所处位置 --> 资料检索 --> 管窥信仰 --> 宗教研究

更新时间:2006-7-9 10:42:36  

中国西北的纳格什班底耶
弗来舍/著
中穆网,2006.03
[关键词] 伊斯兰教派研究  苏菲派  纳格什班底耶  哲赫忍耶教
      按:为了方便读者了解,将《<中国西北的纳格什班底耶>翻译附记》放在正文前面。

     

      何谓乃格什板丁耶

      华哲白哈文丁·穆罕默德·伊本·布尔汗丁·穆罕默德·布哈里(公元1318-1389),是乃格什班丁耶苏非派别的奠基者,以筛海·乃格什班底知名。他是14世纪中亚苏非派的著名代表人物,因其职业为压模花工匠([波]naqshband),故其教团名曰“乃格什班底”。据道统,华哲·白哈文丁·乃格什班底并未被认为是乃格什班丁耶的奠基者,而被认定为第五代导师。乃格什班丁耶教团的思想先驱、奠基者是华哲·优苏夫·哈木丹尼(公元1048-1140),他的弟子华哲·阿卜杜·赫力格·古杰达瓦尼整理、记录、完成了其教义。

      华哲·白哈文丁·乃格什班底出生于中亚布哈拉附近库什奇,印杜弯村的一塔吉克族手工艺人家庭,且归真于彼。华哲的导师是筛海·穆罕默德·巴巴·西麻西(?-1340),后者在临终前请求宗师艾米尔·赛义德·库达勒(?-1370)将乃格什班底收归门下,加入华贾金达尔威什教团,授以神秘主义功修之法。据传,华哲·白哈文丁·乃格什班底的道行是梦中由阿卜杜·赫力格·古杰达瓦尼传承教化的,并由其领至赛义德·库达勒门下,之后又师从阿勒夫·迪格染尼7年,再转自突厥人筛海·嘎细目与哈里利·厄妥门下,从后者学习12年。华哲·白哈文丁·乃格什班底一生朝觐两次。

      乃格什班底继承了传统,发扬了阿卜杜·赫力格·古杰达瓦尼的观点,接受了麦纳麦体耶派理论学说,并将两个地方苏非主义派别艾哈麦德·叶赛维(?-1166)派与阿卜杜·赫力格·古杰达瓦尼派的观点纳入自己的学说之中。

      乃格什班底耶反对装模做样的虔诚与徒具形式的仪式,倡导真诚的神秘功修。他的基本要求是:灵魂纯洁、戒贪婪、安贫、不与权势和寺院生活中的犬儒主义接触。严格遵守先知的圣训,履行舍勒阿提教法的所有规定。其妥勒格提基础是强烈地趋向“真”和高声念或默念“孜克尔”。[i]

     

     
      回民的内部传承

     
      公元9世纪后期10世纪初期苏非陆续从印度传入中国。公元16世纪,乃格什班底耶苏非派主要经由两条路线传入中国:一是从中南亚印度这条路线传入中国新疆、再传入中国西北内陆;一是从西亚的也门通过海路传入中国内陆。

      白哈文丁归真后,其继位者厄拉·丁·厄托尔(?-1400)与华哲·穆罕默德·帕尔萨(1345-1420)团结乃格什班底耶信众,扩大影响,在巩固其组织机构方面起了关键作用。第三代导师华哲·欧百德·阿拉·艾合剌尔(1404-1490)掌教时代为鼎盛时期。公元1515年华哲·艾哈麦德·凯散尼(1461-1542)成为导师,继续了第三代导师的事业。16世纪初艾哈麦德·凯散尼的继承者中的三个支系先后传入中国新疆,后来在叶尔羌、喀什噶尔传教成功,形成了史称“喀什噶尔和卓家族”。其后艾哈麦德·凯散尼的后代分化为以伊斯哈格为首的“黑山派”,和以卡郎为首的“白山派”。

      约公元1630年,乃格什班底耶-穆扎迪底耶传道至也门与希贾兹,从那里又派传教士到埃及等地传教。

      中国的苏非教派(门宦)虎伏耶、哲合忍耶等都在道统系谱上把白哈文丁·乃格什班底耶列为一代穆勒什德,但其在各门派的排列各不相同。

      据记载,虎伏耶系统乃是西达耶屯拉希*从印度传入新疆的乃格什班底耶、其分化为“白山黑山”之后的道堂再向中国西北内陆传入;这与马来迟*从阿拉伯也门学习携回中国内陆的虎伏耶为不同的两系。事实上虎伏耶在中国不仅这两系,道统也不全一致。

      中国苏非派哲合忍耶是由其道祖马明心*在也门苏非乃格什班底耶教团扎比德道堂师从阿卜杜·哈里格·阿吉孜·米孜介吉*(哲合忍耶教内称也曼太爷,或也曼大筛海)学成之后,传入中国西北的。也有马明心在新疆喀什叶尔羌念经再传入甘肃之说,因无根据不足为训。

      最基本的哲合忍耶教内资料(《热什哈尔》《曼纳给布》等)传述马明心*是在也门学习后传教中国。

     
      弗莱彻的调查

     
      弗莱彻以访问调查的手段,在阿拉伯世界访得了一些线索。简言之,从这些线索中发现了一些哲合忍耶道谱中的名字,这样,一个苏菲派别的宗教师承谱系,就多了一次考证的确认。无疑这是一个好消息。

      但若把这样一次西方学者的问答对号、“田野调查”,看得超过了中国穆斯林的民族记忆,那就不仅偏离了学问的道德约束,也违背了学术的方法本身。

      因为弗莱彻和他的同道们——比如在中国穆斯林地域活动的西方传教士们——尽管可能获得一些官方资料和坊间传说,但他们没有真正深入到民众和他们的信仰的内部。传说的谱系链条并非不重要,但这一根链条一旦进入中国其实就已经断了。中国的伊斯兰教在做为一种新鲜的中国文化,迅速地在自己独自的路上发展。

      即便只限于起源问题,最重要的线索早已在中国穆斯林自己的“内部史写作”中埋藏着。一直至他们去世或失去研究能力,这些信仰“资料”即学术之上帝的他们,没有得到苦苦寻找的 “资料”。这资料,并非那些重复着传承的链条描述,而是伟大的民间史籍《热什哈尔》。除了西洋的弗莱彻,另一个乃格什板丁耶的追寻者是东洋的佐口透。在读到了张承志根据《心灵史》改写的日文版《殉教的中国伊斯兰》之后他说:他感到极为震惊。

      当然,他们不可能得到最要紧的资料,若是这资料牵系了民众的命脉。何况后学的阿语,短期的调查,弗莱彻获得的地名和人名是有用的,但苏菲世界更是活跃的和变动的,就方法论而言,他们的问答手段是大可商榷的。

      大学教授们在居高临下地俯瞰,批评我们没有读过弗莱彻。我们是否也该批评他们——没有试试去同情和支持民众的信仰呢?他们是否也该懂得:学术的立场与道德,有时也能直接变为成果呢?其实对那根链条最详尽﹑最严谨的描述,本来就存在于中国民间。它等候良久,唯需人们让鞋子粘上泥巴,并尊重穷人的心情。关里爷的《热什哈尔》及其一系列续作,与三、四十年代在中国活跃地进行文化盗掘的列强学者的擦肩而过,是一个讽刺也是一个标志。对弗莱彻,对佐口透,那不仅是一种拒绝的象征,更是一种价值的判决。

     
     

     
      译稿作成始末。

     
      原文是作家张承志委托友人取得的英文原著。在这篇后记里,张承志还撰写了 “弗莱彻的调查”一节。鉴于社会上对弗莱彻成果的夸大,以及对乃格什板丁耶起源问题的不断讨论,张承志的初衷是:首先打破对这本英文书的垄断,把弗莱彻著作的这一节散发向穆斯林世界,呼吁有志于“表述自己”的朋友,不分教派都来研究。

      最初英文稿由云南某清真寺出资复印,由海文学阿訇分寄给一些穆斯林的年轻学子。复印稿到达罗常虎阿訇手里之后,他与在某大学教授英语的冶福东联系,决定翻译此稿。2005年5月中旬,译稿杀青,罗常虎参与了一些宗教专用词及一些地名人名的润色。修改后的译稿寄给张承志,由他对译稿中主要是中亚的内容,做了勘误。

      知感安拉,我们总算了却了一个心愿!尽管水平有限,难免不尽人意之处,但我们尽了所能之力。在此,我们把译成汉语的这一节、以及英文原件同时刊布在穆斯林的网页上。 我们呼吁中国穆斯林为了自己的宝贵遗产,为了文化主人的权利,为反对任何一种歧视,拿起笔来,开展研究。

     

      冶福东 罗常虎 2006-3-3

      *意为:愿真主纯洁他的灵魂。

     

     

     
      中国西北的纳格什班底耶

      前 言

     

      约瑟夫•弗来舍认为他在这部历史中所记载的,中国西北的纳格什班底耶历史是他一生中最重要的发现之一。他一直致力于这篇论文,直到他病重地无法工作。他临终前所留下的是一页笔记,讲述他对这一专题的兴趣和他对之进行探索的过程。下文主要是对他的这页笔记的一个概括。

     

     

      弗来舍教授认为他之所以痴迷于纳格什班底耶的研究是因为他的一些老师和同事的影响与支持。这些人有他在格罗顿(Groton)的小学教师 梅尔•曼森 ( Mel Manson), 斯坦•萧(Stan Shaw), 理查德•N •弗来易(Rechard N Fry), 马丁•狄金森(Martin Dickson), 加纳•嘉林(Gunnar Jarring), 奥梅尔真•普里斯坦克(Omeljan Pristak)。弗兰西斯•克里弗斯(Fransis Cleaves) 鼓励他研究神秘主义,约翰•K•弗爱班克(John K Fairbank) 和他讨论清朝历史上非常重要的中亚和卓(Khjas)问题。中国的苏非主义是由本杰明•施奥茨(Benjamin Schwartz) 向他推荐的。 弗来舍教授从二十世纪六十年代中期开始了解到中国西北的新教与老教的分歧是关于“即克尔”(对真主的记念) 的争执,但是虎夫耶和哲合忍耶这两个同出一门的苏非派别何以在这一问题上持截然相反观点,仍然是个谜。他们同属于“亚撒维耶”( Yasawiyya),纳格什班底耶,还是其他的神秘主义派系?

     

     

      二十世纪七十年代中期,弗来舍教授到小克劳德•皮肯斯先生(the Rev. Claude Pickens, Jr.)家中拜访。小克劳德•皮肯斯先生是一个研究中国伊斯兰教的基督教传教士。他在那里见到了马丁•泰勒(Martin Taylor) 写给皮肯斯先生的一封信。马丁•泰勒也是一位传教士,他在这封信中重新编写了甘肃省哲合忍耶的谱系,说明了中国西北、也门、哲合忍耶在中国的第一位传承人马明心以及他的精神导师们之间的关系。弗来舍教授认为中国的伊斯兰教和外部的伊斯兰教有着密切的联系。这封信不但证实了他的观点,而且对这一观点在地域关系上进行了详细的说明。这也为解决18世纪到20世纪之间中国西北各苏非派别之间的对立问题提供了可能性,其方法就是追溯各派别在其他穆斯林地区的根源。弗来舍教授在查阅了皮肯斯的资料后认为“与也门有关”这一说法更为可信,值得研究。

     

     

      按照约翰•沃尔(John Voll)在著作中的建议,弗来舍教授去埃及寻找泰勒在谱系表中记载的两个人物阿巴德•艾尔•哈立格(Abd al-Khaliq)和阿载恩(az-Zayn)。在格兹若俱乐部(the Gazira Club)和破破烂烂的咖啡屋里他和穆罕默德•舍尔巴乃苦读18世纪的“太弗西勒”(苏非贤人的传记),查阅《易卜拉欣•艾尔•古拉尼》,此人很有可能是一个纳格什班底耶,而且和他的两个研究对象有关系。追随艾尔•古拉尼的脚步,他去了也门。在也门扎比德古老的纳格什班底耶中心,有一位艾尔•哈德拉密(al-Hadrami)告诉他:“也门的纳格什班底耶既使用来自艾尔•古拉尼的高念即克尔,也使用来自艾斯•辛迪(as-Sindi)的低念即克尔”。艾斯•辛迪是沃尔的研究对象。艾尔•哈德拉密还摘选了艾哈戴尔(Ahdal)的(An-nafas al-Yamani)给弗来舍教授,这一材料表明了阿巴德•艾尔•哈立格在也门的重要性,与中国西北的马明心的哲合忍耶建立了重要的联系。

     

     

      返回埃及和达尔•艾尔•库图卜(Dar al-Kutub)以后,弗来舍教授加强了他的关于中国的纳格什班底耶发源于也门这一观点的证据。返回剑桥大学后,他和黄臣复(Hung chin-fu)重温了关于哲合忍耶1781-84年间起义的中文材料, 然后在二十世纪八十年代早期得以造访中国西北的一些清真寺,从而确认了虎夫耶、哲合忍耶和他们与也门之间的关系,这些史实都是通过口头相传而保存下来的。在他的笔记中的好几处,弗来舍教授都表明他并不满足于他在文中的粗略记述,他很想更加详细地研究中国西北的这两个苏非子派别的武力对抗问题。他们在关于高念和低念即克尔问题上的巨大分歧,使得这种暴力行为具有讽刺意味。

     

     

      我们永远也无法知道他对这一重要问题的思考结果,正是他在进行这一阶段的研究时,弗来舍教授被查明患有致命的癌症,他加快写作速度的必要性带上了悲剧色彩。他和沃思马•考跋弛(Wasmaa Chorbachi)找到了更多的阿拉伯语材料,并对这篇论文进行了最后一次修订。现在您所看到的这个版本完全建立在他的最后一版的基础之上,所以能够代表约瑟夫•弗来舍最后的学术成就。我对文稿和它的注释尽量不做修改,甚至一些未被包括进去的、弗来舍教授去世后出版的材料,我也没有补充,以力图呈现他的学术原貌。他在原稿中多处插入数页的手写稿。此版本中熔入了那些和文章与注释密切相关、不可分割的部分,删去了那些与主题无关的部分。

     

     

      Jonathan N. Lipman, Mt. Holyoke College

     

     

     
     

     
     

     
      The Naqshbandiyya in Northwest China

     

     

      Joseph Fletcher believed that the discoveries summarized in this history of the Naqshbandiyya in China were among the most important he had ever made. He worked on this essay until he was too ill to work and he left in its final version a page of notes introducing his interests in this topic and the process by which he came to discover its substance. The following is based largely on those notes.

     

     

      Professor Fletcher attributed his fascination with the Naqshbandiyya to a chain of teachers and colleagues, beginning with a preparatory school teacher at Groton, Mel Mansen, and including Stan Shaw, Rechard N. Frye, Martin Dickson, Gunnar Jarring, and Omeljan Pritsak. Francis Cleaves encouraged him to follow mysteries, and john K Fairbank discussed studying the Central Asian khojas so important in Ching history. The specific problem of Sufism in China was suggested to him by Benjamin Schwartz. Professor Fletcher had known since the 1960’s that the controversy between the New and Old Teachings in northwest China was a dispute over the dhikr, the Sufi rememberance of God, but the identity of the Khufiyya and Jahriyya, the two antagonistic Sufi solidarities of Kansu, remained a mystery. Did they belong to the Yasawiyya? To the Naqshbandiyya? To some other mystic order?

     

     

      In the mid-1970s, Prof. Fletcher visited the home of the Rev. Claude Pickens, Jr., a Christian missionary who had specialized in the study of Islam in China. There he saw a letter to Rev. Pickens from Martin Taylor, another missionary, which recounted a silsila of the Jahriyya order of Gansu, specifying a link between northwest China and Yemen through the spiritual teachers of Ma Ming-hsin, the Jahriyya’s founder. This not only confirmed Prof. Fletcher’s notion that Islam in China was closely connected to Islam elsewhere, but also made that connection geographically concrete. It also provided the possibility of solving the difficult problem of antagonism between rival Sufi orders in northwest China from the 18th to the 20th centuries through discovering their different roots in other Muslim lands. Prof. Fletcher searched Rev. Pickens’ files and the claim of a Yemeni connection became more believable and worthy of investigation.

     

     

      Following leads suggested by the work of John Voll, Prof. Fletcher went to Egypt to find cAbd al-Khaliq and az-Zayn, the two names in Taylor's silsila. There, in the Gezira Club and crumbling coffee houses, he "struggled through 18th century tafāsir [biographies of Sufi saints] with Muhammad Shaban, [and] turned up Ibrāhīm al-Kūranī," who may well have been a Naqshbandi and who seemed to be related to the two objects of his search. On the heels of al- Kūranī, he went to Yemen where, in the old Naqshbandi center of Zabid, he was told by one al-Hadrami: "Naqshbandis in Yemen used vocal dhikr from al- Kūranīand silent dhikr from as-Sindi," who was the subject of Voll's research. Al-Hadrami also excerpted Ahdal’s “An-nafas al-Yamani for Prof. Fletcher, demonstrating the importance of cAbd al-Khaliq in Yemen and making the crucial connection with Ma Ming-hsin's Jahriyya in northwest China.

     

     

      Returning to Egypt and the Dar al-Kutub, Prof. Fletcher was able to expand his evidentiary base for a Yemeni origin of Chinese Naqshbandism. Back in Cambridge, he reviewed the Chinese sources on the Jahriyya rebellions of 1781-84 with Hung Chin-fu, and then, in the early 1980s, was able to visit a number of mosques in northwest China to confirm the continued strength of both Khufiyya. and Jahriyya and the Yemeni connections of both as passed down in the orders' oral traditions. At several points in his notes, Prof. Fletcher made clear that he intended to examine, in far greater detail than he does in this article, the problem of the violent confrontation between the two Sufi sub-orders in northwest China, a violence rendered ironic by its remarkable dissimilariry to the relations between advocates of vocal and silent dhikr in Arabia.

     

     

      But we shall never know the results of his thinking on this vital issue, for it was at this stage of his research that Prof. Fletcher discovered his fatal cancer and the tragic need to write quickly. He found more Arabic material with Wasmaa Chorbachi and revised the present essay for the last time. The present version, based entirely on that final revision, thus represents Joseph Fletcher's last scholarly achievement. I have altered as little as possible the text and its interpretations, even to the exclusion of relevant material which has been published since Prof. Fletcher's death, in order to present his scholarship as he completed it. At many points, he inserted pages of hand-written notes in the original; this version melds those deemed indispensable into text and notes, eliminating those which do not contribute substantially to the argument.

     
      Jonathan N. Lipman, Mt. Holyoke College

     
      中华文明具有强大的熔合力。外来的宗教,无论何时进入中国,总是要被改造。这大致是一个普遍的观点。佛教,犹太教,基督教,摩尼教,无不披上中国式的外衣。学术著作中也在很大的程度上将“中国式的伊斯兰教”说成是对中东地区的“真正的”伊斯兰教的一种中国化的扭曲。明朝和清朝(1368—1912)的中国式的伊斯兰教被描述成和它在中东“更为纯正”的伊斯兰教失去了联系。但是现在有唾手可得的证据并不支持这种“中国式的伊斯兰教”的存在。中国穆斯林的历史并不是一部和其他穆斯林相隔绝的历史。

      伊斯兰文明在中国的确披上了中国式的外衣大多数的中国穆斯林群体也的确表现出了对中国文化的适应。印度的穆斯林吸收了印度文化,东南亚的穆斯林吸收了东南亚文化,撒哈拉以南非洲部分的穆斯林吸收了次撒哈拉非洲文化。如果穆斯林吸收了中国的文化,那么这个中央王国(即中国——译者注)的伊斯兰历程就不会有别于其他地方,人们也不会觉得中国的穆斯林在信仰方面不够正统,或者说在日常生活方面,他们不象穆斯林世界的兄弟们那样操行标准而又规范。在我们所了解的穆斯林居住地区,从阿拉伯到中国,均有文化吸收的现象。就象其它地方一样,穆斯林群体对周围的非穆斯林文化的诱惑进行了高度的抵制。

     

      尽管有着禁止出国的专横管制,统治阶层的儒家思想有恐外症,等等这些障碍,中国的穆斯林们却从来都没有和伊斯兰的中央地区失去联系。中国的伊斯兰运动大部分都和中央伊斯兰世界的主流有关系。实际上我们无法在脱离整体穆斯林历史的情况下理解中国的伊斯兰教史。没有什么能够比纳格什班底耶在中国的作用更加清楚说明这一点。纳格什班底耶是一个苏非派别,由于强调严格遵守伊斯兰教法而显得卓尔不群。的确,在十八和十九世纪的中国,纳格什班底耶的历史就是伊斯兰教史。长期以来,在中国的历史上找不到纳格什班底耶的角色,这就暴露了对穆斯林世界的这一东北角的伊斯兰研究的欠缺和不足。

     

      纳格什班底耶从两个截然不同的源头进入中国的西北。第一个是虎夫耶,一个十六和十七世纪的原封不动的运动,从中亚进入中国;另外一个是经过改革的哲合忍耶,在十八世纪从也门进入中国。以下两节讲述它们的渊源问题。

     

     
     

     
      The Naqshbandiyya in Northwest China

     

      INTRODUCTION

     

      The syncretic power of Chinese civilization remade non-Chinese realigns whenever they entered China, or so it is commonly thought. Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity. and Manichaeism all acquired Chinese forms, and the scholarly literature also represents "Chinese Islam" as largely a sinicized corruption of the "real" Islam of the Middle East.1 Over the course of the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties (1368-1912) this "Chinese Islam" is portrayed as having lost touch with Islam in its "purer" Middle Eastern forms. But the available evidence does not suggest the existence of a separate "Chinese Islam." The history of the Muslims of China is not a history isolated from other Muslims.

     

      Islamic civilization in China did acquire a Chinese veneer, and adaptations to Chinese culture certainly occurred among most of China's Muslim peoples. But if Muslims absorbed Chinese influences in China——just as they did Indian influences in India, southeast Asian influences in southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan African influences in sub-Saharan Africa——the fact would not distinguish Islam's career in the Middle Kingdom from its history elsewhere. Nor would it suggest that China's Muslims were less orthodox in matters of belief or less orthopractic in the conduct of their lives than their coreligionists in the Muslim world at large. Cultural absorption in Islam is to be seen in all the Muslim-inhabited regions of which we have knowledge, beginning in Arabia itself, and in China, as elsewhere, Muslim populations offered a high degree of resistance to the lure of the surrounding non-Muslim culture.

     

      Despite the late imperial ban on travel outside the empire and the xenophobia of official Confucianism, the Muslims of China probably never lost touch with Muslims in the central Islamic lands. Islamic movements in China were for the most part related to dominant currents elsewhere in Islam. In fact, the history of Islam in China cannot be understood apart from the context of Muslim history in general. Nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the role in China of the Naqshbandiyya, a Sufi brotherhood preeminently distinguished for its efforts in promoting strict adherence to the Islamic law. Indeed, for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century China, one would almost say that the history of the Naqshbandiyya is the history of Islam. The fact that the Naqshbandiyya's role has remained for so long unperceived in Chinese history betrays the underdeveloped state of Islamic studies concerning the quadrant of the Muslim world.

     

      Naqshbandiyya entered northwest China from two distinct and separate sources; first from central Asia, as the Khufiyya, an unreformed movement of the 16th and 17th centuries, and then from the Yemen, as the reformed Jahriyya, in the 18th century. The following two sections deal with those origins.

     
      EARLY HISTORY OF THE NAQSHBANDIYYA IN ALTISHAHR

     

     

     

      In the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century A.D. the Naqshbandiyya entered Altishahr (the Tarim River basin ) in what is now regarded as China but at that time lay outside the Chinese empire. The first Naqshbandis there were probably traders from Mawarannahr (Central Asia west of the Pamirs). The earl masters of the Naqshbandi mystical path (Arabic tariqa, "path") found fertile ground for their teaching in the popular mysticism( Arabic tasawwuf, Sufism) that was common to Altishahr' agricultural, and nomad populations.

     

      Popular mysticism in Altishahr was not significantly distinguishable from the popular mysticism of Mawarannahr, which dominated the religious culture in which Baha' adin Naqshband(d.1389), the mystical path's titular founder, first made his contribution as a Sufi (Arabic sufi, mystic) master. Many, perhaps most, of the masters of this Central Asian popular mysticism——the “shaykhs of the Turks"--were initiates of the Yasawi mystical paths. But the Yasawiyya bore a relationship to the Naqshbandiyya in that the Yasawi path's founder, Ahmad Yasawi (d. 1166), had been a disciple of Abu Yusuf al-Hamadani(d.1140), founder of the mystical path of the Khwajagan, in the fourteenth century, and it was his revitalized khwajagan that came to be known after him as the Naqshbandiyya.

     

      In Altishahr, as in Mawarannahr, the Yasawiyya seems to have been the dominant mystical path in the fourteen century, but in the fifteenth century the Naqshbandiyya quickly gained ground in Altishahr at the Yasawiyya’s expense, reorienting the region’s popular mysticism to Naqshbandi traditions. An example of this kind of reorientation is to be found in the history of a saintly lineage of the city of the city of Kusan (now called Kucha) whose prestige was derived from the fact that its ancestor Jamal ad-Din Kataki and his son Arshad ad-Din had persuaded Tughluq Temur Khan (d. 1363), the first independent ruler of the eastern Monghuls, embrace Islam sometime shortly after 1347. (The Moghuls referred to here were ruled by a dynasty descended from Chaghadai, Chinggis Khan's

     

      second son, and are not to be confused with the Mughals of India, who were Timufids.) Sometime, probably in the early fifteenth century, the Kataki family transformed itself into a line of Naqshbandi saints, and it may have been then that the Kataki leaders_adopted the title of khoja(khwaja), a title borne by Baha'ad-Din Naqshband's predecessors in the initiatic chain (silsila) stemming from Abu Yusuf al-Hamadani's disciple Abd al-Khaliq Ghijduwani (d. 1220) and still commonly borne by Naqshbandis after Naqshband's time.

     

      Under the influence of his Kataki Naqshbandi master, the Moghul ruler Uways Khan (d. ca. 1429) did much to increase the mystical path's following and power among the Moghul nobility. The spread of the Naqshbandiyya was thus not restricted to the settled population but made rapid headway among the nomads who grazed their herds outside the agricultural concentrations of the Altishahr oases, and over the expanses of the Moghulistan pastures.

     

      By the middle of the fifteenth century, the Naqshbandiyya held pride of place among the religious leadership in the Tarim basin oasis cities and among the nomads, too. Altishahr Naqshbandis strengthened their bonds with their fellow Naqshbandis in Mawarannahr, and Altishahris went abroad to study in Bukhara and other centers of Naqshbandi teaching. Indeed, an Altishahri became the grand master of the axial Naqshbandi line in Mawarannahr itself. This was Sad ad-Din Kashghari (d. 1456), predecessor of the famous, Khoja Ahrar (Khwaja-yi Ahrar--"the Master of the Free"--d. 2490) and religious mentor of the renowned Naqshbandi mystical poet Abd_ar-Rahman Jami (d. 1492).

     

      It was during the fifteenth century that sharism (a preeminent emphasis on the strict observance of the sharia—the Koranic law) first became evident as a main distinguishing characteristic of the Naqshbandiyya. In the time of the Timurid ruler Ulugh Beg (r. 1409-1449), the Naqshbandi path emerged as the bastion of sharism against the un-lslamic practices of the Timurid govemment. Championing the sharia meant charting a politically active course; so the Naqshbandiyya rejected religious quietism and accelerated their missionary efforts in search of political support, particularly among the nomads, whose military strength dominated Central Asia's politics. In the second half of the fifteenth century Khoja Ahrar, the Naqshbandi grand master of the time, became so powerful that he mediated between Timurids and Moghuls, maintaining contact with the widely dispersed nomad groups through his disciples, who served as religious advisers to khans and tribal chiefs. The triumph of Twelver Shi'ism as the religion of the Safavid dynasty in Iran and the Safavid invasions of Central Asia in the early years of the sixteenth century raised another challenge to which the Naqshbandiyya also responded. The mystical path developed a pronounced Sunni emphasis--sharcist orthopraxy, political activism, propagation of the religion, and a strong Sunni orientation came to mark the Naqshbandiyya in a way that proved definitive in the mystical path's subsequent history.

     

      The Naqshbandiyya of Mawarannahr communicated these emphases in some degree to the Naqshbandis of Altishahr, and they in turn probably carried some reflection of them into China proper and northeastern Tibet as the mystical path spread eastward. Certainly political activism, propagation of Islam, and Sunnism remained as fully characteristic of the Naqshbandiyya in China as they were of the Naqshbandiyya in India, Indonesia, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. The sharcist emphasis, because of the fragmentary nature of the sources, is less easily established. Naqshbandi sources of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries do indicate, however, that the emphasis on "wonders" (karamat) worked by saintly masters--characteristic of popular Sufism at that time throughout the Muslim world--remained strong among the Altishahr Naqshbandis to a degree that distinguishes them from the more influential and less "wonder”-oriented Indian Naqshbandiyya, whose history has fixed Naqshbandism's image in European and American scholarly writing. Two other general characteristics of popular mysticism, namely the veneration of saints (misleadingly called "saint worship" by non-Muslim writers) and the seeking of inspiration by visiting and meditating at saints' tombs (misleadingly referred to as "tomb worship"), were also prominent features of the Altishahr Naqshbandiyya.

     

      One of Khoja Ahrar’s Altishahri pupils, Khoja Taj ad-Din (d.ca. 1533), who belonged to the Kataki saintly lineage of Kucha, returned to Altishahr in the early sixteenth century and carried the mystical path farther east, beyond Altishahr, into Uighuristan (stretching roughly from the Turfan region to the western end of the Great Wall of China in Kansu province). A few local Naqshbandis may already have dwelt in the Uighuristan cities and among the local nomad population, but Taj ad-Din strengthened the path’s position there before he died in a razzia that the Moghul khan mounted into the Ming empire's northwestern frontier. In Altishahr two of Khoja Abrar's grandsons, Nura (d. post 1536) and Muhammad Yusuf (d. 1530), vied with one another for primacy, but Muhammad Yusuf died, and Nura went on to India. It was thus not until the closing years of me sixteenth century that a single line of grand masters came to dominate the Altishahr Naqshbandis.

     

      In western Central Asia the Naqshbandi silsila branched into two main lines after Khoja Ahrar. The historically more important branch passed through the undated masters Muhammad Zihid, Darwish Muhammad, and Khojagi Amgunagi to Baqi Bi 'llah (d.1603), who carried the silsila into India and initiated Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624), the celebrated mujaddid (renewer) of the second Islamic millennium and opponent of the Mughal government's policy of religious "peace."

     

      The second main branch of the Naqshbandi silsila passed from Khoja Ahrar through Muhammad Qadi (d. 1516) to the influential Ahmad Kasani (1461-1542), who is known to history as the Makhdum-i Azam ("the Supreme Teacher"), and who claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad in the twenty-second generation. Although it seems clear that the Makhdfim-i Azam's influence penetrated Altishahr during his lifetime, and several charitable estates were deeded to him there in pious endowment (waqf), he never went to Altishahr in person. He viewed the Moghuls as infidels, which is understandable inasmuch as a Moghul raiding party in Ferghana beat him up during his early life, breaking his bones and leaving him for dead. He miraculously survived, however, and at some later stage in his life the Moghul ruler Said Khan (d. 1533) sent rich presents to Kasan, the Makhdum-i Azam's native district in the Ferghana valley.

     

      Among the Makhdfim-i ACzam's descendants (the Makhdumzadas), his seventh (or, by some accounts, fourth) son Ishaq Wali (d. 1599) later became one of the most influential men in Mawarannahr, rivalled among contemporary Naqshbandi masters only by the Juybari shaykhs of Bukhara, who also derived their isnād (list of legitimating authorities) from the Makhdfum-i Azam, but by way of the latter's reclusive eldest son, Ishaq's half-brother Muhammad Amin (d. 1597/8). Ishāq obtained the patronage of several of the principal Uzbek sultans but won the enmity of the Uzbek ruler cAbd Āllah Khan II (d. 1598), who feared the khoja's political and religious power.

     

      Attempting to increase his personal following, Ishāq deputed several of his disciples to Altishahr and then went there himself. He and his followers--the Ishāqiyya, as they came to be called—worked many wonders to the astonishment of the Altishahr population and established themselves at the head of the country's various Naqshbandi masters. The Ishaqiyya also made further headway among those who still clung to Altishahr's earlier popular Sufism, a major element of which was the cult the thirteenth century (?) saint Alp Ata, whose tomb stood in the region of Turfan. Alp Ara was probably a Yasawi, and if not, the Yasawiyya nonetheless seem later to have dominated the cult centered on his tomb. The Moghul Chaghadayid family, among whom Yasawi influence was still strong, had been adherents of Alp Ata's cult, so the Ishaqiyya's successes against it carried political weight.

     

      The late sixteenth century was a period of transition in Moghul history. The Chaghadayid house and most of the important Moghul nobles had, largely through the influence of Islamic civilization, been so thoroughly absorbed into settled society that they had lost most of their former nomadic character. Over the course of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries tribesmen loyal to the traditions of the earlier nomadic culture had gradually drifted away into the mountains and pastures, breaking loose from Moghul control. Ceasing to be ruled by the Moghul Chaghadayid house, they ceased to be Moghuls. Some were incorporated into the

     

      Kazakhs and lived increasingly within the Muslim fold while at the same time reaffirming their nomadic style of life. Others, probably only a tiny minority, were incorporated into the shamanist (later Buddhist) Oirat Mongols, forsaking Islam altogether. But most of these evaporating Moglauls established their transhumance in the Pamir and T'ien Shan mountains and came to be known as Kirghiz, although they formed not a single people but a congeries of independent Turkish-speaking groups.

     

      The majority of the Kirghiz seem at first to have been shamanists, but Ishaq and his disciples propagated Islam among them, working many wonders in the process, and induced a number of Kirghiz groups to give up their idols and become Muslims. It is uncertain how long and to what extent shamanism survived in the seventeenth century among the Kirghiz, but Islam was the dominant religion by the time Ishāq had concluded his mission. As a result of his efforts, the Naqshbandiyya began to take hold among the Turkish-speaking nomad populations who ringed Altishahr. Similar efforts among the Mongolian-speaking non-Muslim Oirat tribes may also have met with some success,2 but if so, it would appear that those Oirats who embraced Islam (called Qarayanchuqs or Qarayunchuqs) gave up their affiliation with the Oirat tribes and were eventually absorbed into the Kirghiz.

     

      For subsequent history, Ishaq's most important achievement was the establishment of his influence among the settled Altishahr oasis population. His direct intervention in Moghul politics contributed to the ending of the career of the reigning cAbd al-Karim Khan (d. 1591) and placed Ishāq's disciple Muhammad Khan (d. 1609) upon the throne. Ishāq seems to have aided his Moghul disciple when the Uzbeks sent an army against him in 1594. Ishāq's influence over Muhammad Khan became so strong that the Ishāqiyya, rooted in both the trade guilds and the ruler's court at Yarkand, became the dominant network linking together Altishahr's various oases. The Ishaqiyya's masterstroke—which established the Naqshbandiyya from then on as Altishahr's principal mystical path-- was to name Muhammad Khan grand master of the Ishaqiyya at the end of his life, identifying him not only as Ishaq's successor but also as qutb ("mystical axis" or "pole of the universe") and ghawth ("mystical helper of the age"). The fact that the ruler was not just a Naqshbandi but the grand master himself gave the path a special position in Altishahr from which no other mystical path ever displaced it. This combination of Chaghadayid royalty with the grand mastership of the Naqshbandiyya probably contributed also, some decades later, to the Makhdumzada khojas' audacious seizure of the Moghul throne.

     

      Across the mountains to the west, in Mawarannahr, the Ishaqiyya's influence rapidly declined in the early seventeenth century; so Ishaq's sons and grandsons shifted their base of operations into Altishahr, and the Ishaqiyya became in effect the Naqshbandi path's Altishahr branch. After Muhammad Khan, the Ishāqi mastership reverted to Ishāq's descendants, and the Ishāqi Naqshbandi path became hereditary--a development similar to the hereditary tendency observable in other mystical paths of the period.

     

      In Bukhara meanwhile, the Juybari shaykhs had acquired enormous wealth and prestige, like the Ishaqiyya in Yarkand, and their influence had spread throughout Mawarannahr. They played central roles in the political and economic life of the region, and the Uzbek rulers commonly had to defer to their wishes. Among the Juybariyya the hereditary principle also prevailed, so that the Makhdum-i Aczam's grandson Muhammad Yusuf (d. 1653)--the son of Muhammad Amin--found himself eclipsed by members of the Juybari saintly lineage, despite his own illustrious forebears. He therefore journeyed to Altishahr where, as a result of the Ishaqiyya's efforts, the Makhdumzada family (descendants of the Makhdum-i Aczam) was held in the highest esteem of all, save for the Moghul Chaghadayid dynasty itself.

     

      By the time of Muhammad Yusuf’s arrival in Altishahr, sometime before the middle of the seventeenth century, the Ishāqiyya had attained such power over the Moghul khans that the latter were beginning to chafe under Ishāqi tutelage and were glad of an opportunity to support a rival Naqshbandi faction. Muhammad Yusuf’s claim was a strong one in that he was the son of the Makhdgun-i Azam's eldest son. The newcomer threw himself into the political fray, garnered much support, and traveled widely in Altishahr, going also into Uighuristan and into China proper, acquiring disciples everywhere. So successful was he that jealous partisans of the Ishaqiyya poisoned his food, and he died, leaving his mission to his son Hidayat Allah (d. 1694), known to history as Khoja Afāq (Khwāja-yi Afāq--"the Master of the Horizons"). Khoja Afāq's branch of the Naqshbandiyya came to be known as the Āfāqiyya.3

     

      With Muhammad Yusuf’s death in 1653, the Ishaqiyya regained their former ascendancy and forced Khoja Afāq to flee, but the young khoja found outside support in the person of Galdan, ruler of the Zunghar confederation of the Oirat Mongols, who had recently been converted from shamanism to Tibetan Buddhism. When Galdan invaded Uighuristan and Altishahr in 1679, he made Khoja Afāq his governor there and in doing so transferred the ascendancy in regional politics from the Ishāqiyya to the partisans of Khoja Afāq. Galdan’s conquest effectively ended what remained of the power of the Moghul Chaghadayid house and shifted Altishahr's capital city from Yarkand (the old seat of the Moghul khans and the Ishāqi khojas) to Kashgar, which became the center of Afāqi power. As Zunghar clients, Khoja Afaq and his descendants sat on the throne of Kashgar and even, according to some sources, adopted the title of khan, implying that the Afāqi Makhdumzadas had replaced the Moghul Chaghadayids as the legitimate ruling house of Altishahr.

     

      These events are described mainly in Ishaqi and, Afaqi sources of the eighteenth century, which stress factional politics between the two rival Makhdumzada branches and relate wonders worked by the rival khojas against one another and all those who challenged their power. To judge by these sources, the Koran and Rumi’s Mathnavi were important, as was the study of hadith, but noticeably lacking are evidences of any awareness of currents of Islamic thought west or south of the confines of Central Asia. Those who visited India or went on the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina from Altishahr brought nothing back with them that has found its way into the historical record. Altishahr and Uighuristan seem to have been nothing more than backwaters of the Muslim intellectual world.

      阿勒特沙(六城)(Altishahr)的早期纳格什班底耶史

     

      在十四世纪晚期和十五世纪早期,纳格什班底耶进入了阿勒特沙(六城)(即塔里木盆地)。该地区现在属于中国,但在当时并不属于中华帝国。最早的纳格什班底耶很有可能是来自于马瓦拉纳合(Mawarannahr)(即帕米尔高原以西的中亚)。纳格什班底耶神秘主义道路的大师们在这里找到了接受他们的说教的肥沃土壤。神秘主义(阿拉伯语为“塔扫悟夫”,就是苏非主义)当时在这一带很流行,阿勒特沙(六城)的城市居民,农业人口和游牧民都对此司空见惯。

     

      阿勒特沙(六城)流行的神秘主义与马瓦拉纳合流行的神秘主义并没有什么重要的区别。神秘主义主导着当时的宗教文化。正是在这种氛围中,神秘主义名义上的创始人巴哈稳•迪尼•纳格什班底(公元1389年)作为一个苏非大师,做出了他的贡献。很多当时中亚的神秘主义的大师们——土耳其的筛海们——都是亚撒维(Yasawi)神秘主义路线的发起人。亚撒维耶派和纳格什班底耶派有这样一层关系:亚撒维道路的创始人,艾哈麦德•亚撒维(公元1166年),曾经是阿布•玉素夫•艾尔•哈马达尼(公元1140年)的门徒。哈马达尼是华哲嘎尼(大师们)神秘路线的创始人。巴哈稳•迪尼•纳格什班底于十四世纪复兴了华哲嘎尼的路线。正是他所复兴的华哲嘎尼路线在他之后被称为纳格什班底耶。

     

      在阿勒特沙(六城)和马瓦拉纳合,亚撒维耶是十四世纪占有主导地位的神秘主义路线。但是在十五世纪,纳格什班底耶在阿勒特沙(六城)迅速传播,取代了亚撒维耶,使纳格什班底耶成为该地区所流行的神秘主义路线。下面的史实即是这种路线方向改变的例证。库散市(即现在的库车市)有一个神圣家族,该家族享有名望是因为其祖先贾马尔•阿丁•卡他基和他的儿子阿善德•阿丁曾经说服东蒙古的第一位独立统治者秃黑鲁克•铁木尔•汗接受伊斯兰教。时间是1347年之后不久。(这里的蒙古王国,指的是由成吉思汗的第二个儿子的后裔统治的王朝,不要和印度的莫卧儿王朝混淆。莫卧儿王朝的统治者是帖木儿人。) 大约在十五世纪早期,卡他基家族成为纳格什班底耶的一系圣徒。他们大约在这个时候获得了“华哲”的尊称。这个尊称是由巴哈稳•迪尼•纳格什班底在谱系表中的前辈们加上去的。这谱系表起始于阿布•玉素夫•艾尔•哈马达尼的门徒阿布德•艾尔•哈力格•黑知德瓦尼(公元1220年)。纳格什班底去世以后,其信徒仍然广泛使用该尊称。

     

      蒙古统治者歪思•可汗(d.ca.1429) 在纳格什班底耶大师卡他基的影响下,大力在蒙古贵族中间宣传追随神秘道路,加强神秘注意的力量。于是纳格什班底耶不仅在定居人口中得到了传播,在阿勒特沙(六城)绿洲的农业中心以外和蒙古草原扩张区的游牧人中间也得到了迅速的传播。十五世纪中叶,不但在塔里木盆地的绿洲城市中,而且在游牧人当中,纳格什班底耶均享有宗教领导的地位。阿勒特沙(六城)的纳格什班底耶信徒加强了和的纳格什班底耶信徒之间的联系。阿勒特沙(六城)人出国去布哈拉(Bukhara)及其他的纳格什班底耶中心。其中有一个阿勒特沙(六城)人成为马瓦拉纳合的纳格什班底耶的核心传人中的重要大师。此人就是散德•艾丁•喀什噶里(d.1456),是著名的华哲•阿哈拉(意为“自由的大师”d.1490)的前辈,也是纳格什班底耶神秘主义诗人阿布德•阿•拉赫曼•贾米(d.1492年)的宗教导师(d.1492)。

     

      十五世纪时舍勒尔提主义(sharism, 一种特别重视严格遵循“沙里亚”——古兰经法律,伊斯兰教法——的思想)纳格什班底耶的一个重要特征。在帖木儿统治者乌拉格•拜格( Ulugh Beg 1409 —1449年间在位)时期,纳格什班底耶道路成为反对帖莫儿政府非伊斯兰行为的一个堡垒。要想捍卫沙里亚教法,就要有积极的政治举措。于是纳格什班底耶放弃了宗教淡泊主义,加强努力,寻求政治支持,尤其是在游牧人中间,因为他们的武装力量在中亚的政治环境中是最强大的。在十五世纪的后半个世纪,当时的纳格什班底耶大师华哲•阿哈拉影响力举足轻重。他在帖木儿人和蒙古人之间进行调解,通过他的门徒凝聚了当时四分五裂的游牧部落。他的这些门徒们对当时的可汗们和部落首领们进行宗教上的指导。伊朗撒伐维王朝的宗教什叶派的胜利以及撒伐维王朝对中亚的入侵对纳格什班底耶提出了挑战,纳格什班底耶也对此做出了回应。神秘主义道路的发展带有明显的逊尼派特征——按照沙里亚教法执行正统操行,积极参与政治,积极宣教,这些都是纳格什班底耶的方向性特征,而且神秘道路的后续历史都证明这些做法是确定无疑的。

     

      马瓦拉纳合的纳格什班底耶在一定程度上将这些重要的操行和阿勒特沙(六城)的纳格什班底耶进行了交流,而后者可能随着神秘道路的向东传播,将具有这些特征的操行带到了中国汉人区和西藏地区东北部。积极参政,积极宣教,逊尼派思想,这些都是中国的纳格什班底耶特征,也是印度、印度尼西亚、高加索和中东地区的纳格什班底耶特征。由于教法派别林立,说法不一,要想强调统一的教乘(“舍勒尔提”)规范,并不容易。但是十六和十七世纪的的纳格什班底耶的确强调圣贤大师们所表现出来的奇迹“克拉买提”——这在当时穆斯林世界的苏非当中是一个非常常见的现象。对“克拉买提”的强调是阿勒特沙(六城)的纳格什班底耶与印度的纳格什班底耶的不同之处。印度的纳格什班底耶影响力更大,但是并不如此地强调“克拉买提”,是他们树立了纳格什班底耶在欧洲和美国的有关学术著作中的形象。阿勒特沙(六城)的纳格什班底耶还有两个总体的神秘主义特征:敬重圣贤(经常被非穆斯林学人误导性地称为“圣徒崇拜”),造访并在圣贤的墓前沉思参悟,寻求灵感和启迪(经常被误导性地称为“坟墓崇拜”)。

     

      华哲•阿哈拉有一个来在阿勒特沙(六城)的学生,华哲•塔基•阿丁(d.ca.1533)属于库查的卡他基家族一系的圣贤传人。他于十六世纪早期返回阿勒特沙(六城)并将神秘主义道路进一步推向东方。出了阿勒特沙(六城),进入维吾尔斯坦(Uighuristan)[大约从吐鲁番地区到中国甘肃省境内的长城西段]。一些纳格什班底耶信徒可能已经居住在维吾尔斯坦的一些城市和当地的一些游牧民当中了,但是塔基•阿丁加强了神秘主义道路在那里的地位。后来他死于蒙古可汗进犯明朝西北边境的一次战斗。在阿勒特沙(六城),华哲•阿哈拉有两个孙子努勒( d.post.1530)和穆罕默德•玉素夫(d.1530)。 两人为争夺教权而进行过斗争,但是穆罕默德•玉素夫死了,之后努勒去了印度。所以一直到十六世纪的末期,阿勒特沙(六城)的纳格什班底耶才由单线的大师治领。

     

      华哲•阿哈拉之后,中西亚的纳格什班底耶谱系分为两条主线。历史上较为重要的一条开始于生卒年不详的穆罕默德•扎黑德,其后是达维什•穆罕默德和浩扎给•阿木古纳基,然后是巴给•比俩(d.1603)。巴给•比俩把谱系传承带到了印度。在印度的传承起始于艾哈买德•瑟黑恩地(d.1624)。他是第二个伊斯兰世纪的复兴者和莫卧儿政府宗教“和平”政策的反对者。

     

      纳格什班底耶的第二条主线是从华哲•阿哈拉通过穆罕默德•甘地(d.1516)传给很有影响的艾哈买德•卡萨尼(1461—1542)。他是历史上很有名的曼哈度米•阿赞木(“超级导师”),自称是先知穆罕默德的第二十一世孙。虽然他本人从未去过阿勒特沙(六城),但是他在世时,他的影响力渗透了阿勒特沙(六城),有虔诚的信徒给他捐赠的多处房产。他视蒙古人为异教徒。这也是可以理解的,因为他年轻时曾在弗甘那遇到一个蒙古人的匪帮,将他一顿毒打,打断了他的骨头,然后遗弃到荒郊野外,让他等死。但是他奇迹般的活了下来。在他晚年的时候,蒙古的统治者撒西德•可汗(d.1533)派人送厚礼到他的家乡——位于弗甘那山谷的卡散。

     

      在曼哈度米•阿赞木的后代中,他的第七个(也有人说是第四个)儿子伊斯哈格•瓦力(d.1599)后来成为马瓦拉纳合最有影响力的人,当时只有布哈拉(Bukhara)的祝巴里筛海们(Juybari shaykhs)才比得上他。这些筛海们也持有来自曼哈度米•阿赞木的伊思纳德(权利认可书),但是经由另一途径——通过曼哈度米•阿赞木的隐居的大儿子、伊斯哈格的同父异母哥哥穆罕默德•阿敏(d.1597/8)。伊斯哈格获得了几位主要的乌兹别克苏丹授予的宗教权,但是让乌兹别克的统治者阿布德•阿拉•可汗二世(d.1598)怀恨在心,他害怕华哲的政治和宗教力量。

     

      为了增强信徒们对他的追随,伊斯哈格向阿勒特沙(六城)派遣了几位他的门徒,后来又亲自前往那里。他和他的追随者(后来被称为伊斯哈给耶)在那里显示了很多的克拉买提,让阿勒特沙(六城)人震惊不已,从而确立了他们在这个地区的纳格什班底耶大师们中的首领地位。伊斯哈给耶在阿勒特沙(六城)早前的苏非信徒中有所拓展。这些人主要尊崇十三世纪前后的圣贤艾尔波•阿塔,他的墓位于吐鲁番地区。艾尔波•阿塔可能是亚撒维耶,否则的话,后来的亚撒维耶就不会主导对他的坟墓的尊崇。亚撒维耶在蒙古人卡察合台(Chaghdayid)家族中有很强的影响力,该家族是艾尔波•阿塔的忠实崇拜者。所以,伊斯哈给耶对该地区的渗透必是带有政治色彩。

     

      十六世纪的晚期是一个蒙古史上的多变之秋。在伊斯兰文明的影响下,察合台家族和其他的一些蒙古贵族都被彻底地吸引到定居社会,失去了很多游牧民族的习性。在十五世纪和十六世纪早期,这一百多年中,先前游牧文化传统中的部落忠诚已逐渐地逃逸到群山和草原之中,不再属于蒙古人的领地。不再受蒙古察合台家族统治的蒙古人已不再是蒙古人了。他们中有一些溶入哈萨克人当中,与穆斯林混居的人不断增多,但同时保持了他们游牧的生活方式。其他一些人,可能只有一少部分,溶入到信奉萨满教(即后来的佛教)的卫拉特蒙古人(Oirat Mongols)当中, 一起放弃了伊斯兰教。这些逐渐消失的蒙古人中有一大部分在帕米儿和天山之间来回放牧,成为后来的柯尔克孜人。他们没有形成一个民族,却形成了各自独立的一些说突厥语的小团体。

     

      大部分的柯尔克孜人可能一开始都是信奉萨满教的,但是伊斯哈格和他的门徒们在他们中间宣传伊斯兰教,同时也现了很多的克拉买提(奇迹),吸引了一些柯尔克孜人放弃了他们的偶像,改而信奉了伊斯兰教。萨满教有多少残留,残留了多长时间,现在无法得知,但是在伊斯哈格完成他的使命时,伊斯兰教已经成为当地的主导性宗教。在他的努力之下,纳格什班底耶控制了阿勒特沙(六城)周围的说突厥语的游牧民族。他们在说蒙语的非穆斯林卫拉特部落中进行了同样的宣传,也可能取得了一些成功。如果事实是这样的话,那些拥护伊斯兰教的卫拉特人[叫作“卡拉延库格”(Qarayanchuqs或Qarayunchugs)]应当会放弃他们和卫拉特部落的密切关系,并最终成为柯尔克孜人。

     

      在后来的历史中,伊斯哈格最重要的成就是,在阿勒特沙(六城)绿洲的定居人口当中建立了自己的影响力。他直接参与蒙古人的政治,结束了阿布德•艾尔•卡里木•可汗(d.1591)的统治,把他的门徒穆罕默德•可汗(d.1609)推上了王位。1594年乌兹别克派军队人攻打穆罕默德•可汗,伊司哈格似乎帮助过他的这个蒙古学生。伊斯哈格对穆罕默德•可汗的影响力非常强大,无论是在贸易行会,还是在政府法庭,伊斯哈给耶都有根深蒂固的关系网,在阿勒特沙(六城)的各绿洲之间发挥着重要的凝聚作用。伊斯哈给耶有一项杰作,使纳格什班底耶从此成为阿勒特沙(六城)的主要神秘主义道路——伊斯哈格临终前任命穆罕默德•可汗为伊斯哈给耶的大师,使其不但成为伊斯哈格的继承者,而且是“古图布”(qutb,“神秘轴心”或“宇宙之极”),“高思”(ghawth, 时代的拯救者)。统治者不但是纳格什班底耶的信徒,而且是该派的宗教领袖,这使得纳格什班底耶在阿勒特沙(六城)拥有其他任何神秘主义道路都无法取代的特殊地位。这种察合台贵族身份和纳格什班底耶大师资格的结合,可能对数十年后马克度木•华哲大胆夺取蒙古王位也产生了作用。

     

      在群山以西的马瓦拉纳合,伊斯哈给耶的影响在十七世纪早期时迅速下降;所以伊斯哈格的儿子和孙子们将他们的活动转移到了阿勒特沙(六城)。于是伊斯哈给耶成为纳格什班底耶的阿勒特沙(六城)分支。在穆罕默德•可汗之后,伊斯哈给耶的大师资格返回到伊斯哈格的后代。于是伊斯哈给耶派的纳格什班底耶道路成为世袭的了——这种发展状况和当时其他的神秘主义道路世袭的发展趋势相雷同。

     

      与此同时,在布哈拉的祝巴里筛海们,就象莎车(Yarkand)的伊斯哈给耶那样,获得了大量的财富和威望,他们的影响力也遍及马瓦拉纳合各地。他们在当地的政治和经济生活中扮演着核心作用,乌兹别克的统治者们也常常不得不服从他们的意志。这种世袭的原则在祝巴里耶当中也很盛行,所以马克度米•阿赞木的孙子(也就是穆罕默德•阿敏的儿子)穆罕默德•玉素夫日益觉得自己的地位受到祝巴里一系信徒的削弱,虽然他的祖先们都名位显赫。于是他来到了阿勒特沙(六城),在伊斯哈给耶的帮助之下,马克度木扎达家族(马克度木•阿赞木的后代)受到了仅次于蒙古察合台王朝之外的最高的尊崇。

     

      在穆罕默德•玉素夫于十七世纪中期以前的某个时间来到阿勒特沙(六城)之前,伊斯哈给耶已经对蒙古王朝的可汗们形成了很大的影响力,可汗们已经不满于伊斯哈给耶的处处指手画脚,希望找机会扶持另外一派与伊斯哈给耶对抗。穆罕默德•玉素夫以他是马克度米•阿赞木的大儿子的儿子自居,这是一张有力的王牌。这位新来者毫不回避政治斗争,获得了很多支持。他周游阿勒特沙(六城),进入维吾尔斯坦和中国的汉人区,到处招收门徒。他的成功招致了伊斯哈给耶支持者的嫉妒。他们在他的食物里投毒,毒死了他。他死后把他的使命交给了他的儿子黑德亚特•阿拉(d. 1694),史称“华哲•阿发格”(眼界大师)。华哲•阿发格的纳格什班底耶派系被称为“阿发给耶。”

     

      穆罕默德•玉素夫于1653年死后,伊斯哈给耶重新获得了先前的优势地位并迫使华哲•阿发格逃亡。但是这位年轻的华哲在外面找到了一位支持者。此人名叫噶尔丹(Galdan),是卫拉特蒙古人准噶尔(Zunghar)联盟的首领。他当时刚从萨满教转而信仰藏传佛教。当噶尔丹于1679年入侵维吾尔斯坦和阿勒特沙(六城)后,任命华哲•阿发格为那里的总督,于是宗教和政治上的优势重新从伊斯哈给耶转向阿发给耶的支持者。噶尔丹的征服彻底结束了蒙古人察合台家族的残余势力将阿勒特沙(六城)的首都从莎车(Yakand, 蒙古可汗们和伊斯哈给耶的华哲们以前的活动中心)迁到喀什噶尔。喀什噶尔于是成了阿发给耶的权利中心。作为准噶尔的委托代理人,华哲•阿发格和他的后代们坐上了喀什葛儿的权利宝座。根据一些记载,他们甚至获得了可汗的头衔。这表明阿发格•马克度米扎达家族取代了蒙古的察合台,成为阿勒特沙(六城)的合法统治家族。

     

      这些史实都主要记载在十八世纪伊斯哈格和阿发格两派的史料中。这些记载都重点描述这两个马克度米扎达派系之间的政治斗争,他们各自的华哲们相互或者对那些挑战他们权利的人施显奇迹。从这些资料来看,他们非常重视《古兰经》,鲁米的《玛斯纳维》和《圣训》,但是很明显不了解当时中亚南部和西部的伊斯兰思潮。那些去过印度,或者去麦加和麦地那朝觐的人所带回来的东西,在历史记载中也看不到。当时的阿勒特沙(六城)和维吾尔斯坦似乎是和穆斯林主流思想世界相隔绝的一潭死水。

     
      ENTRANCE OF THE NAQSHBANDIYYA INTO CHINA PROPER:

     

      MU HAMMAD YUSUF, KHOJA AFAQ, AND MA LAI-CH'IH

     

     

     

      Propagation of the religion, on the other hand, continued to be an important Naqshbandi goal, and the seventeenth century witnessed the acceleration of the path's eastward progress as Naqshbandis, teaching and trading, moved on from the outermost fringes of the familiar Turco-lranian Muslim world—Uighuristan being the very end of the culture area of the Muslim Middle East-- into northwestern China proper and Tsinghai (northeastern Tibet). Naqshbandi contacts, through trade, with Muslim communities in northwest China proper probably go back to at least the second half of the fifteenth century, but such contacts would seem to have been scattered and individual, and there is no concrete evidence of any Chinese being initiated into the path so early. As late as the final decades of the sixteenth century some non-Muslim (all or mainly Buddhist) Uighurs were still living in Uighuristan, and a substantial proportion of the Hui (Chinese-speaking Muslim) population must have been of Central Asian origin. Naqshbandi influence was strong in Uighuristan by the end of the sixteenth century, and by the early seventeenth century Ishāqi contacts with Huis in China proper are documented.4 The name by which the Huis are designated in the Turkish and Persian sources of the time is "Tungan" or "Tungani," a word of uncertain etymology. 5

     

      The Ch'ing dynasty replaced the Ming on the Peking throne in 1644. In 1645-1649, two Muslims, named Mi-la-in and Ting Kuo-tong, rebelled against the Ch'ing dynasty, evidently in connection with Ming loyalist elements in northwest China. The center of the revolt was Su-chou and the rebels had ties with the Muslim governor of Hami (Qomul) in Uighuristan, where the Naqshbandiyya at that time were probably paramount. The Ch'ing army suppressed the rebellion and punished Hami by closing the Chia-yu pass, thus impeding the flow of trade (on which Hami largely subsisted) between Central Asia and the Chinese empire.

     

      Muhammad Yusuf preached at Su-chou, where he appears to have won over the head of the Hui scholars (ulamW khalifasi), a man named Wafānib Akhund, and obtained the adherence of a certain Mulla Yusuf Akhund, who later attached himself to Muhammad Yusuf’s son, Khoja Afaq.6 From Su-chou, Muhammad Yusuf proceeded to the country of the Salars, a Turkish-speaking Muslim people of northwest China, and these are said to have committed themselves to him. He built a hospice (khanaqah) there and discoursed daily on Rumi's Mathnawi for their benefit. After a six-month sojourn he departed, appointing a Hui to serve as head of the Salar scholars and giving him as symbols of investiture a copy of the Mathnawi, a prayer carpet, and a green and gold domed staff. "If you read the holy Mathnawi every Friday evening and Monday evening and daytime, and discourse upon it," he told his successor, "it will be as if I were giving the discourse."7

     

      In 1671-1672 Khoja Afāq, who is spoken of in Chinese sources as "Hidfiyat Allah (Hsi-tayeh-t'ung-la-hei), the twenty-fifth generation descendant of Muhammad,"8 visited the Kansu capital city of Lanchou, Ti-tao Subprefecture (now Lin-t'ao) in southern Kansu, Hsi-ning Guard in what is now the province of Tsinghai, and is said to have made a further appearance at Ho-chou, China's "Little Mecca" (Makka 's-saghira),9 now renamed Lin-hsia, in western central Kansu. Huis, Salars, northeastern Tibetan Muslims, and undoubtedly also Muslims of China’s other ethnic groups came to hear the khoja preach. Among these Chinese Muslims, Khoja Afaq won the commitment (inābat) of the subsequent initiators of three Naqshbandi saintly lineages (men-huan)10 that came eventually to dominate Muslim religious life in the Chinese northwest. Each of these saintly lineages traced its isnād to Khoja Afaq and through him back to the axial silsila of the Naqshibandiyya.

     

      An Afāqi source says that Khoja Afāq went to the "Manchu city" (Manjur shahri) among the Salars and served for a year as head of the path (sajjada nishin). All the Salars are said to have made their commitment to him, and he, like his father Muhammad Yusuf before him, devoted himself to teaching the Mathnawi. At the end of the year he appointed a certain Wiqiyat Allah, known as the Altun bash Akhund, to be his khalifa, investing him with the khoja's own golden turban (dastār paranji), a copy of the Koran, a Mathnawi, a green and gold domed staff, and a prayer carpet.11 Neither Wiqāyat Allāh nor the Hui khalifa whom Muhammad Yusuf had appointed among the Salars some years earlier seems to have pursued a career of note or to have founded a saintly lineage of his own.

     

      Chinese sources12 document the visit of Khoja Afāq to Ti-tao and Hsi-ning and his imparting of mystical knowledge to his three principal successors in northwest China: (a) cAbd ar-Rahman Ma I-ch'ing (1640-1719), known as Ma Wu T'ai-yeh, buried at Pi-chia-ch'ang outside Ho-chou; (b) Pai-shih-lo-li-ai-mi-ni (1648-1722)--Bashir al-Amin or perhaps Bashir cAIi Amin--of Ti-tao, buried at K'ang-lo, which at that time was in Ti-tao Subprefecture; and (c) Ma T'ai-pa-pa (fl. ca. 1680-1690), culturally a Hui but of Central Asian Turkish origin, buried in the Mi-la-kou valley roughly half-way between Lan-chou and Hsi-ning.

     

      Khoja Affāq also had other noteworthy contacts in China, the most important of these being Ch'i Ching-i (1656-1719), who established the Qadiri path in northwest China. Ch'i Ching-i went to Hsi-ning to study with Khoja Afāq in 1672, but the khoja sent him home, saying, "Your teacher is on his way; just go back home quickly." The following year (1678) a twenty-ninth-generation descendant of Muhammad, named Khoja cAbd Allāh (d, 1689), made his appearance in south China, bringing with him the Qadiri path. When he visited Ho-chou, Ch'i became his student and eventually also his khalifa. Thereafter the Qādiriyya took firm root in Chinese soil.

     

      Of the three Naqshbandi saintly lineages to which Khoja Afāq's preaching in northwest China gave birth, the line that Ma T'ai-pa-pa initiated made by far the greatest imprint on subsequent history. Ma T'ai-pa-pa himself did not found a saintly lineage (men-huan), pursuing a quiet and sedentary career as a teacher in Mi-la-kou. But he initiated and chose as his khalifa a man of extraordinary energy named Abu 'l-Futuh Ma Lai-ch'ih (1673-1753), who founded the Naqshbandiyya's Hua-ssu (Flowery Mosque) saintly lineage.

     

      Ma Lai-ch'ih was the son of an imperial degree-holder named Ma Chia-tsun (fi. ca. 1675) of Ho-chou, and Naqshbandi tradition links Ma Lai-ch'ih's birth with Khoja Afāq's visit to the area. Although forty years old--so the account runs--Ma Chia-tsun had no son; so he asked Khoja Afaq to intercede for him with God. In reply, the khoja told him to marry a daughter of the Ch'ang family of Ho-chou who had been betrothed eleven times, but all of her fiancés had died before the wedding. Ma would then be blessed, the khoja said, with a son whom he should name Abu 'l-Futuh. Ma did as he was bidden, and Khoja Miq appeared unexpectedly at the marriage ceremony and served as a witness. From this union Ma Lai-ch'ih was born, but immediately a fire destroyed Ma Chia-tsun's business, and he became so poverty-stricken that he was forced to take his son, when the latter reached the age of four, to the home of a friend in Mi-la-kou. Here the young Ma Lai-ch'ih attended a madrasa and studied with Ma T'ai-pa-pa. On his completion of the madrasa curriculum, Ma Lai-ch'ih went on deeper into Islamic religious studies under Ma T'ai-pa-pa's supervision.

     

      When he had reached the age of eighteen he terminated his schooling with such distinction that, despite his youth, he was straightway given the position of imam (chiao-chang) at the nearby mosque of Hsi-ma-ying Wu-la-hsia-hui. Ma T'ai-pa-pa gave him his daughter in marriage and made him his successor in the Naqshbandi mystical path that he had received from Khoja Afāq. This must have been in about 1690. Thereafter Ma Lai-ch'ih is known to have changed his post twice, first to a mosque in east Ho-chou and subsequently to the congregation at San-chia-chi north of Ti-tao.

     

      Next, Ma Lai-ch'ih undertook the pilgrimage, setting out on a three-year journey that took him across Altishahr to Arabia, where he studied for over a year in the Yemen, and then back eastward again to Bukhara, where he applied himself to the study of Sufism. But instead of returning to China, he again set out for Mecca and there attached himself to a teacher referred to in Chinese as Shaykh "A-chi-lai" (Adhra'i, Adhrai, or conceivably Azraqi?), and on this shaykh's recommendation Ma Lai-ch'ih was accepted as a student by a famous teacher known as Mawlana Makhdum. Ma Lai-ch'ih is said to have attained the grade of wali ("saint") under Mawlana Makhdum's guidance, after which he returned to China.

     

      The identity of Mawlana Makhdum, like the identity of the aforementioned Shaykh A-chi-lai, is a problem that remains to be solved.13 It is not clear whether Mawlana Makhdum lived in Mecca, elsewhere in the Middle East, or somewhere in India on Ma Lai-ch'ih's homeward route. Ma Lai-ch'ih returned to China by sea, passing through Hong Kong (then a quiet port, over a century before its annexation by the British), and must surely have changed ships somewhere along the Indian coastline. Moreover, Chinese tradition has it that the Hua-ssu, Ma Lai-ch'ih's men-huan, derived its saintly origins from India, whence "a certain Muslim leader of Ho-chou" transmitted it to China.14 But then again, Mawlana Makhdum may well have been one of the many Indian shaykhs living in Mecca, Medina, and other Middle Eastern centers of Islamic learning.

     

      When Ma Lai-ch'ih took leave of Mawlana Makhdum, the latter gave him a mawlud (Chinese mao-lu-t'i--a poetical genre commemorating the birth of a prophet, usually Muhammad, or a saint), a volume called in Chinese Ming-sha-le, and a copy of the Koran (Mushaf--in Chinese, Mu-ssu-hai-fu)15 to help him in his missionary work. The authorship and title of the mawlud cannot be determined without more information. It was a popular genre, closely associated with Sufi practice, and there were many of them that had great currency at the time.

     

      The identity of the Ming-sha-le must also remain in question until more information is available, but there can be no harm in entering a guess. The Chinese form of the title dates from the eighteenth century and so does not stem from the more exact approach to transcribing Arabic and Persian characteristic of Huis in the twentieth century. The first syllable, ming, could also represent min or mi followed by shadda (doubling of the consonant); the second syllable, sha, could also represent sa; and the last syllable, le, could represent either l or r. The nasalized phoneme ng does not exist in Arabic; and technically speaking, it does not exist in Persian either, although, under the influence of Turkish, ng could have been heard or pronounced directly before a velar (k or g). But no velar follows ming; so it is not improbable that the syllable ming is used here for its meaning rather than for its phonetic value, the more so since neither mis(h)s(h)ar/l nor min(g)s(h)ar/l produces a likely Arabic or Persian word.

     

      To complicate matters, two different characters for the ming of Ming-sha-le are found in the sources, and the two characters have opposite meanings. One means "bright(ness)" or to understand." The other means "dark(ness)" or "to be stupid." Inasmuch as the latter character occurs in a proclamation from the Kansu provincial authorities forbidding possession of the Ming-sha-le, 16 the "dark(ness)" character is suspect as an unfriendly play on words.

     

      If sha-le stands for sharh (commentary),17 Ming-sha-le might, following Chinese word order, represent "Commentary on 'Brightness'," and in fact there is a commentary by roughly that name: the "Sharh-i 'Lamacait'' ("Commentary on the 'Lamacagt''') of Nizam ad-Din Thanesari (d. 1627), a sharh on the "Lamaat'' ("Beams of Light") of Fakhr ad-Din Ibrāhim lrāqi (d. 1289), which is in turn an abridged paraphrase in Persian of Fusus al-hikam (a summary of the teachings of twenty-eight prophets from Adam to Muhammad, best known in English under the title of Wisdom of the Prophets), by the famous Spanish mystic Ibn al-CArabi (d. 1240). Fusus al-hikam was Ibn al-cArabi's most influential and controversial work, and the '"Lamacat'' was probably its most influential paraphrase. Being an Indian, Thanesari is likely to have been read in India, so his sharh on the "'Lamacat'' would have been a not-unlikely book for Mawlana Makhdum to have given to Ma Lal-ch'ih on the occasion of the latter's departure for China, assuming that Mawlana Makhdum was an Indian. Another possibility is that the Ming-sha-le is to be identified with another commentary on cIraqi's "Lamacat," namely the "Ashiccat al-Lamacat'' ("Beams of Light of the 'Beams of Light'"--that is, of the "Lamacat"), by the Naqshbandi poet Jami.18

     

      Sometime prior to Ma Lai-ch'ih's return to China a dispute had arisen in Ho-chou over the manner in which the Ramadan fast should be broken, presumably at the end of each day. One school of thought, called the "Fore-Breakers" (ch'ien-k'ai), maintained that at the conclusion of the fast one might eat first and then afterwards go to the mosque for prayer. The other school, called the "After-Breakers" (hou-k'ai), held that one must pray first and eat after. The controversy took on increasing importance, spread beyond Ho-chou, and became a divisive issue among the Salars of the Hsün-hua district, in what was then part of Kansu but is now in Tsinghai. So Ma Lai-ch'ih's return is already to be seen against a background of religious controversy.

     

      Ma Lai-ch'ih settled in the town of Bayan Rong (Pa-yen-jung-ko), about twenty-five miles northwest of Hsün-hua, in a district inhabited entirely by lamaist Buddhists. At first, his missionary efforts north of the Yellow River met with little success, but eventually he won over the district's "living Buddha" and twenty-eight tribes under the latter's spiritual guidance, inducing them to embrace Islam. According to at least one account,19 so the story goes, Ma Lai-ch'ih's use of "wonders" played a vital part in converting these lamaist tribesmen. Ma rode over the waters of the Yellow River on his donkey without wetting the animal's feet. He gave satisfactory answers on the spot to the "living Buddha's" ten difficult theological questions, and he caused the rain to fall.

     

      Next, Ma Lai-ch'ih carried his missionary work to the part of Hsün-hua district south of the Yellow River, where he sided with the "Fore-Breakers" and won the eight Salar tribes' adherence to the Naqshbandiyya. It was the custom for families to invite mullas to their homes upon important occasions, both happy and sad, to recite the Koran.20 Such sessions lasted a long time and were expensive, because it was customary to pay the mulla a considerable fee, to say nothing of the costs of day-long entertainments and gifts. The Ming-sha-le was a shorter text than the Koran and took less time to recite; so when Ma Lai-ch'ih and his followers substituted it for the Koran on these occasions, the fees were lower.21 This evidently added to the popularity of Ma Lai-ch'ih's branch of the Naqshbandiyya, but it also aroused animosity between Ma's followers and the traditional reciters of the Koran.

     

      From Hsün-hua, Ma Lai-ch'ih moved further south, into the Pao-an district, and there converted several thousand Monguor (Tu-jen) families to Islam. Thereafter he proceeded east to Ho-chou, where he won a great following for the Naqshbandiyya. Here he was joined in 1705 by the son of a shaykh whom he had met in Hong Kong on his way home from the Middle East, and this man joined with Ma Lai-ch'ih and Ma's own son Ma Kuo-pao to form a trio of Naqshbandi preachers whose efforts spread the path far and wide in Kansu, and far beyond.

     

      But factional antagonisms deepened in Kansu and, lacking any ultimate authority within the Muslim community, the disputants took their quarrel to the non-Muslim imperial authorities.22 In 1731 Han Ha-chi (the latter element would seem to represent .Hajj or .Hajji), who appears to have been the chief religious leader among the Salars of the Hsün-hua district,23 and another Hsün-hua Muslim named Ma Huo-che (the latter element would seem to represent Khwaja) made accusations against one another to the Ch'ing authorities arising out of their dispute over the manner in which the fasting of Ramadan should be broken. "Our chiao-men ("religion") is one and the same," Han acknowledged, but the question of the breaking of the fast had become too divisive to leave unresolved.

     

      However, there was not much that the Ch'ing authorities could do. The dispute grew more bitter and the accusations more grave. In 1747 a certain Ma Ying-huan of Ho-chou formally charged Ma Lai-ch'ih with “heterodoxy” (hsieh-chiao), a most serious charge in the Chinese context, carrying implications of rebellion against the imperial social order. "Heterodoxy" was, therefore, an accusation that the central Ch'ing government could not ignore. "Heterodoxy" was, on the other hand, a double-edged sword, dangerous for the accuser as well as the accused. Ma Mi-ch'ih died in 1753 and was buried a short distance outside Ho-chou's western walls in a domed shrine (kung-pai, from the Arabic qubba) called the "Flowery Mosque Shrine" (Hua-ssu kung-pai), a name that came to designate the Naqshbandi saintly lineage that succeeded him.

     
      纳格什班底耶进入中国汉人区:穆罕默德•玉素夫,华哲•阿发格和马来迟

     

      从另一方面来看,宣教依然是纳格什班底耶的一个重要目标。在十八世纪,随着贸易和教化的发展,纳格什班底耶加速了向东的进展,从土耳其—伊朗一带的穆斯林世界的最边缘——维吾尔斯坦,中东穆斯林文化世界的最末端,进入中国西北地区和青海。纳格什班底耶通过贸易和中国西北的穆斯林群众的最早接触至少是在十五世纪的后半个世纪。但是这些接触都是零散的,个人的接触,没有确切的证据表明在这时有中国人追随这一道路。一直到十六世纪的下叶,还有一些非穆斯林的维吾尔人(全部或者主要是佛教徒)住在维吾尔斯坦,而且有很大一部分回族人(说汉语的穆斯林)肯定具有中亚血统。在十六世纪的末期,纳格什班底耶在维吾尔斯坦的影响力非常强大,据记载他们在十七世纪早期时和中国的回族有接触。在波斯语和土耳其语的史料中,当时的回族人被称为“东干”或者“东干人”,这是一个词源不明的词语。

     

      1644清朝取代了明朝在北京的王权。1645至1649年间有两个名叫米喇印和丁国栋穆斯林在中国西北发起了一场反清复明的起义。起义的中心是肃州,起义者与乌古里斯坦的哈密省总督有联系。当时纳格什班底耶在维吾尔斯坦享有至高无上的权力。清朝的军队镇压了这次起义,并且关闭了嘉峪关从而切断了哈密所赖以生存的、中亚和中华帝国之间的贸易,以惩罚哈密。

     

      穆罕默德•玉素夫在肃州传教时似乎战胜了一个叫作瓦发尼布•阿胡德的回族学者们的领袖,并且获得了一个名叫穆拉•玉素夫•阿胡德的人的忠诚,此人后来追随了穆罕默德•玉素夫的儿子华哲•阿发格。在肃州,穆罕默德•玉素夫来到了撒拉人的聚居地。撒拉人是中国西北一个说土耳其语的穆斯林民族。据说撒拉人都追随了他。他在那里办了一个救济院,每天为他们讲解鲁米的《玛斯纳维》。旅居六个月以后,他离开了。他离开时任命了一位回族人为众撒拉学者的领袖,并且给了他一本《玛斯纳维》,一个礼拜毯,一个金黄和绿色相间的东西,作为授权传教的证物。他说:“如果你在每个星期一晚上,星期五的晚上和白天读这本神圣的《玛斯纳维》并讲解它,就如同我亲自讲一样。”

     

      在1671—1672年间,华哲•阿发格(中国史料称“希达耶屯拉西”,穆罕默德的第二十五代孙)访问了甘肃省的首府兰州,甘肃南部的“提洮府”(即现在的临洮),西宁卫(即现在的青海省),据说还访问了有“中国的小麦加”之称的河州(现称临夏,位于甘肃省中西部)。回族人,撒拉人,西藏东北地区的穆斯林,毫无疑问还有中国其他民族的穆斯林都纷纷前来听华哲讲道。在这些中国穆斯林中,有三个人忠实地追随着他。这三个人后来成为纳格什班底耶在中国的三个门宦始传人,他们主导了中国穆斯林的宗教生活。这三个门宦都是华哲•阿发格传过来的,而华哲•阿发格则属于纳格什班底耶的轴心谱系。

     

      有史料称华哲•阿发格去了撒拉人的“满城”(Manjur shahri),作为该道路(派别)的首领(sajjada nishin)在那里传教一年。据说所有的撒拉人都追随了他。他象他的父亲穆罕默德•玉素夫一样,致力于讲授《玛斯纳维》。一年后,他任命了一位伟嘎耶屯拉(主道的捍卫者),即阿拉坦•别什•阿胡德(Altun bash Akhund)作为他的海里凡。华哲把自己的金黄色头巾,一本《古兰经》,一本《玛斯纳维》,一个绿色和金色相间的东西,和一个礼拜毯子给了他。无论是伟嘎耶屯拉还是穆罕默德•玉素夫数年后在撒拉人中任命的回族海里凡,似乎都没有什么显著的传教业绩,也没有建立自己的门宦。

     

      中国方面的史料对华哲•阿发格的提洮和西宁之行,以及他对三个继承人传授神秘主义知识的记述是这样的:1)阿布都•拉合曼•马义清(1640—1719),人称马五太爷,葬于河州城外的毕家场;2)派十楼里爱米尼(1648—1722)巴什儿•艾里阿敏或者可能是提洮的巴什儿•艾力阿敏,葬于康乐,当时属于提洮府;3)马太爸爸(fl. ca. 1680-1690),一个具有中亚血统的回族人,葬于大约兰州和西宁中间的米拉沟山谷。

     

      华哲•阿发格在中国还有其他一些值得一提的接触,其中最重要的要数和祁静一(1656—1719)的接触,他创立了中国西北的嘎德忍耶门宦。祁静一于1672年去西宁向华哲•阿发格求学,但是华哲却把他打发回家,说:“你的老师正在路上,赶快回家。”第二年(1678年)穆罕默德的第二十九代孙华哲•阿布都拉(d. 1689)出现在中国南方,带来了嘎德忍耶道路。他访问河州时,祁成为他的学生并最终成为他的海里凡,从此嘎德忍耶深深地植根于中国的土壤。

     

      华哲•阿发格在中国西北传教时所催生的三大纳格什班底耶派系中,马太巴巴的那一派在中国后来的历史上产生了最重大的影响。马太巴巴本人并未创立一个门宦,只是在米拉沟着一种平静的教师生活。但是他选择了一个才华出众,精力充沛的的人做他的海里凡。这人叫做阿布•福土哈•马来迟(1673—1753),他创建了纳格什班底耶的花寺门宦。

     

      马来迟的父亲名叫马家聪(fl.ca.1675),是河州一个名位显赫的家族的继承人。纳格什班底耶的传统将马来迟的出生和华哲•阿发格对河州的访问联系在了一起。据史料记载,马家聪在四十岁时还没有儿子,所以他请华哲替他向安拉说情。华哲的回答是让他聘娶常家的一个姑娘。这个姑娘曾经订婚十一次,但是未婚夫都在结婚前死掉了。华哲说你如果娶了这个姑娘,那么安拉就会赐予你一个儿子,这个儿子当取名阿布•福土哈。马家聪就如华哲所言,聘娶了那个姑娘。华哲还意外地出现在婚礼上做了证婚人。马来迟因这次婚姻而出生。但是没过多久一场大火就烧毁了马家聪的所有家产,他变的一贫如洗。在儿子四岁时,他带着他来到了米拉沟一个朋友家。他在哪里进了一家学堂,跟随马太巴巴学习。完成了学堂的学业以后,他继续跟随马太巴巴深入学习伊斯兰宗教知识。

     

      他十八岁时就以优异的成绩毕业,年纪轻轻便被附近的西马营乌拉下会清真寺聘为伊玛目。大约在1690年,马太巴巴把自己的女儿嫁给了他,并选他作为他从华哲•阿发格那里继承过来的纳格什班底耶神秘主义道路的继承人。此后,马来迟曾在另外两地任职,先在河州东部的一个清真寺,后来在提洮北部的三甲集。

     

      接下来马来迟去朝觐,历时三年,途径阿勒特沙(六城)到了阿拉伯。他在也门学习了一年多,然后向东返回,来到了布哈拉(Bukhara),并在那里学习苏非主义。但是他没有返回中国,而是再次去了麦加,师从一个汉语里叫作筛海“阿迟来”(弗来舍使用的英文拼音是“A-chi-lai ——译者注)的人学习。通过这位筛海的介绍,马来迟被一位著名的老师毛拉纳•马克度木(Mawlana Makhdumu)收为学生。据说在毛拉纳•马克度木的指导之下,马来迟达到了“卧里”(圣贤)的品级,然后回到了中国。

     

      关于毛拉纳•马克度木的身份的确认,和前面所提到的那位筛海阿迟来的身份确认,依然是一个有待解决的问题。现在不知道毛拉纳•马克度木是住在麦加,中东的其他地方还是马来迟回家时所途径的印度的某个地方。马来迟途径香港(在被英国人吞并之前的一百多年,当时还只是一个安静的港口)从海路回到中国。他肯定在印度沿岸某地转过船。马来迟的花寺门宦的自我传述中也说他们的教门来自印度,由“河洲的一个穆斯林领袖”传到中国。如果是这样的话,毛拉纳•马克度木则很有可能是为数众多的印度筛海之一,居住在麦加,麦地那或者其他的中东伊斯兰学术中心。

     

      马来迟离开时,毛拉纳•马克度木给了他一本《毛路德》(中文中又称《毛路提》,是一种纪念先知穆罕默德的出生,或者圣贤的诗歌体裁),一本《冥沙勒》,一本《古兰经》,帮助他在中国传教。没有进一步的信息,《毛路德》的作者和名称都无法确定。它是一种与苏非操行密切相关的诗歌,在当时盛传很多这样的诗歌。

     

      《冥沙勒》的作者等信息也不详,但是不妨猜测一二。这本诗的中文名字早在十八世纪就开始使用了,所以不是音译,因为回族人是在二十世纪才开始音译阿拉伯语和波斯语的。它的第一个音节是ming,也有可能是后面跟有双辅音的min或者mi ;第二个音节sha也有可能是sa;最后一个音节le, 可能是l 或者r。阿拉伯语中没有鼻音ng。虽然在土耳其语的影响下,在软腭音(k或g)之前,有可能会出现ng,但是从技术角度来看,波斯语当中也不存在这个音。但是在ming的后面没有软腭音,所以要说“冥”在此是取其义,而非取其音,也不是没有可能。再说,无论是mis(h)a(h)ar/l还是min(g)s(h)ar/l 都既不象阿语单词,也不象波斯语单词,这就更增加了意译的可能性。

     

      还有一个比较棘手的问题是,关于这个ming有两个意义截然不同的汉字。其一是表示“光明”或“理解”的“明”,其二是表示“黑暗” 或者是“愚顽”的“冥”。鉴于“冥”字出现在甘肃省当局公布的一份禁止拥有《冥沙勒》的文告之中,“冥”字的使用,可能带有专门的恶意。

     

      如果sha-le指的是sharh (注解),那么,按照汉字的顺序,“冥沙勒”的意思可能是“对光明的评述”。实际上的确有一部名称大致相仿的述评“Sharh-i Lamaat” (《〈光辉的射线〉评注》),作者尼赞木•阿丁•散尼撒里(殁于1627年)。这是一部对法赫•阿丁•易卜拉欣•伊拉给(殁于1289)的《光辉的射线》一书的注解。而《光辉的射线》一书又是对另外一本波斯语的著作的注解。此书名为《福瑟斯•艾尔•希卡木》,作者是著名的西班牙神秘主义者伊本•艾尔•阿拉比(殁于1240年)。(这本书是对自阿丹至穆罕默德的二十八位先知的教道的一个总结,英文本名为《先知们的智慧》)《福瑟斯•艾尔•希卡木》是伊本•艾尔•阿拉比最有影响,也是最有争议的一本著作,而《光辉的射线》则可以说得上是其最有影响的一本注解。撒尼撒里是印度人,所以他在印度拥有读者是可能的。而毛拉纳•马克度木也是印度人,他在马来迟启程返回中国时给他一本撒尼撒里对《光辉的射线》一书的注解也是并非没有可能。另外一种可能性是:《冥沙勒》是对伊拉给的《光辉的射线》一书的另外一本注解,也就是纳格什班底耶诗人贾米所著的《 〈光辉的射线〉的光辉的射线》。( 此书中文译名为《光辉的射线》,阮斌译,康有玺校,商务印书馆出版——译者注。)

     

      在马来迟回国之前,河州一带就有关于斋月每天如何开斋的问题存在的争议。“前开”派认为应当先开斋然后再去礼拜,而“后开”派则认为应当先礼拜然后再开斋。该争议与日俱增,遍及整个河州地区,在循化的撒拉人中间成了一个具有分裂性的事情。循化在当时属于甘肃省,而现在则属于青海省。所以马来迟是在这样一个多有宗教争议的背景下回到中国的。

     

      马来迟定居在循化西北大约二十五英里处的巴彦容(Bayan Rong), 这一带几乎全是喇嘛佛教徒。一开始,他在黄河以北的传教不甚成功,但是他后来劝化了当地的活佛以及追随该活佛的二十八个部落,使他们全部接受了伊斯兰。根据至少一部文献记载,故事的情形大致如此:马来迟对“奇迹”的使用,在劝化这些喇嘛教部落时起到了至关重要的作用。他骑着驴过黄河,但是驴的蹄子没有湿;他完满地回答了活佛提出的十个神学问题;他降下了雨。

     

      继而,他来到黄河南边的循化地区,支持“前开”派,赢得了八个撒拉部落对纳格什班底耶的追随。当地当时有一个习俗,在一些喜庆或者悲伤的特殊日子里都要邀请毛拉们(mullas)到家里来颂读《古兰经》,这些事务耗时冗长而且开支不小,因为按照习惯除了要对毛拉们进行长达一整天的吃喝招待以外,还要给一笔不小的费用。《冥沙勒》要比《古兰经》短,诵读所耗时间也短,所以当马来迟以诵读《冥沙勒》取代《古兰经》时,费用自然也就低一些。这一点很明显地成为马来迟的纳格什班底耶分支在当地受欢迎的原因之一,但同时也导致了当地原有的那些颂经者对马来迟及其弟子们的敌意。

     

      马来迟迁出循化向南走来到了保安地区,并在那里劝化了数千家蒙古人,使他们皈依伊斯兰。他又接着向东来到了河州,并在那里赢得了众多的人追随纳格什班底耶。马来迟从中东返回中国时途径香港,曾遇到一位筛海。这位筛海的儿子于1705年加入了马来迟,与马来迟的儿子马国宝三人形成了一个纳格什班底耶宣教团,致力于将该道路在甘肃省纵深推广,而且超出了甘肃省的范围。

     

      但是摩擦与对抗也在不断地加深。由于穆斯林社会没有最高的权威机构,争议的双方只能将争议拿到非穆斯林的帝国政府去解决。1731年,循化地区撒拉人当中一个相当于宗教首领的人物韩哈知和一个叫做马华哲的穆斯林,就关于“前开”与“后开”的争议,互相指责对方,官司打到了请政府那里。韩哈知说“我们的教门是一个,没有区别。” 但是这个问题上的分歧太大了,无法坐视不管,必须解决。

     

      但是请政府也无能为力。争议日渐激烈,指责也日益严厉。1747年,河州的一个叫做马英还(音)的人正式指控马来迟为“邪教”。这在汉语语境下是一个非常严重的罪名,带带有反叛帝国社会秩序的意味。清政府对这种邪教指控不能视而不见。然而,“邪教”这一罪名是一把双刃剑,对于指控者和被指控者都是非常危险的。马来迟于1753年逝世,葬于河州西墙外不远处。墓地上修拱北,称为“花寺拱北”。

      清朝征服新疆

     

      与此同时,在阿勒特沙(六城)与维吾尔斯坦的阿发给耶也遇到了巨大的变化。华哲阿发格在世时,阿发给耶试图在一些柯尔克孜(Kirghiz)人的帮助下推翻准噶尔(Zunghar)统治,并建立了一个由华哲们自己统治的穆斯林王国。事实证明这是不可能的因为准噶尔的军队更加强大,而且阿发给耶在华哲阿发格于1694年逝世后经历一次领导人选的危机。伊斯哈给耶重新取得了在莎车(Yarkand)的优势,并从已经失去政治生命的蒙古•察合台(Moghul Chaghadayid)家族中扶持了一个傀儡统治者,但是这次复辟未能统一全国。

     

      准噶尔人于世纪之交重新夺回了政权,杀死了伊斯哈给耶大师戴尼亚儿(Daniyal)和华哲阿发格的孙子艾哈麦德。艾哈麦德有两个儿子给里迟•伯罕•阿丁(Qilich Burhan ad-Din)和叶和雅(Yahya)。叶和雅就是著名的华哲•者罕(意为“世界的主人”),这是一个纳格什班底耶大师们在其它地方和时期的头衔。准噶尔人将伯罕•阿丁,叶和雅和戴尼亚儿的长子亚古柏Yaqub)扣为人质。只有华哲阿发格的另一个儿子哈桑在逃,时时袭击准噶尔人。准噶尔人的统治终于再次衰落。1725年,伊斯哈给耶的追随者在帕米尔毒死了哈桑。1753年,继亚古柏后成为伊斯哈给耶的首领的玉素夫不再效忠于准噶尔人,带领阿勒特沙(六城)进行起义。

     

      此时的清朝帝国已经吞并了哈密(1697年)和大部分外蒙古,正与准噶尔人作战。1755年,清朝军队侵入准噶尔王国的心脏伊犁,此时的清朝皇帝已经将自己看作是准噶尔人的所有领地的继承者。在伊犁接管了马克度木扎德家的人质以后,清朝装备了一支远征军,名义上有给里迟•伯罕•阿丁领导(中文史料称老华哲),以从伊斯哈给耶手中重新夺回阿勒特沙(六城)。远征获得成功,伊斯哈给派的马克度木扎德人被杀死。

     

      就在同一年,准噶尔人反叛清政府,小华哲叶和雅趁乱逃出伊犁,投奔在阿勒特沙(六城)的哥哥。他们一起否认清朝对阿勒特沙(六城)拥有主权。但是在1756年,清朝军队以压倒性的优势返回伊犁。兵荒马乱加上天花肆虐,使这一带生灵涂炭,十人九鬼。控制了准噶尔以后,清朝便拥有了通往阿勒特沙(六城)的钥匙。

     

      阿勒特沙(六城)东部的一些绿洲和维吾尔部的一些绿洲上的地方贵族们对局势的反映并不迟钝,他们中的大多数都纷纷宣布效忠于清朝皇帝。但是阿发给耶的华哲们坚持独立,拒绝交纳税金和代表阿勒特沙(六城)是清帝国的领土的贡金。于是帝国的军队入侵该国并于1759年吞并之。给里迟•伯罕•阿丁和叶和雅逃到巴达珊(Badaksha),但是巴达珊王苏丹筛海一世害怕清朝的侵略军追杀过来,便将他们都杀掉了。1765年乌什吐鲁番(Ush Turfan)发生了一次为时不久的叛乱,为清朝所镇压。除此之外,维吾尔斯坦,阿勒特沙(六城)和前准噶尔王国的其他领地(现统称为新疆)直到世纪末都平安无事。在马瓦软纳山(Mawarannahr)一带,阿发给耶的后代在继续传教,其领导人撒木撒格(Samsaq)是给里迟•伯罕•阿丁的儿子,他在父亲逃出阿勒特沙(六城)时活了下来。

     

      1759年,清帝国完成了对整个新疆的吞并,并因此而遇到了一个任务:在儒家思想的领地中为伊斯兰——主要是穆斯林群体——找到一个位置。吞并了土地以后,清朝忽然有了这么多的穆斯林需要对付。清政府开始关注穆斯林了。

     

     
     

     
      THE CH'lNG CONQUEST OF SINKIANG

     

     
     

     
      In Altishahr and Uighuristan, meanwhile, the Afāqiyya had undergone serious reverses. During Khoja Afāq's lifetime the Afāqiyya had tried, with the help of some Kirghiz groups, to throw off Zunghar rule and establish a Muslim kingdom ruled by the khojas themselves. This proved impossible because of the Zunghars' greater military strength and because the Afāqiyya suffered a crisis of leadership following Khoja Afaq's death in 1694. The Ishaqiyya regained their ascendancy at Yarkand and installed a puppet ruler from the politically defunct Moghul Chaghadayid house, but this restoration failed to reunite the country.

     

      The Zunghars were able to reconsolidate their control sometime about the turn of the century and carried off the Ishaqi grand master Daniyal and Khoja Afāq’s grandson Ahmad, who had fathered two sons, Qϊlϊch Burhan ad-Din and Yahya, the latter being known as Khoja Jahan (Khwaja-yi, Jahan—“ the Master of the World"), a title borne by other Naqshbandi masters in other times and places. The Zunghars held Burhan ad-Din, Yahya, and Daniyal's eldest son Ya'qub hostage. Only Hasan, another of Khoja Afaq's sons, remained at large, harrassing the Zunghars. The Zunghars' grip eventually weakened again, and the Ishaqiyya began to think of revolt. In 1725 adherents of the Ishāqiyya poisoned Hasan in the Pamirs, and in 1753 Yusuf, who had succeeded Yacqub as the chief Ishāqi, threw off his allegiance to the Zunghars and led Akishahr into rebellion.

     

      By this time the Ch'ing empire had annexed Hand (1697) and most of Outer Mongolia and was at war with the Zunghars. In 1755 the Ch'ing army invaded Ili, the heart of the Zunghar realm, and the Ch'ing emperor now saw himself as the inheritor of all the territories that the Zunghars had possessed. Having taken possession of the Makhdumzada hostages in Ili, the Ch'ing outfitted a military expedition under the nominal command of Qϊlϊch Burhan ad-Din, known in Chinese sources as the Elder Khoja, to reconquer Aldshahr from the Ishāqiyya. The expedition was a success, and the Ishāqi Makhdumzadas were killed.

     

      That same year, the Zunghars revolted against the Ch'ing, and in the ensuing confusion Yahayā, the Younger Khoja, fled from Ili and joined his elder brother in Altishahr. Together they repudiated Ch'ing claims to Altishahr, but in 1756 the Ch'ing returned to Iii in overwhelming strength. The reconquest, combined with a smallpox epidemic, emptied the region of much of its population. By controlling Zungharia, the Ch'ing possessed the keys to Altishahr.

     

      The realities of the situation were not lost on the begs (local notables) of the eastern oases of Altishahr and the western oases of Uighuristan, most of whom quickly acknowledged their subjection to the Ch'ing emperor. But the Afāqi khojas remained independent and refused to pay the taxes and tribute that would have signified Altishahr's incorporation into the Ch'ing empire. So the imperial forces invaded the country and in 1759 completed its annexation. Qϊlϊch Burhan ad-Din and Yahyā fled into Badakhshan and were killed by the Badakhshani king, Sultan Shah I, who feared that a Ch'ing invasion might follow on their heels. After a short-lived revolt in 1765 in Ush Turfan, which the Ch'ing crushed, Altishahr, Uighuristan, and the rest of the territory of the former Zunghar realm--now collectively renamed Sinkiang ("New Dominion")--remained quiet for the rest of the century. Across the mountains in Mawarannahr the Afaqi succession continued in the person of Samsaq, a son of Qϊlϊch Burhan ad-Din who had survived his father's flight from Altishahr.

     

      In 1759 the Ch'ing empire completed its annexation of Sinkiang and by this act set itself the task of finding a place for Islam—and substantial Muslim communities--within the Confucian ideological firmament. As a result of this annexation the Ch'ing had suddenly acquired a lot of Muslims to deal with and began to notice them

     
      18世纪的正统复兴运动

     

      18世纪,整个穆斯林世界兴起了一场强调在宗教生活和社会生活更为严格地遵守“沙里亚”(教法)的改革运动。这场运动从地域上来看波澜壮阔、声势浩大,遍及整个穆斯林世界;从思想上来看相互联系、息息相通。这场沙里亚改革运动开始于17世纪,从印度和阿拉伯近东兴起,在后来的两个世纪中遍及整个一伊斯兰世界。西起非洲,东至印度尼西亚和中国,这场运动整个给人以“正统复兴”的印象。当今世界的伊斯兰运动都可以从这场沙里亚复兴运动中找到它的历史根源。

     

      这些运动何以能够同时发生?有三种解释,每一种都有其道理:1)在穆斯林长达十个世纪的漫长发展史中,一些非伊斯兰的习俗掺杂了进来,致使人们的实际做法与伊斯兰教法之间的差距越来越大;2)来自于欧洲扩张的直接或者间接的影响;3)17和18世纪,整个穆斯林世界内部之间的交流得到加强的程度比人们估计的要多。

     

      早在18世纪,穆斯林就对欧洲的远洋航海能力的增强做出了反应。曾经盛极一时的奥斯曼帝国已经失去了她在地中海和红海上的优越地位。欧洲人占领着印度和非洲东海岸之间的海洋,控制了朝觐之路。英国人和法国人对印巴次大陆进行了瓜分和控制,而荷兰人则在印度尼西亚建立了统治地位。此外还必须一提的是俄罗斯人吞并了金帐汗牧区(the golden Horde)的残余穆斯林势力并扩张到曾经是穆斯林所控制的哈萨克大草原的北方边缘。最后,在穆斯林中亚的最东北角上非穆斯林的存在也让他们有所感受。准噶尔人以及后来的清帝国征服了这个“达鲁伊斯兰”的东北角。

     

      穆斯林们对所有的这些事实的解读无论是清晰的还是模糊的,非穆斯林的入侵肯定在某种程度上刺激了穆斯林,使他们感到自己的政治制度并非完全正确。这种感受终会导致一种灵魂的拷问,尤其是在象麦地那和开罗这样的知识文化中心。边远的伊斯兰地区的穆斯林都是不辞辛苦,负笈来此求学的。然而这的确是一个紧要关头,因为尚没有穆斯林自己的学者以文本证据为基础对这一局势给出一个令人信服的解释。

     

      在经历了13世纪蒙古人的暴行以后,伊斯兰世界曾出现过一次复兴,当时沙里亚主义和苏非主义在很大程度上是相互对立的,代表两个极端。与那次复兴不同的是,18世纪的改良运动将沙里亚主义与苏非主义溶为一体,从而渗透到了苏非神秘主义所占领的广袤地区。唯一的一个例外就是阿拉伯半岛的“瓦哈比”运动。该运动反对神秘主义及其所有的作品。苏非主义成了沙里亚主义的载体,纳格什班底耶,嘎德忍耶, 卡瓦提耶(Khalwatiyya),以及由艾哈麦德•易德里斯•艾尔•菲斯(Ahmed Idris as-Fasi,殁于1537年)所创立的北非的神秘主义派别(道路,沙孜忍耶――张注)等等,这些神秘主义道路占据了主导地位。在18世纪和19世纪,这些神秘主义道路的筛海们都是沙里亚改良主义思想中最具有影响力的人物。

     

      在沙里亚改良主义运动家中,尤为重要的是印度的纳格什班底耶,他们在17世纪日益强调在行动贯穿沙里亚主义,从而反对神秘主义中不拘于形式的现象和莫卧儿皇帝们的宗教自由主义,同时也对穆斯林政权的衰落和地方上印度教徒统治者的力量的增强做出了回应。印度的纳格什班底耶——他们都是华哲•阿哈拉(Khoja Ahrar), 巴给•比拉(Baqi Bi llah)和艾哈麦德•瑟黑地(Ahmad Sirhindi)的思想传人——主张实行沙里亚主义,政治上有所作为,宣传伊斯兰教,严格遵守圣训。

     

      印度的纳格什班底耶改良主义对17和18世纪中东的阿拉伯语国家的沙里亚改革运动做出了多大的贡献,知识和学术界的历史学家们尚未做出准确的论断。在18世纪下叶和19世纪,纳格什班底耶对席卷整个穆斯林世界的“正统复兴运动”做出了主要贡献。这一运动后期的大多数改良主义领导人,要么本身就是印度人,要么就是受到了印度的纳格什班底耶导师们的强大影响。无独有偶的是,在17世纪和18世纪早期,中东兴起了加强沙里亚的运动,而印度的纳格什班底耶则在这一运动中起了关键的作用。

     

     
     

     
      THE "GENERAL ORTHODOX REVIVAL''

     

      OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

     

     

     

      The eighteenth century witnessed the rise of a geographically widespread and intellectually interrelated tide of reform movements throughout the Muslim world that emphasized the need for a stricter application of the sharica in religious and social life. The sharcist reform tide had begun to swell in the seventeenth century, mainly in India and the Arab Near East, and it reached Islamdom-wide dimensions in the following two centuries, so that a "general orthodox, revival'24 was felt in this period from west Africa to Indonesia and China. In this sharica-oriented revival lie some of the historical roots of the-islamic upsurge of the present day.

     

      To account for the contemporaneity of these interrelated movements, three strands of explanation come readily to mind, each having produced at least some effect: (a) a growing discrepancy between actual practice and the Islamic law, stemming from the acceretion of non-Islamic customs over the course of ten centuries of Muslim history; (b) the impact, direct and indirect, of the European expansion; and (c) a greater degree of communication across the entire length of the Muslim world in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than has generally been supposed.

     

      The eighteenth century is not too early to search for a wide Muslim response to the outward thrust of European naval power. The once-mighty Ottoman empire had lost her superiority in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Europeans dominated the seas between India and the East African coast, controlling access to the pilgrimage. The British and French controlled portions of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent, and the Dutch had established their supremacy in Indonesia. To this must be added the Muscovites' swallowing up of the Muslim remnants of the Golden Horde and their expansion across the entire northern rim of the previously Muslim-controlled Kazakh steppe. Finally, in the extreme northeast of Muslim Central Asia other non-Muslim presences had made themselves felt. The Zunghars and later the Ch'ing empire conquered the northeastern corner of the dar al-Islam.

     

      However clearly or unclearly Muslims perceived the sum total of these facts, non-Muslim intrusions must surely have prompted some degree of feeling among Muslims that all was not right with their political order, and such a feeling would presumably have led to a little soul-searching, especially in intellectual centers like Medina and Cairo, where Muslims came to study from all the far-flung places of Islam. This remains a conjecture, however, because no scholar has yet constructed a convincing case for it on the basis of textual evidence in which the Muslims speak for themselves.

     

      Unlike the Islamic resurgence that followed the rampages of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, in which sharCism and Sufism stood over against one another to a considerable extent as opposite poles, the eighteenth century reform tide fused sharCism and Sufism together, permeating virtually the entire network of the Sufi mystical paths' vast geographical outreach. The only notable exception was the "Wahhabi" movement in the Arabian peninsula, which opposed mysticism and all its works. Sufism became sharCism's carrier, and the "orthodox" mystical"paths came into prominence: the Naqshbandiyya, the Qadiriyya, the Khalwatiyya, and the north African mystical paths deriving from .Ahmad Idris al-Fasi (d. 1537). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries shaykhs of these mystical paths were numbered among the most forceful and effective of all the proponents of sharCist-reformist thought.

     

      Particularly important as sharCist reformers were the Naqshbandiyya in India, who had adopted an increasingly activist sharCist emphasis in the seventeenth century in opposition to the atitudinarianism of mysticism in the subcontinent, the religious libertarianism of the Mughal emperors, and also, perhaps, partly in response to the decline of Muslim political power and the growing strength of regional Hindu rulers. Indian Naqshbandis--the spiritual descendants of Khoja Ahrar, Baqi Bi ‘llah, and Ahmad Sirhindi--stood for sharCism, political activism, propagation of Islam, and the Sunni consensus.

     

      Intellectual historians have not yet established the precise contribution of Indian Naqshbandi reformism to the growth of sharCist reform movements in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Arabic-speaking countries of the Middle East. In the second half of the eighteenth and in the nineteenth century

     

      Naqshbandis made a major contribution, perhaps the major contribution, to the "general orthodox revival" that swept the length and breadth of the Muslim world. Most of the leading Naqshbandi reformers of this later period either were Indians themselves or else had absorbed strong sharCist influences from Indian Naqshbandi teachers. Similarly, in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries Indian Naqshbandis played a prominent pan in the Middle East in initiating and reinforcing sharCist tendencies
     
     
      纪念库尔德人和回族:古兰尼,库尔地和马明心

     

      麦地纳是中东地区最早的,也是最有影响力的纳格什班底耶改良主义中心,全球的穆斯林世界的朝觐者和学生源源不断地来到这里。这里,来自各种不同背景的老师向来自更多不同背景的聆听者宣讲他们的思想和理念,然后聆听者们将这些思想带回家。17世纪末和18世纪初麦地纳的原教神秘主义(fundamentalist mystical)教师们是否形成一个明显的学派, 各种具有影响力(而又相互竞争)的神秘主义是否在某些原教思想上具有共识,这些问题都悬而未决。这些教师中有一个库尔德人,名叫易卜拉欣•比•哈桑•艾尔•古兰尼(1616—1690)。古兰尼是一个纳格什班底耶,也是一些其他神秘主义道路的创始人。在神秘主义操行方面,他以一个纳格什班底耶的身份强调高声赞念真主的可行性。这一主张对于纳格什班底耶来说是不常见的,因为他们一般都认为应当低声赞念,而且谴责“高念”。

     

      通过他的学生,他的学生的学生和他的儿子阿布•体•塔合•穆罕默德•艾尔•库尔地(殁于1733年)的学生们,古兰尼的影响得到了广泛的传播。他有一个学生叫做阿布德•阿•罗夫•艾思•辛克里(Abd ar-Rauf as-Sinkili)(殁于1693后),他曾在麦地纳跟随古兰尼学习多年然后返回位于苏门答腊的家乡。他在那里为伊斯兰教在印度尼西亚的再度兴起打下了基础。阿布•体•塔合对德里的筛海•卧里•安拉(殁于1762年)的一生产生过重大的影响。筛海•卧里•安拉印度伟大的正统改良者,是印巴次大陆的后期伊斯兰教史上值得思考的一个人物。库尔地也教过穆罕默德•哈雅特•艾思•辛迪(Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi)(殁于1750—1752年间),此人是穆罕默德•比•阿布德•艾尔•瓦哈卜(殁于1791年)的老师。而瓦哈卜则是反苏非的“瓦哈比”运动的创始人。艾思•辛迪的其他学生当中有一位穆罕默德•艾思•撒曼(殁于1775年),他通过自己的学生将自己的原教苏非主义思想传播到西非和东非,阿富汗,印度和印度尼西亚。

     

      古兰尼和他的儿子库尔地还有很多名声稍逊的弟子。这些弟子们对麦地那和也门下一代的神秘主义教师产生了重要的影响。巴给•比俩的一个印度学生塔基•阿丁•比•扎卡忍耶•艾尔•乌斯曼尼(Taj ad-Din b. Zakariyya al-Uthmani)(殁于1640年)将纳格什班底耶带到了也门。古兰尼的也门学生当中有一个纳格什班底耶苏非,名叫艾子•宰恩•比•穆罕默德•阿布德•艾尔•巴给•艾尔•米兹加给(az-Zayn b. Muhammad Abd al-Baqi al-Mizjaji)(1643/4—1725),此人被称为伊历12世纪初的复兴者。他家住在扎比德郊区的一个村庄,名字叫做米兹加加(Mizjaja)。

     

      艾子•宰恩从他的父亲穆罕默德•阿布德•艾尔•巴给•比•艾子•宰恩(1591—1663)那里最早接触到纳格什班底耶,而他的父亲又是直接从艾尔•乌斯曼尼那里学习所获。乌斯曼尼将阿布德•艾尔•巴给指定为他死后的接班人。乌斯曼尼教给穆罕默德•阿布德•艾尔•巴给的赞念真主的形式是“低念”, 穆罕默德•阿布德•艾尔•巴给又将这种低念的方式传给了艾子•宰恩。

     

      很有可能是艾子•宰恩首先对扎比德的纳格什班底耶的高声赞念(jahr)进行了肯定,以作为对传统的低声赞念(sirr)的补充。他和麦地纳深孚众望的古兰尼之间的关系很有可能使他举足轻重。艾子•宰恩也曾受教于古兰尼的学生艾哈麦德•安•耐卡里(Nakhli)(殁于1717年)和艾尔•哈桑•比•阿里•乌加密(al-Hasan b.Ali al-Ujaymi)(殁于1702年)。耐卡里是从中亚的一个苏非那里最初接触到纳格什班底耶。他有可能象他的老师古兰尼那样对高念采取了宽容的态度,但他还是引导他的学生在操行上和乌斯曼尼求得一致。乌加密曾在1665/6年授权艾子•宰恩进行宗教研究,他本人则怀着浓厚的兴趣对各个神秘主义道路的不同形式的“则克尔”(dhikr, 赞念真主)进行了研究。他们几乎全都采用高念。他还就此问题写了一篇很有影响的文章。和这些老师的接触使得高念在有“静迷”倾向的纳格什班底耶看来更值得青睐。

     

      扎比德派的纳格什班底耶能够接受以高念的方式赞念真主很有可能反映了其他的神秘主义道路的影响。宰恩的老师,高念的倡导者古兰尼,除了他自己的神秘主义道路纳格什班底耶以外,还创立了多少条道路,这一点不得而知。但是在宰恩生前,嘎德忍耶在麦加,麦地那和也门已经很明显地拥有很大的影响力。在宰恩临终前后,卡瓦提耶的影响力也大幅上升。嘎德忍耶和卡瓦提耶都赞成而且推崇高念。

     

      也门(尤其是它的两大城市散卡和扎比德)在17和18世纪是东方穆斯林世界的学生前往学习的重地之一。曾因在印度尼西亚发动反对荷兰人的圣战(jihad)而出名的玉素夫•艾尔•扎维(Yusuf al-Jawi)曾经是宰恩的父亲阿布德•艾尔•巴给的两大得意门生之一,而且也是麦地那的古兰尼的学生。古兰尼的另一个有名的印尼学生,上面提说过的阿布德•阿•罗夫•艾思•辛克里,也在也门学习过。前文所说过的中国教师马来迟在也门学习过一年多,是他整个中东朝觐之旅的三分之一强。作为一个纳格什班底耶,马来迟不可能在也门呆了一年而不去扎比德。宰恩是当时最有名望的老师,如果说马来迟主要是跟随宰恩学习的,那也是非常有可能。

     

      几年以后,另一位中国穆斯林穆罕默德•阿敏•马明心(1719—1781),又称“尔则孜”(Aziz),也来到了也门。此前,他到过布哈拉,并在那里遇见了正在返回中国的马来迟,据说他们两个在一起学习过。马来迟后来被称为马明心的“伙伴”或者“师兄”。马明心去也门的原因有可能是马来迟已经在也门有了比较好的人际关系,也有可能是布哈拉的纳格什班底耶和扎比德的纳格什班底耶之间有关系。马来迟返回了中国,马明心则继续前往中东。据说“他在那里追随一个门派学习,苦读了二十多年,然后返回中国。”据说在这二十多年中,他成为一个宰恩道路的大师的追随者,他全心全意地遵守哲赫忍耶的“扎维耶”(zawiye)严格规定,接受这位大师的秘密指导。

     

      马明心成为宰恩的追随者这一说法尚有可疑之处,因为宰恩逝世于1725年9月9日或者此后不久,而这时马明心最多只有六岁,如果他的出生日期真的是中历己亥年(1719年)的话。然而,据说马明心从中国出发陪伴他的祖父(按照中文资料,应当是他的叔父——译者注)去朝觐时是“7岁”,而且他在布哈拉至少还停留过一小段时间。所以宰恩逝世时他可能还没有到达也门,或者说之后很久才到达也门。说马明心是宰恩的门徒是基于以下的原因也未尝不可:马明心在童年时期与其有过短暂的接触或者说宰恩归真后其“若合”(ruh,即“灵魂”——译者注)与马明心有过神秘的“乌外西”(uwaysi,请见下文)式的接触。但是马丁•泰勒(Martin Tailor)于1936年在中国西北所做的原始记录名单中说,宰恩的儿子阿布德•艾尔•哈里格(Abd al-Khaliq, 约1705—1740年)作为一个中间人,将马明心引见给宰恩。还有一个说法可能也很重要,那就是这两份基本相同的名单上的前七个人都是以乌外系•艾尔•格兰尼(Uways al-Qarani, 公元7世纪)开头的。他的这一派系的传承,称作“乌外系”式的传承法。在他的这一传承法中,一个人可以从他从未见过的人那里直接接受知识和指导。无论怎么说,名单中能将阿布德•艾尔•哈里格列在宰恩和马明心中间,就说明马明心在也门的期间应当是在宰恩逝世的那一年1725年和哈里格逝世的那一年1740年之间。

     

      阿布德•艾尔•哈里格在世时,扎比德的纳格什班底耶赞念真主的方式不止一种。此时,纳格什班底耶的“心中的即可尔”已经变成了复数形式(al-adhkhar al-qalbiyya),使用高声赞念(jahr)也为人们所接受了。阿布德•艾尔•哈里格象他的父亲一样也曾到麦加和麦地那跟随名师学习。这些名师当中有阿布•体•塔合(古兰尼的儿子)和穆罕默德•哈雅特•艾思•辛迪(Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi)。这两个人当中前者忠于他父亲的教导,在纳格什班底耶的即可尔当中提倡高念。而后者则提倡低念(心念)(sirr),反对纳格什班底耶在赞念真主时出声。然而,在阿布德•哈里格在世时,高念和低念的问题似乎不再是一个也门的纳格什班底耶中热烈讨论的话题。阿布德•艾尔•哈里格在教导他的学生时,说既可以低念也可以高念。他的一个学生解释说,这二者之间并不抵触,没有矛盾(munafah)。

     

      有大量的文献记述阿布德•艾尔•哈里格的生平,比记述他父亲的文献要多,但是他的一生比较短暂。宰恩于1725年逝世时,按照伊斯兰教历算是85岁,而阿布德•艾尔•哈里格按教历算只有20岁。宰恩任命哈里格为他逝后的继承人(Khalifa)。哈里格和他的哥哥(或者弟弟)穆罕默德都成为有声望的纳格什班底耶神秘主义道路的教师。但是兄弟二人之间的竞争很快使阿布德•艾尔•哈里格出走散卡(Sanca)。他于1739年到达那里但是1740年初就死了。按阴历算,他当时是36岁。

     

     
     

     
      THE REMEMBRANCE OF THE KURDS AND HUI:

     

      AL-KORANI, AL-KURDI, AND MA MING-HSIN

     

      Among the earliest and most influential centers of Naqshbandi reformism in the Middle East was Medina, where pilgrims and students came continuously from all over the Muslim world. Here teachers of diverse origins propounded their ideas to listeners of even more diverse origins who later took these ideas home with them. Whether or not an explicitly constituted "school" of fundamentalist mystical teachers existed in Medina in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, fundamentalist ideas reflecting an acknowledged or unacknowledged consensus among influential (and rival) mystics were certainly in the air.25 One of these teachers was a Kurd named Ibrahim b. Hasan al-Kurani.(1616-1690). Al-Kurani was a Naqshbandi and also all initiate of other mystical paths. In matters of mystical practice, and even in his capacity as a Naqshbandi, he stressed the permissibility of using vocal formulae in the remembrance of God (al-jahr bi-'dh.dhikr)26--an uncommon position for Naqshbandis, who generally insisted on the remembrance by "secrecy' (sirr), namely the silent dhikr, and condemned the use of "exclamation" (jahr, literally "making public").

     

      Through his students and his students' students and those of his son Abu 't-Tahir Muhammad al-Kurdi (d. 1733), al-Kurani's influence spread far and wide. One of his pupils was CAbd ar-Ra'uf as-Sinkili (d. post 1693), who studied with him for many years in Medina and then returned home to Sumatra, where he laid the groundwork for a further surge of Islam in Indonesia. Abu 't-Tahir was the principal influence on the life of the great Indian orthodox reformer Shah Wali Allah of Delhi (d. 1762), a figure to be reckoned with in much of the subsequent Islamic history of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Al-Kurdi also taught Muhammad H ayat as-Sindi (d.1750 or 1752), who was the teacher of Muhammad b. cAbd al-Wahhab (d. 1791), founder of the anti-Sufi "Wahhabi" movement. Among the other students of As-Sindi was Mu.hammad as-Samman (d.1775), who disseminated his fundamentalist Sufism through his own students to both west and east Africa, to Afghanistan, India, and Indonesia.

     

      Closer to home, al-Kurani and his son al-Kurdi had many lesser-known pupils. Their teaching made an important impact on the succeeding generation of mystical teachers in Medina and also in the Yemen, where the Naqshbandiyya had recently been introduced from India by Taj ad-Din b. Zakariyya' al-cUthmani (d. 1640), 27 a student of Baqi Bi 'llah. One of al-Kfirani's pupils from the Yemen was the Naqshbandi Sufi az-Zayn b. Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi al-Mizjaji (1643/4-1725), who has been described as one of the mujaddidin (renewers) of the beginning of the twelfth Islamic century. 28 His family home was at Mizjaja, a village on the outskirts of Zabid.

     

      Az-Zayn had received his Naqshbandi initiation from his father Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi b. az-Zayn (post 1591-1663), who had received it directly from al-cUthmani, and al-cUthmani had appointed Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi to be his khalifa after his death.29 The form of dhikr that al-cUthmani taught to Muhammad Abd al-Baqi was the Naqshbandi silent remembrance (adh-dhikr al- khafi),30 and Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi had taught this same silent remembrance to az-Zayn.

     

      It was probably az-Zayn who first authorized the remembrance by jahr among the Zabid Naqshbandiyya in addition to the traditional Naqshbandi; rembrance by sirr. His association in Medina with the prestigious al-Kurani is likely to have weighed heavily with him, and az-Zayn was also taught by al-Kurani's pupils Ahmad an-Nakhli (d. 1717) and al-Hasan b. cAli al-cUjaymi (d.1702). An-Nakhli, who had received his Naqshbandi initiation from a Sufi from Central Asia, rnay have condoned the use of jahr by Naqshbandis in the same way that his teacher al-Kurani did, but he also initiated his pupils into the Naqshbandiyya in accordance with al-cUthmani's procedures.31 Al-cUjaymi, who gave az-Zayn an authorization in religious studies in 1665/6,32 pursued an avid interest in the various forms of dhikr associated with the different mystical paths, almost all of which used jahr, and he wrote an influential treatise on the subiect.33 Contact with teachers such as these would have put the use of jahr by "secrecy"-prone Naqshbandis in a favorable light.

     

      The Zabid Naqshbandiyya's receptivity to jahr in their remembrances of God probably reflects the influence of other mystical paths.34 It is not known into how many paths az-Zayn's teacher, the jahr advocate al-Kurani, had been initiated in addition to his primary mystical path, the Naqshbandiyya. But throughout az-Zayn's lifetime the Qadiriyya clearly wielded considerable influence in Mecca, Medina, and the Yemen, and by the end of az-Zayn's life the Khalwatiyya, too, had begun their rise to prominence. Both the Qadiriyya and the Khalwatiyya sanctioned, indeed gloried in, the use of jahr.

     

      The Yemen, and particularly its two cities of Sanca' and Zabid, was one of the main grounds of learning in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for students from the eastern parts of the Muslim world. Yusuf al-Jawi, famous for his jihad against the Dutch in Indonesia, had been one of the two main pupils of az-Zayn's father Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi35 and, in Medina, of al-Kurai. Al Kurani's other well-known Indonesian student, cAbd ar-Ra’uf as-Sinkili, mentioned above, likewise studied in the Yemen.36 The Chinese teacher Ma La ch’ih, also mentioned above, studied in the Yemen for more than a year, well over a third of his pilgrimage trip to the Middle East. Being a Naqshbandi, Ma Lai-ch'ih could hardly have spent a year m the Yemen without visiting Zabid, and, not improbably, it may have been from az-Zayn, the Yemen's leading Naqshbandi teacher, that Ma Lai-ch'ih took most of his lessons.

     

      Some years later another Chinese Muslim, Muhammad Amin Ma Ming-hsin (1719- 1781),37 otherwise known as cAziz,38 also arrived in the Yemen after visiting Bukhara, where he and Ma Lai- ch'ih, then on his way back to China, are said to have studied together. Ma Lai-ch'ih was later referred to as Ma Ming-hsin's "companion" or "senior school friend",39 and it may have been that Ma Ming-hsin came to the Yemen because of the contacts that Ma Lai-ch'ih had already established there, or perhaps because of links between Naqshbandis in Bukhara and the Naqshbandis of Zabid.40 Ma Lai-ch'ih returned to China, and Ma Ming-hsin went on to the Middle East, where he is said to have "studied at one of the houses

     

      in Yemen. He spent more than twenty bitter years in preparation before returning to China."41 During these twenty, years it is said that he "became a follower of the master of the path az-Zayn and, submitting to the severe discipline of the Jahriyya's zawiya, received his secret teaching.42

     

      The sense in which Ma Ming-hsin became az-Zayn's "follower" remains open to doubt, because az-Zayn died on September 9, 1725, or shortly thereafter,43 when Ma could have been no more than six years old, if the correct time of his birth was indeed the Chinese year chi-hal (1719). In fact, Ma is said to have been "in his seventh year" when he set out from China accompanying his grandfather on the pilgrimage,44 and he spent at least a brief period in Bukhara. So he probably could not have reached the Yemen until about the time of az-Zayn's death, or perhaps even afterward. Fleeting contact in childhood or mystical uwaysi (Uways-like, see below) contact with az-Zayn's ruh or ruhaniyya ("spirit") afte the latter's death may have been enough to establish Ma Ming-hsin's claim to discipleship. But the initiatic

     

      chain recorded in northwest China by Martin Taylor in 193645 lists az-Zayn's son cAbd al-Khaliq (ca. 1705-1740) as an intervening link between az-Zayn and Ma Ming-hsin. It is perhaps also significant that the first seven persons on these two essentially identical lists are headed by the name of Uways al-Qarani (seventh century A.D.), for whom is named the mystical type of transmission known as uwaysi , whereby a person can receive knowledge or initiation directly from someone whom he has never met. At any rate, the listing of cAbd al-Khaliq between az-Zayn and Ma Ming-hsin suggests Ma's presence in the Yemen sometime in the period between 1725, the year in which az-Zayn died, and 1740, the year of cAbd al-Khfiliq's death.

     

      By cAbd al-Khaliq's time the Zabid Naqshbandis were practicing more than one remembrance. By then the Naqshbandi "dhikr of the heart" had come to be referred to in the plural (al-adhkhdr al-qalbiyya),46 and the use of jahr had come to be accepted. Like his father, cAbd al-Khaliq studied with the distinguished teachers of Mecca and Medina, among them al-Kurani’s son Abu 't-Tahir and Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi.47 Of these, the former, true to his father’s teaching, was an advocate of jahr in the Naqshbandi dhikr, whereas the latter was an advocate of sirr and rejected the use of "exclamation" by the Naqshbandiyya in their remembrance of God. By cAbd al-Kaliq's time, however, the use of jahr seems no longer to have been a burning issue among the Yemen Naqshbandis.48 cAbd al-Khaliq taught the dhikr to his disciples both "by secrecy and by exclamation" (sirran wa jahran),49 and one of his disciples has explained that there was no "incompatibility" (mundfah) between the two.

     

      cAbd al-Khaliq's life is widely covered in the biographical literature, more than the life of his father az-Zayn, but the son's career was a short one. When az-Zayn died in 1725 at the age of eighty-five by the Islamic calendar, cAbd al-Khaliq was only twenty Islamic years old. Az-Zayn had appointed him to be his khalifa after his death, and he and his brother Muhammad made a name for themselves as teachers of the Naqshbandi mystical path. But rivalry between them soon prompted cAbd al-Khaliq to leave for Sanca', which he reached in 1739, only to die early in 1740 at the age of thirty-six lunar years.

     
      老教与新教

     

     

      马明心很明显地深受中东地区的,尤其是纳格什班底耶中的新正统原教思想的影响。他于1761年返回中国西北以后,决心致力于传播他的宗教信仰。早他多年回国的马来迟,当年在布哈拉,朝觐的圣城和也门时,可能也意识到了 这种“前现代改革运动”可能会风靡整个印度和近东的纳格什班底耶。但是在马明心回国时,中国的纳格什班底耶中还是弥漫着中亚的神秘主义气息,非常强调对圣徒的尊崇和在坟墓前寻求启示。马明心的教导在操行方面似乎包括两个主要方面:教门本真思想(fundamentalism, 该词当前比较流行的翻译是:原教旨主义。但是这个词在当今西方媒体的话语中带有很深的误解性偏见,它的中文翻译也不可避免地带上了同样的色彩,这和本文作者使用该词的初衷是有差异的,故我们在此译为“教门本真思想”——译者注)和高念即可尔。

     

     

      于是马明心就在中国汉人区建立起了一个纳格什班底耶的分支,人们称作“哲赫忍耶”(Jahriyya,高念者们),不同于另外一派纳格什班底耶——华哲•阿发格的精神传人——人们称为“虎夫耶”(Khufiyya),其实应作“哈非耶”(Khafiyya, 低念者们)。这种命名方式更加自然,因为虎夫耶—哲赫忍耶这种互补式的分布状况在中亚早就存在,只不过在那里人们区别纳格什班底耶(虎夫耶型)和亚撒维耶(Yasawiyya, 哲赫忍耶型)。亚撒维耶以高念即可尔而出名,人们称作“拉锯式即可尔”,因为其念声有如两个人拉锯切木。

     

     

      虽然他们各有自己的中文名称“虎夫耶”和“哲赫忍耶”,但是中国的非穆斯林作者还是把这两个纳格什班底耶分支称作“老教”(阿发给耶,虎夫耶)和“新教”(马明心的追随者,哲赫忍耶)。使用英语的作者们一般都使用“老教派”(old sect)和“新教派”(new sect),但是这种称法是不当的,因为纳格什班底耶全都是逊尼派,是不分教派的,而且从本质上来说是反对教派的。这两个群体和教派毫无关系,只不过是同一条神秘主义道路的两个不同分支。

     

     

      后来,随着时间的推移和中国西北穆斯林的宗教政治的日益复杂化,这种新老教的说法越来越混淆视听。在十九世纪的文献中,我们无法确定“老教”或者“旧教”是否就是“老教虎夫耶”还是还是一些“老的教义”(指所有那些和马明心的哲赫忍耶不同的各种各样的伊斯兰教的信条和具体的操行方法)。到了20世纪,尤其是清王朝灭亡以后,中国人前往中东旅行的禁令取消了,“新教”也就不在指马明心的新的教导(哲赫忍耶——译者注)了,因为哲赫忍耶自己也被划为中国伊斯兰教的老教中去了。

     

     

      马明心在甘肃省建立了自己的清真寺(道堂),有了自己的教下。很快,他在中国西北的回族人和撒拉族人中强有力的宣教激起了老教(阿发给耶)领导人的反对。作为一代大师,阿拉伯知识方面的权威和一个纳格什班底耶新的分支发起人,他有大量的、强有力的证据来挑战阿发给耶的势力。他不赞成他周围其他的纳格什班底耶在圣徒墓前过多的沉思默想,而且坚持认为高声念即可尔是可行的。尤其是后面一点对于其他的纳格什班底耶来说是难以接受的,因为自从12世纪末13世纪初的阿布德•艾尔•哈里格•给志度瓦尼(Abd al-Khaliq Ghijduwani)以后,纳格什班底耶中的华哲们和他们的后继者们都一致反对高念即可尔。

     

     

      清王朝时期(1644—1911)有多少人做过朝觐之旅,去过也门和圣城买加与麦地那,我们永远无法得知。但是那个数目肯定是非常小,不仅是因为阿拉伯半岛和中国之间路途遥远,更是因为清政府禁止国民出国旅行。清朝于18世纪五十年代征服新疆以后这一禁令丝毫未有松动。它不仅禁止中国汉人区的回族人出国,同时也禁止新疆的穆斯林和中东进行直接的接触。在清朝统治时期的中亚,这一禁令的一个后果就是:由于中国的穆斯林被和外界的其他穆斯林领导力量隔绝,于是阿发给耶加强了其优越地位。在中国汉人区,这一政策就意味着一旦有人真的得以出走中东而且回来了,那么他很容易赢得在回族人心目中的权威性。所以从这个角度来看,一个穆斯林社群距离中东的伊斯兰文化生活中心越遥远、越封闭,这个社群对这些中心的最新潮流越敏感,越容易接受。

     

     

      从实质上来看,18世纪中国西北的老教和新教之间的纷争看起来是一场中国的纳格什班底耶的领导权的斗争。圣徒墓前的沉思默想问题可能是问题之一,但是争议本身是围绕着即可尔的念法展开的。马明心主张可以高念,而老教(中国的阿发给耶)的大师们则同样强烈地坚持认为要坚守传统的纳格什班底耶的低念方式。

     

     

     
     

     
     

     
      THE OLD AND THE NEW TEACHINGS

     

     

     

     

     

      Apparently deeply affected by the neo-orthodox fundamentalist thinking in the Middle East, and among the Naqshbandiyya in particular, Ma Ming-hsin returned home to the Chinese northwest in 176150 fully committed to a career of disseminating his religious convictions. Ma Lai-ch'ih, who had returned to China many years before, may have recognized some of the "pre-modernist reform movements" becoming prevalent among Indian and Near Eastern Naqshbandis during his experience in Bukhara, the pilgrimage cities, and the Yemen. But at the time of Ma Ming-hsin's return, Naqshbandism in China was still permeated by the flavor of Central Asian mysticism, with its heavy emphasis on the veneration of saints and the seeking of inspiration at tombs. Ma Ming-hsin's teaching appears to have contained two distinctive points related to practice: fundamentalism and the use of jahr in the dhikr.

     

     

      Thus Ma Ming-hsin founded in China proper a new branch of the Naqshbandiyya that came to be known as the Jahriyya (the "vocal" ones), as opposed to other Naqshbandis--the spiritual descendants of Khoja Afaq--who were referred to as the Khuflyya, properly Khafiyya (the "silent" ones). This choice of names was all the more natural in that a Khufiyya-Jahriyya dichotomy already existed in Central Asia, where it distinguished the Naqshbandiyya (Khufiyya) from the Yasawiyya (Jahriyya), the latter being famous for their jahri ("public") dhikr--called the dhikr-i arra "the saw dhikr") because its sound was similar to the sound of the two-man saw (arra) cutting wood.

     

     

      Although the terms Khufiyya and Jahriyya are attested in Chinese sources (as Hu-fei-yeh and Che-he-lin-yeh respectively), non-Muslim Chinese authors generally referred to the two branches of the Naqshbandiyya in China as the Old Teaching (the Afaqiyya, Khufiyya) and the New Teaching (Ma Ming-hsin's followers, Jahriyya). English-speaking authors have commonly rendered these terms as "Old Sect" and "New Sect," but this is altogether inappropriate because the Naqshbandiyya were wholeheartedly Sunni and non-sectarian, indeed anti-sectarian in nature. The two groups were not in any sense sects but rather two factions of a single mystical path.

     

     

      Later, as time passed and the religious politics of the Muslims of northwest China grew more complex, use of the New-Old dichotomy would lead to increasing confusion. In nineteenth century sources one can no longer be certain whether lao-chiao or chiu-chiao ("old teaching") is to be read "Old Teaching" (meaning Khufiyya) or "old teachings" (designating all the various schools of Islamic practice and belief as opposed to Ma Ming-hsin's Jahriyya). In the twentieth century, especially after the Ch'ing dynasty's collapse removed the ban on Chinese travel to the Middle East, hsin-chiao ("new teaching") also ceased to be a specific designation for Ma Ming-hsin's New Teaching, which itself began to be classed as one of the "old teachings" of Chinese Islam.

     

     

      Ma built his own mosque (tao-t'ang) in Kansu and made many initiates (chiao-hsia), and before long his forceful preaching among the Huis and Salars of northwest China provoked a reaction among the leaders of the Old Teaching (Afaqiyya). As a master, authorized in Arabia, of a different Naqshbandi initiatic chain, Ma Ming-hsin was armed with excellent credentials to challenge the Afaqiyya's power. He frowned on his fellow Naqshbandis excessive meditation at the tombs of saints, and he insisted on the permissibility of jahr in the dhikr. The latter point must have been especially shocking to the other Naqshbandis, for ever since the time of cAbd al-Khalliq Ghijduwini in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the Khwajagan and their descendants in the Naqshbandiyya had been virtually unanimous in rejecting the vocal dhikr. 51

     

     

      It will never be known how many Chinese pilgrims made their way to the Yemen and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina during the Ch'ing period (1644-1911), but the number must have been very small, not just because of the enormous distance separating China from the Arabian peninsula but also because of the Ch'ing government's ban on foreign travel. After the Ch'ing conquest of Sinkiang in the 1750s the ban must have been no less effective, and it not only hemmed in the Huis of China proper but also blocked the Muslim poppulations of Sinkiang from first-hand contact with the Middle East. In Ch'ing Central Asia one consequence of this policy was to reinforce the Afaqiyya's prestige by isolating the Muslim population from outside rival leaderships. In China proper the policy meant that if anyone did succeed in going to the Middle East and returning, he would be in a good position to win authority in the Hui population's eyes. In this respect the more secluded and remote a Muslim community was from the main centers of Islamic cultural life in the Middle East, the more susceptible it was to those centers' most recent trends.

     

     

      In substance, the dispute between Old and New Teachings in eighteenth century northwest China seems to have been a struggle over the leadership of the Naqshbandiyya in China. Meditation at saints' tombs may have been one of the points at issue, but the quarrel itself centered on the performance of the dhikr. Ma Ming-hsin insisted on the permissibility of jahr, and the Old Teaching masters (the Chinese Afaqiyya) insisted with equal vehemence on the traditional Naqshbandi silent dhikr

     

      清政府的反应

     

      总的来看这是中国西北的穆斯林的动乱时期。清政府刚刚于1795年完成了对东土耳其斯坦的征服。就在马明心的门口,伊斯兰似乎是刚刚站稳了脚跟,“达鲁伊斯兰”就遭受了一场令人目瞪口呆的打击。1762年,省政府开始发布警告并采取措施镇压穆斯林们的“暴乱”。陕西和甘肃省的穆斯林与非穆斯林的关系出现了紧张的迹象。1765年,乌什吐鲁番反叛清庭被镇压,这进一步表明了清朝国家政权在新疆的延伸。

     

      纳格什班底耶的这两个分支之间的争议导致了怒火和暴力,清政府试图平息之。清政府把马明心和他的新教看作是麻烦制造者,对他们进行了打压并于1781年逮捕了马明心。新教的拥护者们进行了武装起义,试图解救他们的领导人。当局在兰州以砍头之刑处死了马明心并进攻新教徒们。新教徒们则在苏四十三的领导下进行自卫。甘肃中部的撒拉人不断地进行武装反抗,但是纳格什班底耶老教和一些其他的伊斯兰“老教”的拥护者们都在支持政府。经过四个月的战斗,清政府镇压了这次叛乱。马明心被埋葬在兰州市的东郊,被尊称为哲赫忍耶的道祖太爷。

     

      三年后的1784年,新教徒又发动了另外一次起义,这次是在一个叫做田五的阿訇的领导之下。三个月的战斗之后,清政府又恢复了秩序,杀死了田五并制定了严格的措施,以防止西北的穆斯林再次爆发纷争和暴动。虽然甘肃省当局制定的政策主要是针对新教的,而且把新教“叛民”的土地给了和政府进行了合作的老教的拥护者们,但是清政府的政策日益变得反穆斯林化。非穆斯林被禁止皈依伊斯兰教。穆斯林被禁止离开他们所在的村庄去参加礼拜。传教人员不得在他们的居住区以外进行传教。不得新建清真寺,穆斯林不得收养非穆斯林的婴儿(伊斯兰教法禁止任何形式的正式收养)。穆斯林和非穆斯林之间要泾渭分明。虽然不明显,但是新教是遭到排斥的,因为参加了叛乱的人和没有参加叛乱的人是区别对待的。

     

      老教的拥护者们继续和清政府和睦相处。1796—1805年间,发生了发生了白莲教起义,清政府从中国的阿发给耶中招募了一些撒拉人去和叛军作战,因为他们认为对于白莲教的宗教思想,穆斯林比非穆斯林更具有免疫力。虽然有政府的禁令,但是马明心的新教还是在发展。

     

     
     

     
      THE CH'lNG GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

     

     

     

      It was generally a time of unrest for the Muslims of northwest China. The Ch'ing government had just completed its conquest of Eastern Turkestan in 1759. Here, at Ma Ming-hsin's very doorstep, where Islam had only recently seemed to be gaining ground, the daral-Islam had suffered a stunning defeat. In 1762 the provincial officials began posting warnings and taking other measures to suppress Muslim "violence." Relations between Muslim and non-Muslim Chinese in Shensi and Kansu were showing signs of strain. In 1765 Ush Turfan rebelled against the Ch'ing and was crushed, further demonstrating the state's extension of power into Sinkiang.

     

      Disputations between the two Naqshbandi factions led to anger and violence, which the Ch'ing government tried to stem. Seeing Ma Ming-hsin and his New Teaching faction as the troublemakers, the Ch'ing clamped down on them and arrested Ma in 1781. The New Teaching adherents rose up in arms, trying to free their leader. The authorities executed him in Lan-chou and attacked the followers of the New Teaching, who defended themselves under the leadership of Su Ssu-shih-san. The Salars of central Kansu continued to offer armed resistance, but many of the Old Teaching Naqshbandis and perhaps also the followers of other Islamic "old teachings" came to the aid of the government. After four months of fighting the Ch'ing suppressed the revolt. Ma Ming- hsin was buried on the eastern outskirts of Lan-chou and reverently remembered as the Venerable Founding Father (Tao-tsu lao-yeh) of the Jahriyya in China.

     

      Three years later, in 1784, another upheaval occurred among the New Teaching adherents, this time under the leadership of an akhund named T'ien Wu. After about three months of fighting, the Ch'ing government again restored order, killing T'ien Wu and instituting stern measures to prevent disputes and violence from breaking out again among the Muslims of the northwest. Although the restrictions that the Kansu provincial authorities instituted were directed mainly against the New Teaching, and although lands that had belonged to New Teaching “rebels" were given over to adherents of the Old Teaching who had cooperated with the government, the force of Ch'ing policy grew increasingly anti-Muslim. The conversion of non-Muslims to Islam was prohibited. Muslims were forbidden to leave their villages for prayer services. Preachers were barred from preaching outside their own localities. New mosques were not to be constructed. Muslims were ordered to refrain from adopting non-Muslim babies (formal adoption was in

     

      any case forbidden by Koranic law)52 and were warned not to bring "false suits" against one another. The New Teaching was in effect proscribed although not unequivocally, in that a distinction was allowed between rebels and innocent (politically inactive) believers.

     

      Adherents of the Old Teaching continued to live in harmony with the Ch'ing government, and during the White Lotus rebellion of 1796-1805 the Ch'ing recruited Salar followers of the Chinese Afaqiyya to fight the rebels, assuming that Muslims would be more immune to the rebels' religious ideology than would non-Muslim Chinese. Despite official disapproval, Ma Ming-hsin's New Teaching continued to grow.

      新疆的马克度木圣战

     

      由于伊斯兰教在清朝中国的存在而引起的问题一开始被清政府的文化带隔离政策微型化了。清政府把全国分为满洲里边远地区,内外蒙古,西藏,新疆和中国汉人区,这些文化区之间只要能隔离就一律隔离。即便是在新疆,准噶尔大草原区,天山以北地区,东土耳其斯坦的农业绿洲区,和天山以南区,这些区之间都划了明显的界线。东土耳其斯坦又从行政上划分为阿勒特沙(六城)和维吾尔斯坦,双方的旅行和商业活动都设有限制。如果在新疆和中亚西部之间旅行那就触犯了帝国的禁令,但是来自克什米儿,巴达克善(Badakhshan),浩罕(Kokand),西尔达雅山谷(Syr Darya valley)城市的一些商人,天山里的柯尔克孜族人和帕米尔人,使得阿勒特沙(六城)的居民们和新疆以西的穆斯林世界保持着一定程度上的交流。

     

      尽管有隔离的政策,清政府还是鼓励汉人区的居民向准噶尔移民去开发那里的大草原和荒原。这些移民中有很多回族人,他们总是有各种各样的方式和西北汉人区的回族人取得联系。在伊犁山谷,早前有一个准噶尔人建立的属于东土耳其斯坦的穆斯林社群。在于1759征服阿勒特沙(六城)以后,清政府强迫乌什吐鲁番和其他一些地方的东土耳其斯坦人举家迁往伊犁山谷,从而增加了那里的人口。这些移民被称为“塔兰齐”(Taranchi),“农民”。塔兰齐们和他们在南部的亲戚朋友们当然是保持着联系。简言之,清政府的隔离政策并非完全有效,但是在它有效的地方,例如中国汉人区,由于闭关自守,使外界的有竞争力的领导力量无法进入,从而导致了当地穆斯林的等级现象。

     

      这一时期,阿勒特沙(六城)的穆斯林的领导权问题上充满了斗争。清政府主要扶持当地那些土生土长的贵族,从而换取他们反对马克度木扎德家族的华哲们。他们中有一些是伊斯哈格系的纳格什班底耶,但是清政府把马克度木•阿赞木一系的贵族们全都分离出来送到北京,给他们以帝国贵族的封号。前文所提说过的、贾玛尔•阿•丁•卡塔吉(Jamal ad-Din Kataki)一系以降的纳格什班底耶华哲们有着为数可观的拥护者们,主要是在阿勒特沙(六城)的东北和新疆的回族人当中。随着回族人的大量拥入,马明心的新教有了立足之处,纳格什班底耶的印度分支“木加地迪”(Mujaddidi)在莎车(Yakand)也有了栖身之地。其他的神秘主义道路的作用也很重要。由华哲•穆罕默德•谢里夫•坡(Khoja Muhammad Sherif Pir,殁于1555/6年或1566年)所建立的乌外西耶(Uwaysiyya)在伊犁的塔兰齐人和回族人当中拥护者很多。嘎德忍耶也拥有一定的力量,包括在库车的胡达维(Hudawi)的后继者们,清政府给他们在阿勒特沙(六城)封有重要的行政职位。

     

      在所有这些派系当中,纳格什班底耶的阿发格分支在阿勒特沙(六城)人的心目中仍然享有比较高的地位。他们把阿发格•马克度木家族看成是这片国土的合法统治者。清朝的统治只是暂时的挫折,效果有限。天高皇帝远,在大多数地方,执行的依然是伊斯兰教法。住在可汗领地内的山里的马克度木家族的华哲们以圣战(jihad)的名义向清帝国发动了一系列的进攻,希望能够收复东土耳其斯坦。而清政府这一方面,则试图把作为宗教社群的阿发给耶和以阿发格•马克度木家族为首的“叛乱”的支持者们区别对待。所以位于喀什噶尔城外的哈德拉特•阿发格[Hadrat Afaq, 以前称为“雅格都”(Yaghdu)] 的阿发格墓地多功能区依然作为阿发给耶的活动中心而开放,而位于东北方向不远处的阿斯丁•阿图什(Astin Artish)的萨图克•布格拉汗(Satuq Boghra Khan)的墓地也成为一个类似的阿发给耶活动中心。

     

      1759年,有两个阿发给耶的华哲被清朝的军队赶到了巴达克善。其中一个叫做伯罕•阿丁(Burhan ad-Ding),他有一个孙子,叫做穆罕默德•玉素夫。有证据表明玉素夫和一伙柯尔克孜族人于1797年偷袭了清朝边境。1814年,一个属于伊斯哈格分支的纳格什班底耶, 名叫迪亚•阿丁(Diya ad-Ding)在喀什噶尔西南部的塔什马力格(Tashmaliq)发动了一次小的起义。但是这两次行动均未引起阿勒特沙(六城)人的反应。但是在1817年,穆罕默德•玉素夫的弟弟张格尔(Jahangir)宣布向清朝发动圣战,在柯尔克孜族人的帮助下发动了几次后果比较严重的袭击。1826年,扎罕格在喀什噶尔取得的军事行动上的成功引起了全城人的起义,浩罕(Kokand)的可汗本人也率军揭竿而起,进入阿勒特沙(六城)。英吉沙(Yangi Hisar),莎车,和和田(Khotan)等地的群众也都纷纷起义,把城池交给扎罕格。但是阿发给耶非但没有如法炮制,还用他们的强力地位抵制伊斯哈给耶,于是永久性地削弱了伊斯哈给耶。当清朝的军队于1827年前来平定这一地区时,扎罕格及其手下弃城而逃,没有抵抗。清政府于1828年将张格尔捉拿归案,在北京斩首示众。

     

      清政府逐渐采取较小的报复措施。先是和浩罕地方政府一道以书面的方式谴责这次叛乱。他们刻意避免将问题的根源归结为伊斯兰教的武力性和与己相异的世界秩序观,从而避免将边疆的问题和内地的问题联系起来。1781年和1784年内地新教起义之后,清政府曾禁止穆斯林收养非穆斯林的婴儿,现在他们又如法炮制,禁止非穆斯林的汉族人娶穆斯林的女人为妻。在穆斯林看来,这两条规定都形同虚设,因为伊斯兰教法严格禁止收养和穆斯林的女人嫁给非穆斯林的男人。对于清政府的这些禁令可以有各种各样的解读,但是他们的真实意图可能是这样的:清政府自然是有着种种便利的条件,可以对伊斯兰教和帝国版图内的穆斯林社群了如指掌。平定叛乱之事是万众瞩目的焦点,他们的这些无用禁令就是做一些表面文章,给让汉族人看政府是如何限制穆斯林传播伊斯兰教的。

     

      张格尔是马克度木家族中最后一个实干家,但是在阿发给耶的主导下,在后半个世纪,考坎的可汗们试图垄断新疆的对外贸易。为了逼迫清政府许可他们进行贸易,浩罕资助马克度木家族分别于1830年,1845年(马克度木家族支持的一次叛乱),1847年,1852年,1854年,1857年,1861年进攻清朝。但是这些袭击活动的破坏性太大,削弱了人们对阿发给耶事业的热情。与此同时,伊斯哈给耶的力量却增强了,尤其是在莎车。为了和阿发给耶争权夺利,伊斯哈给耶临时改变策略,逐渐开始支持清政府的统治。

     

      然而,总体看来,虽然阿发给耶的力量衰退了,伊斯哈给耶开始忠于清政府了,但是纳格什班底耶的力量还是增长了,这种增长中蕴涵者对清帝国统治的挑战。阿发给耶在喀什噶尔依然强势,库车的华哲们在在阿勒特沙(六城)的东北部加强了力量。在莎车,纳格什班底耶的印度木扎迪地分支的领导人阿布德•阿•热赫曼•哈达拉特(Abd ar-Rahman Hadrat),在势力上有所发展,而且从后来发生的事情来看,也为他自己赢得了众多的伊斯哈给耶教下。到19世纪60年代时,木扎迪地耶已经成为阿勒特沙(六城)西南部一支强大的力量。在天山以北的回族人当中,马明心的新教的力量也得到了增强,而阿发给耶(老教)肯定也赢得了不少教下。纳格什班底耶成为浩罕和国外其他地方之间的联系纽带。例如印度的英国人曾用一个纳格什班底耶,华哲•艾哈麦德•筛海•纳格什班底•赛义德,作为代理人,搜集关于东土耳其斯坦的信息。在拉达克(Ladakh)的首都雷埃(Leh),纳格什班底耶大师华哲•筛海•尼雅兹(Niyaz)和他在雅坎的学生们保持着联系。

     

     
     

     
      THE MAKHDUMUZADA JIHAD IN SINKIANG

     

     

     

      The problem raised by the presence of Islam in Ch'ing China was minimized at first by the Ch'ing policy of segreating the empire's several cultural zones from one another. The Manchurian frontier, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Sinkiang, and China proper were all isolated from one another insofar as such isolation was feasible. Even within Sinkiang sharp lines were drawn between the predominantly pastoral territories of Zungharia, north of the Tien Shan mountains, and the agricultural oasis zones of Eastern Turkestan, south of the mountains. Administratively, Eastern Turkestan was subdivided into Altishahr and Uighuristan, with restrictions on travel and commerce between the two. Travel between Sinkiang and western Central Asia was forbidden to subjects of the empire, but traders from Kashmir, Badakhshan, Kokand, and the cities of the Syr Darya valley as well as Kirghiz tribesmen in the T'ien Shah and the Pamirs kept the Altishahr population to some degree in touch with the Muslim lands west of Sinkiang.

     

      Notwithstanding its policy of segregation, the Ch'ing government encouraged immigrants from China proper to settle and develop what had previously been pasture and waste lands in Zungharia. Among these immigrants came many Huis, who in one way or another maintained communications with Huis of northwest China proper. In the Ili valley, the Zunghars had earlier established a small Muslim population of East Turkestanis, and following the 1759 conquest of Altishahr the Ch'ing government had added to this population--labelled “Taranchi," "farmers”--by forcing other East Turkestani families to migrate to Ili from Ush Turfan and elsewhere. The Taranchis, of course, also retained ties with their fellow

     

      Muslims to the south. In short, the Ch'ing state's segregation policy was only moderately effective, but insofar as it functioned, it served, as in China proper, to reinforce the local Muslim hierarchy by blocking the entrance of rival leaders from outside.

     

      The Altishahr Muslim leadership at this time consisted of various competing elements, most notably the class of indigenous notables (the begs) to whom the Ch'lng had given official posts in return for help against the Makhdumzada khojas. Some were Naqshbandis of the Ishaqi branch, but the Ch'ing government removed those among them who were descendants of the Makhdum-i ACzam and sent them to Peking, ennobling them as members of the titled imperial aristocracy. The Naqshbandi khojas of Kucha, descended from Jamal ad-Din kataki, mentioned above, had a considerable following, especially in northeastern Altishahr and among the Sinkiang Huis. Ma Ming-hsin's New Teaching acquired a foothold in Sinkiang with the influx of Huis, and the Indian (Mujaddidi) branch of the Naqshbandiyya also established itself at Yarkand. Other mystical paths played important roles, too. The Uwaysiyya founded by Khoja Muhammad Sharif Pir (d. 1555/6 or 1566), had a large following among the Taranchis and Huis of Ili. The Qadiriyya enjoyed some strength, including the descendants of Hudawi of Kucha, who held important Ch'ing administrative posts in Altishahr.

     

      But of all these groups, the Afaqi branch of the Naqshbandiyya continued to hold pride of place in the sentiments of most of the Altishahr population, which regarded the Afaqi Makhdumzadas as the legitimate rulers of the country. Ch'ing rule was seen as transitory affliction, and its effects were limited; imperial government kept its distance and, for the most part, left the local society to be administered in accordance with Islamic law. Taking advantage of this sentiment, the Makhdumzada khojas, who lived across the mountains in the Kokand khanate, mounted a series of invasions in a jihad against the Ch'ing empire, hoping to regain possession of Eastern Turkestan. The Ch'ing state, for its part, tried to maintain a distinction between the Afaqiyya as a religious community on the one hand and the "rebel" supporters of the Afaqi Makhdumzadas on the other. So the Afaqi tomb complex at Hadrat Afaq (originally known as Yaghdu) outside Kashgar remained open and continued to be a center of Afaqi activities, and the shrine of Satuq Boghra Khan at Astin Artish, a short distance to the northeast, became a similar Afaqi center.

     

      There is some evidence that Muhammad Yusuf, a grandson of Burhan ad-Din, one of the two Afaqi khojas whom the Ch'ing army had driven into Badakhshan in 1759, may have accompanied a party of Kirghiz who raided the Ch'ing border in 1797. In 1814 a Naqshbandi named .Diya ad-Din, belonging to the Ishaqi branch, raised a small revolt at Tashmaliq, southwest of Kashgar. Neither of these actions produced any response among the Altishahr population, but in 1817 Muhammad Yusuf’s younger Jahangir declared a jihad against the Ch'ing and began, with brother Kirghiz help, a number of invasions that were to have serious consequences. In 1826 Jahangirs military successes at Kashgar induced the city's population to rise, and the khan of Kokand himself entered Altishahr at the head of an army. Sympathetic popular revolts at Yangi Hisar, Yarkand, and Khotan delivered those districts into Jahangir’s hands, but the Afaqiyya, instead of making common cause with their Ishaqi rivals, used their position of strength against

     

      the Ishaqiyya, thus permanently alienating the latter. When the Ching army set out to reconquer the region in 1827, Jahangir and his followers plundered the cities under their control and fled, offering no resistance. It was not until 1828 that the Ch'ing succeeded in taking Jahangir prisoner; he was executed with much ceremony in Peking.

     

      The Ch'ing took relatively slight reprisals. Official blame for the rebellion was placed in the most literal fashion on the invaders alone, including the Kokand government. But the Ch'ing studiously avoided any recognition of the problem posed by a militant Islam, with its competing view of the world order, that extended from beyond the imperial frontiers into the very heart of China proper. Just as the government, after the New Teaching upheavals of 1781 and 1784, had forbidden Muslims to adopt non-Muslim babies, it now, following Jahangir's jihad, prohibited non-Muslim Chinese men from taking Muslim women to wife. From a Muslim point of view, neither of these measures was necessary, because Koranic law strictly forbade both adoption and the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslims. Various interpretations of these prohibitions are possible, but it is likely that the Ch'ing government, which had extremely good facilities for finding out everything about Islam and the empire's Muslim communities, had chosen the course of superfluous prohibitions so as to maintain the government's standing in the eyes of the anxious Han Chinese by seeming to curtail the Muslims' propagation of Islam. At the same time they avoided any step that would stir up trouble with the empire's large (and steadily growing) Muslim minority.

     

      Jahangir was the last Makhdumzada of real ability, but the Afaqiyya played a central role for the next half century in the Kokand khanate's efforts to monopolize Sinkiang's foreign trade. ln order to extract commercial concessions from the Ch'ing government, Kokand sponsored Makhdumzada invasions in 1830, 1845 (a local revolt with Makhdumzada encouragement), 1847, 1852, 1854, 1857, and 1861, but the destructiveness of these raids gradually diminished popular enthusiasm for the Afaqi cause. Accordingly, the Ishaqiyya's strength increased, especially in Yarkand. For the time being, out of opposition to their Afaqi rivals, the Ishaqis grew increasingly supportive of Ch'ing rule.

     

      As a whole, however, despite the Ishaqiyya's loyalism toward the Ch'ing and the decline of the, Afaqiyya's popularity, the power of the Naqshbandiyya increased, carrying with it an underlying challenge to Ch'ing imperial rule. The Afaqiyya still remained popular at Kashgar2tThe khojas of Kucha increased their strength in northeastern Altishahr. In Yarkand CAbd ar-Rahman Hadrat, the local leader of the Naqshbandiyya's Indian Mujaddidi banch, also prospered and, to judge by subsequent events, probably won over to himself many of the adherents of the Ishaqiyya. By the 1860s the Mujaddidiyya were a powerful force in southwestern Altishahr. Among the Huis north of the T'ien Shah, Ma Ming-hsin's New Teaching increased in strength, and the Afaqiyya (Old Teaching) must also have had many adherents. Naqshbandis provided links with Kokand and other foreign lands. The British in India, for example, used a Naqshbandi agent, Khoja Ahmad Shah Naqshbandi Sayyid, to gather information for them in Eastern Turkestan. At Leh, the capital of Ladakh, the Naqshbandi master Khoja Shah Niyaz maintained ties with his disciples in Yarkand.

      积极参政思想的传播

     

      清政府于1781年镇压了田五阿訇起义以后,马明心的新教的传播就转为地下,但是在全国得到了广泛的传播。除了新疆,中国西北和陕西之外,清政府于1789年在青海也发现了一个新教社群,甚至在湖北,吉林,黑龙江,天津和清朝首都都有新教的拥护者。由于曾经被清政府镇压过,新教可以说是清帝国内最反清的穆斯林群体,所以说由新教发动一次有力的反清圣战,也是顺理成章的。

     

      马明心在于1781年被害之前曾引导很多人成为他的哲赫忍耶教下。苏四十三和田五虽然领导了哲赫忍耶进行了1781年和1784年的新教起义,但是他们有可能是,也有可能不是马明心指定的继承人。据传说马明心指定了他的两个徒弟作为哲赫忍耶的大师(老人家)。其中的一个名字不详,另一个是穆罕默德•然巴尼(Rabbani),又称“穆阿訇”或“穆巴巴”(“巴巴”是土耳其语,“父亲”的意思),其墓在甘肃省东部的平凉。

     

      穆罕默德•然巴尼成为教主以后又指定穆罕默德•贾来里(Jalal,中文名字为马达天——译者注)为继承人,他可能是一个回族,不知怎么招惹了清政府,结果被流放到黑龙江的船厂做苦役。他逝世后被埋葬在那里,后来被称为“船厂太爷”。后来好象在宁夏南部的金积堡附近的灵州为他建了拱北。穆罕默德•贾来里的继承人为他的儿子“马尔”(原文为Ma Erh, 实际上是马以德——译者注),被称为“四月八老太爷”或者“四月八太爷”,因为他是在阴历四月八日被清政府的军政当局所杀。马以德从穆罕默德•然巴尼那里得到了最初的传授,但可能并没有得到做教主的授权。他的教主继承权是从他的父亲穆罕默德•贾来里那里得来的。马以德被葬于宁夏平原上金积堡附近的鸿乐府。

     

      哲赫忍耶的下一个教主是马以德的儿子马化龙。马化龙从父亲那里继承了教权,但却是从一个叫做马修真(音译,原文Ma Hsiu-jen)的老师那里接受的教育。这位老师和马化龙同葬于鸿乐府拱北。金积堡位于宁夏南部,黄河的东岸,马化龙以此为据点建立了稳固的势力范围。截止目前,除了新疆的几次阿发给耶战争以外,其他的一些穆斯林起义在清政府看来只是叛乱而已,算不上圣战。除了和穆斯林国家接壤的边疆地区的穆斯林以外,中华帝国的其他地区的穆斯林永远都是数量上少很多的少数派。这些位居少数的穆斯林一旦和中国汉人区的政权发生冲突,其原因要么是他们内部冲突,要么是来自汉族非穆斯林的压力使他们不得不诉诸武力。

     

      但是中国的十九世纪中叶是一个战乱纷呈,动荡不安的年代。鸦片战争,太平天国运动,捻军起义,沙俄吞并满洲里,贵州的苗族人起义,英法联军攻陷北京,皇帝出逃,再加上新疆穆斯林中的阿发给耶制造的动乱,所有这些环境因素看起来似乎圣战是可以打赢的。在云南省和西北地区,来自位居多数的非穆斯林的压力肯定是有的,但是19世纪50年代的非穆斯林起义,尤其是太平天国运动,使得清王朝岌岌可危,生死存亡都成了问题,这使得圣战看起来是遇到了一个千载难逢的良机,而且为了穆斯林的生存,有必要推翻清王朝。

     

      19实际上半叶,尤其是在云南和陕西,穆斯林和非穆斯林之间的摩擦日益加重。云南出现了骚乱,分别在20年代,1830年,1845年两次,1855年又出现一次。1856年,在长达几个月的相互报复——杀人,放火,抢劫——之后,出现了一次针对穆斯林的大屠杀,于是爆发了大规模的穆斯林起义。云南的穆斯林被称为“班赛”(又称:潘泰——译者注),这是缅甸语中对穆斯林的称呼。这些起义,总称为班赛叛乱,前后持续了约20年,遭到了清政府的血腥镇压,直到1873年,才最后平息。这次起义并非全是穆斯林,还有非穆斯林的加入。纳格什班底耶在这次班赛起义中的作用还有待研究,但是杜文秀有可能是马明心的神秘主义道路分支的倡导者。杜文秀曾出版了第一本完整的汉译《古兰经》,而且使用的名字是“苏丹•苏来曼”(Sultan Sulayman)。他曾试图在云南西部的大理建立一个独立的苏丹国。

     

      1862年,当太平天国的军队进攻四川时,陕西的穆斯林和非穆斯林之间的关系已经恶化并出现了一些动乱和暴力行动,进攻,自卫,反击在双方之间时有发生。双方都有野蛮行径,当局无能为力。陕西的很多穆斯林被赶出家园,被迫到甘肃寻求避难。这些难民中有一个人名叫妥明(音译,原文Tao-ming——译者注)[ 又叫做陶特林(音译,原文To-te-lin——译者注)]。此人似乎是一个哲赫忍耶。他曾追随新的教主马化龙在金积堡学习过一段时间,然后在马化龙的另一个学生的邀请之下去了新疆的乌鲁木齐,并在那里吸引了一大批追随者。此后不久,还是在同一年,马化龙也加入这场冲突而且很快成为其中的重要人物。这在一定程度上是一场互相配合的圣战,阿发格派的纳格什班底耶和其他各派的穆斯林力量,至少有一段时期是遥相呼应的。

     

      这场中国西北的圣战以武力的方式将新疆和帝国的中心隔绝了。1863年,伊犁地区的穆斯林出于同情也发动了一场起义,被清政府镇压了,但是1864年在新疆爆发了六次相互独立的圣战起义,特别值得注意的是,在新疆的圣战中回族人扮演了重要的角色。

     

      这些圣战中有两场是由纳格什班底耶大师们领导的。一场是由贾玛尔•阿丁•卡塔基(Jamal ad-Din Kataki)的后代拉什丁•汗•华哲(Rashidin Khan Khoja),人们称为黄华哲,在库车领导的;另一场是由阿布德•阿•热合曼•哈德拉特在莎车领导的。另外有两场也几乎可以确定是有纳格什班底耶大师领导的。一场是由陈祥音(音译,原文Chin Hsing-yin——译者注)和柯尔克孜族首领萨迪克别克(Siddiq Beg)领导的,在阿发给耶的大本营喀什噶尔,另一场是由妥明领导的,在乌鲁木齐。他给自己封了一个头衔,叫做“清真王”。不难想象剩余的两场也是由纳格什班底耶神秘主义道路的拥护者们领导的:由哈知•哈比卜•阿拉•穆夫提(Hajji Habib Allah Mufti)领导的和田(Khotan)地区的圣战和塔兰齐领导人穆阿赞木•达特(Muazzam Dhat)或穆阿赞木•汗领导的在伊犁地区的圣战。穆阿赞木•达特是乌外西耶的创始人穆罕默德•谢里夫•皮尔(Muhammad Sharif Pir)的后代。皮尔追随其他道路的可能性是有的,但是当时纳格什班底耶拥有很大的实力和影响力,所以皮尔很有可能也是纳格什班底耶。第二年,1865年塔尔格班泰( Targebatai)的穆斯林也起义反抗清政府,受到了哈萨克人的武装支援。

     

      与当时中国西北(译者注:作者所说的中国西北不包括新疆)的情况不同的是,新疆的各个穆斯林队伍中发生了一次领导权危机。妥明和拉什丁•汗•华哲进行了合作,于是增加了后者在喀什噶尔的影响力。但是陈祥音和萨迪克别克反对这样做,他们向考坎的汗要一个能够将新疆人民团结起来的人,一个马克度木家族的人。浩罕派去了张格尔的儿子巴则格•汗•图拉(Buzurg Khan Tura)和一支象征性的军队,66人组成,由一个叫做阿古柏•别克(Yaqub Beg)的人率领。巴则格•汗很快就干掉了陈祥音和萨迪克别克。他的大将阿古柏•别克打败了拉什丁•汗•华哲和阿布德•阿•热合曼•哈达拉特,然后流放了巴则格•汗,自己登上了权利的宝座,自封为毕达拉特(Badawlat,“幸运”)。1868年,他将整个阿勒特沙(六城)西部纳入自己的权威之下。

     

      1869年,雅古百制服了拉什丁•汗•华哲之后与妥明开战。而这时的妥明已经因一次部下哗变而削弱了力量。起初,阿古柏和准噶尔的徐学功(音译,原文Hsu Hsueh kung)麾下的非穆斯林军团结盟,而徐是最终忠于中国和清政府的。两人合力进攻乌鲁木齐的妥明,但是拿下城池以后,阿古柏未将许任命为省长,于是联盟破裂,许撤回军队。

     

      在中国西北,清朝的军队最终于1871年迫使马化龙投降,并砍了马化龙及其儿子的头。马化龙的身体被埋在黄河的东岸的金积堡附近而他的头则被埋在甘肃省张家川以北的宣化岗。在击败了回族人最强大的领导人之后,清朝的军队逐渐开始对准其他的起义队伍。这些队伍中有些向北进入蒙古,进攻科布多,袭击鄂尔多斯人,然后再向西北开进,直到被拦截。一直到1783年,清军才平息了中国西北的最后一支叛军,迫使最后一位穆斯林领导人退回到新疆。

     

      打败妥明以后,阿古柏尚有一个主要的穆斯林地区未能控制,那就是伊犁。当时的伊犁,穆阿赞木•达特的位置已经被阿布•敖格兰(Abu l-Oghlan)所继承,人称阿拉•汗,而他自封为以固勒扎(即伊犁,Kulja)为中心的穆斯林王国的“苏丹”。伊犁的穆斯林成功抵制了来自雅古百的压力,但是1871年,俄罗斯人入侵伊犁并将整个地区置于俄国人的军事管制之下。1874年,清朝军队开始试图重新征服新疆。俄国和英国曾考虑过支持雅古百政权,但是后来又决定反对之。奥斯曼帝国名义上的支持也收效甚微。

     

      1877年,阿古柏死了,不是自杀就是被刺。此后不久清军彻底平定了阿勒特沙(六城)的叛乱。阿古柏的儿子别克•古里•别克(Beg Guli Beg)的部下和逃亡的回族领导人白彦虎逃入俄国境内并在那里受到了庇护。经过旷日持久的谈判,清政府使得俄国政府于1882年撤出大部分伊犁地区,而这时伊犁山谷的穆斯林因害怕清政府的迫害,在俄军撤退时一道迁入俄国境内,使得在那里避难的人口大大增加,他们的后代就是今天苏联境内的东甘人(或东干人)和维吾尔人(塔兰齐人和东土耳其斯坦人)。在俄罗斯的突厥人当中,有一个华哲•阿发格的后代,名叫哈希目•汗(Hakim Khan),继续代表者马克度木家族的传承。别克•古里•别克在费尔干纳(Ferghana)享受俄国政府给的生活金,而且继续自称喀什噶尔的国王。阿布•敖格兰在卧尼(Verny)定居,俄国政府给了他牧场和年俸。

     

      清政府对圣战的镇压使无数的穆斯林人头落地。清军对他们认为犯有反叛罪的穆斯林进行了血腥的镇压和屠杀。在中国汉人区,18世纪晚期开始就不断恶化的回汉关系,在圣战失败后变得更加仇恨和充满敌意。清政府决定隔离是唯一可行的解决方案。灭绝性地屠杀回族人口并非政府的选择,而且北京反面也避免将哲赫忍耶放逐到一个广阔的、王国似的天地,尽管西北地区的地方政府的确将放逐了陕西和甘肃的哲赫忍耶,并鼓励穆斯林学习汉族传统文化以促进同化。在二次镇压过程中逃到甘肃的穆斯林不准返回,他们的土地都被分配给了汉族人。在甘肃省采取了开发贫瘠土地的项目来收容这些穆斯林难民。金积堡,西宁,和肃州的很多穆斯林被迫迁徙到平凉,化平,安亭和兰州地区,但是这些措施并非持续有效。为了更加紧密地控制新疆,清政府废弃了以前的由穆斯林来治理的制度,并于1884年将整个地区并作一个省。

     

     
     

     
      THE SPREAD OF POLITICAL ACTIVISM

     

     

     

      Ma Ming-hsin's New Teaching had gone underground after the Ch'ing suppression of T'ien Wu's revolt in 1781, but it had spread widely through the empire. In addition to its followers in Sinkiang, the Chinese northwest, and Shansi province, the New Teaching possessed adherents in Tsinghai, where the Ch'ing government had uncovered a New Teaching group in 1789, and even in Hupeh, Kirin, Heilungkiang, Tientsin and the Ch'ing capital itself. Having been suppressed by the imperial government, the New Teaching was probably the most anti-Ch'lng of all the Muslim groups in the empire, and therefore in the best position to provide dynamic leadership for a popular jihad.

     

      Before his execution in 1781 Ma Ming-hsin had initiated many people into his Jahriyya. Su Ssu-shih-san and T'ien Wu had given leadership to the Jahriyya during the New Teaching upheavals of 1781 and 1784, although they may or may not have been Ma Ming-hsin's authorized successors. Tradkion53 has it that Ma Ming-hsin authorized two disciples (t'u-ti) as Jahri masters (lao-jen-chia,"elder," by analogy with the Arabic shaykh and the Persian pir). The name of one of these has been lost,54 but the other was Muhammad Rabbani, also known as Mu A-hung (meaning either Akhnd Mu, a Chinese surname, or else Mu(hammad)) and as Mu Pa-pa (fromTurkic Baba, "father"), whose tomb is at P'ing-liang in eastern Kansu.

     

      Muhammad Rabbani became grand master (chiao-chu) and in turn authorized Muhammad Jalal, presumably a Hui, who somehow attracted the unfavorable attention of the Ch'ing authorities and was exiled to do penal servitude as a laborer for the army in Ch'uan-ch'ang, Heilungkiang. Since he died and was buried there, he came to be known as Ch'uan-ch'ang T'ai-yeh, "The Grand Master in Ch'uan-ch'ang." Subsequently a shrine seems to have been built for him in Ling-chou, near Chin-chi-p'u, south of Ningsia. Muhammad Jalil's successor was his son Ma Erh55 named Ssu-yüeh-pa Lao-jen-chia (Shaykh Eighth of the Fourth Month) or Ssu-pa T'ai-yeh (Grand Master Four-Eight) after the lunar date on which he was killed by the Ch'ing military authorities. Ma Erh received his first initiation, but probably not his authorization as a Sufi master, from Muhammad Rabbani. His authorization and succession as grand master would seem to have come from his father, Muhammad Jalal. Ma Erh is buried in Hung-lo-fu, near Chin-chi-p'u, on the Ningsia plain.

     

      The Jahriyya's next grand master was Ma Erh's son, Ma Hua-lung, who received the succession from his father but acquired much of his training from a teacher named Ma Hsiu-jen56 buried in the same enclosure with him at Hung-lo-fu. Ma Hua-lung established himself at the stronghold of Chin-chi-p'u south of Ningsia on the east bank of the Yellow River. Down to this time, with the exception of the Afaqi wars in Sinkiang, the Muslim "rebellions" seem not to have been jihads at all and were rebellions only from the point of view of the imperial government. Except for Muslims living on those frontiers that adjoined a Muslim country, the Muslims of the Chinese empire could only have seen themselves as hopelessly outnumbered minorities. When, qua Muslims, they had clashed with the state within China proper, they had probably done so either because they were fighting among themselves or else because pressure from the non-Muslim Chinese had driven them to violence.

     

      But the middle of the nineteenth century was a time of wars and rebellions in China. The Opium War, the Taiping and Nien rebellions, the Russian annexation of northern Manchuria, the upheavals among the Miao aborigines in Kweichow, the Anglo-French seizure of Peking and the flight of the emperor, coupled perhaps with the unrest created by the ,Afaqiyya among the Sinkiang Muslims, made for an atmosphere in which jihad may have seemed to hold some possible chance of success. Pressure from the non-Muslim majority was certainly present in Yunnan and the Chinese northwest, but in the 1850s the rebellions raging among the non-Muslim Chinese, notably the Taiping, may have called the survival of the dynasty into question, making jihad seem a feasible undertaking, perhaps even a necessary one for Muslim survival were the dynasty to collapse.

     

      In Yunnan and Shensi, in particular, friction between Muslim and non-Muslim had steadily worsened in the first half of the nineteenth century. Riots occurred in Yunnan in the 1820s, 1830, twice in 1845, and again in 1855. In 1856 there was a great massacre of Mushms in Kunming, followed by months of mutual reprisals--killing, arson, and looting--and then broad uprisings among the Yunnan"'Muslims, known as "Panthays" after a Burmese word for "Muslim." These uprisings, referred to collectively as the Panthay rebellion, lasted until the Ch'ing army finally extinguished the last embers of revolt, after almost two decades of bloody upheaval, in 1873. The rebellion was not exclusively Muslim, for non-Muslim groups joined forces with the rebels. The Naqshbandiyya's role in the Panthay rebellion remains to be studied, but there are indications that Tu Wen-hsiu, who published the first complete Chinese translation of the Koran and adopted the title Sultan Sulayman, trying to create an independent sultanate at Tali in western Yunnan, may have been an initiate of Ma Ming-hsin's branch of the Naqshbandi mystical path.

     

      In Shensi the deteriorating relations between Muslims and non-Muslims flared up into riots and rebellion when Taiping forces invaded from Szechwan in 1862, touching off attacks and counterattacks between communities. Both sides committed acts of terrible savagery, and the authorities were unable to restore order. Many of the Shensi Muslims were driven from their homes and forced to take refuge in Kansu. One of these refugees was T'o-ming (also called T'o-te-lin), who appears to have been a Jahri. He evidently spent some time as a disciple of Ma Hua-lung, the New Teaching grand master, at Chin-chi-p'u, then moved on, at the invitation of one of Ma's disciples named Su Huan-chang, to Urumchi in Sinkiang, where he soon attracted a large following. Later that year Ma Hua-hing joined the fray and before long made himself the principal figure of a more or less coordinated jihad in which the Afaqi (Old Teaching) Naqshbandis and the various other Muslim factions seem, for a while at least, to have cooperated with one another.

     

      The jihad in northwest China isolated Sinkiang militarily from the center of the empire. In 1863 there was a sympathetic Muslim uprising in the Ili region, which the Ch'ing authorities managed to put down, but in 1864 six entirely separate jihads against the Ch'ing empire were declared in different parts of Sinkiang. Particularly noteworthy in the Sinkiang jihads was the active role played by the Tungans, or Huis.

     

      Two of these jihadist movements--the jihad of Jamal ad-Din Katakis descendant Rashidin Khan Khoja at Kucha, known as the Yellow Khoja, and the jihad of CAbd ar-Rahman Hadrat at Yarkand, who belonged to the Mujaddidiyya--were certainly led by Naqshbandi masters. Two others--the jihad initiated by Chin Hsiang-yin and the Kirghiz chief Siddiq Beg at Kashgar, stronghold of the Afaqiyya, and the jihad of T'o-ming, who adopted the title of Muslim King. (Ch'ing-chen Wang) at Urumchi--were almost certainly led by Naqshbandi masters. And it is not inconceivable that the remaining two--the jihad of Hajji Habib Allah Mufti in the Khotan region and the jihad of the Taranchi leader MuCazzam Dhat, or MuCazzam Khan, in Ili--were also led by initiates of tile Naqshbandi mystical path. MuCazzam Dhat was descended from Muhammad Sharif Pir, founder of the Uwaysiyya, but multiple initiations were common, and the prestige of the Naqshbandiyya was such that an Uwaysi pir could easily have been a Naqshbandi simultaneously. The next year, 1865, the Muslims of Tarbagatai also revolted against the Ch'ing empire and received military aid from the Kazakhs.

     

      In Sinkiang, unlike the situation then prevailing in northwest China, there was a crisis of leadership among the various Muslim groups. T'o-ming and Rfishidin Khan Khoja Cooperated, thus adding to the latter's influence at Kashgar. But Chin Hsiang-yin and Siddiq Beg countered this by asking the khan of Kokand to send them a Makhdumzada who might rally the Sinkiang population. Kokand sent Jahangir’s son Buzurg Khan Tura and a token force of sixty-six men under an officer named Yacqub Beg. Buzurg Khan soon eliminated Chin Hsiang-yin and Siddiq Beg. His general Yacqub Beg defeated Rashidin Khan Khoja and CAbd ar-Rahman Hadrat, then exiled Buzurg Khan, establishing himself as ruler under the title Badawlat (Fortunate). By 1868 he had consolidated all of western Altishahr under his authority.

     

      In 1869 YaCqub overpowered Rashidin Khan Khoja and went to war against T'o-ming, whose power was greatly reduced by a mutiny in 1870. At first Yacqub allied himself with the local corps of non-Muslim Chinese under Hsü Hsüeh-kung in Zungharia, whose fundamental loyalties lay ultimately with China and the Chinese imperial order. Jointly Yacqub and Hsü attacked To-ming at Urumchi, but when Yacqub failed to appoint Hsü governor of the city after it had been taken, the alliance faltered, and Hsü withdrew his forces.

     

      In northwest China, the Ch'ing army finally forced Ma Hua-lung to surrender in 1871, executing both him and his son. Ma's body is buried on the east bank of the Yellow River, near Chin-chi-p'u, and his head is entombed in Hsüan-hua-kang, just north of Chang-chia-ch'uan in south Kansu. Having defeated the strongest of the Hui leaders, the Ch'ing forces gradually moved on against the others, some of whom spread into Mongolia, attacked Khobdo, raided the Ordos, and drove northwards until they were at last contained. It was not until 1873 that the imperial army was able to quell the last traces of revolt in northwest China, forcing Pal Yen-hu, the last of the Muslim leaders, to retreat to Sinkiang.

     

      With To-ming destroyed, the main Muslim area in Sinkiang still outside Yacqub's control was Ili, where MuCazzam Dhat had been succeeded by Abu 'l-Oghlan, known as Acla Khan, self-styled "sultan" of a Muslim realm centered at Kulja. The Ili Muslims had successfully resisted Yacqub's pressure, but in 1871 the Russians invaded Ili and placed the region under Russian military administration. In 1874 the Ch'ing military forces began their reconquest effort in Sinkiang. Russia and Britain considered propping up Yacqub Beg's regime but decided against it. Token support from the Ottoman empire had little effect.

     

      The Ch'ing army completed its conquest of Altishahr in 1877 with the help of Yacqub Beg's death, by suicide or assassination, earlier that same year. The followers of yacqub Beg's son Beg Quli Beg and the army of the fugitive Hui leader Pal Yen-hu escaped into Russian territory, where they were granted asylum. After a lengthy period of negotiations the Ch'ing managed to get the Russian government to withdraw from most of Ili in 1882, at which time much of the Ili valley’s Muslim population, in fear of Ch'ing persecution, emigrated into Russian territory alongside the withdrawing Russian occupation forces. Added to the emigrants who had fled to the Kokand Khanate (now annexed by Russia), the new emigrants of 1882 swelled the Hui communities of Russia; their descendants now make up the Dungan (Tungan) and Uighur (Taranchi and East Turkestani) nationalities of the U.S.S.R. In Russian Turkestan a descendant of Khoja Afaq named Hakim Khan continued to represent the Makhdumzada line. Beg Quli' Beg drew a Russian pension in Ferghana and Continued to call himself king of Kashgar. Abfl 'l-Oghlan settled in Verny, where the Russian government provided him with farmlands and an annual pension.

     

      Ch'ing suppression of the jihads cost huge numbers of Muslim lives. The army took bloody reprisals against Muslims who were considered guilty of rebellion, and in China proper relations between Hui and Han (non-Muslims), which had been deteriorating since the late eighteenth century, were now so hostile in the aftermath of the failed jihad that the Ch'ing authorities decided on segregation as the only practicable solution. Massacre of the Hui population was not an option open to the government, and Peking even avoided proscription of the Jahriyya on an empire-wide scale, although the regional authorities in the northwest did proscribe this branch of the Naqshbandiyya in Shensi and Kansu and encouraged the schooling of Muslims in traditional Chinese learning so as to promote assimilation. Shensi Muslims who had fled to Kansu during the reconquest were forbidden to return, and their farmlands were distributed to non-Muslims. New development projects in less fertile Kansu were undertaken to accommodate the refugee Muslim population. Many Muslims of Chin-chi-p'u, Hsi-ning, and Su-chou were ordered to be moved to the P'ingliang, Hua-p'ing, An-ting, and Lan-chou areas, although this measure did not prove to be lastingly effective. To control Sinkiang more tightly, the Ch'ing government abolished its earlier system of Muslim administration and in 1884 reorganized the entire territory as a province.

      后记

     

      对于19世纪80年代以后的纳格什班底耶进行系统化的研究工作尚待进行。清朝的再次征服并没有消灭该神秘主义道路在新疆的各个分支。在中国西北,哲赫忍耶虽然受因清政府的镇压而惨遭重创,但是继续有人追随,不过她又分裂成几个相互竞争的派系。马化龙的全家几乎全部被杀,只有一个女儿和一个儿子存活了下来。(译者注:应当是孙女和孙子。马化龙的儿女中无人幸免于难)这个女儿逃出甘肃,在云南住了一段时间,和一个叫做马元章的回族成婚(1855—1920)。马元章虽然也姓马,但是亲戚,是她父亲的学生。马元章毫无疑问因为这次婚姻而坚强了他的特殊地位。他后来返回甘肃,在金积堡附近的沙沟落脚,在他的弟弟马元超的帮助下开始联络分散的哲赫忍耶教众。他成功地使自己成为普遍认可的教权继承人,和远在云南、喀什噶尔等地的哲赫忍耶教众建立了联系。1912年秋天,清朝灭亡后哲赫忍耶终于可以公开而又正常地生活了。所以可能是从这个时候起他们可以公开地戴自己独特的两角白帽,这种白帽代表者西北哲赫忍耶的身份。

     

      在马元章的领导下,哲赫忍耶重新发展壮大,但是1918年,马化龙的一个孙子,名叫马进西宣布自己为教主,挑战马元章的地位。马进西的父亲(马化龙的儿子)有两个儿子。大儿子中文名字不详,死后被葬于满洲里。小儿子就是马进西,1880年前后出生,在甘肃省的张家川被抚养大,隐名埋姓一段时间以后他来到了宁夏的金积堡,并在那里和马元章争夺教权。他为自己建立了一个中心,称作板桥。

     

      马元章两年后逝世于1920年的大地震,被葬于宣化岗。但是马进西无法加强自己的控制,哲赫忍耶分裂为四派,由四个教主控制:板桥的马进西,宣花岗的马元超的三儿子马惠武(殁于1946年),龙山镇附近的马元超的六儿子马庭武,和沙沟马桥的马元章的四儿子马震武。1935年,马震武住在北平,身体状况欠佳。1940年,在和国民政府的官员会谈后他飞回甘肃。到20世纪50年代时,他已经成为哲赫忍耶的领导人,在河北,陕西,甘肃,宁夏,云南,新疆和吉林都有拥戴者。但是1958年,在共产主义政府下,马震武被冠以“极右分子”而加以攻击,他的“罪行”在穆斯林人民的批判大会上被揭发。

     

      有关马化龙时代和马化龙后时代的哲赫忍耶的记载显示,马明心的教门本真思想在19世纪的中期就已经消失了。据说马化龙在定居金积堡之前曾做过西向的旅行,但是从有关对他的传教的记述来看,其中有很多严重的自创内容。据说他不但显示奇迹、搞坟墓崇拜,而且自称先知,与穆罕默德相提并论。更有甚者说哲赫忍耶把什叶派看作自己的同派。一位基督教的传教士观察者说哲赫忍耶相信在他们第九辈大师的光阴里,耶稣将会返回人间。

     

      显示奇迹的说法无疑是正确的,除此之外,其他的种种说法都无法使人信服。官方的记述总是带有贬义和恶意,一些西方人士由于不懂行,将他们自己的理解掺杂到观察记录中,另外,很多传述者都是文盲。所有这些,都使得哲赫忍耶的教导看起来混乱不堪。哲赫忍耶的确为他们已故的教主们和大师们建造了坟墓,但是关于“坟墓崇拜”的说法尚待查证。就算马化龙和他的家人曾经说过他们是先知穆罕默德的后代,也没有理由可以推断说他们曾经宣布和先知平起平坐。至于和什叶派以及教义创新有关的说法,都是非常值得怀疑的。诚然,在纳格什班底耶的谱系中能够找到他们的位置这一事实,并不能够自动将正统的逊尼派思想传输到该派系的头脑中去,但是从该神秘主义道路的整个历史来看,其在中国的哲赫忍耶分支也不可能和世界上其他地方的纳格什班底耶有巨大的差异。

     

      中国汉人区还有一支明显属于纳格什班底耶的穆斯林群体,那就是位于甘肃省西南部的河州的马占鳌的追随者。有些记载上说马占鳌是一个哲赫忍耶的“皮尔”(pir, 大师),但他一般都被看作是“老教”的领导人。这里的“老教”是否指的是虎夫耶(阿发给耶的中国分支)尚不能确定,但是他们遵循的是“低念”,这就排除了他们追随高念道路的可能性。河州一直是中国的阿发给耶的活动中心。

     

      马占鳌和马化龙一样,都在1871年向清军投降,但是和马化龙不同的是他被赦免,并进入清政府的朝廷作官,与18世纪末虎夫耶派的穆斯林应征前去平定白莲教起义有着异曲同工之妙。马占鳌的儿子马安良是他的继承者,继续忠于清政府,甚至在清朝灭亡以后还有忠心。主要是处于地方政局的考虑,马安良曾经作为军事领导人加入过清王朝的复辟活动。1913年,马安良被迫退休到河州,死于1918年。他的继承者之一,凉州的马庭祥曾于1927年率军抗击国民党政府军。

     

      1948年,阿发给耶马五太爷一系的第七辈继承者(葬于河州城外的毕家场)依然在世,而甘肃省南部的临洮的阿发给耶一系的第十辈也是最后一辈继承者则于1890就已经逝世了。据说有一个该家庭之外的学生成为新的传人,而且据说在中东的一个阿拉伯国家的纳格什班底耶中心追随一位叫作赛义德•哈比卜•阿拉(Said Habib Allah)的人学习过。

     

      纳格什班底耶在1895—1896年的撒拉人起义中扮演了什么样的角色尚有待研究。但是该道路在撒拉人当中拥有很大的影响力,不可能没有介入。但是争端是否如官方文件所说的那样起于老教虎夫耶和新教哲赫忍耶的差异,尚不明朗。清政府的官员看上去是利用了老教和新教之间的争议对穆斯林进行了离间,而他们在对付汉人聚居区的政治运动时使用的伎俩则是贴“白莲教”的标签。

     

      云南和中国西南部的纳格什班底耶史亟待研究,而新疆被并作省以后,该地区的纳格什班底耶历史,也有待研究。这两部历史都要从外部影响和内部联系两个方面进行研究。纳格什班底耶可能是1900年以后泛伊斯兰主义的主要传播者,而新疆的回族纳格什班底耶的强大也是很明显的。中华民国政府对前往麦加朝觐的禁令的解除可能也产生了重要的效果。

     

      有关中华人民共和国治下的纳格什班底耶的记载很少,但是似乎可以有把握地说他们依然非常活跃。但是和白尼格森(Bennigsen)教授所记述的苏联境内高加索地区的嘎德忍耶和纳格什班底耶之间的兄弟般的关系相比,他们可能没有发挥那么大的作用。

     

     
     

     
      2005.5.翻译

     

     
     

     
      EPILOGUE

     

      Systematic research on the Naqshbandiyya in the period after the 1880s remains to be done. The Ch'ing reconquest did not destroy the mystical path's various branches in Sinkiang. In northwest China even the Jahriyya, battered though they were by the Ch'ing suppression, continued to attract followers, although the jahri branch diverged into several rival lines. Most of Ma Hua-lung's family were killed, but a daughter survived and perhaps also a son. The daughter, exiled from Kansu, lived in Yunnan for a time and there married another Hui exile named Ma Yüan-chang (post 1855-1920), a disciple of her father but no relative, despite his identical surname. Ma Yüan-chang, whose prestige was no doubt enhanced by his marriage, eventually returned to Kansu, established himself at Sha-kou near Chin-chi-p'u, and began reassembling the Jahriyya's scattered remnants with the aid of his brother, Ma Yüan-chao. He succeeded in making himself Ma Hua-lung's generally acknowledged successor, establishing communication with adherents of the Jahriyya who lived as far away as Yunnan and Kashgar. After the fall of the Ch'ing in 1912 the Jahriyya were at last able to come out in the open and live normally. So it is probably from this time that they began to wear in public their distinctive two-peaked white caps, by which it was possible to identical a northwestern Jahri.

     

      The Jahriyya thus reconstituted themselves under Ma Yüan-chang, but in 1918 a grandson of Ma Hua-lung named Ma Chin-his advanced his own claim to the grand mastership, challenging Ma Yüan-chang's position. Ma Chin-hsi's father (son of Ma Hua-lung) had two sons. The elder, whose Chinese name is not given in the available jahri sources, died and was buried in Manchuria. The younger, Ma Chin-his, born sometime around 1880, was reared in soothern Kansu at Chang-chia-ch'uan and after a period in obscurity moved to Chin-chi-pu near Ningsia, where he contested Ma Yüan-chang's leadership and established a center for himself called Pan-ch'iao.

     

      Ma Yüan-chang died two years later, in the great earthquake of 1920, and was buried at Hsüan-hua-kang, but Ma Chin-hsi was unable to consolidate his control, and the Jahriyya split apart under four rival grand masters: Ma Chin-hsi at Pan-ch'iao, Ma Yüan-chao's third son Ma Hui-wu (d. 1946) at Hsüan-hua-kang, Ma Yüan-chao's sixth son Ma Tien-wu at nearby Lung-shan-chen, and Ma Yüan- chang's fourth son Ma Chen-wu at Ma-ch'iao in Sha-kou. In 1935 Ma Chen-wu took up residence in Peiping, where he remained in ill health until 1940, when he flew back to Kansu after discussions with Nationalist officials in Chungking. By the 1950s he had emerged as the Jahriyya's leader, with followers in Hopei, Shensi, Kansu, Ningsia, Yunnan, Sinkiang, and Kirin. But in 1958, under the Communist government, Ma Chen-wu came under attack as an "ultra-rightist" and his "crimes" were exposed at a Muslim people's forum.

     

      Most descriptions of the Jahriyya at the time of Ma Hua-lung and after would seem to suggest that the fundamentalist element in Ma Ming-hsin's original message had disappeared by the middle of the nineteenth century. Ma Hua-lung is claimed to have traveled to the west before settling at Chin-chi-p'u, but his teaching has been described as containing serious innovations. It is said not only that he practiced wonder-working and "tomb worship" but also that he claimed to be a prophet and the equal of Muhammad. Moreover, the Jahriyya are represented as considering the ShiCa to be their "fellowship" group, and a Christian missionary observer reports their belief that with the ninth succession of the Jahri grand mastership in China, Jesus would return to earth.57

     

      Apart from the attribution of wonder-working, which is undoubtedly correct, none of this testimony is convincing. Unfriendly official (Ch'ing and People's Republic) descriptions, reports by untrained Westerners who have mixed their observations with their interpretations, and statements by illiterate believers have

     

      combined to present a confused picture of the Jahriyya's teachings. That the Jahriyya built tombs for their deceased grand masters is beyond question, but the existence of a "tomb cult" remains wholly unproved. While Ma Hua-lung and his family may possibly have claimed to be descendants of the prophet Mu.hammad, there is no reason to suppose that they claimed to be his equal. Sources and interpretations that suggest ShiCism or doctrinal innovation are all highly impeachable. Although initiation into the Naqshbandi silsila did not automatically convey Sunni orthodoxy into an initiate's mind, the total history of the mystical path makes it unlikely that its Jahri branch in China would have been vastly different from the Naqshbandiyya elsewhere in the world.

     

      Another Muslim group in China proper who evidently belonged to the Naqshbandiyya were the followers of Ma Chan-ao of Ho-chou in southwestern Kansu. Some accounts claim that Ma Chan-ao was a pir (grand master) of the Jahriyya,58 although he is generally identified as a leader of the "Old Teaching." Whether "Old Teaching" refers in this instance to the Khufiyya (the Afaqi branch in China) is not certain, but initiation in the "silent" path would not have ruled out the possibility of initiation into the "vocal" path also. Ho-chou was in any case the main center of the Afaqiyya in China.

     

      Ma Chan-ao, like Ma Hua-lung, had surrendered to the Ch'ing army in 1871, but unlike Ma Hua-lung, he was pardoned and enlisted into the Ch'ing administrative system, much as the Old Teaching (Khufiyya) Muslims had been enlisted to fight the White Lotus rebels at the end of the previous century. Ma Chan-ao's son and successor Ma An-liang remained loyal to the Ch'ing even after the dynasty's collapse, and, for reasons stemming mainly from local politics, Ma An-liang joined as a military leader in a restoration attempt for the Ch'ing empire. In 1913 he was orced to retire to Ho-chou, where he died in 1918. Ma T'ing-hsiang of Liang-chou,

     

      one of his successors, later fought against the Kuominchün army in 1927.

     

      In 1948 the seventh successor in the Afaqi line of Ma Wu T'ai-yeh (buried at Pi-chia-ch'ang outside Ho-chou) was still alive, and although the tenth and last successor of the Afaqi line at Lin-t'ao in south Kansu died in 1890, a disciple not belonging to the family seems to have preserved the initiatic chain and is last reported to have gone to study with a certain SaCid Habib Allah at a Naqshbandi center in one of the Arab countries of the Middle East.

     

      The role of the Naqshbandiyya in the Salar upheaval of 1895-1896 remains to be determined. The mystical path's strength among the Salars was such that Naqshbandis could not but have been involved, but whether the dispute arose, as official sources suggest, from differences between the Old (Khufiyya) and New

     

      (Jahriyya) Teachings is unclear. Ch'ing officials seem to have used the "Old/New Teaching" dichotomy for divisions among Muslims as loosely as they used the label "White Lotus" to categorize political movements arising from Chinese popular religion.

     

      The history of the Naqshbandiyya in Yunnan and southwest China particularly needs study, as does the path's history in Sinkiang after the territory's reorganization as a province, both from the standpoint of outside influences and with regard to interconnections within China. The Naqshbandiyya were probably among the main conveyors of pan-Islamism after about 1900, and the number of

     

      Tungan (Hui) Naqshbandis in Sinkiang was clearly very great. The lifting of the ban on pilgrimages to Mecca under the Republic of China must also have had important effects.

     

      Of the state of the Naqshbandiyya in the People's Republic of China today little is known, but it seems safe to assume that the mystical path is still quite alive. It may play a role not unlike the one that Prof. Bennigsen has described in his chapter on the Qadiri and Naqshbandi brotherhoods in the Caucasus region of the U.S.S.R.

     

     
     

     

     

     
      INDEX

     

      The articles in this collection do not all use the same transcription system. Where the same name or term has been given two or more spellings in the text, we have cross-referenced them. Otherwise, names are entered in the index only as they appear in the text. Translations of terms and titles are likewise reproduced as found. Where the translation reproduces the literal sense of words, rather than the meaning or usage of the term as a whole, quotation marks are used. Dates and identification of individuals are likewise provided from the articles themselves, where possible, and for this reason usage varies somewhat from entry to entry. In accordance with Variorum policy, we have not indexed names and works of modern scholars.

     

      Abbrevations

     

      Ar. Arabic

     

      Ch. Chinese

     

      Ma. Manchu

     

      Mo. Mongolian

     

      Ott. Ottoman Turkish

     

      Pe. Persian

     

      Ru. Russian

     

      Tu. Turkic

     

     
      Notes:

     

      1. This point of view is represented by C. P. Dabry de Thiersant, Le Mahomdtisme en Chine et dans Ie Turkestan orientale, 2 vols. (Paris, 1878); Marshall Broomhall, Islam in China: A Neglected Problem (London, 1910); and, most recently, Raphael Israeli, Muslims in China: A Study in Cultural Confrontation ( London and Atlantic Highlands, 1978).

     

     
     

     
      2. Joseph Fletcher, "Confrontations between Muslim missionaries and nomad unbelievers in the late 16th century: Notes on four passages from the 'Diya' al-qulub,' " Tractata Altaica, ed. by W. Heissig (Wiesbaden.1976), pp.167- 174.

     

     
     

     
      3 Sometime in about the early eighteenth century, the Ishaqiyya came to be known as the Qarataghliq (Black Mountain) faction, evidently because of the Ishiqiyya's strength among the Kirghiz in the Qarataq (Pamirs). For the sake of contrast, the Afaqiyya came to be known as the Aqtaghliq (White Mountain) faction—Aqtagh being the name of a mountain north of Artish in the T'ien Shan,

     

      where the Affaqiyya enjoyed support among the Kirghiz population.

     

      Another, probably later, tradition has it that the second element in these two names was not the Turki word tagh, "mountain," but a word of Arabic etymology, tagi, which denotes the distinguishing "mitres" worn by the shaykhs of different mystical paths, so that the designations were "Black Mitre" and "White Mitre." This explanation is less likely than the one involving mountains, but see Joseph Fletcher, "The Naqshbandiyya and the dhikr-i-arra," Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 1 (1977), pp. 117-118, where it is established that the Makhdum-i Azam did in fact wear such a mitre. See also the 'Addenda et corrigenda" to the above article, which the printer has badly garbled, in Journal of Turkish Studies, Vol. 2 (1978), p. 168.

     

      What could be an echo of this idea is to be found in Chinese official sources, which distinguish between White Hat Muslims (Po-mao Hui-tzu) and Black Hat Muslims (Hei-mao Hui-tzu), but examination of the sources reveals that these Chinese designations cannot be correlated with the distinction between the Afiqiyya and Ishaqiyya in Altishahr. The Chinese usage involving "hats" may well

     

      be patterned also on a similar Chinese usage for distinguishing Buddhist orders in Tibet. Nineteenth century Chinese material speaks of the Hei-shan p'ai (Black Mountain faction) and the Po-shan p'ai (White Mountain faction). Traditional Chinese historical writing refers to the Abbasids as the Hei-i Ta-shi. (Black-clad Arabs) and to the Umayyads as the Po-i Ta-shih (White-clad Arabs).

     

      4. See, e.g., Muhammad Iwad., "Diya al-qulub" (MS, Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library, uncatalogued), fols. 118v- 119v.

     

      5. See Nakada Yoshinobu, Kaikai minzoku no shornondai (Tokyo: Ajia Keizai Kenkyusho, 1971), pp. 13-14. The transcription of Tungan as 'Tung-kuang" is attested in Tao Pao-lien, Hsin-rnao shih-hsing chi (preface 1895; reprinted Taipei, 1957), 6:8v10. Marshall Broomhall, Islam in China, pp. xvi and 147, has given wide currency to an etymology derived from the Turkish don-/Chaghatay *tong-, meaning "to be converted." But how early and where is the Chaghatay form attested? The use of the adjectival i in the form "Tungani' would seem to indicate that "Tungan" is no longer felt as a participial form from as early as the seventeenth century. The Russian form Dungan and the Chinese transcription Tung-kan (i.e., thet/d alternation) also need to be explained.

     

      6. For Wafanib Akhund, see the anonymous hagiographical work, in Turkish, written at the request of Mulla Miraza Muhammad Islam b. Ali Akhund by Hakim Jan in 1919, entitled, "Hadrat Sayyid Afaq Khwajam-ning TSRH-lari" (MS, Lunds Universitets-bibliotek, uncatalogued gift of Gunnar Jarring), fol. 14v. For Mulla Yusuf Akhund, see Ibn Ali Khwaja Akhund, "Siyar al-mukhlisin,' in Persian, completed post-1725 (on fol. 195v the date A.H. i283 = A.D 1866/7 appears, being either the date of the copy by Mulla Ismail b. Qutlugh Muhammad Kashghari or perhaps the date of Ibn Ali Khwaja Akhund 's recasting and supplementation of an earlier work; MS, Berkeley, CA, University of California, General Library, no. PK 6419.A282J2), fol. 34r, where the Hui scholars are referred to as the 'ulama-yi Tunganiyyan. Similarities between the account of Muhammad Yusuf in the Lund MS and the account of Khoja Afaq in Ibn Ali, "Siyar," raise the possibility that both may derive from a single account either about Muhammad Yusuf or about Khoja Afaq, that has later been duplicated' with reference to the son or the father.

     

      7. Lund MS, fols. 16r-17r.

     

      8. Joseph Trippner established Hidayat Allah's importance for China but does not identify him in his Islarmsche Gruppen und Graberkult in Nordwest-China," Die Welt des lslams, N.S., Vol. 7 (1961), pp.142-171 (see pp 148-153, 157-158), or his "Die Salaren, ihre ersten Glaubensstreitigkeiion und ihr Aufstand 1781" central Asiatic….

     

      9. For the epithet, see, e.g., Muhammad Tawadu, As-Sin wa 'l-Islam (Cairo, 1945), p. 117.

     

      10. Literally, "door" (i.e., "house" or "family”--in other words, "hereditary") "officialdom." The term, which is purely Chinese, is registered in Chang Ch'i-yun et al, comp., Chung wen ta-tz'u-tien, vol. 35 (Taipei, 1968), p. 103b (15223).

     

      11. Lund MS, fols. 39r-40r. Ibn Ali, "Siyar," fol 35r, gives the Altun bash Akhund's name as Wiqiyat Allih. The Lund MS, fol 40r, has FAYT Allah, which must reflect a copyist's error.

     

      12. See the accounts of Ma Tzu-k'uo and others cited by Trippner in his "Islamische Gruppen" and "Die Salaren," which form the basis of the following narration.

     

      13. Makhdum Muhammad Hashim (d. 1760), a Naqshbandi teacher of Thatta in Sind, would seem to have been too young to have been Ma Lai-ch'ih's Mawlana Makhdum, although he is an attractive choice because of his vigorous preaching against "dancing" and the emotional side of religion. He promoted instead the more sober mystical piety that is commonly associated with the Naqshbandiyya.

     

      Such an emphasis would be fully in keeping with the position of Ma Lai-ch'ih's followers in China during the latter half of the eighteenth century in their dispute with the followers of Ma Ming-hsin, to be discussed below. For Makhdum Muhammad Hashim, see Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill,1975), p. 397.

     

      14. Nakada, Kaikai, p. 97.

     

      15. Editor's Note: Prof. Fletcher's source is not clear in the manuscript.

     

      16. Pai Shou-i, Hui-hui min-tsu ti hsin-sheng (Shanghai, 1951), p. 51.

     

      17. An imperial edict of June 20, 1747, to the Grand Council, based on information received from the local authorities, defined Ming-sha-le as meaning, in Chinese, "scriptural extract(s)' (ching chieh-shu). See Ta-Ch'ing Kao-tsung (Ch'ien-lung) Huang-ti shih-lu, 290:24v (Taipei, 1964 edition, Vol. 6, p. 4222). Trippner, "Die Salaren," p. 263, basing himself on twentieth-century Chinese information, describes the Ming-sha-le as "einen kurzen Auszug aus dem Koran." Nakada Yoshinobu, "Chugoku Kaimin shakai kakuju ni tsuite no ikktsatsu," in Enoki Hakushi kanreki kinen Toyoshi ronso (Tokyo, 1975), p. 400, n.25, gives the reading Ming-sha-le, but this is not to be found in either of the two shih-lu passage that Nakada cites.

     

      18. Not to be confused with the "Ashiccat al-lama'at," in Persian by cAlxt al-Haqq Miskin Dihlawi (d. 1642), which is a commentary on the Mishkat al-Masabih. (1336) of Muhammad b. CAd Allah al-Khatib at-Tabrizi Wali ad-Din (d. 1342), an edition of the highly popular collection of hadith traditions arranged according to subject

     

      matter by Abu Muhammad al-Husayn al-Baghawi (d. 1122 or 1117), entitled Masbih as-sunna. Nor can one rule out Dihlawi's "Ashiccat al-lama'at."

     

      19. Ma Tzu-k'uo, in Trippner, "Islamische Gruppen," pp. 154-155.

     

      20. Trippner, "Die Salaren," p. 263, speaks of "Gebete" (prayers), but the lengthy recitations would seem to refer to tajwid.

     

      21. Impoverishment of the people by elaborate funerals had long been an issue for the Chinese state. See Hsiao Kung-ch'uan, A History of Chinese Political Thought (Princeton,1978), p. 66.

     

      22. Nakada, Kaikai.p.88

     

      23. Trippner, "Die Salaren," p. 264, n. 64, questions whether the Han Ha-chi of 1731 and the Han Ha-chi of 1747-1748 are the same man (both "Han" and "Ha-chi" are common names in the Hstin-hua district). Nakada, Kaikai, p. 81, says that Han Ha-chi's family had been tsung-chang-chiao Of the Salars for generations.

     

      24. See Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Garden City: Doubleday/Anchor, 1968), chapter 12, "Pre-Modernist Reform Movements," pp 237- 260.

     

      25. See John Voll, "Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi and Muhammad ibn cAbd al-Wahhab: An analysis of an intellectual group in eighteenth century Madina, " Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol 38, no. 1 (1975), pp. 32-39.

     

      26. Al-Kurani wrote a treatise on the vocal dhikr, entitled "Ithaf al-munib al-awwah bi-fadl, al-jahr bi-dhikr Allah," mentioned in his biography in Muhammad b. Ali ash-Shawkani, Al-badr at-talic bi-mahasin man bacd al-qarn as-sabic (Cairo: Matba'at as Sa’ada, 1929/30), Vol. 1, p. 12.

     

      27. See his biography in Muhammad al-Arian al-Muhibbi, Khuldsar al-athar fi acyfin al-qarn al-hadi cashar (Cairo, 1868, reprinted Beirut), Vol. 1, pp. 464-470, and the translation in Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Die Cufiten in Südambien im Xl (XVII) Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1883).

     

      28. Ahmad b. Muhammad Qatin, "Tuhfat al-ikhwan bi sanad sayyid walad cAdnan," MS Maktabat al-Imam Yahya, Sanca, North Yemen, #19 Mustalih (microfilm, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Cairo, #303), folio 100r.

     

      29. Muhibbi, Vol.2,p.283

     

      30.Qatin, fol.133r

     

      31. The name of an-Nakhli's Naqshbandi initiator was Sayyid Mir Kulal b. Mahmud al-Balkhi. See Muhammad Khan al-Muradi, Silk al-durar fi acyan al-qarn ath-thani Cashar, Vol. 1, p. 172. See also the description of the initiation ceremony in cAbd al-Rahman b. Sulayman al-Ahdal, Al-Nafas al-Yamani fi ijazat Bani'l Shawkani,

     

      MS, al-Maktaba 's-Sacdiyya, Tonk, Rajasthan #39 hadith (microfilm, Arab League, Machad al-Makhtutat, #1293, ta'rikh), p.40.

     

      32. Qatin, fol. 100r.

     

      33. See Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Literatur

     

      (Leiden, 1943-1949), Supplementband II, p. 537.

     

      34. In this connection, see Hamid Algar, "Silent and vocal dhikr in the Naqshbandi order," in Akten des VII. Kongresses für Arabistik und Islamwissenschaft (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, series 3, no. 98; Göttingen, 1976), pp. 44-45, who attributes, in part, the Naqshbandi use of vocal dhikr to "the practice of simultaneous affiliation to a number of different sufi orders." He instances Yasawi

     

      and Kubrawi affiliations, but says that Qadiri affiliations were more common. Algar hastens to add, however, that the Naqshbandiyya also have the vocal dhikr in their own right through a secondary line of spiritual descendant……

     

      35. Hasan b. cAli al-Ujaymi, "Khabaya 'z-zawaya" (MS, Cairo, Dar al-Kutub, no. 2410, tarikh), fol. 82v. The same passage establishes that Muhammad cAbd al-Baqi was "born after the millenium," i.e., after December 19, 1591. Yusuf al-jawi is the same as Shaykh Yusuf, mentioned in G.W.J. Drewes, "Indonesia: Mysticism and

     

      activism," in G.E. yon Grunebaum, ed., Unity and Variety in Muslim Civilization (Chicago, 1955), pp. 290-291.

     

      36. One of al-Kurani's students, Mustafa b. Fath Allah al-Hamawi (d.1705 or 1706) wrote a book entitled, "Fawa'id al-irtihal wa nata'ij as-safar fi akhbar ahl al-qarn al-hadi cashar" (MS, Cairo, Dar al-Kutub, no. 1093 ta'rikh), in which he speaks of al-Kurani's relations with his pupils from Southeast Asia.

     

      37. So his name is given in Tawaduc, As-.Sin, p. 115. F. Grenard, "Le Turkestan et le Tibet: Etude ethnographique et sociologique," in J. L. Dutreuil de Rhins, Mission scientifique dans la Haute Asie, 1890-1895, part 2 (Paris, 1898), p. 458, reports that his name was Muhammad Amen. Official Ch'ing dynasty sources refer to him as Ma Ming-hsin. For the Chinese year chi-hai (1719) as the date of his birth, see Nakada, guikai, p. 83, who draws on testimony from the Japanese Muslim Kawamura Kyodo, published in 1927.

     

      38. Both "cAziz of Ho-chou," as in Shan Hua-p'u, "Shah Kan chieh-yü lu," Yü-kung, Vol. 5, no. 11 (Aug. 1, 1936), pp. 98-99, reprinted in Pai shou-i, comp., Hui-min ch'i-i (Shanghai, 1953), Vol. 4, pp. 310-311, and "cAziz of Kuan-chu’an” as in the account by Ma Tzu –kuo, published in 1949, cited by Tripper, “ Islamic Gruppen,”p.163……

     

      Ma Tzu-k'uo has A-chi-tzu, which Trippner misconstrues as a transcription of hajji. Saguchi Toru, Juhachi-jukyu seiki Higashi Torukisutan shakaishi kenkyu (Tokyo, 1963), p. 572, reconstructs Erh-tse-tzu as cAziz, an identification which had been established earlier by Muhammad Tawaduc (a Chinese Muslim writing in Arabic), As-Sin, p. 116.

     

      39. Muhammad Tawuduc, As-Sin, p. 115, where the term for "companion" is zamil, and Tang Chien-yu, "The Four Men Huans," tr. Claude L. Pickens, Jr., Friends of Moslems, Vol. 16, no. 1 (Jan. 12, 1942), p. 5. Tang's Chinese text is not available to me. Assuming that the year of Ma Ming-hsin's birth was 1719 (see n. 36 above),

     

      Ma Tzu-k'uo, as cited in Trippner, "Islamische Gruppen," p. 155, must be in error when he places Ma Lai-ch'ih back in China as early as 1705.

     

      40. According to A.A. Semënov, ed., Sobranie vostochnykh rukopisei Akademii Nauk Uzbekskoi SSR, Vol. 3 (Tashkent, 1955), pp. 361-362, a mystical path called "Jahriyya" is represented as being separate from the Yasawiyya in MS no. 2686. I have not been able to consult this manuscript, but it may well contain evidence relevant to the relationship between Ma Ming-hsin's "Jahriyya" in China and

     

      the jahri Naqshbandis of the Yemen.

     

      41. Sun Yu-chen, "A glance at the Ningsia center of the Jeheriya" (Feb. 15, 1936), tr. C.L. Pickens, Jr., in the latter's private notebook On "Sects."

     

      42. Kawamura Kyodo (1927), cited in Nakada, Kaikai, p. 83. Az-Zayn's name is transcribed (into Japanese from Chinese) Tsaini, and his title in Chinese is recorded to have been tao-chang (literally, the elder of the path," i.e., master of the path). The term tao-t'ang (literally, "meeting hall of the path") surely refers to a zawiya.

     

      Saguchi, Juhachi-jukyu seiki, p. 578. also equates tao-t'ang with zawiya. Muhanmmd Tawaduc, As-Sin, p. 115, says that Ma Ming-hsin "visited the Yemen and obtained the Sufi path (at-tariqa 's-sufiyya) there."

     

      43. Qatin, "Tuhfat al-ikhwan," fol. 100v, says that az-Zayn died "at the beginning of the year A.H, 1138,” the first day of which was Sept. 9, 1725.

     

      44. Tang, “The Four Men Huans,” p. 5.

     

      45. See Joseph Fletcher, "The Taylor-Pickens Letters on the Jahri Branch of the Naqshbandiyya in China," Central and Inner Asian Studies 3 (1989), 1-35. For uwaysi, see the Teheran edition of Fakhr ad-Din cAli K~shifi, Rashat-i cayn al-hayat, ed. by cAli Asghar Muciniyan (Tehran, 2536/1977). The first names on the list are obviously not part of the silsila but reflect earlier renowned Sufis. Perhaps "Uways" is a heading, that is, the early list is connected "in the uwaysi fashion."

     

      46. See Qatin, fol. 96v. The precise types of dhikr that az-Zayn taught are not specified in any of the sources that I have read beyond the fact that az-Zayn's dhikr was "according to the Naqshbandi mystical path"--see, e.g., Muhammad Zabara, Nashr al-carfli-nubata' al-Yaman bacd al-alf, Vol. 1 (Cairo, 1940), p. 287.

     

      47. Qatin, fol. 95v. According to testimony cited by al-Ahdal in his "'An-nafas al-Yamami,' p. 22, Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi gave cAbd al-Khaliq an authorization to teach his treatise on hadith entitled, "Al-wajaza fi 'l-ijaza li-kutub al-hadith ma' bacd al-ahadith al-mumtaza.'

     

      48. In fact, in the years following cAbd al-Khaliq's death there seems to have been a noteworthy openness to new forms of dhikr among the Zabid Naqshbandis. cAbd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, cAja’ib al-athar fi al-tarajim wa 'l-akhbar, ed. by Muhammad Qasim (Bulaq, 1880), Vol. 2, p. 89, makes it plain that when the Khalwati traveler cAli b. cUmar al-Qinawi (d. 1784) visited Zabid, the shaykhs there were interested in hearing about his brand of mysticism and even joined nwith him in a dhikr circle in which he taught them adh-dhikr al-jahri in accordance with his own mystical path, the Khalwatiyya. See also Ahdal, "An-nafas al-Yamani," p. 68.

     

      49. He taught both, for example, to Ahmed ibn Qatin. See Qatin fol

     

      50. Ma Ming-hsin may have returned to China earlier, going first to Yunnan in the company of an older teacher called Pan Ting Yeh, according to testimony of a certain Ting A-hung at Chin-chi-p'u on June 2, 1936, recorded by Claude L. Pickens, Jr., in his account entitled, "In Search of Muslims in China April 30th to July 2nd

     

      1936" (typescrit), p.27. Pan Ting Yeh could be the Ma Lao-ien-jia.

     

      51. But see Joseph Fletcher, "The Naqshbandiyya and the dkikr-I arra”.

     

      52. Butt the raising of orphans as Muslims is not “adoption’ per se.

     

      53. Shan Hua-p'u, p. 99 (top).

     

      54. W. L. Bales, Tso Tsung-t'ang: Soldier and Statesman of Old China (Shanghai, 1937), p. 217, implies that this could have been Su Ssu-shih-san.

     

      55. His name is, interestingly, also given as Ma Ming-hsin in the Jahri initiatic chain as recorded by Taylor and Street. Pickens himself, who visited the grave in Hung-lo-fu, was told thar Ma Hua-lung's father was Ma Ming-hsin (recorded as such by caption in Picken’s photographic album).

     

      56. Given as "Ma Hsiao-jen" (which represents the local dialect) in Pickens, "In Search." P.26( May 31, 1936). See also C.L. Pickens, Jr. "News from the Field Hung Lo Fu, Ningsia," Friends of Moslems, Vol. 17, no.1(…… p.52, where the name is Ma Hsiu-ien.

     

      57. Martin Taylor's letter to CL. Pickens, Jr., of Sept. 15, 1935, transcribed in Pickens' notes on sects.


共有 31810 位读者阅读过此文

您可能会感兴趣的书籍
·Omar Khayyam 译者: Edward Fitzgerald / 黃克孫.鲁拜集The Rubaiyat.台湾書林出版,1987
·伊德里斯?筛海 辑 孟祥森 选译.苏菲之路.内部,1989
·张鸿年译.鲁拜集.台湾木马文化,2002
·安萨里·贾米·鲁米著/康有玺译.苏菲四书.香港基石出版有限公司,2007
·伊玛目·兰巴尼 著 哈三?马鸿章 译.麦克图巴特·书信集(两册).香港天马出版社,2005
同类文献
[1] 蔡宗德.印尼伊斯兰教密契主义及其传统音乐之间的互动:以中爪哇宫廷为例.宗教研究期刊(台湾),2003
[2] 王涛.伊斯兰神秘主义苏非派的信仰特质.,2005
   
| 设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 网站缘起 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | English |
中文伊斯兰学术城: Copyright @2002-2003 www.islambook.net, All Rights Reserved .
边缘山人工作室制作