TWO LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJA TO THE KHALIFAH

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the conquest the Arabs had parcelled out the vast territories among several local chiefs, and had kept only the central control in their hands. However, as al-Sind (the Indus Valley, in its broader sense, almost comprising the territory that is now West Pakistan) and al- Hind (the rest of the Indian continent including the "Indian" Archipelago) are geographically contiguous and culturally close to each other (at the period under discussion the Indian Archipelago was ruled by the Indian colonisers), they were sometimes confused with each other in Arabic writings. It may, therefore, be surmised that when al-Bal%&uri talked of the "other kings" he meant to include not only the chiefs of the Indus Valley but als3 the remoter eastern monarchs among whom must be our Malaysian Maharajs, whose letter was quoted by al-Balii&urils senior contemporary, Nu'aym b. Hamm~d. But there is another hitch in such a surmise. Ibn al- Abirz7 (555j1160--630i1233) and Ibn Taghri-BerdiZ8 have recorded this incident in the same words as those of al-Bal%&uri, but with the important addition that they have placed it in the year of the Hijrah 101, while as we already know the Malaysian Maharsjs had accepted Islam in A.H. 99. However, the conversion of Jay Siva and other eastern kings as reported by al-Baldhurl, Ibn al-Athir, and Ibn Ta&ri-Berdi, and of the Malaysian Maharsija as demonstrated by the document under discussion, emphasise the thoroughness with which the pious Caliph pursued his policy of proselytization. But how is it that the process of Islamization that got started in South and Southeast Asia so early as at the turn of the first century of the Hijrah seems to have petered out without leaving any visible trace behind? It is a complex problem and at the same time vital for the clear understanding of the history of Islam in the regions of the Indian Ocean, i.e. Pakistan, India-Bharat. Indonesia and Malaya. At the moment we can only raise the question and at the most give very broad hints on the lines of which, we feel. further investigation can be pursued. The immediate reason for this setback must be sought in the reversal of 'Umar's policy by his successxs and their resumption of their old ways with renewed vigour. In the case of Jay Siva al- Bal~dhuri and Ibn al-Athir state that during the reign of Hidam (1051724-1251743). in the year of the Hijrah 107, the local Arab governor, al-Junayd b. 'Abd al-Rahmzn, betrayed him and broke the solemn pledges given by 'Umar 11. Jay Siva was disgusted, he
TWO LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJA TO THE KHALfFAH 131 denounced Islam, fought against al-Junayd and was killed in the. battle.29 The fate of the other faithful monarchs of the East is not recorded by any Arab historian. However, their silence is itself quite eloquent. Neglected and betrayed by their disdainful coreligionists and isolated and removed from the centres of Islam by natural factors, they were lost to Islam. These events clearly show that the propagation of the Faith cannot be the business of the State. for. it (State) is mainly a coercive force. it cannot convert the people's mind. 'Umar's short reign was the exception that proved the general rule. It is also evident that pr~sel~tization is a hard job demanding the harnessing of specialised skills, supreme determination, devotion and dedication to a single mission in life, that of redeeming a "lost soul". To expect all this from an average soldier or saiIor, statesman, or salesman, is asking too much from him. It is the work of a missionary, a muballi&. In the history of Islam there were two powerful, efficiently organised, and highly successful missionary movements : the 'Alid da'wah and the Siifi tarZqah. For the mass conversion to Islam al-Sind and al-Hind had to wait for the maturing of these movements in their area. In due course of time first the 'Alid daswah and then the Safi tariqah played their proselytizing r61e in the whole region of the Indian O ~ean.~ The form of address used in the two letters, which appears to have evoked the special interest of the Arab writers. is typical of the epistolary style of the Malaysian monarchs. It reminds us of the letters written by the powerful rulers of Acheh in North Sumatra to Queen Elizabeth I and to King James 11. As the power of these Malaysian kings shrank, the claims made by them in these introductory parts of their letters grew, till by the nineteenth century these used to run into several pages ! The verbosity. bom- bast and pagan exaggeration of these royal letters have been condemned by the English historian of Sumatra in these, rather exaggerated, terms, "It is difficult to conceive how any people so far - advanced in civilization as to be able to mite. could display such evidence of barbari~m."~~ But in the present case this rather naive epistolary style is likely to prove helpful to the students of history. Let us, therefore, have a second look at these letters and try to analyse some of their
Page 1 and 2: Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 2:1 (19
Page 3 and 4: TWO LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJA TO TH
Page 9: TWO LETTERS PROM THE MAHARAJA TO TH
Page 13 and 14: TWO LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJAH TO T
Page 17 and 18: LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJA TO THE -

TWO LETTERS FROM THE MAHARAJA TO THE KHALIFAH

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?