust’-Kamenogorsk. Both in the case of Orenburg, and of the cities along the Siberian Line, the Russian authorities actively sought to stimulate trade with Central Asia, the Oirat Khanate, and later with China, by attracting Central Asian mer‑ chants and offering the same sort of incentives they had put forward for the Siberian Bukharans. During the reign of Peter I a new line of forts and commercial centers was established in southern Siberia, along the Irtysh River, which at that time was under the control of the Oirats. Forts along this line that later became important commercial centers were Semipalatinsk (1718) and Ust’- Kamenogorsk (1720). The policy of establishing ever new lines of forts along the Qazaq steppe continued following Peter’s death, with Orenburg found‑ ed in 1734 (on the site of the modern city or Orsk), and again in 1741 on its present-day site. Other forts that became important commercial centers include Troitsk (1750) and Petropavlovsk (1753). By the end of the eigh‑ teenth century these towns emerged as locations for dynamic commercial activity that attracted Russian, Tatar, Greek, and Armenian merchants from Russia, and Central Asian merchants from Bukhara (including some Bukharan Jews), Khiva, Tashkent, Khoqand, and Kashgar. In addition, all of these towns were also important centers for the steppe trade with Qazaqs, and in Orenburg and Troitsk, with the Bashkirs. Some of these new cities, such as Semipalatinsk, maintained majority Muslim populations into the Soviet era. Others maintained satellite towns consisting almost captivity. They settled these people both in Siberia, and in Muslim regions within Euro‑ pean Russia. In Siberia these fugitives were integrated among the Siberian Bukharans; cf. Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, 19. However other groups of freed Central Asian fugitives were settled in Sarapul district, along the Kama River. By 1777 they numbered approximately 308, but appear to have become assimilated into both Muslim and local Russian communities; cf. N. Blinov, Sarapul: istoricheskii ocherk, (Sarapul, 1887), 13-16. Ivan Lepekhin also mentions Bukharans and other Central Asians freed from Qazaq captivity and living as Muslims and as Christian converts in the vicinity of Cheremshansk, on the Trans-Kama region; cf. cf. Ivan Lepekhin, Dnevnyia zapiski puteshestviia doktora i akademii nauk ad’iunta Ivana Lep- ekhina po raznym provintsiiam Rossiiskago gosudarstva, 1768 i 1769 godu I, (St. Petersburg, 1795), 136. 54 chapter two exclusively of Muslims, such as Orenburg’s Qarghalï (in Russian, Seitovskii Posad) or Petropavlovsk’s Mawlud (in Russian Mamliutovo). Permanent commu­nities of Central Asians soon came into being in all these towns, primarily Bukharans in Orenburg, and a mix of Bukharans and Tashkendis in Petropavlovsk and Semipalatinsk. The Russian authorities showed the same solicitude toward these Central Asians as they did for the Astrakhan and Siberian Bukharans, treating them with particular favor and awarding them similar privileges. At the same time Tatars and Bashkirs from Russia were also settling in these towns, and came into sustained contact with Central Asians, and with Central Asian cities, especially Bukhara. Central Asian merchants, especially in Orenburg, often took Tatar wives. While Siberian Bukharans during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were mainly settled among Siberian Tatars, who were relatively removed from the larger Muslim community in the Volga-Ural region, the establishment of these cities along the Qazaq steppe attracted Tatars from throughout Russia, and broadened the exposure of Tatars to Central Asians and Central Asia. This was especially true for the Tatar merchant, and later religious, elite. Among these cities, Orenburg (and its Muslim satellite settlement Qarghalï) was to be the most influential as a vector for Bukharan cultural influence on the Tatars, and Qarghalï became one of the premier centers for Islamic education and Muslim scholarship in Russia, in part because throughout the eighteenth century the Russian governors of Orenburg not only sought to attract and keep Central Asian merchants, but because they also actively promoted Muslim religious institutions in the city, and in Qarghalï.95 Nevertheless, with regard to Central Asia, the main interest of the Russian authorities was commerce above all else.96 Four years after its founding in 1734 on the site of the modern city of Orsk, Orenburg had attracted both a number of merchants from Russia, including the Kazan Tatar Saʿid b. Ayt Khayalin, (Said Khaialin in Russian sources), and several merchants from Khiva.97 Already in 1735, having learned of the plans to found Orenburg, Tashkendi merchants in Ufa told the governor Kirillov of their wish to establish trade fairs in the new city.

95 On the Islamic history of Qarghalï cf. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Saʿid, (Kazan, 1897). 96 V.E. Den, Naselenie Rossii po piatoi revizii II/5, (Moscow, 1902) 309-311. 97 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Saʿid, 4; Burganova, Goroda-kreposti,204; Mami Ham‑ amoto, “Tatarskaia Kargala in Russia’s eastern policies,” in: Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in regional and international contexts,” Uyama Tomohiko, ed. (London & New York, 2012), 32-51. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 55

They pledged to come annually with caravans, and invited Russian mer‑ chants to come to Tashkent. By 1738 trade had grown considerably in Orenburg. Russians and foreigners were permitted to establish any plants and factories, and as had been the case in Astrakhan, “Asiatics” and others who came there were allowed to engage in retail trade.98 The governor of Orenburg, Ivan Nepliuev, moved Orenburg with its population of mer‑ chants to its current site in 1741. Two years later, with the cooperation of Said Khaialin, he founded the settlement of Qarghalï.99 Immediately fol‑ lowing the shift of Orenburg’s location, the imperial authorities began investing substantial sums for building an infrastructure that would attract merchants from the Qazaq steppe and Central Asia. This infrastructure included mosques, and markets (dvory) where the merchants could trade, and the authorities could collect customs dues. Already by 1743 the gover‑ nor of Orenburg, I. Nepliuev, had overseen the building of the Menovoi Dvor and the Gostinnyi Dvor.100 The Menovoi Dvor, which was completed in 1747, was set designated for Bukharan merchants, and within it was a section called the Aziatskii Dvorik, with 98 shops and eight warehouses.101 Orenburg’s two mosques were built in the eighteenth century. The First Mosque was built, according to Shihab ad-Din Marjani, “during the time of Prince Volkhonskii.” Its construction was partly funded with state funds, and partly with contributions from a Bukharan karavanbashi. There was also a mosque in the Menovoi Dvor, built during the era of Catherine II, evidently with state funds. Catherine also funded the construction of a madrasa in Bukhara, the Er-Nazar Madrasa.102 Central Asians began set‑ tling permanently in Orenburg by 1747. During the 1740’s and 1750’s Bukharans were selling substantial qualities of precious metals to Orenburg in ingots and coins, as well as precious stones, and by 1750 trade with Bukhara was firmly established.103 As in Siberia, the Russian authorities encouraged the permanent settle‑ ment of Central Asians in Orenburg through commercial privileges. Several families of Bukharans, Khivans, and “Uzbeks” were living in Orenburg in

98 Semenov, Izuchenie istoricheskikh svedenii III, 180-181. 99 Den, Naselenie, 309-314; Burganova, Goroda-kreposti, 205; D.M. Iskhakov, Etnogra- ficheskie gruppy tatar Volgo-Ural’skogo regiona, (Kazan, 1993), 58-59. 100 V.N. Vitevskii, I.I. Nepliuev, vernyi sluga svoego otechestva, osnovatel’ Orenburga i ustroitel’ Orenburgskago kraia, (Kazan, 1891), 162-163. 101 Vitevskii, I.I. Nepliuev, 162-163; G.A. Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi Rossii so sredneaziatskimi khanstvami cherez Orenburg, (Tashkent, 1982), 26-27. 102 Shihab ad-Din Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa Bulghar II, 209-211. 103 Vitevskii, I.I. Nepliuev, 166; Burganova, Goroda-kreposti, 206. 56 chapter two the 1750’s, and in April 1808 Orenburg had 28 families of Bukharans, three from Tashkent, and two from Khiva. By August there were 58 families of Central Asians there. Central Asians also lived in Sorochinskaia, Il’inskaia, Krasnogorskaia, Orsk, and Troitsk. In all of Orenburg and its settlements there were 75 Central Asian families in that year.104 Qarghalï was another settlement with a permanent community of Central Asians. As of 1804 there were twenty families of Central Asians there who enjoyed a number of privileges, including exemption from military billeting. By 1825 there were 130 Central Asian families there. The Bukharan and Tatar communi‑ ties were quite closely connected. The children of Bukharan fathers and Tatar or Bashkir mothers were given Orenburg meshchanin status, were liable to the poll tax, and registered to the Bashkir Cossack Host. Because Central Asian merchants could not trade in the central Russian cities, ac‑ cording to the ukase of 1 December 1755 they could use Tatar and Bashkir agents. Tatars and Bashkirs also traveled to Bukhara as agents for Russian merchants. As Muslims they were exempt from the higher taxes levied on non-Muslims trading in Bukhara.105 Similarly, during the early nineteenth century the wealthiest Bukharan merchants who provided much of the capital investment for this caravan trade, also tended to use native Bukharan and Khivan agents.106 Bukharan merchants and Bukharan goods dominated Orenburg’s trade during the eighteenth and early nineteen centuries. Commerce with Bukhara made up approximately ninety percent of Orenburg’s Central Asian trade, the balance being with Khiva. Bukhara retained this domi‑ nance in Orenburg into the second half of the nineteenth century.107 During the Napoleonic blockade the imperial authorities sought to stimu‑ late Central Asian trade. In the eighteenth century Russia ran a modest trade deficit with Bukhara, but this deficit grew substantially between 1812 and 1819, as a result of which some Bukharan merchants amassed substan‑ tial fortunes. During this time the authorities relaxed restrictions on Bukharan trade and Bukharan merchants. A ban on the export of steel to Central Asia was lifted after 1807, and Bukharan merchants were now al‑ lowed to travel freely within Russia.108 By 1830 Bukharans also earned the

104 Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi, 25-26; Petr Rychkov, Topografiia Orenburg- skaia I (St. Petersburg, 1762), 189-192. 105 Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi, 23-24, 35-36, 41-42. 106 “Zamechaniia o torgovle bukhartsev,” Sibirskii Vestnik 1821, 12. 107 Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi, 42, 47. 108 Mikhaleva, Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi, 44-46; on the scale and proportion of trade between Orenburg and the three Central Asian khanates from the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century cf. Semenov, Izuchenie istoricheskikh svedeniiIII, 185. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 57 right to export gold and silver coins, and as of that date they began coming to the Makar’evo Fair in Nizhnii Novgorod, where they traded in various luxury goods. Among Russians in Nizhnii Novgorod they enjoyed the same reputation as they did in Orenburg and Siberia. One observer noted, the “because of their honesty, and decent conduct, the Bukharans are held in high esteem by the Russians.”109 The large, wealthy, permanent, and privileged Bukharan community in and around Orenburg exercised a strong cultural influence on the Tatars and Bashkirs there. Some of the wealthiest and most influential of these merchants themselves traveled to Bukhara, such as Saʿid Khayalin whom the Governor of Orenburg, Ivan Nepliuev, sent there in 1749.110 Central Asian merchants were also instrumental in funding the construction of Orenburg’s first mosques. Orenburg’s First Mosque was built already in the 1740’s. It was built by a Bukharan karvanbashi, together with funds from the treasury. This karvanbashi clearly maintained an exalted social status. He obtained the Russian rank of tarkhan, which granted him a lifetime exemption from taxes. His son Nazar-Bay later married the daughter of the Mufti ʿAbd as-Salam who had served as the Second imam of the same mosque.111 Central Asian scholars and literati also established themselves in Qarghalï, Orenburg, and Astrakhan. These included Ish-Niyaz b. Shir-Niyaz b. Yar-Muhammad al-Urganchi, an influential theologian from Khorezm who died in Orenburg in 1790/1,112 and somewhat later, in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Bukharan historian Mirza Shams Bukhari (b. 1804). While living in Orenburg he wrote a history of the Manghït Dynasty titled Bayan-i hawadithat-i Bukhara u Khuwaqand u Kashghar.113 Among Central Asian Sufis we can mention Iskandar b. Qalandar Sufi al-Marghi‑ nani (d. 1874), a shaykh from the Ferghana Valley active in Astrakhan.114 A Bukharan scholar named Muhammad-Sharif b. ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Bukhari, who died in Kazan Province in 1883, lived as a merchant in the vicinity of

109 N.N. Ovsiannikov, “O torgovle na nizhegorodskoi iarmarke,” Nizhegorodskii sbornik I, A.S. Gatsiskii ed., (Nizhnii Novgorod, 1867), 8, 16-17. 110 Burganova, Goroda-kreposti, 205. 111 Shihab ad-Din Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 209-210. 112 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I, 59. 113 Ch. A. Stori, Persidskaia literature: Bio-bibliograficheskii obzor pererabotal i dopolnil Iu. E. Bregel’, II, 1166-1167; Anke von Kügelgen, Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Man- gitendynastie in den Werken ihrer Historiker, (Istanbul, 2002), 167 and passim. 114 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:15, 557. 58 chapter two fairs and madrasas in the Middle Volga region.115 A Bukharan Jewish com‑ munity was also represented in Orenburg. Like their Muslim compatriots, they were involved primarily in commerce. The Russian traveler Mikhailov, visiting Orenburg in the course of a journey to the Qazaq Steppe in the 1860’s, makes several mentions of a Bukharan Jewish community in Orenburg, and notes that the city’s Muslim cemetery includes a Jewish section.116

Central Asians on the Siberian Line Central Asian merchants also figured prominently along the Siberian Line, particularly in the commercial and religious centers of Petropavlovsk and Semipalatinsk, where we see essentially the same political, economic, and demographic dynamics as existed in Orenburg, although Siberian Bukharans played a rather more prominent economic role here than they did in Orenburg. The first portion of the Siberian Line was established during the reign of Peter the Great along the middle and upper course of the Irtysh River, and was known as the Irtysh Line. It included the settle‑ ments of Iamyshevo Ozero, which itself was already the site of a major trade fair for Central Asian merchants in the late sixteenth century, Omsk (1715), Zhelezinskaia (1717), Semipalatinsk (1718), and Ust’-Kamenogorsk (1720).117 During this period, the steppe south of the Irtysh River was dom‑ inated by the Oirats, and the Irtysh Line was established as a line of forti‑ fications to protect Siberia from that powerful confederation. However there is no reason to doubt that expanding commerce with the Oirats played a role in the establishment of these settlements as well. In 1732 an agreement between the Russian and Oirat authorities allowed royal trade (kaznennaia torgovlia) to take place at Iamyshevo Ozero. Bukharans ap‑ pear to have played an important role in the Russo-Oirat trade along the Irtysh Line. The year after the treaty was signed, in 1733, a Bukharan named Mulla Nazar brought a caravan of Oirat goods into Iamyshevo. Bukharans also brought a large Oirat caravan to Semipalatinsk in 1745. In 1746 a Bukharan named Iusupkhodzha (according to the Russian spelling) led another Oirat caravan into Iamyshevo, and led it on to Tobol’sk. However the following year the Russian authorities decreed that non-resident

115 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 124. 116 M. Mikhailov, Orenburgskiia pis’ma dlia zhelaiushchikh oznakomit’sia s Orenburgom, Orskom, Troitskom, Fortom Aleksandrovskim i dorogoiu chrez kirgizskuiu step’ do Forta No. 1, (St. Petersburg, 1866), 53, 70. 117 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 83. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 59

Bukharans (priezzhie bukhartsy) were not to trade in Tobol’sk, but only along the Irtysh Line.118 Remarkably, the Oirat rulers appear to have played an important role in expanding the Bukharans’ access to Russian markets, and in negotiating agreements with the Russian authorities on the Bukharans’ behalf. In 1733, following their diplomatic negotiations with the Oirats the Russian authorities agreed no only to exempt Bukharan merchants (who led caravans for the Oirats) from import duties, but even from customs inspections. In addition, by the end of the seventeenth cen‑ tury Bukharan merchants controlled all of the internal trade in Siberia, including money-lending.119 By the 1760’s, following the Chinese annihilation of the Oirat Khanate, Semipalatinsk emerged as a main center of trade along the Irtysh Line, and in the second half of the eighteenth century permanent communities of Central Asians were established in these towns. These Central Asians ap‑ pear in official documents as “Tashkandis” (tashkentsy) rather than “Bukharans.” These “Tashkendis,” largely from Tashkent, but also from the Ferghana Valley, Kashgaria, and even Bukhara, received the same privi‑ leges as the Siberian Bukharans in Tara, Tiumen’, and Tobol’sk. Similarly, the privileges that Catherine II accorded the Siberian Bukharans in 1787 applied equally to the Tashkandis of the Siberian Line. As a result, the number of Tashkendis in Semipalatinsk increased. Russian officials and merchants who successfully attracted Central Asians to settle in these towns received awards and promotions, as in the case of the Semipalatinsk merchant N.V. Glukharev, who claimed to have convinced 94 Tashkendis to settle permanently in his city.120 These “Tashkandis” also settled in Ust’- Kamenogorsk where they, along with Qazaq merchants, were exempt from some customs duties.121 In 1847 the authorities granted additional privi‑ leges to Central Asian merchants on the Siberian Line, when they were allowed to trade without trade certificates and could reside on the Siberian Line without any documents.122 In the 1750’s two other major trading settlements were established along the Qazaq Steppe, which were to become major commercial and Islamic

118 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 84-86, 90; it is likely here that the term “Bukharan” reflected the Russian legal status of these merchants, rather than their place of origin. 119 Karl Struve and Grigorii Potanin, “Poezdka po vostochnomu Tarbagataiu letom 1864 goda,” Zapiski Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva po otdeleniiu obsh- chei geografiiI, (1867) , 474-476. 120 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 92-93. 121 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 100. 122 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 111. 60 chapter two centers in Russia. These were Petropavlovsk (Qïzïlyar in Tatar sources) and Troitsk. Petropavlovsk rivaled, and in some measure surpassed, the cities of Orenburg and Semipalatinsk as a commercial centers, and later, as an Islamic center. It was founded in 1753, along the Ishim River, in the extreme north of the Qazaq steppe. In 1764 the imperial authorities designated it as a commercial center and place of residence for the khans of the Qazaq Middle Horde. It grew rapidly, mainly as a center for trade with the Qazaqs. However, the Central Asian caravan trade gained in importance, particu‑ larly in the first half of the nineteenth century.123 The city also included a larger number of Bukharans than the cities further east, and it was Bukharans who dominated the city’s Central Asian religious institutions.124 In the eighteenth century the impetus for increased commercial con‑ tacts with Russia also came from a series of Central Asian rulers. In 1765 the ruler of Turkistan Abdulmamatkhan (according to the Russian spelling) sent the Bukharan Raimberdiev as an envoy to the chief (nachal’nik) of the Siberian Line, I. Shpringer. The envoy at that time re‑ quested making Omsk a venue for trade. At the end of the eighteenth century Yunus-khwaja, the ruler of Tashkent until its capture by Khoqand in 1809, sought to expand trade with Russia through Siberia. He appealed to the chief of the Siberian Line to provide specialized Russian assistance for a mining project, which was granted, and resulted in the Burnashev mission to Tashkent in 1800. In 1812 the khan of Khoqand, Muhammad- ʿUmar Khan sent an embassy to St. Petersburg to propose expanding com‑ mercial relations along the Siberian Line, which Emperor Alexander I ac­cepted.125 During the first half of the nineteenth century Central Asian merchants continued to dominate the caravan trade, and much of the retail trade, along the Siberian Line, particularly in Semipalatinsk, Petropavlovsk, and Ust’-Kamenogorsk. As we have seen, the Imperial authorities granted them substantial economic incentives and a particularly favorable estate status to entice them to settle permanently, and by the end of the eighteenth century large communities of Central Asians were established in these cities. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi indicates that Central Asian merchants began

123 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 115; K.M. Tumanshin, “Osnovanie i razvitie goroda Petropavlovska i ego uezda vo vtoroi XVIII-pervoi polovine XIX vv.,” Uchenye zapiski Kusta- naiskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedinstituta VI (1961), 42, 46, 55-56. 124 Galimjan Barudi, Qïzïlyar säfäre, (Kazan, 2004), 91-94. 125 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 94, 97, 101. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 61 coming to Semipalatinsk in the 1790’s.126 By beginning of the nineteenth century there were already 98 households of resident Tashkendis, most of which were involved in trade, in addition to the Siberian Bukharans who had already settled there. Other sources indicate that at the beginning of the nineteenth century there were 345 Central Asian merchants in Semipalatinsk. Most of them lived as non-resident “guests” who did not become Russian subjects. A report from 1824 mentions 185 Tashkandis who were not Russian subjects in the city.127 During this period it appears that these Central Asian merchants dominated commerce, or at least the ranks of the merchants in that city. Commercial statistics in Semipalatinsk for 1825-1827 show that of the 113 merchants involved in commerce there in 1825, Central Asians and Siberian Bukharans numbered 100 out of 113. In 1827 they numbered 72 out of 80. In 1829 it was 62 out of 71, in 1831 49 out of 75, and in 1833 62 out of 116. In 1849 96 out of 120 merchants were Tashkendis or Bukharans 128 Central Asian merchants even received offi‑ cial decorations from the Russian authorities in recognition of their con‑ tribution to facilitating trade. Ibragim Amirov, a Tashkandi merchant in Semipalatinsk, traded in particular with Eastern Turkestan. In 1841 he was awarded with the Za Userdie silver medal for expanding trade in Semipalatinsk, and exporting Russian goods.129 The internal organization of the “Tashkandi” community in Semi­ palatinsk is reasonably well documented in Tatar sources. In addition to migrants from Central Asia, it also included so-called Chala-Qazaqs, the descendants of Central Asian fathers and Qazaq mothers, who were grant‑ ed a legal status equivalent to that of nomadic Qazaqs after the conquest of Central Asia. In Muslim sources these Central Asians were known as “Sarts,” and they maintained two mosques in Semipalatinsk, known as the First and Second Sart Mosques. The First Sart Mosque was built around 1795, and appears to have been the first permanent mosque built in the city. The Second Sart Mosque dates from around 1853.130 Russian legisla‑ tion concerning “Asiatics” in Semipalatinsk demonstrates that as of 1835 they were granted self-administration of their mosques and the selection of their imams; these religious institutions were subordinate to the Russian

126 Allen J. Frank and M.A. Usmanov, eds. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipala- tinsk: Two Manuscripts by Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani and Qurbanʿali Khalidi, ANOR 11 (Halle- Berlin, 2001), 69. 127 Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, 41; Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 101. 128 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 105-106, 111. 129 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 105-106, 111. 130 Frank and Usmanov, eds. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 75-76. 62 chapter two civil authorities, and not to the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly in Ufa.131 The community was headed by an aqsaqal, a position appointed by the khan of Khoqand. Qurban-ʿAli identifies six individuals who served as aqsaqals in Semipalatinsk until the position was abolished after the Russian conquest of Tashkent in 1867.132 Writing in 1888, the Semipalatinsk historian Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani indicated the following about these Central Asians: … there are two other mosques in Semipalatinsk. They are called the Sarts’ mosques. One of them was built at the time the First Mosque was built in Semipalatinsk. Sarts came from Tashkent and set up residence in Semi‑ palatinsk. They married women and girls from among the Qazaqs, and they remained in Semipalatinsk (It is also called the Chala Qazaqs’ mahalla). They didn’t return to Tashkent and they built a small mosque without a minaret. It had a Tashkandi-style exterior and appearance. The common people called this mosque the Toqal Mosque [i.e. “Polled Mosque]. This is evidently because it has no minaret. […] The Second Sarts’ Mosque was built at the expense of the Tashkandi Mir-Qurban Bay b. ʿAwwab Bay, who resided in Semipalatinsk. 133 Ahmad-Wali indicates that after the conquest of Khoqand, these commu‑ nities remained administratively separate from the Tatars, who main‑ tained nine mosques in the city.134 The Central Asian merchant community that developed in Petropavlovsk appears to have followed roughly the same contours as that of Semipalatinsk. Central Asian merchants began settling in Petropavlovsk in 1806. While there were some Bukharan merchants in Petropavlovsk, just as in Semipalatinsk, it was merchants from Tashkent who dominated trade there. In 1821 the khan of Khoqand, Muhammad-ʿUmar Khan, appointed the Petropavlovsk merchant Kenzhatai Baidzhanov135 to be the aqsaqal for all Khoqandi merchants in the city. This position was recognized by the Governor of Western Siberia, Kintsevich. By 1840 228 out of 288 merchants in the city were Central Asians. In 1841 it was 302 out of 359. However, the Central Asians also were often dealing in smaller sums, and the merchants with the highest capitalization were usually from Russia, including many

131 Gorodskiia poseleniia v Rossiiskoi imperii IV, (St. Petersburg, 1864), 483. 132 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, Tawarikh-i khamsa-yi sharqi (Kazan, 1910), 367-368. 133 Frank and Usmanov, eds., Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 31-32. 134 Frank and Usmanov, eds., Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 32-33. 135 He appears in Tatar sources as the Tashkandi Kinjäbay b. Bayman, and is re­membered as a patron who helped build several mosques in the city; cf. Barudi, Qïzïlyar Säfäre, 87. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 63

Tatars.136 A Russian description of Petropavlovsk from the early nineteenth century echoes earlier accounts of Bukharans in Russia, and speaks highly of that city’s Central Asian population: The Tashkendis who live in Petropavlovsk are distinguished from the Tatars by their custom and manners. They are fervent and zealous, and differ from the Tatars in their habits. What is more, they always observe courtesy, kind‑ ness, and constancy with all people. Their speech is respectful and polite, that is, [it is] elevated speech, because many of them are able to speak Arabic and Persian. They conduct trade almost every place with Asiatics and various Russian peoples, bringing goods themselves from Irbit, and buy‑ ing sometimes from Russian merchants who come to Petropavlovsk.137 This early description of Petropavlovsk’s Central Asians, similar to Ahmad- Wali al-Qazani’s evaluation of Central Asians in Semipalatinsk, clearly indicates that they maintained a high social and religious status in both cities compared to that of the Tatars, at least at that time. The Central Asians in Petropavlovsk also maintained a separate mosque, known as the Fourth Sart Mosque. Our sources are silent on the date of its initial con‑ struction, but the original wooden structure burned down in 1838, and had been named the Aq-Chuwaq Mosque, named after an early patron.138 In 1878 the Central Asians, with the assistance of some Tatar patrons, built the Fourth Mosque. Its imams were all Bukharans, and included ʿAlim- khwaja Bukhari, ʿAbd al-Hamid Bukhari (d. 1892), Sayyid b. Khalifa ʿAbd ar-Rashid al-Bukhari (d. 1895), and Muhammad-Hafiz b. Sayyid.139 Finally, another settlement along the Siberian Line with a substantial Central Asian population was Ust’-Kamenogorsk. Here there was a permanent Central Asian community already in 1788, and by 1813 it numbered 70 persons.140 From 1865 until 1887 the imam of that mosque was ʿAli b. Walid, who was originally from Semipalatinsk, but had served as mufti in the city of Khoqand before returning to Siberia.141 The presence of large, permanent, and privileged communities of Central Asians throughout Siberia and along the Russian settlements

136 Ziiaev, Ekonomicheskie sviazi, 115, 118. 137 A.D. Kolesnikov ed., Opisanie Tobol’skogo namestnichestva, (Novosibirsk, 1982), 113- 114. 138 Barudi, Qïzïlyar Säfäre, 87. 139 Barudi, Qïzïlyar Säfäre, 93-94. 140 Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, 61. 141 Frank and Usmanov eds. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 36; Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Kazakh Steppe (1770- 1912), Allen J. Frank and M.A. Usmanov eds., (Boston-Leiden, 2005), 58-59. 64 chapter two bordering the Qazaq steppe exerted a strong cultural and economic influ‑ ence especially on Tatars and Bashkirs in direct contact with these Central Asians, but also on Tatar and Bashkir communities further inside Russia. We have seen, for example, the contributions of Siberian Bukharans in Islamizing numerous Siberian communities. Central Asians also intermar‑ ried extensively with Tatars, and by the middle of the nineteenth century, with the abolition of Bukharan privileges in Astrakhan and Siberia, and as a result of intermarriage, these communities became absorbed in the local Tatar communities. Among Central Asians marriage to Tatar women was also common in Orenburg and even in Nizhnii Novgorod as late as 1890.142 The sense of belonging to the same community could be felt in other ways too between Tatars and Central Asians. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi relates a story that took place as the Makar’evo Fair, near Nizhnii Novgorod, in 1855. A Tashkandi merchant named Tursumbay died at the fair, and the local Tatar akhund named Salih organized a funeral service. When Russians began mocking the prayer services, Salih started a riot, for which the Russian authorities later absolved the Muslims.143 Tatar merchants also worked closely with their Central Asian counterparts, either working as agents to sell Central Asian goods inside Russia proper, or else accompanying cara‑ vans to and from Central Asia, or even within Russia. These contacts with Central Asians were not restricted to the wealthier and more educated elements of Tatar and Bashkir society, in numerous cities and towns. Contacts remained intensive for almost two centuries, and existed through‑ out Russia. The traveler Gmelin reported even seeing Kazan Tatars in a Bukharan merchant’s caravan near Tomsk in 1734.144

Bukharan Fashion among Muslims in Russia

One aspect of the relationship between Bukhara and Muslims in Russia is the strong influence of Bukharan material culture on Tatars and Bashkirs in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, up to the 1920’s. This influence can be seen as the emergence of “Bukharan fashion” among Tatars and Bashkirs, often in a very self-conscious manner. If the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were a period of elevated religious, social, and eco‑ nomic prestige for Bukharans in the eyes of Russia’s Muslims, then the

142 Viktor Ragozin, Volga ot Oki do Kamy II (St. Petersburg, 1890), 177. 143 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, A Biographical Dictionary, 46-49. 144 Gmelin, Voyage en Sibèrie I, 165. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 65 emulation of Bukharan costume, food habits, and religious customs among Muslims in Russia should come as no surprise, particularly as commercial and religious contacts intensified. Among Muslims in Russia the impor‑ tance of costume as a manifestation Muslim status cannot be overempha‑ sized. Muslims clearly associated Muslim status with Muslim dress, (and the definition of Muslim dress was not restricted to Bukharan-style cloth‑ ing). Those who dressed like Russians were often suspected of having abandoned their community and become Christians. Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini, an imam in Samara Province, provides a clear example in his discussion of a Tatar military officer named Yusuf Enikeev from Novouzensk who had lived with his family in Tashkent, and had returned for a visit to the village of Altï Ata: Yusuf […] was taken into the Cadets’ Corps [iunkerskaia sluzhba], and later it seems he became an officer. After marrying Shams-i Qahir, the daughter of Rahmatullah of Altï Ata, he spent seven years in military service with his family, was sent to the Tashkent region, and returned to visit Altï Ata. He spent a few days [there] as a visitor. Between them they had a son named Muhammad-Mubin and a daughter. They spoke Russian and one had to speak Russian with their children; and because their Russian clothing was odd, the villagers concluded that they had become Christians.145 Generally, the phenomenon of costume as a marker of religious status is generally not discussed in Tatar or Bashkir ethnographic literature, in part because the modern Tatar nation is generally ethnically defined in both Tatar and Bashkir ethnographic literature and historiography. In the Tatar or Bashkir context there have been no anthropological studies of costume and dress comparable to the sorts of works evident for other regions of the world, including the Muslim world.146 Rather, historical discussions of Tatar and Bashkir clothing usually are restricted to evaluations of mate‑ rial culture, where the emphasis is on the physical description of costume, regional differentiations, as well as the technical aspects of producing fabric and clothing. The social significance of clothing is usually only dis‑ cussed in any detail in descriptions of clothing worn in rituals, especially wedding rituals. Such an emphasis on unique types of ethnic clothing corresponds fully with the nationalist conceptions that have dominated Tatar and Bashkir ethnographic literature since the beginning of the twen‑ tieth century. Generally the role of the ethnographer has been to describe

145 Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, fol. 95ab. 146 Cf. Emma Tarlo, Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India, (Chicago, 1996); Cloth- ing as Material Culture, Susanne Kuchler and Daniel Miller, eds. (New York, 2005). 66 chapter two the characteristics of dress that are unique to the Tatars, that would seem to demonstrate their national uniqueness as a people. In this regard, one early Tatar nationalist ethnographer, Gainutdin Akhmarov, was sharply critical of the Governor of Kazan, Karl Fuchs, who in 1844 described the wedding traditions of Tatar merchant families in Kazan, and recorded the strong presence of Bukharan influences in both their clothing, and their tastes in general.147 Akhmarov believed that in describing wedding tradi‑ tions of the Kazan Tatar elite, Fuchs had failed to distinguish what was of a “pure ethnic quality” (chistonatsional’nogo kharaktera) from what was simply a mélange of artificial Central Asian and “oriental” influences.148 Although he decried what he understood to be Fuch’s limited abilities as an ethnographer, Akhmarov was nevertheless forced to concede that Central Asian fashion was strongly attractive to Tatars, even at the begin‑ ning of the twentieth century, and that this attraction was based on a sense among Russian Muslims of Central Asian prestige: The reason for such a layering of wedding rituals in Kazan [described by Fuchs] (magnificent gifts, an extraordinary number of dishes served, etc.) is that for a long time Kazan served as a marketplace for wealthy Muslims in Asia to obtain brides. Bukharans, Sarts, Central Asians and Siberian, Oren‑ burg, and Astrakhan Tatars would visit from the Nizhnii Novgorod Fair and come to the Bulak [a Muslim quarter of Kazan] and do business with Kazan. The luxurious attire and the artificial cosmetics of the Kazan Tatar women enraptured the Asiatic merchants who at that time were getting married in Kazan. Even today Siberian and Orenburg merchants are marrying their sons in Kazan. Tatar merchants who trade throughout Siberia and Central Asia are coming to Kazan to get married. This diverse element has brought various rituals to Kazan, since for the most part wedding rituals are accord‑ ing to the taste of the groom, and they reproduce his ethnic fare, his ethnic environment etc.149 In the Soviet era at least one ethnographer, Nikolai Iosifovich Vorob’ev (1894-1967), acknowledged the economic, social, and religious standing that Central Asia held for Tatars, and he described its influence not only on Tatar clothing, but also on Tatar material culture as a whole. 150 In a

147 Fuchs perceived Bukharan influence in a wide range of Tatar tastes, including dress, folk songs, and mosque architecture; cf. Karl Fuks, Kazanskie tatary v statisticheskom i et- nograficheskom otnosheniiakh,(Kazan, 1991) [originally published 1844], 37, 59-60, 93. 148 Gainetdin Akhmarov, “Svadebnye obriady kazanskikh tatar,” Izvestiia obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom Universitete 1907 v. XXIII vyp. 5, 1-18, reprinted in Gainetdin Akhmerov, Izbrannye trudy, (Kazan, 1998), 208-209. 149 Akhmarov, “Svadebnye obriady,” 208. 150 On Vorob’ev’s career, cf. R.G. Mukhamedova, “N.I. Vorob’ev—Issledovatel’ kul’tury i byta tatarskogo naroda,” K Voprosu etnicheskoi istorii tatarskogo naroda, (Kazan: 1985), 8-11. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 67 lecture given in 1926 he challenged Akhmarov’s critique and defended Fuchs’ relevance as an observer of Tatar material culture. In this regard, according to Vorob’ev, [B]ecause of the new relationship between the Russian authorities and the Kazan Tatar merchants who were able to conduct trade in Central Asia, the Tatars adapted their cultural circumstance. In order to be able to trade in Central Asia the Tatars had to stand at the same culture level as the popu‑ lation there. And we see for the era in question that medieval Muslim scho‑ lasticism flowering then in Central Asia flooded Tatar society in a broad wave. Tatars sent their children to study in Bukhara and Samarqand. Having returned from there and taken their respective positions in the ranks of Tatar society, the graduates of the Central Asian schools introduced into Tatar society a significant number of traits characteristic of Uzbek cultured society, which evolved there under a whole series of events in the medieval history of Turkestan. The Central Asian influence penetrated first into the midst of the most progressive merchants, and then, […] into meshchane circles and then to the peasantry via the clergy, which had been educated in Bukhara. So, the era in which Fuchs lived in Kazan and was made his observations corresponds with the flowering of Central Asian influence on the Tatars.151 As a Marxist ethnographer, Vorob’ev emphasized the dialectic nature of Tatar fashion. For example, he also argued that the adoption of European or “international” clothing styles reflected the domination of capitalist, and later socialist, relations among Tatars.152 In this regard Vorob’ev deserves recognition as an ethnographer who was able to consistently link Tatar material culture with Tatar society’s broader economic and cultural rela‑ tionships. To be sure, the attraction of Tatars and Bashkirs to Bukharan consumer goods and their transformation of Bukharan goods into articles of fashion and prestige was certainly facilitated by their widespread availability as a result of the caravan trade between Russia and the Central Asian khanates. While raw cotton sold to Russian textile mills made up the bulk of this commerce, there was also a strong demand for fabric, clothing, footwear, cosmetics, jewelry, rugs, and dried fruit. It is difficult to tell from the sourc‑ es, primarily Russian customs accounts, who were the main consumers of Bukharan fabric, food, and luxury goods, but in the Russian market

151 N.I. Vorob’ev, “K.F. Fuks—Pervyi issledovatel’ byta Kazanskikh tatar,” in: Karl Fuks o Kazani, Kazanskom krae, M.A. Usmanov et al. eds. (Kazan, 2005), 323-324, reprinted from the Vestnik Nauchnogo obshchestva tatarovedeniia, No. 6, 1927. 152 N.I. Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, (Kazan, 1953), 313. 68 chapter two demand on the part of Muslim consumers was certainly disproportionate to their numbers.

Clothing and Fabric In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Muslims in Russia wore a wide variety of clothing that varied by region and social class. However many nineteenth century observers also indicated that clothing styles among different Tatar groups was essentially similar, suggesting a common stan‑ dard of dress in these communities.153 Tatar clothing from this era is well documented in a wide range of sources. Russian and European travel‑ ers, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, would often describe Tatar clothing. The plates published in the works of Pallas, Georgi, and others are widely reproduced today. Clothing as a culturally relevant aspect of material culture appear in most nineteenth century ethnograph‑ ic descriptions of Muslims in Russia,154 however there were also studies specifically focused on Tatar and Bashkir dress.155 Since the Soviet era the description of Tatar and Bashkir dress and adornment has occupied sig‑ nificant space in ethnographic literature.156 During the Imperial era the large majority of Tatars and Bashkirs were peasants who produced most of their own cloth from which they made most of their own clothing. Over the course of the nineteenth century the products of Russian textile mills increasingly became available to Muslims in both Russia and Central Asia.157 However, among Tatars and Bashkirs brightly-colored Central Asian silks and cottons remained a highly sought-after and prestigious article well into

153 Ivan Iushkov, Sibirskie tatary, (Tobol’sk, 1861), 81; A.D. Kolesnikov, ed. Opisanie Tobol’skogo namestnichestva, 114; F. Starikov, Istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk Orenburgskago kazach’ego voiska, (Orenburg, 1891), 213. 154 Fuks, Kazanskie tatary; Iushkov, Sibirskie tatary. 155 N.N. Vecheslav, Opisanie kostiumov russkikh i inorodcheskikh u krest’ian Kazanskoi Gubernii, (Kazan, 1878). 156 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary; S.I. Rudenko, Bashkiry: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955); N.I. Vorob’ev and G.M. Khismatullin eds., Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia, (Moscow, 1967); R.G. Mukhamedova, Tatary-mishari, (Moscow, 1972); Farida Sharifullina, Kasimovskie tatary, (Kazan, 1991), 66-85; S.V. Suslova, “Kostium Astra‑ khanskikh tatar XIX-nachala XX vv., Astrakhanskie tatary, (Kazan, 1992), 80-89; F.T. Valeev, Sibirskie tatary, (Kazan, 1992); S.N. Shitova, Bashkirskaia narodnaia odezhda, (Ufa, 1995); L. Kh. Samsitova, Realii bashkirskoi kul’tury, (Ufa, 1999); S.V. Suslova, “Odezhda,” in: Tatary, (Moscow, 2001), 267-317; N.V. Bikbulatov et al. ed. Traditsii bashkirskogo narodnogo iskusst- va v sovremennoi odezhde, (Ufa, 1988). 157 For descriptions and illustrations of Russian fabrics marketed to Muslims—espe‑ cially Central Asian Muslims—cf. Susan Meller, Russian Textiles: Printed Cloth for the Bazaars of Central Asia, (New York, 2007). Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 69 the twentieth century. For Tatars and Bashkirs the significance of high- quality Central Asian fabrics went beyond simply dress, but also could have important symbolic value as well. For example, the genealogy of the Bashkir Yurmatï tribe includes an account of the tribe’s submission to Russia in the 1550’s, in which we read that Ivan the Terrible, after establish‑ ing the conditions of their submission, and delineating their lands, gave their envoys gifts of Central Asian silk cloth.158 Central Asian caravans brought these fabrics in large quantities into Russia throughout the period in question, and they were used both to fashion local and Central Asian designs, and were used in virtually every type of Tatar clothing.159 Burhan ad-Din b. Nasir ad-Din al-Bulghari, while he was a student in Bukhara, wrote his father in April of 1852 telling him he had sent home several pieces of Bukharan alacha fabric with a caravan. His father had requested a white variety of alacha, but Burhan ad Din had not sent it. He explained that because most people in Bukhara wore robes (chapans) made from that fabric, he did not consider it appropriate to his father’s elevated religious status. Instead, he promised to purchase for him the same type of alacha that the Bukharan scholars wore.160 These Central Asian fabrics included silks and semi-silks such as ädräs and biqasäb, which today would be classified as ikat-type fabrics, sarancha a cotton material, and benaras, a brightly colored striped silk fabric. For example, wealthy Tatars used Bukharan ädräs fabric for their duvet covers.161 The sleeveless tunic known as a kamzol, and the longer variety of the kamzol, the käzäki, was popular in all Tatar and Bashkir communities. While con‑ sidered a native garment, until the end of the nineteenth century it was commonly made from Central Asian ädräs, and biqasäb, although by the end of the nineteenth century factory-made cloth had displaced Central Asian silks in making these garments. 162 At the same time, it appears that Bukharan designs had a strong effect on Tatar styles throughout the nine‑ teenth century. For example, the jilän and the chikmän, varieties of a long robe, appear to have been modeled on the cut of the Central Asian chapan, although the chikmän was typically not made from brightly-colored Central Asian cloth. These garments first appeared among Tatars in the middle of the nineteenth century, and were also widespread among the Bashkirs,

158 R.G. Kuzeev, Bashkirskie shezhere, (Ufa, 1960), 29 (Bashkir text), 33 (Russian text). 159 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 221. 160 TB fol. 46a. 161 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 197. 162 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 230-1; Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 121. 70 chapter two where they were known as yelän and säkmän, and included among the southeastern Bashkirs padded varieties made from Central Asian fabric.163 The jilän was a sort of cloak that as a woman’s garment, doubled as a head- covering, and was also made from Central Asian silks. According to Vorob’ev, these were worn exclusively by wealthy women, particularly among the wives of mullahs. He adds that the custom of wearing the gar‑ ment as a head-covering was an imitation of a Central Asian practice. Vorob’ev points out that the custom of wearing the jilän as a head-covering was also evident among Uzbek and Turkmen women, and continued to be worn among Tatar women into the Soviet era.164 If Tatars and Bashkirs wore local designs made from imported Central Asian cloth, they also were partial to Central Asian garments that they imported ready-made. Indeed, these garments, primarily long brightly- colored silk and padded-cotton robes, known as chapans (in Bashkir, sa- pan), or in Russian sources as khalats, strongly associated those who wore them with social and especially religious prestige. Ethnographers identify it mainly as a men’s garment that was typically worn by mullahs and other authoritative figures, and was worn especially at public functions, such as at assemblies (majlises) or at the mosque. Men would sometimes wear the chapan with a sash or silk belt, in a consciously Central Asian fashion.165 In his narrative of a visit by a prestigious Tatar imam named Waliʾullah to his home in Chuguchak, in China, the historian Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, made specific mention of Waliʾullah’s striped benaras chapan, which clearly contributed to his image of religious authority.166 In seven‑ teenth and eighteenth century Russian observers already noted that Siberian Bukharans commonly wore the chapan.167 However there is evi‑ dence that it was not restricted to the wealthy and authoritative. A Cossack historian remarked in the late nineteenth century that it was common for Muslim Cossacks of the Orenburg Cossack Host, by no means a particu‑ larly wealthy group, to wear Bukharan chapans.168 In any case, the rela‑ tively late appearance of the jilän and the chikmän, in the eighteenth century, and the chapan in the mid-nineteenth century coincides with the

163 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 234; Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 130; Rudenko, Bashkiry, 158-159, 162-163; Samsitova, Realii bashkirskoi kul’tury, 97-8. 164 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 250; Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 130. 165 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 221; S.M. Chervonnaia, Iskusstvo Tatarii, (Moscow, 1987), 256; Valeev, Sibirskie tatary, 121; Samsitova, Realii bashkirskoi kul’tury, 100. 166 Qurban-Ali Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 91a. 167 Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, 65. 168 Starikov, Istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk, 213. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 71 era of Bukhara’s greatest prestige among Russia’s Muslims. By the begin‑ ning of the twentieth century more radical Tatar reformists were associat‑ ing chapans with Sufism, ishans, religious conservatism, and reaction.169 The chapan was also a woman’s garment, but worn differently by wom‑ en than by men. Curiously, it is not mentioned in Soviet ethnographic sources as a woman’s garment, either among Tatars or Bashkirs, possibly because it was associated with religious conservatism; nevertheless, a nineteenth-century lexicographical source clearly identifies the chapan as a women’s garment.170 In all likelihood the jilän and the chapan as they were worn by women were very similar garments if not one and the same, and were both made from Central Asian cloth. In their polemics Tatar reformists often denounced the persistence of Bukharan fashion among women, including veiling.171 In the Tarikh-i Barangawi Ahmad Barangawi includes a poem devoted precisely to the religious significance of the cha- pan for Muslim women, where among the sacred qualities of the chapan, the poet mentions that these garments are obtained in Bukhara.172 Perhaps, then, the women’s chapan was imported, while the jilän was tailored lo‑ cally. The poem was written by Ahmad-Fatih b. Shujaʿ as-Sulaymani and is titled Khatun qizgha birgän bozuq kingäshni bozu (Negating the Immoral Advice that a Woman Gave to a Girl).173 It furnishes a good illustration of the cultural significance Bukharan fashion held for many Muslims in Russia, even at the beginning of the twentieth century. The poem is in‑ tended as a refutation (raddiya) to a poem written by a female jadid de‑ nouncing the wearing of the hijab and the chapan as being contrary to Islamic Law. Ahmad provides neither the title of the original poem, nor the name of its author, but he does indicate it circulated in print, and clearly promoted modernist ideas of women’s dress. Ahmad-Fatih’s rebut‑ tal was never printed, but rather circulated as a manuscript. In his poem Ahmad-Fatih is sharply critical of the evidently jadid-inspired critique of the chapan and the hijab. In addition to pointing out the Bukharan (and hence sacred) origin of these garments, he argues that when women wear the chapan in public it not only conforms to Islamic Law, but strengthens it as well. He so strongly equates the chapan and jilän with Islamic behav­ ior

169 Farit Iakhin, Tatarskaia literatura periodicheskoi pechati Ural’ska (1905-1907 gg.), (Kazan, 1992), 114. 170 Lazar Budagov, Sravnitel’nyi slovar’ turetsko-tatarskikh narechii I, (St. Petersburg, 1869), 452. 171 Iakhin, Tatarskaia literatura periodicheskoi pechati Ural’ska, 102-103. 172 TB, fol. 79a. 173 The poem appears on ff. 78a-80b of the Tarikh-i Barangawi. 72 chapter two and Islamic etiquette that he goes so far as to call the poetess an atheist. Similar defenses of the chapan appeared in the conservative Muslim press of Orenburg.174 The production and consumption of footwear among Tatars and Bashkirs also revealed a strong Bukharan imprint. Curiously, Tatars were renowned in Bukhara as the makers of a type of footwear known in Russian sources as ichigi, which were boots make from a special type of soft leath‑ er, called bulghari in Muslim sources, and iuft’ in Russian sources. Indeed, in Bukhara the saint Hasan al-Bulghari is remembered as the person who brought the craft of making these boots to Bukhara.175 Indeed many Tatars in Bukhara were in fact boot-makers. However, despite the renown of Tatar footwear in Bukhara proper, by the end of the eighteenth century Tatar tastes in ready-made shoes appear to have gravitated toward Bukharan styles and models; Tatars also imported special types of leather from Central Asia for shoe-making.176 Muslim industrial shoe manufactur‑ ing emerged in Kazan in the 1860’s, when the Tatar merchant and indus‑ trialist Muhammad-Jan Galeev (the father of Galimjan Barudi) opened a factory in Kazan in 1869.177 However it was Galeev’s initial employer and mentor, Mustafa Fayzullin, who created the foundations for the Kazan shoe industry, and he did so satisfying the demand for Bukharan-style footwear. In the 1790’s Fayzullin purchased some samples of Bukharan shoes at the Orenburg market, and brought them back to Kazan. He dis‑ covered that the Bukharan styles were quite popular, and he started man‑ ufacturing them in Russia. He hired shoemakers from the surrounding villages and began mass-producing them, evidently through piecework production. Galeev worked as Fayzullin’s agent and would travel to the various villages to buy the production. After Fayzullin died Muhammad- Jan took over the business, and eventually shifted from piecework to in‑ dustrial production.178 The art historian S. Chervonnaia relates a similar account about Fayzullin, and adds that the same kind of connection,

174 R. Mukhametshin, Tatarskii traditsionalizm: osobennosti i formy proiavleniia, (Kazan, 2005), 118-121. 175 Al’bert Al’meev, “Sviatye mesta Bukhary: mazar khodzha Bulgar,” http://www .idmedina.ru/ books/history_culture/minaret/19-20/almeev.htm. 176 Chervonnaia, Iskusstvo Tatarii, 257. 177 On Galeev and his family cf. Leonid Deviatykh, Iz istorii azanskogok kupechestva, (Kazan, 2002), 82-87. 178 Radik Salikhov, “Primer reformatora,” in: Galimdzhan Barudi, Pamiatnaia knizhka, (Kazan, 2000), 4. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 73 connecting the origins of a local industry to Bukhara, existed among Muslim blacksmiths in the village of Chebaksa, in Kazan district. Chebaksa was a village where by the end of the nineteenth century Tatar blacksmiths had established a metalworking industry that primarily supplied wagon manufacturers in Kazan, but also produced tools, wrought iron fences, and other iron products for retail dealers.179 While Russian production domi‑ nated the market for manufactured goods both in Russia and Central Asia, Muslims in Russia continued to prefer certain Bukharan craft goods that had religious associations. For example, Tatar and Bashkir men would typically shave their heads and beards in what was considered an Islamic fashion, and often preferred Bukharan razors for that purpose.180

Cosmetics and Jewelry Bukharan fashion among Tatars and Bashkirs also manifested itself through commodities more or less exclusively associated with women, namely jewelry and cosmetics. Jewelry has been the topic of protracted study for ethnographers and art historians, particularly since there are also extensive archeological sources that can be brought to bear.181 A detailed discussion of historical jewelry styles among Volga-Ural and Siberian Muslims lays outside of the scope of this study; but for the sake of brevity, it can simply be said that art historians have typically characterized Muslim jewelry designs, especially in the Volga-Ural region, as being “of Oriental prove‑ nance,” and have argued that the main design influences came from Iran, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, certainly beginning in the pre-Mongol era. Furthermore, Tatars, especially Kazan Tatars, produced most of their own jewelry regionally, although some was also imported from Persia and Central Asia. Much local production of jewelry, as with footwear, con‑ sisted of designs made from imported models, including Central Asian ones.182

179 Chervonnaia, Iskusstvo Tatarii, 257; V.P. Semenov-Tian-Shanskii, ed., Polnoe geogra- ficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva VI, (St. Petersburg, 1901), 248. 180 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 262. 181 Studies tend to be devoted to jewelry among the Kazan Tatars; cf. Petr Dul’skii, Iskusstvo kazanskikh tatar,(Moscow, 1925); S.V. Suslova, Zhenskie ukrasheniia kazanskikh tatar serediny XIX-nachala XX v. (Moscow, 1980); F. Kh. Valeev, Narodnoe dekorativnoe iskusstvo Tatarstana, (Kazan, 1984), 55-88; Chervonnaia, Iskusstvo Tatarii; G.F. Valeeva-Suleimanova and R.G. Shageeva, Dekorativno-prikladnoe iskusstvo kazanskikh tatar, (Kazan, 1990); for the Bashkirs cf. Rudenko, Bashkiry, 185-200. 182 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 288-289; Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 151. 74 chapter two

With cosmetics Bukharan influence becomes more discernible, espe‑ cially among Tatars. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries var‑ ious types of cosmetics, as well as cosmetic applications, came from Central Asia. Iushkov, describing the Siberian Tatars in the mid-nineteenth cen‑ tury, relates that Tatar women used cosmetics in two ways believed to have originated in Bukhara. One of these was painting the fingernails yellow or red. The other was the practice of blackening the teeth.183 Teeth blacken‑ ing is also mentioned among Kazan Tatars in the nineteenth century. Vorob’ev also suggests that this practice originated in Central Asia. They would use a substance from Turkestan called tash qalï, although he adds that this fashion was largely abandoned by the beginning of the twentieth century. Other cosmetics imported from Central Asian and in demand among Muslim women included kohl, lead face powder, and other sub‑ stances. 184 Finally, as evidence that Tatars and Bashkirs cultivated, and even flaunt‑ ed, Bukharan tastes, we can point to cooking. Dried fruit, nuts, and rice were among the goods that Russia imported from Central Asia, and cer‑ tainly there was a demand among Russians, as well as among Muslims, for these delicacies. However among Muslims specifically Bukharan dishes, particularly pilaf, were associated with religious rituals, and public events. For example, a dish called Bukhari pilaf was typically prepared for assem‑ blies and other public events, and Bukhari pilaf was the most widely pre‑ pared, and clearly the most prestigious. This style of pilaf was also widely prepared and consumed by students in madrasas on festive occasions. As in Central Asia, among Tatars the preparation of pilaf was a task carried out by men.185 The Governor of Kazan, Karl Fuchs, who, as we have seen, was a keen observer of the influence of Bukharan fashion among the Tatar elite in Kazan, provides an example of the symbolic significance of pilaf in his description of a reception organized by Kazan’s ʿulama and leading merchants in October 1826 for Jahangir Khan, the Chingisid sovereign of the Qazaq Inner Horde. Jahangir Khan was passing through Kazan after attending the coronation of Tsar Nicholas I, and the religious and com‑ mercial elite of Kazan had considerable interests in the Qazaq steppe. Fuchs indicated that this pilaf, “the favorite Oriental dish,” was the first dish served to Jahangir Khan at the feast. Furthermore, the Tatar notables’

183 Iushkov, Sibirskie tatary, 86-87. 184 Vorob’ev, Kazanskie tatary, 290; Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 151. 185 Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia, 167-178; Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, 66. Religious and Social Foundations of Bukharan Prestige 75 obviously sought to flatter Jahangir by addressing him by the title amir al-muʾminin, a title also claimed by the Mangït emirs of Bukhara.186

186 K. Fuks, “Prebyvanie v Kazani kirgizskogo khana Dzhean-giria,” in: Bukeevskoi Orde 200 let 4, (Almaty, 2001), 10, 19. 76 chapter two “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 77

Chapter three

“Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara

Beginning in the seventeenth century the settlement and circulation of Central Asians in Russia and Siberia increased the exposure of Tatars and Bashkirs to Central Asia. During the Petrine era Russian trade policies brought these two communities in closer contact along the Qazaq steppe, and also brought increasing numbers of Tatars and Bashkirs to the cities of Central Asia, especially Bukhara and Tashkent. By the beginning of the nineteenth century most large Central Asian cities had Tatar and Bashkir residents, or, as Central Asians called them, “Noghays” or “Bulghars”. These communities included both transient individuals, such as merchants, students, and scholars, and those who had decided to settle there perma‑ nently. The latter group also included merchants, craftsmen, scholars, and Sufis, many of whom were fugitives. Some of these Tatars and Bashkirs were well connected with the local authorities, serving as clerics, Sufi shaykhs, courtiers, and military officers in the various khanates. Tatar and Bashkir expatriates and the institutions they maintained were often touch‑ stones for recently-arrived merchants and students, who could establish connections when they arrived in a Central Asian city.

“Bulghar” Saints and Legendary Scholars in Central Asia

In addition to genealogies among Tatars and Bashkirs that established an ancestral relationship with various Central Asian cities, there also existed numerous legends describing the experiences of expatriate Tatars and Bashkirs who traveled to Central Asia, lived there a while, and returned to Russia. The legends that have come down to us are rather localized, but nevertheless provide evidence that Tatar and Bashkir communities per‑ ceived a historical precedent in the presence of their compatriots in Central Asia. In Bukhara, for example, there was a shrine and a mahalla named Khwaja Bulghar. Its inhabitants claimed that Khwaja Bulghar had been the son of the ruler of Bulghar. According to the legend, he had argued with his father and came to live in Bukhara, and when he arrived at the 78 chapter three mahalla’s mosque, he entered the chillakhana, and died there.1 Khwaja Bulghar was also the name of a cemetery and of a water channel in the city.2 Other Bukharan legends explicitly identify Bulghar Khwaja as the 14th century Sufi Hasan b. ʿUmar al-Bulghari, and credit him with ­having taught local craftsmen the art of working leather, as well as with having taught local murids.3 It is in all likelihood to this cemetery that Shihab ad-Din Marjani was referring when he related that a scholar from Qarghalï named Husayn b. Muhammad b. ʿUmar al-Bulghari al-Kirmani died in Bukhara in 1857 and was buried near the tomb of Hasan b. ʿUmar al-Bulghari.4 In his genealogy compiled in 1805, the Tarikh Nama-yi Bulghar, the Bashkir Sufi and historian Taj ad-Din b. Yalchighul al-Bashqordi recorded a semi-legendary account of one of his ancestors, Qul-ʿAli b. Mir-Hajji, who was born near the mouth of the Zay River, in the western Bashkir country. His father had served a local khan as an imam, and Qul-ʿAli moved to Khorezm to study, where he was a mudarris for 45 years. When a certain Tusi Khan came from China to destroy Khorezm, Qul-ʿAli fled to the Qazaqs and lived among them before returning to the mouth of the Zay, where he died at age 110 at the time of Amir Timur’s destruction of Bulghar. Qul-ʿAli’s son was Mir-ʿAli who, like his father, went to Khorezm to study. He was a mudarris in Urgench for thirty years, and died there. His son Mir- Sharif was an imam and mudarris for sixty years in Urgench and Khiva, and died there too. Mir-Sharif’s son was Mir-Saʿid, who is described as on of the greatest scholars of the times. He is said to have lived in the village of Sejavend, to have written a work called Fariza, and to have died at the hands of the Persian ruler Nadir-Shah who conquered Khorezm in 1740.5 For our purposes the significance of Taj ad-Din’s account is not whether it is historically accurate, but rather its qualities as a genealogy and sacred history of the Tatars and Bashkirs, including his own Äyle tribe, and in which several generations of ancestors appear as scholars in Central Asia. Similar legends circulated among the Arghïns of the Qazaq Middle Horde, who attributed the founding of the Kukaltash Madrasa in Bukhara to an

1 O. Kh. Sukhareva, Kvartal’naia obshchina pozdnefeodal’nogo goroda Bukhary, (Moscow, 1976), 73. 2 N. Khanykov, Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843), 80-81. 3 Al’bert Al’meev, “Sviatye mesta Bukhary: mazar khodzha Bulgar,” http://www .idmedina.ru/ books/history_culture/minaret/19-20/almeev.htm. 4 Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 267-268. 5 I.G. Galiautdinov ed. Tarikh Nama-i Bulgar Tadzhetdina Ialsygulova 2nd ed., (Ufa, 1998), 164-165. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 79

Arghïn ancestor, Qulbaba, a historical figure who was a close advisor to the Uzbek ruler Muhammad Shïbani Khan (d. 1510).6 Certainly one of the most influential and popular works in the maktab curriculum in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia was another of Taj ad-Din’s works, the Risala-yi ʿAziza, an extensive commentary written in 1797 on Sufi Allah-Yar’s popular primer on Sufism, Subat al-ʿAjizin. The Risala-yi ʿAziza was one of the most frequently and extensively printed Muslim texts in Imperial Russia, and was widely used as a textbook, not only in Russia and Siberia, but among the Qazaqs as well.7 At the beginning of his com‑ mentary Taj ad-Din provides some apocryphal biographical background information on Sufi Allah-Yar, establishing him a “Nughay.” He writes: In the city of Samarqand there is a village called Minglan. Most of that city’s inhabitants were saints (awliya). In that village there was someone named Timer-Yar. He was a very holy and pious person. The village was mainly Nughays. He had a son whom he named Allah-Yar. When he was 12 years old, he placed him in a madrasa in Bukhara.8 Later in the work Taj ad-Din relates how Sufi Allah-Yar had a son named Muhammad-Sadiq who was born in Bukhara. Muhammad-Sadiq moved to Samarqand, and later informed his father of his desire to embark on the hajj and travel to Bulghar. He traveled to Bulghar, living for a while in Kazan, where, we are told, there was a great Sufi named Idris Khalifa who had the same silsila as Muhammad-Sadiq.9 This Idris Khalfa that Taj ad- Din mentions figures prominently in both “Bulgharist” sacred histories and in local legends collected among the region’s Muslim and Christian Tatars. Written histories and shrine catalogs identify him as having studied Sufism in Yarkand, in Kashgaria, with the seventeenth century Sufi, Hidayatullah Khwaja, who is often identified in Tatar accounts as a murid of Ahmad Yasavi.10 However, legends collected from villagers near his shrine in the village of Terberdy Chally, in Tatarstan, indicate he had gone to Bukhara to study, and remained there for fifteen years before returning.11 One of Idris Khalifa’s murids was said to be Qasim Shaykh b. Ibrahim al-Qazani, who is featured in a welter of more or less connected traditions linking him with an ancestral figure and saint named Qasim Shaykh buried on the right

6 Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï, Shïgharmalarï VIII, (Pavlodar, 2006), 249-251. 7 On this work cf. Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte,106 -110. 8 Tajeddin Yalchïgol, Risaläi Gazizä I, (Kazan, 2001), 46-47. 9 Tajeddin Yalchïgol, Risaläi Gazizä II, (Kazan, 2001), 456-457. 10 Allen J. Frank, Muslim Historiography and‘Bulghar’ Identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia, (Boston-Leiden, 1998), 72-76, 119-120. 11 Tatar khalïq ijatï: riwäyätlär häm legendalar, (Kazan, 1987), 262. 80 chapter three bank of the Volga, near the modern village of Tatarskoe Islamovo. However in the nineteenth century he is better known in Tatar sources as being linked to the city of Kazan, where it is said he was buried. Other Tatar oral accounts recorded in Kazan indicate he was buried near Bukhara. Primarily on that basis, Marjani denounced the veneration of Qasim Shaykh in Kazan, emphasizing that the “real” Qasim Shaykh was the well-document‑ ed 16th century figure whose tomb was a pilgrimage site near the town of Kermina, not far from Bukhara. For our purposes the historical identity of Qasim Shaykh is less important that the conflation among Tatars of a number of saints and shrines in Russia and Bukhara into a single “Tatar” saint.12

The Tatar and Bashkir Presence in Bukhara

Tatars and Bashkirs retained permanent settlements in numerous Central Asian cities and towns well before the Russian conquest. The historical legends discussed above, as well as the evidence of Siberia and the Volga- Ural region’s trade before the Russian conquests of the sixteenth century, suggest that Siberians and “Bulghars” had long been present in Central Asia, or were considered to have been so. Russian customs documents from the seventeenth century show that in the 1650’s Tatar merchants were traveling to Bukhara and bringing Bukharan and Oirat goods back to Russia.13 During the first half of the eighteenth century Tatar merchants were engaged in smuggling contraband from Russia to Khiva and Bukhara. The Russian ambassador Florio Beneveni who visited Bukhara in 1722 and was present when two caravans coming from Astrakhan and Saratov were found to be illegally carrying tin and gun barrels for sale in Bukhara. Beneveni sought to have the Bukharan authorities confiscate the goods, but the khan refused on the grounds that the Tatar merchants had declared they were not Russian subjects, even though Beneveni had identified Kazan and Astrakhan Tatars among them.14 In his report to Peter the Great Beneveni mentions a Bashkir merchant from Ufa district who resided in Bukhara and was named Mulla Maksat Iunusov who pledged his loyalty to

12 Allen J. Frank, “Qasim Shaykh al-Qazani: a Muslim Saint in Tatar and Bulghar Tradi‑ tion” Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, LVIII 1 (2004), 115-129. 13 S. Kh. Alishev, ed. Istochniki po istorii Tatarstana, (Kazan, 1993), 110-111. 14 A. Popov, Snosheniia Rossii s Khivoiu i Bukharoiu pri Petre Velikom, (St. Petersburg, 1853), 67, 139-140, 149, 156. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 81 the tsar, and in fact couriered Beneveni’s coded dispatches back to Russia.15 Just as the intensification of the caravan trade between Russia and the Central Asian khanates increased the Central Asian population in Russia, so did it in all likelihood increase the number of Tatars and Bashkirs resi‑ dent in Central Asia. Filipp Efremov, a Russian soldier captured by Qazaqs during the Pugachev uprising and sold as a slave in Bukhara, reported the presence of Tatars in that city in the 1770’s. He adds that many Tatars (nagaitsy) left the Orenburg region, settled in Bukhara, and called them‑ selves Uzbeks.16 Several observers viewed Tatars as a community particularly favored by the emirs of Bukhara, and commented that Tatars residing there enjoyed a sense of confidence in their status as expatriates.17 An anonymous eigh‑ teenth century Russian traveler commented on the Tatars’ “complete freedom” in Bukhara, and their ability to reside and trade throughout the emirate without hindrance.18 Arminius Vambery, visiting Samarqand in the 1860’s, observed Tatar caretakers at the tomb of Amir Timur, and com‑ mented on their favored status with the emir. At the head of the graves are two Rahle (table with two leaves, upon which, in the East, are laid sacred volumes) there the Mollahs day and night read in turn the Koran and contrive to extract from the Vakf (pious foundation) of the Turbe a good salary. They, as well as the Mutevali (stewards), are taken from the Nogai Tartars, because the Emir [Nasrullah] expressed in his will the desire that the watch over him should be entrusted to this race, which had always been particularly well disposed toward him.19 Bukhara and Tashkent were the cities with the most extensive commercial ties with Russia, and it is not surprising that these cities maintained the largest Tatar communities. Burnashev and Pospelov, who visited Bukhara in 1795, observed numerous Tatars there. The British traveler Alexander Burnes, who visited Bukhara in the 1820’s, estimated there to be around a thousand Tatar families in that city. The Russian officer Georges de Meyendorff who visited in 1822 estimated there to be around 3,000 there, whom he describes as being mainly “malefactors and fugitives who had

15 Popov, Snosheniia Rossii s Khivoiu i Bukharoiu, 148, 156. 16 Filipp Efremov, Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova v Kirgizskoi stepi, Bukharii, Khive, Persii, Tibete i Indii i vozvrashchenie ego ottuda chrez Angliiu s Rossiiu, 3rd ed., Petr Kondyrev ed. (Kazan, 1811), 72, 96. 17 Arminius Vambèry, Travels in Central Asia, (London, 1865), 247; L.M. Sverdlova, Na perekrestke torgovykh putei, (Kazan, 1991), 19. 18 “Zamechaniia o torgovle bukhartsev,” Sibirskii Vestnik 1821, 9-10. 19 Arminius Vambery, Travels in Central Asia, (London, 1865), 247. 82 chapter three come to Bukhara to seek their fortunes.”20 The German traveler Eversmann reported observing many Siberian Bukharan merchants in Bukhara.21 The presence of 3,000 Tatar residents in Bukhara in the 1820’s would in fact make that city one of the largest Tatar urban concentrations outside of Russia, and as such would have even rivaled the largest urban Tatar com‑ munities in Russia, including Kazan, Qarghalï, Petropavlovsk and Semipalatinsk.

Caravansarays The primary residences of foreign merchants in Bukhara were the city’s caravansarays, or sarays, as they were called locally. These public buildings served as hostels for merchants, but were also inhabited by craftsmen and other more or less permanent residents of the city. The buildings were sometimes used as warehouses, some exclusively so, as stables, and as markets. These were commonly multi-storey buildings with warehouses or stables on the ground floor, and residences on the upper floor. Khanykov identified 38 caravansarays in Bukhara, twenty-four built of stone, and fourteen of wood. Desmaisons and Witkiewicz, who were both in Bukhara in 1834, mention 25 caravansarays.22 Khanykov describes these structures as essentially similar to madrasas, with cells (hujras) arranged for living quarters, except that carvanasarays also had storage space for goods.23 Caravansarays were often inhabited by merchants from specific regions. In some cases each floor in a specific caravansaray might be apportioned to merchants of a specific region. For example, the Saray-i Urganji was inhabited by Khivans. The Saray-i Pay-Astana was where Qunduzi slave merchants resided. The Saray-i ʿAbdullah-Jan was inhabited by Kashmiris and Afghans in the top part, and by Bukharans in the lower part.24 Several caravansarays were associated with Tatars and Bashkirs from Russia, chief of which was the Saray-i Noghay, which both Khanykov and

20 Burnashev and Pospelov, “Puteshestvie ot Sibirskoi linii do goroda Bukhary v 1794 i obratno v 1795 godu,” Sibirskii Vestnik, vol. 2-3, 1818, 69; Alexander Burnes, Travels into Bokhara III, (London, 1835), 227; Georges de Meyendorff, Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara, (Paris, 1826), 175. 21 Adolph Erman, Travels in Siberia I, (London, 1848), 349n. 22 P.I. Demezon and I.V. Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, N.A. Khalfin ed. (Moscow, 1983), 58, 99. 23 Khanykov, Opisanie, 88; cf. also Yelizaveta Nekrasova, Die Basare von Buchara: Das Antlitz einer Handelsstadt im Wandel, ANOR 2 (Berlin, 1999), 44-46. 24 Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 59, 101. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 83

Meyendorff mention.25 Desmaisons adds that it was also a warehouse for Russian goods, and the number of Tatar merchants and craftsmen residing there was increasing on an annual basis. Witkiewicz estimated that there were about a thousand Tatars living there, about six to eight to a room. These Tatars would spend their days outside, mainly working as cobblers.26 The Saray-i Noghay was often the first destination for Tatars traveling to the city. It was where Galimjan Barudi first stopped when came to Bukhara in 1875 to study.27 This was also the first destination of Ahmad al-Barangawi, when he came to Bukhara in 1901. In his memoir Ahmad expressed relief at finding fellow Tatars there, who helped find him lodging elsewhere, since the caravansaray was full when he arrived. His first con‑ tact there was a Tatar named Sayyid-Khwaja who not only helped arrange lodging for Ahmad, but also made arrangements for him to find a suitable teacher to begin his studies.28 Several other caravansarays housed substantial numbers of Tatars. Desmaisons mentions the Saraii Kuliuta (according to the Russian spell‑ ing), which was inhabited by Tatar craftsmen, and stored Russian goods. Tatar craftsmen, together with Afghans and Heratis, occupied the Saray-i Ayaz. Witkiewicz resided there for a while, and he mentions that it served as the residence of an Armenian merchant from Astrakhan named Martyn Egorov Berkhudarov. Witkiewicz mentions the Saray-i Fil-Khan inhabited in its upper section by Tatar boot-makers, and in its lower section by Tashkandis and Khoqandis.29 Under Khoqandian rule Tashkent also appears to have had a substantial Tatar community, although smaller than Bukhara’s. A Russian who was a captive in the Khanate of Khoqand mentions the existence of fourteen caravansarays in Tashkent. These included the Noghay Caravansaray and the Urus Caravansaray, which was evidently for Russian merchants.30 A Russian describing Tashkent in the 1870’s, shortly after the Russian

25 de Meyendorff, Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara, 183; Khanykov, Opisanie, 88; Khanykov remarked that the revenues from the Noghay Carvansaray were allocated to the Kukaltash Madrasa. 26 Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 59, 100. 27 Yosïf Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, (Kazan, 1997), 32. 28 TB, ff. 196b-197a. 29 Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 59-60, 100-101. 30 G. Potanin, “Pokazanie Sibirskago kazaka Maksimova o Kokanskom vladenii,” Vest- nik Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva 1860/3, 65; Filipp Efremov identified the Sokta caravansaray as a residence of Russians and Armenians; cf. Efremov, Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova, 97. 84 chapter three

­conquest, mentions the presence of 23 caravansarays.31 Following the Russian conquest the Tatar community expanded into the new European portion of the city, where there was a Tatar mosque built in 1873 in the Voskresenkii Bazaar, although Dobrosmyslov indicates that in 1912 there were a total of sixteen mosques in the European part of the city.32 L.F. Kostenko estimates that by the end of the 1870’s Tatars constituted the largest group in Tashkent after the Sarts. In the “Old City” they numbered 170 families, that is, 573 people, in addition to 37 “guests.” In the “European City” the “Russian” population included 938 Muslims, most of whom were in all likelihood Tatars or Bashkirs.33 There existed a largely Tatar settle‑ ment near Tashkent, along the Chirchik River known as Noghay Qurghan. This settlement appears to have been in existence before the Russian conquest, and is described as mainly a merchant colony.34 Awliya-Ata also had a Tatar community during the Khoqandian dominion. Visiting in 1866, A. Geins mentions the existence of a Tatar quarter (sloboda) there, headed by a Tatar aqsaqal named Mai-Murat.35 Substantial Tatar communities emerged in the towns along the Syr- Darya River following the Russian conquest. While some of these settle‑ ments, such as Kazalinsk and Perovsk (Aq-Masjid) closely followed the pattern of commercial settlements along the Qazaq steppe, with their large Tatar populations organized around separate mosques and mahallas di‑ vided along ethnic and Russian administrative lines. However, there were also Tatars in some of the older cities. One of the largest Tatar communities was in Turkistan, where Tatars began settling after 1872. By 1897 there were 513 Tatars in the city, out of a total Muslim population of 10,387.36 Elsewhere in Central Asia the Tatar and Bashkir communities tended to be small. There was certainly a Tatar presence in Khorezm and Samarqand, although the lack of documentation makes it difficult to eval‑ uate its scale.37 In the Ferghana Valley the Tatar population before the

31 L.F. Kostenko, Turkestanskii krai I, (St. Petersburg, 1880), 409. 32 A.I. Dobrosmyslov, Tashkent v proshlom i nastoiashchem: istoricheskii ocherk, (Tash‑ kent, 1912), 321-322. 33 Kostenko, Turkestanskii krai I, 410, 412. 34 J.M. Trotter, Statistics, Topography, and Tribes of the Russian Territory and Independent Native States of Western Turkestan, (Calcutta, 1882), 328; it is unclear whether Kostenko counted the inhabitants of this settlement as residents of Tashkent. 35 A.K. Geins, “Dnevnik 1866 goda. Puteshestvie v Turkestan,” Sobranie literaturnykh trudov II (St. Petersburg, 1898), 416. 36 A.I. Dobrosmyslov, Goroda Syr-Dar‘inskoi oblasti, (Tashkent, 1912), 126-127. 37 Witkiewicz writes in 1834 that there were virtually no Tatars in Khiva; cf. Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 116; in fact there was a prominent Tatar Sufi “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 85

Russian conquest appears to have been very small. Khoroshkhin mentions the presence of fifteen elderly Tatars in Khoqand who had settled there before the Russian conquest, as well as “a few” in Uzgend. In 1875 there was also a small number of Tatars, including Siberian Tatars, in Khojand and Ura-Tepe.38 Merchants, merchants’ agents, students, and scholars certainly were common occupations among Tatars established in Central Asia, although these were by no means their only professions. As we have seen, Desmaisons and Witkiewicz mention the presence of many Tatar craftsmen in the city’s caravansarays, especially cobblers and boot-makers. For example, Sayyid- Khwaja, who received Ahmad Barangawi at the Noghay Caravansaray in 1901, revealed that he and his father were tailors who sold their wares at the caravansaray. Furthermore, he added that his father had been a Christian Tatar (Kräshen) who had come to Bukhara and converted to Islam.39

Tatar Servitors Some Tatars became servitors to the various Central Asian khans. Numerous travelers to Bukhara in the 1860’s and 70’s mention meeting a Tatar, variously named Usta Ali or Karataev, in the service of Muzaffar ad- Din Khan. The Russian diplomat Tatarinov, who was in Bukhara in 1865 and 1866, describes Karataev as a liaison between the emir and Tatarinov’s party. Tatarinov indicated that Karataev was originally from Saratov prov‑ ince in Russia, and then lived in Orenburg as a clockmaker. In Bukhara he made clocks that stood in the emir’s palace. Wary of court intrigues, Karataev declined to accept any formal position in the court. Nevertheless, Tatarinov credits him with having advised the emir to avoid a war with Russia, reportedly reminding the emir of the fate of the Tatar khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan.40 The Russian envoy Colonel S. Nosovich met Karataev in 1870, when he represented the emir before Nosovich’s embas‑ sy.41 Stremoukhov, who visited Bukhara in 1873, describes Karataev and dynasty in Khorezm throughout most of the nineteenth century, which was founded by Muhammad-Sharif b. Ibrahim al-Birgawi. This dynasty is discussed in more detail below. 38 A.P. Khoroshkhin, Sbornik statei kasaiushchikhsia Turkestanskago kraia, (St. Peters‑ burg, 1876), 42; A.A. Kushakevich, “Svedeniia o Khodzhentskom uezde,” Zapiski Imperator- skago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva, IV (1875), 232. 39 TB, fol. 197a. 40 A. Tatarinov, Semimesiachnyi plen v Bukharii, (St. Petersburg-Moscow, 1867), 102-105. 41 S.A. Nosovich, “Russkoe posol’stvo v Bukharu v 1870 godu,” Russkaia Starina vol. 95, 1898, No. 9 645-646. 86 chapter three the Bukharan qushbegi as constituting a “Russian Party” at the court. He credits Karataev and the city’s chief merchants with having convinced Muzaffar to remain at peace with Russia. He confirms that Karataev’s only official rank in the court was as the emir’s clockmaker, where he was known as Usta Ali. Stremoukhov provides additional biographical informa‑ tion. His full name was Ali-Muhammad Karataev, but he was known in Bukhara simply as Usta Ali. He was originally from the town of Khvalynsk, in Saratov province, and in 1854 when he was unable to pay his guild dues, he came to Bukhara. He borrowed 300 rubles from a Bukharan merchant named Rahim-bay and built a flour mill. He used the income from the mill to pay his dues in Russia, but after Rahim-bay’s death, the emir Nasrullah considered him a useful person to have at court and refused to let him leave Bukhara; in compensation the emir awarded him an annual salary of 280 tangas and 16 batmans of grain. Karataev served the emir Muzaffar ad-Din as an interpreter, accompanied him on all his campaigns, and even served as his chief of artillery for a time. As of 1873 he was serving as the emir’s chief interpreter, and Stremoukhov credits him with having the saved numerous Russian captives from death sentences.42 Eugene Schuyler men‑ tions meeting Karataev in the 1870’s.43 Karataev was not the only Tatar to serve the khans and emirs of Central Asia. One of the gunners in the Khoqandian army in the 1850’s was a Tatar named Habibullah Khan, who later became the chief of artillery under Khudayar Khan.44 Munis and Agahi mention a Tatar named Mustaqim Divana Noghay who was the jester of the ruler of Khiva, Muhammad-Rahim Khan (r. 1803-1806).45

Resident “Bulghar” Scholars and Sufisin Central Asia

It was not uncommon for Tatar and Bashkir scholars to become perma‑ nently established in Central Asia, and most of those who were settled in Bukhara. We can also include in this category their descendants, who often appear in the sources as “Bulghar scholars.” Although the experience of Tatar and Bashkir students in Bukhara, the vast majority of whom returned

42 N. Stremoukhov, “Poezdka v Bukharu (Izvlechenie iz dnevnika),” Russkii Vestnik vol. 117/6, 1875, 642-644, 668-669. 43 Eugene Schuyler, Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukha- ra, and Kuldja II, (New York, 1877), 100. 44 Timur K. Beisembiev, ed. The Life of ‘Alimqul: a Narrative Chronicle of Nineteenth Century Central Asia, (London, 2003), 52. 45 Shir Muhammad Mirab Munis and Muhammad Riza˒ Mirab Agahi, Firdaws al-Iqbal, Yuri Bregel, ed. (Leiden-Boston, 1999), 360. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 87 to Russia, will be discussed in more detail elsewhere, it may be useful to discuss here the relationship of some permanently established Tatar schol‑ ars and Sufis with the Bukharan religious and political establishment. Newly arrived students typically sought out these scholars who were well placed to assist newcomers. These permanently established Tatar scholars were well connected to the Bukharan religious establishment, and some‑ times to the political establishment as well, although with respect to the political establishment Tatar sources generally restrict their comments to the relationships of scholars with the various emirs. They also tend to provide far more detail on their interactions with the religious establish‑ ment in Bukhara. The conflict of one Tatar scholar, Abu’n-Nasir al-Qursawi, with the Bukharan establishment constitutes a major element in the nar‑ rative of Tatar Islamic reformism and Tatar nationalism, and is oft re‑ peated. However, Qursawi had his defenders among the Bukharan ʿulama too, and other depictions of relations between Tatar scholars and their teachers in Bukhara should encourage us to rethink the stereotype of a sclerotic and hidebound Islamic establishment in Bukhara in conflict with “progressive” Tatar scholars. Rather, it is above all by means of the per‑ sonal connections of Tatar and Bashkir scholars with Central Asian coun‑ terparts that we must evaluate the relationship. The Bukharan religious establishment that Tatars and Bashkirs encoun‑ tered in the eighteenth century effectively combined the emirate’s legal and educational establishment. Members of this establishment, especially at the official level, held other important civic positions as well. In 1843 the Russian scholar Khanykov provided an overview of the structure of Bukhara’s religious establishment, in which he identifies fourteen distinct positions.46 Positions reserved for Bukharan khwajas stood at the top of the hierarchy. The highest position was the shaykh al-islam, who was se‑ lected from among the Juybari khwajas, and headed the council of scholars. However Desmaisons indicates that in 1834 the shaykh al-islam had come from Samarqand, and was a descendant of Khwaja Ahrar.47 Khanykov also mentions a khwaja-yi kalan, who was similarly taken from among the Juybari khwajas, a sayyid and Naqshbandi lineage descended from the 16th

46 Efremov provides a list of Bukharan clerical ranks, based on his observations from the 1770’s. He mentions the qazi-yi kalan, naqib, as well as muftis, akhunds, and mullahs. However, he describes them as a hierarchy and equates them with ecclesiastical ranks in the Russian Orthodox Church; cf. Efremov, Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova, 81-82. 47 Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 45. 88 chapter three century figure Makhdum-i Aʿzam.48 The naqib was also a khwaja, but was selected from among the descendants of Sayyid Ata. The chief legal figures are the qazi-yi ʿaskar and the qazi-yi kalan. The raʿis was also a khwaja. He was responsible for maintaining Islamic moral norms, and was in charge of a sort of constabulary that also exercised a degree of police powers in the city.49 However Khanykov suggests that the positions mentioned above were primarily political and administrative posts, and indeed in the Tatar sources there is little if any record of Tatar scholars and students interact‑ ing with those figures, who in any case do not appear to have been neces‑ sarily linked to the scholarly environment. Khanykov identifies the aʿlam as the highest religious position in the emirate, being a sort of senior supervisory mufti and auditor of fatwas. Just below that figure was the mufti-yi ʿaskar, who would affix his seal to the petitions of the Uzbek military estate (sipayis). Ahmad Barangawi reveals that a mufti-yi ʿaskar could also be an instructor in the madrasas. He relates how in the 1850’s Muhammad-ʿArif Qul served as mufti-yi ʿaskar and mudarris in the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa.50 In addition to these senior muftis, other muftis were approved by the emir, and typically were also instructors in the madrasas.51 These positions were not restricted to khwajas or even Bukharans, since several Tatars served as muftis in the nineteenth century. Among these Ahmad al-Barangawi identifies his teacher from 1901 until 1905, Damulla Mir-Siddiq as-Sardawi al-Qazani, who served as mufti of the Bala-Hawz Madrasa. However, he identifies the city’s first Tatar mufti as Abu’l-Hasan Damulla ʿAbdullah as-Sarataghi. There were also Abu’l-Akram Damulla Siraj ad-Din as-Sarataghi (d. 1893), and Lutfullah b. ʿInan al-Bug‑ hulmawi, whose teacher was Ahmad’s father, Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi.52 Khanykov defines mudarrises as legal experts who received from the emir the right to teach a specific science in the madrasas, and who ob‑ tained their support from waqfs. In fact, mudarrises in Bukhara were often from outside the emirate. Galimjan Barudi credits the maintenance of Bukhara’s status in Islamic education to mudarrises from Balkh, the

48 On this group cf. Bakhtiyor Babadzhanov and Maria Szuppe, “Dzhuibari,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii vol. 1 (Moscow, 2006), 138-139; Efremov indicates that the qazi-yi kalan would attends the royal court on Fridays and advise the atalïq; cf. Efremov, Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova, 82. 49 Khanykov, Opisanie, 190-191. 50 TB, fol. 144a. 51 Khanykov, Opisanie, 192. 52 TB, fol. 199a. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 89

Ferghana Valley, Shahr-i Sabz, Kuhistan, and Kazan.53 One of the promi‑ nent Tatar mudarrises in Bukhara was Muhsin b. Bik-Qol b. Ibrahim ash- Shashi (d. 1831/2), who became mudarris in the Fathullah Qushbegi Madrasa, among others, and later he became qazi in the town of Kermina.54 Before he returned to Russia in 1814 ʿAbd as-Sattar b. Saʿid ash-Shirdani served as a muhtasib in Bukhara, a position which Marjani likens to that of a “legal secretary.”55 And Marjani himself held the position of mudarris during his stay in Bukhara. Tatars and Bashkirs could also hold high positions outside of the emir‑ ate of Bukhara. Hafiz ad-Din Barangawi was offered the position of mudar- ris in Khojand in the 1850’s, but declined it.56 ʿAli Mufti b. Walid was originally from Semipalatinsk. He had studied in Bukhara, and later served as mufti in Khoqand. Political events in Khoqand forced him to flee to Russia in 1865, where he ultimately served as imam in Ust’-Kamenogorsk.57 Ahmad al-Barangawi reveals that Tatar students were being offered posi‑ tions as imams in Samarqand and Tashkent at the time he departed Bukhara in 1905.58 One of the earliest Tatar scholars known to have established himself in Bukhara was Salim b. ʿAbd ar-Rahim as-Sabawi (d. 1808), who had been imam in the village of Baylar Sabasï, in Kazan province, when he joined the insurgents during the Pugachev Uprising, and fled to Bukhara in 1774. In Bukhara he was known for his skill in fiqh.59 Another fugutive who es‑ tablished himself in Bukhara was ʿAbdullah b. Mahdi as-Saratawi al- Qulatqi (d. 1883), who became a mudarris.60 Fakhr ad-Din b. Ibrahim b. Khujash, who died in Bukhara in 1844, served as khatib in the Masjid-i Kalan Mosque and the Shaykh Shanä Mosque, and he was an instructor in the Little Juybari Madrasa. He was also closely tied to the Bukharan reli‑ gious establishment, counting among his pupils in Qur’an recitation Emir Haydar himself, and he was remembered as one of Abu’n-Nasir al-Qur‑ sawi’s fiercest critics in Bukhara.61 Husayn b. Muhammad b. ʿUmar al- Bulghari al-Kirmani (d. 1857), originally from Qarghalï, did not attain any

53 Galimdzhan-khazrat Barudi, Pamiatnaia knizhka (Khäter däftäre) (Kazan, 2000), 62. 54 Marjani, Mustafad II, 232-233. 55 Marjani, Mustafad II, 94-95. 56 TB fol. 103b. 57 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, A Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 70a. 58 TB fol. 180a. 59 Marjani, Mustafad II, 220-221. 60 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 491. 61 Marjani, Mustafad II, 26-27; Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 228-229. 90 chapter three official position, but Marjani indicates he enjoyed a very good relationship with the emir, and only spoke Persian with his own children. He was re‑ membered as a great bibliographer and bibliophile, and also as a translator of the emir’s correspondence with the Ottoman Sultan.62 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi includes in his biographical dictionary a certain Muhammad-Jan b. Damulla Muhammad-Qul. His father was originally from the village of Qarmïsh, in Kazan province, and in Urgench became one of the senior murids of Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani.63 He then moved to Bukhara and mar‑ ried. His son Muhammad-Jan was born in Bukhara, and was forced to flee the city in 1865 when he criticized the emir following the fall of Tashkent to the Russians.64 Several Tatar Sufis were permanently established in Central Asian cities, where they not only trained Central Asians, but also attracted their com‑ patriots as murids. The relationship of Central Asian Sufism to the religious history of the Volga-Ural region will be described in more detail below, however here it might be useful to identify Tatar Sufis who were perma‑ nently established in Central Asia, and who were involved in training murids. Two of these figures are included in Ahmad Barangawi’s brief bio‑ graphical dictionary of his father’s associates. Perhaps the most prominent of these Tatar scholars in Central Asia was Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar as-Samarqandi al-Bulghari (d. 1872). The main sourc‑ es for Taj ad-Din’s biography vary to some degree on his genealogical and Sufi affiliations. They agree that he was from the village of Aydar, located in Kazan province, but do not indicate when he came to Central Asia. Ahmad al-Barangawi identifies him simply as Taj ad-Din al-Bulghari. However Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din provides the following genealogy: Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar b. Din-Muhammad b. Qïdïrlï b. Qulmi b. Altun b. Ay- Baqtï b. Aydar.65 Taj ad-Din’s Sufi connections are not completely clear either. Riza˒ ad-Din indicates that when he came to Samarqand, he was attracted to the gatherings of a certain Shaykh Baysuni, possibly a refer‑ ence to Khudayberdi b. ʿAbdullah al-Baysuni (d. 1847), whom he suc‑ ceeded after the shaykh’s death, and he provides the following silsila:

62 Marjani, Mustafad II, 266-267. 63 There is no evidence that Niyazquli at-Turkmani trained murids in Khorezm. Qurban- ʿAli, whose transmissions of Sufi silsilas are sometimes problematic, may be referring to Muhammad-Sharif al-Birgawi, a Tatar khalifa of Niyazquli’s who was based in Urgench; see below. 64 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 78ab. 65 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:15, 538-539. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 91

Abu’l-Hasan Rahimullah → ʿAbd al-ʿAziz b. Shah-Wali ad-Dihlawi → Shah- Wali ad-Dihlawi → Abu Tahir Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-K.r.di. Murad Ramzi identifies Taj ad-Din’s Sufi master as Mirza Rahim-Bek (known as Muhammad Darwish al-ʿAzimabadi ash-Shahrisabzi and as al- Ishan Shafiʿi). Both Ahmad al-Barangawi and ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi identify him as a khalifa of Darwish Muhammad ash-Shafiʿi ash-Shahid al-Hindu‑ stani.66 In addition to licensing students in Sufism (his khalifas include two Tatar Sufis, Habibullah b. Muhammad as-Saba˒i and Ahmad-Wali b. Tuhfatullah al-Qïzïljari),67 Taj ad-Din is also remembered for licensing students in the Hizb al-bahr litany, which in Central Asia and the Volga- Ural region is believed to have originated with the North African Sufi Abu’l-Hasan ash-Shazili, although the silsila as transmitted in Tatar sourc‑ es in all likelihood originated in eighteenth century India. When Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi came to Samarqand he trained with Taj ad-Din and obtained a license to train students in the litany. Hafiz ad-Din’s brother Burhan ad-Din Qazi was also obtained an ijazatnama from Taj ad-Din for this litany.68 The sisila for this litany was a follows: Taj ad-Din as-Samarqandi → Darvish Muhammad as-Shafiʿi al-Hindistani → ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ad-Dihlawi b. Shah Waliʾullah → Shah Waliʾullah ad-Dihlawi → Abu Tahir Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-K.rdi al-Madani → Ahmad an-N.kh.li → ʿIsa al-Maghrabi → Abu’s-Silah ʿAli b. ʿAbd al-Wahid al-Ansari → Abu’l- ʿAbbas Ahmad al-M.q.rʿi → Muhammad-Saʿid b. Ahmad al-M.q.rʿi → Abu ʿAbdullah Muhammad b. Muhammad b. ʿAbd al-Jalil at-Tunsi → Abu’l-Fazl Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Marzuq → Abu’t-Tayyib b. ʿIlwan at-Tunsi → Abu’l-Hasan Muhammad b. Ahmad at-T.b.ri → Abu’l-Muʿzayim Mazi b. Sultan-Khadim ash-Shazili → Abu’l-Hasan ʿAli b. ʿAbbas b. ʿAbd al- Jabbar ash-Shazili.69 Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi and his family enjoyed even closer ties with another Tatar Sufi based in Central Asia, Ahmad-Shah Ishan b. Dawlat-

66 TB, fol. 139a; Ramzi, Talfiq al-akhbar II, 475; ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar al-haqa˒iq fi tarjuma ahwali masha˒ikh at-tara˒iq, (Orenburg, n.d.), 38-39; Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:15, 539. 67 al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 39; al-Muʿazi indicates Taj ad-Din’s son Muhammad- ʿAlim became his successor. Riza˒ ad-Din identifies Taj ad-Din’s Tatar murids as Habibullah b. Al-Muhammad (1830-1896), who was an imam in Sabachay, in Nizhnii Novgorod Province, and Ahmad-Wali b. Tuhfatullah al-Qïzïljari; cf. Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 237, 252. 68 TB, ff. 22b-23a. 69 TB, ff. 104a, 139ab. A version of the litany was printed in Kazan in the Imperial pe‑ riod, and was republished in Kazan in 2000; cf. Mine saqlawchï doghalar, (Kazan, 2000). 92 chapter three

Shah b. ʿAdil-Shah al-Buri al-Boghdani, who was known as Ahmad-Shah Makhdum. Ahmad-Shah came from a prominent Sufi family with close ties to Central Asia. His grandfather ʿAdil-Shah b. ʿAbdullah al-Boghdani (ca. 1733-1813) had been a mudarris in Sterlibashevo in the eighteenth century, while his father Dawlat-Shah (d. 1832/3) became a major Naqshbandi figure in the Volga-Ural region.70 In Bukhara in the 1790’s Dawlat-Shah was a khalifa of Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani, and upon returning to Russia trained murids in Orenburg and Cheliabinsk provinces.71 Ahmad-Shah established himself as a Sufi shaykh in the town of Panjikent, to the east of Samarqand, where he is said to have married the daughter of an ishan’s son. In a letter to his father dated 18 April 1852, Hafiz ad-Din writes that Ahmad-Shah Ishan would sponsor feasts for the Tatars in Bukhara whenever a caravan would arrive there.72 ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi identifies him as the khalifa of Hasan al-Panjikandi al-Qarshi, who was licensed by the important Afghan Naqshbandiya-Mujaddidiya shaykh Fayz-Khan al-Kabuli.73 Ahmad Barangawi adds that Ahmad-Shah was also the owner of a hujra in the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa, and was an instructor in Qarshi (Nasaf).74 Another prominent Tatar Sufi established in Bukhara was the mufti Siraj ad-Din b. Shaʿban al-Uzani, who was also known as Mufti Siraj ad-Din as- Sarataghi. His silsila is unclear, but Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din identified him as a khalifa of ʿAbd an-Nasir b. ʿAbd as-Salam az-Zimnichawi (d.1881). ʿAbd an-Nasir was licensed by Yusuf b. Mansur al-Khoqandi al-Marghinani, who had been licensed by a certain Muhammad-Jan Afandi in Mecca. Siraj ad-Din was also related by marriage to a prominent family of scholars in Semipalatinsk. His daughter had married Fazl-Akram b. Ahmad-Wali al- Utari. Fazil-Akram and his father were both imams in Semipalatinsk, and had both studied in Bukhara. ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi gives 1315 ah (1897-98 ce) as the date of Siraj ad-Din Mufti’s death, and connects his silsila to the major Bukharan Mujaddidiya figure Khalifa Husayn: Damulla Siraj ad-Din as-Saritaghi al-Bukhari al-Mufti → Afaq-khwaja al-Bukhari → Khalifa Ibrahim as-Samarqandi → Khalifa Husayn. Al-Muʿazi names two of Siraj ad-Din’s khalifas. One was Nuʿman b. Nur-Muhammad al-Bulghari, who practiced Sufism among the Turkmens. The other was ʿAbd al-Mawdud b.

70 Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Istarlibash (Kazan, 1899), 5-6; Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:6, 280. 71 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:6, 284; Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 176. 72 TB, fol. 46b. 73 al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 60. 74 TB, ff. 46b, 47ab, 137a. “Bulghar” Institutions in Bukhara 93

Fattah ad-Din as-Saritaghi at-Tashkandi, who became imam in “New Tashkent, and later was licensed in Troitsk by Zaynullah-ishan Rasuli.”75 Outside the Emirate of Bukhara, Khorezm was home to a Sufi dynasty, which, while not mentioned in the Tarikh-i Barangawi, is nevertheless treated in some detail in published biographical sources. The founder of this Sufi dynasty was Muhammad-Sharif b. Ibrahim al-Birgawi (died ca. 1841), another Tatar khalifa of Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani. His name also ap‑ pears as Muhammad-Sharif al-Urganji an-Nughayi.76 Of Teptiar origin, he traveled to Bukhara and was licensed by Niyazquli at-Turkmani. He be‑ came imam in the village of Birga, in Bugulma district, Samara Province, but in 1815 left his wife and children and returned to Niyaz-Quli in Bukhara. He then established himself as imam in the small village of Cheka, a short distance from Urgench, where he served as a shaykh, training murids. Following his death he was succeeded by his son Muhammad-Zakir, whose mother was a woman from Urgench. Muhammad-Zakir had also studied the exoteric sciences, and became his father’s chief khalifa. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din estimates Muhammad-Zakir earned even more renown than his father. Muhammad-Zakir was additionally licensed by one of his fa‑ ther’s khalifas, Qutlugh-Khwaja Ishan, who was a Qaraqalpaq from the Aral Sea coast. Qutlugh-Khwaja Ishan is also known among the Qaraqalpaqs as Qara-Qum Ishan, and his sislila has come down to us. This document identifies his teacher as Muhammad-Sharif Ishan Bulghari Khwarazmi, who was known locally as Masherip-ishan. 77 In his turn Muhammad-Zakir licensed four of Qutlugh-Khwaja Ishan’s sons. Muhammad-Sharif and his son Muhammad-Zakir appear to have had a substantial influence on Sufi networks in the , and Tatars were heavily represented among their khalifas and successors. One of Muhammad-Sharif’s khalifas was Wildan b. Akhta al-Qazani al-Khwarazmi, whom Riza˒ ad-Din believes was originally from the Sterli Valley in Bashkiria, but who came with his family from Russia to live among the Uzbeks of the Manghït tribe. In 1884 Muhammad-Zakir licensed Habibullah b. Muhammad-Haris al-Istar‑ libashi.78 Muhammad-Zakir’s successor in Cheka was another Tatar, Najib

75 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 114, 268; al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 28. 76 Tuqayev, Tarikh-i Istarlibash, 17; however the most extensive biography appears in Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:8, 258-269. 77 ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi identifies him as Qutlugh-Ahmad and also by the named Quw‑ wati Ishan; for additional details on this figure cf. Makset Karlybaev, Medrese v Karakal- pakii v XIX-nachala XX vekov, (Nukus, 2002), 37-40. 78 Tuqayev, Tarikh-i Istarlibash, 17. 94 chapter three b. Shamsuddin b. ʿAli Tuntari, who was also a khalifa of Shaykh Zaynullah Rasuli.79 However, Muhammad-Sharif and Muhammad-Zakir appear to have had their greatest influence on Sufi networks in Khorezm and along the lower Syr-Darya Valley. ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi identifies another Qaraqalpaq khalifa of Muhammad-Sharif’s named ʿAta˒ullah b. Imam ad- Din al-Khwarazmi al-Qaraqalpaqi,80 and we see numerous Qaraqalpaq, Uzbek, and Qazaq nisbas among their khalifas’ khalifas. Riza˒ ad-Din adds that Muhammad-Sharif’s prestige was enhanced by his refusal to accept any gifts from the Khans of Khiva.81

79 ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 61. 80 He is also known as Ataulla Ishan. His approximate dates are 1801-1877, and he founded a large madrasa complex; Karlybaev, Medrese v Karakalpakii, 34-36. 81 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar I:8, 266; ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bi- har, 61-62. The Student Experience I 95

Chapter four

The Student Experience I

During the Imperial Russian era Bukhara was without question the fore‑ most destination outside of Russia for young Tatars and Bashkirs to pursue their religious education. There are no reliable figures that disclose the number of Tatar students in Bukhara’s madrasas at any given time. Filipp Efremov reveals that already in the 1770’s many Tatar students were study‑ ing in the city’s madrasas. In his words, “the best colleges are in Bukhara. People go there from all of Bukharia, Khiva, and various other lands, and especially our Tatars.”1 Von Meyendorff calculates that out of the 3,000 Tatars in Bukhara in 1820, about 300 were students.2 These suspiciously round numbers are the only concrete estimates available for that period. However, they suggest that Tatars and Bashkirs made up a substantial part of the population, if we take into account that Khanykov estimated Bukhara’s total population in the 1830’s to be between 60,000 and 70,000.3 In 1899 the Russia administrator (nachal’nik) for the Trans-Caspian Territory, Lieutenant General Bogomolov, cited a census taken two years before of Russian subjects studying in Bukhara. The census counted 271 Russian subjects studying in Bukhara’s madrasas. These included 196 Sarts from Russian Turkestan, and 12 Turkmens from the Trans-Caspian Territory. The remaining 63 included “meshchane” from the Russian prov‑ inces (presumably Tatars), Caucasus Muslims, Bashkirs , Siberian natives (inorodtsy), and Qazaqs. Bogomolov sought the support of the Governor General of Turkestan to restrict the number of Turkmens studying in Bukhara, or at least require passports and other measures to better control the flow of students there. Although the Russian Agent in Bukhara, on Bogomolov’s request, did require passports for Russian subjects coming from Russia to study, the Tatar and Bashkir sources make almost no

1 Filipp Efremov, Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova v Kirgizskoi stepi, Bukharii, Khive, Persii, Tibete i Indii i vozvrashchenie ego ottuda chrez Angliiu s Rossiiu, 3rd ed., Petr Kondyrev (ed.) (Kazan, 1811), 82. 2 Georges de Meyendorff, Voyage d’Orenbourg a Boukhara, (Paris, 1826), 175. 3 N. Khanykov, Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843), 96-97. 96 Chapter four

­mention of any official obstacles to studying in Bukhara.4 Furthermore, the estimates in the 1897 census that Bogomolov cites are in all likelihood on the low side, since for Tatars and Bashkirs in Bukhara, commercial activ‑ ity (which the Russian authorities encouraged) often coincided with edu‑ cational activity. As a practical matter, it was probably a simple affair for a student coming to Bukhara to circumvent the official restrictions.5 Estimates for the overall number of students in Bukhara’s madrasas are even broader. Khanykov estimates that in 1840 there were from nine to ten thousand students attending the city’s madrasas.6 In 1911 the Danish trav‑ eler Ole Olufsen put the number at 10,000.7 An anonymous British author writing in 1827 estimated the number of students as 4,450, in addition to 2,000 “moollahs.”8 Arminius Vambery, who visited Bukhara in 1863, was told that there were around 5,000 students in the city.9 The lower estimates appear to be more plausible, but all of these estimates appear to be simply approximations. In any case, Bukhara was clearly the most prestigious and foremost destination for study in Central Asia, and attracted students from throughout the region, not only including Russia, but also India, the Qazaq steppe, and Afghanistan. One puzzling aspect of the Tatar and Bashkir relationship with Bukhara is how few accounts have surfaced that address the experiences of Tatar and Bashkir students in the city, and in Central Asia more broadly. Our most detailed account of Bukhara is to be found in the Tarikh-i Barangawi, where Ahmad al-Barangawi provides a wealth of information on his fa‑ ther’s his uncle’s, and his own experience. Yusuf Aqchura in his autobio‑ graphical treatise on Galimjan Barudi provides an extended discussion of that scholar’s experience there in the 1870’s. Shihab ad-Din Marjani also provides details of his father’s experiences there in 1812 and 1813, and Shihab ad-Din’s biographer Shähär Shäräf devoted several chapters to Marjani’s time in Bukhara and Samarqand in the 1830’s and 1840’s. Besides

4 The only exception I have found is a mention that Muhammad-Haris b. Niʿmatullah of Sterlibashevo received an authorization in 1833 from the Governor of Orenburg to travel to Bukhara to study; cf. Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Islarlibash, (Kazan, 1899), 8. 5 “Prosheniia zhitelei Chikishliara i Gasan-Kuli (Khasan-kala), pros’boi o razreshenii polucheniia obrazovaniia v uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Bukhary,” http://zerrspiegel.orientphil .uni-halle.de/t539.html. 6 N. Khanykov, Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843), 88. 7 Ole Olufsen, The Emir of Bukhara and His Country, (London, 1911), 386. 8 “Great Bucharia, or Bokhara,” The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and its Dependencies XXIII (1827), 602. 9 Arminius Vambery, Travels in Central Asia, (New York, 1865), 416. The Student Experience I 97 these accounts, Tatar and Bashkir scholars and their biographers are gen‑ erally very laconic about their experiences in Bukhara. There can be little doubt that going to Bukhara was a great privilege and opportunity for a young scholar. The journey typically required financial support and encouragement not only from a young man’s family, but often from the larger community as well. A mahalla’s prestige was certainly el‑ evated if its own imam was a bokhari, and therefore it was not uncommon for the community to provide additional assistance. In most of the mem‑ oirs and autobiographical accounts of scholars who had studied in Bukhara the authors make it clear that the decision to travel to Bukhara to study was ultimately their own. Ahmad al-Barangawi indicates he came to the decision at age 21, while he was studying in Kazan, and he made the jour‑ ney three years later.10 The jadid poet Muhammad-Sadiq b. Shah-i Ahmad Imanqoli, whose father had studied there under ʿAta˒ b. Yusuf al-Bukhari, wrote in an autobiographical poem that he made the journey to Bukhara in 1885 at age 14 “with a sincere desire to study in Bukhara.”11 Some scholars ended up in Bukhara as fugitives, and continued their studies there. This was the case with Salim b. ʿAbd ar-Rahim as-Sabawi (d. 1808), who had joined the insurgents during the Pugachev Uprising, and in 1774 was forced to flee to Bukhara, where, as we have seen, he became renowned for his knowledge of fiqh.12 ʿAbd al-Khaliq b. Ibrahim al-Qursawi, the brother of Abu’n-Nasir al-Qursawi, came to Bukhara as a merchant, but nevertheless profited from the occasion to study Sufism under Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani.13 Otherwise the numerous biographical and autobiographical sources al‑ most never reveal the personal motivations or context of the decision to go, and typically indicate merely that so-and-so traveled to Bukhara. There are occasional accounts of the advice students received before going to Bukhara. Fakhr ad-Din b. Mustafa an-Nurlati (1806-1891) received the following advice from his teacher in Kazan, the imam b. Yusuf: “Students return from Bukhara deprived of [training in] Qur’an recitation. So practice Qur’an recitation! And after they return from Bukhara they refuse to clasp hands with the shaykhs who are here. So find a shaykh in Bukhara and clasp hands with him!”14

10 TB, fol. 188a. 11 Mulla Sadiq Imanqoli, Mönäjätlär, ghazällär, qasïydälär, (Kazan, 2000), 99-100. 12 Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 220-221. 13 Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 176-177. 14 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 209. 98 Chapter four

Ahmad-Wali b. Tuhfatullah al-Qïzïljari (ca. 1826-1899), an imam in Pet‑ ropavlovsk, after blessing his student Mahdi-qazi, offered some more worldly advice. He warned him to avoid three things in Bukhara: opium, indolence in his studies, and pederasty.15

The Journey There

The biographical and autobiographical sources are similarly terse about fundraising to make the journey. When Ahmad al-Barangawi left for Bukhara in 1901 his father gave him 200 rubles for the journey, and villagers in Baranga raised eight or nine additional rubles as offerings.16 In a poem devoted to his experience in Bukhara at the beginning of the nineteenth century ʿAbd ar-Rahman al-Bulghari al-Utïz-Imäni relates how he came to Bukhara with over a hundred tilla, a considerable sum.17 Others, such as Muhammad-Sadiq Imanqoli recall having insufficient money for the jour‑ ney, and suffering as a result.18 Shihab ad-Din Marjani’s father, Baha˒ ad- Din, likewise did not have enough money to cover all of his son’s expenses, and as a result Shihab ad-Din had to be extremely parsimonious to retain enough money to purchase a lodging in Bukhara.19 The journey to Bukhara followed the established trade routes between Russia and Central Asia. Until the end of the nineteenth century students made the journey by joining a caravan. It was common for young scholars to stop in one of the cities along the steppe, such as Orenburg or Troitsk to wait for a caravan, and there they would sometimes make the acquaintance of prominent scholars. When Galimjan Barudi began his journey to Bukhara in 1875 he and his brother Gazizjan stopped in Orenburg during Ramadan. Local merchants and scholars hosted them there. Barudi’s father, as we have seen, was a prominent industrialist in Kazan, and clearly Galimjan was able to benefit from his father’s scholarly and business contacts. From Orenburg he traveled up the Syr-Darya through Kazalinsk, Perovsk, and to Tashkent, before he went on to Bukhara. Barudi recalls that up to the border between Turkestan and the emirate of Bukhara they had travelled by Russian carriage, ship or troika, but once in Bukharan

15 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 253. 16 TB, fol. 194a. 17 Gabderäkhim Utïz Imäni äl-Bolghari, Shighïr’lär, poemalar, Änwär Shäripov, ed., (Kazan, 1986), 58. 18 Imanqoli, Mönäjätlär, 100. 19 Shähär Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, (Kazan, 1998), 45-49. The Student Experience I 99

­territory they had to travel native conveyance. They rented a cart called a khuqandi, and he writes that after entering Bukharan territory they felt as though they had entered a completely new world. He describes the cart as a big affair with two large wheels the “size of paddleboat wheels.” From Katta Qurghan to Bukhara he recalled an idyllic journey, “a soft sand land‑ scape bordered with mulberry trees on both sides, or else with gardens and running water.” 20 Muhammad-Fatih b. ʿAbd an-Nasir first traveled to Troitsk, and then to Tashkent, where he lived two and a half years. He reached Bukhara finally in 1840, and spent thirty-two years there, before returning to Russia in 1872.21 In the 1880’s Muhammad-Sadiq Imanqoli was able to go by rail to Orenburg. From there he went by camel, and after 33 days reached Kazalinsk. He traveled another 22 days from Kazalinsk to Bukhara.22 Marjani’s journey to Bukhara in 1838 took seven months. He spent several months in Troitsk waiting for a caravan and becoming acquainted with the scholars there. When he finally departed, he traveled to Bukhara by way of Turgai, Perovsk, and along the Syr-Darya River. Marjani traveled by camel, and is said to have impressed the Qazaqs he encountered with his authority as a young scholar.23 Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi recorded in his autograph of the Isaghuji Kitabi that he arrived in Bukhara on 1 December 1846. Ahmad adds that his father, who made the trip when he was aged 18, would speak repeatedly about how he went via Orenburg and how the trip to Bukhara lasted three months by horse and camel in a caravan.24 By the beginning of the twentieth century students going to Bukhara could trav‑ el there directly by train and steamer. In 1901 Ahmad al-Barangawi went by steamship, the Kavkaz Merkurii, from Kazan, via Astrakhan and Baku, to Krasnovodsk, and from there by train to Novaia Bukhara, a rail junction which was about twelve kilometers from the old city.25

Arrival and Lodging

Upon arriving in Bukhara Tatar students typically faced the immediate problems of finding lodging, and then matriculating. Students may have

20 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 30-32. 21 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 80. 22 Imanqoli, Mönäjätlär, 100. 23 Shäräf, Märjani, 47. 24 TB, fol. 98b. 25 TB, fol. 195a. 100 Chapter four lodged briefly in a caravansaray, but as soon as possible they would set about to purchase a hujra, or cell, in a madrasa, which is where madrasa students typically resided. According to Barudi, Bukhara’s madrasas func‑ tioned essentially as hostels. Students might reside in a madrasa, but they generally attended classes elsewhere. For example instructors would give lessons in their homes or in their mosques’ classrooms. The students were not obliged to be in a specific madrasa in order to partake in an instructor’s lessons. As Barudi understood it, all of Bukhara was a madrasa, that is, essentially a single university.26 When a mudarris was said to be affiliated with a specific madrasa it appears to have signified he received a stipend from that madrasa’s waqf , rather than teaching at that particular madrasa. During the Manghït era hujras could be bought and sold freely. Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni credited the Manghït emir Shah Murad (r. 1785-1800) with reviving Bukhara and Samarqand’s madrasas, after they had fallen into disrepair and been largely abandoned during the reign of the last Ashtarkhanid ruler, ʿAbd al-Fayz Khan (r. 1711-1747). When Shah-Murad became emir he introduced reforms that reestablished some of the waqfs. However the madrasas remained unfit for habitation, so the emir issued a decree allowing any student who renovated and rebuilt his hujra with his own money and labor to become its owner. The new owner would be able to transfer it to another student and receive compensation, officially for the funds he expended in fixing it. However with time the value of a hujra, whose residents were entitled to stipends and other privileges, far out‑ stripped the cost of any repairs. ʿAyni suggests that the religious officials profited directly from maintaining such a legal fiction. As a result, in Bukhara, and in Samarqand until the Russian conquest, hujras were avail‑ able to any buyer. Students could obtain a hujra one of several ways. They could purchase one outright if they had enough capital, they could rent, or they could arrange a mortgage.27 ʿAyni’s belief that the market in hujras was peculiar to Bukhara, but was banned by the Russian administration in Turkestan, appears to be mistaken. In a study of madrasas that was primar‑ ily based on observations in the Ferghana Valley and Tashkent in the 1880’s O. Kerenskii observed that there were hujras called satqin hujras in major madrasas possessing substantial waqf endowments. As in Bukhara, owner‑

26 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 33. 27 Sadriddin Aini, Bukhara I, (Dushanbe, 1980), 136-7; Bukhara’s madrasas evidently continued to function in the early decades of Manghït rule, as both Tatar and Russian sources indicate. Nevertheless Filipp Efremov believed that in the 1770’s Samarqand’s ma- drasas were no longer functioning; cf. Efremov, Stranstvovanie, 98. The Student Experience I 101 ship of such hujras entitled the owners to students’ stipends. Consequently the demand for hujras in poorer madrasas was substantially less. Similarly the stipends were only supposed to defray the cost of repairs and upkeep.28 In Bukhara the same principle was in effect as the price of the hujra de‑ pended on the amount of the stipend its owner was entitled to receive.29 Unless a student was as fortunate as Shihab ad-Din Marjani’s father, Baha˒ ad-Din, who received a hujra in the Tursunjan-bay Madrasa as a gift from the emir Haydar b. Shah Murad (r. 1800-1826),30 he would have to purchase a hujra with his own funds. Upon arriving in Bukhara in 1875 Galimjan Barudi and his brother bought a hujra together at the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa for 400 rubles.31 Ahmad al-Barangawi’s father and uncle, who arrived in Bukhara in the 1840’s, bought and sold several hujras. When Hafiz ad-Din arrived in 1846 he first purchased a hujra at the Gharibiyya Madrasa. He lived there for a year, but he sold it because it was too damp. Then he bought a hujra in the Khiyabani Madrasa. Later his brother Burhan ad-Din moved into that same hujra with Hafiz ad-Din when he arrived in Bukhara. Then the brothers sold a half-share of their hujra, evidently the one in the Khiyaban mosque, for eleven tillas to pay off loans they had taken. Hafiz ad-Din then bought a hujra at the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa where his neighbor was Shihab ad-Din Marjani. Ahmad al-Barangawi observed that in the middle of the nineteenth century an acquaintance from Russia had bought a hujra at the Mir-i ʿArab for 35 tilla. By contrast, a hujra at the Khiyabani Madrasa cost only 15 tilla. Khanykov observed in the 1840’s that the price of the hujra varied between 25 and 35 tilla, although some very large ones sold for as much as 70.32 In 1840 the Tatar scholar Muhammad- Fatih b. ʿAbd an-Nasir moved into a hujra in the Er-Nazar Madrasa, and remained there for only five or six months. However he later wrote that he was forced to live without a hujra for one or two years, and was later able to rent one.33 When Ahmad al-Barangawi arrived a fellow Tatar student made the rounds on his behalf to find him a hujra. Eventually Ahmad purchased a half a hujra from a Khoqandi student for about 130 rubles (500 tangga). It

28 O. M. Kerenskii, “Medrese Turkestanskago kraia,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, vol. 284/11, 1892, section 4, 45-46; cf. also Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni, Bukhara in­ qilabining ta˒rikhi, Shizuo Shimada and Sharifa Tosheva, eds. (Tokyo, 2010), 17-19. 29 Khanykov, Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, 213. 30 Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar II, 130-133. 31 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 33. 32 TB, ff. 34b, 43b, 47a, 99a, 152a; Khanykov Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, 212. 33 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 81-82. 102 Chapter four was on the ground floor of a courtyard on Ghaziyan Street, in a corner of the Ghaziyan Madrasa. Ahmad relates that it had a dirt floor, and as a result he became ill from sleeping there. Later he sold that hujra to a student named ʿAbd al-Ghani al-Hissari and bought a larger one at the Gusfand Madrasa for 4,050 tanggas. He noted that hujras in the center of the city cost as much as 10,000 Bukharan tangga. Before leaving Bukhara in 1905 he sold his hujra to Qari ʿAbd al-Khaliq al-Bukhari for 3,950 tanggas.34 The sums that Ahmad quotes are substantially less than those that ʿAyni quotes. ʿAyni, who was a student in Bukhara a decade or so before Ahmad, esti‑ mates that some hujras were sold for twenty to thirty thousand tanggas, and in the well-endowed Jaʿfar-khwaja Madrasa, which was made of wood and dilapidated, uninhabitable hujras were allegedly valued at 50,000 tangas.35 By comparison, Kerenskii estimates that in Turkestan at the end of the nineteenth century the price of a hujra, including a satqin hujra, was rather low, between three and five rubles. However, he writes that in Tashkent, where stipends were more elevated, and whereas they used to cost 320 rubles, by 1907 a satqin hujra could cost as much as 700 rubles.36 Ahmad related that in Bukhara it was uncommon for two students to live in the same hujra unless they were brothers (although he shared own‑ ership of his second hujra with a Bukharan khwaja, it appears he did live there alone). This provides a sharp contrast to Turkestan, where Kerenskii observed that it was common for as many as four or five students to share a hujra.37 As Ahmad explained it, Bukharans were quick to assume that when two students sharing a hujra they were likely homosexuals.38

Instructors

After a student had secured lodging, his next task was to find a teacher so he could begin his studies. Students in Bukhara would usually study vari‑ ous disciplines under a number of instructors. Just as the city attracted students from many different countries, it also attracted a diverse body of instructors. Barudi suggests that actual Bukharans made up a small propor‑ tion of instructors, and in fact he credited scholars originally from Khoqand with maintaining Bukhara’s scholarly reputation. He also listed scholars

34 TB ff. 198b, 199b, 204a, 216b. 35 Aini, Bukhara I, 137; ʿAyni’s estimate here appears improbably high. 36 Kerenskii, “Medrese Turkestanskago kraia,” 46. 37 Kerenskii, “Medrese Turkestanskago kraia,” 18, 46. 38 TB fol. 201ab. The Student Experience I 103 from Namangan, Khojand, Russia, Shahr-i Sabz, and Balkh as being espe‑ cially prominent, and suggested native Bukharans actually formed a small minority of instructors.39 Barudi is undoubtedly correct in emphasizing the cosmopolitan quality of Bukhara’s instructors, but Bukharans were certainly well represented among the mudarrises and other instructors who appear in other Tatar and Bashkir sources. Instructors typically held formal positions in the hierarchy of the Emirate’s ʿulama. Mudarrises were scholars who had proven their erudition and knowledge of the law, and to whom the Emir had granted the right to teach a specific science in the madrasas. They usually obtained salaries from the waqfs of the various madrasas. According to Khanykov, at least some madrasas provided sala‑ ries to at least one mudarris. These salaries varied considerably. In 1840 a mudarris in the Khiyaban Madrasa, where Hafiz ad-Din and Burhan ad-Din studied, received 180 tilla annually. This salary was relatively low. Mudarrises at the Dar ash-Shifa˒ Madrasa received 700 tilla annually, as did the mudarrises at the Gawkushan and Khwaja Davlat Madrasas.40 In this regard mudarrises were connected to specific madrasas, but did not neces‑ sarily give lessons there. Mudarrises could also serve as muftis, who like‑ wise had patents from the emirs, and were entitled to issue legal opinions.41 Muftis occur frequently among the instructors of Tatar and Bashkir stu‑ dents. It was also customary for mudarrises to received money from their students, perhaps in lieu of official salaries that failed to materialize. In a letter home Burhan ad-Din complained that after a book was read through to completion, it was customary for each students to give the mudarris a tilla, which the mudarrises would use to pay for feasts (tuy) with their friends.42 Those who studied in Bukhara generally provide little biographical in‑ formation about their instructors there. Some historians such as Husayn b. Amirkhan who was in Bukhara in the 1840’s or Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi who probably studied there in the 1860’s tell us nothing about who their instruc‑ tors were. Others, such as Muhammad-Sadiq Imanqoli provide simply a list of names. The biographers of Barudi and Marjani provide somewhat more detailed information, and Ahmad al-Barangawi provides extensive biographical information on his father’s, uncle’s, and his own teachers. Overall, we can say that Tatar and Bashkir sources provide at least a base‑

39 Barudi, Pamiatnaia knizhka, 62. 40 Khanykov, Opisanie, 86-87. 41 Khanykov, Opisanie, 192. 42 TB fol. 45b. 104 Chapter four line of biographical data on for the most prominent instructors in Bukhara under the Manghïts. Generally our information is much more complete regarding the region’s Sufi shaykhs, who are known both from biographical sources and from silsilas. However, Sufis were not the only figures to record chains of transmission and issue licenses. The Tarikh-i Barangawi contains chains of transmissions of litanies not directly connected to Sufi initiations. Elsewhere these non-Sufi chains are poorly documented, particularly for the Volga-Ural region. In recalling their time in Bukhara, Tatar and Bashkir writers are almost universally positive in their evaluations of their teachers. This phenomenon is especially evident among reformists and jadids, such as Barudi, Marjani, and Imanqoli. While praising their own teachers, they could also be highly critical of the Bukharan religious establishment and of Bukharan educational methods, thereby strengthening their own cre‑ dentials as bokharis, and revealing yet another paradox in their relation‑ ship with Bukhara. Typically, finding a suitable teacher was simpler than finding a hujra. Ahmad al-Barangawi provides a detailed account of how he found a teach‑ er. He received assistance from several Tatar acquaintances, who enrolled him in the classes of Damulla Mir-Siddiq al-Qazani as-Sardawi, a mudarris and mufti in the Bala-Hawz Madrasa.43 Enrolling in classes appears to have been as simple as attending. In 1834 Desmaisons, disguised as a Muslim, made the acquaintance of some students in Bukhara, and he attended classes and discussions with them for a month. Barudi also points out that finding a teacher was a simple matter.44 It was common for a student in Bukhara to study a variety of texts with a number of scholars, even if he was in the city for only a year or two. Ahmad al-Barangawi had five teachers. These included Damulla Mir- Siddiq as-Sardawi al-Qazani mentioned above, and with whom Ahmad studied the Shamsiya. Mir-Siddiq assisted Ahmad in personal matters as well, loaning him the money to return home in 1905. Another teacher was ʿAwwaz b. Ibrahim al-Khujandi.45 Ahmad indicates that together with Mir-Siddiq and Mulla ʿAwwaz he finished a complete course of study in the exoteric sciences (khatm-i kutub). His other teachers included the mufti (mufti-yi Bukhara) Muhammad-Zakir al-Kulabi, Mulla Sadr ad-Din

43 TB ff. 198b-199a. 44 Demezon and Vitkevich, Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, 44; Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 33. 45 ʿAwwaz al-Khujandi was also one of Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni’s teachers in the early 1890’s; cf. Aini, Bukhara II, 43. The Student Experience I 105 b. Mufti ʿIsa al-Khoqandi, possibly the son of ʿIsa b. Rahmatullah al-Kho‑ qandi, who gave lessons at the beginning of the nineteenth century to ʿAbd al-Ghaffar b. Saʿid ash-Shirdani and Baha˒ ad-Din b. Subhan al-Marjani. Finally, among his instructors Ahmad mentions another Tatar scholar, Mulla Zayn al-Bashir al-Penzawi.46 Imanqoli names five instructors, Mir-ʿIsa “who was perfect among the masters,” Damulla ʿAdil Samarqandi, who was “an erudite shaykh” (shaykh al-fazil),” the “peerless Sufi” Nur-ʿAli Buawi, Shams ad-Din Kulabi, and Hajji ʿInayat, with whom he completed his studies. Barudi began his lessons studying Mulla Jalal from Damulla ʿAbd ash-Shukur, then the usul al-fiqh, Mulla Jalal, and Arabic literature from Ikhtiyar-khan, and mathematics from Mulla Mir-Sharif.47 Tatar and Bashkir sources provide detailed information on instructors in Bukhara for the period between 1838 and 1859, when Shihab ad-Din Marjani, Hafiz ad-Din Barangawi, and Burhan ad-Din Nasri were all in Bukhara. The biographers of these three men included extensive informa‑ tion on their subjects’ instructors. Ahmad names four figures who taught Burhan ad-Din. These were mufti-yi ʿaskar Zakir-Jan al-Juybari, Damulla Mirza-Jan b. Shams ad-Din al-Balkhi with whom he studied in 1278 ah (1861/2 ce). The third was the aʿlam for the city of Bukhara and mudarris in the Gawkushan Madrasa, ʿAbd al-Muʾmin khwaja b. Uzbek-khwaja al- Afshanji d. 1283 ah (1866/7 ce). Ahmad adds that ʿAbd al-Muʾmin’s son Ghiyas ad-Din was giving lessons in the same madrasa in 1324 ah (1906/7 ce).48 Marjani’s biographer provides a list of seven scholars with whom Marjani studied while in Bukhara, and he obtained biographical informa‑ tion on these scholars from Marjani’s biographical dictionary Wafiyat al- Aslaf. His teachers included some of the most prominent figures in the city at that time. These include 1) Mirza-Salih Aʿlam, who had been a qazi and died in 1256 ah (1840/1 ce) at age 80. He had also instructed Marjani’s father Baha˒ ad-Din, 2) Muhammad b. Safar al-Khujandi (d. 1267 ah 1850/1 ce), who had a close relationship with Amir Haydar, 3) Fazil b. ʿAshur al-Ghi‑ jduvani (d. 1271 ah 1854/5 ce), who taught fiqh and usul-i fiqh, 4) ʿAbd al- Muʾmin khwaja b. Uzbek-khwaja al-Afshanji, who had also held the rank of aʿlam, 5) Khudayberdi b. ʿAbdullah al-Baysuni (d. 1264 ah 1847/8 ce), who had travelled extensively and collected an impressive library, 6) Baba-

46 TB ff. 199a, 204b. 47 Imanqoli, Mönäjätlär, 99-103; Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 32. 48 TB ff. 34b-35a. 106 Chapter four

Rafiʿ al-Khujandi (d. 1285 ah 1868/9 ce), a wealthy Bukharan who taught at the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa and whose sons became mudarrises, and 7) Qazi Muhammad-Sharif b. ʿAta˒ullah al-Bukhari (d. 1260 ah 1844/5 ce), whom Marjani criticized for being “soft” in religious matters, but praised for hav‑ ing an extensive library.49 Regarding his father Hafiz ad-Din, whose stay in Bukhara overlapped for a time with Marjani’s, Ahmad provides a list of seven scholars with whom he studied. Hafiz ad-Din’s instructors included, 1) the aʿlam ʿAbd al-Muʾmin-khwaja b. Uzbek-khwaja al-Afshanji, with whom both his brother Burhan ad-Din and Marjani studied; 2) ʿAbd al-Muʾmin’s eldest son Mir-ʿAlim-khwaja; 3) Mirza-Jan b. Shams ad-Din al-Balkhi; 4) the Mufti of Bukhara, Damulla Baba-Jan. In addition to these four Bukharan scholars, while in the city Hafiz ad-Din studied under two Tatars. These were Shihab ad-Din Marjani, with whom he studied logic, and ʿInan b. Ihsan al-Bughul‑ mawi.50 The names of several dozen Central Asian scholars in Bukhara appear in the Tatar biographical literature, although, again, with little biographi‑ cal information. In the third volume of his work Asar Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din identifies several prominent scholars in Bukhara who trained Tatar and Bashkir students. Those with the largest number of students include ʿAbd al-Muʾmin-khwaja b. Uzbek al-Afshanji, ʿAbd ash-Shukur-qazi, Hasan b. Hal, Niyaz b. Binyamin al-Balkhi, and Salih b. Nadir al-Khujandi, all of whom were active in the middle and latter half of the nineteenth century.51 He also mentions several Tatar mudarrises. The most prominent in Riza˒ ad-Din’s estimation were Shihab ad-Din Marjani and Fakhr ad-Din b. Ibrahim al-Qazani al-Bukhari. Others include Ghiyas-makhdum al-Qazani, Najib-makhdum al-Qazani, and Shams ad-Din b. Mingli al-Jabali.52 The number of licenses students could accumulate in Bukhara could be extensive. Imanqoli’s instructor Nur-ʿAli b. Hasan al-Buawi, later an imam in Buinsk, in Kazan province (d. 1920) in 1880 obtained licenses from nu‑ merous figures in Bukhara. He was licensed, presumably in the exoteric sciences, from the mufti ʿAbd al-Hakim, and from Ikhtiyar-khwaja, akhund of the Kukaltash Madrasa. He was also licensed in Sufism by the Sahibzade ishan Miyan Malik Bukhari. In addition, he passed an examination given

49 Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, 50-52. 50 TB ff. 99a-100a. 51 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 64, 68, 80, 97, 106, 124, 137, 145, 214, 233, 235 353. 52 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 97, 207, 238, 242. The Student Experience I 107 in 1881 by ʿAbd al-Hakim Mufti for the dah-i yak stipend. In 1883 he passed the examination for a mudarris license given by Damulla ʿAbd ash-Shukur (probably ʿAbd as-Shukur b. ʿAbd ar-Rashid). He passed another exam in 1885 to become mudarris in the ʿAttar Madrasa. He also claimed to possess licenses from Siraj ad-Din Mufti as-Saritaghi al-Bukhari, from the shaykh al-Islam Tura Bukhari, and from the Sufi shaykh Nur ad-Din al-Khwaraz‑ mi.53 Finally, study in Bukhara could also extend beyond Islamic subjects and teachers. Ahmad mentions in the list of his father’s teachers a Jewish scholar named ʿAbd ar-Rahim, who instructed Hafiz ad-Din in the Torah.54 Regrettably, Ahmad provides no details on the relationship, and makes no further mention of ʿAbd ar-Rahim. However this appears to be the only known instance of a Tatar student studying Jewish scripture from a Jewish instructor.55 Ahmad’s casual mention makes it unlikely to have been an isolated incident, but in any case the fact suggests that Islamic scholar­- ship in Bukhara was more inquisitive than its critics or even defenders may have imagined.56

Study Outside of Bukhara

While Bukhara was the main center for education in Central Asia, Tatar and Bashkir students sometimes traveled to other Central Asian cities to study. Samarqand was a common destination. Around 1843, after having spent five years in Bukhara, Marjani traveled to Samarqand. He established himself in the Shirdar Mardasa and began taking lessons from the qazi and mudarris Abu Saʿid b. ʿAbd al-Hayy as-Samarqandi (d. 1849), and from Abu Saʿid’s sons. They studied dogmatic theology and logic, working through the Tahzib al-mantiq and the Tahzib al-, as well as history (Abu Saʿid was an important source for Marjani’s history of the Manghït Dynasty),

53 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 445. 54 TB, fol. 99b. 55 The Tatar scholar Ahmad-Latif b. ʿAbd al-Latif at-Tïmïtïqi is said to have written a treatise about a theological debate he had had with a Jew in Mashhad. Ahmad-Latif, curi‑ ously, was also murid of Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani, and was probably an acquaintance of Hafiz ad-Din; cf. Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 317. 56 Tatar and Bashkir Muslims were not only in contact with Bukharan Jews in Bukhara. There were also Bukharan Jewish communities in the settlements along the Syr Darya River, and in Orenburg as well; cf. M. Mikhailov, Orenburgskiia pis’ma dlia zhelaiushchikh oznakomit’sia s Orenburgom, Orskom, Troitskom, Fortom Aleksandrovskim i dorogoiu chrez kirgizskuiu step’ do Forta No. 1, (St. Petersburg, 1866), 53, 70. 108 Chapter four arithmetic, geometry, algebra, and other subjects. In Samarqand Marjani obtained a license (ijazatnama) from Abu Saʿid.57 Both Hafiz ad-Din and his brother Burhan ad-Din traveled to Samarqand to study with the “Bulghar” Sufi Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar al-Bulghari as-Samarqandi, who is mentioned above. Taj ad-Din licensed the brothers in the recitation of the hizb al-bahr litany.58 The Petropavlovsk imam Ahmad-Wali b. Tuhfatullah al-Qïzïljari also travelled to Samarqand and studied with a certain Shaykh Shafiʿi, probably a reference to the same Ishan Shafiʿi, who licensed Taj ad-Din as-Samarqandi in the hizb al-bahr litany.59 Students could even travel father afield. Hafiz ad-Din traveled to the Ferghana Valley and Kashgaria. He stayed for a time in Khojand, where he turned down an offer to become mudarris there, and he traveled on to Khoqand, Kashgar, Khotan, and Yarkand.60 In June 1859 he obtained a li‑ cense from a mufti in Kashgar Habibullah al-Khotani (died ca. 1871). They studied Imam Bukhari’s Sahih together, and in his presence ʿAbd al-Hafiz read the Dala˒il al-khayrat and obtained a license.61 Another Kashgari scholar with whom Hafiz ad-Din studied was the shaykh ʿAshur- Muhammad at-Turki. Hafiz ad-Din recited the Persian verse work Qasida- yi Burda in his presence, and obtained a license.62 Ahmad al-Barangawi’s travels were more limited in nature. In the course of a pilgrimage to Vafkand he studied with a Tatar scholar in that city name Zakir Mufti al- Qazani, where he read the second volume of the fiqh text Hidaya.63 Some students made use of Bukhara as a launching point for even more extensive travels elsewhere in the Islamic world. The Bashkir scholar Idris- khwaja b. Qucharbay at-Tamyani (1805-1888) traveled to Bukhara in the 1830’s, lived there 12 years, and then went to the Hijaz. He then went to Istanbul, before marrying and permanently settling in the village of Aynagül, near Bursa. Saʿid b. Hamid al-Qawali (d. 1875) also moved to Istanbul via Bukhara. Hasan b. Walid al-Buawi (d. 1893) traveled from Bukhara to Afghanistan, and then to the Hijaz via India. Then from Mecca he went to Damascus and Istanbul, before returning to Russia.64

57 Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, 59-61, 68. 58 TB ff. 22b-23a, 104ab, 139a-140a. 59 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 252. 60 TB fol. 103ab. 61 TB fol. 145ab; Ahmad gives his full name as Abu ʿAbdullah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Muhammad-Timur al-Artuchi al-Khotani. 62 TB fol. 157b. 63 TB fol. 204b. 64 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 110, 150, 220. The Student Experience I 109

Students as Teachers

If a Tatar or Bashkir student was especially keen he could achieve the rank of mudarris, which would entitle him to a salary from a madrasa. However, teaching was a skill with which a student could support himself, and a student could also give lessons to whomever was willing to pay him. We have seen above that many Tatars and Bashkirs remained in Bukhara and other Central Asian cities, and earned their livings as muftis, mudarrises, and Sufi shaykhs. However, many students intending to eventually return home also gave instruction on a temporary basis. Some scholars became locally prominent. Marjani gave lessons to many Tatar and Bashkir schol‑ ars who would become influential imams upon returning to Russia. These included Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi, ʿAbd al-Khabir al-Muslimi al-Qïzïlja‑ ri (who would become a prominent imam and mudarris in Petropavlovsk), Ahmad-Latif at-Tïmïtïqi, and the Kazan imam Qazi Muhammadi b. Salih al-Bashqordi.65 While he was in Kashgar Hafiz ad-Din gave lessons to the sons of local notables.66 It was common practice in both Russia and Central Asia for madrasa students to earn money as teachers among nomadic communities, par‑ ticularly Turkmens and Qazaqs. In some cases this was a profitable way for students to spend the summer; in other cases a lack of financial support forced students to seek sustenance among the nomads. In 1858 Burhan ad-Din wrote in a letter home that he and Hafiz ad-Din “have three or four students from among the Turkmens and they are studying the Shamsiya and the Sharh-i Mulla.”67 Ahmad writes that his father had lived for a time in a Turkmen village on the banks of the Amu Darya, where he gave les‑ sons, and translated “into the ” a summary of a work that he composed in Kashgar called the Shikasta-yi turkiya.68 One of Mufti Siraj ad-Din’s murids, Nuʿman b. Nur ad-Din-Muhammad al-Bulghari, was a shaykh among the nomadic Turkmens.69 Similarly, a scholar named Waliʾullah who was visiting Chuguchak told Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi that pov‑ erty and other misfortunes had compelled him to abandon his studies in Bukhara and live among the Turkmens.70

65 Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, 72; TB fol. 100b, 151a-152a. 66 TB fol. 115a. 67 TB fol. 52a. 68 TB fol. 115a; evidently Hafiz ad-Din translated the Turki original into a form of col‑ loquial Turkmen. 69 al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 28. 70 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 92a. 110 Chapter four

In a letter dated 2 April 1852 Burhan ad-Din wrote that Mulla ʿAbd ash- Shukur al-Portanuri, an acquaintance from a village near Baranga, had arrived in Bukhara the previous year and had been living there eight months. Finally, when his father had failed to send money he was forced to go live among the Qazaqs.71 Ahmad suggests that in Russia students who spent summers among nomads were often ridiculed upon returning by their fellow students, possibly because it was poorer students who were compelled to do so, and because Qazaqs were commonly a butt of jokes among Tatars. But he observed the opposite in Bukhara. In August when students began returning to Bukhara from the steppe they did not encoun‑ ter the type of ridicule he had encountered in Kazan, but were honored instead.72 Ahmad himself spent a month among a group of Qazaqs who were subjects of Bukhara. One of his fellow madrasa students was a Qazaq from the Ural River region, and he made the arrangements for Ahmad and a classmate to live among the Qazaqs for a several weeks. Ahmad and his companion did not so much give instruction to the nomads—these Qazaqs had their own teachers, scholars and Sufis—but they performed prayers, gave legal advice, and recited blessing for the nomads.73

Sufi Shaykhs and Their Murids

The Central Asian origins of Sufism in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia and the role of Sufi networks in the Islamic revival in Russia are now well documented, and as in many other parts of the Islamic world, the Sufi re‑ vival in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia was most strongly influenced by the Naqshbandi revival that originated in India in the seventeenth century, and developed most intensely in Central Asia in the eighteenth century, including through the Manghït era.74 It was therefore by no means unusual that Ahmad, his father, and his uncle were all murids of a number of shaykhs in Bukhara, and the Tarikh-i Barangawi helps us appreciate the social context of the murshid-murid relationship as experienced among Tatar and Bashkir students. In addition, Ahmad’s treatment of his father’s

71 TB fol. 46b. 72 TB fol. 201a. 73 TB ff. 209b-215a. 74 Michael Kemper has provided the most comprehensive and informed study to date; cf. his Sufis und Gelehrte, 90-98; for a discussion of Sufi connections linking the eastern Qazaq steppe, and particularly Semipalatinsk, with Bukhara cf. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary. The Student Experience I 111

Sufi career, especially in Bukhara, reveals the emotional intensity the murid-murshid relationship could have for students. Indeed, the emo‑ tional aspect of the murid-murshid relationship is generally given short shrift in the rather cerebral Tatar and Bashkir biographical dictionaries. Part of Bukhara’s reputation for sanctity rested upon its reputation as the birthplace and resting place of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, and as the abode of saints, both living and dead, who could be counted among Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband’s predecessors and followers. Numerous branches of the Naqshbandi order dominated Sufism in the eastern Islamic world and in the Ottoman Empire, and their sacred center was Bukhara. Any student in Russia’s madrasas would have been well aware of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqsh­ band’s sacred qualities through such widely-read texts as Taj ad-Din b. Yalchighul al-Bashqordi’s Risala-yi ʿAziza, which featured numerous ac‑ counts of Baha˒ ad-Din’s conversations with prophets, his miracles, and the intercession of his spirit for believers.75 As a result, not only did students coming to Bukhara arrive with the intention of studying Sufism, but often there appears to have been an ex‑ pectation on the part of relatives and fellow villagers at home too that they would. We have seen above how the Kazan imam Abu Bakr b. Yusuf ad‑ vised his student Fakhr ad-Din b. Mustafa an-Nurlati to “clasp hands” with a shaykh in Bukhara. Ahmad noted that both in his time, and in his father’s there was considerable pressure and expectation that Tatar and Bashkir students become disciples to Bukharan shaykhs. Ahmad points out tact‑ fully that his own uncle Burhan ad-Din, while a murid to a respected ishan, was not “assiduous in the tariqat,” and he wondered if that was the case because his uncle had felt compelled to enter it in the first place.76 Ahmad himself only sought out a Sufi master after his father encouraged him to do so by providing a blessing (tabarruk süz).77 During his time in Bukhara even Marjani studied Sufism under two prominent shaykhs. One was ʿUbaydullah b. Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani (d. 1852), and the other was the Sahibzada Ishan ʿAbd al-Qadir b. Niyaz-Ahmad Faruqi (d. 1855), from whom Marjani received a khatt-i irshad.78 Despite Bukhara’s significance with respect to Sufism, reformist schol‑ ars such as Marjani and Barudi devote little attention to the city’s Sufi shaykhs. In their biographical dictionaries Marjani and Riza˒ ad-Din b.

75 Tajeddin Yalchïgol, Risaläi gazizä (Kazan, 2001), II, 275-282, 319-328, 443-452. 76 TB fol. 35a. 77 TB fol. 203a. 78 Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, 76-77. 112 Chapter four

Fakhr ad-Din nevertheless are certainly careful to document the Sufi lin‑ eages binding Bukhara to the Volga-Ural region and Siberia. However, we are fortunate that the Tarikh-i Barangawi, focusing in depth on the experi‑ ences with Bukharan Sufism of three generations of single family, is able to illuminate this question more fully than the printed biographical dic‑ tionaries. It may be useful to briefly summarize here the prominent Bukharan Sufis who attracted Tatar and Bashkir disciples. During the Manghït era there were several Naqshbandi-Mujaddidiya lineages based in Bukhara, although Bukhara by no means had a monopoly on Sufi training in Central Asia. We have seen above that Tatar shaykhs were permanently established in Khorezm, Samarqand, and Panjikent, and many murids traveled to Kabul, India, and even as far as Kashgaria. Tatar and Bashkir murids were coming to Bukhara to train with Mujaddidiya shaykhs already at the end of the Ashtarkhanid era. ʿAbd al-Karim b. Baltay (d. 1171 ah 1757/8 ce) was an imam in Qarghalï, and had studied in Bukhara under Shaykh Habibullah al-Balkhi (d. 1747). At the beginning of the nineteenth century the most influential Bukharan shaykh training Tatar and Bashkir murids was Khalifa Niyaz-Quli b. Shah-Niyaz at-Turkmani (d. 1821). ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi iden‑ tified fifteen Tatar and Bashkir khalifas of Niyaz-Quli’s who established themselves in the Volga-Ural region and the northwestern Qazaq steppe. Niyaz-Quli’s close relationship with the Bukharan emirs, his substantial authority, and his links to the Volga-Ural region are well documented. Niyaz-Quli was succeeded by his son ʿUbaydullah. 79 Other prominent Bukharan shaykhs included Khalifa Husayn, active at the end of the eigh‑ teenth century, and his son ʿAbd as-Sattar, who trained numerous Tatar and Bashkir khalifas.80 We can also mention the Sahibzada Ishans. These included Marjani’s shaykh, ʿAbd al-Qadir b. Niyaz Ahmad, and his son Miyan Malik b. ʿAbd al-Qadir, who counted among their khalifas ten figures from the Volga-Ural region and Siberia.81

79 Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 90-98; Anke von Kuegelgen, “Niiaz-kuly at-Turkmani,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii: entiklopedicheskii slovarʾ 4, (Moscow, 2003), 63-64. Niyaz-Quli is still a prominent figure in Turkmen oral tradition. He is said to have come from the village of Ahunly Gyzylaýak, in modern-day Lebap Province, . He received his blessing (fatiha) from a certain Ak Ishan in the settlement of Archman who was a khalifa of a shaykh named Idris Baba. Idris maintained a khanaqah in Ahunly Gyzy‑ laýak; cf. Soltanša Atanyýazow, Täsinlikler dünýäsine syýahat, (Ashgabat, 1999), 39-40. 80 On the murids of Khalifa Husayn in Russia, cf. al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat, 27-29; Frank and Usmanov, eds. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 15. 81 al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat, 62-63; Frank and Usmanov, eds. Materials for the Islamic His- tory of Semipalatinsk, 17. The Student Experience I 113

Ahmad al-Barangawi’s account focuses primarily on his father, who trained under several Sufis in Bukhara and Kashgar, and he addresses two figures that are not generally linked with disciples from Russia. These are Shaykh Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani, known as Hazrat-i Ishan (1200-1287 ah 1785/6-1870/1 ce), and ʿAbd al-Karim b. ʿAbd al-Ghafur as-Sarbaghi al- Balkhi, known as Ishan-i Pir. Ahmad provides considerable biographical and hagiographical information on both these figures, and in this regard his account is particularly useful because it provides details on the per‑ sonal relationships between murids and their murshids in Bukhara. Additionally, it demonstrates that relationships could develop over many years between a family of scholars in Russia and a Sufi dynasty in Central Asia.

Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani

Ahmad’s family had the most extensive relationship with Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani and his successors. Ahmad’s grandfather Nasir ad-Din al- Bulghari had studied by correspondence with Khiyabani already before his sons’ departure for Bukhara. As a result, once in Bukhara, Hafiz ad-Din and Burhan ad-Din were able to personally approach Khiyabani for their Sufi training. Regarding Nasir ad-Din’s training with Khiyabani, Ahmad writes the following: The subject of the biography, the Holy Nasir ad-Din, in the year—studied with the famous Bukharan ishan, the late Shaykh Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani and it is written in Farsi in a letter that he swore allegiance to him [bayʿat] and was accepted by the ishan. Today it is kept in my library.82 Subsequently, Ahmad notes that Khiyabani and his grandfather conduct‑ ed their training by correspondence, and the two never met face-to-face.83 Khiyabani was also Burhan ad-Din’s shaykh, and as we have noted above, Burhan ad-Din did not particularly prosper as a murid. In this regard Ahmad writes the following: Although he accepted a handshake from Shaykh as-sayyid Jalal ad-Din b. as-sayyid ʿAlim Khwaja b. as-sayyid Zikriya as-Samjuni (who rejected my father out of doubt) and he was accepted into the tariqat, he was not as‑ siduous. He was most likely involved in formal [rasmi] lessons. In that era, just as today, because there was a practice that travelers to Bukhara,

82 TB fol. 21a. 83 TB fol. 143a. 114 Chapter four

­especially students from Russia, would enter the Sufi discipline with one of the ishans, it is possible that Burhan ad-Din also was compelled to enter the tariqat.84 Unlike his brother, Hafiz ad-Din was particularly assiduous in the Sufi path. As we have seen, his initial attempts to study under Khiyabani were re‑ jected. Ahmad does not speculate as to Khiyabani’s motives for rejecting him. But Hafiz ad-Din did become Khiyabani’s disciple in 1859, after having obtained a license from Ishan-i Pir ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi. Hafiz ad-Din was later the author of a Sufi treatise named ar-Rububiyat al-kash- fiyat wa’l-ʿubudiyat al-khalisat.Ahmad identifies it as one of his major works, which he wrote over a fourteen-year period, between 1869 and 1882.85 From his father’s manuscripts Ahmad provides a significant body of biographical information on Khiyabani. He provides two genealogies. The first is: as-sayyid Mir Jalal ad-Din b. as-sayyid Amir ʿAlim b. as-sayyid Amir Zikriya b. Mir-Niʿmatullah b. Mir-Rahmatullah. He gives Khiyabani’s dates as 1200-1287 ah (1785/86-1870/71 ce), and his place of birth as the village of Qasir Kamal, near Ramitan.86 However Ahmad gives a slightly different genealogy, when he documents Khiyabani’s Husayni lineage: As-sayyid Mir-Jalal ad-Din b. as-sayyid Mir-ʿAlim b. as-sayyid Mir-Zakariya b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿIsa b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿAbd al-Bari b. as-sayyid Amir-Sha‑ di b. as-sayyid Amir Hajji b. as-sayyid Amir-Yusuf b. as-sayyid Amir-Baraka b. as-sayyid Amir-Ahmad b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿAli al-Hamadani b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿIsa b. as-sayyid Amir-Nura b. as-sayyid Amir-Hadi b. as-sayyid Amir- Hadi b. as-sayyid Amir Baghim b. as-sayyid Amir-Hashim b. as-sayyid Amir- Sadiq b. as-sayyid Amir-Musa b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿAbdullah b. as-sayyid Amir-ʿAli-Akbar b. as-sayyid Amir-Abu Abdullah b. as-sayyid Amir-Muham‑ mad al-ʿAbid as-Sanji b. al-imam Musa Kazim b. al-imam Jaʿfar as-Sadiq b. al-imam Muhammad al-Baqir b. al-imam Zayn al-ʿAbidin b. al-imam Husayn b. ʿAli wa Fatima bint Muhammad (Rasulillah).87 Ahmad traces Khiyabani’s Sufi lineage to , as follows: Jalal ad-Din → Nur ad-Din al-Hissari → Muhammad-Siddiq as-Samarqandi → Musa-Khan ad-Dahbidi → Muhammad-ʿAbid Simani → ʿAbd al-Ahad → Muhammad-Saʿid → Imam Rabbani Ahmad as-Sirhindi.88

84 TB fol. 35a. 85 TB ff. 118b-119a; Ahmad cites that manuscript’s marginalia repeatedly as a source of bio­graphical information for his father and grandfather. 86 TB, ff. 140b-141a. 87 TB fol. 141ab. 88 TB fol. 141a. The Student Experience I 115

However ʿAbdullah Muʿazi provides a different silsila for Khiyabani, whom he calls Jalal ad-Din Bukhari: Jalal ad-Din → ʿAshur Muhammad → Abu Zakariya Bukhari → Muhammad-Siddiq as-Samarqandi.89 Hafiz ad-Din associated with Khiyabani for five years, until his return to Russia, and Ahmad characterized the relationship in the following man‑ ner: He was constantly with him, in his presence and on his journeys, and they discussed many weighty matters. He would appeal to my father regarding scholarly questions and would resolve delicate and complex issues. How‑ ever, because of the shaykh’s good disposition toward my father, the other murids, and perhaps his sons, could not tolerate him and displayed jeal‑ ously toward him.90 Eventually the other murids defamed Hafiz ad-Din and forced him to leave: They placed my father in the position of imam and followed his guidance. This was because my father’s recitation was as correct as his voice was desirable. However, as a result of my father’s close relationship to the Ishan, amongst themselves the jealous murids finally caused disruption […]. Fi‑ nally, they opposed him, saying “Because that person is a subject of Russia, we doubt he is a Muslim in his faith. Second, this person in cleansing him‑ self of urine, he does not undo his trousers. Third, his recitation is incorrect [lahnli]. Fourth, he simply does not belong!” and they achieved what they wished.91 In addition to Hafiz ad-Din, five other murids from Russia received li‑ censes in the tariqat from Khiyabani. These were 1) Ahmad-Latif b. ʿAbd al-Latif at-Tïmïtïqi (d. 1325 ah, 1907 ce), 2) Zilghi b. Hasan al-Urmati (d. 1315 ah 1897/8 ce), 3) Ibrahim b. Khurrum-Shah al-Bazvayazi, 4) Shah- Ahmad b. Jalal ad-Din as-Sabawi, and 5) Burhan ad-Din b. Nasir ad-Din al-Barangawi.92 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din also mentions a Qazaq who had been his murid: ʿIsa b. Nur-Muhammad b. Kökbash (1816-1886), who had to make three attempts to become a murid to Khiyabani before being accepted.93 Hafiz ad-Din related three miracles that he witnessed Khiyabani ­perform during their time together. Once, when they were making a

89 al-Muʿazi, Qatrat min bihar, 24-25. 90 TB fol. 142b. 91 TB fol. 100a. 92 TB fol. 143a; ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi adds a certain ʿAbd al-Majid as-Sibiri to this list; cf. al-Qatrat min bihar, 26; Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 316. 93 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 143-144. 116 Chapter four

­pilgrimage to the shrine of Abu’l-Qasim Kerkani in Kermine, ʿAbd al-Hafiz realized they had lost track of time while performing the zikr and might miss the evening prayer. However as they were riding back he realized the Shaykh had made the sun stand still in the sky so as to not miss the evening prayer. The second miracle revealed itself in the following manner. One day Khiyabani, wanting to marry off one of his sons, asked for the daughter of someone named Muhammad-ʿArifqul, the mufti-yi ʿaskar and mudarris of the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa. But the mufti gave him only a curt answer, and refused, saying, “I mean, is there social equality between a great imam [imam-i buzurg] and a dervish who sits in the desert [sahra-yi nishin bir darwish]?” This news reached the Holy Ishan, who said, “This scholar will encounter various great confiscations and wondrous circumstances and events, and injuries to the mind.” The next morning he [the mufti] left, saying he was going to give a lesson at the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa. But he couldn’t remember a single word. Being unable to say a single word, he returned to his house, saying, “Today I am ill.” Interested in the cause of this incident, he sent someone to the Holy Ishan, asking for intercession and forgiveness, but after that the mufti had great sufferings for a year and died. The third miracle was as follows. One day the emir of Bukhara, Nasrullah Khan b. Amir-i Saʿid, became seriously ill, and all of the doctors of Bukhara became weak from praying. Later he was healed by one breath of the Ishan. For that reason, he was brought from his home town of Samsun to Bukhara, and he was made imam to Shaykh Habibullah’s khanaqah in the Hazrat-i Imla neighborhood, where he became involved in the training of murids.94 Khiyabani was succeeded by several of his descendants. His sons were ʿAla˒ ad-Din, Sultan-Khan, and Qamar-Khan. Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani’s place in the madrasa on Khiyaban Street was taken by his grandson, an unnamed son of ʿAla˒ ad-Din. Ahmad indicates that Sultan-Khan and Qamar-Khan were also famous shaykhs in Bukhara. Qamar-Khan was involved in edu‑ cating students in the khanaqah-yi Shah Akhsi, and he died in 1320 ah (1902/3 ce). After that he was succeeded by his elder brother Sultan-Khan. Ahmad adds that they are buried in a cemetery near Imam Abu Hafs-i Kabir, next to their father Jalal ad-Din. They had a small khanaqah contain‑ ing two hujras that Ahmad visited on numerous occasions while he was in Bukhara. Ahmad was even present at Sultan-Khan’s funeral, although he admits it was only after two or three months had passed that he

94 TB ff. 143b-144b. The Student Experience I 117

­understood who he was. Ahmad also mentioned meeting a Qazaq named Jumʿa-Bay who was a murid of Sultan-Khan.95

Ishan-i Pir ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi al-Balkhi

Hafiz ad-Din’s initial departure from Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani appears to have been traumatic, and led to some rash decisions. He resolved to leave Bukhara and set out for the hajj with a companion, Muhammadi b. Salih al-Bashqordi. They do not seem to have planned the journey well, and a dream he had in Charjuy inspired him to find a different shaykh. So they set out traveling from two or three days, and they reached the well- known place called Charjuy suffering from hunger and thirst. That evening in his sleep, he [Hafiz ad-Din] reached a decision to abandon his desire to go on the hajj this time, return to Bukhara, and devote himself to a different shaykh. It was like this, “A shaykh who was of medium height, somewhat plump, broad-faced, with a salt-and-pepper beard, long hands, wearing white clothes and a small turban appeared on a porch that was on the eastern side, and he proclaimed, ‘Damulla, look here.’ Then pulling his hand up from the porch and extending it, he brought [me] to his side.” Hafiz ad-Din later realized this would be Ishan-i Pir, Ahmad recounts how Hafiz ad-Din was accepted by Ishan-i Pir: At that time my father met with Ishan-i Pir, and finally in one week he was associating and meeting with him, and without rejecting or asking, perhaps with the special grace and munificence of the Almighty God, he clasped hands and was licensed in the tariqat-i naqshbandiya mujaddidiya. This was Monday the 22nd of Safar, 1271 (13 November 1854). He took lessons from that person. After that he was engaged with the chanting of the Qur’an [tilawat-i Qurʾan] and the supplementary prayers, and the particular prayer [award-i makhsusa]. In Ramazan 1276 (March-April 1860) Ishan-i Pir gave him his license [khatt-i irshad] and granted him permission to train [murids] in [his own] tariqa-yi piriya, and he placed his cap [kulah] on his head, and prayed for him.96 This was ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi al-Balkhi, commonly known as Ishan-i Pir. Hafiz ad-Din may have been his only Tatar murid, and in fact he is not well known in the published Tatar sources. However he appears to have had a prominent political role during the reign of the Bukharan

95 TB ff. 141b-142a. 96 TB fol. 101a. 118 Chapter four emir Nasrullah Khan. Ahmad provides the following biographical data on Ishan-i Pir: Ishan-i Pir was born in 1210 [1795/6 ce] and died in 1281 [1864/4 ce], at age 71, and he is buried in Fayzabad in the environs of Bukhara. While he was a student he went on the hajj, and went to Medina and Mecca via Astrakhan. For a time he came to the Qasr-i ʿArifan, which is the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband. And “following the call of his spirit,” he went to India, and became a disciple to Ghulam ʿAli-Shah Sahib ad-Dihlawi, and was licensed by him. When he returned he was 25 years old. Then, after the death of Ghulam ʿAli-Shah Ishan-i Pir left Dehli and returned to Balkh. There he went into seclusion at the tomb of Shah-i Mardan [that is, the tomb of ʿAli at Mazar-i Sharif]. After that he returned to his home Shahrisabz. There he taught murids for exactly 30 years. All of the wealthy men in the city and in the environs were his friends.97 In Dehli his fellow murid before Ghulam ʿAli Shah was Darvish Muhammad ash-Shafiʿi al-Hindistani, who had licensed Taj ad-Din as-Samarqandi, and who is also known as Mirza Rahim-Bek b. Amanullah al-Hindi, and as Ishan Shafiʿi in the Tarikh-i Barangawi.98 Ishan-i Pir received his license in 1820, and he settled in Shahrisabz where they carried out the duties of shaykhs. After their arrival the emir of Bukhara, Nasrullah Khan, made it his goal to seize Shahrisabz. In a biography of Ishan-i Pir written by one of his murids named ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Khwaja, the author recounts the events in a manner that seems to depict Nasrullah’s deference and solicitude toward Ishan-i Pir.99 In fact, it appears that Ishan-i Pir played an important political role in Shahrisabz, and Ahmad describes events as heard from Ishan-i Pir and his grandson Mahmud: Although apparently the administration [of the city] was by the order of the city’s chief (mudiri), in fact it was at the pleasure of these two shaykhs. This is because the city’s population, scholars and laymen, large and small, rulers and wise men, all of them were in conversation with them and were at their feet. Amir Nasrullah sent so many thousands of soldiers from Bukha‑ ra, and besieged Shahrisabz repeatedly, but was never able to enter it. Fi‑ nally, these two shaykhs came out of the city and allowed the surrender, and Ishan-i Pir accepted the Amir’s demand. As for Ishan Shafiʿi, when he remained in his own khanaqah in consultation with his disciples, spies came from Nasrullah, and killed the murids who survived the rout. The Ishan hid

97 TB fol. 159b. 98 al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar, 38. 99 Baxtiyor Babadzhanov, “On the History of the Naqshbandiya-Mujaddidiya in Central Mawara˒annahr in the Late 18th and Early 19th Centuries,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 19th Centuries vol. 1, (Berlin, 1996), 403-404. The Student Experience I 119

underneath a blanket that had been placed there. The murderers speared the Ishan through the blanket with a lance, and he was martyred.100 After the conquest of Shahrisabz Nasrullah ordered Ishan-i Pir to Bukhara. He stayed at the home of the emir’s younger brother, Husayn Törä, and received as a gift a thousand tanaps of land from the emir. At first he trained murids in the Ayim Mosque, and later in the Shah Akhsi khanaqah.101 Although Ishan-i Pir had licensed Hafiz ad-Din in the Naqshbandiya- Mujaddidiya order, both men were also Uwaysi Sufis. As Ahmad puts it, “Our father was an uwaysi al-mashrab, just as the Holy Ishan-i Pir was an Uwaysi.”102 Ishan-i Pir’s son Yahya succeeded his father as shaykh in the Akh‑ si Khanaqah. Because of his fame and wealth he was known as Ishan-i Padishah, and Ahmad writes that he had a very good relationship with Hafiz ad-Din. Both Yahya and Ishan-i Pir were buried in the city’s Chor- Bakir Cemetery. Yahya was succeeded by his son Khalifa Mahmud who became Ahmad Barangawi’s pir while he was in Bukhara. At that time Khalifa Mahmud fulfilled the duties of imam and shaykh in the Turk-Jandi khanaqah, and later in the Bala-Khawz khanaqah. Ahmad adds that Khal‑ ifa Mahmud was someone with the ability to perform miracles [sahib-i karamat].103

Other Sufi Figures

We can identify several other Sufi shaykhs who trained murids from Russia in Bukhara. The Tatar Sufi and imam Fakhr ad-Din b. Mustafa an-Nurlati trained with two figures, Shams ad-Din Mawlawi and Muhammad-ʿArif, both of whom traced their lineages back to the prominent Afghan Mujaddidiya figure Fayz-Khan al-Kabuli. Shams ad-Din was linked to Fayz- Khan through ʿUbaydullah Uzbek-khwaja. Muhammad-ʿArif’s silsila was as follows: Muhammaf-ʿArif → Hajji ʿAbdullah → Mir-Ziya˒ ad-Din → Fayz-

100 TB fol. 159ab. 101 TB ff. 101a, 159b. 102 For an informed discussion of the Uwaysi phenomenon in Central Asia, and its reflection in hagiographies cf. Devin DeWeese, An ‘Uvaysi’ Sufi in Timurid Mawarannahr: Notes on Hagiography and the Taxonomy of Sanctity in the Religious History of Central Asia, Papers on Inner Asia No. 22, Research Institute for Central Asian Studies, (Bloomington, Indiana, 1993), 2-9; Ahmad’s admittedly brief discussion of his father’s Uwaysi affiliation appears to suggest, as DeWeese has argued, that the Uwaysi phenomenon was not under‑ stood to be to be a sort of tariqat, but rather a “Sufi type.” 103 TB ff. 161ab, 203a-204a. 120 Chapter four

Khan al-Kabuli. Fakhr ad-Din’s license from Muhammad-ʿArif was dated 1254 ah (1838/39 ce).104 As we have seen, Hafiz ad-Din associated with a number of other shaykhs in Kashgar during his stay there. These included Mulla Habibullah al-Khotani, as well as ʿAshur-Muhammad at-Turki. Hafiz ad-Din recited the Qasida-yi Burda in ʿAshur-Muhammad’s presence, and obtained a li‑ cense, presumably in the recitation of that litany. He then provides the following silsila: ʿAshur-Muhammad at-Turki → as-sayyid Burhan ad-Din al-Kashmiri an- Naqshbandi → as-sayyid Ziya˒ ad-Din → Khwaja Khanaqahi → ath-Thani →Nur b. Muhammad Aqtab → Nizam ad-Din Ahmad → Muʿayyan ad-Din al-Hadi → Khwand-Mahmud → Mir-Sayyid-Sharif → Ziya˒ al-Haqq wa’d-Din, → Taj ad-Din Husayni → ʿAla˒ ad-Din → Hasan al-ʿAttar → Khwaja Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshbandi al-Bukhari.105

Curriculum

Few aspects of Islamic education in Central Asia have been as maligned and misrepresented in the historical literature as the madrasa curriculum. This critique forms part of what Stéphane Dudoignon has termed “the Invention of Decadence,” which is evident in travelers’ accounts, Russia official writings, and in the observations of Islamic reformists and modern‑ ists. In his study of Turkestan under Russian rule Richard Pierce reflects well the attitudes evident in the Russian official sources when he writes: The curriculum in the medresse [sic] consisted mainly of Arabic, philoso­ ­- phy, theology, and the Shariat. Other subjects included Persian, Turkish, logic, the rudiments of arithmetic and plane geometry, collections of legend and fable that passed for history, and a mass of confused and contradictory information concerning geography.106 Similarly, Adeeb Khalid, reflects the attitudes of his jadid sources when he writes, regarding Bukhara’s madrasas: Students did not study the Qur’an and its exegesis, the traditions of the Prophet, or even jurisprudence, although they could do so if they could find a teacher willing to give them private lessons. Rather, instruction revolved

104 Rizaeddin b. Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 208. 105 TB fol. 157b. 106 Richard A. Pierce, Russian Central Asia 1867-1917: a Study in Colonial Rule, (Berkeley, 1960), 212. The Student Experience I 121

around commentaries and supercommentaries, some of a post-Timurid provenance.107 As we shall see below, the Tarikh-i Barangawi and other Tatar biograph-­ ical sources contradict such characterizations both generally and in detail. For example, there are more ways one can “study” the Qur’an than ex­ tracting intellectualized meaning from its content, such as, for example, ­learning to reenact its transmission through Qur’an recitation. Furthermore, as we shall see below, the sources are very explicit that jurisprudence, or fiqh, the traditions of the Prophet, that is, hadith, and Qur’an exegesis, or tafsir, were widely studied in Bukharan madrasas. To claim otherwise is simply incorrect. Similarly, the claim that instructors taught from com‑ mentaries, rather than original texts, reveals an unfamiliarity with the nature of commentaries in the Hanafi curriculum, both today and in the past. Typically the original texts are embedded within the commentaries, and the commentaries are used as a way of presenting the original mate‑ rial. Under such circumstances, a commentary can be used by teachers and students simply as a means of gaining access to the original text. However, it must be allowed that the use of particular commentaries, some of which were quite tested, was also conditioned by their effectiveness as presenting material, a matter of no small importance to a conscientious mudarris. Despite the commonly encountered modernist and reformist charac‑ terization that the educational curriculum in Bukhara was “useless,” in selecting their course of study Tatar and Bashkir students were motivated above all by practical concerns. Since most of these students planned on obtaining positions as imams upon returning to Russia, their focus was above all on studies that would enable them to solve problems they might face as imams. As a result, the study of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) was a universal topic of study, for which Bukhara was renowned. Other central pillars of the curriculum included above all Arabic language, inheritance law (including arithmetic), and Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir). In addition, many students appear to have been attracted to more contemplative dis‑ ciplines, especially dogmatic theology (kalam), philosophy, history, as‑ tronomy, and mathematical sciences. In his detailed list of the Bukharan madrasa curriculum Khanykov divides the curriculum into three parts: 1) the legal or theological (sharʿiya), 2) Arabic language (ʿarabiya), and 3) the

107 Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, (Berke‑ ley, 1998), 33. 122 Chapter four sciences of “secular” wisdom (hikmiya), and he lists 137 works that students either read independently or with their mudarrises. A well-educated stu‑ dent from Russia would already be familiar with the first two categories, and it appears the focus in Bukhara gravitated toward a degree of special‑ ization, depending on the interests of one’s students and one’s teachers. In addition, students more interested in Islamic disciplines outside of the exoteric sciences, such as Sufism, would naturally have focused their at‑ tention in those directions. Tatar and Bashkir students arriving in Bukhara usually had had some degree of madrasa education in Russia, and typically moved directly to a more advanced level of study. The madrasa curriculum in Russia was three-tiered, with the first two tiers focused on Arabic grammar and syntax, then later logic and Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).108 Hafiz ad-Din al-Baran‑ gawi, for example, had studied in a madrasa in Mazarbashi, and came to Bukhara at age 18 with a solid background in tafsir, Arabic syntax, logic, and fiqh.109 Marjani arrived with a solid grounding in Arabic syntax and morphology, and fiqh, as did Barudi. The madrasa curriculum in Russia was certainly modeled on Bukhara’s, and for the most part corresponded to the common Hanafi curriculum. Several detailed descriptions of what students specifically studied have come down to us. Marjani began his studies in Bukhara with the Sharh-i ʿaqa˒ida Nasafiya, a work by the Persian theologian Saʿd ad-Din Taftazani (d. 1390) devoted to the subject of dogmatic theology (kalam). He contin‑ ued his study of Arabic syntax with the works Kafiya and Sharh-i . In the field of logic he studied the Shamsiya, additional commentaries on the ʿAqa˒ida Nasafiya, and logic text Tahzib. Additional works he studied in Bukhara include:

The theological work Hikmat al-ʿAyn and related commentaries Sharh-i ʿaqa˒id ʿazdiya, known as Mulla Jalal, a fiqh text attributed to Jalal ad-Din Dawani,110

108 For descriptions of the madrasa curriculum in the Volga-Ural region cf. Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910,(Leiden -Boston, 2001), 243-246; M. N. Farkh‑ shatov, Narodnoe obrazovanie v Bashkirii v poreformennyi period 60-90-e gody XIX v., (Mos‑ cow, 1994), 72-73; M. N. Farkhshatov, “Ob uchebnykh posobiiakh mektebov i medrese Bashkirii do nachala XX v.,” Sotsial’nye i etnicheskie aspekty istorii Bashkirii, (Ufa, 1988), 44-49. 109 TB fol. 97b. 110 On this work cf. M. N. Farkhshatov, “Ob uchebnykh posobiiakh,” 46. The Student Experience I 123

Tawzih, a work of ʿilm-i usul Mishqat al-masabih, a work on hadith Tafsir al-Bayzawi, a Qur’an commentary Sharh-i wiqaya, a work on fiqh111 Hidaya, a work on fiqh by Burhan ad-Din ʿAli al-Marghinani (d. 1197 ce)112 Fara˒iz Sirajiya, a popular work on inheritance law113 For Marjani the study of these works covered a five year period, after which he traveled to Samarqand to study with Abu Saʿid b. ʿAbd al-Hayy as-Sa‑ marqandi and his sons. In Samarqand Marjani’s studies appear to have been more tailored to his interests, and he benefited from the extensive manuscript libraries at his disposal in that city. Here he studied works by al-Ghazali, such as the Kimiya as-saʿadat and the Risalat ar-ruh, focusing particularly on Islamic philosophy and dogmatic theology, as well as on Islamic history. When Marjani returned to Bukhara he focused on hadith studies, returning to the Mishqat al-masabih and the canonical Sunni ha- dith collection Sahih Muslim. Barudi began his lessons studying Mulla Jalal, Arabic literature and mathematics from a variety of instructors. He concentrated on Islamic Law and philosophy, looking at the standard texts, including the Mulla Jalal, Tawzih, Hikmat al-ʿAyn, Tafsir-i Bayzawi, Fara˒iz-i Sijawandi; in Arabic lit‑ erature he studied the Muqaddima-yi Jazari, and the ʿIlm-i maʿani wa bayan, a work on Qur’an recitation; in mathematics he studied the Hisab-i khabar wa maqabila massahi, Hulasa-yi hisab, and a commentary on Mulla ʿIsmatullah, and finally dogma, geometry, and astronomy.114 Hafiz ad-Din began by studying the Sharh-i ʿAqa˒id Taftazani, then with Mirza-Jan b. Shams ad-Din al-Balkhi he read the ʿAqa˒id ʿAzdiya, the Sharh-i Dawani (probably a reference to the Mulla Jalal mentioned above), and the Sharh-i Talkhis. With the Mufti of Bukhara, Damulla Baba-Jan, he

111 This work, also known as Niqaya, is an abridgement of the Mukhtasar al-wiqaya, fiqh text attributed to ʿUbaydullah Sadri Shariʿa (d. 1349 ce); on its place within the Hanafi cur‑ riculum in Bukhara cf. N. Khanykov, Opisanie bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843), 216. 112 Cf. The Hedaya, or Guide: a Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, Charles Hamilton tr., 2nd ed. (London, 1870); this work is today still used among as a standard work on fiqh; cf. also Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur I (Weimar, 1898), 377. 113 Shäräf, Märjani, 59-61, 68; nearly all of these books were common madrasa texts in Russia as well; cf. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions,244 -245; Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 215-216. 114 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 33-34. 124 Chapter four studied inheritance law, the science of surveying (ʿilm-i masaha), the sci‑ ence of equations (jabr wa muqabila), and square roots and fractions (judhur wa kusur). In addition, with Shihab ad-Din Marjani he read a part of the Tahzib al-Mantiq, and also in the subject of logic, Qatighuryas, and other books, and with ʿInan b. Ihsan al-Bughulmawi he read the Mukhtasar al-wiqaya.115 Additionally, as we have seen, Hafiz ad-Din studied the Torah from a local Jewish scholar. For his part, in a letter to his family Burhan ad-Din described his studies as follows: This year our beloved brother [Hafiz ad-Din] began studying the Mulla Jalal from Mulla Mirza-jan Makhdum of the Khiyaban Madrasa. And this year, along with my first classmates, [we] began studying the Hikmat al-ʿayn from Ishan Damulla Muʾmin-khwaja. We are studying the Sharh-i tahzib from Damulla Mirza-jan, and during the past holiday we want to read and mem‑ orized the Salam al-ʿayn from start to finish. Since arriving in Bukhara we have been involved in the study of logic, dogmatic theology, and philosophy.116 Ahmad admits he has found little information on his uncle’s studies and works, but does identify him as an expert on hadith, and presumably that was one of the subjects he explored in Bukhara.117 Khanykov makes it clear that Arabic language and theology, while dominating the offerings, by no means monopolized them. Similarly, Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni remarked that beyond the central religious curriculum one could study mathematics and literature on one’s own, outside of the oblig‑ atory curriculum.118 As we have seen, Hafiz ad-Din studied various branch‑ es of mathematics, including surveying. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi’s brother Muhammad-Shah, who was mudarris in Chuguchak’s madrasa, studied in Bukhara for seven years, where he mastered the sciences of geometry, astronomy and surveying.119 In Samarqand Marjani devoted himself to the study of history, where he compiled his history of Bukhara’s Manghït emirs. Students could augment their studies with private lessons, taken in con‑ sultation with local scholars. Marjani began his private lessons in Bukhara, and then continued them in Samarqand with Abu Saʿid Samarqandi and his sons. Similarly, Hafiz ad-Din’s studies with the Jewish scholar ʿAbd ar-

115 TB ff. 99a-100a; Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur I (Weimar, 1898), 377. 116 TB fol. 45a. 117 TB fol. 40a; Ahmad identifies Qazi Burhan ad-Din as the author of a large, but un‑ finished, commentary and translation of the Sahih Bukhari. 118 Aini, Bukhara I, 138. 119 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 79a. The Student Experience I 125

Rahim were in all likelihood private arrangements; he continued his stud‑ ies during his travels in Kashgar and Yarkand, and as we have seen, he and his brother studied privately under Taj ad-Din al-Bulghari in Samarqand. Bukhara also appears to had a particular reputation in Russia and be‑ yond for Qur’an recitation. The Qazan imam Abu Bakr b. Yusuf expressly advised his student Fakhr ad-Din an-Nurlati to study that discipline in Bukhara. Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, himself a prominent qari in Chuguchak, speaks highly of Semipalatinsk’s most renowned qari as Sulayman-qari b. Ibrahim-bay ash-Shamawi (d. ca. 1880), who had trained in Semipala‑ tinsk and Bukhara, and was known as the “Bukhara Nightingale.” Another Semipalatinsk qari trained in Bukhara was ʿUsman-qari b. Hajji Abu Bakr, who returned to Semipalatinsk from Bukhara in 1867, and became an imam in 1883. In Qurban-ʿAli’s words, “one was inclined to hear him recite the Qur’an with a fine, beautiful voice. He satisfied [listeners] with the Bukharan scale [maqam] and Buhkaran-style Qur’an recitation.” 120

Manuscripts and Literary Activity

For Muslims in Russia religious knowledge was typically disseminated orally and through the medium of manuscripts. The expansion of Islamic printing in Russia in the nineteenth century made Islamic literature more widely available, but by no means did printed texts displace the production of manuscripts, let alone their sacred significance. In the latter half of the nineteenth century Russian administrators of Tatar, Bashkir, and Qazaq Islamic schools sought to decree the exclusive use of printed books as textbooks (which were subject to official censorship), effectively forbid‑ ding the use of manuscripts, which appear to have been largely immune from censorship, but in any case, were as a practical matter beyond the control of official censors.121 However, such effectively meaningless bu‑ reaucratic decrees demonstrate the unreality of attempts by the Russian state in regulating Islamic education in the empire, since manuscripts remained a central feature in Islamic education, and Islamic religious life in general throughout the imperial period. Indeed, the sacred quality of manuscripts in Muslim communities remained evident throughout the

120 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, ff. 56a, 67a, 76a; admit‑ tedly, Qurban-ʿAli rates a Petropavlovsk qari named Karam-hafiz, as being even superior to Sulayman-qari. 121 Nursan Alimbai, Kazakhskoe knizhnoe delo v dokumentakh i materialakh (XIX-nachalo­ XX), (Almaty, 2009), 59. 126 Chapter four

Soviet period, and is still evident in Western Siberia, where manuscripts, often containing genealogies and Islamization narrative featuring Bukharan ancestors, are thought to be sacred in their own right, and retain the “aroma of saints.”122 Manuscripts were (and still are) often believed to possess holy power, and were and are used in amulets and in healing ritu‑ als. Pamphlets explaining the use of manuscripts in making amulets are still published and circulate today in Tatarstan.123 Before 1917 this sort of manuscript literature included prayer books, but also genealogies, com‑ munal charters, shrine catalogs, and in fact quite a wide range of genres.124 One of the distinguishing features of Ahmad al-Barangawi’s history is the attention he pays to manuscripts, recording what manuscripts his subjects copied while they were students. For example, before he went to Bukhara, while he was a student in a madrasa in Mazarbashi, his uncle Burhan ad- Din made complete copies of the Sharh-i Gulistan-i ʿArabi and Imam Ghazali’s Mishqat al-Anwar. 125 In relating this information Ahmad is clear‑ ly intending to record his uncle’s pious deeds, in addition to his intellec‑ tual substance. Ahmad devotes considerable space to his father’s manuscript collection, as well as providing a list of forty-four of his father’s autographs. His father’s manuscript marginalia also served Ahmad as an important source of bio‑ graphical information. Ahmad records, both in his biographies and in the letters he copies out, substantial detail on the copying activity carried out by his father in Central Asia. Copying manuscripts was a pious act for Tatar and Bashkir students in Bukhara, but as Ahmad’s sources make clear, the copying of manuscripts was carried out critically as well. It was a crucial part of education for students who lacked the funds to purchase manu‑ scripts, and in Bukharan madrasas classes were typically suspended every Wednesday so students could copy the texts they would need for their classes.126 Beyond its pious reputation, devoting time to copying manu‑ scripts appears to have been born out of necessity. In 1852 Burhan ad-Din

122 A. K. Bustanov, “Rukopis’ v kontekste Sibirskogo islama,” in: A. G. Seleznev et al. Kul’t sviatykh v Sibirskom islame: spetsifika universal’nogo, (Moscow, 2009), 162-164. 123 One such pamphlet, reprinted from a pre-revolutionary original, is Tuqsan zäkhmät- tän saqlanu dogalarï, (Kazan, 1994). 124 For an overview of the manuscript tradition in the Volga-Ural region, cf. M. Gos‑ manov, Qaurïy qaläm ezennän, 2nd ed. (Kazan, 1994); for a discussion of some of the sacred manuscript genres cf. Marsel’ Äkhmätjanov, “Qulyazmalarda keche zhanrlar,” Qazan Utlarï 1994 (3), 167-184. 125 TB fol. 34b. 126 TB fol. 187a. The Student Experience I 127 wrote his father expressing puzzlement at the scarcity of texts in the city. He complained that initially he had no means of studying the Hikmat, and he was compelled to copy out the Mulla Jalal in its entirety.127 As an ancient center of Islamic learning, manuscripts were nevertheless widely available in the city, which had its own manuscript bazaar. To be sure, manuscripts circulated and changed hands in Russia as well. However, in Russia the revival of manuscript production occurred rather late, only in the eighteenth century. For some students the lure of the manuscripts proved insurmountable. In his biography of the scholar Husayn b. Muhammad b. ʿUmar al-Bulghari al-Kirmani (d. 1857) Marjani writes that al-Kirmani never reached any sort of high position as a scholar, “but in‑ stead would spend his time with the sellers of old books, and would find beautiful and rare books. Whether he purchased the books or not, he wrote a sentence of description and their titles.” Al-Kirmani also compiled bib‑ liographies for all the disciplines, which proved to be very useful for Marjani.128 Al-Kirmani was also evidently an extensive copyist, and dozens of his autographs are today housed in Tashkent.129 Taj ad-Din b. Bashir al-Bulghari, who was to become an imam in Kazan, copied the Jamiʿ ar- Rumuz in Samarqand, and the Kashf al-Lughat, by the Tatar scholar ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Utïz-Imäni, in 1848, while he was in the Ulughbek Madrasa.130 Other scholars amassed substantial numbers of manuscripts that they purchased in Bukhara. Most notable among these collectors were the Kazan imam Salah ad-Din b. Ishaq Burnaev (d. 1875), and Galimjan Barudi, whose collections are today housed at Kazan University’s manuscript section.131 However, students with the funds to purchase manuscripts were cer‑ tainly exceptional, and typically students would spend much of their time copying manuscripts, either for themselves, or for others. Niʿmatullah b. Bek-Timur al-Istarlibashi copied many manuscripts in Bukhara and brought them back to his madrasa in Sterlibashevo.132 Nasir ad-Din al-

127 TB fol. 45b. 128 Marjani, Mustafad II, 266-8. 129 A. B. Vil’danova, “Rukopisi iz fonda IVAN Respubliki Uzbekistan, sozdannye vyk‑ hodtsami iz Bulgara,” Iazyki, dukhovnaia kul’tura i istoriia tiurkov: traditsii i sovremennost’ II (Moscow: 1997), 98. 130 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, (Kazan, 2010), 106-107. 131 A. A. Arslanova, Opisanie rukopisei na persidskom iazyke Nauchnoi biblioteki im. N. I. Lobachevskogo Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta vyp. 1, (Moscow-Kazan, 2005), 8-9; Barudi donated 947 manuscripts from his own collection, many of which came from Central Asia. 132 Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Islarlibash, 8. 128 Chapter four

Barangawi had even asked his son Burhan ad-Din to make a copy of a work called Rawzat al-ʿulama in Bukhara.133 Students from Russia could also look critically at the quality of manuscripts in Bukhara. In a letter to his father Burhan ad-Din requested that an acquaintance send to them copies of certain printed texts from Russia, because, he felt, they were more ac‑ curate than the Bukharan versions: Could Mulla Abzi from Ori please send a Mukhtasar-i wiqaya and a printed Qalbi? They say they are very cheap in our province. Most of the copies in Bukhara are coarse and muddled. So most of the ʿulama in Bukhara use the Mukhtasar and the Qalbi. We are studying it without contesting [musallam] its correctness. When we memorize it, it is a boundless good deed for them and for us.134 Similarly, in 1903 Hafiz ad-Din copied and sent the Tahzib al-mantiq wa’l- kalam of Taftazani to Ahmad while he was in Bukhara.135 When he was in Samarqand studying with Taj ad-Din as-Samarqandi Hafiz ad-Din copied a collection of 22 letters by the Sufi Mirza-jan Janan.136 In Bukhara in 1848 he copied a number of works into a single volume. The works included in this volume are the Arabic lexicographical work Nisab as-Subyan, the Risala of Imam Suyuti, Tazayyin al-ʿibarat li-tahsin of ʿAli al-Qari, Fara˒iz Sirajiya, Mukhtasar al-manar with a commentary on the Zubdat al-asrar, Risalat fi’n-nasikh wa’l-mansukh, Nukhrat al-fikr with its commentary, Sharh al-ʿAqa˒id of Qursawi, Khulafa˒-yi Islam, Risalat al- ithbat al-wajib jadid of Jalal ad-Din Dawani, Risalat hudud of Abu ʿAli b. Sina, Hashiya-yi qutubiyat of H.ri, translation of the bayts and commen‑ tary of Mulla Muhammad Qasim al-Bukhari.137 In addition to copying manuscripts, some Tatar and Bashkir scholars also composed original works in Bukhara and elsewhere in Central Asia which they often brought back to Russia. We have already seen evidence of Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi’s literary activity in Kashgar and Bukhara. Another scholar from Russia who compiled numerous original works in Bukhara, particularly of a Sufi orientation, was ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Utïz- Imäni al-Bulghari (1754-1835). He arrived in the city in 1795, and studied

133 TB fol. 47a; in a letter Burhan ad-Din indicated he had been unable to find a copy of the manuscript. 134 TB fol. 47b. 135 TB fol. 112b. 136 TB fol. 139a. 137 TB fol. 112ab; on folios 112a-114a Ahmad lists sixteen volumes his father had copied, although, except for the volume described, it is not clear which of the others he copied in Bukhara. The Student Experience I 129 under Ata-Niyaz b. Miskin al-Khwarazmi, and ʿAbd al-Qayyum b. ʿAbd al-Karim b. Allahyar, evidently the grandson of the poet Sufi Allahyar (d. 1723). Al-Bulghari’s earliest works produced in Bukhara were commentar‑ ies on Sufi Allah-Yar’s works, including an Arabic commentary on the Turki work Subat al-ʿAjizin, and a Turki commentary on the Persian work Murad al-ʿArifin. In Bukhara he also compiled a dictionary of difficult expressions found in the Maktubat of Ahmad Sirhindi. One of his fiqh works include dictionary of difficult concepts found in the Jamiʿ ar-Rumuz of the Bukharan mufti Shams ad-Din al-Kuhistani (d. 1524), which is itself a commentary of the Hidaya. Michael Kemper also mentions a similar dictionary devoted to al-Ghazali’s Ihya˒ ʿulum ad-din. Another of his works compiled in Bukhara was a treatise devoted to Qur’an recitation.138

138 Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte,176 -178. 130 Chapter four The Student Experience II 131

Chapter five

The Student Experience II

Daily Life and Finances

The daily routine of students was determined above all by the madrasa schedule. The Bukharan academic year lasted six months, beginning on September 23rd and ending on March 22nd.1 In principle classes were held every day except Thursdays and Fridays. Khanykov adds that during the reign of Emir Haydar (r. 1800-1826) classes were not held on Wednesdays. Lessons were also suspended during Ramadan and during the three months of summer. ʿAyni adds that older teachers would also take Tuesdays off. Burhan ad-Din complained of the laxity of the schedule, remarking in a letter home that classes were only in session five months out of the year, and four days out of the week.2 If the overall schedule was relaxed, the times when classes were in session were busy for students. Students spent considerable time and energy walking from one class to another. Burhan ad-Din, who had a hujra in the Khiyaban Madrasa, complained that he had to walk long distances to one of his classes, and explained that in winter it was a particular hardship.3 Marjani recalled that he had to walk about four kilometers to his classes every day.4 This may be one of the reasons that hujras at the center of the city sold at a premium. Galimjan Barudi reminisced about the rhythms of his student days in the following manner: In the chill of the evenings the students would go out in front of the gates of the madrasa, wrapped in their chapans, and when they were free from repeating their lessons (at 9 o’clock), I would go to bed. At dawn (at three o’clock) I heated up a little samovar, prepared my tea, and started to study. Then I went to the home of my teacher Sayyid Ikhtiyar-khan. When my classmates arrived I heard the Qur’an recitation and munajat prayers of my teacher. What delightful times!5

1 Sadriddin Aini, Bukhara I, (Dushanbe, 1980), 140; TB 45a. 2 N. Khanykov, Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843), 213-214. 3 TB fol. 47a. 4 Shähär Shäräf, Raif Märdanov, ed. Shihabetdin Märjani, (Kazan, 1998), 57. 5 Yosïf Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, (Kazan, 1997), 34. 132 Chapter five

Following the lesson Barudi would perform the morning prayer with his teacher’s family. Then the students would return to the madrasa. He would return to his hujra, and after a light meal (consisting of sliced bread and tea), he would read a lesson to his brother and go to study mathematics. Then he would take lessons again from Ikhtiyar-khwaja. After the second lesson, at about three o’clock, he would eat, and then perform the after‑ noon prayer. And after that, for a break, he would go out and walk around the city. After the break, he would perform the evening prayer, and read until nine o’clock, after which he would go to bed.6 Few students who came to Bukhara from Russia could conduct their studies without concern for their finances. In this regard their financial situation was on the whole more difficult than that of students who came from within the emirate. Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni recalls that many students from within the emirate of Bukhara obtained financial and material support from a network of relatives, and through connections with local officials and scholars.7 Tatar and Bashkir scholars, too, depended on family and local connections, but the distances made these connections more tenu‑ ous. Students from the wealthiest backgrounds naturally experienced few if any financial hardships. Thanks to their father’s fortune Galimjan Barudi and his brother Gazizjan lived quite comfortably. Galimjan even had suf‑ ficient discretionary funds to even amass an impressive collection of man‑ uscripts. Nevertheless, most Tatar or Bashkir students in Bukhara lived under varying degrees of financial stress and even penury. In Russia fund‑ ing for madrasa education was always precarious, particularly in agricul‑ tural communities, and for Tatar and Bashkir students the situation in Bukhara was no exception. Typically Tatar and Bashkir students in Bukhara obtained financial support for their studies from three main sources. These were, 1) state and private assistance, 2) working, and 3) support from home. In Bukhara, as in Russia, providing material assistance to madrasa stu‑ dents was considered a pious form of charitable donation. Madrasas and mudarrises were supported by charitable endowments, and students themselves could benefit from varying degrees of state and private as­ sistance. In principle students in madrasas were entitled to a stipend from the emir. Khanykov estimates that in 1840 annual stipends varied per student from two and a half tillas in the Er-Nazar Madrasa to twenty in the

6 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 34-35. 7 As an example, see the case of the scholar Mulla Aman; Aini, Bukhara II, 263-264. The Student Experience II 133

Khwaja Juybar-i Kalan Madrasa. In the Khiyaban Madrasa for example, the stipend was four and a half tillas. However, whether students actually re‑ ceived these stipends in a given year, or whether those who did were in fact madrasa students, is not so clear. Khanykov provides the following list of madrasas and their nominal stipends in 1840: Kukaltash 3 to 5 tillas (depending on the student’s seniority) Mir-i ʿArab 5 tillas Mirza Ulugh-Bek 3.5 tillas Zariyaran 5.5 tillas Tursunjan 5 tillas (8 in 1839) Muhammad-Sharif Savdagar 3.5 tillas ʿAbdullah Khan 3.5 tillas Khiyaban 4.5 tillas Khanaqah-i Mir Anan 3.5 tillas Khwaja Juybar-i Kalan 20 tillas Gawkushan 8 to 9 tillas ʿAli 12 tillas Khwaja Davlat 16 tillas Jaʿfar Khwaja 8 tillas Amir-i Jaynat Makani 5 tillas ʿAlimjan 8 tillas8 Some Tatar and Bashkir students obtained support directly from the Bukha­ran authorities. Marjani mentions three Tatar students who received gifts from Emir Haydar at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These include the brothers ʿAbd as-Sattar and ʿAbd al-Ghaffar ash-Shirdani (the latter figure received a gift of 200 aqcha), and Marjani’s father, Baha˒ ad- Din, to whom Mir Haydar presented 50 aqcha, a hujra in the Tursunjan Madrasa, and after his return to Russia in 1813, gifts of clothing.9 At the end of the nineteenth century the Bukharan treasury also provided a stipend called the dah-i yak (one-tenth) to students nearing the end of their stud‑ ies. This stipend, amounting to 120 tangga, was paid out annually at a ceremony held on a square near the Citadel. In principle, the recipients were selected on the basis of an exam that tested the students’ knowledge of the standard fiqh text, the Hidaya. Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni was the recipient

8 Khanykov, Opisanie, 85-87. 9 Shihab ad-Din Marjani, Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa BulgharII, (Kazan, 1900), 94-96, 130-133. 134 Chapter five of this stipend.10 However at least two Tatars were also recipients. Nur-ʿAli b. Hasan al-Buawi, who was in Bukhara in the 1880’s, claimed to have passed the examination to qualify for the stipend.11 The second was Nuʿman b. Nur ad-Din Muhammad al-Bulghari, a khalifa of the mufti Siraj ad-Din Saritaghi. ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi relates that he was a Sufi who lived among the Turkmens, and every year he would come to Bukhara to claim the dah- i yak.12 In any case, in a letter to his father, written in May 1856 Burhan ad-Din blames the emir Nasrullah Khan for the decline in state support for education: But there are no longer as many students as there used to be. Most of them, no longer able to endure the poverty, have gone out to the steppe, and become vagrants. This year the scholars have become miserable. There is no assistance from the emir of Bukhara for the scholars or students. Rather, he abases and lowers the students. In early times the King [malik] of Bukha‑ ra would give the students a great deal of zakat, and he was desirous that each of them should study. All of this emir’s ancestors were keen on lessons. Consequently in those times the madrasas were prosperous and there were a lot of scholars, and they were esteemed and honored, and all the students’ time was pleasant and edifying. But nowadays there are few students who try to study correctly.13 Most Tatar and Bashkir students had to generate some sort of income while they lived in Bukhara. Naturally, this was easier in summer, when classes were not in session, and was more challenging during the academic year. During the summer months it was common, as we have seen, for more senior students to provide instruction to Qazaqs and Turkmens, whether in Bukhara, in nearby settlements, or in their nomadic encampments. However it appears that arrangements with nomads often involved simply the exchange of food and shelter for educational instruction or religious expertise. This was the arrangement Ahmad al-Barangawi made with the Qazaqs nomads with whom he spent a month in 1905. In a letter to his father, Burhan ad-Din mentioned that an acquaintance from near Baranga, ʿAbd ash-Shukur al-Portanuri, had arrived in Bukhara and spent eight months there. But when father did not send money he was forced to go

10 Aini, Bukhara II, 263, 349-351. 11 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, (Kazan, 2010), 445. 12 ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi, al-Qatrat min bihar al-haqa˒iq fi tarjuma ahwali masha˒ikh at- tara˒iq (Orenburg, n.d.), 28. 13 TB fol. 43a. The Student Experience II 135 among the Qazaqs.14 It was also common for Tatar and Bashkir students to earn money working as mudarrises, where they received salaries from the waqfs. As a mudarris Marjani taught numerous students, and he men‑ tioned several other Tatars and Bashkirs who held such positions. Burhan ad-Din wrote to his father that the position of mudarris during the reign of Nasrullah Khan was poorly paid. He gave the salary as 5 tillas a year, far less than the much larger sums that Khanykov quotes, which Burhan ad- Din considered barely adequate for survival, and mentioned men who had been mudarrises for twenty-five years, and were still very poor.15 Under these circumstances it is not surprising that it was customary for mudar- rises to also receive payments from students.16 Outside of the field of edu‑ cation, it was common for students, especially poorer ones, to work as servants or custodians in madrasas. Burhan ad-Din mentions a certain Hasan al-Barangawi who came to Bukhara in 1852 to study and earned his keep by “cooking and doing other services in the hujra of Sabir-jan Machkarawi in the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa.”17 Despite the enormous distances, the families of Tatar and Bashkir stu‑ dents maintained contacts, and often supported them in various ways, including sending gifts of money and goods which the students could use themselves, or sell in the city’s bazaars. Demonstrating the bonds that existed between students in Bukhara and their home communities, Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi described the arrival of an unexpected visitor from Bukhara, a Tatar scholar named Waliʾullah, who had come to his house in Chuguchak. Qurban-ʿAli’s first thought at hearing of his arrival was to in‑ vite him in and obtain information about local students in Bukhara about whom Waliʾullah may have had news.18 Correspondence, of course, was another way for students to stay in touch with their families. Epistolary contacts between Muslim scholars in Russia and Bukhara remain to be examined in depth as a literary genre, but we have seen, for example, that Nasr ad-Din al-Barangawi studied and was licensed solely through correspondence with Jalal ad-Din Khiyabani in the first half of the nineteenth century. An undated Persian letter sent

14 TB fol. 46b. Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni remarked that it was considered disgraceful among the scholars in Bukhara to take money for helping people with their studies; cf. Aini, Bukha- ra II, 191; However the Tatar and Bashkir sources reveal repeatedly that it was not unusual to receive payment for teaching. 15 TB fol. 41b. 16 TB fol. 45a. 17 TB fol. 44b. 18 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Kazakh Steppe (177-1912) A. Frank and M. Usmanov, eds. (Leiden-Boston, 2005), fol. 91a. 136 Chapter five to Muʿaz b. Bek-Muhammad al-Qaramali (d. 1831), by his teacher in Bukhara, a certain Mahdi, is preserved in the Muʿazi family papers.19 In the Tarikh-i Barangawi Ahmad included copies of dozens of letters sent be‑ tween his family members. These include numerous letters written in Persian and Turki that Burhan ad-Din and Hafiz ad-Din received from their parents when they were in Bukhara and Petropavlovsk, and that Ahmad received from his father. These letters provide a wealth of detail on the support network that existed within the Nasri family, and among students in Bukhara from Baranga and neighboring villages in Urzhum District. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din included five letters from Muhammad-Fatih b. ʿAbd an-Nasir (d. 1875), who lived in Bukhara from 1840 to 1872. He had sent the letters to his teacher Ziya˒ ad-Din b. Taj ad-Din al-Ishtiraki.20 From the letters in the Tarikh-i Barangawi it is clear that family mem‑ bers were regularly sending money and goods to Burhan ad-Din and Hafiz ad-Din. In April 1852 Burhan ad-Din acknowledged the receipt of ten Russian tillas.21 Two of these gold coins had reached him via a caravan that had come to Bukhara from Irbit, in Siberia, and the other eight had come via another merchant named Mulla Fayz ar-Rahman. A parcel of goods had also come with the coins, and included two jackets, two vests (izar), two towels, two handkerchiefs, three tablecloths, two pairs of boots, and fruit syrup (qaq). Some of these things had been brought by a certain Ghaffar, and some by Ahmadjan who had come from Tashkent.22 In a let‑ ter from May 1856 Burhan ad-Din thanked his father for sending ten Russian tillas, two shirts, one towel, and one tablecloth with Mulla Fayz ar-Rahman. Their sister Badr-i Jahan, who was married to an imam in the village of Ori, had contributed to that parcel as well. Burhan ad-Din also acknowledged another consignment of goods sent by a certain Ahmad in the nearby village of Quyan. Ahmad had sent four shirts and handkerchiefs, nineteen-and-a-half arshins of calico, one shirt, one shawl, and one brace‑ let, as well as wax and honey. He added that a cousin named Mulla Sulayman had also received seven Russian tilla.23 In February 1858 Burhan ad-Din acknowledged receiving seven more Russia tillas. Two had come via Tashkent, and five came from his father via the same Fayz ar-Rahman.24 These goods could be used by the recipients, or sold.

19 Institut Rukopisei Tatarstana f. 53, o. 1, d. 5, fol. 4ab. 20 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 80-83. 21 This is probably a reference to Russian three-ruble gold coins. 22 TB fol. 44b. 23 TB fol. 42b. 24 TB fol. 52b. The Student Experience II 137

Evidently many students depended on remittances from family mem‑ bers in Russia to support their studies. Burhan ad-Din mentions a fellow- student named ʿAbd ash-Shukur al-Portanuri from Urzhum District who had come to Bukhara in 1855. His father had failed to send money, and after eight months he was forced to leave Bukhara and live among the Qazaqs. Burhan ad-Din reported in a letter that there was no news at all, and his whereabouts were unknown. When ʿAbd ash-Shukur’s father heard, he became upset, and sent a letter with seven Russian tillas. But by then no one knew where his son is living.25 Similarly, Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi relates how the traveler from Bukhara, Waliʾullah, told him that he had gone to Bukhara from Qarghalï to study. His brother had promised to send money, but when he failed to do so, Waliʾullah was compelled to live among the Turkmens.26 Ahmad himself admits his lack of money was the main reason for his decision to finally leave Bukhara in 1905. In fact, just to make the trip home he had to borrow funds from his mudarris, Mir- Siddiq as-Sardawi.27

Health

For all its sanctity, Bukhara under the Manghïts was a notoriously un‑ healthy place. Students coming from Russia, especially from villages, had to acclimatize themselves to a very different environment and to Central Asian urban living conditions. As a result, students found themselves ex‑ posed to illnesses and parasites that were unknown at home, and straight‑ ened economic circumstances sometimes exacerbated health problems. Bukhara, of course, could be very unhealthy for native Bukharans too. Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni fell ill during a cholera epidemic in 1893.28 Khanykov identi‑ fied seven diseases and parasites as being the most common in Bukhara. These included several forms of leprosy, fevers, infections of the eye, skin ulcers, and the rishta worm, a type of parasite.29 Ahmad al-Barangawi contracted malaria, and was incapacitated for six weeks. He wrote that he spent a large portion of his money seeking treatment from a Russian doc‑ tor. Later he suffered from an acute swelling, and sought treatment from a Bukharan healer (tabib), who prescribed a type of poultice. Ahmad

25 TB fol. 46b. 26 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 92a. 27 TB ff. 208b-209b. 28 Aini, Bukhara II, 56-7. 29 Khanykov, Opisanie, 48-52. 138 Chapter five blamed his health problems on the poor quality of his hujra, and the city’s climate.30 Burhan ad-Din was afflicted with the rishta worm, a parasite that features prominently in most nineteenth century travel accounts of Bukhara, and wrote his father the following: Last year I found I had caught the rishta worm. I took myself to a worm doctor [rishtagir] and I got better. This year I was afraid of the rishta worm again, but it is what God had fated. If it appears once, it appears every year. The rishta worm still has not afflicted my dear brother. They say it does not afflict some people because of the warmth of their constitution.31 In addition to parasites and infectious diseases, some students fell victim to drug addiction. Drug addition is occasionally mentioned Tatar and Bashkir biographical sources, and two cases appear in the Tarikh-i Barangawi. Burhan ad-Din informed his father that a fellow-villager named Mulla ʿIzzatullah b. ʿAbd al-Karim had become an opium addict. He had lost several jobs and divorced his wife, by the time Ahmad-mahdum al- Boghdani had wanted to bring him to Panjikent for treatment. Eventually, we are informed, he died in Bukhara.32 Another scholar whom Ahmad identifies as having become an opium addict in Bukhara was Salim al- Bulghari al-Penzawi, who served as imam in a village near Zoyabashi (Staroe Timoshkino), in Simbirsk Province. He lost that position, having alienated both his own family and his congregation, and went to Tashkent. There, we are told, he became involved in a discussion among the Tashkent scholars regarding snuff, tobacco, and hashish, and corresponded with Hafiz ad-Din in Bukhara, who sent him a legal opinion on the matter.33

Pilgrimage and Travel

In discussing scholarly activities in Bukhara Tatar and Bashkir biographical sources are generally very laconic, if not silent, in discussing pilgrimage to Central Asian shrines. One reason is that published Islamic sources, those that are most commonly cited, were of a reformist orientation, generally suspicious of Sufism and Sufi ritual. Neither, Barudi, Marjani, nor their biographers leave any record that these prominent reformists visited shrines in Central Asia. Tatars and Bashkirs were much more likely to

30 TB ff. 199a-200a. 31 TB fol. 47ab. 32 TB ff. 7a, 47b. 33 TB fol. 150ab. The Student Experience II 139

­record their experiences during the hajj than they were to record their Central Asian, let alone their local pilgrimages. However Ahmad Barangawi and his father did write about their Central Asian travels and pilgrimage, and have left us considerable evidence that they and other Tatar and Bashkir scholars did perform extended pilgrimages in the Emirate of Bukhara and beyond. We have seen that for Tatars and Bashkirs in Russia the tombs of saints in numerous Central Asian cities were regarded not only as sacred, but as ancestral. Furthermore, because so many Tatar and Bashkir students be‑ came disciples of local Sufi shaykhs, they also participated in the shrine- oriented rituals that originated with the very Sufi orders they were part of. This was certainly the case with Ahmad and his father Hafiz ad-Din, and many others doubtlessly shared that experience. Travel within Central Asia was not limited to pilgrimage, but also sometimes appears to have been motivated by simple wanderlust, either traveling to distant cities, or trav‑ eling among nomads. In June of 1856 Hafiz ad-Din’s shaykh, Ishan-i Pir, was afflicted with rishta worms and received permission from the emir to spend the summer in Shahrisabz. Hafiz ad-Din joined him, and after spending two months there, obtained permission to set out on his own pilgrimage to numerous shrines. He compiled an account in Persian of his journey, which Ahmad copied into his history. The first city he went to from Shahrisabz was Samarqand. There he visited the tombs of the sahaba Kusam b. ʿAbbas, buried in the Shah-i Zinda Mausoleum, of Amir Timur in the Gur-i Amir Mausoleum, of Khwaja Ahrar, and of Mansur . In addition to the shrines, his travelogue also includes the city’s famous madrasas and cem‑ eteries, and the Qur’an of ʿUsman, located in the Madrasa-yi Safid. From Samarqand he travelled to Khojand, where according to Ahmad he turned down an offer to become a mudarris there. He then went on to Khoqand, where he visited the mausoleum of Maslahat ad-Din Khojandi, and then to Marghilan, Namangan, and Osh.34 From Osh he traveled to Kashgaria, where he evidently spent several years. His travelogue includes shrines in several of the cities he visited. These include the tombs of Khwaja Afaq, Yusuf Qadir-khan Ghazi, Khwaja Arslan, and Husayn Khwaja in Kashgar. In Artush, near Kashgar, he visited the tombs of Sultan Bughra Khan Ghazi, Khwaja Ishaq, Pir Bughra Khan, and Majid Ata, as well as a holy spring called Chishma-yi Qaranggu. From there he went to Yarkand, to the tomb

34 TB ff. 102a-103b. 140 Chapter five of Muhammad-Sharif Ishan. In Khotan he went to the tombs of Qochqar Ata and Timur Hajji, and finally in Altun Mazar he visited the tomb of the Seven Muhammads (Haft-i Muhammad).35 However in Kashgaria Hafiz ad-Din was involved in more than visiting shrines. As we have seen above Hafiz ad-Din studied with several promi‑ nent scholars in Khotan and Kashgar, and received licenses in several lita‑ nies. He also married twice while he was in Kashgaria, once in Kashgar and once in Khotan. Regarding his marriages in Kashgaria Ahmad writes the following: During his trip in 1272 [1856] in Kashghar he married Hamida, the daughter of Qurban-Muhammad and Fatima. This came about because his reputation and demand among the authoritative men and scholars of Kashgar was high. Even most of the orders issued by the city’s aʿlam and qazi, Hammad-kh‑ waja b. Muhammad-ʿAlim-khwaja having presented my father at the as‑ semblies, would be issued with [Hafiz ad-Din’s] fatwas. His sons Muhyi ad-Din and ʿAbd al-Qadir, and many students from the surrounding region, would assemble and take lessons. For that reason he made this city his home. At the time this Hamida-khanim married my father she was 18 years old. She was a pious person. She had a sister named Ruqya and they lived together. Hamida and Ruqya would spin thread. Ruqya herself would send her to the market to sell it, and with half the money she would buy thread supplies, and she would buy food with the other half of it. Both of them showed great honor and respect to my father and were in his service. May she be submerged in God’s mercy. This is because at that time my father was occupied only with studying books (editing the Qamus) and with sacred prayers. Because of the presence of my father the blessings and ben‑ efits that were in the household increased.36 Hamida bore him a son in April 1858, but soon after Hafiz ad-Din returned to Bukhara. But before that in Khotan he also married an eleven-year-old girl named Oghul-khanim bint Sulayman. However he later divorced her as well, and left the city.37 Hafiz ad-Din was in Kashgar in 1857 at the time Wali Khan Khwaja came with an army from Khoqand and conquered the city. Ahmad relates that Wali Khan killed many scholars, however Hafiz ad-Din appears to have written an original work expressly for Wali Khan Khwaja titled Mulukiyat. Ahmad describes it as “a book in Persian that addresses fireworks, indus‑ trial methods and events.” Ahmad adds rather cryptically that “because of

35 TB fol. 103ab; on these shrines cf. Mulla Musa Sayrami, Tarikhi Hamidi, (Urumchi, 1992), 639-643. 36 TB fol. 126ab. 37 TB fol. 126ab. The Student Experience II 141 dissembling to Wali Khan, he authored it in his name in partnership with Muhammad-ʿArif as-Saʿati b. Siraj ad-Din al-Gaynawi.”38 When Hafiz ad- Din left Bukhara in 1865 he used the opportunity to travel in other parts of Central Asia. Joined by Burhan ad-Din, the two brothers went to Tashkent, where during Ramadan they performed iʿtikaf in the khanaqah of Shaykh Abu’l-Qasim. From there they went to Turkistan, before departing for Petropavlovsk.39 In contrast to Hafiz ad-Din’s rather laconic Persian travel account, in the autobiographical portion of the manuscript Ahmad has left what is one of the most detailed account of Central Asian pilgrimage written by a Tatar. Between 1901 and 1905 Ahmad visited numerous shrines in the vicinity of Bukhara. He tells us at the beginning of his account that he performed pilgrimages to the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband and to the tomb of ʿAlim Shaykh Quddus Sarra. He also performed pilgrimages in the districts of Vafkand, Ghijduvan, Kharaqan, Khayrabad, Vardanzi, and Zindani, as well as in the cities of Kermine and Tashkent.40 His first pilgrimage journey took place during summer vacation. Accompanied by a fellow student from Russia named Salah ad-Din al-Manzalawi they left Bukhara for Vafkand, and visited the shrines there. There they were received by a stu‑ dent and the local imam, and the next morning they walked to Ghijduvan, to visit the shrine of ʿAbd al-Khaliq Ghijduvani. They spent three weeks at the madrasa there, before Ahmad decided he wanted to return to Bukhara. His second pilgrimage journey also took place in summer, when he and a another student from Russia, Muhammad ash-Shakir al-Istarli, decided they wanted to spent forty days in seclusion (chilla) at the khanaqah of Abu’l-Hasan in the town of Kharaqan.41 They went part of the way by train, from Novaia Bukhara to Kermine. We reached Kermine and performed pilgrimages to the various khanaqahs and mausolea (turba), and we set out on foot on the road to Kharaqan. Because the distance was far, our feet hurt and we were in an extreme situ‑ ation. And because the weather was hot, we were thirsty. We reached Kharaqan and performed the ablutions with good flowing water. We put on our slippers. We entered the khanaqah which is the mausoleum of the

38 TB fol. 116a. 39 TB fol. 105a. This is a reference to Abu’l-Qasim Ishan b. Khan Tora Ishan at-Tashkan‑ di; cf. Qurban-Ali Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 21b. 40 TB, ff. 204b-205a. 41 On this shrine cf. Josephe Castagné, “Le culte des lieux saints de l’islam au Turkestan,” L’Ethnographie n.s. 46 (1951), 99-100; Castagné gives the saint’s name as Abdul Hassani Karakhani. 142 Chapter five

Holy Ishan. The day we arrived was the day for women and girls to come for pilgrimage. The street was filled with women. Girls and women were walking and sitting everywhere, and it was impossible to flee, even though men had to go away. That is, it was not right to look at them, because they would yell at you. In this way they would come every year from far away to perform a pilgrimage. At that time the Emir would come from Kermine too. They said he would visit for a week. They had smoothed out and swept the road between Kermine and Kharaqan. Holding our slippers in our hands, we entered the khanaqah in bare feet.42 Ahmad described the shrine of Abu’l-Hasan Kharaqani in the following manner: First we performed ziyarat at the tomb of the Holy shaykh. Then we entered the khanaqah and performed four obligatory prostrations. Before us they had performed the Afternoon Prayer collectively. Then we went out on the porch of the khanaqah and met some students and blind Sufis. Because the students had come in previous years, there were people they were familiar with. On three sides of the khanaqah there were wooden hujras. Students would come from Bukhara to sit for the chilla, and some of the hujras were occupied by blind men in Kharaqan, who came to receive alms. Some of them out of laziness lived in the hujras and performed the khatm-i khwaja prayers. The imam and mutawalli were sluggish hashish-smokers. We told them we came for the chilla, and we received two hujras for the two of us. The Holy Shaykh’s mausoleum is a grave three sazhens long [one sazhen equals 2.13 meters]. The shrine is at the base of a mountain, and the moun‑ tain is full of graves. Some of the graves are buried in the ground, and some in sarcophagae [saghana].43

Language Issues and Relations with Bukharans

Bukhara was renowned for its scholars of Arabic, but it was above all a Persian-speaking city. As a result Tatar and Bashkir students arriving in the city often found themselves in a linguistically alien environment. Most students coming from Russia would already have had some exposure to Persian in their studies. Persian was widely taught in Russia’s madrasas, and was also used in Russia as one of the Muslim community’s literary languages. Some mudarrises in Russia were renowned for the teaching of Persian. One example was ʿAbd al-Karim b. Timur-Bulat, who was imam and mudarris in a village in Novouzensk District, Samara Province in the

42 TB ff. 205b-206a. 43 TB fol. 206b. The Student Experience II 143 middle of the nineteenth century.44 Ahmad mentions several figures in Russia who were skilled in Persian. These include Mulla Muhammadi al- Burbashi (1822-1901), and imam in the village of Burbashi, in Kazan prov‑ ince.45 Women, also, could display skill and knowledge in Persian, and transmit it to other women. One such woman was one of his grandfather’s wives, Habib-i Jamal, who as the wife of an imam was a teacher to girls (abistay), and taught the girls in Baranga to read Arabic and Persian books.46 The scholars from Baranga who went to Bukhara apparently did not face any significant language problems there, but Marjani mentions some scholars who did. One of these was Fakhr ad-Din b. Ibrahim b. Khujash (d. 1844) who held the positions of khatib in several Bukharan mosques, and of mudarris, and even gave lessons to the emir in Qur’an recitation. Nevertheless, Marjani remarks that although he had many good qualities, because of his inability to master Persian, he did not gain great renown. On the other hand, some scholars assimilated completely in Bukharan society. Husayn b. Muhammad al-Kirmani (d. 1857) learned Bukharan customs and Persian so well that he only spoke Persian with his children, and therefore they did not speak Turki. He even spoke in Persian with merchants who came from Russia.47 Once they were in Bukhara, and interacting on a daily basis with actual, and not idealized, Bukharans students from Russia commonly expressed a variety of generalizations and stereotypes about Central Asians, whom they broadly called “Sarts.” Galimjan Barudi, while a critic of Bukharan educational methods, had a perhaps condescending, but surely sincere, recollection of the Bukharans: The eight winters I lived in Bukhara were the most comfortable I lived in my life. The simplicity of the life of the Bukharan people, and especially of the students, the politeness among the people (ordinary people, soldiers, the wealthy), and the respect they showed toward scholars delighted me, and increased my zeal for learning.48 Yusuf Aqchura summarized Barudi’s experience with the Bukharans in the following terms: Although he saw many shortcomings in Bukhara with respect to religion, morals, and education, and criticized them a great deal, the beauty of

44 Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, fol. 85a. 45 TB fol. 171a. 46 TB fol. 28b. 47 Marjani, Mustafad II, 26-27, 326-327. 48 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi 34. 144 Chapter five

Central Asia’s climate, the people’s simplicity and generosity, the simplic‑ ity of life, the respect shown toward scholars has made the above-mentioned person love Bukhara to the present day.49 However, in Tatar and Bashkir sources one also encounters negative ste‑ reotypes of Bukharans. These stereotypes fault the Bukharans for their dishonesty, ignorance, and hostility toward Muslims from Russia. In addi‑ tion, Bukharan women are sometimes depicted as ignorant and lewd.50 Such negative stereotypes of the sacred city’s inhabitants should not lead us to conclude that Tatars and Bashkirs were necessarily questioning Bukhara’s sacred status. Tatar and Bashkirs clearly understood the sanc‑ tity of the city and its tombs to be quite separate from the behavior of its inhabitants, and indeed portrayals of the venality of Bukharans also could act as a contrast to the city’s sanctity. In a letter to his father, Burhan ad-Din commented on the Tatars’ naivete toward Bukhara and its inhabitants. He complained that, “Regarding Bukhara, everyone is like a saint for the peo‑ ple from our region.” However, he clearly separated the sanctity of the city from the more worldly behavior of its inhabitants. As a parallel, Qurban-Ali Khalidi chided the habit of returning hajjis for always finding fault with the Arabs they encountered during their pilgrimage.51 Such negative and moralistic depictions of Bukhara were are well estab‑ lished in Tatar and Bashkir literature. The earliest example is a work com‑ piled in Bukhara in 1795 by the theologian ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Utïz-Imäni (1754-1835), known by the title Tuhfat al-ghuraba˒ wa-lata˒if al-ghuzza˒.52 In this poem ʿAbd ar-Rahim offers essentially a moral critique of Bukhara, evidently expressing his own disappointment with his experience there. He focuses his critique on the city’s “false” shaykhs and its scholars, and on the avarice and dishonestly of scholars and Bukharans in general. His poem features the experiences several Tatar students. One is a poor student who obtains no regard or respect from the city’s population or clergy. Another youth featured in the poem sees through “false” shaykhs who are only in‑ terested in obtaining the money of their adepts. As a result these shaykhs denounce him as a spy. The poem also stereotypes Bukharans as pedo‑ philes, supplying the first instance of what was to become a fairly well-

49 Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi 34. 50 TB fol. 43a; Marjani, Mustafad II, 235-236. 51 TB ff. 43a, 46a; Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary, fol. 48b. 52 On this work and its manuscripts cf. Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte,179 -183; there is also a Cyrillic transcription and modern Tatar translation in a volume devoted to ʿAbd ar-Rahim’s works; cf. Ä. Shäripov ed., Gabderäkhim Utïz Imäni äl-Bolgari, (Kazan, 1986), 55-70, 161-172. The Student Experience II 145 established Tatar and Bashkir stereotype of Bukharans. 53 It is tempting to look at this eighteenth century work, as many scholars have, as anticipat‑ ing the later critiques of modernist and reformist scholars, and as begin‑ ning what Michael Kemper has termed “the emancipation of Volga-Ural Muslims from Central Asia.” However, the moral critique of Bukharans is a widely-encountered literary convention in Tatar and Bashkir accounts of the city, and should not be confused with the more politicized and fo‑ cused criticisms of Bukharan holiness itself found in the works of Islamic reformists and later jadids, and discussed in the following chapter. In a manner very similar to that of the Tuhfat al-ghuraba˒ wa-lata˒if al-ghuzza˒, written over a century earlier, the Tarikh-i Barangawi also re‑ veals and discusses many of the same Tatar and Bashkir stereotypes of Bukharans and Bukharan stereotypes, both in Ahmad’s narratives, and in the letters of his father and uncle. Tatars and Bashkirs who studied in Bukhara often commented on the varying sorts of receptions Tatars and Bashkirs received from Central Asians. On the one hand, there are numer‑ ous accounts of how local scholars often were especially well-disposed toward Tatar and Bashkir students. Burhan ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din attrib‑ uted the Bukharan shaykhs’ affection toward Tatars to the reverence that Tatars had for the city.54 Usually the first indication that Bukhara’s sanctity was not necessarily shared by its inhabitants was when the student first approached Bukhara, and encountered officials who demanded zakat. Formally students were exempt from this levy in the emirate, but the tax collector (zakatchi) usu‑ ally ignored their protests and demanded payment anyway. In 1875 Galimjan Barudi and his brother Hasan were stopped numerous times and tried unsuccessfully to dispute the issue. In 1901 Ahmad al-Barangawi was stopped three times traveling the short distance from the railroad station at Novaia Bukhara. He was finally advised to pretend to be a factory work‑ er from Novaia Bukhara (Kaghan), and thereby escaped further levies.55 Bukharan avarice was a particularly common stereotype among Tatar students. When Ahmad first arrived in the city, he received change af‑ ter he had overpaid for some bread. When he remarked to his new Tatar

53 Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte,179 -182; this poem is also discussed in Uli Schamiloglu, “İctihad or Millät? Reflections on Bukhara, Kazan, and the Legacy of Russian Orientalism,” Reform Movements and Revolutions in Turkistan: 1900-1924. Studies in Honour of Osman Khoja, (Haarlem, 2001), 349-352. 54 TB fol. 46a. 55 TB fol. 196a; Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi 32. 146 Chapter five

­companions on the Bukharan waiter’s honesty, they laughed at his naïve conclusion.56 In a letter to his father Burhan ad-Din wrote: Bukhara’s great hardship is well-known, and all of the Bukharans are friends to everyone who has money. If one is weak, powerless, or poor, even if he is ʿAllama-yi Diwani, he will not get one penny’s worth of honor.57 Later he wrote: The great saints and beloved scholars from times past are countless. Bukhara and its environs are completely filled with the tombs of saints. However, in the world and in history there is no place on the face of the earth as hard as Bukhara. There is no one left among its people who were originally re‑ ligious and pious. Whoever has money, even if he is Moses’ Pharaoh, that person is exhalted. And whoever is a beggar, even if he’s the Pole of the Saints (qutb-i awliya), he doesn’t get an atom of respect.58

Stereotypes, of course, are a two-way street, and we find in the Tarikh-i Barangawi several descriptions of Bukharan stereotypes regarding Tatars and Bashkirs, whom they called collectively noghay. Burhan ad-Din wrote in the 1850’s that Bukharans would call the students from Russia “infidels” behind their backs, and because many Tatars had blond hair, they sus‑ pected they were Russians. Some Bukharans even doubted there could be any Muslims in Russia. Bukharans also believed, according to Burhan ad-Din, that Russia’s “governors” sent students to study Arabic and Persian, because they sup‑ posedly needed these languages to administer Russia. In this regard, Bukharans knew Russian officials, including Muslim soldiers in the Russian army, as gubur, evidently derived from the Russian word for governor, gubernator.59 Just as ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Bulghari had complained in 1795, in the early 20th century some Bukharans continued to associate Tatar and Bashkir students with being Russian spies. In this regard Ahmad al-Baran‑ gawi wrote the following: However, the Bukharan people absolutely did not like the Tatar students, and would cheat them whenever possible. My hujra-mate was a khwaja. His supervisor (naziri) was the muezzin at the Ark’s Friday Mosque behind the bazaar. One day that person found out I was a Tatar, and became frightened.

56 TB ff. 197b-198a. 57 TB fol. 41a. 58 TB fol. 46a. 59 TB fol. 35ab. The Student Experience II 147

This was because in his opinion the Tatar students were under the supervi‑ sion of the Russian consul. He was afraid that the Russian would take his half of the hujra. […] He said things like, “Are there mosques in Noghayistan?” He was saying, “The Russians come under cover and they study. If they don’t study, they can’t be governors.”60

“Bokharis” in Russia

The vast majority of Tatar and Bashkir scholars who studied in Bukhara eventually returned home, some after spending less than a year, others after spending a decade there or more. Once back in Russia, these scholars were known as bokharis,61 and brought substantial prestige to the com‑ munities they served, where they enjoyed an elevated social and religious status.62 The number and proportion of bokharis in Russia is difficult to determine with any precision. Russian official documents recording the official positions of imams rarely remarked on where they received their education. The Russian authorities in 1883 counted 7,341 of officially reg‑ istered clerics, that is, imams and akhunds, subordinate to the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly.63 It is impossible to know how many of these imams had studied in Bukhara, but from Tatar and Bashkir biographical sources we can obtain a sense of the proportion of bokharis in specific communities. Overall, it appears that the proportion of bokharis was cer‑ tainly low, probably amounting to certainly less than five percent of schol‑ ars. The Tawarikh-i Altï Ata provides biographies of 66 scholars among Novouzensk district’s eighteen mosques, among which only two imams were bokharis. In Urzhum District there were fourteen mosques and we possess biographical information on approximately eighteen clerics, four‑ teen of whom were in Baranga. Of these eighteen, four were bokharis. The proportion for Novouzensk District appears to have been much closer to the average for rural communities, where the resources that could be de‑ voted to education were far more restricted. By contrast, wealthier urban communities, particularly those having close economic ties with Central Asia, reveal much larger proportions of bokharis among their imams. Among the sixty-three imams listed for Kazan in various biographical

60 TB fol. 201ab. 61 Tatar teleneng anglatmalï süzlege I (Kazan, 1977), 183. 62 A. Anastasiev, “Viatskie inorodtsy i ikh shkoly,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia vol. 353/3, 1904, section 4, 98. 63 Al’favitnye spiski armiano-grigorianskikh tserkvei i magometanskikh mechetiakh v imperii, (St. Petersburg, 1883), 327. 148 Chapter five sources, twenty-six had studied in Bukhara. On the steppe the proportions were even higher, with sixteen out of thirty-two in Semipalatinsk, and twelve out of twenty in Petropavlovsk.64 Regrettably, we do not possess sufficiently detailed biographical information for Qarghalï or Astrakhan, although bokharis were certainly present in those cities as well, in the case of Qarghalï already in the middle of the eighteenth century. M. Farkhshatov has provided some broader statistics for the proportion of bokharis in Russia. Among the 112 mudarrises from the Volga-Ural region included in the first two volumes of Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din’s biographical dic‑ tionary Asar, and active in the 1870’s, fourteen, or 12.5 percent, had studied in Bukhara and one in Istanbul.65 However, it should pointed out that Riza˒ ad-Din was documenting the region’s scholarly elite, among whom bokha- ris were particularly numerous and influential. Some villages that were also important education centers held larger proportions of bokharis. We can identify Baranga as one of these, but other villages include Sterlibashevo, in Ufa Province, where a family dy‑ nasty of Sufis and scholars retained multi-generational ties with Bukhara.66 Another such village was Ulugh Saba, in Kazan province, where we see that four out of six of that village’s imams had studied in Bukhara.67 Bukhara was not, of course, the only foreign destination for Tatar and Bashkir schol‑ ars. In the eighteenth and through much of the nineteenth century Dagestan attracted many students from Russia. Throughout this period we find references to scholars in Russia who had studied in Turkey, Egypt, Syria, the Hijaz, Afghanistan, and India, and toward the end of the nine‑ teenth century Egypt and Turkey gained prominence among Islamic re‑ formers as locations for study.68 However we do not see at the popular level the same sort of prestige accorded graduates of Dagestani or Egyptian madrasas than that accorded bokharis. In Russia, bokharis were distin‑ guished not only by a reputation for erudition, but also by their clothing.

64 Galimjan Barudi, Qïzïlyar Säfäre, (Kazan, 2004), 86-99; A. Frank and M. Usmanov, eds., Materials for the Islamic History ofSemipalatinsk: Two Manuscripts by Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani and Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, (Berlin, 2001), passim. 65 M. N. Farkhshatov, Narodnoe obrazovanie v Bashkirii v poreformennyi period 60-90-e gody XIX v. (Moscow, 1994), 61-62. 66 Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Istarlibash, (Kazan, 1899), passim. 67 Husayn b. Amirkhan, Tawarikh-i Bulghariya, (Kazan, 1883), 72-88. 68 Farkhshatov, Narodnoe obrazovanie, 62; on Tatars students in Egypt cf. Stephane Dudoignon, “Echoes to al-Manar among Muslims of the Russian Empire: a preliminary research note on Riza˒ al-Din b. Fakhr al-Din and the Shura (1908-1918),” Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, transformation, communication, Stephane Dudoignon, Komatsu Hisao, Kosugi Yasushi eds. (London & New York, 2006), 85-116. The Student Experience II 149

Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini remarked how in Novouzensk district bokha- ris were recognized by their turbans.69 In describing his fathers dress, Ahmad records that it was his father’s habit custom to wear a high white turban fashioned after those worn by the Bukharan ʿulama.70 The elevated prestige of bokharis at times caused tensions with scholars educated in Russian madrasas. Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini, a product of madrasas in Novouzensk District, wrote skeptically and somewhat dispar‑ agingly of the bokharis in his district, and describes one bokhari, the imam ʿAli Toqtarov, as a somewhat pompous figure who was treated indulgent‑ ly, if condescendingly, by wealthy notables in Altata and Orenburg.71 It appears that bokharis may have even had a reputation for arrogance, since Muhammad-Shakir emphasizes how one bokhari in Sterlibashevo, upon returning from Central Asia, perhaps uncharacteristically treated the local elders with respect.72 ʿAbd al-Majib b. Alkhan (d. 1881), an imam in the village of Qorban, in Shadrinsk district, in the Urals region, was remem‑ bered for his public critique of bokharis. He confessed his ignorance, hav‑ ing never studied in Bukhara, but added that the bokharis he saw returning from there were no less ignorant than he was. On another occasion, at a gathering in Petropavlovsk, he was equally critical of some Central Asian guests: At a large gathering [majlis] in Petropavlovsk [ʿAbd al-Majib] recited verses from the Qur’an and discussed the tafsirs that explained their meaning. Then he looked at a guest who had come from Bukhara or Khoqand and said, “Your Grace! Without consulting a tafsir one cannot correctly explain the Word of God.” Then striking his chest with his hand he said to him, “Hey Sart, our tafsir his here!”. Some of the scholars at the gathering said, “Your grace, don’t speak harshly to him like that. He is a master [miyan].” He re‑ plied to them, “Hey you fools, prophets have given birth to unbelievers. Don’t praise ancestry, praise only learning and erudition!” 73 If the proportion of bokharis was small, and if they sometimes enjoyed a reputation for conceit, if not arrogance, their influence was nevertheless most strongly felt in Russia’s madrasas. The similarity of the madrasa cur‑ riculum in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia with that of Bukhara is in all likelihood attributable to the universal similarity of the Hanafi curriculum across much of the Islamic world. However bokharis transplanted many

69 Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, fol. 80a. 70 TB fol. 107b. 71 Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, fol. 80a. 72 Tuqayef, Tarikh-i Istarlibash, 17. 73 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 118. 150 Chapter five other cultural features of Bukharan education back to Russia. We have seen for example how Central Asian-style pilaf was consumed in madrasas on festive occasions. Similarly, two of the most prominent madrasas in Russia in the nineteenth century were those located in the villages of Qïshqar and Baylar Orïsï. In those madrasas students lived in wooden houses divided into apartments that kept the name hujras, even though they bore no physical resemblance to the Central Asian hujras, and were in fact simply large rooms divided by curtains.74 Madrasas in Siberia, particularly the large and influential one in the village of Embaevo, was organized largely in imitation of its Bukharan counterparts.75 The village of Baylar Orïsï, whose madrasas and scholars were particularly renowned in Russia, was even known as Orï Sharif, evidently imitating the name Bukhara-yi sharif, and its scholars bore the nisba “ash-Sharifi.”76 In the madrasa where he studied in Kazan Ahmad al-Barangawi writes about how the mudarris brought a custom back from Bukhara that they called the “Bukhara Week” (Bokhara atnasï): In his madrasa there were no classes on Wednesdays, and that custom was called Bokhara atnasï. This would take place once every two weeks. The meaning of the Bokhara atnasï is as follows: in the past in Bukhara there would be no classes on Wednesdays. This is because since there were no printed books, the students would spend a day copying the books they would need for the next lessons. Even in Bukhara every sort of book is printed today. There is no longer any need for copying. Nonetheless this rule has not been abolished, and Wednesdays are made holidays. As for ʿAbd al-ʿAllam, he probably carried out this teaching because of his zeal for ­Bukhara.77

74 TB fol. 78a; G. Lotfi, “Qïshqar mädräsäse,” Mädräsälärdä kitap kishtäse …, (Kazan, 1992), 154. 75 Kh. Ziiaev, Uzbeki v Sibiri, (Tashkent, 1967), 67; F. Väliev, “Seber mädräsäse,” Mädräsälärdä kitap kishtäse…, (Kazan, 1992), 185-198. 76 TB, ff. 74b, 83a, 92b. 77 TB fol. 187a. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 151

Chapter six

The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia

The Economic and Political Eclipse of Central Asia

Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century Bukhara’s standing among Muslims in Russia began a gradual decline. This decline was at‑ tributable in part to expanding Russian political and economic power in Central Asia, as well as the rise of Islamic reformism and modernism, which were generally critical of the Sufi practices and conceptions that formed the basis of Bukhara’s sacred significance to Muslims. Tatars and Bashkirs played a key role in Russia’s political and economic expansion into Inner Asia, and by the middle of the nineteenth century they had ap‑ propriated many of the roles the Bukharans had held and largely monopo‑ lized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as merchants and intermediaries. Many historical studies of this process, primarily of a Tatar modernist and nationalist orientation, have recognized the role of Russian political and economic expansion in this process, but have emphasized the rise of “Enlightenment” among the Tatars (comprising Islamic reform‑ ism, ethnic nationalism, and modernism).1 At the same time, they contrast Tatar “enlightenment” with Bukharan “backwardness” and “scholasticism.” In these accounts, the Bukharan madrasa and Bukharan education be‑ come symbols for this supposed “backwardness.” As commonplace as this depiction has become in Tatar historiography, and in many Western his‑ torical works, it was by no means universally accepted, or unchallenged, among Tatar and Bashkir scholars of that time. In examining the decline of Bukhara’s economic and political status over the course of the nineteenth century, and the decline in the legal and social status of Central Asian communities within Russia, it is important to recall that during this period the political, economic, and in the case of

1 The reformist and modernist current dominated printed Tatar historiography by the beginning of the twentieth century. Before the Second World War historians emphasizing the role of Tatar “enlighteners” include Shähär Shäräf, Gaziz Gubaidullin, Abdullah Battal- Taymas, Ali Rakhim, and Zeki Velidi Togan. These ideas regained currency in Soviet Ta‑ tarstan in the 1980’s, and have remained dominant among Tatar historians since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 152 Chapter six the ʿulama institutional interests of the Tatar and Bashkir merchant and religious elite became firmly tied to those of the Russian Empire and the Russian monarchy. During this era Tatar and Bashkir merchants operated throughout the Russian empire, and even beyond it, and were involved in much of the empire’s overland trade, both domestically and internation‑ ally. Tatar merchants began investing in industrial enterprises, particu‑ larly in the processing of livestock, and by the end of the nineteenth century a full-fledged Muslim industrial bourgeoisie had developed in Russia.2 Similarly, the religious elite, the ʿulama, on the one hand was largely dependent upon the Tatar bourgeoisie for the support of Islamic institutions; on the other hand, the wealthiest, most prestigious, and most influential element of the ʿulama was organized, and partially regulated around the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly, a bureaucratic structure funded and administered by the Russian state. Moreover, it was headed by a mufti who was a Russian appointee and firmly associated with the po‑ litical and the economic interests of the monarchy. As we have seen, it was also in the main economic centers of the Tatar and Bashkir bourgeoisie, cities such as Kazan, Petropavlovsk, and Semipalatinsk where we find the highest proportion of bokharis among the ʿulama. When we speak of Bukhara’s economic decline, this should be under‑ stood as a highly relative decline. If Peter the Great’s vision was to establish forts along the Qazaq frontier to facilitate trade with the Central Asian khanates, the ultimate outcome of this policy was the political, military, and above all economic integration of the Qazaq steppe, rather than of Central Asia, into the Russian Empire. By the middle of the nineteenth century Russian imports and exports to and from the Qazaq steppe were valued at four times that of its trade with the three Central Asian khanates combined.3 Unlike the highly capitalized caravan trade with the khanates, trade with the Qazaqs occurred in settlements all along the frontier, includ‑ ing in both large cities and smaller settlements, and involved Muslims and non-Muslims, including peasants, Cossacks, itinerant peddlers, and other

2 The social and economic foundations of the Tatar bourgeoisie are discussed in detail in Kh. Kh. Khasanov, Formirovanie tatarskoi burzhuaznoi natsii, (Kazan, 1977); cf. also Radik Salikhov, Tatarskaia burzhuaziia Kazani i natsional’nye reformy vtoroi poloviny XIX—nacha- la XX v. (Kazan, 2001), and Christian Noack, Muslimischer Natsionalismus im russischen Reich, (Stuttgart, 2000). 3 L. M. Sverdlova, Na perekrestke torgovykh putei, (Kazan, 1991), 21-23. Sverdlova’s figures are for the period of 1849-1853; Russia’s trade with both the steppe and the Central Asian khanates was dwarfed by its trade with China, including Xinjiang and Mongolia. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 153 less capitalized merchants.4 At the same time, the increasing presence of Russian subjects trading with the Central Asian khanates ended the need for maintaining special privileges to attract Central Asian merchants to Russia. The Bukharan communities in Siberia and Astrakhan were ef­ fectively stripped of their privileges by 1834 and 1836 respectively.5 With time these communities assimilated into local Tatar communities, al‑ though in the case of the Siberian Bukharans, local sayyids retained (and continue to retain) an elevated religious standing. The Russian conquest of Central Asia between 1865 and 1875 opened those markets to Russian merchants, and also ended once and for all any need for the Russian authori­ties to maintain privileges for Central Asian merchants. Former subjects of the Khanate of Khoqand, who retained extraterritorial privi‑ leges in the cities of Semipalatinsk and Petropavlovsk, including a degree self-government, became Russian subjects, and lost most, but not quite all, of their privileges.6 As a result the economic standing of these communi‑ ties quickly declined. Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani, an imam in Semipalatinsk, in 1888 inserted a moral dimension in his description of the decline of the Central Asian, or “Sart” community in his city, that symbolized their de‑ graded social and economic status: Currently they [the Sarts] do not provide conscripts, [but] they pay the shangaraq tax, that is, the smoke tax.7 Earlier there were very many rich men among these Sarts [...]. Now all of them are poor. Some of the children of the rich men who were incomparably wealthy moved to Russia and oth‑ ers to China. In the wealthy times, their moral qualities [were such that even] before the morning prayers they would go to their windows [to pray]. Nowadays, in summertime they sleep in until eleven o’clock, out of sloth.8

4 N. G. Apollova, Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie sviazi Kazakhstana s Rossiei v XVIII- nachale XIX v., (Moscow, 1960); Allen J. Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, (Leiden-Boston, 2001), 70-77; G. S. Sultangalieva, Zapadnyi Kazakhstan v sisteme etnokul’turnykh kontaktov (XVIII—nachalo XX vv.) (Ufa, 2001), 78-91. 5 V. P. Shpaltakov, “Sredneaziatskie torgovye liudi v Sibiri v XVIII-XIX vv.,” Torgovlia gorodov Sibiri kontsa XVI-nachala XX v., (Novosibirsk, 1987), 220; P. Nebol’sin, Ocherki vol- zhskago nizov’ia, (St. Petersburg, 1852), 114. 6 As Russian subjects, former Khoqandian subjects after 1881 obtained extraterritorial privileges in Xinjiang and Mongolia, which in large measure were modeled on the older arrangements that had been in force between Russia and the Khanate of Khoqand; cf. N. V. Bogoiavlenskii, Zapadnyi zastennyi Kitai, (St. Petersburg, 1906), 366-367. 7 This was a hearth tax that Qazaqs and other natives paid in lieu of a poll tax. Those liable to this tax were also immune from military conscription; hence it was a relatively privileged status. 8 Allen J. Frank and Mirkasyim A. Usmanov, eds., Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk: Two Manuscripts by Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani and Qurbanʿali Khalidi, ANOR 11 (Halle-Berlin, 2001), 32-33. 154 Chapter six

Many Tatar observers viewed the end of Muslim sovereignty in Central Asia favorably. Several Tatar authors who were educated in Bukhara, and who were by no means modernists or Russophiles, were dismayed by the violence and chaos that reigned in the Central Asian khanates in the 1850’s and 1860’s, and condemned what they understood to be the political failure of Central Asian rulers to rule equitably or even maintain order. Qurban- ʿAli Khalidi welcomed the extension of Chinese, and especially Russian, authority in the eastern Qazaq steppe, recalling the violence and insecu‑ rity that existed on the steppe before the arrival of the Russians. In addition to the increase in personal safety, he also remarked on the benefits that Russian and Chinese rule brought to the region’s economic life.9 Similarly, in letters to their family in Russia Burhan ad-Din and his brother Hafiz ad-Din condemned the wars that took place between Muslim leaders in the Central Asian khanates and in Kashgaria.10 Such views were not re‑ stricted to Tatars, but were evident among some Qazaqs as well. Mäshhür- Zhüsip Köpeyulï, for example, praised the establishment of Russian authority in the 1830’s in the central Qazaq steppe, and credited it with establishing peace and order among the nomads.11 In many respects, by the middle of the nineteenth century Tatar mer‑ chants and scholars had in effect taken the place Bukharan merchants had held in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Whereas Central Asian merchants had maintained the commercial and diplomatic connections between Russia, the Oirat Khanate, and the Central Asian khanates at that time, by the nineteenth century Tatar and Bashkir merchants and scholars were carrying out much the same role on the Qazaq steppe, and in Zungharia, and Central Asia, but now between tsarist Russia and the Qing Empire.12 However, even if Bukhara’s political and economic significance was declining for Russian Muslims, as we have seen in Tatar sources, par‑ ticularly in the Tarikh-i Barangawi, the city’s sacred significance, espe‑ cially among scholars, endured, even though this sacred status came under

9 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, Tawarikh-i khamsa-yi-sharqi, 475. 10 TB ff. 51b, 103b. 11 Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï Shïgharmalarï XIII (Pavlodar, 2008), 16-17. 12 Sverdlova, Na perekrestke torgovykh putei; Mami Hamamoto, “Sviazuiushchaia rol’ tatarskikh kuptsov Volga-Ural’skogo regiona v Tsentral’noi Evrazii: zveno ‘Shelkovogo puti novogo vremeni’ (vtoraia polovina XVIII-XIX v.),” Volgo-Ural’skii region v imperskom pros- transtve XVIII-XX vv., (Moscow, 2011), 39-58; V. V. Galiev, Kazakhstan v sisteme Rossiisko- kitaiskikh torgovo-ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii v Sin’tsziane (konets XIX-nachalo XX vv.) (Almaty, 2003). The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 155 concerted attack in the second half of the nineteenth century from Tatar reformists, and later modernists. In seeking to reform their own society and its religious practices, these scholars and intellectuals used Bukhara as a trope, to critique indirectly, but effectively, the Islamic institutions in Russia that had been most strongly influenced by Bukhara, namely educa‑ tion. In critiquing Bukhara, these figures could avoid direct confrontation with the conservative and influential opponents of reformism within Russia.

Reformist Critics: Qursawi, Fayzkhanov, and Marjani

The founders of Islamic reformism in the Volga-Ural region, Abu’n-Nasir Qursawi (1776-1812), and Shihab ad-Din Marjani (1818-1889) as we have seen were educated in Bukhara, and it was in Bukhara that Qursawi fell into conflict with elements of the ʿulama there. This conflict is often re‑ counted in Tatar historiography, and its details can be simply summarized here for our purposes.13 Qursawi was, and is, remembered for his dra‑ matic conflict with some Bukharan (and Tatar) scholars over issues of dogmatic theology, eventually forcing him to flee the city for his life and return to Russia. He traveled to Bukhara at the beginning of the nineteenth Century, and studied with Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani. In or around 1802 in‑ fluential scholars in Bukhara accused Qursawi of heresy for his critique of dogmatic theology (kalam). He left the city, but returned again in 1808 or 1809, where he again came into conflict with the Bukharan legal authorities over his interpretations of dogmatic theology that called into question the Maturidi orthodoxy that was in force in Bukhara. At a meeting attended

13 The most useful accounts of Qursawi’s experience in Bukhara remain those by Michael Kemper and Stéphane Dudoignon. Qursawi’s experience in Bukhara, and its interpretation by Marjani and others has been addressed by Michael Kemper; cf. his “Entre Boukhara et la Moyenne-Volga: ʿAbd an-Nasir al-Qursawi en conflit avec les oulémas traditionalistes,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 41-52; Michael Kemper, “Šihabaddin al- Marjani über Abu n-Nasr al-Qursawis Konflikt mit den Gelehrten Bucharas,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia Vol. 3 Arabic, Persian and Turkic Manuscripts (15th-19th Centuries), Anke von Kügelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper eds. (Berlin, 2000), 353-383; Michael Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte in Tatarien und Baschkirien: der islamische Diskurs unter russischer Herrschaft, (Berlin, 1998), 225-243; Stéphane Dudoignon, “La question scolaire à Boukhara et au Turkestan russe du ‘premier renouveau’ à la soviétisation (fin du XVIIIe siècle-1937),” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 133-210. Tatar scholars who have addressed Qursawi’s experience include, Dzhamaliutdin Validov, Ocherk istorii obrazovannosti i literatury tatar, (Moscow-Petrograd, 1923), 27-33; A. N. Iuzeev, Tatarskaia filosofskaia mysl’ kontsa XVIII-XIX vv.(Kazan, 2000), 97-102. 156 Chapter six by Emir Haydar himself, he was forced to recant his views under threat of death. However, it was said that Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani threatened the emir with dire political consequences should he enforce the death pen‑ alty. Qursawi was not executed, but was forced to flee the city again. Once in Russia he continued to defend his views from his Tatar critics as well.14 Qursawi’s experiences in Bukhara, and the interpretation of those expe‑ riences by Tatar scholars and historians, have been well summarized by Michael Kemper, who writes: Long having been the perfect symbol of Muslim education and piety for previous generations, in the nineteenth century in the eyes of many Volga- Ural Muslims, Bukhara was only a place of intellectual stagnation, erudite pedantry, superstition, fanaticism, and increasingly distant from “authentic Islam.” The death sentence declared against Qursawi in Bukhara’s Ark [Cit‑ adel] showed the extent of the state’s arbitrary rule, and the lack of all in‑ dividual liberty in the emirate. And in his Tatar poetry even Qursawi’s most resolute opponent, ʿAbd ar-Rahim Utïz-Imäni, depicted the decay of Bukha‑ ra’s scholarly environment. Bukhara was thus called upon to the play the unenviable role of antithesis to the new culture in the state of being born.15 As an early reformer, Marjani shares a reputation for critiquing Bukhara and its scholarly traditions. Several of his biographers have emphasized his critique of Bukhara and its educational methods, and from that have extrapolated a broader critique that remains to be documented in his own writings.16 There we find little direct criticism of Bukhara, including in his historical works devoted to the region. In fact, as we have seen, Marjani had a very productive and successful career in Bukhara, as well as in Samarqand, and it was precisely in Bukhara where Marjani flourished as a mudarris and had numerous students, including Hafiz ad-Din al-Baran‑ gawi.17 From the Tarikh-i Barangawi we learn that after returning to Russia Hafiz ad-Din became a critic of Marjani, accusing him, among other things,

14 A concise summary of Qursawi’s career, and his theological arguments can be found in Michael Kemper, “al-Kursavi,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii: entsik- lopedcheskii slovar’ I (Moscow, 2006), 230-232. 15 Michael Kemper, “Entre Boukhara et la Moyenne-Volga: ʿAbd an-Nasir al-Qursawi en conflit avec les oulémas traditionalistes,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 51-52. 16 Ahmad Hadi Maqsudi, “Damulla Marjani Hazratlari,” in Marjani, Sh. Sharaf ed., (Kazan, 1915), 432-433; Mirkasym Usmanov, Zavetnaia mechta Khusaina Faizkhanova, (Ka‑ zan, 1980), 20-25; Munir Iusupov, Shigabetdin Mardzhani, (Kazan, 2005), 46-47. 17 In addition to Hafiz ad-Din these students included ʿAbd al-Khabir b. ʿAbd al-Wahhab al-Qïzïljari, Muhammadi b. Salih al-Bashqordi, and Ahmad-Latif b. ʿAbd al-Latif at-Tïmïtïqï; Shähär Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, R. Märdanov and S. Räkhimov, eds., (Kazan, 1998), 104-105. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 157 of undue harshness in dealing with his opponents.18 One of the earliest historical works Marjani wrote is the Tanbih abna˒ al-ʿasr ʿala tanzih anba˒ Abi n-Nasr, written in 1849 immediately following his return to Russia from Bukhara. This small work is devoted to Qursawi’s experiences in Bukhara over forty years before.19 It consists primarily of accounts about Qursawi that Marjani collected in Bukhara, and which Marjani transmits for the most part without additional comment, or without any specific critique of Bukhara.20 Marjani wrote several works that address to various degrees the political history of Central Asia. These include the Ghurfat al-khawwaqin li-maʿrifat al-khawwaqin, an Arabic work printed in Kazan 1864 and devoted to the pre-Mongol period, from the 10th through the 12th Centuries ce.21 Marjani’s most voluminous work is the compendium Wafiyat al-aslaf wa takhiyyat al-akhlaf, which was partially printed, but which mainly remains in manu‑ script form. This six-volume Arabic work consists of a vast compendium of biographies of scholars and political figures from the Islamic world as a whole. Nevertheless, particular attention is given Central Asian scholars and rulers. The last two volumes focus primarily on scholars from the Volga-Ural region, and these sections constitute the original portion of the work. Marjani translated into Turki the sections on scholars from the Volga-Ural region, and formed most of the second volume of the Mustafad al-akhbar.22 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din also included in the fourth Volume of Asar the biographies of several nineteenth century Bukharan and Samarqandi scholars identified in the Wafiyat al-aslaf.23 The first volume of the Mustafad al-akhbar contains several chapters devoted to the histories of the ruling dynasties in Central Asia, based on both written and oral sources. These begin with the Mongol successor

18 TB, fol. 151b; Shähär Shäräf, who had access to the Tarikh-i Barangawi, mentioned Hafiz ad-Din among Marjani’s students, but does not mention their later disagreements. 19 This work has been published, with notes and introduction, by Michael Kemper; cf. his “Shihabaddin al-Marjani über Abu n-Nasr al-Qursawis Konflikt mit den Gelehrten Bukha‑ ras.” 20 Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 454. 21 On this work cf. Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 451; Munir Iusupov, Shigabutdin Mardzhani, (Kazan, 2005), 97-101. 22 On the Wafiyat al-aslaf cf. N. G. Garaeva, “Istochniki ‘Vafiiat al-aslaf va takhiiiat al- akhlaf’ Sh. Marjani,” Mardzhani: uchenyi, myslitel’, prosvetitel’, (Kazan, 1991), 91-112; Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 451-452; A. N. Iuzeev has translated into Russian a sampling of biographies contained in the work; cf. Shikhab ad-Din Mardzhani, Vafiiat al-Aslaf va takhiiat al-akhlaf, A. N. Iuzeev ed., (Kazan, 1999). 23 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 489-492. 158 Chapter six states in the region, including the Shibanids and Ashtarkhanids in Mavarannahr, the Chingisids in Khorezm, and then the Manghït, Qongrat, and Ming dynasties in Bukhara, Khiva, and Khoqand respectively. With the exception of the studies of the latter three dynasties, these earlier chapters are based on well-known historical works, such as Abu’l-Ghazi Bahadur Khan’s Shajara-yi Turk.24 However in his discussion of the Uzbek dynasties, and particularly in the case of Bukhara, Marjani makes use of both local and Tatar oral informants, whom he carefully identifies. In the case of his brief history of the Manghït Dynasty, Marjani records political and military events, and also comments on the relationship between the various emirs and the ʿulama in the emirate, clearly reflecting the ex­ periences and concerns of his sources. Marjani is particularly critical of the emir Nasrullah Khan, stressing his cruelty, tyranny, and the harm he caused education in the emirate. In this respect Marjani’s public critique of Nasrullah was by no means unique.25 Hafiz ad-Din (who was in Bukhara at the same times as Marjani) strongly, albeit in private correspondence, denounced the tyranny and violence of Central Asian khans. With the exceptions of the Tanbih abna˒ al-ʿasr and the Mustafad al-akhbar, Marjani’s historical works touching upon Central Asia remain little stud‑ ied, but overall what we do know conforms to Michael Kemper’s general conclusion that Marjani’s historical works tend more toward compilation than original analysis or criticism. For our purposes, we can add that they lack the sort of systematic or sustained critique of Central Asia that we find in subsequent jadid works. Similarly, Marjani’s own vision of history was by no means modernist in the manner that the jadids’ was to become. Marjani looked above all to the Golden Age of the early Caliphate, rather than either Bukhara or modern Russian and European society as the ideal model for Muslims in Russia.26 Nevertheless, despite his reputation as a critic of “Central Asian scholasticism,” it is worth remembering that Marjani, who is widely regarded in Russia and elsewhere as the father of Tatar historiography, and as the greatest of Tatar historians, credits his teacher in Samarqand, Abu Saʿid as-Samarqandi, as being the chief cause

24 M. A. Usmanov, “Istochniki knigi Sh. Mardzhani “Mustafad al-akhbar fi akhvali Kazan va Bulgar” Ocherki istorii Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia vyp. II-III, (Kazan, 1969), 144-154. 25 For example, Qazaqs living along the Irtysh River remembered Nasrullah, known as Bahadur Khan, for his tyranny; cf. Mashhur-Zhüsip Kopey-uli, Shïgharmalarï VIII, (Pavlodar, 2006), 224. 26 Kemper, Sufis und Gelehrte, 452. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 159 of his interest in history, and described Abu Saʿid as the most erudite scholar he encountered in Central Asia.27 One of Marjani’s students, Husayn Fayzkhanov (1828-1866), who is best remembered as an early Tatar Europhile and a proponent of madrasa re‑ form in Russia, emerged as a critic of Bukharan education, although he himself never traveled to Central Asia. Fayzkhanov championed many of Marjani’s reformist positions on educational and theological issues, and was closely associated with Russian and German academics in Kazan and St. Petersburg.28 In his essays devoted to madrasa reform, and in his per‑ sonal correspondence, Fayzkhanov anticipated and influenced many of the jadids’ critiques of Bukhara. To a large degree, Fayzkhanov’s critique of “village madrasas” was by extrapolation a critique of Bukhara as well, since he clearly was criticizing influential madrasas in Russia that were consciously imitating Bukharan educational methods, such as the Qïshqar Madrasa, which was also criticized by Marjani.29 He criticized the method of teaching in the madrasa, and pointed to the supposed ignorance of the students as evidence of its failure. He was also critical of Sufis, and hence of the foundation of sacred authority within these madrasas.30 Fayzkhanov sought what Adeeb Khalid has termed the “desacralization” of established religious authority, and he also formulated many of the arguments that later jadids would use to denounce the “uselessness” of Bukharan educa‑ tion.31 By criticizing Sufis, Fayzkhanov also undermined the sacred ele‑ ments that were at the root of Bukharan prestige. In a letter to Marjani, written in 1860 from St. Petersburg, Fayzkhanov tells of a letter he received from “Najib,” presumably from Muhammad-Najib b. Baymurad al-Mingari (d. 1866), who was one of Marjani’s students, and in Bukhara had studied under ʿAbd al-Muʾmin b. Uzbek al-Bukhari.32 Fayzkhanov observed that some of Najib’s letters complaining about Bukhara had been intercepted and come to the attention of the emir, and as a result, the Bukharan au‑ thorities had given Najib a beating. By pointing out that one could obtain

27 Shäräf, Shihabetdin Märjani, 60-61. 28 On Fayzkhanov cf. Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:14, 432-443; Usmanov, Za- vetnaia mechta; Raif Märdanov, ed., Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov: Tarikhi-dokumental’ jïyïntïq, (Kazan, 2006). 29 Maqsudi, “Damulla Marjani Hazratlari,” 433. 30 In a letter to Marjani Fayzkhanov critiques the veneration of Habibullah-ishan al- Oriwi, in the village of Baylar Orïsï, also known as Orï Sharif; cf. Märdanov, ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov, 368. 31 Märdanov, ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov, 199-201. 32 Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din, Asar II:14, 443. 160 Chapter six an equally good education in places such as Herat, Baghdad, Mosul, Damascus, Egypt, or Istanbul, Fayzkhanov implicitly denied Bukhara’s reputation for sanctity and Islamic learning among Tatars and Bashkirs.33 Fayzkhanov, however, was a polemicist as well as a scholar, and many historians sympathetic to the reformist message have often taken the po‑ lemical statements made by Fayzkhanov, and by the jadids who followed him, too uncritically. For example, in an essay simply titled Risala, where he makes the case for madrasa reform, he states that the Persian language was not taught at all in Russia’s madrasas, and that with the exception of some “large” madrasas in Russia Tatar mullahs who did not study in Bukhara did not know the language at all.34 Such a statement is clearly contradicted by the evidence in the Tarikh-i Barangawi and other manu‑ script sources.35

Jadid Critiques of Bukhara

It is in fact only with the emergence of the jadids at the end of the nine‑ teenth century that we see a more consistent and ideologically grounded critique of Bukhara emerge among Tatar intellectuals. In their critique the jadids combined Marjani’s reformist views, glorifying the era of the proph‑ et Muhammad, and the earliest Islamic scholars, with modernism, critiqu‑ ing the economic and political “backwardness” of Central Asia. The latter approach also revealed the influence of Russian writing, which similarly depicted Bukharan education and scholarship of that time as a degraded and degenerate shadow of its earlier greatness.36 This approach is evident in a small work by the Crimean Tatar and father of jadidism, Ismail Gasprinskii, devoted to the ʿulama of Turkestan, and published in Bakhchesaray in 1900.37 On the face of it, this small biographical dictionary appears to emphasize Pan-Turkic ethnic pride by documenting the sup‑ posed Turkic origins of virtually all of the famous scholars who had come from Central Asia. However, in his introduction Gasprinskii also criticizes indirectly the Hanafi madrasa curriculum, explaining that the modern

33 Märdanov, ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov, 351. 34 Märdanov, ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov, 206-207. 35 TB, ff. 28b, 93b, 130a, 168b, 171b; TAA, ff. 26b, 85a. 36 Such a characterization is virtually ubiquitous in the nineteenth and early twentieth century European travel literature on Bukhara. 37 Ismaʿil Gasprinskii, Turkistan ʿulamasi, (Bakhchesaray, 1900). A modern edition with Russian and Azeri translations has also appeared; cf. Ismail Qasprinski, Türküstan ülamasi, (Baku, 2001). The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 161

Turkic peoples of Russia were unwilling to study the kinds of sciences that their ancestors had been studying in Central Asia in the medieval past, at a time when they still had not been well developed in Europe. In this re‑ spect, Gasprinskii’s conception of the region’s intellectual history owes much to Russian authors who contrasted the historical greatness of Central Asia with it apparent present-day “backwardness.” While he mentions a few major Sufi figures, such as Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, Najm ad-Din Kubravi, and others from the medieval period, he neglects to include the most influential figures from later periods, including the Naqshbandiyya Mujaddidiyya shaykhs from whom the Sufis of Gasprinskii’s day claimed descent. He also betrays his modernist leanings, and his debt to Russian orientalism, when he emphasizes that the stature of one or another figure was notable because his works had been translated into European lan‑ guages, in the case of Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, and even the eighteenth century Turkmen poet Magtïmgulï, whose works, we are told, the Hungarian ori‑ entalist Arminius Vambery had translated into German. Among Gasprinskii’s successors we find a much more focused critique of Bukhara, aimed not only at Central Asia, but more importantly, aimed indirectly at the sorts of educational institutions in Russia that were based upon Bukharan models of Islamic education. We have already seen how Husayn Fayzkhanov tried (unsuccessfully) to reform Russia’s madrasas that in the middle of the nineteenth century were built entirely on the Bukharan model (and remained so to a large extent down to the Soviet era). However jadids were not focused strictly on education. We also find them questioning certain aspects of Sufism, such as pilgrimage, and in doing so, attacking the very foundation of Bukhara’s sanctity. Bukhara’s status as a holy city, its significance for Tatar and Bashkir Sufis, and its position as the center for the Hanafi curriculum—all the typical targets for Islamic reformers and modernists—naturally attracted the critical atten‑ tion of the jadids, particularly after 1905, when jadidism took on an increas‑ ingly political dimension. It needs to be pointed out, however, that there was considerable variety in the treatment Bukhara received from jadids. The jadids, it should be emphasized, were careful to criticize Sufis, rather that Sufism proper. In other words they focused on specific practices, and criticized “bad Sufis,” rather than Sufi principles; and by no means were all Sufis in the Volga-Ural region opposed to jadid educational reforms.38 Galimjan Barudi, a student

38 Certainly the most prominent Sufi figure in late Imperial Russia, Zaynullah Rasuli (1833-1917), endorsed some aspects of jadid educational reform. At the same time, he was 162 Chapter six of Marjani, and a student himself in Bukhara for several years, reveals a strong attraction for the city, and fond memories of his time there. At the same time, he focused most of his criticism of education in the city on primary and advanced education. He found fault with what he saw as the Bukharans’ strong conservatism regarding religious education, their ten‑ dency of being too deferential, and hence uncritical, of their religious scholars. His critique was in fact largely pedagogical in its orientation. Among the topics he touched upon were the order in which various texts were introduced into the curriculum, the general absence of mathematics, the insufficient study of Arabic morphology in the advanced curriculum, and the superficiality of many of the commentaries. Barudi also compared Islamic education in Russia very favorably to that of Bukhara, considering it more rigorous, disciplined, and above all practical, evidently ignoring Bukhara’s role in shaping Islamic education in Russia. Indeed, Barudi’s emphasis on the “uselessness” of Bukharan-style education is commonly encountered in other jadid writings. Barudi also denounced what he saw as the total absence of education among Bukharan women, and estimated literacy among Muslims in Russia to be five times higher than among Bukharans.39 Later jadids who did not study in Bukhara, and hence had less direct experience with Bukharan life, nevertheless travelled there and left us with their accounts of the city. Reports from correspondents in Bukhara ap‑ peared frequently in the Tatar press up until the First World War.40 The extent of this genre precludes a comprehensive study, however there are two particularly influential jadid travel accounts of Bukhara, published in 1908 and 1910. The first of these is a travel book titled Mawarannahrda Sayahat (Journey to Transoxania) written by Zahir Bigiyev (1878-1903), published posthumously in Kazan in 1908. The second is by the jadid jour‑ nalist Burhan Shäräf (1883-1941), the brother of Shähär Shäräf, titled Bokhara mäktüpläre (Letters from Bukhara), published in the reformist journal Waqït in 1910. quite critical of Islamic reformism, and wrote a refutation (raddiya) of the influential 13th century Syrian theologian Ibn Taimiya; cf. Allen J. Frank, Tatar Islamic Texts (Springfield, Virginia, 2008), 87-123. 39 Barudi estimated that fifty percent of Russian Muslims were literate, compared to ten percent among Bukharans; Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 36-40. 40 A sampling of these include, Mustafa Sabirjan, “Bukhara madrasalari,” Shura 1913, № 20, 628-629, № 21, 662, № 22, 696, № 23, 726-727, № 24, 758-759, 1914 № 3, 84, №5, 151-152; G. Khatti, “Bukhara safari,” Shura, 1915, № 2, 63-64; “Bukharada Qazan makhdumlari,” al- Islah 1908 № 30 12b. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 163

Zahir Bigiyev’s ‘Mawarannahrda Sayahat’ The earliest, and certainly the most influential, Tatar jadid account of Bukhara remains Mawarannahrda Sayahat, written by Zahir Bigiyev (1870- 1902), which describes a journey he took to Bukhara and Samarqand in the summer of 1893. 41 The work was published posthumously in 1908. Bigiyev was from a well-educated Mishar family, and was the brother of the Tatar theologian Musa Bigiyev. At the time of his journey to Bukhara he was serving as imam in Rostov-na-Donu, very much an urban, commercial, and Russian environment. The purpose of his trip was itself commercial: to obtain permission from the emir of Bukhara to publish a newspaper in the emirate. In that respect Bigiyev’s trip was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, his account of the city became a major work in the jadid canon, and estab‑ lished the ideological and political framework for subsequent critiques of Bukhara and its emir, as well as for Tatar modernists own self-perceptions. Bigiyev’s target audience, and the object of his reform, was not Bukhara, but Muslim society in Russia, that by the end of the nineteenth century was increasingly becoming self-consciously “Tatar,” particularly among jadids. Jadid reform was at the same time religious, social, and political. It promoted ethnic (Tatar) nationalism, and the participation of Muslims in the political life of imperial Russia. Tatar jadids saw European education, as well as European science and technology, as both transformative and beneficial, and sought to bring their communities the economic and social benefits of these phenomena; in religious terms they were rationalists, sharply critical of Sufism, and they emphasized the legal authority of the sources of Islamic legal tradition, the Qur’an, hadiths, and Sunna. Just like the Russian orientalists, they contrasted Russian “progress” with “Asiatic backwardness.” 42 As a result, the religious traditions of Muslims in Russia that were rooted in Central Asia, particularly Sufism, Hanafi jurisprudence, shrine pilgrimage, and other features came under sustained attack in the jadid press. For Bigiyev, the target of his criticism is very clearly Bukhara’s reputation as a sacred city, and the prestige that Muslims in Russia ac‑ corded Bukharan institutions and customs. Consequently, throughout his

41 The work was originally published in Kazan in 1908, however I have used the 1991 edition, Zahir Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar: romannar, säyakhätnamä, (Kazan, 1991), which includes both a modern Tatar translation, and a Cyrillic transcription of the original Tatar text. For Bigiyev’s biography cf. R. Dautov, “Z. Bigiyev (tormïsh yul häm ijadi mirasï),” in Zur gönahlar, 360-378; F. Musin, “Zahir Bigiyev,” in: Tatar ädäbiyatï tarikhï II, (Kazan, 1985), 302-318; Musin discusses the travel account in detail on pages 314-317. 42 For a useful and concise morphology of Tatar jadidism cf. D. M. Iskhakov, Fenomen tatarskogo dzhadidizma: vvedenie k sotsiokul’turnomu osmysleniiu, (Kazan, 1997). 164 Chapter six book Bigiyev writes as a social and political critic, religious reformer, and self-conscious tourist. The subtitle of the work, Transoksaniyaya safar (Journey to Transoxania) appears on the title page, and demonstrates well the connection between Russian orientalists and the jadids, since the name Transoxania, a classi‑ cally-derived Western term never used in Islamic Central Asia, would have been meaningless to all but a very few Muslims in Russia in 1908. In the first chapter of his account, Bigiyev even provides an etymology to his readers, and explains that it is the equivalent of the better-known Islamic name Mavarannahr.43 The beginning of the work is essentially a political history of Central Asia. Bigiyev informs us that one of his sources was Arminius Vambèry’s Travels in Central Asia, and he regrets that that work has been translated into every language except Tatar.44 He travels from Rostov to Tsaritsyn, where he embarks on a riverboat to Astrakhan, and he provides an extensive discussion of the Qalmaqs (known in Russian sources as Kalmyks) living between Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan.45 Bigiyev opens his critique of Sufism and pilgrimage in his description of the Astrakhan Muslims. He points out that there are no Muslim cemeter‑ ies in Astrakhan, but rather, the Astrakhan Muslims bury their dead in village cemeteries where saints were buried, and that consequently these were also important shrines and pilgrimage sites. He denounces shrine pilgrimage among Astrakhan Muslims as a type of polytheism, and, an‑ ticipating later Soviet critiques, classifies it as a pre-Islamic survival.46 From Astrakhan he traveled by steamer to Baku, and from there, across the Caspian Sea. He went by rail from Krasnovodsk, across the Turkmen steppe, to Bukhara. Along the way he passed through Merv and Farab, and

43 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 132. 44 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 139-140. 45 Bigiyev’s account of the Qalmaqs is one of the earliest known Tatar ethnographic treatments of this group, but the ethnographic study of Mongols, and of non-Muslims in general, should not be considered an exclusively jadid preserve; cf. Allen J. Frank, “The Mongōl-Qalmāq Bayānī: a Qing-Era Islamic Ethnography of the Mongols and Tibetans,” Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, LXIII/2 (2009), 323-347. 46 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 160-161; Bigiyev describes pilgrimage among the Astrakhan Muslims as a product of ignorance; indeed, the critique of the religious practices among Astrakhan Muslims was a common feature in the jadid press; cf. Iakhin, Tatarskaia litera- tura periodicheskoi pechati Ural’ska, 110-111. However, by the time Bigiyev’s book was pub‑ lished, Muslims in Astrakhan were strongly defending, including in print, the Islamic basis for local manifestations of saint veneration and shrine pilgrimage; cf. Allen J. Frank, “Mus‑ lim Sacred History and the 1905 Revolution in a Sufi History of Astrakhan,” Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel, Devin DeWeese ed., (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2001), 297-317. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 165 comments on the ancient scholars who came from those cities, including Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Bakr al-Kaffal in Merv, and the polymath Abu Nasir Muhammad b. Tarkhan al-Farabi (d. 950-951 ce) and the lexicogra‑ pher Ismaʿil b. Hammad al-Jawhari (died between 1003 and 1009 ce). Anticipating Gasprinskii’s account of the Turkistan ʿulama, Bigiyev ­emphasizes that al-Farabi and al-Jawhari were Turks.47 Arriving at the railroad station at Novaia Bukhara, after having passed the homes of for‑ mer Islamic scholars, Bigiyev reflects on how the present era is one of edu‑ cational, scientific, administrative, and political progress. He also offers praise for the Russian Agent in Bukhara, Monsieur Lissar, whom he identi‑ fies as one of the foremost experts on Central Asian history.48 Bigiyev’s treatments of Bukhara and Samarqand (his discussion of the latter city is somewhat more brief than that of Bukhara) addresses five major themes, all of which question Bukhara’s and Samarqand’s sacred status. These are 1) the touristic description of the cities and their monu‑ ments, 2) Sufism, Sufis, and pilgrimage, 3) social problems, particularly poverty and the status of women, 4) education and the ʿulama, and 5) Bukhara’s glorious past, and particularly the legacy of Imam Bukhari. Bigiyev’s immediate arrival in Bukhara involved the same sorts of ac‑ tivities that Ahmad Barangawi, and doubtlessly other Tatar and Bashkir visitors and students experienced. Bigiyev established contact with a Tatar acquaintance already there, in this case Muhammad-Qasim Makhdum b. ʿAbd al-ʿAllam. Muhammad-Qasim’s father was ʿAbd al-ʿAllam Hazrat, a madrasa instructor in Kazan.49 Bigiyev then obtained a hujra at the Saray-i Noghay, put aside his Tatar-style clothes, and dressed in the Bukharan fashion.50 He regrets that there is no suitable touristic guide describing and indicating Bukhara’s ancient monuments, and points out that the Bukharans do not suitably honor their great architectural monuments, allowing them instead to fall into disrepair. As he put it, “They display more interest in visiting the dead, and prefer their cemeteries to their historical monuments.” He visits the Great Minaret, and describes its height, but confesses his inability to obtain any information as to when it was built. 51 The heart of Bigiyev’s critique of Bukhara’s holiness is his analysis of Sufism and pilgrimage, which he views as the root of Bukharan

47 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 176. 48 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 177. 49 Coincidentally, both Ahmad Barangawi and Bigiyev studied in Kazan in this same madrasa under ʿAbd al-ʿAllam. 50 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 178-180. 51 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 184, 186. 166 Chapter six

­backwardness and ignorance. The critique of Sufism and Sufis, often simply referred to as ishans, was, and continues to be, a salient feature of Islamic reformism. In this respect the jadids did not differ from previous and sub‑ sequent Islamic reformers. Among the jadids these critiques could be aimed at the phenomenon of Sufism in general, or in a more ad hominem form, against ishans.52 Bigiyev devotes considerable attention to demon‑ strating what he viewed as the costs to Bukharan society of shrines and pilgrimage, and he links the neglect of historical monuments with the veneration of “the dead.” This is because the Bukharans do not honor such historical monuments. Instead they take travelers and themselves to visit the old graves whose origins are unknown. Here visiting the dead is especially at the center of attention. One specific day of the week is designated for going to the tombs of the most famous people. Going to the cemetery on that day has been turned into a custom [ʿadat] similar to worship [ʿibadat]. However, today among the Bukharans there is absolutely no attention [given] historical monuments, no visiting, observing, and thinking about the monuments con‑ nected to the great and glorious events that occurred in ancient times.53 When one of his companions points out an important shrine said to be the tomb of Imam Ghazali, Bigiyev reflects: I was amazed, because in all his life he [Imam Ghazali] never came to Bukhara. Saying that an imam who was buried in the same place he was born is buried here felt strange to me. After that I reflected that it is that way with most shrines in Bukhara. It is not even known whose graves most of them are. [Just as] in Russia the Virgin Mary appears everywhere, in Bukhara it is always the tombs of great men that are discovered.54 Bigiyev provides a rather detailed description of his visit to the tomb of Khwaja Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, which he explains is the most important shrine in the emirate. When Bigiyev went to the shrine, there were thou‑ sands of pilgrims going there. He is skeptical of the position of the shrine’s caretakers, who hold their positions as khwajas, on the basis of descent from Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, or, as he points on, on the basis of a claim of kinship, since the positions as caretakers could also be bought and sold. He also argues that the practice of giving offerings of any sort to the spirits

52 Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 149; Iakhin, Tatarskaia literatura pe- riodicheskoi pechati Ural’ska, 107-115; for a good example of the jadid anti-Sufi genre cf. Ishan Muhammad-Harras Aydarof al-Qarghali, Ishanlargha khitab! (Sterlitamak, 1911). 53 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 184. 54 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 187. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 167 of the dead was an un-Islamic practice.55 He describes the maddahs at the shrine of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, who recount stories of the saints and their miracles, and obtain donations from the pilgrims.56 Bigiyev’s critique of pilgrimage and saint veneration in Astrakhan and Bukhara is not par‑ ticularly original, and reflects many of the same arguments made in the writings of Fayzkhanov, and in nineteenth century reformist treatises from India that Marc Gaborieau has argued derived from the writings of medi‑ eval Hanbali theologians.57 Regarding Sufis, Bigiyev writes how he received an invitation to a majlis at the home of the mufti of Bukhara, Siraj ad-Din, that is, the Tatar mufti and Sufi Abu’l-Akram Damulla Siraj ad-Din as-Sarataghi. Bigiyev com‑ ments on the great respect afforded this prominent Sufi, and then writes the following: At the end of the majlis His Holiness the Mufti Ishan, in the way of guidance said to me: “Everything in this world is empty, useless, and nothing at all has any permanence. The end of every joy and happiness is death.” This person is the leader of thousands of murids, the master of hundreds of stu‑ dents, and has earned the glory of erudition in Bukhara.58 Bigiyev evinces little more respect for Bukharan scholarship and the Bukharan ʿulama than he does for the city’s shrines and Sufis. He com‑ ments on the ignorance of the city’s imams, the uselessness of the Bukharan curriculum, and the generally poor quality of its ʿulama. He denounces the absolute lack of education for women, contrasting that with the relatively high level of education among Muslim women in Russia. Overall, like many Russian observers, he sees the glory of Bukhara in its past, and cer‑ tainly not in its present.59 During his visit to the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband he is distressed at the poverty of the population. He remarks that beggars filled the streets, including the crippled, the infirm, and the elderly. He is particularly disturbed at the large numbers of lepers that

55 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 199. 56 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 199-200; Galimjan Barudi was also critical of Bukhara’s mad- dahs, and wrote, “although among the maddahs there are some learned and intelligent people, most of them are uneducated, and ignorant, and spread superstition;” cf. Aqchura, Damella Ghalimjan Äl-Barudi, 39. On the institution of maddahs in Central Asia, cf. A. L. Troitskaia, “Iz proshlogo kalandarov i maddakhov v Uzbekistane,” Domusul’manskie verova- niia i obriady v Srednei Azii, (Moscow, 1975), 191-223. 57 Marc Gaborieu, “A Nineteenth-Century Indian ‘Wahhabi’ Tract Against the Cult of Muslim Saints: Al-Balagh al-Mubin,” Muslim Shrines in India, Christian W. Troll, ed. (Dehli, 1989) 198- 239. 58 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 186-187. 59 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 187, 193-194, 218. 168 Chapter six gathered at the shrine, and whom even the other beggars shunned. He expresses shock at the lack of any hospital in Bukhara to serve the poor and inform, and contrasts the lack of public services with the wealth of the pious endowments controlled by the clergy and the khans. He finds the officials in Bukhara (and Samarqand) to be ignorant, corrupt, and abusive.60 Nevertheless, if Bigiyev detected little holiness Bukhara’s Sufi tradition, and even less in the Bukharans he met, he nevertheless seemed keenly aware of Bukhara’s past greatness. He understood this greatness as being at once historical and transcendent. For example, just as he rebuked Bukharans for not appreciating their historical monuments, he also re‑ buked them for not appreciating their great men of history, or rather those men whom Bigiyev considered to be great. He expresses puzzlement at the fact that when a historical monument or tomb did not bear the name of an ishan, the Bukharans generally would not revere that site. Nevertheless, he carried out his own pilgrimages to the sites he held to be holy. He vis‑ ited the tombs of Ismaʿil as-Samani, whom he describes as a great scholar, educator, and political leader, and of ʿAbdullah Khan Shaybani, whom he describes as a great political leader and patron of learning. When he visits Samarqand he discusses Ulughbek and his observatory, commenting ad‑ miringly on how Ulughbek’s works were published in Oxford in the seven‑ teenth century. He also visits the tombs of the theologian Imam Maturidi, and of the great Hanafi fiqh scholar and author of the Hidaya, Burhan ad- Din Marghinani.61 However, the most significant tomb he visited is cer‑ tainly that of the great hadith scholar Imam Bukhari, located near the village of Khartang. Arriving at the tomb, he laments its dilapidation, and then asks rhetorically: Who is to blame in this situation? It would be correct to say the entire Is‑ lamic world is to blame in this situation, because the priceless service of the Holy Imam Bukhari concerns the entire Islamic world. In particular, in this situation the blame and guilt fall upon the emir of Bukhara because in the Islamic world Bukhara is mentioned in conjunction with his honored name. It is not the case with Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, and Naqshband, but it is with the unique Abu ʿAbdullah Muhammad b. Ismaʿil al-Bukhari. Bigiyev further argues that none of Bukhara’s other scholars can approach Imam Bukhari’s greatness and significance. He then describes how he sat, alone, at Imam Bukhari’s tombs for several hours, meditating on what an honor it was for him to be there, and reciting the Qur’an for the Imam’s

60 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 197-198. 61 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 194-195, 203, 209. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 169 soul.62 Clearly, in rejecting Bukhara’s Sufi tradition, Bigiyev offered an‑ other vision, one in which religion is rationalistic, intellectual, and politi‑ cal. Bigiyev’s elevation of Imam Bukhari is also fully consistent with the Islamic reformist element that was one of the characteristics of jadidism, and that was evident among earlier scholars, such as Qursawi and Marjani.

Burhan Shäräf’s “Letters from Bukhara” A second jadid travel account of Bukhara is Burhan Shäräf’s “Letters from Bukhara,” published in 1910.63 Burhan Shäräf (1883-1941) was the brother of Marjani’s biographer, Shähär Shäräf. He was a graduate of the jadid Muhammadiya Madrasa in Kazan, and in 1908 established himself in Orenburg as a journalist, working as a correspondent for the Tatar journal Waqit, and as an instructor at the Husayniya Madrasa. In 1909 he travelled to Iran, and in 1910 he went to Bukhara, to cover the anti-Shi’a pogroms that occurred in Bukhara in that year, although his account has little to say of those events.64 Burhan had received an Islamic education, but he rep‑ resents an earlier generation of modernist Tatar intellectuals for whom the significance of Central Asia in education and intellectual life had become largely remote, if not arcane. His account echoes many of the features of Bigiyev’s, and essentially crystallizes the modernist and even secularized view of Islamic education, culture and politics in Bukhara that emerged during the Soviet era, and continues to dominate in Tatar historiography today. Burhan’s account of Bukhara is much more succinct than Bigiyev’s. He begins his account by turning Bukhara’s distinction as the first among Muslim cities on its head, writing, “When the register of unhappy cities is written, old Muslim cities will take first place. Bukhara stands first among these.” He remarks on the dominance of madrasas in the city’s architecture and foundations, but emphasizes that Bukhara’s glory as a center of learn‑ ing has long passed. He remarks on how the city’s once-great libraries were sold off and now stand empty, how the pious foundations were corrupted, and used by unscrupulous merchants and mudarrises whom he accuses of usury. He accuses madrasas that had once been hospitals or taught hadith

62 Bigiyev, Zur gönahlar, 208-209. 63 Burhan Shäräf, “Bokhara mäktüplare,” R. Valeev and Sh. Valeev eds., Ekho vekov/ Gasïrlar awazï 2003 1/2, http://www.archive.gov.tatarstan.ru/magazine/go/anonymous/ main/?path=mg:/numbers/2003_1_2/06/06_3/. 64 On these pogroms, cf. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Islam and the Russian Empire: Reform and Revolution in Central Asia, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988), 89-91. 170 Chapter six of now only teaching theology. He describes the streets and dark and nar‑ row, the cemeteries, as foul-smelling, since the Bukharans bury the dead above the ground, and not under it. He contrasts the condition of Old Bukhara with the wide clean streets and order of the Russian settlement of Novaia Bukhara. Echoing Bigiyev, he denounces the scale of pilgrimage to Khwaja Baha˒ ad-Din, and the funds collected and spent there. He offers a similar contrast between Old and New Tashkent when he later visits that city. Bigiyev’s and Burhan Shäräf’s views of Bukhara became the founda‑ tion for more or less standard accounts Bukhara and its relationship to the Tatars immediately preceding and throughout the Soviet era. For example, in an essay published in 1911 in Russian for Maxim Gorky’s journal Sobesednik the Tatar jadid Nadzhib Dumavi neatly summarizes what re‑ formers such as himself saw to be Bukhara’s cultural legacy among the Tatars: The mystical teachings of the Turkestani hermits and mystics, and their poems that praised the beauty of the afterlife and that preached the rejec‑ tion of life were to the taste of the Tatars who had finally lost the hope of revival and former national greatness. It diverted the soul, delighting by the reading of Turkestani songs and poems, in which the real world was over‑ shadowed, and the world of the afterlife was described in bright colors. And with his head the Tatar plunged himself into daydreams about the heaven that was awaiting him, the heavenly gardens, houris, fleet-winged horses etc. The tales and legends about ancient Muslim heroes, the biographies of the glorious Companions of the Prophet ticked their self-esteem, and mys‑ tical outlooks and fatalism compelled them to make peace with bitter re‑ ality.65 Dumavi clearly reflects a secularized and rationalist view of Sufism in many respects anticipates precisely the same arguments that Tatar authors of‑ fered throughout the Soviet era, and by and large maintained.66

Arab Critics of Bukhara and Tatar Reformists

Tatars and Bashkir religious reformists were not the only critics of Bukhara’s reputation for sanctity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In addition to native Central Asian jadids, whose ideas in large measure can be considered derivative of the broader modernist movements in the

65 Nadzhib Dumavi, Probuzhdenie russkikh tatar i ikh literatura, (Kazan, 1999), 7-8, 66 Cf. Validov, Ocherk istorii obrazovannosti, 11-13; Usmanov, Zavetnaia mechta, 20-28. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 171

Russian and Ottoman Empires,67 we can also consider the activities of Arab reformists who visited Central Asia, and who left critiques of Bukharan Sufism, and more broadly of Hanafi jurisprudence and the Bukharan schol‑ arly environment as a whole. Strictly speaking these Arab critics of Bukhara appear to have emerged from the Salafist currents that were gaining au‑ thority in the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire, and they clearly reveal the common theological bonds between Salafism and Jadidism. In fact, the earliest evidence in Tatar sources for reformist Arab critics of Bukhara appears in the Tarikh-i Barangawi. Ahmad mentions two Arabs whom his father befriended in Bukhara in the 1850’s. One of these was Husayn b. Muhammad-Saʿid at-Ta˒i al-Baghdadi, and the other was Yahya al-Makki. Both of these figures were sayyids. Husayn was descended from Imam Hasan b. ʿAli, and was of the Shafiʿi school of jurisprudence. Yahya, on the other hand, was a Hanafi. The two had gone together to Bukhara after having visited Syria, Anatolia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and were staying at the home of Ishan-i Pir. Hafiz ad-Din had hosted them in his hujra, and there they had discussed a number of topics, including tafsir and hadith, both of which the two Arabs had written about. They had also been critical of the ʿulama in some of the cities they had visited, and Yahya related the following story to Hafiz ad-Din: I was in Herat and one of the ʿulama related a Persian story, and I denied it because of the lack of knowledge he had, and now you have proven with the hadith you are people who verify the truth, not like the ʿulama we have seen. They also discussed the question of takfir against the Shi’a. Hafiz ad-Din provided hadiths from al-Bukhari that he believed demonstrated the ille‑ gality of takfir, but Husayn and Yahya argued in its favor. One time Hafiz ad-Din brought Yahya to his master ʿAbd al-Muʾmin b. Uzbek al-Afshanji, and Yahya said the following to ʿAbd al-Muʾmin: We’ve seen you, and you are the ilk of the ʿulama and from among the descendants of the Prophet, and we are descendants of the prophets, and like goes with like. But I see all of you are stingy, and stinginess does not befit the enterprise of the ʿulama or the descendants of the Prophet, because they are of the other’s people, and it does not befit the one who does not

67 Useful studies of the Central Asian jadids include Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Mus- lim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, (Berkeley, 1998); for an informed discussion of theological aspects of jadid thought in Central Asia, cf. B. M. Babadzhanov ed. Zhurnal ‘Haqiqat’ kak zerkalo religioznogo aspekta v ideologii dzhadidov, TIAS Central Eurasian Research Series No. 1, (Tokyo, 2007). 172 Chapter six

know the other, like drinking, licentiousness, drunkenness, and you allege that you maintain that you are ʿulama but what you do is as beasts do. So how does this befit [you]? Answer or reply to my questions. ʿAbd al-Muʾmin did not respond, and simply sent Yahya away. However the incident upset Hafiz ad-Din, who later told his son Ahmad: This was ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja b. Uzbek Khwaja al-Afsanji, who died in 1283 [1866/7 ce]. This great scholar of Bukhara held the rank of aʿlam. He was a mudarris of the Gawkushan Madrasa. It means that being a lowly traveler, Sayyid Yahya used such hard words against such a great damulla! What Sayyid Yahya was true, but zealous, yet the Holy Ibn Uzbek was a patient person who could swallow his words.68 Another Arab visitor to Bukhara was the Hijazi hadith scholar and sayyid Muhammad-ʿAli az-Zahiri b. ʿUmar b. Ibrahim al-Witri al-Madani (d. 1904). Az-Zahiri had left Medina in 1895, and travelled to Bukhara and Samarqand via Istanbul. After spending several months in Bukhara, he continued on to Kazan and Ufa, which he visited in 1896, and where he met with many prominent Muslim scholars. Az-Zahiri was generally a critic of shrine pil‑ grimage, emphasizing one of Bukhari’s hadiths that identify only three holy mosques in Islam, the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina, the Masjid al- Haram in Mecca, and the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem (a hadith that is still widely cited today among Salafists critical of Sufi pilgrimage). Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din writes very highly of az-Zahiri, emphasizing that Mecca and Medina were currently two of the greatest scholarly centers of the Islamic world, a status he evidently felt no longer applied to Bukhara.69 During his time in Bukhara az-Zahiri gave lessons on hadith. The Tatar theologian Musa Bigiyev (d. 1949), the brother of Zahir Bigiyev, and himself the author of an influential Tatar tafsir, related that although az-Zahiri’s scholarship was not superlative, he was nevertheless able to sense the sup‑ posedly low level of scholarship in Bukhara. He also fell into conflict with the Bukharans over the question of visiting the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband. Bigiyev argued that the Bukharan scholars themselves had a difficult time accepting that visiting the shrine was improper, and did not pay heed to their own people’s visits to the tomb. He added that az-Zahiri’s refusal to visit the shrine was beginning to hurt his reputation in the city. According to Bigiyev, many Bukharans even believed that az-Zahiri’s re‑ fusal to visit the tomb had brought cold weather to the city. As a result, the

68 TB ff. 147b-149a. 69 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: Öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 284-285, 306. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 173 matter was brought to the emir’s attention. The Qazi of Bukhara, Badr ad-Din, reportedly pleaded with az-Zahiri to go, and the emir is said to have given him a gift of 20,000 tanggas. In the end, az-Zahiri relented, and vis‑ ited the shrine. One of az-Zahiri’s Tatar students was Hamidullah b. Fathullah Almushev (d. 1929), who had studied in Bukhara, but was dis‑ satisfied with the quality of hadith studies there, and went to Medina in 1890 to study hadith with az-Zahiri. According to Almushev, az-Zahiri complained that the Bukharans were unable to engage in polite discus‑ sions, but instead constantly interrupted one another. More substantially, he also said, The scholars of Bukhara are unable to understand well the [comparative] stature of Imam Bukhari and Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband. They don’t put them in their proper places. Imam Bukhari, who is a master to the entire Is‑ lamic world, is a great person. But Baha˒ ad-Din is a colt here. They have nothing in common. This is the reason I won’t make the pilgrimage to Naqsh‑ band. The scholars of Bukhara said inappropriate things about me. They were completely unjust.70 Early in the twentieth century another Arab theologian, the Syrian Saʿid b. Muhammad ash-Shami, better known as Shami-Damulla also traveled to Bukhara, and later, emphasizing the authority of Imam Bukhari and his hadith collection, came to exert a significant influence on Uzbek theolo‑ gians in Tashkent, including Ziyavuddin Babakhanov, who would later serve as mufti in the Central Asian Muslim Religious Administration (SADUM) from 1957 until 1982. He arrived in Bukhara in 1903 or 1904 and began giving lessons there in hadith studies. Later he travelled to Xinjiang, was exiled to Beijing, and in 1919, he returned to Tashkent, and remained active in Uzbekistan until his death in Khorezm in 1932. Just as az-Zahiri and Zahir Bigiyev did in the 1890’s, Shami-Damulla emphasized the sig‑ nificance of Imam Bukhari, and in May 1910 made a pilgrimage, just as Zahir Bigiyev had done 17 years previously, to the tomb of Imam Bukhari near the village of Khartang. The group spent the night by the tomb, pray‑ ing and performing zikr. While in Bukhara Shami-Damulla also read some of the verse works of ʿAli az-Zahiri.71

70 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: Öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 303-306. 71 B. M. Babadzhanov, A. K. Muminov, and A. fon Kiugel’gen, Disputy musul’manskikh religioznykh avtoritetov v Tsentral’noi Azii v XX veke. (Almaty, 2007), 73-74; on Shami-Dam‑ ulla cf. also Ashirbek Muminov, “Shami-damulla i ego rol’ v formirovanii ‘sovetskogo islama,’” Islam, identichnost’, i politika v postsovetskom prostranstve, Rafik Mukhametshin, ed. (Kazan, 2005), 231-247. 174 Chapter six

Bukharan Decline in Question

Clearly, by the beginning of the twentieth century Bukhara’s economic decline and its political dependence upon Russia, contrasted with the growing industrialization and modernization of Russia (in which Tatars and Bashkirs were significant participants) encouraged the types of re‑ evaluations of the city that we have seen in the works of the Tatar jadids and in the accounts of the Arab reformists. However, jadids by no means monopolized the debate regarding Bukhara’s significance and sacred char‑ acter. Bukhara certainly retained its significance as a sacred city among communities with genealogical connections to the region. The very com‑ pilation of the Tarikh-i Barangawi in 1914 is evidence of the continued relevance that association with Bukhara could confer. Similarly, many graduates of Bukharan madrasas—and not only Sufis—challenged the jadidist assumptions of the “uselessness” of Bukharan education. In examining Tatar and Bashkir responses to the jadids’ criticisms of Bukhara, its institutions, and its sacred status, it would perhaps be useful to examine more critically the notion that Bukharan education was neces‑ sarily “backward,” medieval, or characterized by “scholasticism.” Stéphane Dudoignon has criticized this scholarly phenomenon, labeling it the “Invention of Decadence,” which he associates with European travelers to Central Asia, and in particular to Russian authors.72 Such a characteriza‑ tion appealed equally to Muslim reformists and modernists, as Dudoignon subsequently demonstrates. Historians of Muslim intellectuals, Islamic reformism, and jadidism in Imperial Russia have generally been satisfied to allow the jadids to characterize Islamic education, and in any case have tended to favor the printed media that the jadids employed over the man‑ uscript material that might contain more informed and nuanced accounts of Islamic education. Furthermore, much of what jadids, reformists, and modernists, both Tatars and Central Asians, have written about education has been polemical, and they shared an interest in creating a contrast between their political vision and that of their opponents. We must cer‑ tainly question the categorical reformist assertions that hadith and tafsir studies in Bukhara under the Mangïts were non-existent or faulty, or that Persian was not taught in Russian madrasas. We have seen, for example, that the imam Hamidullah Almushev was dissatisfied with the availability of hadith studies in Bukhara. But at the same time another Tatar scholar studying in Bukhara in the 1890’s, Salih b. ʿAbd al-Khaliq, remarked that

72 Dudoignon, “La question scolaire,” 134. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 175 hadith studies were growing in popularity there, and that the lectures of the hadith scholar ʿAbd ar-Razzaq al-Marghinani were drawing not only students, but madrasa instructors as well.73 In the 1850’s we have seen that Hafiz ad-Din and his brother Burhan ad-Din were both well-versed in ha- dith studies, and Burhan ad-Din was the author of a voluminous, if unfin‑ ished, Turki translation of Bukhari’s Sahih. Indeed, the Russian author Khanykov lists hadith as a central topic in the Bukharan madrasa curricu‑ lum in the 1840’s. All of this begs the question whether the reformist critics of hadith studies in Bukhara were criticizing the techniques of teaching hadith, or whether they were more concerned with the way of the Bukharan scholars were applying hadith to specific aspects of Islamic life. In other words, whether the jadids were more concerned about the outcomes of hadith studies, than the quality of hadith scholarship per se. The political aspect of these critiques cannot be ignored, including jadid critiques of shrine pilgrimage. The role of states and rulers as the patrons and protec‑ tors of shrines is well established in Central Asian history. It applies no less to the Uzbek khanates before and after the Russian conquest, and has re‑ cently been convincingly argued in the case of Khoqand.74 Muslim intellectuals and Russian orientalists may have justified their political goals by uniformly painting Bukhara as “backward,” but the Manghït era in Bukhara was certainly a time of intellectual and educa‑ tional ferment and agitation. The Bukharan jadid Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni himself commented on the expansion of Islamic education under the early Manghït emirs. Stéphane Dudoignon has argued that a similar expansion and in‑ tensification of Islamic education before the Russian conquest, particu‑ larly of madrasas, was evident in both Khoqand and Bukhara, but in the case of Russian Turkestan proper it was partially imperial policies effecting waqf endowments, and not any inherent “backwardness” that caused a the decline of madrasas there, including in Samarqand.75 Similarly, there is no reason to doubt that the reinvigoration of madrasa education in Bukhara, and elsewhere in Central Asia, was a considerable factor in the Islamic revival in Russia, including the reformist current that in large mea‑ sure originated among scholars who had studied in Bukhara. Marjani himself declared that he was drawn to study history because of his admira‑ tion for his teacher Abu Saʿid b. ʿAbd al-Hayy as-Samarqandi. Nevertheless, we are handicapped in our ability to fully appreciate the intellectual

73 Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin, Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, 294. 74 Babadzhanov, Kokandskoe khanstvo, 627-633. 75 Dudoignon, “La question scolaire à Boukhara,” 136-137. 176 Chapter six

­environment in Bukhara (beyond the well-trodden field of jadidism) by a limited knowledge of Bukharan biographical information from that era, and because much relevant information undoubtedly is in manuscript form and remains to be examined. Several informed observers have em‑ phasized that our understanding of the specifics of Islamic scholarship under the Manghïts of Bukhara and Mings of Khoqand remains very lim‑ ited. Anke von Kügelgen, who has examined the Islamic historiography of the Manghït Dynasty has commented to that effect in her discussion of the religious and intellectual life of Manghït Bukhara.76 Her survey of the dy‑ nastic historiography reveals that Bukharan historians, including Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni, remembered certain rulers, particularly Shah-Murad (r. 1785- 1800) and Amir Haydar (r. 1800-1826) for their patronage of scholarship and Sufism. In his own history of the Manghïts, which was gleaned largely from interviews with Central Asian and Tatar scholars in Bukhara and Samarqand, Shihab ad-Din Marjani echoed some of these evaluations. To be sure, he depicted Nasrullah Khan as a ruler who hindered Islamic schol‑ arship. But at the same time it cannot be denied that learning thrived during his reign, as we can see from the Tarikh-i Barangawi’s account of Hafiz ad-Din Barangawi and his brother Burhan ad-Din, as well as from Marjani’s own career as a mudarris in Bukhara. In this regard it is helpful to recall that education in Bukhara possessed its own dynamic, and for all the accusations of backwardness and “scholasticism,” under the Manghïts, Bukhara could be as a vibrant and cosmopolitan an intellectual center as anywhere, extending beyond the confines of the madrasas, waqfs, and the appointed instructors and clerics. We have already seen how Hafiz ad-Din studied Torah directly from a Bukharan Jew; however, for a keen student Islamic educational opportunities outside of official channels also pre‑ sented themselves. In a letter to his parents Burhan ad-Din did complain about some aspects of education in Bukhara, namely that too little time was devoted to study during the school year, and that the course of study

76 Anke von Kügelgen, Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie,(Is‑ tanbul, 2002), 97; it should be pointed out that there have been several very useful studies of Sufi biographical sources for the Manghït era; cf. Baxtiyor Babadzhanov, “On the His‑ tory of the Naqshbandiya Mujaddidiya in Central Mawarannanhr in the 18th and early nineteenth centuries,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries [vol. 1], Michael Kemper, Anke von Kügelgen, Dmitriy Yermakov eds. (Berlin, 1996), 385-414; Anke von Kügelgen, “Die Entfaltung der Nashbandiya Mujaddidiya im mitt­ leren Transoxanien vom 18. Bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrunderts: Ein Stück Detektivarbeit,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 2, Anke von Kügelgen, Michael Kemper, Allen J. Frank eds. (Berlin, 1998), 101-151. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 177 was insufficiently rigorous, but he added that keen students were not re‑ stricted to studying with formally appointed mudarrises: But there are a lot of knowledgeable people [in Bukhara]. Some of them are concealed [mastur] and some of them are legally banned [mamnuʿ]. More‑ over, a peculiarity of the Precious City [balada-yi fakhira] is that the many travelers skilled in learning and education are countless.77 Despite the challenges we face in evaluating intellectual life in Bukhara outside the framework of jadidism, the sources we do possess, and in par‑ ticular the evidence from the Tarikh-i Barangawi, reveal that much of what has been written previously regarding religious education in Bukhara contains more than its share of stereotypes and generalizations, and was written in a political and polemical context that might be examined more critically than it has been. Over time the jadidist accounts of Abu’n-Nasir al-Qursawi have emphasized conflict such as “Tatar vs. Central Asian,” “progress vs. backwardness,” “reason vs. obscurantism,” and so forth. However, we also know that Qursawi had defenders among Bukharan scholars, was well as detractors among the Tatars in Bukhara. Similarly, the death penalty pronounced against him was never carried out, primar‑ ily because of the intervention of a Sufi, Niyaz-Quli at-Turkmani, who convinced the emir, allegedly by threatening to overthrown him, to spare Qursawi. Apparently, at the beginning of the nineteenth century the au‑ thority of the emir and of so-called reactionaries could be challenged. Similarly, during the 1850’s Marjani and other Tatars and Bashkirs were evidently able to develop their reformist ideas relatively freely. There was also an indigenous Bukharan reformist movement, and the Tatars were certainly not the only outsiders coming to Bukhara and challenging the city’s legal and Sufi traditions, as the case of numerous Arab visitors dem‑ onstrates. Stéphane Dudoignon has demonstrated that in fact Islamic re‑ formism independent of jadidism was an active movement in Bukhara’s madrasas in the latter half of the nineteenth century, including Hajji-Bay Khojandi, Qazi Abu Saʿid Samarqandi, Damulla Fazli Ghijduvani, Muʾmin- khwaja Vabkandi, Mulla Khudayberdi Baysuni, and Ahmad Makhdum b. Nasir al-Hanafi as-Siddiqi, better known as Ahmad Donish; he argues that in both Bukhara and Turkestan madrasas played a central role in the socialization of new ideas, including reformist ideas, throughout the

77 TB fol. 45b. 178 Chapter six

­nineteenth century.78 In this regard, Hafiz ad-Din’s intellectual trajectory is consistent with the intellectual climate in Bukhara in the mid-nine‑ teenth century. As a young man in Bukhara, he was sympathetic to some aspects of reformist currents, and was a student of Marjani’s. At the same time, he was clearly devoted to the Sufi discipline, and ­eventually he broke with Marjani. A traditional education in Bukhara’s madrasas did not exclude a critical approach to learning and knowledge. The Qazaq khwaja Muhammad-Salih Babadzhanov has left us with an account of a conversation he had in Orenburg between a Qazaq named Ayzharïq who had studied in Bukhara for 18 years, and a local Tatar scholar. Babadzhanov relates how he argued with a Tatar mullah over the nature of lightning. Babadzhanov maintained that that the power of lighting and thunder derived from some sort of electricity. The Tatar mullah, on the other hand, contended that these phenomena were caused by an angel who sat on a cloud, caused thunder by shouting, and sent rain. Babadzhanov demanded evidence for this from the Qur’an, but the Tatar could not produce any, citing only local Tatar mullahs.79 They did not agree and called for Ayzharïq, who in Bukhara was known as Qamar ad-Din. Babadzhanov then relates: When we asked him [Qamar ad-Din] the causes of thunder and lighting, he said curtly, “Gentlemen! In Bukhara, and in general, I studied the rules of faith that led me to serving God correctly. I cannot explain to you physical phenomena. That is the business of astronomers. The business of mullahs is to worship and serve God correctly. But I have heard that the astronomers attribute this phenomenon to friction between clouds.”80 Babadzhanov was a Russophile and critic of Islamic institutions in the Qazaq Inner Horde. The point of the anecdote, addressed to a Russian audience in 1861, was to illustrate the obscurantism that he felt character‑ ized Tatar Islam, which, he believed, was being imposed on the Qazaqs of the Inner Horde. Yet it is revealing that he presented a Qazaq scholar trained extensively in Bukhara as an authoritative and rational foil to the Tatar mullah. Indeed, this scholar, Ayzharïq, who was not allowed to return

78 Dudoignon, “La question scolaire à Boukhara,” 141-143; some of these figures were the teachers of prominent Tatars and Bashkirs in Bukhara; Qazi Abu Saʿid Samarqandi was Marjani’s teacher; Hajji-Bay b. Safar al-Khujandi taught Nawshirwan b. Muhammad-Rahim; Khudayberdi al-Baysuni taught ʿAbd an-Nasir b. Muhammad-Amin al-Buawi. 79 Babadzhanov does not reveal why he thought the Qur’an should be the definitive source for explaining natural phenomena, or why Muslim scholars should think the same. 80 Khodzha Mukhammed-Salikh Babadzhanov, “Zametki kirgiza o kirgizakh,” Sochine- niia (Almaty, 1996), 74-75. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 179 to the Inner Horde, later served under the name Qamar ad-Din a number of Qazaq sultans in the central steppe, before becoming appointed akhund in Omsk, and finally settling in Bayanaul in 1866, where he served as teach‑ er to Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï, himself later a graduate of Bukharan madrasas.81 Some graduates of Bukhara madrasas even challenged directly assump‑ tions regarding the inadequacy or backwardness of Bukharan education. A case in point, which demonstrates the regard some Muslims had for their education in Bukhara, can be found in the entry that Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi made in his biographical dictionary for his brother Muhammad-Shah Khalidi, who served as mudarris in Chuguchak, in China, in the second half of the nineteenth century: He was informed in every science and had few equals in astronomy and geometry; since there was no use for this science in our region, it seems to have remained unpracticed. […] Once a Russian surveyor came and surveyed our mosque. On the basis of a mistaken assumption, the Russian said that our qibla was taking a westerly direction. Muhammad-Shah explained to him the coordinates of Mecca’s location and the location of the city in which we were. Then he explained the true location of the qibla. When he had investigated and demonstrated it in a balanced fashion the Russian looked at him and asked, “Where did you study this science.” [Muhammad-Shah] said that it was in Bukhara, and [the Russian] said, “There’s probably no one in Bukhara who knows this science. You must have studied in Istanbul or Egypt.” Muhammad-Shah replied that there are all sorts of people in Bukhara who could be professors not only for Russia, but for all Europe. However since there is no specialized madrasa for this [science], it is not known who is there and who isn’t there. This is because of the government’s indifference. He said, “In spite of that, for those who want to learn it, those who have studied this science are found everywhere” and [the Russian] was amazed and could not say anything.82 What Muhammad-Shah told the Russian surveyor concisely contradicts much of what has been written about education in Bukhara, about Islamic learning under the Manghïts, and about how many Muslims evaluated their own educations. Here we have an Islamic scholar, a Russian subject living in a major commercial center in China—certainly not isolated by any means. He demonstrates a strong conviction of the superiority of his

81 Mäshhür-Zhüsip wrote an elegy to Qamar ad-Din, which provides substantial bio‑ graphical information on this scholar after leaving Orenburg; cf. Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï, Shïgharmalarï I, (Pavlodar, 2003), 252-264. 82 Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi, An Islamic Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Kazakh Steppe, fol. 79b. 180 Chapter six

Bukharan education, and of the equal standing of instructors in Bukhara with European specialists. Moreover, it directly contradicts the Russian’s (and jadids’) assertions about the necessary incompatibility of traditional Islamic education (and especially Bukharan education) with “science” and “modernity.” Obviously the educational environment in Bukhara was qualitatively diverse, with large fluctuations in the competence and zeal of both instructors and students. Certainly such a generalization equally applies to any large educational system. Nevertheless a comparison of the modernist and reformist descriptions of Islamic education in Bukhara with the manuscript materials of non-reformist scholars, such as Ahmad Barangawi and Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi clearly show that the jadid summations of education in that city require some significant qualification.

From Islamic Reformism to Cultural Revolution

Two phenomena dominate historical treatments of the Tatar and Bashkir presence in Central Asia during the last decades of the Emirate of Bukhara. One of these is the role of Tatars and Bashkirs in opening jadid schools in the region, and the alleged success and influence of these schools. The second is the role of Tatars and Bashkir communists as the Muslim van‑ guard of Cultural Revolution in the 1920’s. An elaboration on jadid pedagogy need not detain us here, since there are numerous studies devoted to the development of jadid, or New Method schools as they are called in Russian sources, in Central Asia.83 Generally, these studies are based on Russian official sources, and they share many of the assumptions of Russian officialdom regarding the decadence of Bukharan educations. They typically praise the effectiveness of the Tatars in furthering jadid education, and spreading reformism among the Central Asians. Whether or not this is presented as a positive or a negative develop‑ ment depends on whether the author emphasizes the benefits of Muslim

83 Cf. N. Ostroumov, “Musul’manskie maktaby i russko-tuzemnyia shkoly v Turkestan‑ skom krae,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia Ser. 2, vol. 1/2, 1906, section 3, p. 113-166; Sadr ad-Din ʿAyni, Bukhara inqilabining ta˒rikhi, Shizuo Shimada and Sharifa Tosheva eds. (Tokyo, 2010), 67-70; Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 176-178; Hélène Carrère D’Encausse, Réforme et Revolution chez les musulmans de l’empire russe, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1981), 137-143; Sh. Turdiev, “La Sûreté russe, les maîtres d’école tatars et le mouve‑ ment djadid au Turkestan,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 211-221; Sherali Turdyev, “Sredneaziatskie tatary: rol’ i znachenie v kul’turnoi i politicheskoi zhizni Turke‑ stana pervoi chetverti XX v.” Islam v tatarskom mire: istoriia i sovremennost’, (Kazan, 1997), 169-190; for the history of Tatar jadid education in Xinjiang, cf. Malik Chanishif, Jonggu tatar ma’arip tarikhi, (Urumqi, 2001). The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 181 educational reform, or the threat of reform to the Russian state. However, discussions of the influence of Tatar jadids on Central Asia are commonly based on the assumption, widely accepted in Tatar and Western histori‑ ography, that jadid schools had been successful in Russia. While the jadid press certainly had an interest in advancing the cause of reformed Muslim schools, Tatar and Bashkir manuscript sources, and particularly village histories, present a very different picture. Manuscript histories such as the Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, the Tarikh-i Barangawi, and Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi’s his‑ tory of Semipalatinsk demonstrate that jadid schools were received in these Tatar communities with suspicion, hostility, but most commonly with apathy, and in the specific cases addressed by these authors, were forced to close as a result of a lack of students. Significantly, imams such as Ahmad Barangawi, Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini, the author of the Tawarikh-i Alti Ata, and Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi all staked out a neutral posi‑ tion between the primarily political disputes pitting the jadids against the so-called qadimists, but emphasized that jadidism held no pedagogical advantage over existing educational methods.84 In this regard it is likely that the hundreds of Tatar and Bashkir students attending Bukharan ma- drasas between 1908 and 1920 (as opposed to the handful of Tatar jadid instructors) expressed as little interest in jadidism in Bukhara as their imams did in Russia. The first decade of Soviet rule marks a clear break for Tatar and Bashkir Muslims in their communities’ relationship with Bukhara. The Bolshevik Revolution once and for all doomed Bukhara’s Islamic educational institu‑ tions, if not its reputation for sanctity. Bukhara’s reputation as a holy city, already for some time under assault from reformists and jadids, changed permanently with the overthrow of the Manghït dynasty in 1920, the es‑ tablishment of the Bukharan People’s Republic, and finally the city’s an‑ nexation to the Soviet Union in 1924. During the 1920’s Tatar and Bashkir communists, many of them graduates of jadid madrasas in Russia, played a central role in the establishment of Soviet military and political author‑ ity in Bukhara, as well as Khiva and Turkestan. They helped draft and im‑ pose Soviet legal codes, trained native communists, founded newspapers and theaters, and above all displaced madrasas and maktabs, and staffed many of the newly established Soviet schools, technical colleges, and uni‑ versities.85 The history of Soviet Cultural Revolution in Khiva and Bukhara

84 TB fol. 4ab; Frank and Usmanov eds., Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk, 82, 97; Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions, 246-250. 85 Turdyev, “Sredneaziatskie tatary,” 183-189. 182 Chapter six goes beyond the limits of this study. However it is evident that Tatar and Bashkir communists dismantled Bukhara and Khiva’s Islamic institutions with the same zeal that many of their fathers and grandfathers had dis‑ played in coming to Central Asia to study. Jadids who had created and imbibed the reformist and modernist literature denouncing Bukharan education after 1919 often became communists, and took reformism to an entirely different, and more radical, level. Mir-Said Sultangaliev, a promi‑ nent Tatar Bolshevik and a product of the jadid madrasas in Russia, in a guide published in 1921 for activists devoted to antireligious propaganda among Muslims, argued that Bukharans and Khivans had “not yet crossed the evolutionary stage through which the Tatars have already gone.” He advocated using the same strategies in secularizing Central Asians as had been used in the Volga-Ural region in the five years following the 1905 Revolution.86 The case of the Husayniya Madrasa in Orenburg, and the activities of its alumni in early Soviet Central Asia, particularly in the former territories of the Khanate of Khiva and the Emirate of Bukhara, demonstrate a remark‑ able degree of continuity, both personal and institutional, between one jadid educational institution and Soviet cultural and political activists in Central Asia. The madrasa was founded by Ahmad-bay b. ʿAli b. Husayn (in Russian sources Khusainov) (1837-1906), evidently in the 1880’s.87 Although it was founded as a jadid madrasa, it still recognized to some degree the scholarly authority of Central Asia, since as late as 1907 the scholar ʿAbd al-Qadir b. Qari ʿAbd ash-Shukur had come from Samarqand to Orenburg to oversee the exams being given to the students at the Husayniya. Nevertheless, in 1917 the Husayniya Madrasa was renamed the Khusainov Teachers Institute, and in 1919 its staff was transformed into the newly established Tatar Institute of Popular Education (TINO) and the Eastern Institute of Popular Education (VINO). In 1920 similar institutes, drawn from the same staff, were established to train Bashkir and Qazaq teachers, called BINO and KINO respectively. In 1925 these Orenburg in‑ stitutions, whose staffs were primarily made up of Husayniya alumni, were used to operate numerous newly established educational institutions in

86 An English translation of Sultangaliev’s work appears in Alexandre Bennigsen and S. Enders Wimbush, Muslim National Communism in the Soviet Union: a Revolutionary Strategy for the Colonial World, (Chicago, 1979), 155-156. 87 On Ahmad-bay Khusainov cf. Rizaetdin ibn Fakhretdin, Akhmed Bai 2nd ed. (Oren‑ burg, 1991); on the Husayniya Madrasa cf. M. Räkhimkulova and L. Khämidullin, “Khösäy‑ eniya mädräsäse,” Mädräsälärdä kitap kishtäse…, (Kazan, 1992), 74-114; Madina Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ v Orenburge, 2nd edition, (Orenburg, 1997). The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 183

Central Asia. For example, Sungat Bikbulatov, Zaki Ishaev, and K. S. Sagirov were sent to the Bukhara pedinstitut. Gimad Almaev was sent to the pedin- stitut in Samarqand, K. A. Aidarov to Samarqand State University. 24 teach‑ ers from the TINO were sent to Khorezm, including I. M. Akhmerov, N. M. Valishev, and Saliakh Kamal.88 Other Husayniya alumni joined the Red Army and became involved in training party members in Central Asia. For example, in 1919 Khabib G. Khasanov, who had completed a three-year teacher’s training course at the madrasa, together with 29 fellow students, joined the Political Section of the Red Army’s First Turkestan Revolutionary Army. In Ashkhabad he established a school for training the Party staff of the armed forces of the Bukharan army.89 Gubaidulla Khusainov (1892-1948), who studied at that madrasa from 1910-1915 became an activist (aktivnyi sotrudnik) in the Political Section (politotdel) Red Army’s First Turkestan Revolutionary Army, and served as the editor of the Red Army newspaper Qïzïl Yulduz. From 1921 until 1938 he was the editor of the newspaper Sovet Türkmenistanï. From 1938 to 1948 he held several executive positions such as Director of the Turkmen Institute of Language and Literature, and the Chief Director of State and Party publishing of Turkmenistan.90 A number of Husayniya graduates travelled to Khorezm to establish state educational institutions after it was annexed to the Soviet Union in 1924 and Islamic education was banned. These included Nurakhmed Valishev who worked in training “Red Pedagogues” for Soviet schools there. From 1930 until 1935 he was assigned in the Samarqand Pedagogical Institute as a senior instructor in the mathematics department. Salakhetdin Kamaletdinov trained Turkmens, Qaraqalpaqs, and Uzbeks at the Khorezm District Pedtekhnikum from 1924 until 1927.91 Fatikh Bakirov (1899-1975) worked at Uzbek-language Soviet newspa‑ pers in Tashkent in 1917, then later headed a theater school in Tashkent. From 1949 until 1970 he worked as a law professor at the Central Asia State University (SAGU) in Samarqand, where he wrote extensively on Islamic law and customary law, and assisted in drafting the law codes of the Uzbek SSR.92

88 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 164-166. 89 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 163. 90 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 158. 91 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 48, 60-61. 92 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 117-118. 184 Chapter six

However, the remarkable biography of one Husayniya alumnus, Abdulla Mustakaev, illustrates quite vividly the transformation of an Islamic schol‑ ar to a communist revolutionary. Mustakaev was born in 1890 in Saratov province. He studied in his home village, then later in the Husayniya, and then in another reformist madrasa, the Izh-Bubi Madrasa in Viatka Province.93 After the tsarist authorities closed down that madrasa in 1911 he spent the summer teaching in Qazaq nomadic encampments in Siberia. In that year he became a full-time teacher, first teaching in Penza Province, and then moving to the village of Qiyat, near Urgench, in the Khanate of Khiva. Then in 1913 he moved to Tashkent where he taught at the Russian- Tatar school. In 1917 he worked at the Khoqand Uzbek Teachers’ Seminary (dar al-muʿallim). He then worked in organizing higher education in the Ferghana Valley. He joined the Communist Party in 1918. From 1919-1923 he worked as the director and political commissar (politruk) of the Turko- Tatar Education Institute in Tashkent. While he was working there the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in Turkestan ordered him to work with the Cheka in the battle against the Basmachis. He worked as the chief of the political propaganda section of the Ferghana District Committee (Obkom) of the CPSU. After the defeat of the Basmachis, he returned to Tashkent and continued to head the institute, while also teaching social disciplines in the Uzbek Department of the Central Asian Communist University (SAKU). In August of 1923 the CC of the CPSU of Turkestan sent him to Moscow to study at the Sverdlov Communist University. He graduated in 1926 and returned to Tashkent where he then headed the Propaganda Group of the CC of the CPSU of Uzbekistan until 1929. At that time he gave lectures in the CC CPSU of Uzbekistan Central Party School on the history of the Party and on the foundations of Marxism-Leninism. In the fall of 1929 Mustakaev was appointed director of the Uzbek State Pedagogical Institute in Samarqand. In 1930 he earned the degree of docent of social sciences. The CC CPSU of Uzbekistan appointed him the head of the sector for the dissemination of the foundations of Marxism-Leninism of the cultural and propaganda division of the CC CPSU of Uzbekistan. In 1932 he became the Deputy Director of the Uzbek Scientific Research Institute of History (UzNII). He also translated many classics of Marxism- Leninism into Uzbek. In 1936 he became a teacher in Andijon, and later in Sary-Agach District in South Kazakhstan. He was arrested in 1938, and

93 Raif Märdanov and Söläyman Räkhimov eds., Bubi mädräsäse taikhï: jïyïntïq (Kazan, 1991), 149-151. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 185 released in 1948. In 1956 he was reinstated into the Party. In 1959 he re‑ turned to Tashkent and worked as a senior scientific associate in the Academy of Sciences, and retired in 1964.94 This sampling of biographies is by no means complete. However it should demonstrate that many Tatar and Bashkir madrasa graduates were able to reconcile with the new Soviet reality the Islamic reformist and jadidist-inspired Tatar self-conception as missionaries of modernity enlightenment to Central Asians. Such a self- conception was not a strictly Soviet phenomenon. Tatar intellectuals in Republican-era Xinjiang and the People’s Republic of China expressed a similar self-conception.95 The case of the graduates of the Husayniya Madrasa demonstrates that the jadid critique of Hanafi Islamic education could go beyond polemics, and cannot be isolated from the Soviet repression of Islamic education in the 1920’s. This repression which was consistent with the general jadid political and reformist agenda resulted in the extinction of a centuries-old pedagogical and educational system which in large measure constituted the foundation of the Islamic revival in Russia, from which jadidism itself in large measure originated.

Full Circle: Bukhara as a Rationalist Symbol in Soviet and Post-Soviet Islam

Like Zahir Bigiyev thirty or more years before them, during the early Soviet era the Islamic reformists who maintained their intellectualized and ratio‑ nalistic conception of Islam denied Bukhara’s sacred status per se, but nevertheless invoked the city’s secular “greatness,” as evinced by its great thinkers, philosophers and poets. Effectively they sought a secularization of Bukhara’s image, restricting sacred status to the three sites that the sources of Islamic tradition, the Qur’an hadiths, and Sunna, explicitly identified as sacred, Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. Such an intellectual‑ ized vision of Islamic history corresponded in many respects with the Soviet authorities’ own conception of Central Asian history. As we have seen, in 1910 Shami Damulla at-Tarablusi travelled from Kashgar to Khartang to perform a pilgrimage to the tomb of Imam Bukhari.96 Like Bigiyev before him, Shami Damulla’s pilgrimage was a political act. However in Shami Damulla’s case he was emphasizing through the

94 Rakhimkulova, Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ 130-134. 95 Cf. Chanishif, Jonggu tatar ma’arip tarikhi, passim. 96 B. M. Babadzhanov, A. K. Muminov, A. von Kügelgen eds., Disputy musul’manskikh religioznykh avtoritetov v Tsentral’noi Azii x XX veke, (Almaty, 2007), 38, 73-74. 186 Chapter six

­memory of Imam Bukhari the prominence of hadith as a source of Islamic tradition, and its relevance to Central Asians. In 1919 he moved to Tashkent, where his students became known as the ahl-i hadith (people of the ha­ dith). Among his students we find Ziyavutdin Babakhanov, who was to become mufti of the SADUM, the Soviet era muftiate for Central Asian based in Tashkent.97 Another reformist group in Soviet Uzbekistan was the ahl-i Qur’an, of which one of the most prominent figures was a Tatar scholar, Hasan-hazrat Ponomarev (d. 1937). He was from Petropavlovsk and had been exiled to Tashkent in 1933. He was, according oral accounts collected by Ashirbek Muminov, a follower of Shihab ad-Din Marjani, and a bitter critic of the Hanafi ʿulama.98 Ziyautdin Babakhanov, who served as mufti in Tashkent from 1957 to 1982 was closely connected to both the ahl-i hadith and the ahl-i Qur’an groups in Tashkent. During his tenure as Mufti (1957-1982) the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa in Bukhara, which re-opened 1945, along with the Barak-khan Madrasa in Tashkent, which opened in 1955, were the sole legally functioning madrasas in the Soviet Union. In addition there was an institution in Tashkent for the advanced training of Muslim clerics that was tellingly named the Bukhari Institute, that opened in 1971.99 It is well established that during the Soviet era the reformist cur‑ rent dominated the Soviet religious institutions.100 Nevertheless, the Soviet authorities sought to harness Bukhara’s Islamic prestige for broader political ends. The tomb of Imam Bukhari was used by the Soviet authori‑ ties, who brought visiting dignitaries there, such as Sukarno, the President of Indonesia, in the 1950’s, and in 1962 the President of Mali Modibo Keita. Similarly, The President of Uzbekistan, Islom Karimov, has made the res‑ toration of the shrine an important priority, and on-line promotional materials for the shrine indicate it receives a thousand visitors a day.

97 Ashirbek Muminov, “Fundamentalist Challenges to Local Islamic Traditions in So‑ viet and Post-Soviet Central Asia,” Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia, UYAMA Tomohiko, ed., (Sapporo, 2007), 253-256. 98 Muminov, “Fundamentalist Challenges to Local Islamic Traditions,” 257-258. 99 For published Soviet archival documents on the functioning of the Mir-i ʿArab Ma‑ drasa in the Soviet era, and of its staff cf. Elyor Karimov and David Abramson eds., Religion Made Official: A Comprehensive Collection of Documents on Religion from the State Archives of Soviet Uzbekistan, 1920’s to 1960’s, (Almaty, 2009), 598-615. 100 Cf. Ziyauddin Khan Ibn Ishan Babakhan, Islam and the Muslims in the Land of the Soviets, (Moscow, 1980). Ziyautdin begins his treatise with a biography of Imam Bukhari; cf. also B. M. Babajanov, A. K. Muminov, and A. von Kügelgen, “Introduction: Religious Texts of the Soviet Era,” in: Disputy musul’manskikh religioznykh 43-54; Bakhtiyar Babad­ zhanov, “Babakhanovy,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii 4, (St. Petersburg, 2003), 12-14. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 187

In the Volga-Ural region and Siberia, too, Islamic reformers came to dominate the Soviet religious establishment. The Religious Board for the Muslims of European Russia and Siberia (DUMES), established in 1943, essentially was a continuation of the former Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly in Ufa. The dominance of the reformist current in that institution can be said to begin with the election of Galimjan Barudi as mufti in 1917. During and after the Second World War the muftis appointed to DUMES had been trained within the reformist current, such as Gabdrakhman Rasulev (1881-1950), who studied at al-Azhar in Cairo. However, beginning in the late 1960’s an entirely new generation of Tatar clerics was educated in the SADUM-administered Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa in Bukhara. Soviet Tatar clerics continued to invoke the former prestige of study in Bukhara, al‑ though from this period Bukhara’s significance was as a source of Islamic reformist theology, and no longer of Sufism or Hanafi jurisprudence, both of which continued to exist in Central Asia underground, but all but disap‑ peared in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia. These Soviet bokharis came to head many of Russia’s Islamic institutions, and the profusion of mufti‑ ates that emerged in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These include Talgat Tajetdin, who entered Mir-i ʿArab in 1966. Becoming mufti in Ufa in 1980. He managed to send at least fifteen Tatar students to Bukhara. These include Nail’ Yarullin, who heads the Muhammadiya Madrasa in Kazan, Gosman Iskhakov, mufti of the Religious Board of Tatarstan who matriculated into the Mir-i ʿArab in 1978, Ravil Gainutdin, the mufti of the Moscow-based Religious Board of Central European Russia who studied in Bukhara from 1979 until 1984, and the Siberian scholar Nafigulla Ashirov, who entered Mir-i ʿArab in 1987, and today heads the Muslim Religious Board of Asiatic Russia. We can also mention Gabdelkhaq Samatov, who is Chief Qazi for the Religious Board of Tatarstan.101 A num‑ ber of “oppositionist clerics” also belong to this generation of scholars who studied in Mir-i ʿArab during the late decades of Soviet power. These in‑ clude Fäyzrakhman Sattarov, who studied in Bukhara for a period of time before being expelled in 1964 because of his “sectarian tendencies.102 His followers in Tatarstan appear to link themselves to the Central Asian ahl- i hadis and ahl-i Qur’an circles.103 Another “oppositionist” graduate of the

101 Allen J. Frank, Tatar Islamic Texts, (Springfield, Virginia, 2008), vii-ix. 102 Karimov and Abramson, eds., Religion Made Official, 610. 103 On this group cf. Wäliulla Yaghqub, Tatarstanda räsmi bulmaghan Islam, (Kazan, 2003), 23-27. 188 Chapter six

Mir-i ʿArab includes Nurulla Möflikhunov, who served as imam in Chistopol from 1966-1988.104 This newer generation of Tatar scholars has certainly tried to legitimize their positions by invoking the memory of the historical prestige formerly associated with Bukhara among Tatars. Paradoxically, the dominant theo‑ logical current among these clerics is rooted among the critics of Bukhara’s older educational system, and of the very idea of Bukhara’s sacred status. And the resurrection of the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa as a Soviet educational institution can only be understood as a continuation in the most attenu‑ ated way of the cosmopolitan and open education system that functioned under the Manghïts. If in the Volga-Ural region and Siberia the older Sufi-oriented sacred significance of Bukhara has been lost among clerics, outside of Uzbekistan Bukhara’s older, Sufi-oriented, sacred status appears to have survived in Dagestan. Historically Dagestanis mainly adhered to the Shafiʿi school of jurisprudence, and their connections with Bukhara were more generally more tenuous than those of Volga-Ural and Siberian Muslims. Nevertheless Sufism was and remains a highly dynamic and widespread feature in Dagestani religious and political life, and Dagestani Sufis were predomi‑ nantly Khalidiyya Naqshbandis. As a result Bukhara and its shrines re‑ tained significance for Dagestani Muslims as well, including after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A case in point is a pamphlet published by the Spiritual Board of Dagestani Muslims in 2007. This pamphlet is con‑ structed as a pilgrimage narrative describing a number of Sufi shrines in Uzbekistan, including major sites in Khorezm, Bukhara, the Zeravshan Valley, and Samarqand, and connects these sites to the Naqshbandi tradi‑ tion in the Caucasus. The work also includes a Khalidiyya silsila, identifying numerous prominent Dagestani Sufis tracing their lineages through Zaynullah Rasulev, a major Sufi figure from the Urals region, and the Turkish Shaykh Ziya˒ ad-Din Gumushhanevi. To be sure, just as Zahir Bigiyev’s travel account of Bukhara had a political purpose, so does the Dagestani pamphlet, since the Dagestani Spiritual Board is challenged by a particularly lethal strain of Islamic reformism. The pamphlet traces the journey of a delegation from the Spiritual Board, consisting of 74 people. The delegation visited many of the same shrines Ahmad and Hafiz ad-Din Barangawi had visited: Khwaja Ahrar, Kusam b. ʿAbbas, ʿAbd al-Khaliq Ghijduvani, and Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband, although, perhaps as evidence

104 Waliulla Yaghqub, Tatarstanda räsmi bulmagan Islam, 27-29. The Decline of Bukharan Prestige in Russia 189 of the continuing influence of Soviet Islam, under the urging of their Uzbek hosts, the group also visited the tomb of Imam Bukhari.105

105 A. M. Magomedov et al. eds. Sviatyni Uzbekistana, (Makhachkala, 2007). 190 Chapter six conclusion 191

Conclusion

Bukhara emerges as a religious symbol that was at once ambiguous and paradoxical in the religious and intellectual history of Tatar and Bashkir society. The Islamic revival in Russia resurrected and reinforced religious bonds between Russia and Central Asia that had been originally estab‑ lished during the era of the Golden Horde. The relationship with Bukhara was based in large measure on Central Asia’s, and especially Bukhara’s, association with Sufism, which was internalized in Muslim societies through genealogical bonds and through Sufi rituals linked to Central Asian saints, including the veneration of shrines and of patron saints of crafts and especially livestock. A number of historical factors reenergized Bukhara’s image and its significance among Muslims in Russia. These fac‑ tors comprise developments within Russia and Central Asia, and broader changes in the Islamic world. In the Islamic world as a whole, one of the chief developments that affected the relationship between Muslims in Russia and Bukhara in particular was the emergence of the Naqshbandiya Mujaddidiya in seventeenth century India, which reenergized Sufism in Central Asia, and brought a renewed religious significance to the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband near Bukhara. At the same, the emergence of the Manghït Dynasty in Bukhara strongly associated its own legitimacy to Islamic institutions in Bukhara, including the tomb of Baha’ ad-Din Naqshband. A number of Manghït dynasts presided over the revival of madrasas and the waqfs that supported them. The revival of religious in‑ stitutions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also took place during an era of economic expansion not only in Bukhara, but in Tashkent and Khoqand as well, which was characterized by a strong Central Asian presence in the caravan trade first between Russia and the Oirats, and later between Bukhara and Khoqand on the one hand and Russia on the other. The expansion of Central Asian trade was a significant policy prior‑ ity for Russia beginning almost immediately after the conquests of Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia, resulting in the establishment of socially and eco‑ nomically privileged communities of Central Asians, especially Bukharans, in Siberia and Astrakhan. The military outposts established along the Qazaq steppe in the first half of the eighteenth century quickly developed into terminals for the caravan trade, became active contact zones for Tatars, Bashkirs, and Central Asians, and these cities, particularly Orenburg 192 conclusion and the nearby settlement of Qarghalï, which were most closely con‑ nected to Bukhara, formed a substantial part of the institutional founda‑ tion for Islamic scholarship in Russia, that was at the center of the Islamic revival there. During the Manghït era Bukhara’s madrasas and waqfs were reviving, expanding, and benefiting from intensive patronage by the emirs, and from economic revitalization and trade surpluses with Russia, elevating Bukhara’s existing reputation as a center of scholarship in the Islamic world. By the early nineteenth century Bukhara had become the largest urban concentrations of Tatars and Bashkirs outside of Russia, and one of the largest anywhere. Tatars and Bashkirs, as “Bulghars” or “Noghays,” had their own institutions in Bukhara. Hundreds of Tatar and Bashkir students would be attending Bukharan madrasas at any one time, and many Tatars and Bashkirs taught in the madrasas as mudarrises. Outside of Russia no other city in the Islamic world could boast as large, and as long-lasting a Tatar and Bashkir presence as Bukhara, and no scholars who studied out‑ side of Russia enjoyed the same prestige as did the returning Tatar and Bashkirs bokharis who graduated from Bukhara’s madrasas. Yet, the significance of Bukhara in Russia’s Islamic revival brings about several paradoxes. During Russia’s Islamic revival Tatars and Bashkirs both modeled their own religious institutions on Bukhara, and distinguished themselves from it. This sort of tension manifested itself by the creation of Sufi-inspired Islamization narratives connected to the city of Bulghar and to the Prophet Muhammad himself, thereby excluding many existing local Islamization narratives linked to Central Asian cities. At the same time, we see the emergence in Bukharan fashion among Muslims in Russia. A simi‑ lar tension, or even paradox, is evident in the narratives of Islamic reform‑ ism and jadidism, which depict the origins of Tatar reformism to have been in the conflicts of Tatar scholars in Bukhara, namely Abu’n-Nasir al-Qur‑ sawi, and Shihab ad-Din Marjani. However, Tatar reformers did not bring Islamic reformism to Bukhara; it was already there, and the relationships of these scholars with their Bukharan and Central Asian colleagues was more complex. Marjani himself credits Central Asian scholars with con‑ tributing in a very positive manner to his own development as a scholar. His own career as an instructor in Bukhara in the 1840’s shows that he was free to explore a wide range of reformist ideas, and disseminate them. Similarly, from our sources, particularly the Tarikh-i Barangawi, there can be no question that for the keen student in Bukhara under the Manghïts, the opportunities for scholarly development were impressive, despite conclusion 193 whatever institutional obstacles may have existed. And after all, that is all one can reasonably ask of higher education. If the critique of Bukhara emerges as a leitmotif of the Tatar historical narrative in particular, we must not confuse this polemical narrative with a frank description of the Tatar and Bashkir environment in Bukhara. In these writings Bukhara emerges as more of a straw man, a source of fake contrasts between a supposedly “advanced” Russia and a “backward” Central Asia. For example, in jadid critiques Bukharan education and Bukharan Sufis appear as stand-ins for critiques of traditional madrasas in Russia, and for Sufis in Russia, who were usually indifferent to jadidism, and sometimes opposed it. The critique of Bukhara was also a critique of bokharis, who continued to enjoy prestige in the Muslim community. Similarly, the jadid critique of the Emir of Bukhara’s despotism was no less a critique of the Tsar, who, after all, was as attached to absolutist principles as the Emir of Bukhara, if not more. Bukharan prestige did not wither away or die a natural death in Russia. Islamic education was outlawed in 1924, and the thread of a dynamic and centuries-old educational system was cut. As for Bukhara, after its an‑ nexation to the Soviet Union its waqfs were abolished and its madrasas were closed. Jadid and Soviet narratives would maintain that nothing was lost as a result of the abolition of the madrasas, but the Tarikh-i Barangawi and other sources hint at what had existed there, and we will probably never know fully what disappeared. In the end, Bukharan prestige was something that neither the Islamic reformists, nor the Soviet authorities were willing to do without. Islamic reformists and jadids sought to make their own shrine out of the tomb of Imam Bukhari, initially proposing it as a reformist alternative to the tomb of Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband. They argued, disingenuously, that hadith stud‑ ies were non-existent in the Bukharan madrasas, clearly seeking to mo‑ nopolize their conception of the proper way in which to study hadith. Reformists later came to dominate the Soviet Islamic establishment, and the Soviets even brought visiting heads of states from Muslim countries to Imam Bukhari’s tomb. Finally, the Soviet authorities in 1945 even reopened the Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa, and paradoxically sought to associate their re‑ formist Islamic establishment with Bukharan prestige, which reformist clerics in Tatarstan continue to invoke. 194 conclusion bibliography 195

Bibliography

Abbreviations

TB Tarikh-i Barangawi TAA Tawarikh-i Alti Ata

Manuscripts

St. Peterburgskoe Otdelenie Instituta Vostokovedeniia Rossisskoi Akademii Nauk B749 Tawarikh-i Bulghariya of Husam ad-Din b. Sharaf ad-Din al-Bulghari Otdel Rukopisei i Redkikh Knig Nauchnoi Biblioteki im. Lobachevksogo Kazanskogo Gosu- darstvennogo Universiteta 124T Tawarikh-i Alti Ata of Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini 1388T Supplement to the Tarikh Nama-yi Bulghar of Taj ad-Din b. Yalchighul al-Bashqordi Institut Rukopisei, Akademiia Nauk Tatarstana Inv. No. 39/34 Tarikh-i Barangawi of Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din al-Barangawi

Publications

Abashin, Sergei. “Zangi-ata,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii I, 150-153. ʿAbdullah b. Muḥammad-ʿArif al-Muʿazi, Tarikh-i Muʿaziya, (Orenburg, 1908). ʿAbdullah b. Muḥammad-ʿArif al-Muʿazi, Qatrat min bihar al-haqa˒iq fi tarjuma ahwali masha˒ikh at-tara˒iq, (Orenburg, n.d). Abilov, Sh. Sh. “Sufichïlïq,” Tatar ädäbiyatï tarikhï I, (Kazan, 1984), 356-366. Adam, Volker. Rußlandmuslime in Istanbul am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges: die Bericht­ erstattung osmanischer Periodika über Rußland und Zentralasien, Heidelberger Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des modernen Vorderen Orients, (Frankfurt am Main, 2002). Aini, Sadriddin. Bukhara I-II, (Dushanbe, 1980-1981). “Ak-ziiarat” Protokoly Turkestanskago kruga liubitelei arkheologii V (1900), 93-95. Äkhmätjanov, Marsel’. Tatar shäjäräläre, (Kazan, 1995). ——— .“Säyed Shakulovlar,” Vatanïm Tatarstan, 10 June 1995. ———. Nughay urdasï, (Kazan, 2002). Akhmarov, Gainetdin. “Svadebnye obriady kazanskikh tatar,” Izbrannye trudy, (Kazan, 1998), 191-215. Akhmetzianov, M. “K etnolingvisticheskim protsessam v basseine r. Ik (po materialam shedzhere),” K formirovaniiu iazyka tatar Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia, (Kazan, 1985), 58-75. Al’favitnye spiski armiano-grigorianskikh tserkvei i magometanskikh mechetiakh v imperii, (St. Petersburg, 1883). Alimbai, Nursan. Kazakhskoe knizhnoe delo v dokumentakh i materialakh (XIX-nachalo XX), (Almaty, 2009). Alishev, S. Kh. “Sotsial’naia evoliutsiia sluzhilykh tatar vo vtoroi polovine XVI-XVIII vekov,” Issledovaniia po istorii krest’ianstva Tatarii dooktiabr’skogo perioda, (Kazan, 1984), 52-69. 196 bibliography

Alishev, S. Kh. ed. Istochniki po istorii Tatarstana, (Kazan, 1993). Amirkhanov, Husayn. Tawarikh-i Bulghariya, (Kazan, 1883). Anastasiev, “Viatskie inorodtsy i ikh shkoly,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshche- niia vol. 353/3, 1904, section 4, 75-103. Andreev, I. G. Opisanie Srednei Ordy Kirgiz-Kaisakov, (Almaty, 1998). Apollova, N. G. Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie sviazi Kazakhstana s Rossiei v XVIII-nachale XIX v., (Moscow, 1960). Aqchura, Yosïf. Damella Galimjan Äl-Barudi, (Kazan, 1997). Arslanova, A. A. Opisanie rukopisei na persidskom iazyke Nauchnoi biblioteki im. N. I. Lobachevskogo Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta vyp. 1, (Moscow-Kazan, 2005). Atanyýazow, Soltanša. Täsinlikler dünýäsine syýahat, (Ashgabat, 1999). Atlasi, Hadi. Sibir tarikhi, (Kazan, 1911). ʿAyni, Sadr ad-Din. Bukhara Inqilabining Ta˒rikhi, Shimada Shizuo and Sharifa Tosheva eds., TIAS Central Eurasian Research Series No. 4, (Tokyo, 2010). Azamatov, D. D. Orenburgskoe magometanskoe dukhovnoe sobranie v kontse XVIII-XIX vv. (Ufa, 1999). Babadžanov, Baxtiyor. “On the History of the Naqšbandiya mujaddidiya in Central Mawara’annahr in the 18th and Early 19th Centuries,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, Michael Kemper, Anke von Kügel‑ gen, Dmitriy Yermakov eds., (Berlin, 1996), 385-413. ———. “Babakhanovy,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii 4, (St. Petersburg, 2003), 12-14. ——— ed. Zhurnal ‘Haqiqat’ kak zerkalo religioznogo aspekta v ideologii dzhadidov, TIAS Central Eurasian Research Series No. 1, (Tokyo, 2007). ———. Kokandskoe khanstvo: vlast’, politika, religiia, (Tokyo-Tashkent, 2010). Babadzhanov, Bakhtiyor and Maria Szuppe. “Dzhuibari,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiis- koi imperii vol. 1 (Moscow, 2006), 138-139. Babadzhanov, B. M., A. K. Muminov, and A. fon Kiugel’gen. Disputy musul’manskikh reli- gioznykh avtoritetov v Tsentral’noi Azii v XX veke. (Almaty, 2007). Babadzhanov, Khodzha Mukhammed-Salikh. “Zametki kirgiza o kirgizakh,” Sochineniia (Almaty, 1996), 64-84. Baibulatova, Liliia. ‘Asar’ Rizy Fakhreddina, (Kazan, 2006). Barudi, Galimdzhan khazrat. Pamiatnaia knizhka (Khäter däftäre) (Kazan, 2000). ———. Qïzïlyar säfäre, Mäsgud Gaynetdin ed. (Kazan, 2004). Basilov, V. N. and Dzh. Kh. Karmysheva. Islam u kazakhov, (Moscow, 1997). Bayazitova, F. S. Tatar khalqïnïng bäyräm häm könküresh yolalarï, (Kazan, 1995). Beisembiev, Timur K. ed. The Life of ‘Alimqul: a Narrative Chronicle of Nineteenth Century Central Asia, (London, 2003). Bentkovskii, I. Nogaitsy, Istoriko-statisticheskoe obozrenie inorodtsev-magometan kochui- ushchikh v Stavropol’skoi gubernii I, (Stavropol’, 1888). Bigiyev, Zahir. Zur gönahlar: romannar, säyakhätnamä, (Kazan, 1991). Bikbulatov, N. V. et al. eds. Traditsii bashkirskogo narodnogo iskusstva v sovremennoi odezhde, (Ufa, 1988). Blinov, N. Sarapul: istoricheskii ocherk, (Sarapul, 1887). Bogoiavlenskii, N. V. Zapadnyi zastennyi Kitai, (St. Petersburg, 1906). Bregel’, Iu. E. “Vostochnye rukopisi Kazani, ” Pis’mennye pamiatniki Vostoka 1969, 255-273. Bukanova, R. G. Goroda-kreposti iugo-vostoka Rossii v XVIII veke, (Ufa, 1997). Burnashev, T. S. and Pospelov. “Puteshestvie ot Sibirskoi linii do goroda Bukhary v 1794 i obratno v 1795 godu,” Sibirskii Vestnik, vol. 2-3, 1818, 111-180. Burnes, Alexander. Travels into Bokhara III, (London, 1835). Burton, Audrey. The Bukharans: a Dynastic, diplomatic, and Commercial History, 1550-1702, (Richmond, Surrey, 1997). bibliography 197

Bustanov, A. K. “Rukopis’ v kontekste sibirskogo islama,” appendix to A. G. Seleznev et al., Kul’t sviatykh v sibirskom islame: spetsifika universal’nogo, (Moscow, 2009), 156-192. ———. “Sacred Texts of Siberian Khwaja Families. The Descendants of Sayyid Ata,” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 2 (2011), 70-99. ———. “Sufiiskie legendy ob islamizatsii Sibiri,” Tiurkologicheskie Sbornik 2009-2010, (Mos‑ cow, 2011), 33-78. Bustanov, A. K. and S. N. Korusenko. “Rodoslovnye Sibirskikh bukhartsev: im’ianinovy,” Arkheologiia, etnografiia i antropologiia Evrazii 2 (42) 2010, 97-105. Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène. Islam and the Russian Empire: Reform and Revolution in Central Asia, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988). Castagné, J. Le culte des lieux saints de l’islam au Turkestan,” L’Ethnographie n.s. 46 (1951), 46-126. Chervonnaia, S. M. Iskusstvo Tatarii, (Moscow, 1987). Crews, Robert D. For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia, (Cam‑ bridge, Massachusetts, 2006). Demezon P. I. and I. V. Vitkevich. Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve, N. A. Khalfin ed. (Moscow, 1983). Den, V. E. Naselenie Rossii po piatoi revizii II/5, (Moscow, 1902). Deviatykh, Leonid. Iz istorii kazanskogo kupechestva, (Kazan, 2002). Devin DeWeese. An ‘Uvaysi’ Sufi in Timurid Mawarannahr: Notes on Hagiography and the Taxonomy of Sanctity in the Religious History of Central Asia, Papers on Inner Asia No. 22, Research Institute for Central Asian Studies, (Bloomington, Indiana, 1993). ———. “Sacred History for a Central Asian Town: Saints, Shrines, and Legends of Origin in Histories of Sayram, eighteenth-nineteenth Centuries,” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 89-90 (2000), 245-246. ———. “Foreword” in Islamizatsiia i sakral’nye rodoslovnye v Tsentral’noi Azii, Ashirbek Muminov, ed., (Almaty, 2009), 6-33. ———. “Three Tales from the Central Asian ‘Book of Hakim Ata,’”, Tales of God’s Friends: Islamic Hagiography in Translation, John Renard, ed., (Berkeley, California, 2009), 121- 135. Dobrosmyslov, A. I. “Zaboty imperatritsy Ekateriny II o prosveshchenii kirgizov,” Trudy Orenburgskoi Uchenoi Arkhivnoi Kommissii IX (1902), 51-63. ———. Goroda Syr-Dar’inskoi oblasti, (Tashkent, 1912). ———. Tashkent v proshlom i nastoiashchem: istoricheskii ocherk, (Tashkent, 1912). Dudoignon, Stéphane. “La question scolaire à Boukhara et au Turkestan russe du ‘premier renouveau’ à la soviétisation (fin du XVIIIe siècle-1937),” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 133-210. ———. “Local Lore, the Transmission of Learning, and Communal Identity in late 20th Century Tajikistan. The Khujand-Nama of ‘Arifjan Yahyazad Khujandi,” in: Devout Soci- eties vs. Impious States? Transmitting Islamic Knowledge in Russia, Central Asia, and China, through the Twentieth Century, (Berlin, 2004), 213-242. ———. “Echoes to al-Manar among Muslims of the Russian Empire: a preliminary research note on Riza al-Din b. Fakhr al-Din and the Shura (1908-1918),” Intellectuals in the Mod- ern Islamic World: Transmission, transformation, communication, Stéphane Dudoignon, Komatsu Hisao, Kosugi Yasushi eds. (London & New York, 2006), 85-116. Dumavi, Nadzhib. Probuzhdenie russkikh tatar i ikh literatura, (Kazan, 1999). Durdyev, Marat. Turkmeny Kitaia, (Ashgabat, 1992). Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia by Anthony Jenkinson and other Englishmen, vol. 1, the Hakluyt Society, (London, 1856). Efremov, Filipp. Stranstvovanie Filippa Efremova v Kirgizskoi stepi, Bukharii, Khive, Persii, Tibete i Indii i vozvrashchenie ego ottuda chrez Angliiu s Rossiiu, 3rd ed., Petr Kondyrev ed. (Kazan, 1811). 198 bibliography

Elert, A. Kh. “Istoriko-geograficheskoe opisanie Tomskogo uezda G. F. Millera (1734 g.),” Istochniki po istorii Sibiri dosovetskogo perioda (Novosibirsk, 1988), 59-100. Erman, Adoph. Travels in Siberia I, (London, 1848). Farkhshatov, M. N. “Ob uchebnykh posobiiakh mektebov i medrese Bashkirii do nachala XX v., ” Sotsial’nye i etnicheskie aspekty istorii Bashkirii, (Ufa, 1988), 44-49. ———. Narodnoe obrazovanie v Bashkirii v poreformennyi period 60-90-e gody XIX v., (Mos‑ cow, 1994). Fatïykhov, Ämir. Gäyne ile, (Barda, 1995). Fätkhiev, A. S. Tatar ädipläre häm ghalimnäreneng qulyazmalarï, (Kazan, 1986). Fattakhutdinov, A. “Bashkirskie shezhere (kratkoe arkheograficheskoe opisanie),” Bashkir- skie shezhere (filologichekie issledovaniia i publikatsii), (Ufa, 1985), 88-128. Fisher, Alan W. “Enlightened Despotism and Islam under Catherine II,” Slavic Review, vol. 27 (4) (1968), 542-553. Frank, Allen J. The Siberian Chronicles and the Taybughid Biys of Sibir’, Papers on Inner Asia 27, Research Institute for Central Asian Studies, (Bloomington, Indiana, 1994). ———. Muslim Historiography and ‘Bulghar’ Identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia, (Leiden-Boston, 1998). ———. “A Chronicle of Islamic Communities on the Imperial Russian Frontier: the ­Tavarix-i Alti Ata of Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries. Vol. 3: Arabic, Persian, and Turkic Manu- scripts (15th-19th Centuries), Anke von Kügelgen, Aširbek Muminov, Michael Kemper, eds., (Berlin, 2000), 429-518. ———. “Varieties of Islamization in Inner Asia: the Case of the Baraba Tatars, 1740-1917,” En Islam sibérien (Cahiers du monde russe, vol. XLI/2-3, 2000), 29-46. ———. Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: the Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910, (Leiden-Boston, 2001). ———. “Qasim Shaykh al-Qazani: a Muslim Saint in Tatar and Bulghar Tradition” Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, LVIII 1 (2004), 115-129. ———. “Muslim Patron Saints (Pirs) in Tatar Religious Belief and Practice: a Preliminary Inquiry,” Istochniki i issledovaniia po istorii tatarskogo naroda, (Kazan, 2006), 339-345. ———. Tatar Islamic Texts (Springfield, Virginia, 2008). Frank, Allen J. and Mirkasyim A. Usmanov. Materials for the Islamic History of Semipalatinsk: Two Manuscripts by Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani and Qurban’ali Khalidi, ANOR 11 (Halle- Berlin, 2001). Fuks, Karl. Kazanskie tatary v statisticheskom i etnograficheskom otnosheniiakh, (Kazan, 1991). ———. “Prebyvanie v Kazani kirgizskogo khana Dzhean-giria,” in: Bukeevskoi Orde 200 let 4, Mereke Kul’kenov, ed. (Almaty, 2001), 5-19. Gabderäkhim Utïz-Imäni äl-Bolgari. Shigïr’lär, poemalar, M. Gosmanov ed., (Kazan, 1986). Galiautdinov, I, G. ed. Tarikh Nama-i Bulgar Tadzhetdina Ialsygulova 2nd ed., (Ufa, 1998). Galiev, V. V. Kazakhstan v sisteme Rossiisko-kitaiskikh torgovo-ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii v Sin’tsziane (konets XIX-nachalo XX vv.) (Almaty, 2003). Garaeva, N. G. “Traditsii tatarskoi istoriografii v ‘Talfik al-akhbar’ M. Ramzi,” Problema preemstvennosti v tatarskoi obshchestvennoi mysli, (Kazan, 1985), 84-96. ———. “Istochniki ‘Vafiiat al-aslaf va takhiiiat al-akhlaf’ Sh. Marjani,” Mardzhani: uchenyi, myslitel’, prosvetitel’, (Kazan, 1991), 91-112. Garipova F. G. “Nekotorye istochniki dlia raskrytiia nogaiskogo (kipchakskogo) plasta v toponimii Tatarskoi ASSR,” Issledovaniia po istochnikovedeniiu istorii Tatarii, (Kazan, 1980), 136-149. Gasprinskii, Ismaʿil. Turkistan ʿulamasi, (Bakhchesaray, 1900). Gaziz, G. Istoriia tatar, (Moscow, 1994). bibliography 199

Geins, A. K. “Dnevnik 1866 goda. Puteshestvie v Turkestan,” Sobranie literaturnykh trudov II (St. Petersburg, 1898), 1-431. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb. Russia, or, a Compleat Historical Account of All the Nations Which Compose that Empire II, (London, 1780). Gladney, Dru. “Muslim Tombs and Ethnic Folklore: Charters for Hui Identity,” Journal of Asian Studies, 46/3 (1987), 495-532. Gmelin, Johann Gottlieb. Voyage en Sibérie I, (Paris, 1767). Gorodskiia poseleniia v Rossiiskoi imperii IV, (St. Petersburg, 1864). Gosmanov, M. A. Qaurïy qaläm ezennän, 2nd ed. (Kazan, 1994). “Great Bucharia, or Bokhara,” The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British India and its Dependencies XXIII (1827), 601-605. Gumerov, F. Kh. ed. Zakony Rossiiskoi imperii o bashkirakh, mishiariakh, teptiariakh, i bo­ byliakh, (Ufa, 1999). Hamamoto, Mami. “Sviazuiushchaia rol’ tatarskikh kuptsov Volga-Ural’skogo regiona v Tsentral’noi Evrazii: zveno ‘Shelkovogo puti novogo vremeni’ (vtoraia polovina XVIII- XIX v.),” Volgo-Ural’skii region v imperskom prostranstve XVIII-XX vv., (Moscow, 2011), 39-58. ———. “Tatarskaia Kargala in Russia’s eastern policies,” in: Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in regional and international contexts,” Uyama Tomohiko, ed. (London & New York, 2012), 32-51. Hofman, H. F. Turkish Literature: a Bio-Bibliographical Survey III/I, vol. 1-3 (Utrecht, 1969). Iadrintsev, N. M. Sibirskie inorodtsy, ikh byt i sovremennoe polozhenie, (St. Petersburg, 1891). Iakhin, Farit. Tatarskaia literatura periodicheskoi pechati Ural’ska (1905-1907 gg.), (Kazan, 1992). Ibrahimov, Gabderäshit. Tärjemäi khälem, (Kazan, 2001). Iskhakov, Damir. Etnograficheskie gruppy tatar Volgo-Ural’skogo regiona, (Kazan, 1993). ———. Fenomen tatarskogo dzhadidizma: vvedenie k sotsiokul’turnomu osmysleniiu, (Kazan, 1997). ———. Seidy v pozdnezolotoordynskikh tatarskikh gosudarstvakh, (Kazan, 1997). Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR II, Kh. Z. Ziiaev et al. eds. (Tashkent, 1968). Iushkov, Ivan. Sibirskie tatary, (Tobol’sk, 1861). Iusupov, Munir. Shigabetdin Mardzhani, (Kazan, 2005). Iuzeev, A. N. Tatarskaia filosofskaia mysl’ kontsa XVIII-XIX vv. (Kazan, 2000). Iuzhnoural‘skii arkheograficheskii sbornik I, (Ufa, 1973). Iznoskov. “Zametki o gorodakh, kurganakh i drevnikh zhilishchakh, nakhodiashchikhsia v Kazanskoi gubernii i o vstrechaiushchikhsia v nikh nakhodkakh,” Izvestiia Obshchestva Arkheologii, Istorii i Etnografii pri Kazanskom Universitete, II (1879), 101-146. Jahan-Shah b. ʿAbd al-Jabbar an-Nizhgharuti, Tarikh-i Astarkhan, (Astrakhan, 1907). Karimov, Elyor and David Abramson eds. Religion Made Official: A Comprehensive Collection of Documents on Religion from the State Archives of Soviet Uzbekistan, 1920’s to 1960’s, (Almaty, 2009). Karlybaev, Makset. Medrese v Karakalpakii v XIX-nachala XX vekov, (Nukus, 2002). Kastan’e, I. A. Drevnosti Kirgizskoi stepi i Orenburgskago kraia, Trudy Orenburgskoi uche‑ noi arkhivnoi komissii XXII, (Orenburg, 1910). Katanov, N. F. “Predaniia Tobol’skikh tatar o pribytii v 1572 g. mukhammedanskikh prop‑ ovednikov v g. Isker, ” Ezhegodnik Tobol’skago gosudarstvennago muzeia VII (1897), 51-61. ———. “O religioznykh voinakh uchenikov sheikha Bagauddin protiv inorodtsev Zapadnoi Sibiri,” Uchenye zapiski Kazanskago Universiteta (1903), 133-146. Kemper, Michael. “Entre Boukhara et la Moyenne-Volga: ‘Abd an-Nasir al-Qursawi en conflit avec les oulémas traditionalistes,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 41-52. 200 bibliography

———. Sufis und Gelehrte in Tatarien und Baschkirien, 1789-1889: Der islamische Diskurs unter russischer Herrschaft, (Berlin, 1998). ———. “Šihabaddin Marǧani über Abu n-Nasr al-Qursawis Konflikt mit den Gelehrten Bucharas,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 3, Anke von Kuegelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper eds., (Berlin, 2000), 353-383. ———. “al-Kursavi,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii: entsiklopedcheskii slovar’ I (Moscow, 2006), 230-232. Kerenskii, O. M. „Medrese Turkestanskago kraia,“ Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Pros- veshcheniia, vol. 284/11, 1892, section 4, 18-52. Khalid, Adeeb. The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia, (Berkeley, 1998). Khalidullin O. Kh. and N. Kh. Sangispaev. Qazaqtïng birtutas shezhiresi—Genealogiia ka- zakhov Adai, (Almaty, 2004). Khanykov, N. Opisanie Bukharskago khanstva, (St. Petersburg, 1843). Kharisov, A. I. Literaturnoe nasledie bashkirskogo naroda (XVIII-XIX veka), (Ufa, 1973). ———. “Kollektsiia rukopisei Rizaitdina Fakhretdinova v nauchnom arkhive BFAN SSSR,” Tvorchestvo Rizy Fakhretdinova, (Ufa, 1988), 78-85. Khoroshkhin, A. P. Sbornik statei kasaiushchikhsia Turkestanskago kraia, (St. Petersburg, 1876). Klaproth, J. “Sur les Boukhares,” Journal Asiatique II, 1823, 154-163. Kobeko, Dmitrii, ed. Nakaz Tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha Makhmetu Isupu Kasimovu po- slannomu 1675 godu k Velikomu Mogolu Aurenzebu, (St. Petersburg, 1884). Kolesnikov, A. D. ed. Opisanie Tobol’skogo namestnichestva, (Novosibirsk, 1982). Komatsu Hisao. “Bukhara and Kazan,” Journal of Turkic Civilization Studies 2 (2006), 101-115. Kostenko, L. F. Turkestanskii krai I, (St. Petersburg, 1880). Kostomarov, N. I. Ocherk torgovli Moskovskago gosudarstva v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh, 2nd ed., (St. Petersburg, 1889). Kushakevich, A. A. “Svedeniia o Khodzhentskom uezde,” Zapiski Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva, IV (1875), 173-265. Kuzeev, R. G. Bashkirskie shezhere, (Ufa, 1960). ———. Proiskhozhdenie bashkirskogo naroda, (Moscow, 1974). Lepekhin, Ivan. Dnevnyia zapiski puteshestviia doktora i akademii nauk ad’iunta Ivana Lep- ekhina po raznym provintsiiam Rossiiskago gosudarstva, 1768 i 1769 godu I, (St. Petersburg, 1795). Lotfi, G. “Qïshqar mädrädäse,” Mädräsälärdä kitap kishtäse, (Kazan: Tatarstan kitap näshri‑ yatï, 1992), 150-171. Maddanov, Khamit. Kishi zhüzding shezhiresi, (Almaty, 1994). Magomedov, A. M. et al. eds. Sviatyni Uzbekistana, (Makhachkala, 2007). Maqsudi, Ahmad Hadi. “Damulla Marjani Ḥazratlari,” in Marjani, Sh. Shäräf ed., (Kazan, 1915), 432-433. Märdanov, Raif. ed. Khösäyen Fäyezkhanov: Tarikhi-dokumental’ jïyïntïq, (Kazan, 2006). Märdanov, Raif and Söläyman Räkhimov eds. Bubi mädräsäse tarikhï: jïyïntïq (Kazan, 1991). Marjani, Shihab ad-Din. Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa Bulghar I-II, (Kazan, 1900). Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï. Shïgharmalarï I-XIII (Pavlodar, 2003-2008). Matorin, N. Religiia u narodov Volzhsko-Kamskogo kraia, (Moscow, 1929). McChesney, Robert D. Waqf in Central Asia: Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 1480-1889, (Princeton, 1991). de Meyendorff, Georges. Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara, (Paris, 1826). Mikhailov, M. Orenburgskiia pis’ma dlia zhelaiushchikh oznakomit’sia s Orenburgom, Orskom, Troitskom, Fortom Aleksandrovskim i dorogoiu chrez kirgizskuiu step’ do Forta No. 1, (St. Petersburg, 1866). bibliography 201

Mikhaleva, G. A. Torgovye i posol’skie sviazi Rossii so sredneaziatskimi khanstvami cherez Orenburg, (Tashkent, 1982). Miller, G. F. Opisanie Sibirskago tsarstva I, (St. Petersburg, 1750). Muhammad-Shakir Tuqayef. Tarikh-i Istarlibash, (Kazan, 1899). Mukhamedova, R. G. Tatary-mishari, (Moscow, 1972). ———. “N. I. Vorob’ev—Issledovatel’ kul’tury i byta tatarskogo naroda,” K Voprosu etnichs- koi istorii tatarskogo naroda, (Kazan, 1985), 8-11. Mukhametshin, R. G. Tatarskii traditionalism: osobennosti i formy proiavleniia, (Kazan, 2005). Muminov, Ashirbek. “Shami-damulla i ego rol’ v formirovanii ‘sovetskogo islama,’” Islam, identichnost’, i politika v postsovetskom prostranstve, Rafik Mukhametshin ed. (Kazan, 2005), 231-247. ———. “Fundamentalist Challenges to Local Islamic Traditions in Soviet and Post-Soviet Central Asia,” Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia, Uyama Tomohiko, ed., (Sap‑ poro, 2007), 249-261. Munis, Shir Muhammad Mirab and Muhammad Riza Mirab Agahi. Firdaws al-Iqbal, Yuri Bregel ed. (Leiden-Boston, 1999). Musin, F. “Zahir Bigiyev,” in: Tatar ädäbiyatï tarikhï II, (Kazan, 1985), 302-318. Mustafina, R. M. Predstavleniia, kul’ty, obriady u kazakhov, (Almaty, 1992). Mutahhar b. Mulla Mir-Haydar. Iski Qïyïshqi Tarikhi, (Orenburg, 1911). Nebol’sin, Pavel. Ocherki Volzhskago nizov’ia, (St. Petersburg, 1852). Nekrasova, Yelizaveta. Die Basare von Buchara: Das Antlitz einer Handelsstadt im Wandel, ANOR 2 (Halle-Berlin, 1999). Nevostruev, Kap. O gorodishchakh drevniago volzhsko-bolgarskago i kazanskago tsarstv v nyneshnikh guberniiakh Kazanskoi, Simbirskoi, Samarskoi i Viatskoi, (Moscow, 1871). Noack, Christian. Muslimischer Natsionalismus im russischen Reich, (Stuttgart, 2000). Nogmanov, Aidar. Samoderzhavie i tatary, (Kazan, 2005). Nosovich, S. A. “Russkoe posol‘stvo v Bukharu v 1870 godu,” Russkaia Starina vol. 95, 1898, No. 8, 271-290, No. 9, 629-650. Olufsen, Ole. The Emir of Bukhara and His Country, (London, 1911). Ostroumov, N. “Musul’manskie maktaby i russko-tuzemnyia shkoly v Turkestanskom krae,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia Ser. 2, vol. 1/2, 1906, section 3, p. 113-166. Ovsiannikov, N. N. “O torgovle na Nizhegorodskoi iarmarke,” Nizhegorodskii sbornik I, A. S. Gatsiskii ed. (Nizhnii Novgorod, 1867), 1-167. Ozeretskovskii, Nikolai. Opisanie Koly i Astrakhani, (St. Petersburg, 1804). Pavlovskii, Petr. “Mechet’ Khussein-beka.” Moskvitianin, 1843 (3), 234-245. Petrov, Ioann. “Kratkii ocherk istorii propagandy magometanstva sredi Sibirskikh tatar- iazychnikov,” Pravoslavyi sobesednik 1915 (12), 114-125. Pierce, Richard A. Russian Central Asia 1867-1917: a Study in Colonial Rule, (Berkeley, 1960). Popov, A. Snosheniia Rossii s Khivoiu i Bukharoiu pri Petre Velikom, (St. Petersburg, 1853). Popov, N. S. ed. Paran’ginskii raion: sbornik dokumental’nykh ocherkov, (Ioshkar-Ola, 2004). Potanin, G. N. “Pokazanie Sibirskago kazaka Maksimova o Kokanskom vladenii,” Vestnik Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva 1860/3, 65-75. ———. “O karavannoi torgovle c dzhungarskoi Bukhariei v XVIII stoletii,” Chteniia istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom Universitete, April-June 1868, Kniga vtoraia, 21-113. ———. Ocherki Severo-Zapadnoi Mongolii, II (St. Petersburg, 1881). ———. Tangutsko-Tibetskaia okraina Kitaia i Tsentral’naia Mongoliia II, (St. Petersburg, 1893). Privratsky, Bruce. Muslim Turkistan, (Richmond, Surrey, 2004). Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi. Kitab-i jarida-yi jadida, (Kazan, 1889). ———. Tawarikh-i khamsa-yi sharqi (Kazan, 1910). 202 bibliography

———. An Islamic Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Kazakh Steppe (1770-1912), Allen J. Frank and M. A. Usmanov eds. (Boston-Leiden, 2005). Radlov, V. V. Obraztsy narodnoi literatury tiurkskikh plemen IV (narechie barabintsev, tar- skikh, tobol’skikh i tiumenskikh tatar), (St. Petersburg, 1878). Ragozin, Viktor. Volga ot Oki do Kamy II (St. Petersburg, 1890). Rakhimkulova, Madina. Medrese ‘Khusainiia’ v Orenburge, 2nd edition, (Orenburg, 1997). M. Räkhimkulova and L. Khämidullin. “Khösäyeniya mädräsäse,” Mädräsälärdä kitap kishtäse…, (Kazan, 1992), 74-114. Rakhimov, R. Kh. Astana v istorii Sibirskikh tatar: mavzolei pervykh islamskikh missionerov kak pamiatniki istorii-kul’turnogo naslediia, (Tiumen’, 2006). Ramzi, Murad. Talfiq al-akhbar wa talqiʿ al-athar fi waqaʿi Qazan wa Bulghar wa muluk at- tatar II (Orenburg, 1908). Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din. Saʿid, (Kazan, 1897). ———. Asar I-II (Ufa and Orenburg, 1900-1908). Rizaeddin Fäkhreddin. Asar: öchenche häm dürtenche tomnar, M. A. Gosmanov et al. eds. (Kazan, 2010). Rudenko, S. I. Bashkiry: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955). Rychkov, Petr. Topografiia Orenburgskaia I (St. Petersburg, 1762). ———. Istoriia Orenburgskaia 2nd ed. (Orenburg, 1896). Sadibekov, Zayir. Qazaq shezhiresi, (Tashkent, 1994). Sadiq Imanqolïy. Mönäjätlär, gazällär, qasïydälär (Kazan, 2000). Salikhov, Radik. “Primer reformatora,” Galimdzhan Barudi, Pamiatnaia knizhka, (Kazan, 2000), 4-11. ———. Tatarskaia burzhuaziia Kazani i natsional’nye reformy vtoroi poloviny XIX—nacha- la XX v. (Kazan, 2001). Samsitova, L. Kh. Realii bashkirskoi kul’tury, (Ufa, 1999). Sayrami, Mulla Musa. Tarikhi Hamidi, (Urumchi, 1992). Schamiloglu, Uli. “İctihad or Millät? Reflections on Bukhara, Kazan, and the Legacy of Rus‑ sian Orientalism,” Reform Movements and Revolutions in Turkistan: 1900-1924. Studies in Honour of Osman Khoja, (Haarlem, 2001), 347-368. Schuyler, Eugene. Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja II, (New York, 1877). Sela, Ron. The Legendary Biographies of Tamerlane: Islam and Heroic Apocrypha in Central Asia, (New York, 2011). Seleznev A. G. et al. Kul’t sviatykh v sibirskom islame: spetsifika universal’nogo, (Moscow, 2009). Semenov, A. Izuchenie istoricheskikh svedenii o Rossiiskoi vneshnei torgovle i promyshlen- nosti s poloviny XVII-go stoletiia po 1858 god III, (St. Petersburg, 1859). Semenov-Tian-Shanskii, V. P. ed. Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva VI, (St. Petersburg, 1901). Shaikhiev, R. Tatarskaia narodno-kraevedcheskaia literature XIX-XX vv. (Kazan, 1990). Shäräf, Burhan. “Bokhara mäktüpläre,” R. Valeev and Sh. Valeev eds. Ekho vekov/Gasïrlar awazï 2003 1/2. Shäräf, Shähär ed. Marjani, (Kazan, 1333/1915). ———. Shihabetdin Märjani, Raif Märdanov et al. eds. (Kazan, 1998). Sharifullina, Farida. Kasimovskie tatary, (Kazan, 1991). Shitova, S. N. Bashkirskaia narodnaia odezhda, (Ufa, 1995). Shpaltakov, V. P. “Sredneaziatskie torgovye liudi v Sibiri v XVIII-XIX vv.,” Torgovlia gorodov Sibiri, 215-224. Snesarev, G. P. Khorezmskie legendy kak istochnik po istorii religioznykh kul’tov Srednei Azii, (Moscow, 1983). bibliography 203

Starikov, F. Istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk Orenburgskago kazach’iago voiska, (Orenburg, 1891). Stremoukhov, N. “Poezdka v Bukharu (Izvlechenie iz dnevnika),” Russkii Vestnik vol. 117/6, 1875, 650-695. Struve, Karl and Grigorii Potanin. “Poezdka po vostochnomu Tarbagataiu letom 1864 goda,” Zapiski Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva po otdeleniiu obshchei geografii I, (1867), 463-533. Sugawara, Jun and Kawahara, Yayoi, eds. Mazar Documents from Xinjiang and Ferghana: Facsimiles I, (Tokyo, 2006). Sukhareva, O. Kh. Kvartal’naia obshchina pozdnefeodal’nogo goroda Bukhary, (Moscow, 1976). Sultangalieva, G. S. Zapadnyi Kazakhstan v sisteme etnokul’turnykh kontaktov (XVIII—na­ chalo XX vv.) (Ufa, 2001). ———. “The Russian Empire and the intermediary role of Tatars in Kazakhstan: the politics of cooperation and rejection,” in: Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in regional and interna- tional contexts,” Uyama Tomohiko, ed. (London & New York, 2012), 52-79. Suslova, S. V. “Kostium Astrakhanskikh tatar XIX-nachala XX vv.,” Astrakhanskie tatary, (Kazan, 1992), 80-89. Suslova, S. V. “Odezhda,” Tatary, (Moscow, 2001), 267-317. Sverdlova, N. M. Na perekrestke torgovykh putei, (Kazan, 1991). Syzranov, A. V. “Kul’t musul’manskikh sviatykh v Astrakhanskom krae,” Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2006 (2), 127-143. Tagirov, Nail’. Akchuriny, (Kazan, 2002). Tajeddin Yalchïgol. Risaläi Gazizä I-II, (Kazan, 2001). Tatar khalq ijatï: rivayät’lär häm legendalar, (Kazan, 1987). Tatarinov, A. Semimesiachnyi plen v Bukharii, (St. Petersburg-Moscow, 1867). Tatarskie murzy i dvoriane: istoriia i sovremennost’ vyp. 1, (Kazan, 2010). Tenishev, E. R. Salarskie teksty, (Moscow, 1964). Timofeev, A. I. ed. Pamiatniki Sibirskoi istorii XVIII veka I, (St. Petersburg, 1882). Trepavlov, V. V. Istoriia Nogaiskoi Ordy, (Moscow, 2002). Trotter, J. M. Statistics, Topography, and Tribes of the Russian Territory and Independent Native States of Western Turkestan, (Calcutta, 1882). Tumanshin, K. M. “Osnovanie i razvitie goroda Petropavlovska i ego uezda vo vtoroi XVIII- pervoi polovine XIX vv.,” Uchenye zapiski Kustanaiskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedinstituta VI (1961), 39-84. Turdiev, Sh. “La Sûreté russe, les maîtres d’école tatars et le mouvement djadid au Turkes‑ tan,” Cahiers du Monde Russe vol. XXXVI (1-2), 1996, 211-221. Turdyev, Sherali. “Sredneaziatskie tatary: rol’ i znachenie v kul’turnoi i politicheskoi zhizni Turkestana pervoi chetverti XX v.” Islam v tatarskom mire: istoriia i sovremennost’, (Kazan, 1997), 169-190. ʿUsman-ʿAli Sidikof. Tarikh-i Qïrghïz-i Shadmaniya, (Ufa, 1914). Usmanov, M. A. “Istochniki knigi Sh. Mardzhani “Mustafad al-akhbar fi akhvali Kazan va Bulgar” Ocherki istorii Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia vyp. II-III, (Kazan, 1969), 144-154. ———. Zavetnaia mechta Khusaina Faizkhanova, (Kazan, 1980). Usmanov M. A. and R. A. Shaikhiev. “Obraztsy tatarskikh narodno-kraevedcheskikh so‑ chinenii po istorii zapadnoi i iuzhnoi Sibiri,” Sibirskaia arkheografiia i istochnikovedenie, (Novosibirsk, 1979), 85-103. Valeev, F. T. Sibirskie tatary, (Kazan, 1992). Validov, Dzhamaliutdin. Ocherk istorii obrazovannosti i literatury tatar, (Moscow-Petrograd, 1923). Vambèry, Arminius. Travels in Central Asia, (London, 1865). 204 bibliography

Vecheslav, N. N. Opisanie kostiumov russkikh i inorodcheskikh u krest’ian Kazanskoi Guber- nii, (Kazan, 1878). Veselovskii, N. I. ed. Posol’stvo k ziungarskomu khun-taichzhi Tsevan Rabtanu kapitana ot artillerii Ivana Unkovskago i putevoi zhurnal ego za 1722-1724 gody, (St. Peterbsurg, 1887). ———. ed. “Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh i torgovykh snoshenii Moskovskoi Rusi s Persiei III,” Trudy Vostochnago Otdeleniia Russkago Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva XXII (1898). Vil’danova, A. B. “Rukopisi iz fonda IVAN Respubliki Uzbekistan, sozdannye vykhodtsami iz Bulgara,” Iazyki, dukhovnaia kul’tura i istoriia tiurkov: traditsii i sovremennost’ II (Mos‑ cow: 1997), 97-99. Vilkov, O. N. “Bukhartsy i ikh torgovlia v zapadnoi Sibiri v XVII v.,” Torgovlia gorodov Sibiri kontsa XVI-nachala XX v., (Novosibirsk, 1987), 171-214. Vitevskii, V. N. I. I. Nepliuev, vernyi sluga svoego otechestva, osnovatel’ Orenburga i ustroitel’ Orenburgskago kraia, (Kazan, 1891). von Kügelgen, Anke. “Die Entfaltung der Naqšbandiya mujaddidiya in mittleren Tran‑ soxanien vom 18. Bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ein Stück Deketivarbeit,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 2, Anke von Kügelgen, Michael Kemper, Allen J. Frank eds. (Berlin, 1998), 101-151. ———. “Sufimeister und Herrscher in Zwiegespraech: Die Schreiben des Fadl Ahmad aus Peschawar an Amir Haydar in Buchara,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries vol. 3, Anke von Kuegelgen, Ashirbek Muminov, Michael Kemper, eds. (Berlin, 2000), 219-351. ———. Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie in den Werker ihrer His- toriker, (Istanbul, 2002). ———. “Niiaz-kuly at-Turkmani,” Islam na territorii byvshei Rossiiskoi imperii: entiklope- dicheskii slovar’ 4, (Moscow, 2003), 63-64. Vorob’ev, N. I. Kazanskie tatary, (Kazan, 1953). ———. “K. F. Fuks—Pervyi issledovatel’ byta Kazanskikh tatar,” in: Karl Fuks o Kazani, Kazanskom krae, M. A. Usmanov et al. eds. (Kazan, 2005), 323-334. Vorob’ev, N. I. and G. M. Khismatullin eds. Tatary Srednego Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia, (Moscow, 1967). Yagqub, Wäliulla. Tatarstanda räsmi bulmagan Islam, (Kazan, 2003). Zaleman, K. G. “Legenda pro Khakima-Ata,” Izvestiia imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1898, sentiabr’, vol. IX, no. 2, 1-46. “Zamechaniia o torgovle bukhartsev,” Sibirskii Vestnik 1821, 1-12. Zarcone, Thierry. “Pilgrimage to the ‘Second Meccas’ and Ka’bas’ of Central Asia,” Central Asian Pilgrims: Hajj Routes and Pious Visits between Central Asia and the Hijaz,” Alexan‑ dre Papas, Thomas Welsford, Thierry Zarcone, eds. (Berlin, 2011), 251-271. Zhukovskii, S. V. Snosheniia Rossii s Bukharoi i Khivoi za poslednee trekhsotletie, (Petrograd, 1915). Ziiaev, Kh. Z. Uzbeki v Sibiri, (Tashkent, 1968). ———. Ekonomicheskie sviazi Srednei Azii s Sibir’iu v XVI-XIX vv. (Tashkent: Fan, 1983). Ziyauddin Khan Ibn Ishan Babakhan. Islam and the Muslims in the Land of the Soviets, (Moscow, 1980). index 205

index

Abaz-Bakchi Shaykh 38 ʿAbd as-Shukur al-Portanuri 110, 134, 137 ʿAbd al-ʿAllam b. Salih al-Qazani 20 ʿAbd as-Shukur b. ʿAbd ar-Rashid 107 ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Khwaja 118 Abdulin, Safar 47 ʿAbd al-Fayz Khan 100 ʿAbdullah al-Chirtushi 18 ʿAbd al-Ghaffar b. Saʿid ash-Shirdani 105, ʿAbdullah al-Muʿazi 14, 91-92, 94, 134 133 ʿAbdullah as-Sarataghi, Mufti 88 ʿAbd al-Hakim, Mufti 106 ʿAbdullah b. Mahdi as-Saratawi al-Qulatqi ʿAbd al-Hamid Bukhari 63 89 ʿAbd al-Karim b. ʿAbd al-Ghafur ash- ʿAbdullah Khan Madrasa 133 Shahrisabzi (Ishan-i Pir) 18, 20, 24, ʿAbdullah II (Shïbanid) 37, 168 113-114, 117-119, 139, 171 ʿAbid b. Tuqtar-ʿAli (imam) 22 ʿAbd al-Karim b. Baltay 112 Abu Bakr b. Yusuf 97, 111, 125 ʿAbd al-Karim b. Timur-Bulat (imam) 142 Abu Saʿid b. ʿAbd al-Hayy as-Samarqandi ʿAbd al-Khabir al-Muslimi al-Qïzïljari 109 107-108, 123-124, 158-159, 175, 177 ʿAbd al-Khaliq b. Ibrahim al-Qursawi 97, Abu’l-Ghazi Bahadur Khan 50 128 Abu’l-Hasan al-Kharaqani 141-142 ʿAbd al-Khaliq Ghijduvani 32, 141, 188 Abu’l-Qasim Ishan b. Khan Tora ʿAbd al-Majib b. Alkhan 149 Ishan 141 ʿAbd al-Mawdud b. Fattah ad-Din as- Abu’l-Qasim Kerkani 116 Saritaghi 92-93 Abu’n-Nasir al-Qursawi 87, 89, 155-156 ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja b. Uzbek Khwaja Adab-i katib 20-21 al-Afshanji 18-19, 105-106, 124, 159, Aday Qazaqs 40 171-172 ʿAdil Samarqandi, Damulla 105 ʿAbd al-Qadir b. Niyaz-Ahmad Faruqi, ʿAdil-Shah b. ʿAbdullah al-Boghdani 92 Ishan 111-112 Afghanistan 2, 5, 96 ʿAbd al-Qadir b. Qari ʿAbd ash- Afghans 82 Shukur 182 Ahmad b. Hafiz ad-Din Barangawi 8, ʿAbd al-Qayyum b. ʿAbd al-Karim b. 16-17, 20, 25-26, 83, 88-89, 97, 101- Allahyar 129 102, 104, 108, 134, 137-138, 141-142, ʿAbd al-Wali al-Qazani 14 145-146 ʿAbd an-Nasir b. ʿAbd as-Salam az- Ahmad b. Nasir al-Hanafi (Ahmad Donish) Zimnichawi 92 177 ʿAbd an-Nasir b. Sayf al-Muluk al- Ahmad-Fatih bb. Shujaʿ b. ash-Sharifi 71 Ashiti 24 Ahmad-Giray (Shïbanid) 37 ʿAbd ar-Rahim (Torah scholar) 107, 124- Ahmad-Giray b. Nuʿman al-Irmashi 25 125 Ahmad-Latif at-Tïmïtïqi 109, 115 ʿAbd ar-Rahim al-Utïz-Imäni 13, 98, 128, Ahmad-Shah Ishan b. Dawlat-Shah 144, 146, 156 al-Boghdani 91-92 ʿAbd ar-Rashid Ibrahim, see Ibrahim, ʿAbd Ahmad Sirhindi 129 ar-Rashid Ahmad-Wali al-Qazani 62, 153 ʿAbd ar-Razzaq al-Marghinani 175 Ahmad-Wali b. Tuhfatullah al-Qïzïljari 91, ʿAbd as-Salam b. ʿAbd ar-Rahman (imam 98, 108 in Tashkichü) 17 Ahmadi b. Ihsan al-Mamsawi 18-19 ʿAbd as-Sattar b. Saʿid ash-Shirdani 89, Akchurin, Hasan 22 133 Akchurin, Timur-Pulat b. Khurrum-Shah ʿAbd ash-Shukur, Damulla, 105-107 19 206 index

Akchurin Family 19 ʿAyni, Sadr ad-Din 14, 100, 124, 131-133, Akhmarov, Gainutdin 66-67 175-176 Akhmetzianov, Marsel’ 21 Ayzharïq, see Qamar ad-Din aʿlam 88, 105-106 Aleksei Mikhailovich (tsar) 52 Baba-Rafiʿ al-Khujandi 105-106 Alexander I (tsar) 49, 60 Baba-Jan, Damulla 105, 123 ʿAli al-Qari 128 Babadzhanov, Muhammad-Salih 178 ʿAli Madrasa 133 Babakhanov, Ziyavuddin 173, 186 ʿAli Mufti b. Walid 63, 89 Babatkul (saint) 33 ʿAlim-khwaja Bukhari 63 Badr ad-Din (qazi) 173 ʿAlimjan Madrasa 133 Badr-i Jahan bint Nasr ad-Din ʿAlim Shaykh Quddus Sarra 141 Barangawi 23, 136 Al’met’evsk District 41 Baha˒ ad-Din b. Subhan al-Marjani 98, Almushev, Hamidullah b. Fathullah 173- 101, 105 174 Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband 2, 161, 166-167, Altï Ata 65 173; Altun Mazar 140 tomb of 2, 25, 111, 118, 141, 167, 170, Amir-i Jaynat Makani Madrasa 133 172-173, 188 Amirov, Ibrahim 61 Baidzhanov, Kenzhetai 62 Amu Darya River 36, 38 Bakirov, Fatikh 183 Anas b. Malik 40 Baku 51, 99, 164 Anbar Ana 42 Bala-Hawz Khanaqah 119 Andijon 184 Bala-Hawz Madrasa 88, 104 Aq Masjid, see Perovsk Balkh 88, 103, 118 ʿAqa˒ida Nasafiya 122 Baranga 8, 15-16, 20-25 Aqchura, Yusuf 13, 96, 143 Baraba Tatars 34, 50 Arabic language 121, 124 Barak-khan Madrasa 186 Arabic literature 105, 124 Bäräskä 17 Aral Sea 34, 93 Barudi, Galimjan 5, 13-14, 72, 83, 88, 96, Arghïn Qazaqs 78-79 98, 102-104, 111, 122, 127, 131-132, Arkhangel’sk 46 143, 161 Artush 23, 139 Barudi, Gazizjan 98, 132 Asar 12-13, 21, 106, 148, 157 Bashkirs 32-33, 38-41, 53, 78, 95 Ashirov, Nafigulla 187 Bashkir Cossack Host 56 Ashkhabad 183 Bashqort Mountains 33 Ashtarkhanid Dynasty 3, 100 Basra 40 ʿAshur-Muhammad at-Turki 24, 108, 120 Bayanaul 179 Astrakhan 28, 43, 45-46, 50-52, 64, 83, Bayan-i hawadithat-i Bukhara u 99, 152, 164, 166 Khuwaqand u Kashghar 57 Astrakhan Khanate 85 Baylar Orïsï 23, 150 Astrakhan Muslims 80, 164 Baylar Sabasï, astronomy 50, 121, 123-124, 179 Beneveni, Florio 80-81 ʿAta˒ b. Yusuf al-Bukhari 97 Berdibiakovo 43 Ata-Niyaz b. Miskin al-Khwarazmi 129 Bigiyev, Musa 163, 172 ʿAta˒ullah b. Imam ad-Din al-Qaraqalpaqi Bigiyev, Zahir 162-169, 185, 188 94 Bikbulatov, Sungat 183 ʿAttar Madrasa 107 Bikchantay b. Ibrahim al-Baraskawi 17 Awliya-Ata 84 biographical dictionaries 8, 12-13 ʿAwwaz b. Ibrahim al-Khujandi 104 Bishmuncha 41 Aydar (village), 90 bokharis 97, 104, 147-150, 187-188 Äyle Bashkirs 78 Buinsk 106 index 207

Bukhara, see also Emirate of Bukhara Chishmy 32 and Islamization legends 32-33, Chuguchak 70, 124-125, 179 126 Companions (sahabas) 36 and stagnation 5-6 Crimea 36 and trade with the Oirat Khanate 47- Cultural Revolution 6, 180-181 48 and trade with Russia 45-46, 51-53, Dagestan 36, 188-189 59-60 dah-i yak 107, 133 prestige of 4-7, 9, 43, 49-50, 57, 64-65, Dala˒il al-khayrat 108 185; Damascus 108 sacred associations of 2, 27, 31-33, 35- Daniyal Bek 3 36, 154-155, 165-166 Dar ash-Shifa˒ Madrasa 103 Tatar and Bashkir presence in 7, 80-82, Darvish Muhammad ash-Shafiʿi al- 95 Hindistani (Imam Shafiʿi) 91, 108, 118 Bukharan fashion 7, 9, 29, 64-75, 165 Dawlat-Shah b. ʿAdil-Shah al-Boghdani 92 Bukharan Jews 53, 58, 107 Dehli 118 Bukharan legal status 34-35, 43-50 Desmaisons, P. 82-83, 87, 104 Bukharan People’s Republic 181 Derbent 51 Bukharans; see also Siberian Bukharans Din-ʿAli Khwaja 37 in Astrakhan 50-52 Donish, Ahmad, see Ahmad b. Nasir in the Oirat Khanate 59 al-Hanafi in Orenburg 54-56 Dudoignon, Stéphane 120, 175, 177 in Petropavlovsk 62-63 Dumavi, Nadzhib 170 in Semipalatinsk 60-61 DUMES 187 Bukhari, Imam Ismaʿil al- 1, 165, 168, 173, Dungans, see Hui 186, 189 Bulghar 41, 79 Efremov, Filipp 81, 95 Bulghar identity 6 Egorov Berkhudarov, Martyn 83 Burhan ad-Din ʿAli al-Marghinani 123, Egypt, 5, 179 168 Elabuga 33 Burhan ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din al- Embaevo 150 Barangawi 8, 18-22, 69, 91, 101, 103, Emirate of Bukhara 1, 4, 6, 25, 98, 103 105-107, 110-111, 113-115, 124, 126, Enikeev, Yusuf 65 128, 131, 134, 136-137, 141, 145, Er Nazar Madrasa 55, 101, 133 176-177 ethnography 65-67 Burnes, Alexander 81 Eushta Tatars 50 Bursa 108 exegesis, 5, 121, 123, 172, 174

Carrère-d’Encausse, Hélène 3 fabrics 68-69 Catherine II (empress) 10, 48, 55, 59 Fakhr ad-Din b. Ibrahim b. Khujash 89, Caucasus 73 106, 141 Central Asia 2, 7, 47 Fakhr ad-Din b. Mustafa an-Nurlati 97, and Sufi tradition 29-30 111, 119-120, 125 and trade with Russia 27-28, 43, 45, 53 Fakhr al-Banat bint Sibghatullah ash- Chala Qazaqs 61-62 Sharifi 23 Charjuy 117 Fakhrutdinov, see Riza˒ ad-Din b. Fakhr Chebaksa 73 ad-Din Cheka (village) 93 Farab 2, 31, 34 Cheliabinsk Province 92 Fara˒iz-i Sijawandi 123 Chervonnaia, S. 72 Fara˒iz Sirajiya 123 China 44, 47, 53, 78 Fariza 78 Chishma-yi Qaranggu 139 Farkhshatov, M. 148 208 index

Fathullah b. Bikchantay al-Quyani 21 Habibullah b. Muhammad-Haris al- Fathullah Qushbegi Madrasa 89 Istarlibashi 93 Fayz-Khan al-Kabuli 92, 119-120 Habibullah Bukhari, Hajji 43 Fayzabad 118 Habibullah Khan (servitor) 86 Fayzkhanov, Husayn 159-160, 166 hadith studies, 5, 121, 123-124, 171-175 Fayzullah Bukhari 43 Hafiz ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din al- Fayzullin, Mustafa 72 Barangawi 8, 18-19, 21-24, 89, 91, Fazil b. ʿAshur al-Ghijduvani 105, 177 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 113-119, Fazl-Akram b. Ahmad-Wali al-Utari 92 122-124, 126, 128, 136, 138-141, 154, Ferghana Valley 2, 44, 53, 59, 84-85, 89, 158, 176, 178 108, 184 Hafti-i Muhammad (shrine) 140 fiqh 89, 108, 121-123, 133, 168 Haft-i Yak 24 First Mosque of Baranga 17, 20, 22 Hajji Bay Khojandi 177 First Mosque of Orenburg 57 Hakim Ata 36, 42 Fourth Mosque of Baranga 20, 25 Hami 45 Fuchs, Karl 66, 67, 74 Hammad-khwaja b. Muhammad-ʿAlim- khwaja 140 Gainetdin, Ravil’ 187 Hanafi jurisprudence 2 Galdan Tseren 47 Hasan al-Panjikandi al-Qarshi 92 Galeev, Muhammad-Jan 72 Hasan b. Hal 106 Galimjan Barudi, see Barudi, Galimjan Hasan b. ʿUmar al-Bulghari 77-78 Gasprinskii, Ismail 160-161, 165 Hasan b. Walid al-Buawi 108 Gawkushan Madrasa 103, 105, 133, 172 Hashiya-yi qutubiyat 128 gentry, Muslim 28, 48 Haydar b. Shah Murad, Emir 3, 89, 101, geometry 108, 120, 123-124, 179 105, 131, 133, 176 Georgi, Johann 39, 49, 68 Hazrat-i Imla 116 Gharibiyya Madrasa 101 Hidaya 108, 123, 133, 168 Ghazali, Muhammad b. Muhammad al- Hidayatullah Khwaja 79 123, 129, 166 Hijaz 5, 108 Ghaziyan Madrasa 102 Hikmat al-ʿayn 122, 124 Ghijduvan 25, 32, 141 hizb al-bahr 91, 108 Ghiyas ad-Din b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja Holy cities 29-30 105 Hui 31 Ghiyas ad-Din b. Hafiz ad-Din al- hujras 100-102, 131, 133, 150, 165 Barangawi 20, 25 Husam ad-Din al-Bulghari 7 Ghiyas-makhdum al-Qazani 106 Husayn, Imam 36, 38 Ghulam ʿAli-Shah Sahib ad-Dihlawi 118 Husayn b. Amirkhan 13, 103 Ghurfat al-khawwaqin li-maʿrifat al- Husayn b. Muhammad al-Bulghari khawwaqin 157 al-Kirmani 78, 89-90, 127, 143 Gmelin, Johann 47, 64 Husayn b. Muhammad-Saʿid at-Ta˒i Godunov, Boris 51 al-Baghdadi 171-172 Golden Horde 29, 35, 43 Husayn-Bek Turkistani 32 Gur-i Amir Mausoleum 139 Husayn Khwaja (saint) 139 Gusfand Madrasa 102 Husayniya Madrasa 169, 182-184

Habib al-Jamal (abistay) 22, 143 Iamyshevo Ozero 53, 58 Habibullah al-Balkhi, Shaykh 112, 116 Ibrahim, ʿAbd ar-Rashid 39 Habibullah al-Khotani, Mufti 18, 24, 108, Ibrahim b. Bik-Qul b. Irma al-Bulghari 24 120 Ibrahim b. Khurrum-Shah al- Habibullah b. ʿAbid b. Tuqtar-ʿAli (imam) Bazvayazi 115 22 Idris Khalifa 79 Habibullah b. Muhammad as-Saba˒i 91 Idris-khwaja b. Qucharbay at- index 209

Tamyani 108 Jahangir Khan 74 Ihya˒ ʿulum ad-din 129 Jalal ad-Din al-Khiyabani 18-19, 22, 24, Ikhtiyar-khwaja 106, 131-132 113-117, 135 Ili Valley 48 Jalal ad-Din b. Nasr ad-Din al- Imanqoli, Muhammad-Sadiq 13, 97-99, Barangawi 23 103 Jalal ad-Din Dawani 122, 128 ʿInan b. Ihsan al-Bughulmawi 106 Jamiʿ ar-Rumuz 127, 129 ʿInayat, Hajji 105 Jenkinson, Anthony 51 India 2, 5, 36, 52, 96, 108 Jerusalem 172 Inner Horde 15, 25, 34, 74, 178 Jumʿa-Bay 116 Iran 73 Juybari khwajas 87 Irbit 136 Irkutsk 47 Kafiya 122 Irtysh Line 58 Kalmyks 164 Irtysh River 34, 53, 58 Kama River 33 ʿIsa b. Nur-Muhammad b. Kökbash 115 Kamal, Saliakh 183 Isaghuji kitabi 99 Karaduvan 33 Isfijab, see Sayram Karataev, Ali-Muhammad 85-86 Ish-Muhammad b. Din-Muhammad at- Kashan 51 Tuntari 19 Kashf al-lughat 127 Ish-Niyaz b. Shir-Niyaz al-Urganchi 57 Kashgar 18, 23, 53, 108-109, 113, 120, Ishaev, Zaki 183 125, 128, 140-141, 185 Ishan Shafiʿi, see Darvish Muhammad ash- Kashgaria 2, 23, 26, 44-45, 59, 79, 108, Shafiʿi al-Hindistani 112, 139-141, 154 Ishan-i Padishah, see Yahya b. ʿAbd al- Kasimov 36, 38 Karim ash-Shahrisabzi Kasimov, Makhmet Isup 52 Ishan-i Pir, see ʿAbd al-Karim b. ʿAbd al- Kasimov Khanate 36 Ghafur ash-Shahrisabzi Kasimov Tatars 52 Ishim River 60 Katta Qurghan 99 Ishmi Ishan, see Ish-Muhammad b. Din- Kazakhstan 13 Muhammad at-Tuntari Kazalinsk 84, 98-99 Iskandar b. Qalandar Sufi al-Marghinani Kazan 13, 15, 25, 43-44, 46, 51, 66-67, 72, 57 89, 97, 109, 125, 147-148, 150, 152 Iske Awïl Pochinkasï 25 Kazan Khanate 85 Iske Qïyïshqï 14 Kazan Province 33, 38, 89-90 Iske Salman 41 Kazan Tatars 35, 52, 64, 73, 80 Iskhakov, Gosman 187 Kazanka Valley 14 Kemper, Michael 145, 156 Islamization narratives 30-33, 37-39, 41, Kerenskii, O. 100, 102 126 Kermine 25, 80, 89, 116, 141-142 ʿIsmaʿil as-Samani 168 Khaialin, Said see Saʿid b. Ayt Khayalin ʿIsmaʿil Bukhari, see Bukhari, ʿIsmaʿil Khalid, Adeeb 3, 120, 159 Istanbul 108, 148, 172, 179 Khalidiya 2, 188 Iunusov, Mulla Maksat 80 Khalifa Husayn 92, 112 Ivan IV (tsar) 51 Khanaqah-i Mir Anan Madrasa 133 Izh-Bubi Madrasa 184 Khanskaia Stavka 25 ʿIzzatullah b. ʿAbd al-Karim, Mulla 138 Khanty 50 Khanykov, N. 82, 87-88, 95-96, 101, 103, jadids and jadidism 3, 6-9, 71, 145, 158, 121, 131-132, 135, 137, 175 160-162, 166, 170-171, 174-176, 180- Kharaqan 25, 141-142 182, 185 Khartang 173, 185 Jaʿfar-khwaja Madrasa 102, 133 Khayrabad 141 210 index

Khiva 14, 31-32, 53, 56, 78, 80, 95, 181- Mah-i Kamal bint Mulla ʿUmar 23 182 Mahmud Khalifa (Sufi shaykh) 20 Khatun qizgha birgän bozuq kingäshni Mahmud b. Yahya b. ʿAbd al-Karim, bozu 71 Khalifa 119 Khivans 55, 82 Majid Ata 139 Khiyaban Madrasa 101, 103, 124, 131, Makar’evo Fair 57, 64 133 Makhdum-i Aʿzam 88 Khojand 23, 85, 89, 103, 139 Malek-khuzha 38 Khoqand 36, 53, 60, 63, 85, 89, 102, 108, Mamliutovo, see Mawlud 139, 158, 175 Manghït Dynasty 3, 12, 75, 104, 107, 110, Khorezm 44, 51, 57, 78, 84, 93-94, 112, 124, 158, 174-176, 179, 181 183 Manghït tribe 33, 93 Khotan 18, 23, 108, 140 Mangïshlaq Peninsula 51 Khotongs 31-32 Manhaj ad-Din al-Jabali al-Iske Awïli 25 Khudayar Khan 86 manuscripts 7, 10-12, 125-129 Khudayberdi b. ʿAbdullah al-Baysuni 90, Maktubat 129 105, 177 Mari El 15 Khwaja Afaq 139 Marghilan 139 Khwaja Ahrar 87, 139, 188 Marjani, Shihab ad-Din 5, 12-14, 18-21, Khwaja Arslan (saint) 139 24-25, 55, 89-90, 96, 98-99, 103, 105- Khwaja Bulghar, see Hasan b. ʿUmar al- 107, 111, 122-124, 127, 131, 155-159, Bulghari 175-176 Khwaja Davlat Madrasa 103, 133 Mashaikovo 43 Khwaja Ishaq (saint) 139 Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï, 14, 40, 154, Khwaja Juybar-i Kalan Madrasa 133 179 khwajas, see sayyids Masjid-i Kalan Mosque 89 Kiakhta 45, 47 Maslahat ad-Din Khojandi 139 Kimiya as-saʿadat 123 mathematics 105, 121, 123-124 Klaproth, J. 45 Maturidi, Imam 139, 168 Kopeev, see Mäshhür-Zhüsip Köpeyulï Mavarannahr 37 Kostenko, L. F. 84 Mawarannahrda sayahat 162-169 Kräshens 85 Mawlud 54 Krasnovodsk 99, 164 Mazar-i Sharif 118 Kuban 36 Mazarbashï 15, 18-19, 122, 126 Kubravi, Najm ad-Din 161 Mecca 41, 108, 172 Küchüm Khan 37, 45 Medina 172 Kuhistan 89 merchants Kukaltash Madrasa 78, 106, 133 Armenian 53 Kusam b. ʿAbbas 139, 188 Bukharan 28, 43, 47, 51, 55-56, 59, Kuznetsk 47 154 Central Asian 28, 54, 45, 60-62, 64, 66, lashmany 29 154 logic 106-107, 120, 122, 124 Greek 53 Lutfullah b. ʿInan al-Bughulmawi, Persian 51 Mufti 88 Qazaq 59 Russian 53 Machkara 18 Tatar and Bashkir 28, 53, 56, 64, 66, 80, Madrasa-yi Safid 139 154 madrasas Merv 164 in Bukhara 4-6, 100-102, 132-133, 174 Meyendorff, Georges de 81, 83, 95 in Russia 132, 149, 159, 174 Mikhail Fedorovich (tsar) 51 in Turkestan 100-102, 174 Miller, Gerhard 37, 50 index 211

Mir-ʿAli b. Qul-ʿAli 78 Muhammad-Rahim Khan 86 Mir-ʿAlim b. ʿAbd al-Muʾmin Khwaja 106 Muhammad-Sadiq Imanqoli, see Imanqoli Mir-Qurban Bay b. ʿAwwab-bay 62 Muhammad-Shah Khalidi 124, 179-180 Mir-Saʿid b. Mir-Sharif 78 Muhammad ash-Shakir al-Istarli 141 Mir-Siddiq as-Sardawi al-Qazani 20, 88, Muhammad-Sharif al-Kirmani 18 104 Muhammad-Sharif b. ʿAbd ar-Rahim Mir-i ʿArab Madrasa 88, 92, 101, 105, 116, al-Bukhari 57 131, 135, 186-188 Muhammad-Sharif b. ʿAta˒ullah al-Bukhari Mirza-Jan b. Shams ad-Din al-Balkhi 105- 105 106 Muhammad-Sharif b. Ibrahim al-Birgawi Mirza Rahim-Bek b. Amanullah al-Hindi, 92 see Darvish Muhammad ash-Shafiʿi Muhammad-Sharif Ishan (saint) 140 al-Hindistani Muhammad-Sharif Savdagar Madrasa 133 Mirza-Salih Aʿlam 105 Muhammad-ʿUmar Khan 60, 62 Mirza Shams Bukhari 57 Muhammad-Zakir al-Kulabi 104 Mishars 35, 41 Muhammad-Zakir b. Muhammad-Sharif Mishqat al-anwar 126 al-Urganji 93 Mishqat al-masabih 123 Muhammadi b. Ihsan al-Burbashi 24, 143 Miyan Malik b. ʿAbd al-Qadir Muhammadi b. Salih al-Bashqordi 109, Bukhari 106, 112 117 Möflikhunov, Nurulla 188 Muhammadiya Madrasa 169 Mongolia 31-32, 47 Muhsin b. Bik-Qol b. Ibrahim ash-Shashi Moscow 46 89 Muʿaz b. Bek-Muhammad al- Mukhtasar al-wiqaya 124, 128 Qaramali 136 Mulla Jalal, see Sharh-i ʿaqa˒id ʿazdiya mudarrises 88-89, 100, 103-109, 116, Mulukiyat 140 122, 135 Muʾmin-khwaja Vabkandi 177 mufti-yi ʿaskar 88, 105, 116 Muqaddima-yi Jazari 123 muhtasibs 89 Murad Ramzi, see Ramzi muftis 88, 103-104, 106 Murad al-ʿarifin 129 Muhammad, prophet 7, 35, 42 Murtaza b. Qutlïghïsh as-Simati 17 Muhammad b. Safar al-Khujandi 105 Muslims of Russia Muhammad-ʿAli az-Zahiri al-Witri al- and contact with Central Asians 64 Madani 172-173 and Sufi tradition 29-30 Muhammad-ʿArif (Sufi) 119-120 as craftsmen 7 Muhammad-ʿArif as-Saʿati b. Siraj ad-Din as merchants 4, 7, 9 al-Gaynawi 141 as scholars 7, 9 Muhammad-ʿArif Qul 88, 116 Mustafad al-akhbar fi ahwali Qazan wa Muhammad-Hafiz b. Sayyid 63 Bulghar 12, 157 Muhammad-Jan b. al-Husayn (mufti), 17 Mustakaev, Abdulla 183-184 Muhammad-Jan b. Muhammad-Qul 90 Mustaqim Divana Noghay 86 Muhammad-Fatih al-Ilmini 15, 65, 149, Mutahhar b. Mulla Mir-Haydar 14 181 Muzaffar ad-Din Khan (emir) 85-86 Muhammad-Fatih b. ʿAbd an-Nasir 99, 101, 135 Nadir al-Khujandi 105 Muhammad-Najib b. Baymurad al-Mingari Nadir-Shah 78 159 Najib b. Shams ad-Din b. ʿAli Tuntari 93- Muhammad-Najib b. Ghiyas ad-Din 94 (imam) 25 Najib-makhdum al-Qazani 106 Muhammad Qasim al-Bukhari 128 Nal-Khansha 37 Muhammad-Qasim Makhdum b. ʿAbd Namangan 103 al-ʿAllam 165 Naqshband, see Baha˒ ad-Din Naqshband 212 index

Naqshbandiya 2, 92, 110, 112 Perovsk 84, 98-99 Nasr ad-Din b. ʿAbd as-Salam al- Persia 44, 73 Barangawi 17, 22-23, 112, 135 Peter I (tsar), 27-28, 48, 53, 58, 80, 152 Nasrullah b. Saʿid (emir) 81, 86, 116, 118, Petropavlovsk 14, 18-19, 22-23, 28, 38, 44- 134-135, 158, 176 45, 53-54, 58, 60, 62-63, 108-109, 136, nationalism 6 141, 148-149, 152-153, 186 Nayman tribe 33 Pierce, Richard 120 Nebol’sin, Pavel 34 pilgrimage 1, 2, 138-141, 168-170 Nepliuev, Ivan 55, 57 Pir Bughra Khan 139 Nicholas I (tsar) 27, 49, 74 Ponomarev, Hasan 186 Niʿmatullah b.Bek-Timur al- Pugachev Uprising 89 Istarlibashi 127 Nisab as-Subyan 128 Qalmash 40 Niyaz b. Binyamin al-Balkhi 105 Qamar ad-Din (Qazaq scholar) 178-179 Niyaz b. Choqmaqi Bukhari 43 Qamar-Khan b. Jalal ad-Din Niyaz-Quli b. Shah-Niyaz at-Turkmani 90, Khiyabani 116 92-93, 97, 112, 155, 176 Qamus 140 Nizhniaia Ura, see Baylar Orïsï Qara Qum Ishan, see Qutlugh-Khwaja Nizhnii Novgorod 43, 57, 64. 66 Ishan Noghay Horde 45 Qaraqalpaqs 34, 93, 183 Noghay Qurghan 84 Qarghalï 17, 54-56, 89, 137 Noghays 33, 45, 52 Qarmïsh 90 North Caucasus Steppe 33 Qarshi 36, 92 Nosovich, A. 85 Qasida-yi burda 108, 120 Novaia Bukhara 99, 141, 145, 149, 165 Qasim Shaykh 80 Novouzensk 65 Qasim Shaykh b. Ibrahim al-Qazani 79-80 Novouzensk District 15, 142, 147, 149 Qatighuryas 124 Nuʿman b. Ibrahim al-Irmashi 24 Qazan Artï 15 Nuʿman b. Nur-Muhammad al-Bulghari Qazaq Steppe 14, 28, 34, 44, 48, 52-53, 58, 92, 109, 134 96, 112, 152, 154 Nur ad-Din al-Khwarazmi 107 Qazaqs 25, 32, 35, 40, 78-79, 95, 109-110, Nur-ʿAli b. Hasan al-Buawi 105-107, 134 134, 137, 154, 183 qazi-yi ʿaskar 88 Oirat Khanate, 2, 44, 47-48, 53, 58-59, 154 qazi-yi kalan 88 Oirats 31, 44, 53 Qing Empire 154 Olufsen, Ole 96 Qïpchaq tribe 33 Omsk 58 Qïrghïz Bashkirs 39-40 Orenburg 14, 17, 28, 44, 52-58, 60, 66, 72, Qïshqar 24, 150 85, 98-99, 149, 169, 178, 182 Qochqar Ata 140 Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly 19, Qorban (village) 149 62, 147, 152 Qorqut Ata 32, 39-40 Orenburg Province 92 Qoshman 41 Orsk 53 Qul-ʿAli b. Mir-Hajji 78 Osh 23, 31-32, 139 Qulbaba 79 Ostyaks, see Khanty Qumirguja 38 Ottoman Empire 2, 5 Qur’an recitation 97, 121, 123, 125, 129 Otrar, see Farab Qurban-ʿAli Khalidi 14, 60, 62, 64, 70, 89, 103, 109, 125, 137, 144, 154, 181 Pahlawan Ata 32 Qursa Pochmaghï 17 Panjikent 92, 112, 138 Qutlï Bükäsh 43 Perm’ Province 32 Qutlugh-Khwaja Ishan 93 Perm’ Tatars 33 index 213

Rafiq b. Makay b. Mamatay 17 Samoyeds, see Selkups raʿis 88 Samsun 116 Ramitan 114 Saray-i ʿAbdullah-Jan 82 Ramzi, Murad 13, 91 Saray-i Fil-Khan 83 Rasulev, Gabrakhman 187 Saray-i Noghay 82-83, 85 Red Army 183 Saray-i Pay-Astana 82 Risala al-iʿtizal 18 Saray-i Urganji 82 Risalat ar-ruh 123 Sart-Äyle Bashkirs 38 Risala-yi ʿAziza 79, 111 Sattarov, Fäyzrakhman 187 Risalat al-ithbat al-wajib jadid 128 Sayfullah b. Utagan 38 Risalat fi’n-nasikh wa’l-mansukh, nukhrat Sayram 2, 31, 38, 41 al-fikr 128 Sayyid Ata 37, 88 Risalat hudud 128 ˒ Sayyid b. ʿAlim-khwaja Bukhari 63 Riza ad-Din b. Fakhr ad-Din 12-13, 17, sayyids 6, 34-40, 42, 47, 50, 87-88, 153, 19-21, 90, 92-93, 106, 111-112, 136 166, 171 Rububiyat al-kashfiyat wa’l-ʿubudiyat al- Schuyler, Eugene 86 khalisat 23, 26 Second Mosque of Baranga 24 Russia 2, 3 Seitov, Azeika-Baba 47 Russia Seitovskii Posad, see Qarghalï Central Asian settlement in 44, 54-55 Selkups 50 industrialization of 4 Semipalatinsk 14, 28, 44-45, 53, 58, 60-62, Islamic revival in 4-6, 10 89, 92, 125, 148, 152-153 state policies of 4, 45-46, 49, 51-52, Service Tatars 29 55-57, 61 Shadrinsk District 149 Shah-Ahmad b. Jalal ad-Din as- Sadr ad-Din b. Mufti ʿIsa al-Khoqandi 105 Sabawi 115 SADUM 173, 186-187 Shah Akhsi Khanaqah 116, 118 sahabas, see Companions Shah-i Zinda Mausoleum 139 Sahibzada ishans 106, 111 Shah-Murad b. Daniyal-biy (emir) 3, 100, Sahih Bukhari 22, 108, 175 176 Sahih Muslim 123 Shah-Qol (sayyid) 36 Saʿid b. Ayt Khayalin 54, 57 Shahrisabz 89, 103, 118-119, 139 Saint Petersburg 60, 159 Shajara-yi turk 50, 158 saints 9, 30, 32-33, 37, 42-43, 79, 139 Shakulov family 36, 38 Salam al-ʿayn 124 Shams ad-Din Kuhistani 129 Salars 31 Shams ad-Din Kulabi 105 Salih b. ʿAbd al-Khaliq 174 Shams ad-Din Mawlawi 119 Salim b. ʿAbd ar-Rahim as-Sabawi 89, 97 Shams ad-Din b. Mingli al-Jabali 106 Saʿid b. Hamid al-Qawali 108 Shamsiya 104, 109 Saʿid b. Muhammad ash-Shami 173, Shäräf, Burhan 162, 169-170 185-186 Shäräf, Shähär 13, 18, 20, 96 Salafism 171-172 Sharh al-ʿAqa˒id 128 Salah ad-Din b. Ishaq Burnaev 127 Sharh-i ʿAqa˒ida Nasafiya 122 Salim al-Bulghari al-Penzawi 138 Sharh-i ʿaqa˒id ʿazdiya 122-123, 126 Salman Farsi 40-42 Sharh-i Gulistan-i ʿArabi 126 Samara Province 65, 93, 142 Sharh-i Jami 122 Samarqand 2, 18, 23, 26, 31, 33, 51, 67, Sharh-i mulla 109 81, 84, 87, 89-91, 96, 107-108, 124-125, Sharh-i tahzib 124 139, 158, 165, 172, 174, 183-184 Sharh-i talkhis 123 Samatov, Gabdelkhaq 187 Sharh-i wiqaya 123 Samiʿullah b. Sibghatullah ash-Sharifi 23 shaykh al-Islam 37, 87, 107 214 index

Shaykh Shanä Mosque 89 Samarqandi 18, 24, 90-91, 108 Shemakha 51-52 Taj ad-Din b. Bashir al-Bulghari 127 Shihab ad-Din Marjani, see Marjani Taj ad-Din b. Yalchighul al-Bashqordi 38, Shikasta-yi turkiya 109 78-79, 111 Shikhov family 38 Tajetdin, Talgat 187 Shirbeti Shaykh 37 Tajiks 45 Shirdar Mardasa 107 Talfiq al-akhbar wa talqiʾ al-athar fi Shujaʿ b. Sibghatullah ash-Sharifi 23 waqaʿi qazan wa bulghar wa muluk Siberia 1, 4, 27-29, 31, 35, 42, 44-50, 60, at-tatar 13 63, 66, 112, 136, 150 Tanbih abna˒ al-ʿasr ʿala tanzih anba˒ Abi Siberian Bukharans 27-28, 33-34, 45-50, n-Nasr 157-158 52, 58-59, 61, 64, 152 Tara 38, 45-47, 50, 59 Siberian Khanate 36 Tarikh Nama-yi Bulghar 38, 78 Siberian Line 53, 58-64 Tarikh-i Barangawi 8-9, 15, 20-26, 70, 96, Siberian Tatars 27 104, 110, 112, 136, 145, 174, 176 Sibghatullah b. ʿAbd al-Qadir ash- Tarikh-i Istarlibash 16 Sharifi 23 Tarikh-i Muʿaziya 16 Silk Road 1 Tashkendis 45, 49, 54, 59, 61-62 Simbirsk Province 138 Tashkent 44-45, 53, 59-60, 62, 65, 81, Sindh 36 83-84, 89-90, 93, 98-99, 102, 136, 138, Siraj ad-Din as-Sarataghi, Mufti 88, 92, 141, 170, 173, 183-184, 186 107, 109, 134, 167 Tashkichü 15, 17 Soviet Union 181 Tatarinov, A. 85 Staroe Timoshkino, see Zoyabashï Tatars and Bashkirs, see Muslims of Russia Stavropol’ 33 Tatarskoe Islamovo 80 Sterlibashevo 14, 92, 127, 148 Tawarikh-i Alti Ata 15, 147 Stremoukhov, N. 86 Tawarikh-i Bulghariyya 7, 43 Subat al-ʿAjizin 79, 129 Tawzih 123 Sufi Allahyar 79, 129 Taybugha Biy 37 Sufi literature 29 Taybughid Dynasty 37 Sufis 57, 90-91, 104, 110-120, 161 Tazayyin al-ʿibarat li-tahsin 128 Sufism 27-29, 161, 164-170 Terberdy Chally 79 Sulayman Baqïrghani, see Hakim Ata Third Mosque of Baranga 20, 25 Sulayman-qari b. Ibrahim-bay ash- theology 5, 107, 120-124, 151, 170, 187 Shamawi 125 Timur, Amir 78, 81, 139 Sultan Bughra Khan Ghazi 139 Timur Hajji (saint) 140 Sultan Muhammd-Fatih b. Hafiz ad-Din Tiumen’ 46-47, 59 al-Barangawi 20, 24 Tobol’ River 34 Sultan-Khan b. Jalal ad-Din Tobol’sk 37, 46-47, 50, 59 Khiyabani 116-117 Tomsk 47, 50, 64 Sultangaliev, Mir-Said 182 Torah 107, 124, 176 surveying 124, 179-180 Troitsk 53, 60, 98-99 Suyuti, Imam 128 Tsaritsyn 164 Syr Darya River 32, 34, 38, 40, 84, 98 Tuhfat al-ghuraba˒ wa-lata˒if al-ghuzza˒ 144-145 tafsir, see exegesis Tuqayef, Muhammad-Shakir 14 Tafsir al-Bayzawi 123 Turfan 45 Taftazani, Saʿd ad-Din 122, 128 Turgai 99 Tahzib al-kalam 107, 128 Turk Jandi Khanaqah 119 Tahzib al-mantiq 107, 122, 124, 128 Turkestan (province) 160, 170, 175, 177, Taj ad-Din b. Ahmar al-Bulghari as- 181, 184 index 215

Turkistan (city) 2, 36, 41, 60, 84, 141 Wildan b. Akhta al-Qazani al-Khwarazmi Turkmens 32, 40, 92, 95, 109, 134, 137, 93 183 Witkiewicz, Jan 82-83 Tursunjan Madrasa 101, 133 Tusi Khan 78 Xinjiang 13, 173

ʿUbaydullah b. Niyaz-Quli at- Yahya al-Makki 171-172 Turkmani 111-112 Yahya b. ʿAbd al-Karim ash-Shahrisabzi ʿUbaydullah Uzbek-khwaja (Sufi) 119 (Ishan-i Padishah) 119 Ufa 19, 40, 51, 62, 187 Yaʿqub b. Yahya b. Jaʿfar at-Tubyazi 24 Ulugh Saba 148 Yarkand 23, 79, 108, 124, 139-140 Ulughbek b. Shah-Rukh 168 Yarullin, Nail’ 187 Ulughbek Madrasa 127, 133 Yasavi, Khwaja Ahmad 32, 42, 79 ʿUmar b. al-Khattab (caliph) 38 Yedisan Noghays 33 Unkovskii, Ivan 44, 48 Yedishkul Noghays 33 Ura-Tepe 85 Yunus Khwaja 60 Ural River 110 Yusuf b. Mansur al-Khoqandi al- Urgench 2, 31, 37, 51, 78, 90, 93 Marghinani 92 Urzhum District 15, 17, 147 Yusuf Qadir-Khan Ghazi 139 ʿUsman-qari b. Hajji Abu Bakr 125 Ust’-Kamenogorsk 45, 53, 58-60, 63, 89 Zahiri, az-, see Muhammad-ʿAli az-Zahiri Usta Ali, see Karataev, Ali-Muhammad al-Witri al-Madani usul al-fiqh 105 zakat 134, 145 Uwaysiya 119 Zakazan’e see Qazan Artï Uzbeks 33, 55, 81, 93, 183 Zakir-Jan al-Juybari 105 Uzgend 85 Zakir-mufti al-Qazani 108 Zaman Bukharlï, Shaykh 43 Vafkand 25, 108, 141 Zangi Baba 42 Valishev, Nurakhmed 183 Zariyaran Madrasa 133 Vambery, Arminius 81, 96, 161, 164 Zay River Vardanzi District 141 Zayn al-ʿAbidin b. Husayn 38 Viatka Province 8, 18, 184 Zayn al-Bashir al-Penzawi 105 Volga-Ural region 1, 29, 31, 35, 32, 43, Zaynullah-ishan Rasuli 93 112 Zhelezinskaia 58 von Kügelgen, Anke 176 Zilghi b. Hasan al-Urmati 115 Vorob’ev, Nikolai Iosifovich 66-67, 70 Zindani District 141 Ziya˒ ad-Din al-Mangari 25 Wali-Khan Khwaja 140-141 Ziya˒ ad-Din b. Taj ad-Din al-Ishtiraki 136 Waliʾullah al-Baghdadi 17 Zoyabashï 19, 22, 25 Wafiyat al-aslaf was takhiyyat al-akhlaf Zubdat al-asrar 128 105, 157