Author's note: This article is based on my doctoral dissertation, Die politische und soziale Bedeutung der Naqšandiyya in Mittelasien im 15. Jahrhundert (Hamburg, 1989), to be published in Beihefte zu Der Islam. An abridged version was presented at the symposium, “Timurid and Turkmen Societies in Transition: Iran in the Fifteenth Century,” MESA Annual Meeting, Toronto, November 1989. I wish to thank Audrey Burton for her support.

¹ Roy, Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar

² Claude, Cahen, “Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l'Asie musulmane du Moyen Age,” Arabica, 5 (1958), 225–50; 6 (1959), 23–56, and 233–65;Google Scholaridem, “Notes pour l'histoire de la ḥhimāya,” in Mé;langes Massignon (Damascus, 1956), pp. 287–303.Google Scholar The patronage of artists has been treated for the period in question by Maria, Eva Subtelny, “Alishir Nava'i: bakhshi and beg,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3–4 (1979—1980), 797–807;Google Scholar“Arts and Politics in Early 16th-Century Central Asia,” Central Asiatic Journal, 27 (1983), 121–48; “Socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the Later Timurids,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 20,4 (1988), 479–505;Google ScholarJean, Aubin, “Le mé;cé;nat timouride a Chiraz,” Studia islamica, 8 (1957), 71–88.Google Scholar

³ Khwaja Ahrar (1404—90) is the subject of a relatively large number of scholarly works. For a bibliography, see the article “Ahrar” in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (J. M. Rogers). Further study on Khwaja Ahrar has been done by Jo-Ann Gross, The Economic Status of a Timurid Sufi Shaykh: A Matter of Conflict or Perception,” Iranian Studies 21 (1988), 84–104, which has ample bibliographical references. Further mention should be made of her doctoral dissertation and of the article by Boldyrev, both cited n. 35.

⁴ Cf. the articles quoted in n. 2.

⁵ Rashiduddin Abu⊂-Khair, ed.Jahn, K., Geschichte Ġāzān Ḫāns aus dem Ta'riḫ-i Mubārak-i Ġazāni (GMS N.S. 14) (London, 1940), pp. 260, 344;Google Scholar cited hereafter as Rashiduddin/Jahn. Cf. also Bartol'd, V. V., “Persidskaya nadpis' na stene aniyskoy mecheti Manuche,” Sochineniya, vol. 4 (Moscow/Leningrad, 1966), p. 326.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. the evaluation of Ghazan Khan's reforms by Petrushevskiy, I. P., Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniya v Irane v XIII-XIV vv. (Moscow/Leningrad, 1960); an abridged version is “The Socio-economic Condition of Iran under the llkhans,” in Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 483–537.Google Scholar

⁷ Ba-ham-rāhī mushār ilaihi hazāra-yi madhkūra taḥqiq karda az dūd va nafar va jarīb va gāw va tarkhānī va ḥimāyati va ghairihi ham-rā chunān sāzad ki yak barra va yak būz-rā furū-gudhasht nakunad. Egani, Cf. A. and Chekhovich, O. D., “Regesty sredneaziatskikh aktov,” Pis'mennye pamyatniki vostoka. Ezhegodnik, 1974 [publ. Moscow, 1981], doe. 7 (1566).Google Scholar

⁸ Maktūbāt va asnād, ms. Leningrad IVAN SSSR A 210, fols. 37b, 59b.

⁹ Ivanov, P. P., Khozyaystvo dzhuybarskikh sheykhov (Moscow/Leningrad, 1954), p. 74, quoting Maḍlab al-ḍālibin. In my copy of this hagiographic source (ms. Berlin Orient Oct. 1540), 1 have not found this passage, but I did find a reference to 25,000 nomads “belonging to” one of the Juybari shaykhs (fol. 110a). Quite a few stories in this book are about ḥimāyat offered by the Juybari shaykhs, and some of them refer to exemptio0n from taxes: fols. 109a. 117a. 140b. Another story mentions that someone called Kök-Göz Bakawul nīz ma^ca jamā^ca dar gill-i ḥimayat-i ḥazrat-īshān būdand (fol. 11 2b). This is evidently some sort of tribal leader who is under the shaykh's ḥimāyat together with his tribesmen. The Juybari shaykhs were a khwājabān family who amassed great wealth from the second half of the 16th century onwards, after having established close relations to some of the Shaybanid rulers.Google Scholar

¹⁰ It is known, for instance, that Rashiduddin had his holdings cultivated by a considerable number of slaves. Rashiduddin, Cf., Mukātabāt-i rashīdi, trans. into Russian by Fauna, , Perepiska (Moscow, 1971), letters 17 and 34, pp. 120, 238.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rashiduddin, / Jahn, , p. 306.Google Scholar Cf. also Petrushevskiy, , Zemledelie, p. 337,Google Scholar n. 9, quoting the Dasiūr alkātib. This practice of ḥimāyat was, in Iran, relatively long-lived, as is shown by documentary evidence: Fekete, L. and Hazai, G., Einführung in die persische Paläographie (Budapest, 1977),Google Scholar doc. 59 (1529) and 65 (1535). Cf. also Renate, Schimkoreit, Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden (Berlin, 1982), doc. 5, 38, 143, 192.Google Scholar

¹² Nabiev, R. N., “Istochniki po istorii krepostnogo prava v Sredney Azii,” Arkheograficheskiy ezhegodnik za 1963 g., pp. 87–105. Similar firmans concerning nomads, Maktūbāt va asnād, fols.Google Scholar 26a, 125b. Extracts from one of these firmans have been published by Volin, S. L., “K istorii sredneaziatskikh arabov,” Trudy vtoroy sessii assotsiatsii arabistov (Leningrad, 1941), pp. 111–26.Google Scholar

¹³ Rashiduddin, / Jahn, , pp. 219, 240.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Roemer, H. R., Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit (Wiesbaden, 1952), facsimile fol. 24b, translation p. 54;Google ScholarUrunbaev, A. U., Pis'ma-avtografy Abdurrakhmana Dzhami iz “Al'boma Navoi” (Tashkent, 1982), letter 349 (355).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Other meanings of ḥimāyat in 15th- and 16th-century Iran and Central Asia include: protection money taken from merchants by nomad chiefs, cf. Fekete and Hazai, Einführung, doc. 40; Jean, Aubin, “Un Soyurghal Qara-Qoyunlu,” in Stern, M., ed., Documents from Islamic Chanceries (Oxford, 1965), p. 161, 1.Google Scholar 30 sqq.; protection offered against payment in order to get into the lists of sayyids: Busse, H., Untersuchungen zum persischen Kanzleiwesen (Cairo, 1959), doc. 3 1. 29 sqq. Yet another meaning is “asylum for persons threatened by a mob,” Maṭlab al-ṭālibīn, fols. 114b sqq.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Mawlana Muhammad Qadi, Silsilat al-⊂⊂ārifin, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 4452/1, fol. 168b; ⊂Ali Kashifi, , Rashaḥāt ⊂ain al-ḥayāt (lithographed edition, Lucknow, 1890), p. 352.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Chekhovich, O. D., Samarkandskie dokumenty (Moscow, 1974), p. 24;Google ScholarGross, , Economic Status, p. 97, both referring to the same passage in the hagiographic source Manāqib, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 9730, fol. 6b. This passage, however, does not treat kharāj, but speaks of kharjī “cash,” given to Sultan Ahmad by Khwaja Ahrar. The waqf deeds of Khwaja Ahrar, though mentioning taxes to be paid, never speak explicitly of kharāj. The only instance where kharāj is mentioned in the documents published by Chekhovich occurs in doc. 17 (1546), which is not a document issued by Khwaja Ahrar.Google Scholar

¹⁸ E.g., Abu, Tahir b. Qadi Abu Sa⊂id-i Samarqandi, Samariyya (Tehran, 1331 S), p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ 80,000 mann in the weight of Samarqand, , Rashaḥāt, p. 228;Google ScholarGross, , Economic Status, p. 95.Google Scholar

²⁰ See n. 17.

²¹ A detailed analysis cannot be given here. Cf., Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 10, lines 231—728, and introduction, p. 25 sq.Google Scholar Rogers has equally given a brief account of this passage: Rogers, J. M., “Waqfiyyas and Waqf-Registers: New Primary Sources for Islamic Architecture,” Kunst des Orients, 11 (1976—1977), 182–96, in particular p. 191. I have myself investigated these passages in some detail in my doctoral dissertation, quoted in the author's note.Google Scholar

²² Chekhovich, , Samarkandske dokumenty, Introduction, p. 22; Boldyrev, Eshchë raz (quoted in no. 35).Google Scholar

²³ On tamghä, consult, in addition to Petrushevski's remarks on the subject, Èfendiev, O. A. and Farzaliev, Sh. F., “O podati tamgha i eë znachenii v gorodskoy ėkonomike Azerbaydzhana i sopredel'nykh stran,” in Blizhniy i Sredniy Vostok. Tovarno-denezhnye otnosheniya pri feodalizme (Moscow, 1980),Google Scholar and Minovi, M. and Minorsky, VI., “Nāṣir al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 10 (1940), 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ ⊂Abduzzaq-i, Samarqandi, Maṭla⊂ al-sa⊂dain, ed. Shafi⊂, M., vol. 2 (Lahore, 1949), p. 1233;Google ScholarMu⊂inuddin, Muhammad-i Isfizari, Rawẓat al-jannāt fi awṣāf madīnat Harät, ed. Muhammad, Kazim, vol. 2 (Tehran, 1339), p. 250; Manāqib, fol. 17b.Google Scholar

²⁵ Rashaḥāt, p. 300.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. the reports of ⊂Abdurrazzaq and in Manāqib (quoted n. 24); and Chekhovich, O. D., “Iz istochnikov po istorii Samarkanda,” Iz istorii èpokhi Ulugbeka (Tashkent, 1965), pp. 308 sqq.Google Scholar

²⁷ Chekhovich, , Samarkandskie dokumenty, pp. 22, 28;Google ScholarNabiev, R. N., “Iz istorii politiko-ėkonomicheskoy zhizni, ” Velikiy uzbekskiy poėt (Tashkent, 1948), p. 39;Google ScholarĖfendiev, and Farzaliev, , O podati, p. 241.Google Scholar

²⁸ E.g., as poll taxes, as levies on cattle or on houses; see the list quoted above in n. 7. All these extra levies were known under various expressions (Gross, , Economic Status, p. 90).Google Scholar

²⁹ In the waqf deeds, the mutavallīs are told to pay the taxes “if it cannot be avoided.” This suggests that there was room for negotiation Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 5, II. 37, 41; doe. 10, 1. 739; doe. 11, 1. 241.

³⁰ The explanation of dahyāzdah given by Chekhovich is: “Literally: 10 percent. Here the expression denotes a levy of ten percent,” Samarkandskie dokumenty, p. 405, n. 266.Google Scholar Another explanation is given by Minovi, and Minorsky, , Nāṣir al-Din Ṭūsī, text p. 762, trans. p. 765. This latter explanation seems better to fit the contexts.Google Scholar

³¹ Manāqib, fol. 6b.

³² ⊂Abdulavval- i Nishapuri, Masmū⊂āt, Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 3735/2, fols. 172b, 191b.

³³ Zahiruddin, Muhammad Babur, Babur-nama, ed. Beveridge, A. (London-Leyden, 1905), fol. 24b.Google Scholar

³⁴ Manāqib, fol. 26a.

³⁵ Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, Introduction; Jo-Ann, Gross, “Khoja Ahrar: A Study of the Perceptions of Religious Power and Prestige in the Late Timurid Period” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1982);Google ScholarBoldyrev, A. N., “Eshchë raz k voprosu o Khodzha Akhrare,” in Dukhovenstvo i politicheskaya zhizn' na Blizhnem i Srednem vostoke v period feodalizma (Moscow, 1985), pp. 47–63.Google Scholar

³⁶ Silsilat, fol. 41b; Rashaḥāt, , p. 293;Google ScholarChekhovich, O. D., “Oborona Samarkanda v 1454 g.,” Izvestiya AN UzSSR, Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 4 (1960), 36–44.Google Scholar

³⁷ Manāqib, fols. 17b—18a; Gross, , Economic Status, p. 93.Google Scholar

³⁸ Both stories, Manāqib, fol. 20a.

³⁹ Ibid., fols. 48a—b.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., fol. 30b.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. the collection of letters by Khwaja Ahrar and several of his followers known as Majmū⊂a-yi murāsalāt, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 4245 (copy made by Adilov). I have not been able to obtain an integral copy of this valuable manuscript, but was allowed to have a look at it. On that occasion, I copied some of the letters. The rusūm-i bīgānagān are mentioned, e.g., in letters 24 and 49–50. The summarizing translation and commentary given by Nabiev, , lz istorii politiko-konomicheskoy zhizni, pp. 43 sq.,Google Scholar is misleading; see also Boldyrev, , Eshchë raz, p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴² See n. 23, and Boldyrev, , Eshchë raz, p. 57.Google Scholar

⁴³ Kazakov, B., “Synov'ya Khodzhi Akhrara i poslednie Timuridy,” Dukhovenstvo, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ten out of 14 stories taken from the Rashaḥāt and the Manāqib are about amirs being punished by Khwaja Ahrar. A detailed analysis cannot be given here; see my dissertation quoted in the author's note.

⁴⁵ Gross, , Khoja Ahrar, p. 72 sqq.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Rashaḥāt, pp. 304 sq.; Silsilat, fols. 173b-174b; Manāqib,Google Scholar fols. 39b-41a. The story has been told in detail by Gross, , Khoja Ahrar, p. 77.Google Scholar See also Bartol'd, V. V., “Ulug Bek i ego vremya,” Sochineniya 2/2 (Moscow, 1964), p. 123.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Rashaḥāt, p. 326. See also the anonymous compilation concerning Khwaja Ahrar, his followers and descendants, ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 1883/3, fol. 93a.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ This holds true even of Ulug Beg who was by no means entirely condemned by the khwājagān; Masmū⊂āt, fol. 178b; Rashaḥāt, pp. 111, 115, where he is seen as ajudge capable of revising his verdicts.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Babur-nama, fol. 19a.

⁵⁰ Maria-Eva, Subtelny, “Centralizing Reforms and Its Opponents in the Late Timurid Period,” Iranian Studies, 21 (1988), 123–51.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Masmū⊂āt, fol. 154a.

⁵² Ibid., fol. 219b.Google Scholar

⁵³ For example, Rashaḥāāt, p. 329.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Silsilat, fol. 68b; Masmū⊂āt, fol. 156b.

⁵⁵ This complex has been described by Veselovskiy, N. I.. “Pamyatnik Khodzhi Akhrara v Samarkande,” Vostochnye zametki (St. Petersburg, 1895), pp. 321–35;Google ScholarPletnev, I. E. and Shvab, Yu. Z., “Arkhitekturny ansambl' u mazara Khodzhi Akhrara v Samarkande,” Srednyaya Aziya v drevnosti i srednevekov'e (Moscow, 1977), pp. 160–64.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Rashaḥāt, p. 20 (“testament” of ⊂Abdulkhaliq).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The commentary by Rose, in Brown, , The Dervishes (reprt., London 1969), p. 440, is misleading.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ For example, Masmū⊂āt, fols. 113a, 114b; ⊂Ubaidullah, Ahrar, Faqarār (lithographed edition, Tashkent, 191(0)), p. 38.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Manāqib, fol. 52a; Rashaḥāt, pp. 271, 359.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Rashaḥāt, p. 328.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Silsilat, fol. 60a; Rashaḥāt, p. 277.Google Scholar

⁶² According to the numbers of letters written, see Urunbaev, , Pis'ma-avtografy, pp. 15 sqq.Google Scholar

⁶³ Rashaḥāt, pp. 340, 347, 352.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Silsilat, fols. 60a, 92b; Manāqib, fols. 48a—b.

⁶⁶ Rashaḥāt, pp. 325, 347.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, doc. 10, I. 741.

⁶⁸ Ibid., doc. 5, 11, 12 (endowments for these madrasas).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Manāqib, fols. 28b, 33a, 51b.

⁷⁰ Rashaḥāt, p. 228.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See n. 21.

⁷² Nabiev, , Iz istorii politiko-é;konomicheskoy zhizni, p. 38.Google Scholar

⁷³ See n. 41.

⁷⁴ This story is told by Kazakov, Synov'ya Khodzhi Akhrara, on the basis of Khwandamir, Ḥabīb al-siyar.

⁷⁵ Ms. Tashkent, IVAN UzSSR 1883/3, fol. 93a.

⁷⁶ Chekhovich, Samarkandskie dokumenty, docs. 13—17.

⁷⁷ Robert, McChesney, “The Amirs of Muslim Central Asia in the XVIlth Century,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 26 (1983), 67 sqq.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Akhmedov, B. A., “Rol' dzhuybarskikh khodzhey v obshchestvenno-politicheskoy zhizni Sredney Azii XVI—XVII vv.,” in Dukhovenstvo (cited n. 35), pp. 16–31.Google Scholar