AHA Panelist Sought

I and my colleagues are seeking a female scholar who can help us to fill out a panel that I'm organizing structured along the following lines. Can you help, or know someone who might be interested? Please contact me if you are interested.

Session Title: Illuminating the Importance of Islands and Maritime Borderlands in Islamic Empires

Abstract:

As a general rule, the history of pre-modern Islamic empires has focused primarily on their centers of economic and political power, which has privileged their influence over Islamic historiography at the expense of the peoples who inhabited the peripheries of those empires. Nowhere is this neglect more evident than in the case of islands and maritime borderlands, which often are not as well represented in financial sources and bureaucratic records, which were aimed primarily at documenting central government concerns such as collecting revenues from agriculture. Thus, this panel aims to generate alternative perspectives that examine the critical role that near-autonomous islands and maritime border regions have played in the history of the various empires ranging over both medieval and early modern Islamic history.

The role and function of islands and other maritime peripheries that lay along the range of maritime boundaries that demarcated Islamic empires has not received the attention it deserves, despite the existence of geographical, financial, religious and epigraphical sources that can shed light on their history. Firstly, among the most striking elements of the early Islamic conquests was the degree to which formerly desert-bound Arab peoples adopted and acquired a formidable naval presence in the Mediterranean and beyond. Within two decades of the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Arab forces (and most likely, their non-Arab naval auxiliaries) had overrun the islands of Cyprus and Rhodes; two decades later they were landing their forces at the gates of Constantinople itself. In addition, Muslim expansion over the coastline of North Africa, and eventually the Iberian peninsula, created an extensive maritime boundary that stretched around three sides of the Mediterranean Sea, a situation that would not be reversed until the advent of the First Crusade. We know that the early centuries of Islam, based on its nominal unification of disparate regions of the Middle East and North Africa, witnessed a revival of long-distance trade and movement of peoples across these maritime boundaries. Ultimately, a study of these issues may address the question of why the Muslim presence established on these islands during the medieval period did not endure and could be re-established in some regions only by a Muslim resurgence under the Ottomans centuries later.

Our understanding of these issues for the Islamic empires of the later medieval and early modern periods is equally sketchy. At its height, the Ottoman Empire encompassed a region of the Middle East and North Africa that was second only to the early Islamic empires of the Umayyads and Abbasids in geographical scope and size. Yet here also, our knowledge and understanding of the peripheries of empire and the local communities who negotiated their position vis-a-vis the centers of Ottoman power is limited at best. The historiography of the Ottoman Empire too often assumes that the center had the coercive power to invariably enforce its will on all of the regions within its sphere of influence. Once again, by privileging the view from the center, this perspective has failed to consider the potential for local autonomy, or even outright challenges to Ottoman hegemony that could emanate from maritime frontiers. Ultimately, these issues may also explain why the Ottomans failed to develop a significant naval presence during the early modern period, at a time when Western European states were shifting the global balance of economic power to maritime trade routes in the Atlantic.

By bringing together a group of scholars from across historical periods to examine the role that islands and maritime borderlands played in the history of pre-modern Islamic empires, this panel will present evidence that a more exhaustive and formal study of this subject will have a beneficial impact on the historiography of the pre-modern empires of Islam. Moreover, it also seeks to open a place for Islamic maritime frontiers in the broader historiography of borderlands in its pre-modern forms.

A topic of conversation at the November MESA meeting

The following document below represents what Erik and I think is an ambitious attempt to compile a body of scholarship that aims at rethinking Sufism in the early modern period. Any and all individuals who think they would like to contribute to the volume should please contact John Curry at john.curry@unlv.edu. We are hoping to discuss the possibilities, or revision of this suggested structure at the MESA meeting in Montreal at our November 20 Thematic Conversation. Please join us!

MESA Thematic Conversation Document

The Nexus of Sufism and Society:

Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim World

1200-1800 C.E.

edited by

John J. Curry

Assistant Professor of Near Eastern and Islamic History

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

and

Erik S. Ohlander
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne

(preliminary)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Acknowledgments

2. Abbreviations

3. A Note on Transliteration and Dating

4. Introduction

This section will be devoted to stating the rationale of the work as a whole and contextualizing its various sections, both in relation to one another and to larger issues framing emerging methodological and interpretive shifts in the contemporary study of Sufism. In brief, the rationale of the volume runs something like this:

In recent years, historians of mysticism working in geo-historical complexes laying outside, yet oftentimes contemporaneous with, the medieval and early-modern Islamic world have been grappling in sophisticated ways with the methodological difficulties of essentialism. One of the most significant outcomes of this body of work has been the establishment of previously unimagined trajectories for the study of mystical and ascetically-minded movements and religious collectivities as social actors of real historical consequence. The works of Thomas Head, Caroline Bynum, or Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingorn on sainthood, mystical religiosity, and ascetic collectivities in medieval Europe are all particularly excellent examples of this type of ground-breaking and innovative scholarship.

Although tentative steps have been made in aligning academic research on Sufism in the medieval and early-modern Islamic world with such discussions, much work on the subject remains mired in broad, overly-essentialist readings of Sufism and its institutions over the wide sweep of the period from the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate to the advent of the modern period (ca. 1200-1800 CE). Too often, the result is that religious actors not directly bound up with a state or government institution are marginalized in the historiography as having little or no relevance. Although tentative steps have been made that aim to correct this imbalance by aligning academic research on Sufism with the narratives of this historical period, they have been largely episodic and localized. Moreover, such attempts at innovation continue to remain marginalized by the commonly held assumption that the only ‘proper’ way to study a ‘religious’ phenomenon such as Sufism during this period is solely through philosophical or literary interpretive frames. As displayed in the work of our colleagues working on similar materials in the context of pre-modern Europe, questioning such assumptions can produce surprising results.

Accordingly, the purpose of this volume is to bring together a group of scholars whose work intersects with the history or practice of Sufism across a range of geographical and temporal landscapes, from the decades immediately preceding the Mongol conquest in Baghdad to the Ottoman Empire on the eve of its growing integration into a European-dominated world-system. By doing so, we hope to theorize about why, how and to what ends we might reconceptualize the basic methodologies, assumptions, categories of thought, and interpretative paradigms which have shaped our collective envisioning of Islamic mysticism and its place in the social, cultural and political history of the pre-modern Muslim world.

It is anticipated that the volume will be comprised of between 15-20 individual, chapter-length original scholarly contributions (approx. 8,000-12,000 words each, inclusive of notes) on specific (but broadly defined in terms of content and scope) topics and issues. Individual contributions will be organized as chapters grouped evenly into four, relatively
broad, thematic clusters:

PART I
Historiography

This section will include between 3-5 contributions which problematize the evaluation and (re)categorization of textual sources fundamental to our understanding of the history of Sufism. In particular, this section will focus on the historiography of sources such as prosopography, didactic works, and hagiography. Important issues will include the role of reflexivity and representation in such literatures, the use of various types of narrative voices, and issues surrounding the identification and interpretation of strategies used in such sources for generating historical meaning. Contributions which consider how, why, and to what ends we might engage in a re-evaluation of the ways in which scholars have typically categorized and evaluated basic types of documentary evidence for Sufism during the period between 1200 and 1800 C.E. would be of particular interest here, especially studies making use of heretofore unexplored or underutilized sources.

PART II
Landscapes

This section will include between 3-5 contributions which deal with issues surrounding the assumed value of dichotomous categories in analyzing Sufism and other related religious movements (e.g., urban versus rural, high versus folk forms of religious belief and practice, orthodoxy versus heterodoxy, center versus provincial, etc.). Wherever possible, contributions will seek to assess the degree to which these can be considered useful categories in plotting various arrangements of ‘the mystical’ within the broader sweep of the social, cultural, political, and economic landscapes of medieval and early-modern Muslim societies. Here, issues of literacy and storytelling, the formation or reformulation of social and communal identities through or around Sufism or Sufis, the construction of new physical networks, the construction of buildings or structures that altered the urban or rural context in question, or the relationship between the circulation of Sufi ideas, attitudes, practices, and modes or levels of affiliation and the specific character of various socio-cultural, political, or geographical contexts would be of particular interest here. This section will be especially relevant for scholars interested in studies that make significant use of non-narrative sources.

PART III
Doctrine and Praxis

This section will include between 3-5 contributions devoted to explorations of specific doctrinal, institutional, or disciplinary configurations typifying Sufi discourse and communal expression during this period. In particular, these explorations would hope to address questions concerning the nature of the “Sufi order” (tariqa) and its attendant particularities. Do the terms tariqa, murshid, murid, khirqa, silsila, etc. require significant clarification in different times and places during the broad sweep of the period under consideration? Or do we require wholly new terms and categories to properly define and understand the issues that were involved in the, perhaps largely anachronistic, model of the diffusion of the major tariqa-lineages during the Age of Mongol Prestige? In addition, how might we assess the impact of the dissemination and popularization of new or hybrid forms of Sufi doctrine during this period such as, for example, the effects of the increasingly widespread circulation of the works and ideas of Ibn ‘Arabi beginning in the later 13th century or the shari‘a-minded or Sunni revivalist Sufi systems associated with the early Qadiri, Suhrawardi, or Shadhili tariqa-lineages?

PART IV
Negotiations

This section will include between 3-5 contributions which interrogate the relationship between mystical/ascetic discourse and the activities of historical subjects when shaped by relations of power and the practices associated with the generation, cultivation, and enunciation of authority. One of the greatest areas of confusion in regard to Sufism lies in the role(s) played by Sufis and associated institutional or social collectivities in negotiating conflicts and tensions at both the local and state level. Studies concerning specific examples of the ways in which authority was gathered, conserved, distributed, and deployed among, by, or through Sufis (and their relationship to larger real or imagined economies of authority and the exercise of power) would be of particular interest here.

5. Conclusion

Depending on the nature, scope, and interrelationship between individual chapters, the conclusion will offer a short, synthetic analysis of the contribution of the volume as a whole to the contemporary study of Sufism in particular and the history of the Islamic world during this important historical period in general. It is hoped that taken as a whole, the volume will not present itself as being the final word on the topics and issues it treats, but rather both a reflection of the state-of-the-art of scholarship in the area and an outline of, if not a plea for, potential trajectories for further, more far-reaching research.

6. Selected Bibliography

Depending on the reference and note style used in the text (something which in no small measure will probably be dictated by the publisher), it is assumed that a selected bibliography of major sources referred to in individual chapters be selectively gathered together in a dedicated bibliography.

7. List of Contributors

This section will contain brief professional biographies of each of the volume’s contributors of the type normally found in works such as this.

8. Index

The volume will include a comprehensive index, possibly organized into separate name and subject indicies.

New Information from Daphna Ephrat

Daphna Ephrat recently shared with me some new information that's worth announcing.

Her manuscript on Sufis and the dissemination of Islam in medieval Palestine has been accepted for publication in Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs. I think we should all congratulate her on this weighty achievement, and we all should look forward to the eventual contribution this will make to the field.

She (and I, for that matter) would also appreciate if any of our readers, limited as they are, could refer us to studies that challenge the classic J.S. Trimingham suppositions regarding the birth and early spread of the major Sufi tariqas. Since much of what we're doing here constitutes a dialogue with the ghost of Trimingham, Fazlur Rahman, and other definers of paradigms from the middle decades of the twentieth century, this may be an angle that should come up for scrutiny as we look ahead to the autumn conference.

MESA 2007 Thematic Conversation Abstracts

Here is a copy of our proposed set of abstracts for the broader conversation about preparing a work that will address the evolution of Sufism and Islamic mysticism in the so-called "Middle Period(s)," ca. 1200-1800. I hope that everyone can consider these issues more fully in the interim, and come prepared to discuss some of the issues that have been raised by these abstracts, in addition to thinking about how to make them an integral part of a broader, united project that aims to fill a major gap in the literature of both the disciplines of history and religious studies.

The Nexus of Sufism and Society: Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim World, 1200-1800 C.E.

Thematic Conversation, MESA Annual Meeting 2007 (Montréal)

ORGANIZER: John Curry (John.Curry@unlv.edu)
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

LEADER: Erik S. Ohlander (ohlandee@ipfw.edu)

Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne

PARTICIPANTS (5+2)

1. John Curry, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Abstract (“The Perpetual Outsiders? The Transformation of the Halveti Order in the Ottoman Context”)

My contribution to this thematic conversation will be a broader assessment of the history and development of various branches of the Halveti mystical order from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries. Assessments of the Halveti as an order are plagued by difficulties in definition; for example, were the various regional branches of the Halveti order unified, or did they compete with each other? Scholarship is also troubled by difficulty in interpreting the relationship of various Halveti leaders to the Ottoman elites, because many Ottoman historians discuss these issues in a framework of “secular” categories of analysis. These categories include the social roles of the orders’ membership in resolving crises within local communities, their capacity for assisting members of the community with economic issues, acting as mediators between the state and their local community members, and so forth. Yet these categorizations neglect the discrepancy between Halveti self-perception in their own writings, and the views of outsiders who often ignore or downplay the value of their participation.

Through my participation in this forum, I will sketch out a broad framework that locates the history of the Ottoman Halveti order in a different context than the traditional historiography has given them. The scholarship must move away from defining the Halveti order (and perhaps, all Islamic mystical orders of the Ottoman period) as a partner or vanguard in state-building aspirations, a site for political and religious dissent, a haven for the heterodox, or a form of “civil society.” While the leadership of the Halveti order could and did play these roles in given times and places, one must also recognize that the order’s activities were contextually-based and did not always behave according to “rational” criteria as defined by Enlightenment ideals of a later provenance.

The test narrative that will emerge from this process of reconsideration will posit several stages in the Halveti transition from the late medieval period of the post-Mongol world to the Ottoman Empire’s political and religious transformation during the early modern period of world history (ca. 1500-1800 C.E.). The Halveti order emerged out of the chaotic, post-Mongol world in a defensive posture. It was forced to defend a specific vision of mystical Muslim practices and beliefs against an unstable political and religious order that was dominated by nomadic military power. This defensive posture, far from being abandoned with the transition to the Ottoman context, would continue to characterize the order. However, it adapted itself to a different kind of challenge; rather than facing a world lacking stable centralized political power, they found that the construction of a stable power structure that characterized the Ottoman Empire could lead to internal challenges against the order, often from factions within the elite members of the state itself.

While numerous examples suggest that the Halveti order largely avoided outright marginalization in the body politic, I also argue that their philosophical and religious positions ultimately could not provide themselves the tools to allow themselves to shed their “outsider” status. The question then follows: was the growing marginalization of these religious movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the inevitable outgrowth of this transformative period? I hope to explore these and other questions further as a result of our conversation.

2. Side Emre, The University of Chicago

Abstract (“Rethinking the Political Role of İbrahim-i Gülşeni”)

İbrahim-i Gülşeni (1440?-1534) is known in the current Ottoman historical and Islamic mysticism scholarship as the saint-founder of the Gülşeniye order in Cairo. Although we know Gülşeni primarily through the Cairo period of his life (ca. 1510-1534) his biography expands to nearly a hundred year period connecting numerous urban centers like Diyarbakir, Tebriz, Herat, Jerusalem, and Istanbul.

The possible reasons for the essentialization of narratives surrounding Gülşeni’s Cairo years lies in a less-than-critical adoption of a definitive seventeenth-century hagio-biographical narrative of a Anatolian-born Cairene Gülşeni disciple, Muhyi-i Gülşeni. Modern scholars took Muhyi’s narrative as the sole primary reference text about Gülşeni. Muhyi’s narratives came to be accepted in mainstream modern accounts of the formation of Ottoman Egypt. The historical events that received attention, and were accepted as truthful representations in Muhyi’s narrative, included events surrounding the demise of the Mamluks in Cairo and the transition to early Ottoman rule after 1517.

In response to this approach, I argue that the Cairo period of Gülşeni’s life has been essentialized in the seventeenth-century literature for specific political purposes—namely, to facilitate Egypt’s transition to a well-adjusted and “exclusively” Ottoman province in the aftermath of the Ottoman conquest. Modern scholarship does not discuss the Cairo period of Gülşeni’s life and activities in conjunction with the historical context of early Ottoman rule. It also overlooks the fact that this history was being rewritten by the Gülşeniye disciples for spiritual and didactic reasons that had little to do with politics.

My participation in this conference will open a discussion on Gülşeni’s perceived role of intermediary and negotiator between two geographically and politically separate social worlds, those of Cairo and İstanbul, for the aim of securing a united Ottoman sovereignty in Egypt after 1530. In this context, I focus specifically on one incident: the events leading to the invitation of Gülşeni to the court of Suleyman I and his “interrogation” in regard to his Persian verse book, Manevi.

I argue that while in İstanbul, Gülşeni was a capable negotiator who could create and manipulate networks of rumor so that Ottoman fears of potential rebellions in Cairo could be assuaged. Gülşeni became the holy pacifier for the İstanbul audience, while the disenfranchised elites in Egypt had to be won over to Gülşeni’s role as an assimilator of potential rebel factions left over from the sudden conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate. In sum, a closer look at this narrative with the bigger historical context is needed to understand the deeper meaning of Gülşeni’s message and activities, which were a form of “invisible theater” that caused fear in some, awe in others, and invariably resulted in his rehabilitation to the mainstream Ottoman hagiographical literature in the 16th century.

3. Daphna Ephrat, The Open University of Israel

Abstract (“Embedding Sufism within the Local Context”)

The institutionalization of Sufism and its prominence in the entire Sunni culture and social order of the high medieval period (1250-1500) have received considerable attention in current scholarship. In the course of this period, the Sufi experience became more structured, as particular groups of mystics and their disciples identified themselves by the spiritual path (tariqa) they followed, and Sufi establishments proliferated throughout the Islamic Near East to become an integral part of the urban and rural scene. By the end of the high medieval period, devotional Sufism became the focus of religious and communal life, as Sufi shaykhs established their position as charismatic figures expanding their following far beyond the small circles of ascetics and mystics. The study of the forces at work in concrete physical and historical settings should be carried on further.

Drawing upon my recent study on the expansion of Sufism that is firmly rooted in the temporal and spatial frame of Mamluk Palestine and following the line of themes suggested for the conversation, the aim of my contribution will be to offer ways and methodologies of investigating the local context of Sufism. Broad issues I propose to raise and address are the impact of the particular environment on the reality of Sufism; the importance of the proliferation of Sufi establishments for the growth of locally embedded Sufi-inspired communities; and the role authors of sacred biographies played in localizing the universally recognized model of Sufi saint, the wali Allah. My central proposition is that only through the localization or appropriation of the ideal figure his charismatic position became established and his commemoration guaranteed.

In studying the sacred biographers, I look beyond the introductory formula that places the Sufi saint within a normative cultural model, and analyze the narratives that portray him within the local community of believers and render his elevated figure concrete. In examining the sites and spaces that developed around the Sufi saint and their role as his centers of operation and the focus of communal life, I encourage the use of sources other than the major texts for Sufism. The complementary source-materials available to the historian of Sufism in the historical setting under study include endowment-deeds, inscriptions affixed to Sufi lodges and saintly tombs, travelers' accounts, and physical remnants. Finally, by placing the inquiry within a broader historical perspective, my hope is to advance an understanding of seemingly uniform universal phenomena and expose their concrete manifestations.

4. Sean Foley, Middle Tennessee State University

Abstract (“Hagiography and Medieval and Early-Modern Tariqas”)

I propose a two-part discussion for the “Historiography” section of the conversation which will illuminate how the work of social movement scholars and Middle Eastern socio-economic historians offers new ways to approach medieval and early-modern tariqas. First, I will analyze the correspondence and hagiographies of Shaykh Khalid (1776-1827) through the lens of Social Movement Theory, an analytical framework often used to study twentieth-century and Western social movements. Social Movement Theory’s technique of framing investigates three separate yet related aspects of an historical figure’s career and legacy. First, how did Khalid construct his view of the world, propose solutions to sociological and political challenges, and instill faith in his followers as to the correctness and power of his solution? Second, how did he and his tariqa, the Naqshbandiyya-Khalidiyya, win the allegiance of Muslims from different classes, linguistic, cultural, and geographic zones? Third, what values and goals are embedded in his writings, his poetry, and his correspondence?

By using this approach, I was able to draw a portrait of Shaykh Khalid which contrasts with previous studies. These studies portray Khalid as a bigoted religious leader whose success rested on an ideological program calling for the full implementation of Islamic law, resistance to European imperialism, and the annihilation of Christians, Jews, and Shi‘as. Instead, I argue that Khalid’s success reflected his ability to manipulate various aspects of his identity and teachings to convince thousands of Muslims that the Naqshbandiyya-Khalidyya would bring Muslim practices closer to the religion’s ideals. Three reiterated themes were central to this process: Khalid’s emphatic emphasis on the hereafter, his assurance that he could bring salvation to his followers on Judgment Day, and his denial of the reality of the present moment. Khalid’s writings rarely touch directly on the politics of his day; they retain a timeless quality and seem applicable to any period of Muslim life. Central to his effort was the implicit presentation of himself as a Muslim saint.

Second, I will demonstrate the benefits of utilizing court records and official government correspondence to understand Shaykh Khalid and other similar figures. These records have long been important sources for socio-economic and gender-based historians of the Middle East but have been rarely employed by scholars of Sufism. By consulting these records, I was able to reveal aspects of Khalid’s character, family, and financing that are not apparent in his public persona or the writings of his followers. Among the most remarkable findings contained in these records are the identity of Khalid’s father, the contents of his personal library, his various landholdings and pious endowments, and his wife’s ties to the Ottoman government after his death in 1827.

5. Tijana Krstic, Penn State University

Abstract (“’Proselytizing Heterodox Dervishes,’ ‘Syncretism’ and Conversion to Islam: Disconnecting the Dots”)

This presentation will address a particular aspect of interaction between Sufism and society, namely the role of Sufism and Sufis in the process of conversion to Islam, particularly in the European parts of the Ottoman Empire, also known as Rumeli. A well known and long-established theory about Islamization of Ottoman Rumeli maintains that “proselytizing,” “heterodox” dervishes were instrumental in conversion of the local populations to Islam through preaching a “syncretic” brand of Islam (often also described as a “heavily Christianized” Islam). In this presentation I would like to re-examine the main features of this theory and suggest some important correctives based on my reading of already known and newly found narrative sources.

Firstly, this presentation will call for critical rethinking of our usage of the term “syncretism” and its identification with Sufism. Through a brief discussion of recent debates on the validity of the term “syncretism,” particularly among anthropologists, I shall suggest how to reconceptualize this term as a useful analytical tool and how to rethink its relationship to Sufism and the process of conversion. In addition, I shall posit that many other groups in the Ottoman society engaged in “syncretic” and “anti-syncretic” practices, particularly when it comes to the issue of conversion.

Secondly, I shall argue that the theory about proselytizing dervishes underestimates the overall impact of Sufism on the Ottoman society by imagining the language and imagery associated with Sufism as exclusive property of institutionalized Sufi orders. Rather, as I shall suggest, the language of Sufism was made available to the wider society through catechisms (‘ilm-i hal), hagiographies (menakıbname, vilayetname) and other popular genres circulated orally by a variety of oral performers in evidence in the Ottoman society. Numerous social actors and communities in the Ottoman society without official ties to established dervish orders employed the language pervaded by mystical imagery and inflected with their own socio-political agendas to different purposes. In this case, is it justifiable to continue pointing to “dervishes” as the principal agents of conversion?

Finally, I shall argue that outside of the early Ottoman hagiographies, which pose a distinct methodological challenge, there is no evidence of direct Sufi proselytization to non-Muslims and that we have to rethink the role of Sufism and Sufis in the process of conversion to Islam. In conclusion, I shall suggest that while individual dervishes had little to do with the process of conversion, which was influenced most profoundly by family and social networks rather than external proselytization, the conceptual language of Sufism could be crucial in the process of a convert’s learning how to become a Muslim and what it means to be a Muslim. This will be illustrated by the excerpts from several first-person Ottoman conversion narratives.

6. Richard McGregor, Vanderbilt University

Abstract (“Historiography and Egyptian Sufism”)

The historical study of Sufism presents unique challenges to the researcher. The answers we propose to any such problems, however, will not only support studies of medieval Egyptian Sufism, but will likely stimulate similar reflection in parallel areas of research dealing with Sufism. In the context of our thematic discussion, I believe this will be helpful. The first question is one of substance: simply put, what is Sufism? To respond we must first reflect on what categories are used to describe and circumscribe it. Here many approaches have been developed, some centering on Sufism as a site of political contestation, some identifying Sufism as a context for artistic and literary development, and others holding Sufism up as an agent of social cohesion and public welfare. These kinds of history writing have proved fruitful on their own terms, but as this paper will argue, they are not truly histories of Sufism but rather histories of what Sufism facilitates or makes room for in wider Egyptian social history. Assuming the phenomenon of Sufism may be interrogated beyond simply its function, that is, what we know it does, we may then turn our efforts to conceiving of a history proper to Sufism.

As a start to this historiographical project, I will briefly explore two problems specific to the Egyptian context, but both with much wider comparative application. The first is the issue of Egypt's early sixteenth century shift from its status as a sultanate to a province of the Ottoman Empire. This is commonly taken as a watershed point for historical periodization. In the internal history of Sufism, this marker should be contested. The related issues of patronage and the relationship to ruling authorities must be reconceived to reflect local continuities in development. A second problem is one relating to social categorization. This question is particularly difficult due to it being so deeply entrenched in Orientalist historiography. In other words, analyses of medieval Egyptian society have commonly rested on categorical assumptions about classes of people: men of the pen versus the sword, religious functionaries versus poets, judges versus mystics. The implications here for an internal history of Sufism are significant. The impulse to date has been towards identifying Sufism with one particular social stratum. Despite the utility of this in micro studies, the fact that Sufism often and easily crosses social strata forces us to reconsider our approach and the underlying assumptions that are carried with them.

7. Erik S. Ohlander
Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Abstract (“The Tariqa as a “Non-Order”: Modes of Affiliation in a 7th/13th-Century Sufi Tradition”)

While Hodgson quite rightly characterized the “human outreach” of Sufism as a significant feature of its proliferation within and across Muslim societies from the Later Middle Period forward, it is generally thought that the great tariqa-lineages which emerged from the activities of certain eponymous Sufi masters of the late 6th/12th – early 7th/13th centuries operated in a somewhat reified and inward-looking manner. That is to say, it is normally assumed that membership in, or affiliation with, any one tariqa-lineage or, more importantly, the perceived benefits of affiliating with a particular master who claimed authority based on a particular lineage was normally reserved for certain rare individuals possessing the wherewithal to pursue his particular path. One was either capable and belonged, or was incapable and relegated to a nebulous periphery.

Although affiliation with various esotericisms or membership in one or another secret society were often available to those who desired such during this period, considered in its broad sweep the Sufi tariqa was neither. Rather, it was what Hodgson identified, but never adequately explained, as Sufism’s “human outreach” which often took center stage in the self-representations of the eponyms of the great tariqa lineages, something inextricably bound up with attempts to work out the implications of the notion of Sufi claims to “prophetic heirship” as enunciated in the oft-cited hadith: “the bearers of knowledge are the heirs of the prophets” (inna ’l-‘ulama’ warathatu ’l-anbiya).

Looking at a series of Arabic and Persian Sufi handbooks associated with the first cycle in the history of two (initially at least) interrelated proto-tariqa-lineages (the Suhrawardiyya and the Kubrawiyya), I would like to offer a strategy for reading the “Sufi handbook” as a source for (re)writing the history of Sufism during this period, namely by proposing ways in which we might be able to derive meaningful data relevant to understanding certain social or disciplinary configurations of Sufism (i.e., the notion of the/a tariqa) through attending to issues of reflexivity, representation, and intertextuality in the genre of works produced by and for tariqa affiliates. Here, the focus will fall squarely on issues related directly to “human outreach”, namely the function of the tariqa-lineage, and any one particular master connected with it, in providing instruction to “those seeking guidance” (mustarshidun), normally construed as meaning all those living outside the walls of the master’s cloister who inevitably looked towards ‘ulama’/Sufi masters as religiously authoritative individuals who, in turn, must necessarily reciprocate as per the “hadith of heirship”. The texts brought under consideration here will include the handbooks of Abu ’l-Najib (d. 563/1168), Abu Hafs ‘Umar (d. 632/1234), and ‘Imad al-Din al-Suhrawardi (d. 655/1257), and the Persian handbooks of ‘Izz al-Din al-Kashani (d. 735/1334-35) and Yahya Bakharzi (d. 736/1335-36).

THEMATIC CONVERSATION AT MESA 2007--A SEARCH FOR PARTICIPANTS

Envisioning a thematic conversation for MESA 2007

The roundtable effort of November 2006 raised a lot of important issues and problems for our group to consider. A summary of these can be found on the group’s official site at http://sufism-society.blogspot.com. At this point, however, we must consider the next set of steps to keep this project moving forward. After hearing some of your feedback over the past week or so, Erik and I have collaborated to proffer the following rough template for an upcoming Thematic Conversation at MESA 2007, with the hope that many of you will participate in either an official or unofficial capacity. The official deadline for submission is February 15, 2007, and we would like to file the paperwork at least a week in advance for safety’s sake!

General Purpose:

The purpose of this Thematic Conversation is to bring together a group of scholars from various fields and geographical regions of study to continue our discussion the place of Sufism in the Muslim societies of the so-called “Middle Period” (ca. 1200-1800) of Islamic history. Marginalized in the traditional historiography in favor of its earlier and later manifestations in medieval and modern times, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a need to build some type of framework to link the origins of Islamic mysticism with its manifestations in more recent times. Ultimately, the goal of this conversation is to lay the groundwork for a collective volume of scholarship, spanning different contexts of time and place from this period, that can aim to fill some of these gaps and offer a touchstone for a more holistic view of the evolution of the Islamic mystical tradition and its practitioners.

Potential Themes for the Conversation

Based on the outcomes of both the November 2006 roundtable and more recent correspondence with many of you, we suggest the following themes:

1) Historiography: Substantial advances have been made in recent years that have challenged our thinking about the major textual sources for Sufism, especially hagiographical and prosopographical works. Issues of narrative styles, the didactic and strategic goals of such texts, and a growing awareness of the importance of the audience for such works have challenged the way we interpret the historiography of the Middle Period. Therefore, one part of our project should be aimed at discussing just what these types of sources can tell us and how we should re-evaluate them. Another part of the project should be to illuminate underutilized or unexplored sources that can shed light on potential divergent aspects of Sufism or popular religious expressions (see Gunhan Borekci’s recent guest blog-posting on the Papasname for an example of what we mean by this).

2) Landscapes: One of the difficulties that has confronted all of us working on the study of Sufi group or leadership figures is that of context, be it the physical setting of a Sufi community’s leadership or the cultural, social and political environment in which they operated. One of the more poorly-integrated aspects of the study of Sufism is the way in which its physical remnants can be used to illustrate its textual bases, or vice-versa. Another way in which this could be constructed is one of day-to-day life—might the account books or waqf documents establishing the physical place of an order illuminate our understanding of how mystical ideas, attitudes and practices were shaped, for instance? It may also be worth construing this category in an alternate, more abstract sense—when we think of the process of conversion to Islam in our region, how did Sufism and its practitioners play a role in structuring or restructuring communal identities?

3) Negotiation: Several of our presentations and subsequent conversation have dwelled at length on the issue of Sufi relations with power (which are often a thorn in the side of our historiographical vexation as well). Sufi sources, especially those under challenge from a hostile outside force, often stress their ability to advise or protect those in power from making the wrong decisions. More importantly, the role that Sufi leaders and their followers played in various contexts in society (relations between elites and commoners, governing officials and publics, or dispute resolution among their immediate publics) often prove difficult to assess or easy to overstate. The gap between hagiographical sources and those produced outside of mystical circles suggests that it may be easy to overstate Sufi political power, or in some cases, obscure the hostility of the state or other social movements toward them.

4) Structures: This might be best summed up by paraphrasing a question asked at the roundtable—“what is a tariqa and how do we best define it?” Does it require a different definition based on geographical or temporal context, as Dina Le Gall’s recent work on the Naqshbandi suggests? Can we even speak of a Khalwati order at all, given the diversity and tensions that could emerge even between different leaders of the order itself, as Nathalie Clayer asked in her 1994 study? Does the historical model of the evolution of orders as proposed by J.S. Trimingham still prove useful in assessing the history of mystical movements after 1200 C.E., or are we in need of a radical restructuring of our thought on the matter? These questions seemed much more pressing after our roundtable had concluded, and I would also add the lingering trap of the dichotomy in our work—it is sometimes too convenient to classify a historical figure as “orthodox” or “high-tradition” in contrast with other phenomena we would define as “popular” or “heterodox.” Since the borders of these categories are never fixed clearly, however, they can sometimes obscure the true nature of a movement or leadership figure and their followers.

5) Periodization: Should we break the period into smaller sub-units? After all, the Mongol invasions of 1200 to 1400 C.E. were a significantly different context from the relative stability of the Gunpowder Empires from 1500-1700 C.E., to suggest but one example. Rather than conceiving of this project as a bridge between the classical age of Sufism in the medieval Islamic world (say, 800-1200 C.E.) and the modern manifestations of Islamic mysticism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, should we instead recognize more discrete periods in the historiography that demand differing approaches, or do those working in earlier and later periods have much to learn from each other? Obviously, Erik and I favor the latter perspective, but it does not mean that potential dangers do not lurk in overgeneralizing the “Middle Period(s)” too broadly!

Conclusion:

We hope that the thematic conversation will conclude by laying the framework or template for a volume of contributions to this topic that can join the existing literature on this period and offer a convenient resource for those who want a variety of perspectives on the “missing links” between formative and modern-period Sufism and mysticism. While promises cannot be made at this point, I have made some inquiries as to the possibility of holding a “mini-conference” or workshop in Las Vegas or some other location, following the MESA meeting in November of 2007, that might draw willing participants in this project into a more intensive fashion that could generate a body of articles that could eventually be published as a comprehensive introduction to the various temporal and geographical aspects of Sufism and religious culture during the period.

Some interesting ideas contributed by new voices to our discussion:

While I do not wish to speak for others on the subject of their work, I do want to share some topics of discussion that have been raised in my recent e-mail discussions:

If you have not yet seen Gunhan Borekci’s online discussion of problems surrounding the origin of the aforementioned Papasname text, please take a look at them and see if you can offer any assistance on his “Tatar shaykh born in Bukhara”—see our remarks at http://sufism-society.blogspot.com/2007/01/guest-columnist-gunhan-borekci-on.html

The recent work of Tijana Krstic proves especially interesting in forcing us to rethink what we know about conversion in the Balkans in the early phases of Ottoman history. While not focused exclusively on Sufism by any means, I think Tijana’s research has important ramifications in questioning our assumptions about the role Sufi practitioners played in the process of conversion. She also questions whether or not “syncretism” is a useful term for understanding the process of conversion, suggesting that a greater sense of tension and conflict may have underpinned phenomena such as the sharing of shrines by different religious groups, or the transitions undertaken when passing from one religious community to another.

Gottfried Hagen recently suggested to me that the controversial Ottoman religious thinker Birgevi Mehmed Efendi (d. 1569), who has often been construed as an anti-Sufi thinker a la Ibn Taymiyya, may in fact have had important connections to Sufism that have gone lacking in analyses of his work and activities. It seems to me that this type of work fits well into our discussion of definition—classifying figures as “anti-Sufi” is often rarely sufficient as a way of characterizing their actual set of views.

A longtime friend and collaborator, James Grehan, also asked whether we intended to tether the discussions firmly to Sufism? He remarked “my hunch is that you could get a fairly sizable audience—not to mention a higher rate of feedback—if the connection to related issues in popular culture and religion were highlighted.” I had mixed feelings about this query, as did he. There are invariably concerns about overly diluting the topic, for instance. However, I also think back to my own dissertation research, and the struggles of the Sha`baniyye’s leadership to accommodate or confront popular practices that represented a potential alternative for everyday people at the rural level, such as magical practices, “pseudo-shaykhs,” and the like.

Finally, a thank you for all of you who sent kind words on the work I’ve been doing—it is much appreciated. Thank you for your reading of this material and comments upon it—and I hope to see all of you as either active or passive participants at MESA of 2007 if at all possible!

Guest Columnist -- Gunhan Borekci on problems with the Papasname

[John: My colleague from graduate school, Gunhan Borekci, recently posted a query on H-Turk in a last ditch attempt to identify an enigmatic Sufi figure from the sixteenth century who is central to the narrative surrounding the "Papasname," one of the many works that does not fit well into the genre of what many of us might call "traditional Sufism" of the period. If anyone has any reflections on how to interpret the provenance of this Shaykh, or has some insight on who this might be, please let me know and I"ll pass it along to Gunhan and Tijana Krstic, who are working on the text.]

I am writing you as a guest upon John Curry's invitation.

Recently, I sent an inquiry on H-Turk about a 17th century text (popularly known as the *Papasname*), and John kindly suggested that I could also post my question in your blog and ask for your help. I would appreciate if youcan share with me your expertise and knowledge on the following problem:

My question is about identifying one Seyh Abdurrahman, who is a central figure in the Papasname. In this interesting eschatological/sohbetname-type work, whose earliest copy dates to 1651, this Seyh Abdurrahman and his disciple Dervis Mehmed (a priestwho converted to Islam) foresee and interpret the future and its signs. However, up to this day, I could not find any other source that could confirm or provide further information on this seyh. Unfortunately, his tarikat affiliation is not clear to me as there is no reference in the text to this end. This complicates the problem, although I suspect that he might be a Naksibendi or Halveti. Overall, I am continuing to check relevant sources, silsilenames, menakibnames, tezkires, etc., but to no avail. I offer those of you who are familiar with Turkish a copy of the biography of this seyh as given at the end ofthe original text, in the hope that someone may recognize him or correlate the details in his biography with an alternate source.

I would deeply appreciate any information or reference on this seyh. Let me note that I prepared a critical edition of this text and it will be published soon. Many thanks in advance.

[Letters with the Turkish keyboard and diacritics often do not come through clearly in e-mail, so I am typing it in simplified format]:

"Seyh Tatar taifesindendür. Lakin Buhara'da dogmisdur. Tokuz yüz onsekiz tarihinde Ramazanu'l-mübarekün on besinde [4 December 1512] dünyaya gelmisdür. Ve dogdugi gice babasi gaibden bir avaz isidüp er-rahman dir idi. Anunçun adini Abdurrahman kodilar. On alti yasinda iken babasi ve validesi vefat eylediler. Hisimlari bu seyh üzerine düsüp evlendirdiler. Ve ol hatun ile otuz sene hos geçinüp on sekiz erkek oglanlari dünyaya geldi. Badehu hatun vefat idüp ve kendü dahi terk-i dünya olup dervis oldi. Ve Kabe'ye sefer kilmak niyyet idüp evi büyük ogli ki Mehemmed dirlerdi, ana siparis eyledi. Ve Kabe'ye revane oldi. Ve Kabe'ye dahil oldikda anda toksan yasinda bir pire hidmet iderdi. Ve bir gün bu pir ölüm mertebesine vardikda bir belend avaz ile didi ki, "sümme sana Abdurrahman dimediler. Zira ki sen Allahu teala hazretlerinün hidmetkari olursin." Ve pir vefat idüp ol gice üzerine nur indi. Ve gice vakiasinda Hazret-i Sultan-i Kevneyn ve Nebiyü'l-muhteremeyn sallallahu teala aleyhi ve sellemi görüp nice itmek gerek talim eyledi. Andan Kabe'ye girdi... Ol zamandan berü bir yerde (...) ve ol zamandan berü Hakk'un bir sevgili kuli oldi."

[John: While this is a very rough translation, for those who don't speak Turkish, it reads generally as follows-- "The shaykh was from a Tatar tribe, but he was born in Bukhara. He was born on the 15th of Blessed Ramadan in the year 918 (4 Dec. 1512). On the evening he was born, his father heard a call from the unseen world; it was saying "er-rahman." Due to this, he gave (his son) the name Abdurrahman. His mother and father died when he was 16 years of age. His relatives imposed upon this shaykh and made him get married. And he got along well with that woman for thirty years, and eighteen sons were born. After that the woman died and he left the material world and became a dervish. And he made a vow to travel to the Ka`ba (in Mecca), and he gathered up (the things in) his house, along with his oldest son who was (named) Mehmmed, and he willed it to him. And he journeyed to the Ka`ba. When he entered the Ka`ba, he entered into the service of a 90-year old pir there. And one day, when this pir has reached the threshold of death, he said with a mighty cry, "They did not say "Abdurrahman" to you, because you are the servant of God Most High." And the pir died, and that night a light descended upon him. And he saw the Esteemed Ruler of the two realms and the Revered Prophet (PBUH) and he spoke at length and taught him many things. He entered into the Ka`ba from there (....) in a place since that time (....) and was a loving servant of God since that time."]