2 Cf. Smirnov, E.T., “Dervishizm v Turkestane,” Sbornik materialov po Masul'manstvu, t. I (St. Petersburg, 1899), pp. 57-60Google Scholar, where the Kubravīyah is said to have declined in Khwarazm but only recently; Bartol'd, in his Istoriia kul'turnoi zhizni Turkestana (Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar, referred to the Kubravī order as widespread in Khwarazm to this day (cf. V.V. Bartol'd, Sochineniia, t. II/1, pp. 251-252). The same view is affirmed by Demidov, S.M., Sufisim v Turkmenii (Ashkabad: Ylym, 1978), p. 17.Google Scholar Among recent western works to assume a continued Kubravi presence in Khwarazm may be noted Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, “Sufi Brotherhoods in the USSR: A Historical Survey,” Central Asian Survey, 2/4 (December 1983), p. 190Google Scholar, and Bennigsen, Alexandre and Broxup, Marie, The Islamic Threat to the Soviet State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p. 76.Google Scholar

3 For oral legends surrounding Kubrā's tomb, see Snesarev, G.P., Khorezmskie legendy kak istochnik po istorii religionznykh kul'tov Sredniaia Aziia (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), pp. 142–158Google Scholar, and Snesarev's earlier Relikty domusul'manskikh verovanii i obriadov u Uzbekov Khorezma (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), pp. 269, 322.Google Scholar For photographs of the complex, cf. Pugachenkova, G.A., Sredniaia Aziia: Spravochnik-putevoditel’ (Pamiatniki iskusstva Sovetskogo Souiza) (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1983), Plates 114-117 and p. 379.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Jahn, Karl, ed., Geschichte Gāzān-Ḫān's aus dem Ta'rīkh-i Mubārak-i Gāānī des Rašīd al-Din Faḍlallāh b. ‘Imād al-Daula ‘Abū'l-Ḫair (London: Luzac & Co.,) 1940Google Scholar; GMS vol. 14), pp. 79-80; cf. also Bausani, A., “Religion under the Mongols,” Cambridge History of Iran, V (ed. Boyle, J.A.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 541–543Google Scholar; Murtazavī, Manuchihr, Taḥqīq dar bārah-yi Ilkhānān-i Īrān (Tehran, 1341), pp. 23–24Google Scholar.

5 On Bākharzī, cf. Afshār, Iraj, “Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī,” Majallah-yi Dānishkadah-yi Adabiyāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tehrān, 9/4 (1341/1962), pp. 28–74Google Scholar; this article was summarized in French in his “Saif-al-Din Bākharzī,” in A Locust's Leg: Studies in honour of S.H.Taqizdeh (London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co., 1962), pp. 21–27Google Scholar

6 On Firdawsi order in India, see Lawrence, Bruce B., Notes from a Distant Flute: The Extant Literature of pre-Moghal Indian Sufism (Tehran: Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1978), pp. 72–78Google Scholar; Rizvi, S.A.A., A History of Sufism in India, I (Delhi: Munishiram Naoharlal Publishers, 1978), pp. 226–240.Google Scholar Cf. also Sharafuddin Maneri: The Hundred :Letters, tr. Paul Jackson, S.J. (New York: Paulist Press, 1980).Google Scholar

7 Boyle, John Andrew, tr., The History of the World-Conqueror (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), II, pp. 552–553Google Scholar; the same account appears in al-Dīn, Rashīd: The Successors of Genghis Khan, tr. Boyle, J.A. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 200.Google Scholar

8 Riḥlat Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1379/1960), p.368.Google Scholar

9 Chekhovich, O.D., Bukharskie dokumenty XIV veka (Tashkent: Nauka, 1965)Google Scholar; cf. also her “Novyi istochnik po istorii Bukhary nachala XIV veka,” Problemy vostokovedeniia, 159, No. 5, pp. 148–161.Google Scholar

10 Chekhovich, Bukharskie dokumenty, p. 184.

11 Bartol'd, Turkestan v epokhu Mongol'skogo nashestviia, ch I, Teksty (St. Petersburg, 1989), p. 102.

12 On Bākharzī and Berke see Richard, Jean, “La conversion de Berke at les débuts de l'Islamisation de la Horde d'Or,” Revue des études islamiques, 35 (1967), pp. 173–184.Google Scholar

13 The late adaption of the Awrād al-Aḥbāb va Fuṣūṣ al-Ādāb, entitled simply Manāqib-i Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī, exists in two manuscripts in Tashkent in the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR (hereafter IVAN UzSSR), Inv. No. 6965 (Sobranie vostochnykh rukopisei, VIII, pp. 441-442, No. 6002), ff. ib-63b, and No. 10802 (SVR, X, p. 250, No. 6981), ff. 1b-27b.

14 Jāmī, Nafaḥāt al-Uns, ed Tawḥīdīpūr, Mahdī (Tehran, 1336/1947), p. 433Google Scholar

15 al-Yāfi'ī, Mir'āt al-Jinān (Beirut: al-A'lamī Library, 1390/1970Google Scholar; repr. of Hyderabad ed., 1337-39), IV, p. 41; Jamāl Qarshī, Mulḥaqāt al-Ṣurāḥ, ed. Bartol'd, Tetsky, pp. 151-152.

16 Bartol'd, Tetsky, p. 152.

17 Javāhir al-Asrār, MS Bodleian Library Elliot, 334, ff. 28a-b.

18 Ḥusayn Khwarazmī, Kunūz al-Ḥaqā'iq, MS British Museum Or. 12984, f. 4a; Yanbū al-Asrār fī Naṣd'iḥ al-Abrār, ed. Dirakhshān, Mahdī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Anjuman-i Ustādān-i Zabān va Adabiyāt-i Fārsī, No. 7, 1360/1981), pp. 158–159, 224-225.Google Scholar

19 Sāgharjī's status as a pupil of both Isfarāyinī and Simnānī is noted in the late-16th-century Rawzāt al-Jinān va Jannāt al-Janān by Tabrīzī, Ḥusayn Karbalā'ī (ed. al-Qurrā'ī, Ja'far-Sulṭān, Tehran, 1344/1965Google Scholar; Persian Texts Series, No. 20), I, pp. 68-69; only Isfarāyinī is mentioned as his silsilah in the Riyāz al-Awliyā from the same period (the work is discussed below; MS Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Curzon Collection, No. 704, ff. 110a-b. Bartol'd (“O pogrebenii Timura,” Schineniia, II/2, pp. 434–435)Google Scholar wrongly calls Sāgharjī a pupil of the Samarqandi saint Najm al-Dīn Baṣīr, near whose tomb he was buried. Herman Landolt suggests that Sāgharji is to be identified with the “Burhān al-Dīn Armālighī” discussed by Isfarāyinī and Simnānī in their correspondence (see edition, Correspondence spirituelle éxchangée entre Nuroddin Esfarayeni (ob. 717-1317) et son disciple ‘Alaoddawleh Semnani (ob. 736/1336) (Tehran: Departement d'Iranologie Franco-Iranien de Recherche, 1972; Bibliothé'que Iranienne, No. 21), introduction, pp. 8–9)Google Scholar, but there is no independent evidence of this identification.

20 Cf. Voyages d'Ibn Battuta, ed. & tr. Defremery, C. and Sanguinetti, B.R. (Paris, 1854Google Scholar; repr. Paris: Éditions Anthropos Paris, 1969), III, p. 255, IV, pp. 126-127.

21 Cf. Bartol'd, “O pogrebenii,” pp. 434-435; Risālah-yi Ḥazrat Quṭb al-Aqṭāb Nūr al-Dīn Baṣīr, MS Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, No. B 4464, f. 195b; Abū Ṭāhir Khoja Samarqandi, Samaīyah, ed. Iraj Afshār (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Farhang-i Īrān-zamīn, No. 9, 1343), p. 73

22 Aḥmad Kashmīrī, Shajarah-yi Ṭabaqāt-i Mashā'ikh, MS IVAN UzSSR 1426 (SVR, III, pp. 361-362, No. 2686).

23 Teufel, J.K., Eine Lebensbeschreibung des Scheichs Alī-i Hamadāni (gestorben 1385): Die Xulāṣat ul-Manāqib des Maulānā Nūr ud-Dīn Cafar-i Badaxšī (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1962)Google Scholar. On Hamadānī see also Hekmat, A.A., “Les voyages d'un mystique persan de Hamadān au Kashmir,” Journal Asiatique, 240 (1952), pp. 53–66Google Scholar; Molé, M., “Les Kubrawiya entre sunnisme et shiisme aux huitième et neuvième siècles de l'hégire,” Revue des études islamiques, 29 (1961), pp. 110–124Google Scholar; Molé, , “Profession de foi de deux Kubrawis: ‘Alī Hamadānī et Muḥammad Nūrbaksh,” Bulletin d'Études Orientales, 17 (1961-62), pp. 133–204Google Scholar; Molé, , “Kubrawiyat II: Ali b. Ṣihābeddin-i Hamadānī'nin Risāla-i futuvvatiyya'si,” Ṣarkiyat Mecmuasi, 4 (1961), pp. 33–72Google Scholar; Meier, F., “die Welt der Urbilder bei ‘Ali Hamadānī (d. 1385),” Eranos-Jahrbuch, 18 (1950), pp. 115–172Google Scholar; M. Sultanov, “Ideiyne istochniki formirovaniia mirovozzreniia Ali Khamdani,” Izvestiia AN TadzhSSR, Otd. Obshch. Nauk, 1982, No. 4, pp. 43-47; Khān, Muḥammad Riyāz, “Khadamāt-i Amīr-i Kabīr Mīr Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī dar shabh-i qārah-ī Pākistān va Hind (qarn-i hashtum),” Ma'arifi-i Islāmī (Tehran), No. 6 (1347), pp. 95–99Google Scholar; and his “Matn-i Maktūbāt-i Mīr Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī,” Majallah-i Dānishkadah-i Adabiyāt va ‘Ulūm-i Insānī (Tehran), 21 (1353/1974-75). pp. 33–36.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Rizvi, History of Sufism in India, I, pp. 291-292; Rafiqi, Abdul Qaiyum, Sufism in Kashmir from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century (Varanasi: Bharitya Publishing House, 1972), pp. 31–85Google Scholar; Parmu, R.K., A History of Muslim Rule in Kashmire 1320-1819 (Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1969), pp. 101–114Google Scholar; Bamzai, Prithvi Nath Kaul, A History of Kashmir (New Delhi: Metropolitan Book Company, 2nd ed., 1973), pp. 525–527.Google Scholar

25 Cf. Parmu, History of Mulim Rule, p. 104, with the text and translation given pp. 467-475; Rafiqi, Sufism in Kashmir, p. xviii, doubts the authenticity of this document.

26 Cf. Teufel, Lebensbeschreibung, pp. 35-36

27 Gramlich, Richard, Die schiitischen Derwischorden Persiens, erster Teil: Die Affiliationen (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1965Google Scholar; Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXXVI, 1), pp. 14-16.

28 Molé, “Les Kubrawiya,” pp. 125-126.

29 Hamid Algar, art. “Kubrā,” EI² V, pp. 300-301; cf. also his introduction to the translation of Rāzī's chief work, The Path of God's Bondsmen from Origin to Return (Merṣād al-'ebād men elā'l-ma'ād), A Sufi Compendium by Najm al-Dīn Rāzī known as Dāya (Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, for Persian Heritage Series, 1982), pp. 2–7.Google Scholar

30 Said Amir Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam: Religion, Political Order, and Societal Change in Shī'ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 74–76, 114-116.Google Scholar

31 Shāshtarī, Nārullāh, Majālis al-Mu'minīn (Tehran, 1299/18881-82), II, pp. 144–149Google Scholar; cf. ‘Alī Shāh, Ma'ṣūm, Ṭarā'iq al-Ḥaqā'iq (Tehran, 1399-45/1960-66), II pp. 338–340.Google Scholar

32 At about this time the earlier Ḥusayn Khwarazmī was summoned to Shāhrukh's court in Herat ostensibly to answer charges of heresy raised by a mystical ghazal of his (cf. Nava'i Majolisun Nafois: ilmii-tanqidii tekst, ed. Ghanieva, Suyima (Tashkent: Fan, 1961), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; Khondamir, Habīb al-Siyar (Tehran, 1339/1960), IV, p. 9)Google Scholar. The Sufi poet Qāsim-i Anvār was likewise summoned to Herat on suspicion of involvement in a plot against Shāhrukh in 830/1426-27 (Arjomand, Shadow, p. 74).

33 Cf. Aubin, Jean, ed., Matériaux pour la biographie de Shah Nimatullah Wali Kermani (Tehran: Départment d'Iranologie de l'Instiut Franco-Iranien, 1956; Bibliothéque Iranienne, vol. VII), introduction, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

34 Karbalā'ī (cf. above, note 19), II, pp. 243-250.

35 Sharaf al-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī, Zafarnoma, facsimile publication prepared by A. Urunbaev (Tashkent: Fan, 1972), f. 148.b; Yazdī names one brother of Kaykhusraw, Kayqubād (138b-139a); cf. C.E. Bosworth, art. “Khuttalānī,” EI² V, p. 76. Kaykhusraw's death is noted also in the Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī compiled in the mid-15th century; see also Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaydar Dūghlāt, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, tr., Elias, N. and Denison Ross, E., History of the Moghuls of Central Asia (London: Curzon Press, 2nd ed., 1898), pp. 21, 24Google Scholar, and Bartol'd, , “Ulugbeqi ego vremia,” Sochineniia, II/2, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

36 A later popularized version of this story, noted by Rafiqi (Sufism in Kashmir, p. 33) from Kashmiri sources, has Timur's palace spin around so that Hamadānī may face the qiblah.

37 Teufel, Lebensbeschreibung, pp. 30-31

38 The Rawzāt al-Jinān (f. 119b) gives 826 as the year of his death (agreeing with Shūshtarī) but says that he was 91 when he died; Rafiqi (Sufism in Kashmir, p. 97) cites a Kashmiri source giving Khuttalānī's birth-year as 735/1334 (which agrees with the age given in the Riyāz al-Awliyā) but giving 816/1413 as the date of his death; the latter is certainly an error.

39 Teufel, Lebensbeschreibung, p. 28; Cf. Parmu, History of Muslim Rule, pp. 115-126; Bamzai, History of Kashmir, pp. 527-528.

40 Teufel, Lebensbeschreibung, pp. 30-31

41 Cf. Parmu, History of Muslim Rule, pp. 115-116; Bamzai, History of Kashmir, pp. 527-528.

42 Even Molé, who sees a strong Shī'ite element in Kubravī doctrine almost from the beginning, must admit that Hamadānī and Khuttalānī were Sunni and that it is only with Nūrbaksh that we find developed Shī'ite theology (“Les Kubrawiya,” pp. 124-126, 137).

43 Cf. Gramlich, Schiitischen, pp. 14-15; Arjomand, Shadow, p. 115.

44 Arjomand, Shadow, p. 115.

45 Elias and Ross, tr., History, pp. 434-435; cf. Rizvi, History of Sufism in India, I, pp. 298–299Google Scholar, Parmu, History of Muslim Rule, pp. 195-196 and notes 88-90

46 Cf. Parmu, History of Muslim Rule, pp. 195-196 and notes 88-90.

47 Arjomand's account of the Ẕahabī lineage (Shadow, pp. 114-115) erroneously refers to Ḥājjī Muḥammad Khabūshānī where ‘Abdullāh Barzishābādī is intended; he says that the Kubravī schism was between the followers of Nūrbakhsh and Khabūshānī, while in fact Khabūshānī was a third-generation successor ot Nūrbakhsh's contemporary Barzishābādī.

48 Gramlich, Schiitischen, I, pp. 16-18; Tarā'iq, III, p. 345

49 Cf. Arjomand, Shadow, pp. 114-115 (where he wrongly calls Lālāh a disciple of Khabūshānī); Karbalā'ī, pp. 109-206.

50 Navā'ī, Nesayimū'l-mahabbe min ṣemayimi'l-fütūvve, ed. Ersalan, Kemal (Istanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlari No. 2654, 1979), pp. 394–395.Google Scholar

51 Ivanow, W., Concise Descriptive Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the Curzon Collection, Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta, 1926), pp. 467–468, No. 704.Google Scholar

52 Meier, Fritz, ed., Die Fawā'iḥ al-Ğamāl wa-Fawātiḥ al-Ğalāl des Nağm ad-Dīn al-Kubrā: eine Darstellung mystischer Erfahrungen im Islam aus der Zeit um 1200 n Chr (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1957), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

53 Teufel, Lebensbeschreibung, pp. 10, 57, 74, 93.

54 Riyāz al-Awliyā, ff. 119b-120a.

55 Karbalā'ī, II, pp. 207-243.

56 The text is given by Karbalā'ī, II, pp. 218-222.

57 His grave is still the object of pilgrimage, according to the editor of Karbalā'ī (II, p. 582).

58 Mudhakkir-i Aḥbāb, ed. Fazlullah, Syed Muḥammad (Hyderabad, Osmania University, Da'iratu'l-Ma'arif Press, 1969), p. 500Google Scholar; cf. intro., p. 39.

59 The earliest source to name him, Navā'ī's Nasā'im al-Maḥabbah (ed. Ersalan, p. 394) gives his nisbah as “Bīdvāzī;” cf. Karbalā'ī, II, pp. 580-581.

60 Karbalā'ī, II, p. 241.

61 MSS of the Miṣbāḥ-i Rashīdī: Calcutta, Asiatic Society (Ivanow, ASB, pp. 261-262, No. 602); Bodleian Cat. I, p. 784, No. 1268; British Museum, Rieu, II, pp. 640-641; the work is also cited in the Jāddat al-'Ashiqīn (discussed below), MS Aligarh, Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University, Subhanullah Collection, No. 297.71/1, ff. 9a, 11a.

62 Riyāz al-Awliyā, ff. 128b-103b.

63 Nasā'im, ed. Ersalan, pp. 394-395.

64 B. A. Akhmedov, tr., More tain (Tashkent: Fan, 1977), p. 44; Akhmedov (p. 119, n. 187) identifies this Shaykh Shāh ‘Alī as Kubravī shaykh, but as a disciple of Simnānī.

65 Jāmī, Nafaḥāt, p. 428; cf. Meier, Fawāiḥ, p. 40.

66 Karbalā'ī, II, pp. 80-81.

67 Majālis al-Mu'minīn, II, pp. 156–158.Google Scholar

68 Riyāz al-Awliyā, f. 132b.

69 Haft Iqlīm, ed. Fāẓil, Javād (Tehran: Kitābforūshī-yi Adabīyah, n.d.), II, pp. 306–307.Google Scholar

70 Ra'is, Sīdī ‘Alī, Mir'āt al-Mamālik, ed. Javdat, Aḥmad (Istanbul, 1313), p. 71Google Scholar; tr. Vambéry, A., The Travels and Adventures of the Turkish Admiral Sidi Ali Reīs in India, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Persia during the Years 1553-1556 (London: Luzac, 1899), p. 79Google Scholar. The Jāddat al-‘Ashiqīn (MS, f. 213a) mentions Khabūshānī's move to Vazīr but gives no date.

71 Riyāz al-Awliyā, f. 141b.

72 Jāddat, f. 193b.

73 Karbalā'ī, II, p. 201; a Shaykh ‘Imād al-Dīn Fazlullāh Abīvardī, probably to be identified with this pupil of Khabūshānī, is mentioned in the Ḥabīb as-Siyar (IV, p. 357).

74 Majālis al-Mu'minīn, II, pp. 161-162; cited Karbalā'ī, II, p. 575.

75 See Mikhman-name-ii Bukhara (Zapiski Bukharskogo gostia), tr. Dzhalilova, R.P. (Moscow: Nauka, Glavnaia redaktsiia vostochnoi literatury, 1976), p. 111Google Scholar; Transoxanien und Turkestan zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts: Das Mihmān-nāma-yi Buḫārā des Faḍlallāh b. Rūzbihān Ḫunğī, tr. Ott, Ursula (Freiburg im Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1974), p. 195.Google Scholar

76 Jāddat, f. 193a.

77 Majālis al-Mu'minīn, II, p. 162.

78 Gramlich (Schiitschen, II, p.16) mistakenly identifies this Ḥusayn Khwarazmī with the “Tāj al-Dīn Ḥusayn” who appears in Ẕahabī silsilahs as a pupil of Ghulām ‘Alī Nīshābūrī; the sources themselves, however, clearly show that Ḥusayn Khwarazmī's link was not with Ghulām ‘Alī, but with Khabūshānī himself and with ‘Imād al-Dīn Fazlullāh Mashhadī.

79 Jāddat, ff. 57a-b.

80 Jāddat, f. 40a; these words are repeated in a rare compendium of silsilahs compiled in 1139/1726 by “Muḥammad A'ẓam,” entitled Ashjar al-Khuld (MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 498 [SVR, III, p. 363, No. 2689], f. 162b.).

81 A third, an anonymous Risālah dar Aḥvāl-i Ḥazrat-i Kamāl al-Dīn Khwarazmī cited in the Asafiyah catalogue (III, p. 164, No. 168, cited from Storey, Persian Literature, I, p. 974, No. 1287) is probably the same as one of the following works.

82 Miftāḥ al-Ṭālibīn: MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 394 (187 ff.; app. 18th century; SVR, III, p. 318, No. 2580); No. 1493 (307 ff.; 1250/1834-35; SVR, III, p. 319, No. 2581); No. 5426 (158 ff.; n.d., uncat,); 6920 (155 ff.; n.d., uncat.); Dushanbe, Firdousi State Library, No. 479 (178 ff.; app. 17th-18th century; Iunusov, A., Fehrasti dastnavishoi tojiki-forsi, I (Dushanbe, 1971), p. 46, No. 16)Google Scholar; Leningrad, State Public Library (Saltykov-Schedrin), PNS 162 (166 ff.; 1263/1846-47; Kostygova (1973), p. 242, No. 702); Samarkand State University, No. 212803 (187 ff.; n.d.; A. Pulatov, Kh. K. Akhrarov, Spisok vostochnykh rukopisei SamGU (1977), p. 44). Bartol'd published excerpts from the Tashkent MS 394 in his “Otchet of komandirovke v Turkestan (1902 g.),” Zaiski Vostochnogo otdeleniia Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 15 (1904), pp. 205–212Google Scholar (Sochineniia, VIII, pp. 145-151). See also Demidov, Sufizm v Turkmenii, pp. 57-58. A Chaghatay Turkic translation of the work was made by the 19th-century Khivan poet and historian Āgahī (MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 8473; 20 ff., uncat.).

83 Jāddat al-'Āshiqīn MS Aligarh (see note 61); London, India Office (Éthé No. 1877; 119 ff.; 989/1581); IVAN UzSSR, No. 499 (134 ff.; 16th century; SVR, III, p. 318, No. 2579); 3084 (229 ff.; 17th century; SVR, X, pp. 235-236, No. 6962); Dushanbe, Firdousi State Library, No. 1838 (246 ff.; 973/1566; Iunusov, Fehrast, I, pp. 49-50, No. 19); the latter MS was noted by Mukhtarov, A., “Zhitie sheikha Khuseina -- istochnik po istorii kul'turnoi zhizni kontsa XV-nachala XVI v.,” Material'naia kul'tura Tadzhikistana, 3 (1978), pp. 242–246.Google Scholar

84 Majālis al-Mu'minīn, II, pp.162 ff.; cf. Ghulām Sarvar Lahurī, Khazīnat al-Aṣfiyī, comp. 1281/1864-65 (lith. Kanpur), II, p. 331; Dārā Shikūh (d. 1069/1658), Safīnat al-Awliyā (lith. Kanpur), p. 191.

85 Jāddat, ff. 24a-62a on the early years of Khwarazmī.

86 Cf. Bartol'd, , “Otchet,” ZVO, 15 (1904), p. 207Google Scholar; the capture of Khwarazm is described in the Turkic Shaybānī-nāmah of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ: Hermann Vambery, ed. & tr., Die Scheībaniade, ein özbegisches Heldengedicht in 76 Gesängen von Prinz Mohammed Salih aus Charezm (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1885), pp. 442 ff.Google Scholar

87 Cf. Bartol'd, “Otchet,” pp. 208-211; Jāddat, ff. 62a-79a.

88 This note (MS IVAN UzSSR No. 11159 [uncatalogued], f. 34b) is mentioned in a manuscript description of Khwarazmī's Irshīd al-Murīdīn in Verzeichniss der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, XIV, 2 (Persische Handschriften, described by Soheila Divshali and Paul Luft, 1980), p. 14

89 Miftāḥ, cited in Majālis al-Mu'minīn. II, p. 163; Jāddat, f. 30a.

90 Jāddat, f. 91b.

91 MS Dushanbe, Firdousi State Library, No. 571, f. 66a.

92 Mudhakkir, ed. Fazlullah, intro. pp. 36-39, text pp. 81-84.

93 Bartol'd, “Otchet,” p. 210.

94 Jāddat, f. 101b.

95 Jāddat, f. 123b; Bartol'd, “Otchet,” p. 210.

96 Tsentral'nyi Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv UzSSR, fond 1-323, delo 1412; cf. Mukminova, R.G., K istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Uzbekistane XVI v. po materialam “Vakf-name” (Tashkent: Nauka, 1966), pp. 34Google Scholar, 54-57, 75, 78, 94; Mukminova, Ocherki po istorii remesla v Samarkande i Bukhare v XVI veke (Tashkent: Fan, 1976), pp. 18Google Scholar, 38, 50, 58, 129, 131. See also Ivanov, P.P., Khoziaistvo Dzhuibarskikh sheikhov: k istorii feodal'nogo zemlevladeniia v Srednei Azii v XVI-XVII vv. (Moscow/Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1954), pp. 98, 104.Google Scholar

97 Jāddat, ff. 119b-182b.

98 Jāddat, f. 135a

99 Jāddat, f. 187a. The grave of “Ḥusayn Khwarazmī” which Sīdī ‘Alī Ra'īs visited in Khwarazm must belong to the earlier Ḥusayn Khwarazmī; the Ottoman admiral clearly distinguishes this figure from the later Ḥusayn Khwarazmī, whom he calls “Makhdūm-i A'ẓam” and whose wife and son he met in Khwarazm (cf. Vambéry, pp. 79-80, 84-85, text pp. 71-72, 75). Although the author of the Jāddat mentions dissension among the shaykh's followers regarding his wish to be buried in Syria, a single, anonymous source which has his disciples bring the shaykh's body back to Khwarazm can probably be discounted. This source confuses the later Ḥusayn Khwarazmī (pupil of Khabūshānī) with the earlier one (author of the Javāhir al-Asrār), and the story of his burial in Khwarazm is no doubt an attempt to reconcile the biography of the later figure with the Khwarazmian grave of the earlier Ḥusayn, the two erroneously assumed to be the same person (cf. MS. Bodleian Cat., I, cols. 95-96).

100 cf. The Ā'īn-i Akbarī by Abū'lFaẓl ‘Allāmī, tr. Blochmann, H.; 2nd ed., revised by Phillot, D.C. (Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1939), I, pt. 2, pp. 651–652.Google Scholar

101 Sharjah, MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 1426, f. 134b.

102 MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 545 (SVR III, p. 391, No. 2749), ff. 121b-123b; this is an anonymous Mujaddidī silsilah from Central Asia appended to a late (1295/1878) copy of Sulaymān b. ‘Abdullāh Khuttalānī's [sic] Baḥr al-Naṣā'iḥ va Rafīq al-Sālik, which was written in 1003/1594 for the Uzbek ruler ‘Abdullāh Khān. The second link claimed by Sirhindī, given in the same source, is through Bābā Kamāl Jandī.

103 The Sāktarī shaykhs are known from one manuscript (IVAN UzSSR, No. 2501), which was copied in 1251/1835 and comprises nine different works (most untitled and anonymous). Those appearing in the published are the Tārīkh-i Valī (SVR, III, p. 393, No. 2756), ff. lb-14a, giving biographies of the early Sāktarī shaykhs and their lineage through Ḥusayn Khwarazmī; two compositions of Muḥammad Ḥusayn Sāktarī, one doctrinal (Maṭia’ al-Kabīr, SVR, III, p. 328, No. 2603: ff. 78a-93a), and one hagiographical (Majma’ al-Fazā'il, SVR, III, pp. 327-328, No. 2602: ff. 93a-158a); and one untitled doctrinal treatise (SVR, III, pp. 393-394: ff. 158a-191b) ascribed to a certain Ṣadr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abū al-Ṣafā b. Yūnus al-Ḥusayni, otherwise unknown. The only western scholar to even mention the Sāktarī shaykhs is Hamid Algar (EI art., Path intro.).

104 Among Khwarazmī's disciples known only by name from the Jāddat (ff. 199a-211b), the Ashjar al-Khuld (MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 498, ff. 163a-b), and the work of Aḥmad Kashmīrī (MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 1426, ff. 130a-134b) are: Mawlānā Pāyandah Kāshgarī, Shaykh Aḥmad Charjūyī, Khojagī Shaykh Qarākūlī, Yūsuf Muḥammad Badakhshānī, Sulṭān ‘Alī Khwarazmī, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Āqshahrī, Shaykh ‘Alī Gīlānī, Mawlānā Khalīlullāh Ḥalabī, and others cited without nisbahs. Other, better-known disciples include Muḥmūd Ghijduvānī (author of the Mifāḥ) and the shaykh's sons Sharīf al-Dīn Ḥusayn (author of the Jāddat), Shihāb al-Dīn Ḥusayn, Najm al-Dīn Ḥusayn (the latter two born to a wife from Saraychuq), Abū al-Qāsim, and Shāh Makhdūm. Another figure probably affiliated with Ḥusayn Khwarazmī (but whose identity and lineage are not clear) is ‘Alī b. Muḥammad ‘Alī b. ‘Alī b. Maḥmūd al-Khwarazmī al-Kubravī, who compiled a notable collection of judicial decisions under the title Fatāvī al-Shaybānī in 901/1496 and made additions to it as late as the middle of the 16th century; he was still alive in 960/1553, in Tashkent, apparently at the court of Nawrūz Aḥmad (Barāq Khān). He was in Tashkent as early as 930/1523, and his landholdings in Samarqand are mentioned in a vaqf document (cf. Mukminova, K istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii, pp. 238, 290), but no further details on his life are known. Among his other works is a Kitāb-i Ṣaydīyah, an analysis of fatvās on which animals and birds are allowed or forbidden as food (see descriptions of manuscripts of his works: SVR, VI, pp. 459-460, No. 4845; VIII, pp. 207-209, No. 5784-5786; pp. 290-317, No. 5858-5872; X, pp. 183-184, No. 6905-6906). At any rate, this ‘Alī Khwarazmī's public actrivities, at least, appear to have been devoted to the realm of fiqh, and the significance of his Kubravī affiliation thus remains veiled to us.

105 This Darvīsh ‘Abdullāh may be the “Darvīsh Khān” named as a successor of Ḥusayn Khwarazmī in the late work on Samarqand's mazārs, the Samarīyah (ed. Afshār, p. 81).

106 The 18th-century Khwarazmian Tazkirah-yi Ṭāhir Īshān names a certain “Darvish Artuq” among the murīds in attendance upon Ḥusayn Khwarazmī during his stay at the tomb of Bākharzī in Bukhārā (MS IVAN UzSSR, No. 855, f. 146b); his presence in Samarqand is attested in the Jāddat.

107 Jāddat, f. 204a.

108 Jāddat, ff. 199b-201b, 201b-211a.

109 The work survives in two manuscripts, one of which (in the Semenov collection in Dushanbe) was discussed by Bartol'd in his “Otchet o komandirovke v turkestan (avgust-dekabr’ 1920 g.),” Sochineniia, VIII, pp. 378-380; Bartol'd noted the work's information on the Naqshbandī-Kubravī rivalry but gave no particulars. Citations here refer to the Tashkent MS, IVAN UzSSR, No. 629.

110 Sirāj al-Sālikīn, ff. 96a-b.

111 Sirāj al-Sālikīn, f. 94a.

112 This Makhdūm-i A'ẓam was himself responsible for naming ‘Abdullāh Khān, according to the so-called “‘Abdullāh-nāmah” Bukhārī, Ḥāfiẓ Tanīsh, Sharaf-nama-ii shakhi (Kniga shakhskoi slavy), tr. Salakhetdinova, M.A., ch 1 (Moscow: Nauka, Glanvaia redaktsiia vostochnoi literatury, 1983), p. 124)Google Scholar, while the khan's close relationship with Khoja Islām Jūybārī (a murīd both of Muḥammad Qāzī and of Makhdūm-i A'ẓam) and his sons is well known (cf. Sharaf-nama, pp. 105-119; Ivanow, Khoziaistvo Dzhuibarskikh skwikhov, pp. 48 ff).

113 We do find one figure, Yūsuf Qarābāghī (d. 1055/1645), known as a Kubravī shaykh and scholar in Bukhara under the Ashtarkhanid Imām Qulī Khān (r. 1020-1051/1611-1642); his silsilah is not clear, but he is probably connected with the Sāktarī lineage. He left several doctrinal works, one of which was studied by A.A.Semenov (see his “Zabytyi sredneaziatskii filosof XVII v. i ego “Traktat o sokrytom”, “Izvestiia Obshchestva dlia izucheniia Tadzhikistana i iranskikh narodnosteir za ego predelami, t.I (Tashkent, 1928), pp. 137-179). Semenov studied a manuscript of Tashkent Slate University, which is apparently only a part (or shorter version) of Qarābāghī's Haft Bihisht (SVR, III, p. 345, No. 2646). A work by one of Qarābāghī's pupils, entitled Riyāz al-Mutafaqqirīn, was composed in 1063/1652 and dedicated to ‘Abd al-'Azīz Khān (SVR, III, pp. 345-346, No. 2647-2648).

114 It is interesting to note the parallel development in Iran where the Shī'ite Nūrbakhshiyah and Ẕahabīyah, both of Kubravī origin, were unable to compete with the highly politicized Ṣafaviyah, and were persecuted after the Ṣafavids succeeded in securing far greater poltical power than even the Naqshbandī shaykhs dreamed of.

115 Cited by Afshār, “Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī,” p. 72.

116 Tr. Algar, Path, pp. 45-46.

117 Cf. the Majālis al-'Ushshāq of Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Kāzargāhī, written in 909/1504 (MS Bodleian Ouseley Add. 24, f. 113b; MS British Museum Or. 208, rieu, I, pp. 351-353, f. 125b).

118 On the supposed Shī'ite coloring of Kubravī doctrine, see Molé, “Les Kubrawiya,” where the notion was first argued, and the works of Henry Corbin. Bausani (“Religion under the Mongols,” p. 547) repeats the idea, as does Arjomand (Shadow, p. 30); even Annemarie Schimmel writes that the Kubravīyah ‘lingered, sometimes, between Sunni and Shī'ite Islam” (“The Ornament of the Saints: The Religious Situation in Iran in pre-Safavid Times,” Iranian Studies, 7 (1977), p. 108Google Scholar).

119 The fatvā (and a Shī'ite reply) are given in Munshī's, Iskandar Beg History of Shah ‘Abbās the Great, tr. Savory, Roger M. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1978; Persian Heritage Series, No. 28), II, pp. 561–575Google Scholar.

120 Sirāj al-Sālikīn, ff. 101a-b.

121 Jāddat, ff. 70b-71a.