Shabak
Shabak. Religious community of Kurdish origin near Mosul. They are related to the Yazidis, and show a particular devotion to the Prophet’s son-in-law ‘Ali.
The Shabak people are an religious minority group living in northern Iraq, who live mainly in the villages of Ali Rash, Khazna, Yangidja and Tallara in Sinjar district in the province of Ninawa in northern Iraq. Many Bajalans are also found in Armenia. Their language, Shabaki, is a Northwestern Iranian language. The Shabak people are scattered in 35 villages located in the east of Mosul.
Shabaks follow an independent religion, related to but distinct from Islam and Christianity. It contains elements of Islam, and Christianity and other Pagan religions. There is a close affinity between the Shabak and the Yazidis. For example, Shabaks perform pilgrimage to Yazidi shrines. The Shabaks have a sacred book called the Buyruk written in Iraqi Turkmen colloquial. The Shabaks consist of three different ta'ifs or sects: the Bajalan, the Zengana, and the Shabak proper.
The geographical spread of Shabak people has been largely changed due to the massive deportations in the notorious Al-Anfal Campaign in 1988 and the refugee crisis in 1991. Many Shabaks along with Zengana (Kurdish group) and Hawrami (Kurdish group) were relocated and deported to concentration camps (mujamma'at in Arabic) far away from their original homeland. Despite all these actions, Iraqi government efforts at forced assimilation and Arabization, as well as religious persecution of Shabaks has put them under increasing pressure.
The distinctive features of the Shabak culture is due to their special religious beliefs and practices. Shabaks combine elements of Sufism with their own interpretation of divine reality, which according to them, is more advanced than the literal interpretation of the Qur'an known as Sharia. Shabak spiritual guides are known as pir, who are individuals well versed in the prayers and rituals of the sect. Pirs themselves are under the leadership of the Supreme Head or Baba. Pirs act as mediators between Divine power and ordinary Shabaks. Their beliefs form a syncretic system with such features as private and public confession and allowing consumption of alcoholic beverages. This last feature makes them distinct from the neighboring Muslim populations. The beliefs of the Yarsan closely resemble those of the Shabak people.
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Kurds have opened KDP offices and raised the flag of Kurdistan in Shabak villages. It is alleged that Iraqi Kurdistan wants to annex Shabak villages and the eastern side of Mosul (Nineveh Plains) into its territory. There have also been allegations of voter fraud and intimidation of Shabaks and other minority groups such as Assyrians, Turcoman, Mandeans and Armenians by Kurdish authorities in Ninawa Governorate.
On August 15, 2005 in Bartella, two Assyrians were killed and four Shabaks were wounded by the Pêşmerge forces in a demonstration organized by the Democratic Shabak Coalition which wants separate representation for the Shabak community.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in the Mosul area alone, 1,000 Shabaks were killed, mostly by Sunni Arab militants. A further 4,000 Shabaks in Mosul were driven from their homes. The number of Shabak deaths in Iraq approached genocide levels, as was the case for many of Iraq's minority groups (Turkmens, Yazidis (Kurdish religion), Palestinians, Assyrians, Armenians, Mandeans and many others).
The Shabaks have representatives in the mainly Assyrian Christian dominated Bakhdida, Bartella, Basheqa, Tel Keppe and Nimrod municipalities of the Ninawa Governorate.
Shabak. Religious community of Kurdish origin near Mosul. They are related to the Yazidis, and show a particular devotion to the Prophet’s son-in-law ‘Ali.
The Shabak people are an religious minority group living in northern Iraq, who live mainly in the villages of Ali Rash, Khazna, Yangidja and Tallara in Sinjar district in the province of Ninawa in northern Iraq. Many Bajalans are also found in Armenia. Their language, Shabaki, is a Northwestern Iranian language. The Shabak people are scattered in 35 villages located in the east of Mosul.
Shabaks follow an independent religion, related to but distinct from Islam and Christianity. It contains elements of Islam, and Christianity and other Pagan religions. There is a close affinity between the Shabak and the Yazidis. For example, Shabaks perform pilgrimage to Yazidi shrines. The Shabaks have a sacred book called the Buyruk written in Iraqi Turkmen colloquial. The Shabaks consist of three different ta'ifs or sects: the Bajalan, the Zengana, and the Shabak proper.
The geographical spread of Shabak people has been largely changed due to the massive deportations in the notorious Al-Anfal Campaign in 1988 and the refugee crisis in 1991. Many Shabaks along with Zengana (Kurdish group) and Hawrami (Kurdish group) were relocated and deported to concentration camps (mujamma'at in Arabic) far away from their original homeland. Despite all these actions, Iraqi government efforts at forced assimilation and Arabization, as well as religious persecution of Shabaks has put them under increasing pressure.
The distinctive features of the Shabak culture is due to their special religious beliefs and practices. Shabaks combine elements of Sufism with their own interpretation of divine reality, which according to them, is more advanced than the literal interpretation of the Qur'an known as Sharia. Shabak spiritual guides are known as pir, who are individuals well versed in the prayers and rituals of the sect. Pirs themselves are under the leadership of the Supreme Head or Baba. Pirs act as mediators between Divine power and ordinary Shabaks. Their beliefs form a syncretic system with such features as private and public confession and allowing consumption of alcoholic beverages. This last feature makes them distinct from the neighboring Muslim populations. The beliefs of the Yarsan closely resemble those of the Shabak people.
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Kurds have opened KDP offices and raised the flag of Kurdistan in Shabak villages. It is alleged that Iraqi Kurdistan wants to annex Shabak villages and the eastern side of Mosul (Nineveh Plains) into its territory. There have also been allegations of voter fraud and intimidation of Shabaks and other minority groups such as Assyrians, Turcoman, Mandeans and Armenians by Kurdish authorities in Ninawa Governorate.
On August 15, 2005 in Bartella, two Assyrians were killed and four Shabaks were wounded by the Pêşmerge forces in a demonstration organized by the Democratic Shabak Coalition which wants separate representation for the Shabak community.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in the Mosul area alone, 1,000 Shabaks were killed, mostly by Sunni Arab militants. A further 4,000 Shabaks in Mosul were driven from their homes. The number of Shabak deaths in Iraq approached genocide levels, as was the case for many of Iraq's minority groups (Turkmens, Yazidis (Kurdish religion), Palestinians, Assyrians, Armenians, Mandeans and many others).
The Shabaks have representatives in the mainly Assyrian Christian dominated Bakhdida, Bartella, Basheqa, Tel Keppe and Nimrod municipalities of the Ninawa Governorate.
Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din (Al-Ashraf Sha'ban) (Al-Ashraf Zein al-Din Abu al-Ma'ali ibn Shaban) (Shaban II). Bahri Mameluke sultan (r.1363-1376). His reign was marked by frequent attacks by Frankish fleets on Alexandria and Tripolis. Peace was concluded in 1370. In 1374, the Egyptians attacked Little Armenia, which became a permanent Muslim possession. The frontier town of Aswan was destroyed by the rebellious Nubians.
Al-Ashraf Sha'ban was a grandson of Al-Nasir Muhammad. He had two sons who succeeded him: al-Mansur Ali and al-Salih Hajji.
Ashraf Sha'ban, al- see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Ashraf Zein al-Din Abu al-Ma'ali ibn Shaban see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Shaban II see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din (Al-Ashraf Sha'ban) (Al-Ashraf Zein al-Din Abu al-Ma'ali ibn Shaban) (Shaban II). Bahri Mameluke sultan (r.1363-1376). His reign was marked by frequent attacks by Frankish fleets on Alexandria and Tripolis. Peace was concluded in 1370. In 1374, the Egyptians attacked Little Armenia, which became a permanent Muslim possession. The frontier town of Aswan was destroyed by the rebellious Nubians.
Al-Ashraf Sha'ban was a grandson of Al-Nasir Muhammad. He had two sons who succeeded him: al-Mansur Ali and al-Salih Hajji.
Ashraf Sha'ban, al- see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Ashraf Zein al-Din Abu al-Ma'ali ibn Shaban see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Shaban II see Sha‘ban II al-Ashraf Nasir al-Din
Shabankara
Shabankara (Shabankareh) (Shwankara) (Soncara) (Shwankara). Name of a Kurdish tribe and region between Fars, Kirman and the Persian Gulf, whose capital was the stronghold Ig. Their most glorious period fell between 1168 and 1200. In 1220, Ig was destroyed by Hulegu, and in 1354 the region became part of the Muzaffarid state.
Shabankara was the name of an ancient tribal federation in southern Zaghros. They were powerful during the Sassanid era as well as in the Middle Ages.
In the early twelfth century there were five subdivisions of them: Ramani, Shakani, Karzuwi, Masudi and Ismaili.
According to Dehkhoda Dictionary, Ardashir I was the son of a Kurdish mother from the Shabankara tribe in the Fars Province. In 11th century one of Shabankara leaders ruled parts of the Fars region in southern Zagros. After the collapse of the Seljukids, Shabankara ruled again the area with Shahre-Idj as their capital. In the Ilkhanid era. the Ilkhanids ruled Shabankareh province centered at Darabgird.
Today a Kurdish clan by this name exists just northwest of Kirmanshahan.
Also, a small village named Shwankarah exists 30 kilometers northeast of Divandarreh in Kurdistan province, Iran. After the 1979 Revolution the name was changed to Husei Abad in official records, but the local people continue to use the name "Shwankara" to refer to the village. It is inhabited by about 30 Kurdish Sunni families. It contains an elementary school and a sanitary center.
Shabankareh see Shabankara
Shwankara see Shabankara
Soncara see Shabankara
Shwankara see Shabankara
Shabankara (Shabankareh) (Shwankara) (Soncara) (Shwankara). Name of a Kurdish tribe and region between Fars, Kirman and the Persian Gulf, whose capital was the stronghold Ig. Their most glorious period fell between 1168 and 1200. In 1220, Ig was destroyed by Hulegu, and in 1354 the region became part of the Muzaffarid state.
Shabankara was the name of an ancient tribal federation in southern Zaghros. They were powerful during the Sassanid era as well as in the Middle Ages.
In the early twelfth century there were five subdivisions of them: Ramani, Shakani, Karzuwi, Masudi and Ismaili.
According to Dehkhoda Dictionary, Ardashir I was the son of a Kurdish mother from the Shabankara tribe in the Fars Province. In 11th century one of Shabankara leaders ruled parts of the Fars region in southern Zagros. After the collapse of the Seljukids, Shabankara ruled again the area with Shahre-Idj as their capital. In the Ilkhanid era. the Ilkhanids ruled Shabankareh province centered at Darabgird.
Today a Kurdish clan by this name exists just northwest of Kirmanshahan.
Also, a small village named Shwankarah exists 30 kilometers northeast of Divandarreh in Kurdistan province, Iran. After the 1979 Revolution the name was changed to Husei Abad in official records, but the local people continue to use the name "Shwankara" to refer to the village. It is inhabited by about 30 Kurdish Sunni families. It contains an elementary school and a sanitary center.
Shabankareh see Shabankara
Shwankara see Shabankara
Soncara see Shabankara
Shwankara see Shabankara
Sha‘bi, Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al-
Sha‘bi, Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al- (Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al-Sha‘bi) (640-c.728). Transmitter of traditions. He is said to have been sent by the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik on missions to Constantinople and Egypt. Judged as trustworthy, he was the teacher of Abu Hanifa.
Abu 'Amr 'Amir ibn Sharahil al-Sha'bi see Sha‘bi, Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al-
Sha‘bi, Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al- (Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al-Sha‘bi) (640-c.728). Transmitter of traditions. He is said to have been sent by the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik on missions to Constantinople and Egypt. Judged as trustworthy, he was the teacher of Abu Hanifa.
Abu 'Amr 'Amir ibn Sharahil al-Sha'bi see Sha‘bi, Abu ‘Amr ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al-
Shabib ibn Yazid ibn Mu‘aym
Shabib ibn Yazid ibn Mu‘aym (646-697). Kharijite leader. In his struggle with al-Hajjaj, he showed himself to be a master of guerrilla warfare.
Shabib ibn Yazid ibn Mu‘aym (646-697). Kharijite leader. In his struggle with al-Hajjaj, he showed himself to be a master of guerrilla warfare.
Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud
Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud (Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud Shabistari) (Mahmud Shabistari) (c.1260/1288-1340). Persian mystical poet. He is known for his mathnawi in which he explains the descent and ascent of the “Perfect Man” (in Arabic, al-insan al-kamil).
Mahmūd Shabistarī is one of the most celebrated Persian Sufi poets of the 14th century.
Shabistari was born in the town of Shabestar near Tabriz, where he received his education. He became deeply versed in the symbolic terminology of Ibn Arabi. He wrote during a period of Mongol invasions.
His most famous work is a mystic text called The Secret Rose Garden (Gulshan-i Rāz) written about 1311 in rhyming couplets (Mathnawi). This poem was written in response to seventeen queries concerning Sufi metaphysics posed to "the Sufi literati of Tabriz" by Rukh Al Din Amir Husayn Harawi (d. 1318). It was also the main reference used by François Bernier when explaining Sufism to his European friends (in: Lettre sur le Quietisme des Indes; 1688)
Other works include The Book of Felicity (Sa'adat-nāma) and The Truth of Certainty about the Knowledge of the Lord of the Worlds (Ḥaqq al-yaqīn fi ma'rifat rabb al-'alamīn. The former is regarded as a relatively unknown poetic masterpiece written in khafif meter, while the later is his lone work of prose.
The details of Shabestarī’s life are obscure. Apparently he spent most of it in Tabrīz. He grew up in an age of spiritual confusion, following the Mongol invasion of Iran, the sack of Baghdad, and the final fall of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate (1258) to the Mongols. Tabrīz was a capital of the new Mongol empire, and Shabestarī’s life was clearly influenced by fierce doctrinal disputes and by a struggle between Christianity and Islām for the allegiance of the Mongol rulers. His work shows a clear acquaintance with Christian doctrines, probably as a result of these disputes. In order to come to terms with the distressed status of a Muslim under heathen rule, he, like many of his contemporaries, withdrew from the outer world and sought refuge in spirituality and mysticism.
Shabestarī’s Golshan-e rāz, written in 1311, or possibly 1317, is a poetical expression of his retreat from the temporal world. It consists of questions and answers about mystical doctrines. The work was introduced into Europe in about 1700. It soon became popular and was translated into German in 1821. European readers often regarded it as the major work of Ṣūfism, and it enjoyed a vogue among Christian followers of mystical theology who shunned ritualism and sought transcendental union with the Divine Being.
Sa'id al-Din Mahmud Shabistari see Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud
Mahmud Shabistari see Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud
Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud (Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud Shabistari) (Mahmud Shabistari) (c.1260/1288-1340). Persian mystical poet. He is known for his mathnawi in which he explains the descent and ascent of the “Perfect Man” (in Arabic, al-insan al-kamil).
Mahmūd Shabistarī is one of the most celebrated Persian Sufi poets of the 14th century.
Shabistari was born in the town of Shabestar near Tabriz, where he received his education. He became deeply versed in the symbolic terminology of Ibn Arabi. He wrote during a period of Mongol invasions.
His most famous work is a mystic text called The Secret Rose Garden (Gulshan-i Rāz) written about 1311 in rhyming couplets (Mathnawi). This poem was written in response to seventeen queries concerning Sufi metaphysics posed to "the Sufi literati of Tabriz" by Rukh Al Din Amir Husayn Harawi (d. 1318). It was also the main reference used by François Bernier when explaining Sufism to his European friends (in: Lettre sur le Quietisme des Indes; 1688)
Other works include The Book of Felicity (Sa'adat-nāma) and The Truth of Certainty about the Knowledge of the Lord of the Worlds (Ḥaqq al-yaqīn fi ma'rifat rabb al-'alamīn. The former is regarded as a relatively unknown poetic masterpiece written in khafif meter, while the later is his lone work of prose.
The details of Shabestarī’s life are obscure. Apparently he spent most of it in Tabrīz. He grew up in an age of spiritual confusion, following the Mongol invasion of Iran, the sack of Baghdad, and the final fall of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate (1258) to the Mongols. Tabrīz was a capital of the new Mongol empire, and Shabestarī’s life was clearly influenced by fierce doctrinal disputes and by a struggle between Christianity and Islām for the allegiance of the Mongol rulers. His work shows a clear acquaintance with Christian doctrines, probably as a result of these disputes. In order to come to terms with the distressed status of a Muslim under heathen rule, he, like many of his contemporaries, withdrew from the outer world and sought refuge in spirituality and mysticism.
Shabestarī’s Golshan-e rāz, written in 1311, or possibly 1317, is a poetical expression of his retreat from the temporal world. It consists of questions and answers about mystical doctrines. The work was introduced into Europe in about 1700. It soon became popular and was translated into German in 1821. European readers often regarded it as the major work of Ṣūfism, and it enjoyed a vogue among Christian followers of mystical theology who shunned ritualism and sought transcendental union with the Divine Being.
Sa'id al-Din Mahmud Shabistari see Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud
Mahmud Shabistari see Shabistari, Sa‘id al-Din Mahmud
Shaddadids
Shaddadids (Banu Shaddad). Dynasty of Kurdish origin who ruled over Arran and eastern Armenia (r. 951-1174).
The Shaddadids were a Kurdish dynasty who ruled in various parts of Armenia and Arran from 951-1199. They were established in Dvin. Through their long tenure in Armenia, they often intermarried with the Bagratuni royal family of Armenia.
They began ruling in the city of Dvin, and eventually ruled other major cities, such as Barda, Ganja, and were given the city of Ani as a reward for their service to the Seljuqs, to whom they became vassals. From 1047 to 1057, the Shaddadids were engaged in several wars against the Byzantine army. The area between the rivers Kura and Arax was ruled by a Shaddadid dynasty.
The Shaddadid rulers were:
* Muhammad bin Shaddad (951-971)
* Ali Lashkari bin Muhammad (971-978)
* Marzuban bin Muhammad (978-986)
* Al-Fadl I bin Muhammad (986-1031)
* Abu-l-Fa't Musa (1031-1034)
* Ali II Lashkari (1034-1049)
* Anushirvan bin Ali II Lashkari (1049)
* Abu-l-Aswar Shavur I bin al-Fadl I (1049-1067)
* Al Fadl II bin Shavur I (1067-1073)
* Ashot bin Shavur I (1067)
* Al-Fadl III bin al-Fadl II (1073-1075)
The Emirs in Ani were:
* Menuchir (1075-1118) (The emir of Ani. A mosque in the city is named after him)
* Abu-l-Asvar Shavur II (1118-1124)
* Fadl IV bin Shavur II (1125-?)
* Mahmud (?-1131)
* Khushchikr (1131-?)
* Shaddad (?-1155)
* Fadl V (1155-1161)
* Shahanshah (also, Sultan ibn Mahmud) (1164-1174)
Banu Shaddad see Shaddadids
Shaddadids (Banu Shaddad). Dynasty of Kurdish origin who ruled over Arran and eastern Armenia (r. 951-1174).
The Shaddadids were a Kurdish dynasty who ruled in various parts of Armenia and Arran from 951-1199. They were established in Dvin. Through their long tenure in Armenia, they often intermarried with the Bagratuni royal family of Armenia.
They began ruling in the city of Dvin, and eventually ruled other major cities, such as Barda, Ganja, and were given the city of Ani as a reward for their service to the Seljuqs, to whom they became vassals. From 1047 to 1057, the Shaddadids were engaged in several wars against the Byzantine army. The area between the rivers Kura and Arax was ruled by a Shaddadid dynasty.
The Shaddadid rulers were:
* Muhammad bin Shaddad (951-971)
* Ali Lashkari bin Muhammad (971-978)
* Marzuban bin Muhammad (978-986)
* Al-Fadl I bin Muhammad (986-1031)
* Abu-l-Fa't Musa (1031-1034)
* Ali II Lashkari (1034-1049)
* Anushirvan bin Ali II Lashkari (1049)
* Abu-l-Aswar Shavur I bin al-Fadl I (1049-1067)
* Al Fadl II bin Shavur I (1067-1073)
* Ashot bin Shavur I (1067)
* Al-Fadl III bin al-Fadl II (1073-1075)
The Emirs in Ani were:
* Menuchir (1075-1118) (The emir of Ani. A mosque in the city is named after him)
* Abu-l-Asvar Shavur II (1118-1124)
* Fadl IV bin Shavur II (1125-?)
* Mahmud (?-1131)
* Khushchikr (1131-?)
* Shaddad (?-1155)
* Fadl V (1155-1161)
* Shahanshah (also, Sultan ibn Mahmud) (1164-1174)
Banu Shaddad see Shaddadids
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al- (Abu’l-Hasan al-Shadhili) (Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili) (b. 1196/97, Ghumàra, near Ceuta, Mor - d. 1258, Humaithra, on the Red Sea). Mystic of Moroccan origin and founder of the religious brotherhood named after him. He is said to be the originator of coffee-drinking.
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili was the founder of the eponymous Shadhili order. He was born in Ghumara, near Ceuta in the north of Morocco in 1196 into a family of peasant laborers. He studied in Fes. He set out across North Africa and into the Levant in the hope of finding the great living saint of his time. In Iraq, a Sufi named al-Wasiti told him that he could find this saint in the country Abul Hasan had travelled from, ‘Abd al-Salam ibn Mashish, the great Moroccan spiritual master. Under his guidance, Abul Hasan attained enlightenment and proceeded to spread his knowledge across North Africa, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where he is buried. He advocated a path of moderation in outward actions, concentrating instead on attaining sincerity through constant invocation, heartfelt petitions to God, and invocation of the Name, Allah. He died in 1258 in Humaithra, Egypt, while he was on his way from a pilgrimage to Mecca. His shrine is highly venerated.
Al-Shadhili taught his close followers to lead a life of contemplation and remembrance of Allah while performing the normal everyday activities of the world. He disliked initiating any would-be follower unless that person already had a profession. His admonition to his close followers was to apply the teachings of Islam in their own lives in the world and to transform their existence.
The details of al-Shādhilī’s life are clouded by legend. He is said to have been a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and to have gone blind in his youth because of excessive study. In 1218/19 he traveled to Tunisia, where his Sufi teachings of ascetic mysticism aroused the hostility of the traditional orthodox Muslim theologians. Al-Shādhilī was forced to go into exile in Egypt. He died returning from a pilgrimage to the Islamic holy cities of Arabia. It was while he was in Egypt that he founded the Shādhilīyah order, which was destined to become one of the most popular of the mystical brotherhoods of the Middle East and North Africa and from which 15 other orders derive their origin.
Although al-Shādhilī left no writings, certain sayings and some poetry have been preserved by his disciples.
Abu'l-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al- (Abu’l-Hasan al-Shadhili) (Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili) (b. 1196/97, Ghumàra, near Ceuta, Mor - d. 1258, Humaithra, on the Red Sea). Mystic of Moroccan origin and founder of the religious brotherhood named after him. He is said to be the originator of coffee-drinking.
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili was the founder of the eponymous Shadhili order. He was born in Ghumara, near Ceuta in the north of Morocco in 1196 into a family of peasant laborers. He studied in Fes. He set out across North Africa and into the Levant in the hope of finding the great living saint of his time. In Iraq, a Sufi named al-Wasiti told him that he could find this saint in the country Abul Hasan had travelled from, ‘Abd al-Salam ibn Mashish, the great Moroccan spiritual master. Under his guidance, Abul Hasan attained enlightenment and proceeded to spread his knowledge across North Africa, especially in Tunisia and Egypt, where he is buried. He advocated a path of moderation in outward actions, concentrating instead on attaining sincerity through constant invocation, heartfelt petitions to God, and invocation of the Name, Allah. He died in 1258 in Humaithra, Egypt, while he was on his way from a pilgrimage to Mecca. His shrine is highly venerated.
Al-Shadhili taught his close followers to lead a life of contemplation and remembrance of Allah while performing the normal everyday activities of the world. He disliked initiating any would-be follower unless that person already had a profession. His admonition to his close followers was to apply the teachings of Islam in their own lives in the world and to transform their existence.
The details of al-Shādhilī’s life are clouded by legend. He is said to have been a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and to have gone blind in his youth because of excessive study. In 1218/19 he traveled to Tunisia, where his Sufi teachings of ascetic mysticism aroused the hostility of the traditional orthodox Muslim theologians. Al-Shādhilī was forced to go into exile in Egypt. He died returning from a pilgrimage to the Islamic holy cities of Arabia. It was while he was in Egypt that he founded the Shādhilīyah order, which was destined to become one of the most popular of the mystical brotherhoods of the Middle East and North Africa and from which 15 other orders derive their origin.
Although al-Shādhilī left no writings, certain sayings and some poetry have been preserved by his disciples.
Abu'l-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili see Shadhili, Abu’l-Hasan al-
Shadhiliyya
Shadhiliyya (Shaziliyah). Sufi sect which, apart from the mysterious knowledge of its leaders, claimed to be strictly orthodox. When a revelation conflicted with the sunna, the latter had to prevail. The members of the sect claimed that they were all predestined to belong to the “well-guarded Tablet” (in Arabic, lawh mahfuz), that ecstasy does not permanently incapacitate them from active life, and that “the most perfect human being” (in Arabic, qutb) will throughout the ages be one of them. The main seat of the brotherhood is Algeria and Tunisia. Many other communities have sprung from it.
The Shadhiliyya was a widespread brotherhood of Muslim mystics (Ṣūfīs), founded on the teachings of Abū al-Ḥasan ash-Shādhilī (d. 1258) in Alexandria. Shādhilī teachings stress five points: fear of God, living the sunna (practices) of the Prophet, disdain of mankind, fatalism, and turning to God in times of happiness and distress. The order, which spread throughout North Africa and the Sudan and into Arabia, was created by disciples, as ash-Shādhilī himself discouraged monasticism and urged his followers to maintain their ordinary lives, a tradition still followed. The order gave rise to an unusually large number of suborders, notably the Jazūlīyah and the Darqāwā in Morocco and the ʿĪsāwīyah in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
The Shadhili Tariqa has historically been of importance and influence in North Africa and Egypt with many contributions to Islamic literature. Among the figures most known for their literary and intellectual contributions are Ibn 'Ata Allah, author of the Hikam, and Shaykh Ahmed Zarruq, author of numerous commentaries and works, and Sheikh ibn Ajibah who also wrote numerous commentaries and works. In poetry expressing love of Muhammad, there have been the notable contributions of al-Jazuli, author of the "Dala'il al-Khayrat", and Busiri, author of the famous poem, the Poem of the Mantle. Many of the head lecturers of al-Azhar University in Cairo have also been followers of this tariqa.
Of the various branches of the Shadhili tariqa are the Fassiyatush, found largely in India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. The Darqawi branch is found mostly in Morocco and the Alawiyya (no connection to the Turkish or Syrian Alawi or Alevi groups) which originated in Algeria is now found the world over, particularly in Syria, Jordan, France and among many English-speaking communities.
The Swedish impressionist painter and Sufi scholar Ivan Aguéli (1869-1917) was the first official Moqaddam (representative) of the Shadhili Order in Western Europe. Aguéli initiated René Guénon (1886-1951) into the Shadhili tariqa. Guénon went on to write a number of influential books on tradition and modernity.
The silsila of the Shadhili order is as follows:
* Prophet Muhammad
* Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Hasan al-Basri
* Habib al-‘Ajami
* Dawud al-Ta’i
* Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi
* Sari al-Saqati
* Abul Qasim al-Junayd
* Abu Bakr al-Shibli
* Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi
* Abul Faraj al-Tartusi
* Abul Hasan ibn ‘Ali Yusuf
* Sa‘id al-Mubarak
* Abdul-Qadir Gilani
* al-Ghawth Abu Madyan
* ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Attar al-Zayyat
* Abdeslam Ben Mshish
* Abu-l-Hassan ash-Shadhili
Shaziliyah see Shadhiliyya
Shadhiliyya (Shaziliyah). Sufi sect which, apart from the mysterious knowledge of its leaders, claimed to be strictly orthodox. When a revelation conflicted with the sunna, the latter had to prevail. The members of the sect claimed that they were all predestined to belong to the “well-guarded Tablet” (in Arabic, lawh mahfuz), that ecstasy does not permanently incapacitate them from active life, and that “the most perfect human being” (in Arabic, qutb) will throughout the ages be one of them. The main seat of the brotherhood is Algeria and Tunisia. Many other communities have sprung from it.
The Shadhiliyya was a widespread brotherhood of Muslim mystics (Ṣūfīs), founded on the teachings of Abū al-Ḥasan ash-Shādhilī (d. 1258) in Alexandria. Shādhilī teachings stress five points: fear of God, living the sunna (practices) of the Prophet, disdain of mankind, fatalism, and turning to God in times of happiness and distress. The order, which spread throughout North Africa and the Sudan and into Arabia, was created by disciples, as ash-Shādhilī himself discouraged monasticism and urged his followers to maintain their ordinary lives, a tradition still followed. The order gave rise to an unusually large number of suborders, notably the Jazūlīyah and the Darqāwā in Morocco and the ʿĪsāwīyah in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
The Shadhili Tariqa has historically been of importance and influence in North Africa and Egypt with many contributions to Islamic literature. Among the figures most known for their literary and intellectual contributions are Ibn 'Ata Allah, author of the Hikam, and Shaykh Ahmed Zarruq, author of numerous commentaries and works, and Sheikh ibn Ajibah who also wrote numerous commentaries and works. In poetry expressing love of Muhammad, there have been the notable contributions of al-Jazuli, author of the "Dala'il al-Khayrat", and Busiri, author of the famous poem, the Poem of the Mantle. Many of the head lecturers of al-Azhar University in Cairo have also been followers of this tariqa.
Of the various branches of the Shadhili tariqa are the Fassiyatush, found largely in India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. The Darqawi branch is found mostly in Morocco and the Alawiyya (no connection to the Turkish or Syrian Alawi or Alevi groups) which originated in Algeria is now found the world over, particularly in Syria, Jordan, France and among many English-speaking communities.
The Swedish impressionist painter and Sufi scholar Ivan Aguéli (1869-1917) was the first official Moqaddam (representative) of the Shadhili Order in Western Europe. Aguéli initiated René Guénon (1886-1951) into the Shadhili tariqa. Guénon went on to write a number of influential books on tradition and modernity.
The silsila of the Shadhili order is as follows:
* Prophet Muhammad
* Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Hasan al-Basri
* Habib al-‘Ajami
* Dawud al-Ta’i
* Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi
* Sari al-Saqati
* Abul Qasim al-Junayd
* Abu Bakr al-Shibli
* Abu Faraj ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi
* Abul Faraj al-Tartusi
* Abul Hasan ibn ‘Ali Yusuf
* Sa‘id al-Mubarak
* Abdul-Qadir Gilani
* al-Ghawth Abu Madyan
* ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Attar al-Zayyat
* Abdeslam Ben Mshish
* Abu-l-Hassan ash-Shadhili
Shaziliyah see Shadhiliyya
Shadia
Fatma Ahmed Kamal Shaker (Arabic: فاطمة أحمد كمال), better known by her stage name Shadia (b. February 8, 1931, Sharqia Governorate, Egypt – d. November 28, 2017, Cairo, Egypt), was an Egyptian actress and singer. She was famous for her roles in light comedies and drama in the 1950s and 1960s. Her first appearance was in the film el-Aql Fi Agaza (The Mind on Vacation), and she retired after her last film La Tas'alni Man Ana (Don't Ask Me Who I Am).
Born Fatma Ahmed Kamal Shaker in 1931, in the Sharqia Governorate, in Egypt. Her father, Ahmed Kamak Shaker, was an Upper Egyptian man whose family moved to El Sharqia and her mother was from a family of both Egyptian and Turk origin. She began acting at the age of thirteen.
Shaker was given the stage name "Shadia" by the film director Helmy Rafla. In her heyday during the 1950s and 1960s, Shadia acted in numerous melodramas, romance, and comedy films. However, it was her musical talent as a singer that established Shadia as one of the most important Egyptian cinema stars of her era.
Overall, as "Shadia", she performed in more than 100 films. She starred in more than 30 films with the actor Kamal el-Shennawi, and sang opposite Farid al-Atrash and Abdel Halim Hafez, such as in "The People's Idol" (1967). She also appeared with Faten Hamama in "An Appointment with Life" (1954), and in "The Unknown Woman" (1959) she played the role of Fatma in a heavy melodrama. Other notable films she starred in include "The Thief and the Dogs" (1962) and in her comedy roles in films "Wife Number 13" (1962) and "My Wife the General Manager" (1966). Indeed, Shadia was often cast in cunning and cheeky roles, however, she also played serious roles, such as in "The Road" (1964), and in the stage version of "Raya and Sakina", which was based on the true story of two Alexandrian serial killers and directed by Hussein Kama (1953).
After retiring from acting, Shadia joined a number of Egyptian actresses who took on the veil (hijab) in an act of Islamic resistance and salvation.
Shadia is considered one of the most popular and most talented singers and actresses in the Arabic movie and entertainment industry. Her songs and movies are still sought after, and her songs are popular among all generations.
Shadia was hospitalized on November 4, 2017 after suffering a massive stroke in Cairo.
On November 28, 2017, Shadia died from respiratory failure caused by the pneumonia.
Shafi‘i
Shafi‘i (Shafi‘ites) (in Arabic, al-Shafi‘iyya) (Madhhab Shāfiʿī). Term which refers to a school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence which is predominant in Asia and in eastern Africa. The Sunni school of Islamic law, derived from the teachings of al-Shafi‘i, Shafi‘i originated in Cairo and makes considerable use of analogy. In the ninth and tenth century, the school won many adherents in Baghdad, Cairo, Mecca and Medina, although their position in Baghdad was difficult because of the so-called “partisans of personal opinion” (in Arabic, ashab al-ra’y). In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there were frequent street fights with the Hanbalis in Baghdad. Under the Ottoman sultans the school was replaced by the Hanafis, while in Persia they had to cede to the Shi‘a under the Safavids. The school is still dominant in South Arabia, Bahrain, Malaysia, East Africa, Dagestan and some parts of Central Asia.
Shafi’i was one of the four schools of law in orthodox Islam, named after Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (d. 820), its founder and guiding influence. Disturbed by the confusing plethora of views, methods and practices that prevailed in the legal circles of his day, Shafi’i set out to develop a systematic theory of law on the basis of which legal thought and practice in Islam might be unified. His Risala, composed in Cairo near the end of his life, constitutes his most important work on juridical theory. In it he sets down what were to become the characteristic features of Shafi’i law. Although Shafi’i aimed at the elaboration of a comprehensive theory of law, his most important contribution to the history of Islamic jurisprudence lies in his insistence on the indispensability of the sunna, or tradition of the Prophet, as a substantive source of law. Over against Hanafis and Malikis, for whom the sunna was largely a function of local practice, Shafi’i not only linked it to the Prophet himself but declared it to be divinely inspired. In keeping with his position on the primacy of revelation (that is, the Qur’an and the sunna), he sought to limit personal judgment (ijtihad/ra’y) to analogical reason (qiyas), whose only function was to extend the application of those principles laid down in the revealed texts to problems not addressed by the latter.
Shafi’i’s views, although not universally accepted at first, had a substantial impact on Islamic law in the long term. His views defined the essential elements of what was to become classical Shafi’i doctrine, and compelled Hanafis, Malikis, and others to undertake important revisions of their own legal systems. From Baghdad and Cairo, the chief centers of the early Shafi’i school, its influence spread throughout the central lands of Islam from Egypt to Khurasan and, by the late Mameluke period, had become the dominant school of law in this vast region. While the school found only limited acceptance in India and Central Asia, it became and remains the principal school of law in the Muslim lands of Southeast Asia.
In Islām, the Shafi'ites formed one of the four Sunnī schools of religious law, derived from the teachings of Abū ʿAbd Allāh ash-Shāfiʿī (767–820). This legal school (madhhab) stabilized the bases of Islāmic legal theory, admitting the validity of both divine will and human speculation. Rejecting provincial dependence on the living sunnah (traditional community practice) as the source of precedent, the Shafiites argued for the unquestioning acceptance of Ḥadīth (traditions concerning the life and utterances of the Prophet) as the major basis for legal and religious judgments and the use of qiyas (analogical reasoning) when no clear directives could be found in the Qurʾān or Ḥadīth. Ijmāʿ (consensus of scholars) was accepted but not stressed. The Shāfiʿī school predominates in eastern Africa, parts of Arabia, and Indonesia.
The Shāfi‘ī madhhab is one of the four schools of fiqh, or religious law, within the Sunni branch of Islam. The Shāfi‘ī school of fiqh is named after Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī. The other three schools of Islamic law are Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.
Shafi'ites see Shafi‘i
Shafi'iyya, al- see Shafi‘i
Madhhab Shafi'i see Shafi‘i
Shafi‘i (Shafi‘ites) (in Arabic, al-Shafi‘iyya) (Madhhab Shāfiʿī). Term which refers to a school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence which is predominant in Asia and in eastern Africa. The Sunni school of Islamic law, derived from the teachings of al-Shafi‘i, Shafi‘i originated in Cairo and makes considerable use of analogy. In the ninth and tenth century, the school won many adherents in Baghdad, Cairo, Mecca and Medina, although their position in Baghdad was difficult because of the so-called “partisans of personal opinion” (in Arabic, ashab al-ra’y). In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there were frequent street fights with the Hanbalis in Baghdad. Under the Ottoman sultans the school was replaced by the Hanafis, while in Persia they had to cede to the Shi‘a under the Safavids. The school is still dominant in South Arabia, Bahrain, Malaysia, East Africa, Dagestan and some parts of Central Asia.
Shafi’i was one of the four schools of law in orthodox Islam, named after Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (d. 820), its founder and guiding influence. Disturbed by the confusing plethora of views, methods and practices that prevailed in the legal circles of his day, Shafi’i set out to develop a systematic theory of law on the basis of which legal thought and practice in Islam might be unified. His Risala, composed in Cairo near the end of his life, constitutes his most important work on juridical theory. In it he sets down what were to become the characteristic features of Shafi’i law. Although Shafi’i aimed at the elaboration of a comprehensive theory of law, his most important contribution to the history of Islamic jurisprudence lies in his insistence on the indispensability of the sunna, or tradition of the Prophet, as a substantive source of law. Over against Hanafis and Malikis, for whom the sunna was largely a function of local practice, Shafi’i not only linked it to the Prophet himself but declared it to be divinely inspired. In keeping with his position on the primacy of revelation (that is, the Qur’an and the sunna), he sought to limit personal judgment (ijtihad/ra’y) to analogical reason (qiyas), whose only function was to extend the application of those principles laid down in the revealed texts to problems not addressed by the latter.
Shafi’i’s views, although not universally accepted at first, had a substantial impact on Islamic law in the long term. His views defined the essential elements of what was to become classical Shafi’i doctrine, and compelled Hanafis, Malikis, and others to undertake important revisions of their own legal systems. From Baghdad and Cairo, the chief centers of the early Shafi’i school, its influence spread throughout the central lands of Islam from Egypt to Khurasan and, by the late Mameluke period, had become the dominant school of law in this vast region. While the school found only limited acceptance in India and Central Asia, it became and remains the principal school of law in the Muslim lands of Southeast Asia.
In Islām, the Shafi'ites formed one of the four Sunnī schools of religious law, derived from the teachings of Abū ʿAbd Allāh ash-Shāfiʿī (767–820). This legal school (madhhab) stabilized the bases of Islāmic legal theory, admitting the validity of both divine will and human speculation. Rejecting provincial dependence on the living sunnah (traditional community practice) as the source of precedent, the Shafiites argued for the unquestioning acceptance of Ḥadīth (traditions concerning the life and utterances of the Prophet) as the major basis for legal and religious judgments and the use of qiyas (analogical reasoning) when no clear directives could be found in the Qurʾān or Ḥadīth. Ijmāʿ (consensus of scholars) was accepted but not stressed. The Shāfiʿī school predominates in eastern Africa, parts of Arabia, and Indonesia.
The Shāfi‘ī madhhab is one of the four schools of fiqh, or religious law, within the Sunni branch of Islam. The Shāfi‘ī school of fiqh is named after Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī. The other three schools of Islamic law are Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali.
Shafi'ites see Shafi‘i
Shafi'iyya, al- see Shafi‘i
Madhhab Shafi'i see Shafi‘i
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al- (Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i) (Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī) (b. 767, Gaza, Palestine - d. 820, Fustat, Egypt). Founder of the Shafi‘ite school of law, most famous for his exposition of the “roots of jurisprudence,” which forms the basis for most Islamic legal considerations.
Al-Shafi‘i was so highly regarded from such an early date that his biographical notices tend to be more hagiographic than accurate. A Quraysh of the clan of Hashim, and therefore distantly related to Muhammad, al-Shafi‘i was raised in Mecca and received both an Arab and a Muslim education. He studied with Malik ibn Anas in Medina, had Shi‘ite involvements in the Yemen, spent time in Baghdad and Mecca, and died in Egypt.
In the area of substantive commentary on legal practice, al-Shafi‘i, because of his eclectic and broad education, was able to make penetrating analyses of practices current in his time, but he is more famous for his Rasala, written in the last years of his life, which expounds his theoretical positions on the foundations of law. According to his system, the four roots are Qur’an, the Sunna of Muhammad, consensus (ijma’), and analogic reasoning (qiyas). While these elements had been present before his time, al-Shafi‘i remade the Islamic legal system by redefining these terms. There was no dispute about the Qur’an’s role in law, but there was controversy about its interpretation. Starting with the Qur’anic injunction to obey both Allah and Muhammad {see Sura 4:69}, al-Shafi‘i raised the position of Muhammad’s sunna above that of only first among equals, making Muhammad’s actions the interpreter of the Qur’an. By the use of the notion of consensus, al-Shafi‘i legitimized the then current practice of the Muslim community as it was seen in retrospect to conform to the historical perceptions of the age of Muhammad and the Prophet’s Companions -- the Sahaba. Finally, the limitation of human reasoning to analogic reasoning removed much of the individual idiosyncrasy from legal practice. Al-Shafi‘i’s theory can be seen as a compromise between the strict Traditionists and the so-called Rationalists.
The Shafi‘ite school has had its greatest influence in East Africa, South Arabia, and Southeast Asia, although al-Shafi‘i’s personal influence is felt in all schools. The Shafi‘ites stand with the Hanbalites in opposing admission of judicial or public interest in legal consideration, and are most consistent in applying rules of analogy throughout their system, preferring judicial reasoning to weak traditions. They opposed legal stratagems in their early stages of development but admitted some in later periods. The Shafi‘ite school was generally adopted by the Ash‘arite speculative theologians after the tenth century.
Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al- (Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i) (Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī) (b. 767, Gaza, Palestine - d. 820, Fustat, Egypt). Founder of the Shafi‘ite school of law, most famous for his exposition of the “roots of jurisprudence,” which forms the basis for most Islamic legal considerations.
Al-Shafi‘i was so highly regarded from such an early date that his biographical notices tend to be more hagiographic than accurate. A Quraysh of the clan of Hashim, and therefore distantly related to Muhammad, al-Shafi‘i was raised in Mecca and received both an Arab and a Muslim education. He studied with Malik ibn Anas in Medina, had Shi‘ite involvements in the Yemen, spent time in Baghdad and Mecca, and died in Egypt.
In the area of substantive commentary on legal practice, al-Shafi‘i, because of his eclectic and broad education, was able to make penetrating analyses of practices current in his time, but he is more famous for his Rasala, written in the last years of his life, which expounds his theoretical positions on the foundations of law. According to his system, the four roots are Qur’an, the Sunna of Muhammad, consensus (ijma’), and analogic reasoning (qiyas). While these elements had been present before his time, al-Shafi‘i remade the Islamic legal system by redefining these terms. There was no dispute about the Qur’an’s role in law, but there was controversy about its interpretation. Starting with the Qur’anic injunction to obey both Allah and Muhammad {see Sura 4:69}, al-Shafi‘i raised the position of Muhammad’s sunna above that of only first among equals, making Muhammad’s actions the interpreter of the Qur’an. By the use of the notion of consensus, al-Shafi‘i legitimized the then current practice of the Muslim community as it was seen in retrospect to conform to the historical perceptions of the age of Muhammad and the Prophet’s Companions -- the Sahaba. Finally, the limitation of human reasoning to analogic reasoning removed much of the individual idiosyncrasy from legal practice. Al-Shafi‘i’s theory can be seen as a compromise between the strict Traditionists and the so-called Rationalists.
The Shafi‘ite school has had its greatest influence in East Africa, South Arabia, and Southeast Asia, although al-Shafi‘i’s personal influence is felt in all schools. The Shafi‘ites stand with the Hanbalites in opposing admission of judicial or public interest in legal consideration, and are most consistent in applying rules of analogy throughout their system, preferring judicial reasoning to weak traditions. They opposed legal stratagems in their early stages of development but admitted some in later periods. The Shafi‘ite school was generally adopted by the Ash‘arite speculative theologians after the tenth century.
Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī see Shafi‘i, Abu Abdullah ibn al-
Shafiq, Durriyah
Shafiq, Durriyah (Doria Shafik) (b. 1908/December 14, 1919, Tanta, Egypt - d. September 1975/1976, Cairo, Egypt). Egyptian scholar, teacher, journalist, and feminist activist. The writings and activism of Durriyah Shafiq followed in the secular, democratic tradition of the Egyptian feminists Huda Sha‘rawi and Aminah al-Sa‘id. Shafiq was educated in Western schools, first in a kindergarten run by Italian nuns and then at a French mission school. She was an admirer of Sha‘rawi from youth, and it was with Sha‘rawi’s assistance that Shafiq was able to attend the Sorbonne, where she received a doctorate in 1940.
Upon returning to Egypt Shafiq taught at Alexandria College for Girls and at the Sannia School. She then worked for the Ministry of Education as a French language inspector before beginning her career as a journalist and political activist. In 1945, she founded the magazine Majallat bint al-Nil (Daughter of the Nile Magazine), which included a segment devoted to promoting political rigths for women called Bint al-Nil al-siyasiyah (Political Daughter of the Nile).
In 1948, Shafiq founded the Ittihad Bint al-Nil (Daughter of the Nile Union), a middle class feminist association with branches in several provincial cities, dedicated to encouraging female literacy and full political rights for women. In a bid to gain international recognition for Egyptian feminism, Shafiq affiliated the Union with the International Council of Women under the name of the National Council for Egyptian Women.
In 1951, a thousand members of Shafiq’s Union disrupted the Egyptian parliament in a demonstration calling for the vote and other political rights for women. The demonstration sparked a reaction on the part of religious conservatives, and the Union of Muslim Associations in Egypt, which included the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that the king abolish all women’s organizations that called for participation in politics, that women be encouraged to stay at home, and that the use of the veil be enforced. Shafiq responded with a “White Paper on the Rights of Egyptian Women” (Al-kitab al-abyad li-huquq al-mar’ah al-Misriyah), in which she argued in the reformist tradition of Muslim feminists that Islam speaks for the equality of women and requires neither the veil nor domesticity.
The following year political opposition groups conducted a series of strikes against foreign interests in a bid to undermine the British occupation, and the paramilitary arm of Shafiq’s Union joined in the strike by picketing Barclay’s Bank. After the Free Officers came to power in 1952, Shafiq continued to agitate for political rights for women. She founded a short-lived “Daughter of the Nile” political party, which was disbanded with all other political parties in 1953 by the revolutionary government. In 1954, when the constitutional assembly formed by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to adopt or reject a proposed new constitution included no women, Shafiq carried out a much publicized hunger strike to demand political rights for women, in which she was joined by members of the Bint al-Nil Union in Cairo and Alexandria. Having sought and gained international recognition for her strike, Shafiq was rewarded when the governor of Cairo agreed to put in writing that the constitution would guarantee full political rights for women. The 1956 constitution did in fact grant women the right to vote, but only to those who formally applied for it, while for men the right to vote was automatic. Consequently, Shafiq filed a legal protest.
The following year marked Shafiq’s political undoing. She announced to Nasser and the press that she was going on a hunger strike to protest Nasser’s dictatorship, as well as the lingering Israeli occupation of the Sinai in the wake of the Suez invasion, which should have ended with the United Nations ordered withdrawal. Shafiq’s colleagues at the Bint al-Nil Union not only failed to support her but asked her to resign, and, along with other women’s associations, they denounced her as a traitor. She was placed under house arrest, and the Bint al-Nil Union and magazine were closed down. In the following years, Shafiq experienced repeated emotional breakdowns and eventually committed suicide in 1976.
Shafiq, like her predecessor Huda Sha‘rawi, had anticipated erroneously that women’s participation in the struggle for national liberation would engender popular support for feminist causes. Shafiq miscalculated on two counts -- first on the strength of Islamic conservative reaction, and second on the charisma of Nasser, who in spite of his repression of democracy enjoyed great popularity for having initiated the final evacuation of the British from Egypt.
In addition to her political writings, Shafiq wrote Al-mar’ah al-Misriyah min al-fara ‘inah ila al-yawm (Egyptian Women from the Pharaohs until Today), and, with Ibrahim ‘Abduh, Tatawwur al-nahdah al-Misriyah, 1798-1951 (Development of the Women’s Renaissance in Egypt), as well as several books of poetry and prose published in France.
Shafīq was born in Lower Egypt and received a Western-style education in French and Italian schools. She was a great admirer of Egyptian feminist pioneer Hudā Shaʿrāwī, who helped Shafīq continue her education in France. She obtained a doctorate from the Sorbonne—the first Egyptian woman to do so—and returned to Egypt in 1940. In her homeland she taught for several years and founded the magazine Bint al-Nīl, an organ devoted to promoting women’s issues. Three years later she founded the organization of the same name. The group engaged in a variety of social and political activities. In 1951 members interrupted a session of the Egyptian parliament and demonstrated in Cairo. In 1954 Shafīq and some of her followers went on a week’s hunger strike to protest for women’s rights. Some believe these tactics were influential in Egypt’s decision to grant women the franchise in 1956. Later demonstrations, challenging the autocratic rule of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, were not successful, and she was roundly censured, even by her erstwhile supporters. Driven from public life, she grew despondent and took her own life by throwing herself off the balcony of her home.
Doria Shafiq was one of the very first women who led to the women's liberation movement in Egypt in the early 1950s. Because of her, Egyptian women have the right to vote in the Egyptian constitution. She was the founder of literature patrols, a researcher and a freedom fighter against the British occupation in Egypt.
Durriyah Shafiq see Shafiq, Durriyah
Doria Shafik see Shafiq, Durriyah
Shafik, Doria see Shafiq, Durriyah
Shafiq, Durriyah (Doria Shafik) (b. 1908/December 14, 1919, Tanta, Egypt - d. September 1975/1976, Cairo, Egypt). Egyptian scholar, teacher, journalist, and feminist activist. The writings and activism of Durriyah Shafiq followed in the secular, democratic tradition of the Egyptian feminists Huda Sha‘rawi and Aminah al-Sa‘id. Shafiq was educated in Western schools, first in a kindergarten run by Italian nuns and then at a French mission school. She was an admirer of Sha‘rawi from youth, and it was with Sha‘rawi’s assistance that Shafiq was able to attend the Sorbonne, where she received a doctorate in 1940.
Upon returning to Egypt Shafiq taught at Alexandria College for Girls and at the Sannia School. She then worked for the Ministry of Education as a French language inspector before beginning her career as a journalist and political activist. In 1945, she founded the magazine Majallat bint al-Nil (Daughter of the Nile Magazine), which included a segment devoted to promoting political rigths for women called Bint al-Nil al-siyasiyah (Political Daughter of the Nile).
In 1948, Shafiq founded the Ittihad Bint al-Nil (Daughter of the Nile Union), a middle class feminist association with branches in several provincial cities, dedicated to encouraging female literacy and full political rights for women. In a bid to gain international recognition for Egyptian feminism, Shafiq affiliated the Union with the International Council of Women under the name of the National Council for Egyptian Women.
In 1951, a thousand members of Shafiq’s Union disrupted the Egyptian parliament in a demonstration calling for the vote and other political rights for women. The demonstration sparked a reaction on the part of religious conservatives, and the Union of Muslim Associations in Egypt, which included the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that the king abolish all women’s organizations that called for participation in politics, that women be encouraged to stay at home, and that the use of the veil be enforced. Shafiq responded with a “White Paper on the Rights of Egyptian Women” (Al-kitab al-abyad li-huquq al-mar’ah al-Misriyah), in which she argued in the reformist tradition of Muslim feminists that Islam speaks for the equality of women and requires neither the veil nor domesticity.
The following year political opposition groups conducted a series of strikes against foreign interests in a bid to undermine the British occupation, and the paramilitary arm of Shafiq’s Union joined in the strike by picketing Barclay’s Bank. After the Free Officers came to power in 1952, Shafiq continued to agitate for political rights for women. She founded a short-lived “Daughter of the Nile” political party, which was disbanded with all other political parties in 1953 by the revolutionary government. In 1954, when the constitutional assembly formed by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to adopt or reject a proposed new constitution included no women, Shafiq carried out a much publicized hunger strike to demand political rights for women, in which she was joined by members of the Bint al-Nil Union in Cairo and Alexandria. Having sought and gained international recognition for her strike, Shafiq was rewarded when the governor of Cairo agreed to put in writing that the constitution would guarantee full political rights for women. The 1956 constitution did in fact grant women the right to vote, but only to those who formally applied for it, while for men the right to vote was automatic. Consequently, Shafiq filed a legal protest.
The following year marked Shafiq’s political undoing. She announced to Nasser and the press that she was going on a hunger strike to protest Nasser’s dictatorship, as well as the lingering Israeli occupation of the Sinai in the wake of the Suez invasion, which should have ended with the United Nations ordered withdrawal. Shafiq’s colleagues at the Bint al-Nil Union not only failed to support her but asked her to resign, and, along with other women’s associations, they denounced her as a traitor. She was placed under house arrest, and the Bint al-Nil Union and magazine were closed down. In the following years, Shafiq experienced repeated emotional breakdowns and eventually committed suicide in 1976.
Shafiq, like her predecessor Huda Sha‘rawi, had anticipated erroneously that women’s participation in the struggle for national liberation would engender popular support for feminist causes. Shafiq miscalculated on two counts -- first on the strength of Islamic conservative reaction, and second on the charisma of Nasser, who in spite of his repression of democracy enjoyed great popularity for having initiated the final evacuation of the British from Egypt.
In addition to her political writings, Shafiq wrote Al-mar’ah al-Misriyah min al-fara ‘inah ila al-yawm (Egyptian Women from the Pharaohs until Today), and, with Ibrahim ‘Abduh, Tatawwur al-nahdah al-Misriyah, 1798-1951 (Development of the Women’s Renaissance in Egypt), as well as several books of poetry and prose published in France.
Shafīq was born in Lower Egypt and received a Western-style education in French and Italian schools. She was a great admirer of Egyptian feminist pioneer Hudā Shaʿrāwī, who helped Shafīq continue her education in France. She obtained a doctorate from the Sorbonne—the first Egyptian woman to do so—and returned to Egypt in 1940. In her homeland she taught for several years and founded the magazine Bint al-Nīl, an organ devoted to promoting women’s issues. Three years later she founded the organization of the same name. The group engaged in a variety of social and political activities. In 1951 members interrupted a session of the Egyptian parliament and demonstrated in Cairo. In 1954 Shafīq and some of her followers went on a week’s hunger strike to protest for women’s rights. Some believe these tactics were influential in Egypt’s decision to grant women the franchise in 1956. Later demonstrations, challenging the autocratic rule of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, were not successful, and she was roundly censured, even by her erstwhile supporters. Driven from public life, she grew despondent and took her own life by throwing herself off the balcony of her home.
Doria Shafiq was one of the very first women who led to the women's liberation movement in Egypt in the early 1950s. Because of her, Egyptian women have the right to vote in the Egyptian constitution. She was the founder of literature patrols, a researcher and a freedom fighter against the British occupation in Egypt.
Durriyah Shafiq see Shafiq, Durriyah
Doria Shafik see Shafiq, Durriyah
Shafik, Doria see Shafiq, Durriyah
Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu
Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu (Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari) (Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari) (b. 1924/February 25, 1925, Shagari, Sokoto State, Nigeria). President of Nigeria (1979- 1983).
Shagari was born in the northern village of Shagari founded by his great-grandfather about thirty miles from Sokoto. His father died when he was five, and he was placed under the guardianship of his older brother. Shagari began his education in a Qur’anic school and then went to live with relatives at a nearby town, where he attended elementary school.
In 1935, Shagari went to Sokoto for middle school, and then to Kaduna College in 1941. After two years of teacher training college, he accepted a position teaching science at Sokoto middle school, and in 1951 became headmaster of a primary school in Arungu. In 1953, he spent a year in Britain, receiving advanced training.
While Sokoto, Shagari had helped to found the predecessor of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), which dominated politics in Northern Nigeria during the pre-independence period. With the creation of the NPC in 1951, Shagari organized the Sokoto branch, serving as its secretary until 1956.
In 1954, Shagari was elected to the colonial house of representatives. In 1958, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the pre-independence prime minister, appointed him parliamentary secretary. After considerable accomplishments in developing the citizenship code for Nigeria in preparation for independence, Shagari was given the portfolios of trade and industry, and then economic development, which he held at independence in 1960. He held a number of other portfolios up until the 1965 coup in which Balewa was killed. After an unsuccessful attempt to form a new civilian government, Shagari returned to his home village.
Shagari subsequently became active in a private organization promoting education in the north. After the outbreak of the Nigerian civil war in 1967, Shagari went to Europe as a spokesman for the national government.
In 1970, President Yakubu Gowon appointed Shagari became federal commissioner of finance, one of the most powerful commissioner of finance, one of the most powerful offices in Gowon’s overthrow in 1976 Shagari lost his position, but was selected to help draft the new constitution to guide the return to civilian rule.
In 1978, political parties were legalized for the first time in twelve years in preparation for presidential elections in 1979. As the candidate of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Shagari won a plurality of the vote. Although the constitutionality of his victory without a run-off election was questioned, Shagari was nevertheless declared the winner by the electoral commission. The result was further challenged by rival candidates Obafemi Awolowo and Benjamin Nnamdi Azikiwe, but Shagari was confirmed by the supreme court. Shortly afterward, Shagari formed a coalition government with Azikiwe’s party.
Shagari’s government faced difficulties beyond those dictated by coalition politics. The new constitution, based on the United States Constitution, was foreign to the Westminster tradition that had developed in Nigeria. Nigeria’s long-standing ethnic rivalries and the power struggles between the central government and the states both remained sources of tension. Equally important was the re-emergence of the corruption that the military government had curtailed. On the last day of 1983, Shagari was overthrown in a bloodless (and not unpopular) coup led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari. Shagari was placed under arrest to stand trial for corruption.
Shagari’s great-grandfather founded the village from which the family took its name. Shagari was educated at Kaduna College and taught school briefly. As one of the few northerners to show an interest in national politics, he ran for office in 1954 and was elected to the federal House of Representatives. Thereafter he held several posts and was a member of every administration after Nigeria’s independence in 1960. After a military coup led by Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi in 1966 ended civilian government, he retired to his hometown. General Yakubu Gowon appointed him federal commissioner for economic development in 1971, a position he took over from Chief Obafemi Awolowo. He faced Awolowo in 1979 and narrowly defeated him in presidential elections after the military government, now led by Olusegun Obasanjo, allowed a return to civilian rule.
Nigeria was badly shaken by the international economic crisis of the early 1980s. Shagari took several steps to try to strengthen the economy—cutting the budget, calling in the International Monetary Fund, and expelling two million aliens (mostly Ghanaians) in 1983. He won the bitterly contested presidential elections in 1983, but the state of the economy and corruption in his administration worsened, and on December 31 a military coup led by Major General Muhammad Buhari toppled the government, and Shagari was arrested. Shagari was cleared of personal corruption charges and released from detention in 1986 but was banned from participation in Nigerian politics for life.
Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari see Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu
Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari see Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu
Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu (Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari) (Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari) (b. 1924/February 25, 1925, Shagari, Sokoto State, Nigeria). President of Nigeria (1979- 1983).
Shagari was born in the northern village of Shagari founded by his great-grandfather about thirty miles from Sokoto. His father died when he was five, and he was placed under the guardianship of his older brother. Shagari began his education in a Qur’anic school and then went to live with relatives at a nearby town, where he attended elementary school.
In 1935, Shagari went to Sokoto for middle school, and then to Kaduna College in 1941. After two years of teacher training college, he accepted a position teaching science at Sokoto middle school, and in 1951 became headmaster of a primary school in Arungu. In 1953, he spent a year in Britain, receiving advanced training.
While Sokoto, Shagari had helped to found the predecessor of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), which dominated politics in Northern Nigeria during the pre-independence period. With the creation of the NPC in 1951, Shagari organized the Sokoto branch, serving as its secretary until 1956.
In 1954, Shagari was elected to the colonial house of representatives. In 1958, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the pre-independence prime minister, appointed him parliamentary secretary. After considerable accomplishments in developing the citizenship code for Nigeria in preparation for independence, Shagari was given the portfolios of trade and industry, and then economic development, which he held at independence in 1960. He held a number of other portfolios up until the 1965 coup in which Balewa was killed. After an unsuccessful attempt to form a new civilian government, Shagari returned to his home village.
Shagari subsequently became active in a private organization promoting education in the north. After the outbreak of the Nigerian civil war in 1967, Shagari went to Europe as a spokesman for the national government.
In 1970, President Yakubu Gowon appointed Shagari became federal commissioner of finance, one of the most powerful commissioner of finance, one of the most powerful offices in Gowon’s overthrow in 1976 Shagari lost his position, but was selected to help draft the new constitution to guide the return to civilian rule.
In 1978, political parties were legalized for the first time in twelve years in preparation for presidential elections in 1979. As the candidate of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Shagari won a plurality of the vote. Although the constitutionality of his victory without a run-off election was questioned, Shagari was nevertheless declared the winner by the electoral commission. The result was further challenged by rival candidates Obafemi Awolowo and Benjamin Nnamdi Azikiwe, but Shagari was confirmed by the supreme court. Shortly afterward, Shagari formed a coalition government with Azikiwe’s party.
Shagari’s government faced difficulties beyond those dictated by coalition politics. The new constitution, based on the United States Constitution, was foreign to the Westminster tradition that had developed in Nigeria. Nigeria’s long-standing ethnic rivalries and the power struggles between the central government and the states both remained sources of tension. Equally important was the re-emergence of the corruption that the military government had curtailed. On the last day of 1983, Shagari was overthrown in a bloodless (and not unpopular) coup led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari. Shagari was placed under arrest to stand trial for corruption.
Shagari’s great-grandfather founded the village from which the family took its name. Shagari was educated at Kaduna College and taught school briefly. As one of the few northerners to show an interest in national politics, he ran for office in 1954 and was elected to the federal House of Representatives. Thereafter he held several posts and was a member of every administration after Nigeria’s independence in 1960. After a military coup led by Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi in 1966 ended civilian government, he retired to his hometown. General Yakubu Gowon appointed him federal commissioner for economic development in 1971, a position he took over from Chief Obafemi Awolowo. He faced Awolowo in 1979 and narrowly defeated him in presidential elections after the military government, now led by Olusegun Obasanjo, allowed a return to civilian rule.
Nigeria was badly shaken by the international economic crisis of the early 1980s. Shagari took several steps to try to strengthen the economy—cutting the budget, calling in the International Monetary Fund, and expelling two million aliens (mostly Ghanaians) in 1983. He won the bitterly contested presidential elections in 1983, but the state of the economy and corruption in his administration worsened, and on December 31 a military coup led by Major General Muhammad Buhari toppled the government, and Shagari was arrested. Shagari was cleared of personal corruption charges and released from detention in 1986 but was banned from participation in Nigerian politics for life.
Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari see Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu
Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari see Shagari, Shehu Usman Aliyu
Shah
Shah. Title given in the past to the head of state in Persia, and the usual word for “king” in Muslim lands where Persian is spoken. It was also used in proper names, as in that of Turan-Shah, the Ayyubid ruler of Yemen.
Shah is one of the most common titles used by the dynastic rulers of Iran and the Turko-Persian cultural area. Shah when employed by the monarch of a large territory, is often used in a compound form such as padishah (“emperor”) or shahanshah (“king of kings”). However, it can also appear as part of the title of a regional authority (such as the Kabulshah or Sharvan-shah) or as part of a ruler’s personal name (Turanshah, Shah Jahan, etc.).
Philologists trace this word’s origin back to an Old Persian root, khshay (“to rule”), from which the Achaemenid kings (559-33 B.C.T.) derived their title, khshayathiya. The subsequent forms shah and shahanshah were routinely applied to the princes and kings of the Sassanian dynasty (224-651 C.C.). After the Arab conquest of Persia, the title fell into disuse except by a few petty provincial dynasts. The term shahanshah in particular acquired a pejorative connotation and was condemned in some hadiths as blasphemous. As the empire of the caliphs began to break up into provincial politics, some ambitious regional dynasts reportedly aspired to revive the imperial title of shahanshah. The first Muslim rulers definitely known to have used it were the Buyids of western Iran (perhaps as early as 936), probably to emphasize their independence from the authority of the ‘Abbasid caliphs and later as a way of ranking authority within the Buyid family hierarchy. Thereafter, it became common for Muslim rulers to include shah as part of their titulature. It appears not only among Iranian dynasties, such as the Khwarazm-shahs but also among various Turko-Mongol rulers from the Seljuks to the Kara-koyunlu, Timurids, and Ottomans, as well as numerous Indian dynasties in Bengal, Kashmir, Jawnpur, Malwa, and elsewhere. However, such rulers generally used the term merely as one of many pompous and high sounding titles without attaching any special significance to it. This was not the case with Isma‘il Safavi, who took the title shah following the conquest of Tabriz and establishment of the Safavid dynasty in 1501. Shah once more became the particular and distinctive title of the dynastic rulers of the Iranian plateau, and it continuted to be used in this sense not only by the Safavids but by virtually all the subsequent rulres of Iran. In 1925, Reza Khan, after having briefly flirted with the idea of establishing a republican form of government, also opted to assume the title shah.
The term shah is invariably translated into English as “king,” but this does not convey fully all its nuances. Like tsar or kaiser, the title is rich in historical associations and suggest an institution of great antiquity, legitimacy, power, and authority. In its original and most distinctive usage, it is closely linked to the Persian ideal of sacred kingship. The wish to capitalize on this concept of the shah as the possessor of an awesome “kingly glory” who must be respected and obeyed has doubtless been a major factor in the various revivals of the title. A recent and ill-fated example of this may be seen in Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s extreme glorification of the monarchy as the unifying force of the Iranian nation-state, a tradition which was brought to an abrupt end by the Islamic Revolution and the consequent abolition of the office in 1979.
King see Shah.
Shah. Title given in the past to the head of state in Persia, and the usual word for “king” in Muslim lands where Persian is spoken. It was also used in proper names, as in that of Turan-Shah, the Ayyubid ruler of Yemen.
Shah is one of the most common titles used by the dynastic rulers of Iran and the Turko-Persian cultural area. Shah when employed by the monarch of a large territory, is often used in a compound form such as padishah (“emperor”) or shahanshah (“king of kings”). However, it can also appear as part of the title of a regional authority (such as the Kabulshah or Sharvan-shah) or as part of a ruler’s personal name (Turanshah, Shah Jahan, etc.).
Philologists trace this word’s origin back to an Old Persian root, khshay (“to rule”), from which the Achaemenid kings (559-33 B.C.T.) derived their title, khshayathiya. The subsequent forms shah and shahanshah were routinely applied to the princes and kings of the Sassanian dynasty (224-651 C.C.). After the Arab conquest of Persia, the title fell into disuse except by a few petty provincial dynasts. The term shahanshah in particular acquired a pejorative connotation and was condemned in some hadiths as blasphemous. As the empire of the caliphs began to break up into provincial politics, some ambitious regional dynasts reportedly aspired to revive the imperial title of shahanshah. The first Muslim rulers definitely known to have used it were the Buyids of western Iran (perhaps as early as 936), probably to emphasize their independence from the authority of the ‘Abbasid caliphs and later as a way of ranking authority within the Buyid family hierarchy. Thereafter, it became common for Muslim rulers to include shah as part of their titulature. It appears not only among Iranian dynasties, such as the Khwarazm-shahs but also among various Turko-Mongol rulers from the Seljuks to the Kara-koyunlu, Timurids, and Ottomans, as well as numerous Indian dynasties in Bengal, Kashmir, Jawnpur, Malwa, and elsewhere. However, such rulers generally used the term merely as one of many pompous and high sounding titles without attaching any special significance to it. This was not the case with Isma‘il Safavi, who took the title shah following the conquest of Tabriz and establishment of the Safavid dynasty in 1501. Shah once more became the particular and distinctive title of the dynastic rulers of the Iranian plateau, and it continuted to be used in this sense not only by the Safavids but by virtually all the subsequent rulres of Iran. In 1925, Reza Khan, after having briefly flirted with the idea of establishing a republican form of government, also opted to assume the title shah.
The term shah is invariably translated into English as “king,” but this does not convey fully all its nuances. Like tsar or kaiser, the title is rich in historical associations and suggest an institution of great antiquity, legitimacy, power, and authority. In its original and most distinctive usage, it is closely linked to the Persian ideal of sacred kingship. The wish to capitalize on this concept of the shah as the possessor of an awesome “kingly glory” who must be respected and obeyed has doubtless been a major factor in the various revivals of the title. A recent and ill-fated example of this may be seen in Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s extreme glorification of the monarchy as the unifying force of the Iranian nation-state, a tradition which was brought to an abrupt end by the Islamic Revolution and the consequent abolition of the office in 1979.
King see Shah.
Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar (Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar Shah ‘Alam II) (Shah Alam II) ('Abdu'llah Jalal ud-din Abu'l Muzaffar Ham ud-din Muhammad 'Ali Gauhar Shah-i-'Alam II) (Ali Gauhar) (b. June 15/25, 1728, Red Fort, Delhi, India - d. November 10/19, 1806, Red Fort, Delhi, India). Mughal emperor (r.1760-1788 and 1788-1806). Throughout his long reign, he was a puppet in the hands of others. He gave half-hearted support of Mir Qasim, the Nawwab-Nazim of Bengal, who was defeated by the British in 1764. After that, Shah ‘Alam became a pensioner of the latter.
The son of the emperor ʿĀlamgīr II, Shah 'Alam was forced to flee Delhi in 1758 by the minister ʿImād al-Mulk, who kept the emperor a virtual prisoner. He took refuge with Shujāʿ al-Dawlah, nawab of Oudh (Ayodhya), and after his father’s assassination in 1759 he proclaimed himself emperor. With the intention of seeking to capture Delhi, he demanded tribute from Bihar and Bengal and thereby came into conflict with the East India Company. After Shujāʿ al-Dawlah’s defeat at Buxar (in modern Bihar state) in 1764, however, Shah ʿĀlam became the company’s pensioner, in return for which he legalized the company’s positions in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa (1765) by granting the right to collect revenue. Comfortably settled at the city of Allahabad, he sought Delhi, and in 1771 an agreement with the Maratha people of western India returned it to him. During 1772–82 his minister, Najaf Khan, asserted imperial authority over the Delhi territory from the Sutlej to the Chambal river and from the state of Jaipur to the Ganges (Ganga) River. In 1788, however, the chief of the Rohillas (warlike Afghan tribes settled in India), Ghulām Qādir, seized Delhi and, enraged at his failure to find treasure, blinded Shah ʿĀlam.
Shah ʿĀlam spent his last years under the protection of the Maratha chief Sindhia, and, after the Second Maratha War (1803–05), of the British. With power only inside his palace, he saved more than a million rupees in his treasury. He was called “King of Delhi” by the British, who issued coins bearing his name for 30 years after his death.
Shah Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Jalal al-Din 'Ali Jawhar Shah 'Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
'Abdu'llah Jalal ud-din Abu'l Muzaffar Ham ud-din Muhammad 'Ali Gauhar Shah-i-'Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Ali Gauhar see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
King of Delhi see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar (Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar Shah ‘Alam II) (Shah Alam II) ('Abdu'llah Jalal ud-din Abu'l Muzaffar Ham ud-din Muhammad 'Ali Gauhar Shah-i-'Alam II) (Ali Gauhar) (b. June 15/25, 1728, Red Fort, Delhi, India - d. November 10/19, 1806, Red Fort, Delhi, India). Mughal emperor (r.1760-1788 and 1788-1806). Throughout his long reign, he was a puppet in the hands of others. He gave half-hearted support of Mir Qasim, the Nawwab-Nazim of Bengal, who was defeated by the British in 1764. After that, Shah ‘Alam became a pensioner of the latter.
The son of the emperor ʿĀlamgīr II, Shah 'Alam was forced to flee Delhi in 1758 by the minister ʿImād al-Mulk, who kept the emperor a virtual prisoner. He took refuge with Shujāʿ al-Dawlah, nawab of Oudh (Ayodhya), and after his father’s assassination in 1759 he proclaimed himself emperor. With the intention of seeking to capture Delhi, he demanded tribute from Bihar and Bengal and thereby came into conflict with the East India Company. After Shujāʿ al-Dawlah’s defeat at Buxar (in modern Bihar state) in 1764, however, Shah ʿĀlam became the company’s pensioner, in return for which he legalized the company’s positions in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa (1765) by granting the right to collect revenue. Comfortably settled at the city of Allahabad, he sought Delhi, and in 1771 an agreement with the Maratha people of western India returned it to him. During 1772–82 his minister, Najaf Khan, asserted imperial authority over the Delhi territory from the Sutlej to the Chambal river and from the state of Jaipur to the Ganges (Ganga) River. In 1788, however, the chief of the Rohillas (warlike Afghan tribes settled in India), Ghulām Qādir, seized Delhi and, enraged at his failure to find treasure, blinded Shah ʿĀlam.
Shah ʿĀlam spent his last years under the protection of the Maratha chief Sindhia, and, after the Second Maratha War (1803–05), of the British. With power only inside his palace, he saved more than a million rupees in his treasury. He was called “King of Delhi” by the British, who issued coins bearing his name for 30 years after his death.
Shah Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Jalal al-Din 'Ali Jawhar Shah 'Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
'Abdu'llah Jalal ud-din Abu'l Muzaffar Ham ud-din Muhammad 'Ali Gauhar Shah-i-'Alam II see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
Ali Gauhar see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
King of Delhi see Shah ‘Alam II, Jalal al-Din ‘Ali Jawhar
shah-en-shah
shah-en-shah. Term which means “king of kings.” The term shah-en-shah refers to the Persian title of the emperor.
"Shāh" was the title of Iranian kings including the Achaemenid dynasty which unified Persia and created a vast intercontinental empire. The full title of the Achaemenid rulers was xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām, "King of Kings", corresponding to Middle Persian šāhān šāh, literally "kings' king", and Modern Persian shāhanshāh. In Greek this phrase was translated as "basileus tōn basiléōn", "king of kings", in rank rather equivalent to emperor. The Indian counterpart of shahanshah was rajadhiraja or kshetra-pati (more toward Padishah).
king of kings see shah-en-shah.
shah-en-shah. Term which means “king of kings.” The term shah-en-shah refers to the Persian title of the emperor.
"Shāh" was the title of Iranian kings including the Achaemenid dynasty which unified Persia and created a vast intercontinental empire. The full title of the Achaemenid rulers was xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām, "King of Kings", corresponding to Middle Persian šāhān šāh, literally "kings' king", and Modern Persian shāhanshāh. In Greek this phrase was translated as "basileus tōn basiléōn", "king of kings", in rank rather equivalent to emperor. The Indian counterpart of shahanshah was rajadhiraja or kshetra-pati (more toward Padishah).
king of kings see shah-en-shah.
shahid
shahid. The Arabic word shahid means “witness” or “one who professes his faith.” The term shahid refers to one who has witnessed to Islam under duress, i.e., a martyr. The Qur’an frequently uses the word in its primary sense, but it early came to refer to those who died on the battlefield fighting for Islam. As martyrs, they were assured automatic, immediate entrance into paradise -- Janna, and according to later Muslim traditions they were also able to intercede on behalf of others.
Martyrs are especially esteemed among the Shi‘a and among Sufi loyalists (for whom the first martyr was al-Hallaj). The tombs of martyrs continue to be places of veneration and pilgrimage, just as their example continues to inspire present-day Muslims.
The term shahid has come to refer to a professional witness or notary in Muslim law.
The Islāmic designation shahīd (Arabic: “witness”) is equivalent to and in a sense derivative of the Judaeo-Christian concept of martyr. The full sense of “witness unto death” does not appear in the Qurʾān but receives explicit treatment in the subsequent Ḥadīth literature, in which it is stated that martyrs, among the host of heaven, stand nearest the throne of God.
While details of the status accorded by martyrdom (e.g., whether or not a martyr is exempt from certain rituals of burial) have been debated among dogmatists, it is generally agreed that the rank of shahīd comprises two groups of the faithful: those killed in jihad, or holy war, and those killed unjustly. The term is used informally to venerate anyone who dies in a pitiable manner (e.g., in childbirth; in a strange land). Among the Shīʿite branch, the martyr par excellence is Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī (c. 629–680), whose death at the hands of the rival Sunnite faction under Yazīd is commemorated every year during the first 10 days of the month of Muḥarram.
witness see shahid.
martyr see shahid.
one who professes his faith see shahid.
shahid. The Arabic word shahid means “witness” or “one who professes his faith.” The term shahid refers to one who has witnessed to Islam under duress, i.e., a martyr. The Qur’an frequently uses the word in its primary sense, but it early came to refer to those who died on the battlefield fighting for Islam. As martyrs, they were assured automatic, immediate entrance into paradise -- Janna, and according to later Muslim traditions they were also able to intercede on behalf of others.
Martyrs are especially esteemed among the Shi‘a and among Sufi loyalists (for whom the first martyr was al-Hallaj). The tombs of martyrs continue to be places of veneration and pilgrimage, just as their example continues to inspire present-day Muslims.
The term shahid has come to refer to a professional witness or notary in Muslim law.
The Islāmic designation shahīd (Arabic: “witness”) is equivalent to and in a sense derivative of the Judaeo-Christian concept of martyr. The full sense of “witness unto death” does not appear in the Qurʾān but receives explicit treatment in the subsequent Ḥadīth literature, in which it is stated that martyrs, among the host of heaven, stand nearest the throne of God.
While details of the status accorded by martyrdom (e.g., whether or not a martyr is exempt from certain rituals of burial) have been debated among dogmatists, it is generally agreed that the rank of shahīd comprises two groups of the faithful: those killed in jihad, or holy war, and those killed unjustly. The term is used informally to venerate anyone who dies in a pitiable manner (e.g., in childbirth; in a strange land). Among the Shīʿite branch, the martyr par excellence is Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī (c. 629–680), whose death at the hands of the rival Sunnite faction under Yazīd is commemorated every year during the first 10 days of the month of Muḥarram.
witness see shahid.
martyr see shahid.
one who professes his faith see shahid.
Shahiya
Shahiya. Turkish Muslim dynasty ruling in what is now Afghanistan, the Shahiyas were overthrown in the ninth century by a brahman, the founder of the Hindu Shahi dynasty. The best known of the Shahis, Jayapala, became king toward the end of the tenth century. His kingdom at one time included parts of Afghanistan and the Punjab. He fought several battles against Sebuktigin of Ghazna and Mahmud of Ghazna, but the Turkish rulers of Ghazna were generally the victors. In 1001, Mahmud finally defeated Jayapala and later captured him. In 1020-1021, Mahmud inflicted a decisive defeat on the Shahi Trilochanapala, and Shahi rule ended soon after.
The Shāhiya dynasty was comprised of some 60 rulers who governed the Kābul valley (in Afghanistan) and the old province of Gandhāra from the decline of the Kushān empire in the 3rd century of the Christian calendar. The word Shāhi, the title of the rulers, is related to the old Kushān form shao, or “king.” The dynasty probably descended from the Kushāns, or Turks (Tarushkas). Nothing is recorded of the history of the long line until the last king, Lagatūrmān, who reigned at the end of the 9th century and who was thrown in prison by his minister, a Brahman named Kallar. Kallar then usurped the throne and founded a new dynasty, the Hindu Shāhi, which ruled the area at the time of Maḥmūd’s invasion of India from Ghazna (modern Ghaznī, Afghanistan) in 1001. The Shāhis maintained a hopeless resistance against Maḥmūd’s forces but fell in 1021. They were so thoroughly extinguished that 30 years later the commentator Kalhaṇa said that men wondered whether they had ever existed. The historian al-Bīrūnī also noted their disappearance and paid high tribute to their nobility of character.
Shahiya. Turkish Muslim dynasty ruling in what is now Afghanistan, the Shahiyas were overthrown in the ninth century by a brahman, the founder of the Hindu Shahi dynasty. The best known of the Shahis, Jayapala, became king toward the end of the tenth century. His kingdom at one time included parts of Afghanistan and the Punjab. He fought several battles against Sebuktigin of Ghazna and Mahmud of Ghazna, but the Turkish rulers of Ghazna were generally the victors. In 1001, Mahmud finally defeated Jayapala and later captured him. In 1020-1021, Mahmud inflicted a decisive defeat on the Shahi Trilochanapala, and Shahi rule ended soon after.
The Shāhiya dynasty was comprised of some 60 rulers who governed the Kābul valley (in Afghanistan) and the old province of Gandhāra from the decline of the Kushān empire in the 3rd century of the Christian calendar. The word Shāhi, the title of the rulers, is related to the old Kushān form shao, or “king.” The dynasty probably descended from the Kushāns, or Turks (Tarushkas). Nothing is recorded of the history of the long line until the last king, Lagatūrmān, who reigned at the end of the 9th century and who was thrown in prison by his minister, a Brahman named Kallar. Kallar then usurped the throne and founded a new dynasty, the Hindu Shāhi, which ruled the area at the time of Maḥmūd’s invasion of India from Ghazna (modern Ghaznī, Afghanistan) in 1001. The Shāhis maintained a hopeless resistance against Maḥmūd’s forces but fell in 1021. They were so thoroughly extinguished that 30 years later the commentator Kalhaṇa said that men wondered whether they had ever existed. The historian al-Bīrūnī also noted their disappearance and paid high tribute to their nobility of character.
Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan I (Shahjahan) (Shah Jahan the Magnificent) (Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I) (Prince Khurrem) (Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I) (Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Abu'l-Muzaffar Shihab ud-din Muhammad, Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani, Shah Jahan I Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah) (Shah Jehan) (Shahjehan) (b. January 5, 1592, Lahore, India - d. January 22, 1666, Agra, India). Mughal emperor (r.1628-1657). In 1632, he compelled the kingdoms Ahmadnagar, Golkonda and Bijapur in the Deccan to submit. In 1657, his son Aurangzib defeated his three brothers, imprisoned his father and ascended the throne. Shah Jahan I had the Taj Mahal built at Agra over the remains of his wife Mumtaz Mahall and ordered the famous Peacock Throne to be constructed, which took seven years in the making.
Shah Jahan was the fifth Mughal emperor. Born Khurram Shihab al-Din Muhammad, the third son of Jahangir, he is better known as Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan is often considered the Mughal political and cultural apogee. As a prince he displayed great military talent. Until 1622, he was favored as the heir apparent. Frustrated by attempts to designate Shahryar as Jahangir’s successor, the prince Shah Jahan rebelled in 1623. Pardoned by Jahangir, Shah Jahan succeeded to the throne in 1628 and adopted titles that emphasized his Timurid ancestry. The initial years of Shah Jahan’s reign were marked by regional rebellions, including renewed conflict in the Deccan. Most difficulties were quickly suppressed, but the Deccan troubles persisted. In 1636, Shah Jahan appointed Prince Aurangzeb viceroy of the Deccan and pursued an increasingly aggressive policy against the Deccani rulers and the Maratha leader Shivaji, temporarily maintaining firm authority there. Less successful was Shah Jahan’s attempt to regain territories in Afghanistan, including Qandahar and Balkh, regarded as the Mughal homeland, thus affecting Indian trade and fresh recruitment of Central Asian Muslims into the Mughal army.
When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, his four sons vied for the throne. Although Shah Jahan recovered, Aurangzeb seized power, imprisoning his father in the Agra Red Fort until his death nine years later. Many feel that Shah Jahan was an extremely orthodox Muslim. However, his orthodoxy is more apparent in his state policy than in his personal belief, for he favored Dara Shikoh, his son with mystical leanings, and continued to recruit Hindus into the Mughal army. A keen patron of architecture, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal (a tomb for his wife) and a new city of Delhi, called Shahjahanabad, which included the Red Fort and the Jama Masjid.
Shah Jahān was the third son of the Mughal emperor Jahāngīr and the Rajput princess Manmati. Marrying in 1612 Arjūmand Bānū Begum, niece of Jahāngīr’s wife Nūr Jahān, he became, as Prince Khurram, one of the influential Nūr Jahān clique of the middle period of Jahāngīr’s reign. In 1622 Shah Jahān, ambitious to win the succession, rebelled, ineffectually roaming the empire until reconciled to Jahāngīr in 1625. After Jahāngīr’s death in 1627, the support of Āṣaf Khan, Nūr Jahān’s brother, enabled Shah Jahān to proclaim himself emperor at Agra (February 1628).
Shah Jahān’s reign was notable for successes against the Deccan states. By 1636, Ahmadnagar had been annexed and Golconda and Bijapur forced to become tributaries. Mughal power was also temporarily extended in the northwest. In 1638 the Persian governor of Kandahār, ʿAlī Mardān Khan, surrendered that fortress to the Mughals. In 1646 Mughal forces occupied Badakhshān and Balkh, but in 1647 Balkh was relinquished, and attempts to reconquer it in 1649, 1652, and 1653 failed. The Persians reconquered Kandahār in 1649. Shah Jahān transferred his capital from Agra to Delhi in 1648, creating the new city of Shāhjahānābād there.
Shah Jahān had an almost insatiable passion for building. At his first capital, Agra, he undertook the building of two great mosques, the Motī Masjid (Pearl Mosque) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (Great Mosque), as well as the superb mausoleum known as the Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal is the masterpiece of his reign and was erected in memory of the favorite of his three queens, Mumtāz Maḥal (the mother of Aurangzeb). At Delhi, Shah Jahān built a huge fortress-palace complex called the Red Fort as well as another Jāmiʿ Masjid, which is among the finest mosques in India. Shah Jahān’s reign was also a period of great literary activity, and the arts of painting and calligraphy were not neglected. His court was one of great pomp and splendor, and his collection of jewels was probably the most magnificent in the world.
Indian writers have generally characterized Shah Jahān as the very ideal of a Muslim monarch. But though the splendor of the Mughal court reached its zenith under him, he also set in motion influences that finally led to the decline of the empire. His expeditions against Balkh and Badakhshān and his attempts to recover Kandahār brought the empire to the verge of bankruptcy. In religion, Shah Jahān was a more orthodox Muslim than Jahāngīr or his grandfather Akbar but a less orthodox one than Aurangzeb. He proved a relatively tolerant ruler toward his Hindu subjects.
In September 1657 Shah Jahān fell ill, precipitating a struggle for succession between his four sons, Dārā Shikōh, Murād Bakhsh, Shah Shujāʿ, and Aurangzeb. The victor, Aurangzeb, declared himself emperor in 1658 and strictly confined Shah Jahān in the fort at Agra until his death.
Shah Jahan exemplified one of the highest points in the Mughal Empire but also foreshadowed its downfall through the succession of emperors in the Mughal line. With his accession and downfall at the hands of his sons aside, Shah Jahan can clearly be seen as a leader who changed the landscape of India dramatically in the course of his reign; when you take into consideration that the legacy that brought him down as well as his great accomplishment, Shah Jahan gives us a great wealth of knowledge into the internal workings of an empire that was built from conquering, violence, and tolerance while alluding to the unstable hierarchy and the right to power in the Mughal Empire. He came to power through violence and betrayal and was ultimately brought down by the same means, exacerbating the legacy of the Mughals.
Nevertheless, Shah Jahan left behind a grand legacy of structures constructed during his reign. He was a patron of architecture. His most famous building was the Taj Mahal, now a wonder of the world, which he built out of love for Mumtaz Mahal. Its structure was drawn with great care and architects from all over the world were called for this purpose. The building took twenty years to complete and was constructed entirely from the white marble. Upon his death, his son Aurangazeb had him interred in it next to Mumtaz Mahal. Among his other constructions are Delhi Fort also called the Red Fort or Lal Qila (Urdu) in Delhi, large sections of Agra Fort, the Jama Masjid (Grand Mosque), Delhi, the Wazir Khan Mosque, Lahore, Pakistan, the Moti Masjid (Pearl Mosque), Lahore, the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, sections of the Lahore Fort, Lahore, the Jahangir mausoleum — his father's tomb, the construction of which was overseen by his stepmother Nur Jahan and the Shahjahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan. He also had the Peacock Throne, Takht e Taus, made to celebrate his rule.
A famous Seamless celestial globe was produced in 1659-1660 AD (1070 AH), by the Sindhi Astronomer Muhammad Salih Tahtawi of Thatta with Arabic and Persian inscriptions.
There is a crater named after Shah Jahan on the asteroid 433 Eros. Craters on Eros are named after famous fictional and real-life lovers.
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shahjahan see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan the Magnificent see Shah Jahan I
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Prince Khurrem see Shah Jahan I
Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan I (Shahjahan) (Shah Jahan the Magnificent) (Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I) (Prince Khurrem) (Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I) (Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Abu'l-Muzaffar Shihab ud-din Muhammad, Sahib-i-Qiran-i-Sani, Shah Jahan I Padshah Ghazi Zillu'llah) (Shah Jehan) (Shahjehan) (b. January 5, 1592, Lahore, India - d. January 22, 1666, Agra, India). Mughal emperor (r.1628-1657). In 1632, he compelled the kingdoms Ahmadnagar, Golkonda and Bijapur in the Deccan to submit. In 1657, his son Aurangzib defeated his three brothers, imprisoned his father and ascended the throne. Shah Jahan I had the Taj Mahal built at Agra over the remains of his wife Mumtaz Mahall and ordered the famous Peacock Throne to be constructed, which took seven years in the making.
Shah Jahan was the fifth Mughal emperor. Born Khurram Shihab al-Din Muhammad, the third son of Jahangir, he is better known as Shah Jahan. Shah Jahan is often considered the Mughal political and cultural apogee. As a prince he displayed great military talent. Until 1622, he was favored as the heir apparent. Frustrated by attempts to designate Shahryar as Jahangir’s successor, the prince Shah Jahan rebelled in 1623. Pardoned by Jahangir, Shah Jahan succeeded to the throne in 1628 and adopted titles that emphasized his Timurid ancestry. The initial years of Shah Jahan’s reign were marked by regional rebellions, including renewed conflict in the Deccan. Most difficulties were quickly suppressed, but the Deccan troubles persisted. In 1636, Shah Jahan appointed Prince Aurangzeb viceroy of the Deccan and pursued an increasingly aggressive policy against the Deccani rulers and the Maratha leader Shivaji, temporarily maintaining firm authority there. Less successful was Shah Jahan’s attempt to regain territories in Afghanistan, including Qandahar and Balkh, regarded as the Mughal homeland, thus affecting Indian trade and fresh recruitment of Central Asian Muslims into the Mughal army.
When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, his four sons vied for the throne. Although Shah Jahan recovered, Aurangzeb seized power, imprisoning his father in the Agra Red Fort until his death nine years later. Many feel that Shah Jahan was an extremely orthodox Muslim. However, his orthodoxy is more apparent in his state policy than in his personal belief, for he favored Dara Shikoh, his son with mystical leanings, and continued to recruit Hindus into the Mughal army. A keen patron of architecture, Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal (a tomb for his wife) and a new city of Delhi, called Shahjahanabad, which included the Red Fort and the Jama Masjid.
Shah Jahān was the third son of the Mughal emperor Jahāngīr and the Rajput princess Manmati. Marrying in 1612 Arjūmand Bānū Begum, niece of Jahāngīr’s wife Nūr Jahān, he became, as Prince Khurram, one of the influential Nūr Jahān clique of the middle period of Jahāngīr’s reign. In 1622 Shah Jahān, ambitious to win the succession, rebelled, ineffectually roaming the empire until reconciled to Jahāngīr in 1625. After Jahāngīr’s death in 1627, the support of Āṣaf Khan, Nūr Jahān’s brother, enabled Shah Jahān to proclaim himself emperor at Agra (February 1628).
Shah Jahān’s reign was notable for successes against the Deccan states. By 1636, Ahmadnagar had been annexed and Golconda and Bijapur forced to become tributaries. Mughal power was also temporarily extended in the northwest. In 1638 the Persian governor of Kandahār, ʿAlī Mardān Khan, surrendered that fortress to the Mughals. In 1646 Mughal forces occupied Badakhshān and Balkh, but in 1647 Balkh was relinquished, and attempts to reconquer it in 1649, 1652, and 1653 failed. The Persians reconquered Kandahār in 1649. Shah Jahān transferred his capital from Agra to Delhi in 1648, creating the new city of Shāhjahānābād there.
Shah Jahān had an almost insatiable passion for building. At his first capital, Agra, he undertook the building of two great mosques, the Motī Masjid (Pearl Mosque) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (Great Mosque), as well as the superb mausoleum known as the Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal is the masterpiece of his reign and was erected in memory of the favorite of his three queens, Mumtāz Maḥal (the mother of Aurangzeb). At Delhi, Shah Jahān built a huge fortress-palace complex called the Red Fort as well as another Jāmiʿ Masjid, which is among the finest mosques in India. Shah Jahān’s reign was also a period of great literary activity, and the arts of painting and calligraphy were not neglected. His court was one of great pomp and splendor, and his collection of jewels was probably the most magnificent in the world.
Indian writers have generally characterized Shah Jahān as the very ideal of a Muslim monarch. But though the splendor of the Mughal court reached its zenith under him, he also set in motion influences that finally led to the decline of the empire. His expeditions against Balkh and Badakhshān and his attempts to recover Kandahār brought the empire to the verge of bankruptcy. In religion, Shah Jahān was a more orthodox Muslim than Jahāngīr or his grandfather Akbar but a less orthodox one than Aurangzeb. He proved a relatively tolerant ruler toward his Hindu subjects.
In September 1657 Shah Jahān fell ill, precipitating a struggle for succession between his four sons, Dārā Shikōh, Murād Bakhsh, Shah Shujāʿ, and Aurangzeb. The victor, Aurangzeb, declared himself emperor in 1658 and strictly confined Shah Jahān in the fort at Agra until his death.
Shah Jahan exemplified one of the highest points in the Mughal Empire but also foreshadowed its downfall through the succession of emperors in the Mughal line. With his accession and downfall at the hands of his sons aside, Shah Jahan can clearly be seen as a leader who changed the landscape of India dramatically in the course of his reign; when you take into consideration that the legacy that brought him down as well as his great accomplishment, Shah Jahan gives us a great wealth of knowledge into the internal workings of an empire that was built from conquering, violence, and tolerance while alluding to the unstable hierarchy and the right to power in the Mughal Empire. He came to power through violence and betrayal and was ultimately brought down by the same means, exacerbating the legacy of the Mughals.
Nevertheless, Shah Jahan left behind a grand legacy of structures constructed during his reign. He was a patron of architecture. His most famous building was the Taj Mahal, now a wonder of the world, which he built out of love for Mumtaz Mahal. Its structure was drawn with great care and architects from all over the world were called for this purpose. The building took twenty years to complete and was constructed entirely from the white marble. Upon his death, his son Aurangazeb had him interred in it next to Mumtaz Mahal. Among his other constructions are Delhi Fort also called the Red Fort or Lal Qila (Urdu) in Delhi, large sections of Agra Fort, the Jama Masjid (Grand Mosque), Delhi, the Wazir Khan Mosque, Lahore, Pakistan, the Moti Masjid (Pearl Mosque), Lahore, the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore, sections of the Lahore Fort, Lahore, the Jahangir mausoleum — his father's tomb, the construction of which was overseen by his stepmother Nur Jahan and the Shahjahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan. He also had the Peacock Throne, Takht e Taus, made to celebrate his rule.
A famous Seamless celestial globe was produced in 1659-1660 AD (1070 AH), by the Sindhi Astronomer Muhammad Salih Tahtawi of Thatta with Arabic and Persian inscriptions.
There is a crater named after Shah Jahan on the asteroid 433 Eros. Craters on Eros are named after famous fictional and real-life lovers.
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shahjahan see Shah Jahan I
Shah Jahan the Magnificent see Shah Jahan I
Shihab al-Din Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Prince Khurrem see Shah Jahan I
Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Shah Jahan I see Shah Jahan I
Shah Mir
Shah Mir (Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir) (d. 1349). Adventurer who founded the first dynasty of Muslim rulers in Kashmir. He settled in Kashmir in 1315, compelled the widow of the deceased ruler Adnideva to marry him, leading to her death and his ascension to the throne in 1339. He limited the demands of the treasury and his rule was tolerant and beneficent. The forcible conversion of the inhabitants to Islam was not effected until the reign of his grandson Sikandar Butshikan.
Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir (r. 1339-42) was a ruler of Kashmir and the founder of the Shah Miri dynasty named after him. Jonaraja, in his Rajatarangini mentioned him as Sahamera. He came to Kashmir from Swat (Tribal) territory on the borders of Afghanistan, along with Rinchana from Ladakh, and Lankar Chak from Dard territory near Gilgit, and played a notable role in subsequent political history of the valley. All three men were granted Jagirs by King Rinchan for 3 years to become the ruler of Kashmir. Shah Mir was the first ruler of the Swati dynasty, which had established in 1339.
During the reign of Sehadeva (1301-?), a Tatar chief Dulucha invaded Kashmir and ravaged it. King Sehadeva fled the country and his general Ramachandra occupied the throne. In the confusion Rinchana (r. 1320-23), the Ladhaki prince,organized an internal rising and seized the throne. He married Kota Rani, the daughter of Ramachandra. However, the Hindu religious leaders of the time refused to admit him into their fold. Finally, he embraced Islam before he was killed. He had a son, Haidar by his queen Kota Rani. After the death of Rinchana, Kota Rani married Udayana Deva, the brother of Sehadava.
The last Hindu ruler of Kashmir was Udyana Deva. It was his chief Queen Kota Rani, who actually governed the state. She was a very brave lady, shrewd and an able ruler. However, while she tried her best to save her Kingdom, the odds were too heavy against her. The valley was again invaded by a Mongol and Turk invader Achalla, and Udayana Deva fled to Tibet. But the Queen Kota Rani defeated Achalla and drove away all the foreign troops.
Finally another rising was led by Shah Mir, who defeated the queen at Jayapur (modern Sumbal). The defeat upset her and seeing the indifference of the Hindu grandees and general public, she stabbed herself to death, because Shah Mir wanted to marry her. Her death in 1339 paved the way for the establishment of Shah miri dynasty rule in Kashmir.
Shah Mir was succeeded by his eldest son Jamshid, but he was deposed by his brother Ali Sher within a few months, who ascended the throne under the name of Alauddin.
The basic descent of Shahmirirs is dated back to the Mir Syed Ali Hamdani from Iran who had come to preach Islam in Kashmir and settled there. After the fall of their empire the descendants disseminated to various areas in the valley like the saffron town in Pampore (Kadlabal) while others settled in the Srinagar suburbs. Shahmiris are still looked at as royal elites and generally live in palatial houses in Srinagar that were built in Victorian style architecture back in the 19th century.
Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir see Shah Mir
Shah Mir (Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir) (d. 1349). Adventurer who founded the first dynasty of Muslim rulers in Kashmir. He settled in Kashmir in 1315, compelled the widow of the deceased ruler Adnideva to marry him, leading to her death and his ascension to the throne in 1339. He limited the demands of the treasury and his rule was tolerant and beneficent. The forcible conversion of the inhabitants to Islam was not effected until the reign of his grandson Sikandar Butshikan.
Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir (r. 1339-42) was a ruler of Kashmir and the founder of the Shah Miri dynasty named after him. Jonaraja, in his Rajatarangini mentioned him as Sahamera. He came to Kashmir from Swat (Tribal) territory on the borders of Afghanistan, along with Rinchana from Ladakh, and Lankar Chak from Dard territory near Gilgit, and played a notable role in subsequent political history of the valley. All three men were granted Jagirs by King Rinchan for 3 years to become the ruler of Kashmir. Shah Mir was the first ruler of the Swati dynasty, which had established in 1339.
During the reign of Sehadeva (1301-?), a Tatar chief Dulucha invaded Kashmir and ravaged it. King Sehadeva fled the country and his general Ramachandra occupied the throne. In the confusion Rinchana (r. 1320-23), the Ladhaki prince,organized an internal rising and seized the throne. He married Kota Rani, the daughter of Ramachandra. However, the Hindu religious leaders of the time refused to admit him into their fold. Finally, he embraced Islam before he was killed. He had a son, Haidar by his queen Kota Rani. After the death of Rinchana, Kota Rani married Udayana Deva, the brother of Sehadava.
The last Hindu ruler of Kashmir was Udyana Deva. It was his chief Queen Kota Rani, who actually governed the state. She was a very brave lady, shrewd and an able ruler. However, while she tried her best to save her Kingdom, the odds were too heavy against her. The valley was again invaded by a Mongol and Turk invader Achalla, and Udayana Deva fled to Tibet. But the Queen Kota Rani defeated Achalla and drove away all the foreign troops.
Finally another rising was led by Shah Mir, who defeated the queen at Jayapur (modern Sumbal). The defeat upset her and seeing the indifference of the Hindu grandees and general public, she stabbed herself to death, because Shah Mir wanted to marry her. Her death in 1339 paved the way for the establishment of Shah miri dynasty rule in Kashmir.
Shah Mir was succeeded by his eldest son Jamshid, but he was deposed by his brother Ali Sher within a few months, who ascended the throne under the name of Alauddin.
The basic descent of Shahmirirs is dated back to the Mir Syed Ali Hamdani from Iran who had come to preach Islam in Kashmir and settled there. After the fall of their empire the descendants disseminated to various areas in the valley like the saffron town in Pampore (Kadlabal) while others settled in the Srinagar suburbs. Shahmiris are still looked at as royal elites and generally live in palatial houses in Srinagar that were built in Victorian style architecture back in the 19th century.
Shams-ud-Din Shah Mir see Shah Mir
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani) (Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī) (1076/1086-1153). Principal Muslim historian of religions in the Middle Ages. In his most famous work, a treatise on religions and sects, he passes in review all the philosophic and religious systems that he was able to study and classes them according to their degree of remoteness from Muslim orthodoxy. After the Muslim sects, the Mu‘tazila, the Shi ‘a and the Batiniyya, follow the Christians and the Jews, then the Magi and the Dualists, and finally the Sabaeans. The author then goes back to pagan antiquity and gives articles on the prinicipal philosophers and sages of Greece, and then gives an exposition of Arab scholasticism as a derivative from Hellenism; the last part of the book is devoted to the religions of India.
Shahrastani, the man who has been called the “principal historian of religion” in Asia during the Middle Ages, was born in Shahrastan, in the Khurasan area of Iran. Born Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ash-Sharastani, Shahrastani offered a distinctive method of viewing the cultural interaction and conceptual development of world religions and philosophies within the Mediterranean, Southwest Asian, and South Asian world.
Little is known about Shahrastani’s early years. However, it is reported that he studied jurisprudence and theology, but his personal philosophical and religious allegiances are a matter of controversy. In addition to his masterwork, The Book of Religious and Philosophical Communities (Kitab al-Milal wa’l-Nihal), he wrote a Dual of the Philosophers and a respected work on theology, the Culmination of Demonstration in Scholastic Theology (Nihayat al-‘Iqdam). It is the first work, however, on which his present influence and reputation are based.
Shahrastani’s famous discussion of the scholastic theologians (mutakallimun) is based upon categorizations of schools and sub-schools with respect to their positions on a number of topical categories, including tawhid (the affirmation of divine unity) and qadar, the issue of divine predetermination versus human free will.
The affirmation of divine unity is codified in the Islamic shahada or testimony (itself encoded in the call to prayer and recited five times a day): “No God but God and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The common meaning of such affirmation is of course that there is only one Deity. To affirm any other deities is to be guilty of shirk (associationism), that is, the associating of other deities with the one God. To the theological mind, as demonstrated in case studies by Shahrastani, tawhid raised further questions. If there is only one Deity, how do the divine attributes in the Qur’an (seeing, hearing, knowing, having compassion) relate to the Deity? Are they part of the divine essence? If so, are we to imagine a multiplicity of powers (knowing, hearing, seeing) existing from all eternity, and would that not be a subtle form of shirk, asserting the existence of multiple, eternal powers? However, if the attributes are not part of the Deity’s essence, then does the Diety change? Is it in a state of not-hearing at one time, and hearing at another, subject to accident and contingency?
Shahrastani demonstrates no particular dogmatic answer, but illuminates, rather, how the debate among various schools led to more profound questions. Shahrastani also takes up Qur’anic references to a Deity that sees, hears, creates “with two hands,” and “sits on a throne.” Some groups, such as the Mu‘tazila, considered a literal interpretation of these images to be a form “likening” (tashbih) the Deity upon human characteristics, a procedure that would entail an anthropomorphic image just as idolatrous as idols made of wood and stone. They argued in favor of a figurative interpretation (ta’wil) that would explain how such figures of speech can refer to the one Divine Power.
Shahrastani shows us how the theological debate generated new positions, with some scholars arguing that attributes shared by humans (seeing, hearing, and so forth) are intrinsically anthropomorphic, and therefore affirming only those, such as power, knowledge, and will, which in their view belong to the Deity alone. Others argued that figurative interpretation is an “explaining away” of the Qur’anic text based upon the preferences of human rationalizing, and a stripping (ta‘til) from the Deity of the attributes it has affirmed for itself in its own word.
Shahrastani’s second theological category is divine predetermination (qadar). Several passages in the Qur’an emphasize the all-powerful nature of the Deity in a way that seems to preclude human will or choice; the Deity is said to “stop up the ears” of those who have rejected the Qur’anic message, for example. Other passages are urgent prophetic appeals to the hearer to choose the path of prophetic wisdom. If the response of the listener has already been predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity, what is the status of such appeals? Is it fair or just for the Deity to then reward and punish humans on the basis of a decision made from all time by that Deity?
Shahrastani quotes Wasil, the most famous theologian of the Mu‘tazilite School of theology, who rejected divine predetermination:
It is not possible for [God] to will for [God’s] servants what is in disagreement with [God’s] command -- to control their action and then to punish them for what they did.
Later, he quotes ‘Amr as asking, “Does he predestine me to do something and then punish me for it?” For the Mu‘tazilites, the Deity is all-wise (hakim) and therefore must act in the interests of his creatures and with justice (‘adl). Human beings have an innate capacity for understanding justice, right and wrong, without which they could not receive prophetic revelation in the first place. For their opponents, such statements are denial of divine power and knowledge; what the Deity does is, by nature, just -- the Deity cannot be held accountable to fallible human understandings of what is just; and what the Deity imparts by way of revelation is in fact the only knowledge of right and wrong, and the only understanding of justice available to humankind.
Ironically, and confusingly, those who rejected divine predetermination (qadar) were called by the epithet the qadariyya. Those who affirmed predetermination were called the compulsionists (jabriyya). Those who appealed to the interpretations of the earliest companions of the prophets and rejected the theological attempt to apply formal human reason to such questions were called the traditionalists (salaf), but even this group finally accepted a form of theological discourse to defend their original anti-theological stance.
Another major group was called the attributionists (sifatiyya). This group originally sprang from the position of the theological al-Ash‘ari, who vehemently maintained both the literalness of the attributes and the reality of divine predetermination. However, his school, the Ash‘arites, later tried to walk a middle ground on both issues and came to be the most widely accepted theological school in Islam. Some spoke of divine conditions (ahwal), which would be neither divine attributes eternally one with divine substance nor accidents that would prevail upon the Deity. In the area of divine predetermination, Shahrastani suggests that they tried to walk that middle ground by speaking of the Deity as creator of all acts, and of human beings as “acquiring” the power of the act at the moment of participation in it.
The Ash‘arite School later was considered the “orthodoxy” among some writers, and some considered Shahrastani to be of that school. However, although he was willing to give his opinion, what makes Shahrastani’s work reflective of a great thinker is not his argument for any particular position, but rather his ability to expound positions in such a way as to bring out the centrality of key theological issues and show how the Islamic tradition shaped itself around the effort to resolve those issues.
Shahrastani’s treatment of cosmology is particularly important. In his discussion of the pre-Socratic philosophers he outlines what we might call “neo-pre-Socratic Islamic thought,” that is, the construction of the pre-Socratics by Islamic thinkers who then formed “schools” around them. Although much of the thought is consonant with what we know of Thales, Empedocles, and other pre-Socratics, it carries a new emphasis, with more thematic unity based upon more continued return to the question of the primal element “receptive of all forms.” It is difficult to know, given the lack of other testimony, how much of the thematic unity is due to the Islamic schools themselves and how much is the work of Shahrastani.
Shahrastani also brings us the critical texts of the anonymous figure known as the “Greek Master” (al-shaykh al-yunani), texts that turn out to be the most radically apophatic passages of Plotinus, passages attempting to express the inexpressible. Shahrastani thus demonstrates that in addition to the more Aristotelian school of Islamic Plotinian thought centered around the “Theology of Aristotle,” there was a more mystically inclined school that focused on those Plotinian passages placing ultimate reality beyond the the categories of being altogether.
Perhaps Shahrastani’s most brilliant essay is that on the Sabaeans of Harran. Harran, the ancient city near the upper Tigris, was an early Islamic center of alternative philosophies, from the Hermeticists (devoted to Agathodaemon, Asclepius, and Hermes), to those following elaborate ritual calendars. Shahrastrani places the Harranians in a debate with the hanifs. The word hanif was used in early Islam to refer to monotheists, particularly the pre-Islamic monotheists of Arabia. For example, Abraham was considered the archetypal hanif.
The Harranians outline a cosmos made up of concentric spheres inhabited by spirits -- by ruhaniyat --, and the goal of philosophy is either to ascend through the spheres to encounter the spirits, or to draw the spirits down into temples on Earth. From the spirits one receives true inspiration. The hanifs counter that the true bearers of truth are the prophets, who are, as in the mi ‘raj account of Muhammad’s ascent through the Heavens, the guardians of the various Heavens.
As Shahrastani unfolds the argument, he demonstrates a fundamental tension in classical Islamic thought between the spiritualists (those who see the goal of philosophy as having become more spiritual -- or, as in the case of Ibn Sina [Avicenna], more intellectual) and the humanists (those who see the goal as having become more human and who see the intermediaries of truth as the human prophets). Sharastani thus helps us in understanding the symbolic significance of every detail of the cosmos of concentric spheres, the identity of the guardians of the spheres, the way in which human beings can rise through the spheres, the test by which they are tried at each sphere, and the ultimate arrival at the divine throne. This paradigm, which is fundamental not only to medieval Islam, but to medieval Judaism and Christianity as well (and which, indeed, served as one of the meeting places and places of contest among the three traditions) has a coded system of values that, through his debate format, Shahrastani helps to make explicit.
The analysis of theological debates about the unity of the Deity and divine predetermination, the philosophical cosmology of the pre-Socratics (as reconstructed in Islamic philosophy), the mystical dimension of Islamic Plotinian thought, and the symbolic cosmology of the heavenly spheres and their guardians are only some examples of Shahrastani’s contributions. In these cases, and throughout his masterwork, Shahrastani uses a categorization of schools to demonstrate how central questions, dilemmas, and symbols become the matrix for the development of ever more sophisticated versions of Islamic thought.
Al-Shahrastani was an able and learned man of great personal charm. The real nature of his thought is best referred to by the term theosophy, in the older sense of "divine wisdom". However, al-Shahrastani was certainly not totally against theology or philosophy, even if he was very harsh against the theologians and the philosophers. As he explained in the Majlis, in order to remain on the right path, one must preserve a perfect equilibrium between intellect (`aql) and audition (sam`). A philosopher or a theologian must use his intellect until he reaches the rational limit. Beyond this limit, he must listen to the teaching of Prophets and Imams.
His works reflect a complex interweaving of intellectual strands, and his thought is a synthesis of this fruitful historical period. In his conception of God, Creation, Prophecy, and Imama, al-Shahrastani adopted many doctrinal elements that are reconcilable with Nizari Isma'ilism. The necessity of a Guide, belonging both to the spiritual and the physical world, is primordial in his scheme since the Imam is manifested in this physical world.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
The Principal Historian of Religion see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani) (Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī) (1076/1086-1153). Principal Muslim historian of religions in the Middle Ages. In his most famous work, a treatise on religions and sects, he passes in review all the philosophic and religious systems that he was able to study and classes them according to their degree of remoteness from Muslim orthodoxy. After the Muslim sects, the Mu‘tazila, the Shi ‘a and the Batiniyya, follow the Christians and the Jews, then the Magi and the Dualists, and finally the Sabaeans. The author then goes back to pagan antiquity and gives articles on the prinicipal philosophers and sages of Greece, and then gives an exposition of Arab scholasticism as a derivative from Hellenism; the last part of the book is devoted to the religions of India.
Shahrastani, the man who has been called the “principal historian of religion” in Asia during the Middle Ages, was born in Shahrastan, in the Khurasan area of Iran. Born Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim ash-Sharastani, Shahrastani offered a distinctive method of viewing the cultural interaction and conceptual development of world religions and philosophies within the Mediterranean, Southwest Asian, and South Asian world.
Little is known about Shahrastani’s early years. However, it is reported that he studied jurisprudence and theology, but his personal philosophical and religious allegiances are a matter of controversy. In addition to his masterwork, The Book of Religious and Philosophical Communities (Kitab al-Milal wa’l-Nihal), he wrote a Dual of the Philosophers and a respected work on theology, the Culmination of Demonstration in Scholastic Theology (Nihayat al-‘Iqdam). It is the first work, however, on which his present influence and reputation are based.
Shahrastani’s famous discussion of the scholastic theologians (mutakallimun) is based upon categorizations of schools and sub-schools with respect to their positions on a number of topical categories, including tawhid (the affirmation of divine unity) and qadar, the issue of divine predetermination versus human free will.
The affirmation of divine unity is codified in the Islamic shahada or testimony (itself encoded in the call to prayer and recited five times a day): “No God but God and Muhammad is his Messenger.” The common meaning of such affirmation is of course that there is only one Deity. To affirm any other deities is to be guilty of shirk (associationism), that is, the associating of other deities with the one God. To the theological mind, as demonstrated in case studies by Shahrastani, tawhid raised further questions. If there is only one Deity, how do the divine attributes in the Qur’an (seeing, hearing, knowing, having compassion) relate to the Deity? Are they part of the divine essence? If so, are we to imagine a multiplicity of powers (knowing, hearing, seeing) existing from all eternity, and would that not be a subtle form of shirk, asserting the existence of multiple, eternal powers? However, if the attributes are not part of the Deity’s essence, then does the Diety change? Is it in a state of not-hearing at one time, and hearing at another, subject to accident and contingency?
Shahrastani demonstrates no particular dogmatic answer, but illuminates, rather, how the debate among various schools led to more profound questions. Shahrastani also takes up Qur’anic references to a Deity that sees, hears, creates “with two hands,” and “sits on a throne.” Some groups, such as the Mu‘tazila, considered a literal interpretation of these images to be a form “likening” (tashbih) the Deity upon human characteristics, a procedure that would entail an anthropomorphic image just as idolatrous as idols made of wood and stone. They argued in favor of a figurative interpretation (ta’wil) that would explain how such figures of speech can refer to the one Divine Power.
Shahrastani shows us how the theological debate generated new positions, with some scholars arguing that attributes shared by humans (seeing, hearing, and so forth) are intrinsically anthropomorphic, and therefore affirming only those, such as power, knowledge, and will, which in their view belong to the Deity alone. Others argued that figurative interpretation is an “explaining away” of the Qur’anic text based upon the preferences of human rationalizing, and a stripping (ta‘til) from the Deity of the attributes it has affirmed for itself in its own word.
Shahrastani’s second theological category is divine predetermination (qadar). Several passages in the Qur’an emphasize the all-powerful nature of the Deity in a way that seems to preclude human will or choice; the Deity is said to “stop up the ears” of those who have rejected the Qur’anic message, for example. Other passages are urgent prophetic appeals to the hearer to choose the path of prophetic wisdom. If the response of the listener has already been predetermined by an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity, what is the status of such appeals? Is it fair or just for the Deity to then reward and punish humans on the basis of a decision made from all time by that Deity?
Shahrastani quotes Wasil, the most famous theologian of the Mu‘tazilite School of theology, who rejected divine predetermination:
It is not possible for [God] to will for [God’s] servants what is in disagreement with [God’s] command -- to control their action and then to punish them for what they did.
Later, he quotes ‘Amr as asking, “Does he predestine me to do something and then punish me for it?” For the Mu‘tazilites, the Deity is all-wise (hakim) and therefore must act in the interests of his creatures and with justice (‘adl). Human beings have an innate capacity for understanding justice, right and wrong, without which they could not receive prophetic revelation in the first place. For their opponents, such statements are denial of divine power and knowledge; what the Deity does is, by nature, just -- the Deity cannot be held accountable to fallible human understandings of what is just; and what the Deity imparts by way of revelation is in fact the only knowledge of right and wrong, and the only understanding of justice available to humankind.
Ironically, and confusingly, those who rejected divine predetermination (qadar) were called by the epithet the qadariyya. Those who affirmed predetermination were called the compulsionists (jabriyya). Those who appealed to the interpretations of the earliest companions of the prophets and rejected the theological attempt to apply formal human reason to such questions were called the traditionalists (salaf), but even this group finally accepted a form of theological discourse to defend their original anti-theological stance.
Another major group was called the attributionists (sifatiyya). This group originally sprang from the position of the theological al-Ash‘ari, who vehemently maintained both the literalness of the attributes and the reality of divine predetermination. However, his school, the Ash‘arites, later tried to walk a middle ground on both issues and came to be the most widely accepted theological school in Islam. Some spoke of divine conditions (ahwal), which would be neither divine attributes eternally one with divine substance nor accidents that would prevail upon the Deity. In the area of divine predetermination, Shahrastani suggests that they tried to walk that middle ground by speaking of the Deity as creator of all acts, and of human beings as “acquiring” the power of the act at the moment of participation in it.
The Ash‘arite School later was considered the “orthodoxy” among some writers, and some considered Shahrastani to be of that school. However, although he was willing to give his opinion, what makes Shahrastani’s work reflective of a great thinker is not his argument for any particular position, but rather his ability to expound positions in such a way as to bring out the centrality of key theological issues and show how the Islamic tradition shaped itself around the effort to resolve those issues.
Shahrastani’s treatment of cosmology is particularly important. In his discussion of the pre-Socratic philosophers he outlines what we might call “neo-pre-Socratic Islamic thought,” that is, the construction of the pre-Socratics by Islamic thinkers who then formed “schools” around them. Although much of the thought is consonant with what we know of Thales, Empedocles, and other pre-Socratics, it carries a new emphasis, with more thematic unity based upon more continued return to the question of the primal element “receptive of all forms.” It is difficult to know, given the lack of other testimony, how much of the thematic unity is due to the Islamic schools themselves and how much is the work of Shahrastani.
Shahrastani also brings us the critical texts of the anonymous figure known as the “Greek Master” (al-shaykh al-yunani), texts that turn out to be the most radically apophatic passages of Plotinus, passages attempting to express the inexpressible. Shahrastani thus demonstrates that in addition to the more Aristotelian school of Islamic Plotinian thought centered around the “Theology of Aristotle,” there was a more mystically inclined school that focused on those Plotinian passages placing ultimate reality beyond the the categories of being altogether.
Perhaps Shahrastani’s most brilliant essay is that on the Sabaeans of Harran. Harran, the ancient city near the upper Tigris, was an early Islamic center of alternative philosophies, from the Hermeticists (devoted to Agathodaemon, Asclepius, and Hermes), to those following elaborate ritual calendars. Shahrastrani places the Harranians in a debate with the hanifs. The word hanif was used in early Islam to refer to monotheists, particularly the pre-Islamic monotheists of Arabia. For example, Abraham was considered the archetypal hanif.
The Harranians outline a cosmos made up of concentric spheres inhabited by spirits -- by ruhaniyat --, and the goal of philosophy is either to ascend through the spheres to encounter the spirits, or to draw the spirits down into temples on Earth. From the spirits one receives true inspiration. The hanifs counter that the true bearers of truth are the prophets, who are, as in the mi ‘raj account of Muhammad’s ascent through the Heavens, the guardians of the various Heavens.
As Shahrastani unfolds the argument, he demonstrates a fundamental tension in classical Islamic thought between the spiritualists (those who see the goal of philosophy as having become more spiritual -- or, as in the case of Ibn Sina [Avicenna], more intellectual) and the humanists (those who see the goal as having become more human and who see the intermediaries of truth as the human prophets). Sharastani thus helps us in understanding the symbolic significance of every detail of the cosmos of concentric spheres, the identity of the guardians of the spheres, the way in which human beings can rise through the spheres, the test by which they are tried at each sphere, and the ultimate arrival at the divine throne. This paradigm, which is fundamental not only to medieval Islam, but to medieval Judaism and Christianity as well (and which, indeed, served as one of the meeting places and places of contest among the three traditions) has a coded system of values that, through his debate format, Shahrastani helps to make explicit.
The analysis of theological debates about the unity of the Deity and divine predetermination, the philosophical cosmology of the pre-Socratics (as reconstructed in Islamic philosophy), the mystical dimension of Islamic Plotinian thought, and the symbolic cosmology of the heavenly spheres and their guardians are only some examples of Shahrastani’s contributions. In these cases, and throughout his masterwork, Shahrastani uses a categorization of schools to demonstrate how central questions, dilemmas, and symbols become the matrix for the development of ever more sophisticated versions of Islamic thought.
Al-Shahrastani was an able and learned man of great personal charm. The real nature of his thought is best referred to by the term theosophy, in the older sense of "divine wisdom". However, al-Shahrastani was certainly not totally against theology or philosophy, even if he was very harsh against the theologians and the philosophers. As he explained in the Majlis, in order to remain on the right path, one must preserve a perfect equilibrium between intellect (`aql) and audition (sam`). A philosopher or a theologian must use his intellect until he reaches the rational limit. Beyond this limit, he must listen to the teaching of Prophets and Imams.
His works reflect a complex interweaving of intellectual strands, and his thought is a synthesis of this fruitful historical period. In his conception of God, Creation, Prophecy, and Imama, al-Shahrastani adopted many doctrinal elements that are reconcilable with Nizari Isma'ilism. The necessity of a Guide, belonging both to the spiritual and the physical world, is primordial in his scheme since the Imam is manifested in this physical world.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
The Principal Historian of Religion see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Tāj al-Dīn Abū al-Fath Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Karīm ash-Shahrastānī see Shahrastani, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Shahrukh
Shahrukh (Shahrukh Mirza) (Šāhrukh Mīrzā) (Shāh Rokh Mīrzā) (b. Aug. 20/30, 1377, Samarkand, Timurid empire [now in Uzbekistan] - d. March 12, 1447, Fishawand, Timurid Iran). Ruler of the Timurid dynasty in Transoxiana and Persia (r.1405-1447). The fourth son of Timur, he became governor of Samarkand around 1394, took part in the expeditions against Persia, Syria and Anatolia, and held important commands at the siege of Aleppo and at the battle of Ankara of 1402. On the death of Timur in 1405, he was recognized as sovereign of Khurasan and fought his brother Khalil Sultan, whom he nevertheless accepted as ruler. Rebellions having deprived Khalil of any authority, Shahrukh gave his lands to his son Ulugh Beg and conquered Mazandaran in 1406. In 1420, he defeated the army of Qara Yusuf, the Qara Qoyunlu ruler of Azerbaijan and Iraq. Praised by historians as a munificent sovereign, he rebuilt Marw, fortified and embellished Herat and was a patron of writers, artists and scholars. During his reign Turkish poetry began to rival Persian.
The first Timurid ruler, Shahrukh began the task of reconstruction necessitated by his father’s devastating campaigns. Anxious to establish himself as a legitimate Muslim sovereign, he moved his capital from Samarkand to Herat, where he became a patron of Perso-Islamic culture, supporting poets and artists, encouraging historical writing, and providing for religious endowments. He established the institution of the kitabkhana, the royal library complete with artists’ workshops for the production of illuminated manuscripts. He also exchanged embassies with China of several occasions. It was during his rule that Chagatai Turkish began to develop as a literary language. Through his patronage, Shahrukh laid the groundwork for the re-birth of Khurasan cultural life that was to continue throughout the fifteenth century. Of his five sons, Ulugh Beg alone survived to succeed him.
Shāh Rukh was the fourth son of Timur (Tamerlane), founder of the Timurid dynasty. At Timur’s death in 1405, a struggle for control of his empire broke out among members of his family. Shāh Rukh gained control of most of the empire, including Iran and Turkistan, and held it until his death. The only major areas of Timur’s empire outside of Shāh Rukh’s control were Syria and Khūzestān (now in southwestern Iran).
Shāh Rukh’s patronage of the arts was centered on his capital at Herāt in Khorāsān (now in western Afghanistan). Particularly important were the library and the school of miniature painting that developed and flourished there. One of his wives, Gawhar Shād, worked with the Persian architect Qavam ud-Din in the planning and construction of a series of magnificent public buildings there.
Continuing power struggles among various members of his own family forced Shāh Rukh to undertake a number of military campaigns to ensure his power. The settlements he was able to impose were temporary, and intra-family power struggles eventually destroyed the dynasty.
The devastation of Persia's main cities led to the cultural center of the empire shifting to Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan and Herat in modern Afghanistan. Shāhrukh chose to have his capital not in Samarkand, but in Herat. This was to become the political center of the Timurid empire, and residence of his principal successors, though both cities benefited from the wealth and privilege of Shāhrukh's court, which was a great patron of the arts and sciences.
His wife, Gowhar Shād, funded the construction of two outstanding mosques and theological colleges in Mashhad and Herāt. The Gowhar-Shād-Mosque was finished in 1418. The mixed ethnic origins of the ruling dynasty led to a distinctive character in its cultural outlook, which was a combination of Persian civilization and art, with borrowings from China, and literature written in Persian as well as Turkic and Arabic. In fact, Shah Rukh sent a large embassy to the Ming Dynasty of China in 1419.
Shāhrukh died during a journey in Persia and was succeeded by his son, Mohammad Taragae Uluğ Bēg, who had been viceroy of Transoxiana during his father's lifetime.
Shahrukh Mirza see Shahrukh
Mirza, Shahrukh see Shahrukh
Shahrukh (Shahrukh Mirza) (Šāhrukh Mīrzā) (Shāh Rokh Mīrzā) (b. Aug. 20/30, 1377, Samarkand, Timurid empire [now in Uzbekistan] - d. March 12, 1447, Fishawand, Timurid Iran). Ruler of the Timurid dynasty in Transoxiana and Persia (r.1405-1447). The fourth son of Timur, he became governor of Samarkand around 1394, took part in the expeditions against Persia, Syria and Anatolia, and held important commands at the siege of Aleppo and at the battle of Ankara of 1402. On the death of Timur in 1405, he was recognized as sovereign of Khurasan and fought his brother Khalil Sultan, whom he nevertheless accepted as ruler. Rebellions having deprived Khalil of any authority, Shahrukh gave his lands to his son Ulugh Beg and conquered Mazandaran in 1406. In 1420, he defeated the army of Qara Yusuf, the Qara Qoyunlu ruler of Azerbaijan and Iraq. Praised by historians as a munificent sovereign, he rebuilt Marw, fortified and embellished Herat and was a patron of writers, artists and scholars. During his reign Turkish poetry began to rival Persian.
The first Timurid ruler, Shahrukh began the task of reconstruction necessitated by his father’s devastating campaigns. Anxious to establish himself as a legitimate Muslim sovereign, he moved his capital from Samarkand to Herat, where he became a patron of Perso-Islamic culture, supporting poets and artists, encouraging historical writing, and providing for religious endowments. He established the institution of the kitabkhana, the royal library complete with artists’ workshops for the production of illuminated manuscripts. He also exchanged embassies with China of several occasions. It was during his rule that Chagatai Turkish began to develop as a literary language. Through his patronage, Shahrukh laid the groundwork for the re-birth of Khurasan cultural life that was to continue throughout the fifteenth century. Of his five sons, Ulugh Beg alone survived to succeed him.
Shāh Rukh was the fourth son of Timur (Tamerlane), founder of the Timurid dynasty. At Timur’s death in 1405, a struggle for control of his empire broke out among members of his family. Shāh Rukh gained control of most of the empire, including Iran and Turkistan, and held it until his death. The only major areas of Timur’s empire outside of Shāh Rukh’s control were Syria and Khūzestān (now in southwestern Iran).
Shāh Rukh’s patronage of the arts was centered on his capital at Herāt in Khorāsān (now in western Afghanistan). Particularly important were the library and the school of miniature painting that developed and flourished there. One of his wives, Gawhar Shād, worked with the Persian architect Qavam ud-Din in the planning and construction of a series of magnificent public buildings there.
Continuing power struggles among various members of his own family forced Shāh Rukh to undertake a number of military campaigns to ensure his power. The settlements he was able to impose were temporary, and intra-family power struggles eventually destroyed the dynasty.
The devastation of Persia's main cities led to the cultural center of the empire shifting to Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan and Herat in modern Afghanistan. Shāhrukh chose to have his capital not in Samarkand, but in Herat. This was to become the political center of the Timurid empire, and residence of his principal successors, though both cities benefited from the wealth and privilege of Shāhrukh's court, which was a great patron of the arts and sciences.
His wife, Gowhar Shād, funded the construction of two outstanding mosques and theological colleges in Mashhad and Herāt. The Gowhar-Shād-Mosque was finished in 1418. The mixed ethnic origins of the ruling dynasty led to a distinctive character in its cultural outlook, which was a combination of Persian civilization and art, with borrowings from China, and literature written in Persian as well as Turkic and Arabic. In fact, Shah Rukh sent a large embassy to the Ming Dynasty of China in 1419.
Shāhrukh died during a journey in Persia and was succeeded by his son, Mohammad Taragae Uluğ Bēg, who had been viceroy of Transoxiana during his father's lifetime.
Shahrukh Mirza see Shahrukh
Mirza, Shahrukh see Shahrukh
Shahsevan
Shahsevan. There are several tribal groups called Shahsevan in Iran, numbering some 310,000 people. They are Shi‘a Muslims and speak Azerbaijani Turkish. Their ancestors are said to have been formed into a special tribe in about 1600 by Shah Abbas of the Safavid dynasty.
The Safavids, who ruled Iran from 1500 to 1722, descended from a line of Sufis. Their rise to power was based on the fanatical spiritual devotion of a number of pastoral nomad tribes, warriors known as Qizilbash (redheads) after the red cap they wore as the symbol of their sect. The Safavid shahs had difficulty controlling the chiefs of these unruly tribes until Shah Abbas managed to tame them. Among the methods he used was a personal appeal to the shah lovers (Shahsevan), in response to which many Qizilbash tribesmen abandoned their rebellious chiefs and became Shahsevan.
In the last 250 years, Azerbaijan has often been a battleground between Iran and her neighbors, and the Shahsevan nomads figured prominently in the history of the period. Early in the last century, the Russians established the present frontier, depriving the Shahsevan of the greater part of their traditional winter quarters in the Mughan steppe. From then until they were disarmed in 1923, they became increasingly lawless. Their raids sometimes disrupted trade and settlement far into both Russia and Iran and caused friction between the two countries. Old men today preserve vivid memories of those times and of their defeat of the Cossacks sent against them by Russia.
Shahsevan. There are several tribal groups called Shahsevan in Iran, numbering some 310,000 people. They are Shi‘a Muslims and speak Azerbaijani Turkish. Their ancestors are said to have been formed into a special tribe in about 1600 by Shah Abbas of the Safavid dynasty.
The Safavids, who ruled Iran from 1500 to 1722, descended from a line of Sufis. Their rise to power was based on the fanatical spiritual devotion of a number of pastoral nomad tribes, warriors known as Qizilbash (redheads) after the red cap they wore as the symbol of their sect. The Safavid shahs had difficulty controlling the chiefs of these unruly tribes until Shah Abbas managed to tame them. Among the methods he used was a personal appeal to the shah lovers (Shahsevan), in response to which many Qizilbash tribesmen abandoned their rebellious chiefs and became Shahsevan.
In the last 250 years, Azerbaijan has often been a battleground between Iran and her neighbors, and the Shahsevan nomads figured prominently in the history of the period. Early in the last century, the Russians established the present frontier, depriving the Shahsevan of the greater part of their traditional winter quarters in the Mughan steppe. From then until they were disarmed in 1923, they became increasingly lawless. Their raids sometimes disrupted trade and settlement far into both Russia and Iran and caused friction between the two countries. Old men today preserve vivid memories of those times and of their defeat of the Cossacks sent against them by Russia.
Shah Shuja’, Jalal al-Din
Shah Shuja’, Jalal al-Din (Jalal al-Din Shah Shuja’) (d. 1384). Ruler of the Muzaffarid dynasty in southern Persia (r.1364-1384). He was involved in disputes with his brother Mahmud, governor in Isfahan, and waged war with the Jalayirid Husayn ibn Uways. He submitted to Timur. The poet Hafiz lived at his court. His tomb is in Shiraz, Iran
Shah Shuja was a 14th-century Muzaffarid ruler of Southern Iran. Shuja was part of the Muzaffarid dynasty and the most powerful ruler of that dynasty. He was the last ruler to hold united sway in his lands, but about 1370 faced having to divide his lands with his sons. He did manage to retain some power until his death in 1384.
Jalal al-Din Shah Shuja’ see Shah Shuja’, Jalal al-Din
Shah Shuja’, Jalal al-Din (Jalal al-Din Shah Shuja’) (d. 1384). Ruler of the Muzaffarid dynasty in southern Persia (r.1364-1384). He was involved in disputes with his brother Mahmud, governor in Isfahan, and waged war with the Jalayirid Husayn ibn Uways. He submitted to Timur. The poet Hafiz lived at his court. His tomb is in Shiraz, Iran
Shah Shuja was a 14th-century Muzaffarid ruler of Southern Iran. Shuja was part of the Muzaffarid dynasty and the most powerful ruler of that dynasty. He was the last ruler to hold united sway in his lands, but about 1370 faced having to divide his lands with his sons. He did manage to retain some power until his death in 1384.
Jalal al-Din Shah Shuja’ see Shah Shuja’, Jalal al-Din
Shah Wali Allah (Shah Wali Ullah) (Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi) (b. 1702/February 21, 1703, Delhi, India - d. August 20, 1762, Delhi, India). Born into a strongly religious and learned family. His father, Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim, was a noted jurist and scholar who founded an Islamic teaching institution, a madrasa,in Delhi. He instructed his precocious son in Qur’anic studies, Arabic language, and the Naqshbandi mystical tradition, making him his successor at the tender age of seventeen. Shah Wali Allah therefore assumed his father’s position at the time of the Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim’s death in 1719.
A powerful formative influence on Shah Wali Allah’s thought was the pilgrimage he made to Mecca in 1730. He spent about a year and a half inthe Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina studying with most prominent and respected Sufi masters and hadith scholars of the time, who, recognizing his abilities, took him into their circle. His fluency in Arabic was such that many of his major works were written in that language. In addition, quite a number were composed in the Persian language, the major vehicle for prose among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent until the twentieth century.
The period spent in the intellectual, religious, and cultural hub of the Muslim world gave Shah Wali Allah a cosmopolitan outlook in matters of Islamic law and practice so that his works address Muslims as a whole, rather than a more parochial audience. Since his Meccan masters were steeped in the tradition of hadith studies. Shah Wali Allah embraced the concept that the study and interpretation of the sayings of the Prophet were the key to integrating and revitalizing the practice of Islam in his time.
After his return from Arabia, Shah Wali Allah pursued his scholarly and mystical activities in Delhi, teaching in the Islamic religious school founded by his father and guiding disciples in the intricacies of mystical path.
Shah Wali Allah lived during that period in the development of the Islamic tradition known as the “wisdom” period, when a synthesis of the traditional religious sciences of philosophy, theology, and mysticism had been effected. In pre-modern times, however, this classical synthesis was showing signs of breaking down under various sectarian, political and social pressures.
The main thrust of Shah Wali Allah’s teaching and writing activities was therefore to re-integrate and revitalize the study of the Islamic religious sciences through coordinating the approaches of the main Islamic intellectual disciplines: law, theology, mysticisim, and especially Qur’anic and hadith studies. To this end, he composed some forty books and treatises and served as a religious scholar and spiritual guide.
Shah Wali Allah’s major work, Hujjat Allah al-Baligha (The Conclusive Argument from God), was composed after his return from the pilgrimage. In this two-volume study he presents an overview of an entire cosmology. In volume 1, he expounds on the underlying purpose of creation, the dynamics of human psychology, the higher significance of human thoughts and actions, the progressive development of human social and political systems, and ultimately the need for the religious revelation and its interpretation. In volume 2, he applies his method for bringing out an understanding of the deeper spiritual aspects of the Islamic legal injunctions to specific hadith reports of the Prophet covered in the order of the topics featured in traditional hadith compendia. Due to this enterprise of elucidating and reconciling the inner and outer dimensions of Islamic practice, he is often compared to the great thinker and mystic al-Ghazali (d. 1111).
His metaphysical system is also highly influenced by the philosophical Sufi tradition of both al-Ghazali and Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), who related the Platonic concept of a higher or ideal level of meaning to the events of this world. This somewhat fluid layer, which seems to mediate between the purely spiritual and the purely material dimensions of reality, is known as the “World of Images.” This was understood by him to be the realm at which religious symbols were formulated before their articulation in specific religious injunctions. The essential understanding of what it means to follow these specific religious injunctions, then, must ultimately be sought at this higher level rather than in the particular instances of their external occurrence. This led Shah Wali Allah to elaborate a theory of symbolization and its expressions in concrete historical situations of meaning and applicability, which argues that the symbols have a kind of objective validity of their own. The conclusion is that the Islamic law must be practiced in its esoteric form in order to obtain its inner spiritual benefits.
In the case of his theory of religious revelation, he conceives of Islam as a universal religion, which, however, naturally had to take on concrete form in the time of the Prophet in the context of seventh-century Arabia. There is therefore somewhat of an unresolved tension in his thought between the concept of an ideal template of a universal religion termed the din, which is suited to the innate temperaments of all persons, and his asserting the applicability of its particular historical manifestation, Islam, to all times and places.
In his system, human beings are not merely passive receptors of religious laws. Those who strive in the path of moral and spiritual development are able to participate in the shaping of the future course of destiny, for even after death the most evolved among them will join the angels of the “Supreme Assembly” to participate in the task of guiding further human social and spiritual progress.
Although Shah Wali Allah’s translation of the Qur’an from Arabic into Perian was not the first, as some have claimed, it was pioneering in his conscious intention to go beyond previous translations in striking a balance between an overly literal version and one conveying merely the gist of the text. In the preface to this translation and in a later book called the Principles of Quranic Exegesis, he elaborated on the types of of divine discourse which constitute the Qur’an, including its legal import, its account of God’s favors to human beings, its evocation of God’s acts of intervention in human history, and its warning of the eventual reckoning at the end of time.
Shah Wali Allah’s sound training in law and hadith in the Holy Cities led Shah Wali Allah to favor the hadith methodology of the school of Malik ibn Anas (d. 795) and the theoretical tools of the Legal School of al-Shafi’i (d. 819). In his own practice, like most South Asian Muslims, he followed the Hanafi School of Law. Such eclecticism was known as tatbiq, or bringing diverse elements into correspondence. Some of his works on law and hadith are technical studies of theory and interpretation. In others, he considers the historical sources of the disagreements among the four major Sunni schools of law and suggests that the factors leading to these differences should be understood developmentally, so that differences do not become rigidified identifications. His position on the ability of qualified individuals to interpret the main sources, Qur’an and hadith, of Islamic legislation is not entirely radical, but signals his willingness to allow a certain level of individual interpretation (ijtihad) on the part of the qualified jurist.
Shah Wali Allah’s approach to the practice of Sufism was both eclectic and reformist. His attitude to Sufi practice and theory, as to the other Islamic disciplines, was that each Sufi order had its own unique history and strengths. The individual spiritual aspirant should therefore be taught to practice those elements of Sufism most compatible with his of her inherent nature, whether contemplative, devotional, or intellectual.
Shah Wali Allah was influenced by the philosophy of Ibn ‘Arabi, which featured the idea of an emanationist cosmology. While many of his contemporaries felt that the implicitly monistic formulations of Ibn ‘Arabi and the more dualistic philosophy of the respected Indian Sufi, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1625), were insurmountably opposed, Shah Wali Allah argued that their differences were essentially those of perspective and orientation rather than rooted in true metaphysical incompatibility.
Shah Wali Allah claimed initiation in the major Sufi orders of his age and, rather than stressing affiliation to any one of them, may have attempted to establish his own eclectic sort of practice, which, however, did not take hold. What seems to have been passed on to posterity was a diminishing emphasis on Sufism as a distinct form of practice and discipline, and an attempt by some of his descendants to incorporate Sufi elements so as to spiritualize more mainstream elements of Islamic belief and practice. For example, the Deoband madrasa, a prominent Islamic institute of higher learning, was founded by followers of his son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz (d. 1823); his grandson, Shah Isma’il Shahid (d. 1831), initially composed highly technical works of mystical philosophy, but is most widely known for serving as the ideologue of a militant Islamic reform movement, the “Muhammadan Way” (Tariqa Muhammadiyya).
Living at a time of transition in the political situation of Muslims in India and experiencing the fragmentation of the Mughal empire and subsequent upheavals on the eve of the colonial period, Shah Wali Allah seems to exemplify certain of the trends typical of pre-modern Muslim reform movements. Unlike the Wahhabis of Arabia, however, he did not reject the practice of venerating Muslim saints and believing that they, as well as the Prophet, had a continual spiritual presence that was accessible to the faithful.
In his discussion of human social and political development Shah Wali Allah coined the term irtifaqat from an Arabic root meaning “gaining benefit by.” According to his view of human societal development, human beings make continuous historical progress through four levels, or irtifaqat, which correspond to the stages of nomadic life, urbanization, the establishment of states, and the consolidation of international empires such as the Islamic Caliphate.
It is interesting that today all major religious movements in Muslim South Asia invoke Shah Wali Allah as an intellectual progenitor. His son, Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz, was a noted scholar and teacher with a wide circle of pupils. Other South Asian Muslims who have a more anti-Sufi, puritan outlook -- such as the Ahl al-Hadith group -- and even the followers of Maulana Maududi (d. 1979) find in Shah Wali Allah’s return to the fundamentals of the Islamic legal system and political rejection of alien influences a precursor to their own reformist beliefs. Islamic Modernists see in Shah Wali Allah a thinker who responded to the crisis of his time by accommodating divergent legal and ideological factions, calling for a renewed ijtihad, and searching for the spirit behind the literal injunctions of the religious tradition.
Walī Allāh received a traditional Islamic education from his father and is said to have
memorized the Qurʾān at the age of seven. In 1732 he made a pilgrimage to Mecca, and he then remained in the Hejaz (now in Saudi Arabia) to study religion with eminent theologians. He reached adulthood at a time of disillusionment following the death in 1707 of Aurangzeb, the last great Mughal emperor of India. Because large areas of the empire had been lost to Hindu and Sikh rulers of the Deccan and the Punjab, Indian Muslims had to accept the rule of non-Muslims. This challenge occupied Walī Allāh’s adult life.
Walī Allāh believed that the Muslim polity could be restored to its former splendor by a policy of religious reform that would harmonize the religious ideals of Islam with the changing social and economic conditions of India. According to him, religious ideas were universal and eternal, but their application could meet different circumstances. The main tool of his policy was the doctrine of tatbīq, whereby the principles of Islam were reconstructed and reapplied in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Ḥadīth (the spoken traditions attributed to Muhammad). He thereby allowed the practice of ijtihād (independent thinking by theologians in matters relating to Islamic law), which hitherto had been curtailed. As a corollary, he reinterpreted the concept of taqdīr (determinism) and condemned its popularization, qismat (narrow fatalism, or absolute predetermination). Walī Allāh held that man could achieve his full potential by his own exertion in a universe that was determined by God. Theologically, he opposed the veneration of saints or anything that compromised strict monotheism. He was jurisprudentially eclectic, holding that a Muslim could follow any of the four schools of Islamic law on any point of dogma or ritual.
The best known of Walī Allāh’s voluminous writings was Asrār ad-dīn (“The Secrets of Belief”). His annotated Persian translation of the Qurʾān is still popular in India and Pakistan.
Shah Wali Allah worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in South Asia, during a time of waning Muslim power. He despised the divisions and deviations within Islam and its practice in India and hoped to "purify" the religion and unify all Indian Muslims under the "banner of truth". He is also thought to have anticipated a number of progressive, social, economic, and political ideas of the modern era such as social reform, equal rights, labor protection, and welfare entitlement of all to food, clothing, and housing.
Shah Wali Ullah see Shah Wali Allah
Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi see Shah Wali Allah
Walī Allāh believed that the Muslim polity could be restored to its former splendor by a policy of religious reform that would harmonize the religious ideals of Islam with the changing social and economic conditions of India. According to him, religious ideas were universal and eternal, but their application could meet different circumstances. The main tool of his policy was the doctrine of tatbīq, whereby the principles of Islam were reconstructed and reapplied in accordance with the Qurʾān and the Ḥadīth (the spoken traditions attributed to Muhammad). He thereby allowed the practice of ijtihād (independent thinking by theologians in matters relating to Islamic law), which hitherto had been curtailed. As a corollary, he reinterpreted the concept of taqdīr (determinism) and condemned its popularization, qismat (narrow fatalism, or absolute predetermination). Walī Allāh held that man could achieve his full potential by his own exertion in a universe that was determined by God. Theologically, he opposed the veneration of saints or anything that compromised strict monotheism. He was jurisprudentially eclectic, holding that a Muslim could follow any of the four schools of Islamic law on any point of dogma or ritual.
The best known of Walī Allāh’s voluminous writings was Asrār ad-dīn (“The Secrets of Belief”). His annotated Persian translation of the Qurʾān is still popular in India and Pakistan.
Shah Wali Allah worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in South Asia, during a time of waning Muslim power. He despised the divisions and deviations within Islam and its practice in India and hoped to "purify" the religion and unify all Indian Muslims under the "banner of truth". He is also thought to have anticipated a number of progressive, social, economic, and political ideas of the modern era such as social reform, equal rights, labor protection, and welfare entitlement of all to food, clothing, and housing.
Shah Wali Ullah see Shah Wali Allah
Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi see Shah Wali Allah
Shaibanids
Shaibanids (Shaybanids). Tribal confederation of Uzbek Turks who traced their ancestry to Shiban, the youngest son of Jenghiz Khan’s eldest son Jochi. The Shaibanids ruled over Transoxiana from their capital at Bukhara (r.1500-1598).
The conditions for the rise to political prominence of the Uzbek clans were set some half century before the Shaibanid’s assertion of independent rule through their relationship to the Timurid ruler Abu Sa’id (1451-1479). His succession to the throne had been secured only by the helpof a tribal coalition dominated by the Uzbek chief Abu al-Khair Khan, who ruled in Khwarazm between 1447 and 1468. Throughout the latter half of the fifteenth century the Timurids, while still controlling major cities such as Samarkand, Bukhara, and Herat, were forced to contend with a rising tide of Uzbek power, both in Transoxiana and in Khurasan, and were preoccupied with the necessity of warding off the continuous attacks launched by the Uzbeks from secure bases in the hinterland of Transoxiana. The end result of a half century of constant military interchange was the capture of Samarkand and Bukhara in 1500 by Muhammad Shaiban, thereby inaugurating a century of complete domination of Transoxiana by the Uzbek confederation. During the same fifty year period when the Sunni Muslim Uzbeks were consolidating their power in eastern portions of the Timurid Empire, the Shi‘ite Muslim Safavids, benefiting from the preoccupation of the khans of Samarkand and Herat in their eastern territories, were building up a base of strength in western Iran. The Safavid Ismail I clinched his victory over his Akkoyunlu rivals at about the same time that Muhammad Shaiban marched into Samarkand and Bukhara.
In much the same way that military harassment by the Uzbek khans had prevented true unification of the Timurid realm from the mid-fifteenth century, Uzbek military pressure in the east, exerted primarily against Khurasan and particularly Herat, which changed hands many times, substantially weakened the effectiveness of Safavid rule. Throughout the sixteenth century the Uzbeks prevented a lasting consolidation of Safavid power over Iran, whose eastern and western portions were only securely and thoroughly united in the next century. In the latter day age of Sunni internationalism, a revival of earlier Seljuk policy led by the Ottoman sultan Suleiman (1520-1566) and continued under his successors, the Shaibanids were formally approached with proposals for a mutual alliance aimed at dismantling Shi‘ite Safavid control of Iran. These overtures were intensified during the reign of the Shaibanid khan Abdullah II (1583-1598), but no truly coordinated attack resulted, and soon afterward the Shaibanids were displaced from rule over their home territories in Transoxiana by a rival collateral branch of the Chinggisids.
The Shaybanid dynasty was an Uzbek dynasty, whose members ruled the Khanate of Bukhara (1505–1598), the Khanate of Khwarezm (Khiva) (1511–1695) and the Khanate of Sibir (1563–1598).
The Shaybanid dynasty traces its origins generally to the Shaybanids, descendants of Genghis Khan through his grandson Shayban (Shiban). By the 15th century, one branch of the Shaybanids moved south into Transoxiana, from whence, after a century of conflict, they managed to oust the Timurids. Abu'l-Khayr Khan (who led the Shaybanids from 1428 to 1468) began consolidating disparate Uzbek tribes, first in the area around Tyumen and the Tura River and then down into the Syr Darya region. His grandson Muhammad Shaybani (r. 1500-10), who gave his name to the Shaybanid dynasty, wrested Samarkand, Herat and Bukhara from Babur's control and established the short-lived Shaybanid Empire. After his death at the hands of Shah Ismail I, he was followed successively by an uncle, a cousin, and a brother, whose Shaybanid descendants would rule the Khanate of Bukhara until 1598 and the Khanate of Khwarezm (Khiva) until 1695.
Another state ruled by the Shaybanids was the Khanate of Sibir, whose last khan Kuchum was deposed by the Russians in 1598. He escapted to Bukhara, but his sons and grandsons were taken by the Tsar to Moscow, where they eventually assumed the surname of Sibirsky. Apart from this famous branch, several other noble families from Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan (e.g., Princes Valikhanov) petitioned the Russian imperial authorities to recognize their Shaybanid roots, but mostly in vain.
Shaybanids see Shaibanids
Shaibanids (Shaybanids). Tribal confederation of Uzbek Turks who traced their ancestry to Shiban, the youngest son of Jenghiz Khan’s eldest son Jochi. The Shaibanids ruled over Transoxiana from their capital at Bukhara (r.1500-1598).
The conditions for the rise to political prominence of the Uzbek clans were set some half century before the Shaibanid’s assertion of independent rule through their relationship to the Timurid ruler Abu Sa’id (1451-1479). His succession to the throne had been secured only by the helpof a tribal coalition dominated by the Uzbek chief Abu al-Khair Khan, who ruled in Khwarazm between 1447 and 1468. Throughout the latter half of the fifteenth century the Timurids, while still controlling major cities such as Samarkand, Bukhara, and Herat, were forced to contend with a rising tide of Uzbek power, both in Transoxiana and in Khurasan, and were preoccupied with the necessity of warding off the continuous attacks launched by the Uzbeks from secure bases in the hinterland of Transoxiana. The end result of a half century of constant military interchange was the capture of Samarkand and Bukhara in 1500 by Muhammad Shaiban, thereby inaugurating a century of complete domination of Transoxiana by the Uzbek confederation. During the same fifty year period when the Sunni Muslim Uzbeks were consolidating their power in eastern portions of the Timurid Empire, the Shi‘ite Muslim Safavids, benefiting from the preoccupation of the khans of Samarkand and Herat in their eastern territories, were building up a base of strength in western Iran. The Safavid Ismail I clinched his victory over his Akkoyunlu rivals at about the same time that Muhammad Shaiban marched into Samarkand and Bukhara.
In much the same way that military harassment by the Uzbek khans had prevented true unification of the Timurid realm from the mid-fifteenth century, Uzbek military pressure in the east, exerted primarily against Khurasan and particularly Herat, which changed hands many times, substantially weakened the effectiveness of Safavid rule. Throughout the sixteenth century the Uzbeks prevented a lasting consolidation of Safavid power over Iran, whose eastern and western portions were only securely and thoroughly united in the next century. In the latter day age of Sunni internationalism, a revival of earlier Seljuk policy led by the Ottoman sultan Suleiman (1520-1566) and continued under his successors, the Shaibanids were formally approached with proposals for a mutual alliance aimed at dismantling Shi‘ite Safavid control of Iran. These overtures were intensified during the reign of the Shaibanid khan Abdullah II (1583-1598), but no truly coordinated attack resulted, and soon afterward the Shaibanids were displaced from rule over their home territories in Transoxiana by a rival collateral branch of the Chinggisids.
The Shaybanid dynasty was an Uzbek dynasty, whose members ruled the Khanate of Bukhara (1505–1598), the Khanate of Khwarezm (Khiva) (1511–1695) and the Khanate of Sibir (1563–1598).
The Shaybanid dynasty traces its origins generally to the Shaybanids, descendants of Genghis Khan through his grandson Shayban (Shiban). By the 15th century, one branch of the Shaybanids moved south into Transoxiana, from whence, after a century of conflict, they managed to oust the Timurids. Abu'l-Khayr Khan (who led the Shaybanids from 1428 to 1468) began consolidating disparate Uzbek tribes, first in the area around Tyumen and the Tura River and then down into the Syr Darya region. His grandson Muhammad Shaybani (r. 1500-10), who gave his name to the Shaybanid dynasty, wrested Samarkand, Herat and Bukhara from Babur's control and established the short-lived Shaybanid Empire. After his death at the hands of Shah Ismail I, he was followed successively by an uncle, a cousin, and a brother, whose Shaybanid descendants would rule the Khanate of Bukhara until 1598 and the Khanate of Khwarezm (Khiva) until 1695.
Another state ruled by the Shaybanids was the Khanate of Sibir, whose last khan Kuchum was deposed by the Russians in 1598. He escapted to Bukhara, but his sons and grandsons were taken by the Tsar to Moscow, where they eventually assumed the surname of Sibirsky. Apart from this famous branch, several other noble families from Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan (e.g., Princes Valikhanov) petitioned the Russian imperial authorities to recognize their Shaybanid roots, but mostly in vain.
Shaybanids see Shaibanids
shaikh
shaikh (shaykh) (sheik) (sheikh) (sjeik) (sheyh) (seih) (sejh) (seyh). Arabic term which refers to an Arab tribal leader, elder, head, chief, Sufi leader, or teacher. A shaykh is also an Arab ruler or a learned Muslim.
The Arabic word shaikh means “old man.” There are generally three references for which the term shaikh apply: (1) As Shaikh al-Islam, the chief Muslim religious functionary of a particular city or province; (2) as Shaikh al-balad, the headman of a town or village; or (3) as a spiritual master in the Sufi tradition.
The principal literary and popular reference to shaikh is the third one -- a reference to a spiritual master in the Sufi tradition. Usually someone becomes a Sufi shaikh or murshid only by submitting to the discipline of another shaikh. There is an alternative route of initiation, however: Khidr, who in the Qur’an instructed Moses, can also confer the cloak of investiture on Muslims possessed of signal spiritual prowess. The most famous example of such an initiation is Shaikh al-Akbar, “the greatest Shaikh,” a title given to the Andalusian mystic Muhyi’d-din ibn ‘Arabi. Even while allowing for the possibility of self-initiates, however, Sufis reaffirm the exceptionality of this deviation from the path -- the tariqa --, a popular tradition, ascribed to Muhammad, bluntly warns: “When someone has no shaikh, then Satan becomes his shaikh.”
For Sufis, there are few limits to the authority vested in the shaikh. Like a king among his courtiers or a general at the head of his troops, the shaikh has absolute power over initiates in the Sufi path who bind themselves to him by an oath of allegiance. The disciple, according to one Sufi dictum, is analogous to a corpse in the hands of a washerman. The disciple moves wherever he is moved; he is dead to himself. The granting of such awesome power to the shaikh was not limited to this life; it extended to the life beyond, which was though populated by deceased shaiks, ranked hierarchically according to their cosmological powers, with the qutb or pole at the top. Shaikhs, therefore, were inevitably compared with prophets -- nabi --, and for the disciples of a pir or murshid the theological space separating their master from the Prophet was perilously narrow. In the modern decline in influence of organized Sufism it has been suggested that veneration of the shaikh has often surpassed veneration of the Prophet.
Among the Bedouins, the word shaykh indicated one who bore the marks of old age, i.e., one who was over fifty. The shaykh was the patriarch of the tribe or family, and had a considerable moral influence. It was also the title of the governor of Medina. At present, the title is a term of polite address, given to high dignitaries of religion and to all persons respected for their office. In the Muslim religious orders, the title indicates the master of the order.
In the form shehu, the term was the title taken by al-Kanemi of Bornu in the beginning of the nineteenth century, and which was retained by his descendants.
The Arabic title of sheik strictly means a venerable man of more than 50 years of age. The title sheikh is especially borne by heads of religious orders, heads of colleges, such as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, chiefs of tribes, and headmen of villages and of separate quarters of towns. It is also applied to learned men, especially members of the class of ulamas (theologians), and has been applied to anyone who has memorized the whole Qur’ān, however young he might be.
Shaykh al-jabal (“the mountain chief”) was a popular term for the head of the Assassins and was mistranslated by the crusaders as “the old man of the mountain.” By far the most important title was shaykh al-islām, which by the 11th century was given to eminent ulamas and mystics and by the 15th century was open to any outstanding mufti (canonical lawyer). In the Ottoman Empire the use of this title was restricted by Süleyman I (1520–66) to the mufti of Istanbul, who, equal in rank to the grand vizier, was head of the religious institutions that controlled law, justice, religion, and education. Because of his right to issue binding fatwās (Islāmic legal opinions), this official came to wield great power. In 1924, under the Turkish Republic, the last vestiges of the institution were abolished.
Throughout the Muslim era, the term shaykh al-din (“leader of the faith”) has been applied to men who possess scriptural learning. Leaders of religious orders are called shaykhs, as are Sufi adepts, Qur’anic scholars, jurists, and those who preach and lead prayers in the mosques. Muslim scholars have paid close attention to the careers of prominent religious shaykhs, the intellectual and genealogical pedigrees of these learned men have been accumulating in biographical dictionaries (known as tarajim or tabaqat) for centuries. The majority of shaykhs, both now and in the past, have not been religious functionaries. Instead, they have belonged to a more secular and much older political elite consisting of clan leaders, village headmen, and tribal chiefs.
The shaykh al-din is associated with a metropolitan culture of great antiquity and richness, whereas the tribal shaykh has long been associated with the agricultural and pastoral hinterland and particularly with remote areas beyond state control. The contrast is overdrawn. Shaykhs have always been caught up in the political economy of urban society -- at times, they have taxed and controlled the trade of cities -- and the most powerful shaykhs keep residences in both town and country. The base of the shaykh’s power, however, has traditionally been in the countryside, where most tribes people and peasants have lived even into modern times. The shaykh’s influence in outlying regions, which cannot always be easily controlled from the urban center, makes him an important resource to the state. Historically, the most influential shaykhs have acted as middlemen between governed and ungoverned space, and it is their relationship to the latter that has distinguished them over time as a recognizable political type.
Ibn Khaldun argued that tribal shaykhs, because they do not possess “royal authority,” are unable to coerce their followers or compel their allegiance. In the absence of “governmental and educational laws,” shaykhs can only exercise a “restraining influence,” and this they can accomplish only insofar as they are venerated and respected by fellow tribesmen. Such respect is seldom won on the basis of a shaykh’s piety or erudition. Indeed, until recent decades, most tribal shaykhs were illiterate, and their understanding of Islam was rarely orthodox. A shaykh’s reputation depends instead on four important characteristics: his ability to resolve disputes, which requires a detailed knowledge of customary law (‘urf or ‘awayid), a legal system that is often at odds with Islamic law. His ability to dispense hospitality on a grand scale and to offer gifts and financial support to followers; his ability to lead in times of raiding and warfare; and his ability to deal with state governments in ways that advance his own interests while preserving, as much as possible, the autonomy of the tribespeople he represents.
Since tribal shaykhs do not control the military and administrative apparatus of the state, their capacity to dominate tribal affairs is often attributed to personal charisma. They are commonly (and somewhat romantically) depicted as eloquent, shrewd, persuasive, brave, and wise. Among tribes people, the title is not inherited by right -- ideally, anyone can attain or fall from that rank -- and the urge to portray shaykhs as “first among equals” is especially strong in the West. This egalitarian view, thoug popular, is exaggerated. In many tribes, the shaykhdom has remained in the same family for centuries. Such concentrations of power and influence are not based on charisma alone. Until the establishment of modern nation-states in the twentieth century, tribal shaykhs were able to impose protection taxes (known as khawa, or “brotherhood”) on peasant communities; they extracted escort fees from caravans that passed through their territories; and in settled areas, they frequently owned sizeable tracts of land. These financial resources gave the shaykhs’ families a distinct political advantage over ordinary tribesmen. Moreover, shaykhs exercised this advantage in the contested zones between urban centers. By playing regional governments against each other, shaykhs could generate a reliable flow of stipends from rulers who competed for their loyalty.
In the modern era, as domains of state control have grown to encompass tribal areas, the status of these families has changed. Many of the most powerful shaykhs have been successfully incorporated by national regimes. In Jordan, for instance, tribal leaders sit in legislative assemblies, serve as government ministers, and control the upper ranks of the military. Throughout the Arab world, shaykhs have preserved their role as judges of tribal law, which, although many countries have officially delegitimized it, continues to be practiced in both urban and rural settings. Shaykhs have fared best, however, on the Arabian Peninsula, where they found themselves in possession of vast oil reserves. The emirates and kingdoms of the Gulf region are ruled today by families who in the nineteenth century were known simply as tribal shaykhs. In Yemen, where government control of the hinterland is comparatively weak, shaykhs take an active part in foreign and domestic affairs of state, and their political power has at times rivaled that of the central government.
It is now common for both Middle Eastern and Western intellectuals to identify shaykhs with parochialism and reactionary politics. The conservative social and economic agendas of the Gulf states, for example, are often ascribed to the “traditional mentality” of their ruling shaykhs. Given the value nationalist ideology sets on progress, unity, and allegiance, it was perhaps inevitable that shaykhs would assume the place they now occupy in the political imagination of the region. Long before nationalism arrived, tribal shaykhs were associated with “backward” domains, fratricidal politics, and resistance to the laws of God and the state. This view, so obviously colored by the attitudes of the urban elite, has been slow to change. The shaykhly families themselves, however, have proven remarkably adaptable. Despite confident predictions that they will soon disappear, the shaykhs and the tribes they lead remain prominent features of the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa.
shaykh see shaikh
sheik see shaikh
sheikh see shaikh
sjeik see shaikh
sheyh see shaikh
seih see shaikh
shaikh (shaykh) (sheik) (sheikh) (sjeik) (sheyh) (seih) (sejh) (seyh). Arabic term which refers to an Arab tribal leader, elder, head, chief, Sufi leader, or teacher. A shaykh is also an Arab ruler or a learned Muslim.
The Arabic word shaikh means “old man.” There are generally three references for which the term shaikh apply: (1) As Shaikh al-Islam, the chief Muslim religious functionary of a particular city or province; (2) as Shaikh al-balad, the headman of a town or village; or (3) as a spiritual master in the Sufi tradition.
The principal literary and popular reference to shaikh is the third one -- a reference to a spiritual master in the Sufi tradition. Usually someone becomes a Sufi shaikh or murshid only by submitting to the discipline of another shaikh. There is an alternative route of initiation, however: Khidr, who in the Qur’an instructed Moses, can also confer the cloak of investiture on Muslims possessed of signal spiritual prowess. The most famous example of such an initiation is Shaikh al-Akbar, “the greatest Shaikh,” a title given to the Andalusian mystic Muhyi’d-din ibn ‘Arabi. Even while allowing for the possibility of self-initiates, however, Sufis reaffirm the exceptionality of this deviation from the path -- the tariqa --, a popular tradition, ascribed to Muhammad, bluntly warns: “When someone has no shaikh, then Satan becomes his shaikh.”
For Sufis, there are few limits to the authority vested in the shaikh. Like a king among his courtiers or a general at the head of his troops, the shaikh has absolute power over initiates in the Sufi path who bind themselves to him by an oath of allegiance. The disciple, according to one Sufi dictum, is analogous to a corpse in the hands of a washerman. The disciple moves wherever he is moved; he is dead to himself. The granting of such awesome power to the shaikh was not limited to this life; it extended to the life beyond, which was though populated by deceased shaiks, ranked hierarchically according to their cosmological powers, with the qutb or pole at the top. Shaikhs, therefore, were inevitably compared with prophets -- nabi --, and for the disciples of a pir or murshid the theological space separating their master from the Prophet was perilously narrow. In the modern decline in influence of organized Sufism it has been suggested that veneration of the shaikh has often surpassed veneration of the Prophet.
Among the Bedouins, the word shaykh indicated one who bore the marks of old age, i.e., one who was over fifty. The shaykh was the patriarch of the tribe or family, and had a considerable moral influence. It was also the title of the governor of Medina. At present, the title is a term of polite address, given to high dignitaries of religion and to all persons respected for their office. In the Muslim religious orders, the title indicates the master of the order.
In the form shehu, the term was the title taken by al-Kanemi of Bornu in the beginning of the nineteenth century, and which was retained by his descendants.
The Arabic title of sheik strictly means a venerable man of more than 50 years of age. The title sheikh is especially borne by heads of religious orders, heads of colleges, such as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, chiefs of tribes, and headmen of villages and of separate quarters of towns. It is also applied to learned men, especially members of the class of ulamas (theologians), and has been applied to anyone who has memorized the whole Qur’ān, however young he might be.
Shaykh al-jabal (“the mountain chief”) was a popular term for the head of the Assassins and was mistranslated by the crusaders as “the old man of the mountain.” By far the most important title was shaykh al-islām, which by the 11th century was given to eminent ulamas and mystics and by the 15th century was open to any outstanding mufti (canonical lawyer). In the Ottoman Empire the use of this title was restricted by Süleyman I (1520–66) to the mufti of Istanbul, who, equal in rank to the grand vizier, was head of the religious institutions that controlled law, justice, religion, and education. Because of his right to issue binding fatwās (Islāmic legal opinions), this official came to wield great power. In 1924, under the Turkish Republic, the last vestiges of the institution were abolished.
Throughout the Muslim era, the term shaykh al-din (“leader of the faith”) has been applied to men who possess scriptural learning. Leaders of religious orders are called shaykhs, as are Sufi adepts, Qur’anic scholars, jurists, and those who preach and lead prayers in the mosques. Muslim scholars have paid close attention to the careers of prominent religious shaykhs, the intellectual and genealogical pedigrees of these learned men have been accumulating in biographical dictionaries (known as tarajim or tabaqat) for centuries. The majority of shaykhs, both now and in the past, have not been religious functionaries. Instead, they have belonged to a more secular and much older political elite consisting of clan leaders, village headmen, and tribal chiefs.
The shaykh al-din is associated with a metropolitan culture of great antiquity and richness, whereas the tribal shaykh has long been associated with the agricultural and pastoral hinterland and particularly with remote areas beyond state control. The contrast is overdrawn. Shaykhs have always been caught up in the political economy of urban society -- at times, they have taxed and controlled the trade of cities -- and the most powerful shaykhs keep residences in both town and country. The base of the shaykh’s power, however, has traditionally been in the countryside, where most tribes people and peasants have lived even into modern times. The shaykh’s influence in outlying regions, which cannot always be easily controlled from the urban center, makes him an important resource to the state. Historically, the most influential shaykhs have acted as middlemen between governed and ungoverned space, and it is their relationship to the latter that has distinguished them over time as a recognizable political type.
Ibn Khaldun argued that tribal shaykhs, because they do not possess “royal authority,” are unable to coerce their followers or compel their allegiance. In the absence of “governmental and educational laws,” shaykhs can only exercise a “restraining influence,” and this they can accomplish only insofar as they are venerated and respected by fellow tribesmen. Such respect is seldom won on the basis of a shaykh’s piety or erudition. Indeed, until recent decades, most tribal shaykhs were illiterate, and their understanding of Islam was rarely orthodox. A shaykh’s reputation depends instead on four important characteristics: his ability to resolve disputes, which requires a detailed knowledge of customary law (‘urf or ‘awayid), a legal system that is often at odds with Islamic law. His ability to dispense hospitality on a grand scale and to offer gifts and financial support to followers; his ability to lead in times of raiding and warfare; and his ability to deal with state governments in ways that advance his own interests while preserving, as much as possible, the autonomy of the tribespeople he represents.
Since tribal shaykhs do not control the military and administrative apparatus of the state, their capacity to dominate tribal affairs is often attributed to personal charisma. They are commonly (and somewhat romantically) depicted as eloquent, shrewd, persuasive, brave, and wise. Among tribes people, the title is not inherited by right -- ideally, anyone can attain or fall from that rank -- and the urge to portray shaykhs as “first among equals” is especially strong in the West. This egalitarian view, thoug popular, is exaggerated. In many tribes, the shaykhdom has remained in the same family for centuries. Such concentrations of power and influence are not based on charisma alone. Until the establishment of modern nation-states in the twentieth century, tribal shaykhs were able to impose protection taxes (known as khawa, or “brotherhood”) on peasant communities; they extracted escort fees from caravans that passed through their territories; and in settled areas, they frequently owned sizeable tracts of land. These financial resources gave the shaykhs’ families a distinct political advantage over ordinary tribesmen. Moreover, shaykhs exercised this advantage in the contested zones between urban centers. By playing regional governments against each other, shaykhs could generate a reliable flow of stipends from rulers who competed for their loyalty.
In the modern era, as domains of state control have grown to encompass tribal areas, the status of these families has changed. Many of the most powerful shaykhs have been successfully incorporated by national regimes. In Jordan, for instance, tribal leaders sit in legislative assemblies, serve as government ministers, and control the upper ranks of the military. Throughout the Arab world, shaykhs have preserved their role as judges of tribal law, which, although many countries have officially delegitimized it, continues to be practiced in both urban and rural settings. Shaykhs have fared best, however, on the Arabian Peninsula, where they found themselves in possession of vast oil reserves. The emirates and kingdoms of the Gulf region are ruled today by families who in the nineteenth century were known simply as tribal shaykhs. In Yemen, where government control of the hinterland is comparatively weak, shaykhs take an active part in foreign and domestic affairs of state, and their political power has at times rivaled that of the central government.
It is now common for both Middle Eastern and Western intellectuals to identify shaykhs with parochialism and reactionary politics. The conservative social and economic agendas of the Gulf states, for example, are often ascribed to the “traditional mentality” of their ruling shaykhs. Given the value nationalist ideology sets on progress, unity, and allegiance, it was perhaps inevitable that shaykhs would assume the place they now occupy in the political imagination of the region. Long before nationalism arrived, tribal shaykhs were associated with “backward” domains, fratricidal politics, and resistance to the laws of God and the state. This view, so obviously colored by the attitudes of the urban elite, has been slow to change. The shaykhly families themselves, however, have proven remarkably adaptable. Despite confident predictions that they will soon disappear, the shaykhs and the tribes they lead remain prominent features of the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa.
shaykh see shaikh
sheik see shaikh
sheikh see shaikh
sjeik see shaikh
sheyh see shaikh
seih see shaikh
Shaikh al-Islam
Shaikh al-Islam (Sheikh ul-Islam) (Shaykh al-Islam) (Seyhulislam). Important religious title used in several Muslim societies from the tenth century onward. The functions of the shaikh al-Islams varied, but their growing importance marks the absorption of religious roles into government bureaucracies. The title first appears in eastern Iran to designate a community’s paramount religious scholar and educational official. In crisis, such officials, sometimes with the synonymous title sadr al-sudur, sought to become autonomous urban leaders. In the twelfth century the title spread widely and gradually gained the connotation of an imperial official with religious responsibilities. In the Delhi sultanate, he distributed largesse to religious figures. Under the Ottomans, he was the sultan’s chief juris-consult and headed a hierarchy of religious officials. Under the Safavids the shaikh al-Islam remained the paramount local official; the imperial official comparable to the Ottoman shaikh al-Islam was called the sadr al-sudur.
Shaikh al-Islam is a title of superior authority in the issues of Islam. The title is given to those followers of the Qur'an who acquired deep knowledge of its principles as well as of different views of prominent scholars and thus may carry over the laws extracted from the text unto others. It was also given to people of age, wise in Islam and reputable among peers.
Since the 8th century this title has been given to great numbers of people, even without due merit, neither with age nor wisdom, who governed Islamic affairs in larger communities or simply were High Judges kadis, e.g., in towns. Later it became a prestigious position in the Caliphate state of the Ottoman Empire, that governed religious affairs of the state.
The title shaikh al-Islam was more particularly applied to the Mufti of Istanbul, whose office acquired religious and political importance from Sultan Selim I onwards. The last Mufti who held this position for a long series of years was Abu’l-Su‘ud (1545-1574). After that time, the Muftis succeeded one another at intervals averaging three to four years. The eminence of the position of the Shaykh al-Islam is found in the ceremonial, only the Grand Vizier being higher in rank. Great importance was attached to the fatwas or legal opinions issued by the Shaykh al-Islam relating to questions of policy and public discipline.
After the National Assembly of Turkey was established in 1920, this office was in the Shar’iyya wa Awqaf Ministry until 1924, when the Ministry was abolished due to separation of religion from state. The office was replaced by the Presidency of Religious Affairs. As the successor entity to the Office of the Shaykh al-Islam, the Presidency of Religious Affairs, is the most authoritative entity in Turkey in relation to Sunni Islam.
Sheikh ul-Islam see Shaikh al-Islam
Shaykh al-Islam see Shaikh al-Islam
Seyhulislam see Shaikh al-Islam
Shaikh al-Islam (Sheikh ul-Islam) (Shaykh al-Islam) (Seyhulislam). Important religious title used in several Muslim societies from the tenth century onward. The functions of the shaikh al-Islams varied, but their growing importance marks the absorption of religious roles into government bureaucracies. The title first appears in eastern Iran to designate a community’s paramount religious scholar and educational official. In crisis, such officials, sometimes with the synonymous title sadr al-sudur, sought to become autonomous urban leaders. In the twelfth century the title spread widely and gradually gained the connotation of an imperial official with religious responsibilities. In the Delhi sultanate, he distributed largesse to religious figures. Under the Ottomans, he was the sultan’s chief juris-consult and headed a hierarchy of religious officials. Under the Safavids the shaikh al-Islam remained the paramount local official; the imperial official comparable to the Ottoman shaikh al-Islam was called the sadr al-sudur.
Shaikh al-Islam is a title of superior authority in the issues of Islam. The title is given to those followers of the Qur'an who acquired deep knowledge of its principles as well as of different views of prominent scholars and thus may carry over the laws extracted from the text unto others. It was also given to people of age, wise in Islam and reputable among peers.
Since the 8th century this title has been given to great numbers of people, even without due merit, neither with age nor wisdom, who governed Islamic affairs in larger communities or simply were High Judges kadis, e.g., in towns. Later it became a prestigious position in the Caliphate state of the Ottoman Empire, that governed religious affairs of the state.
The title shaikh al-Islam was more particularly applied to the Mufti of Istanbul, whose office acquired religious and political importance from Sultan Selim I onwards. The last Mufti who held this position for a long series of years was Abu’l-Su‘ud (1545-1574). After that time, the Muftis succeeded one another at intervals averaging three to four years. The eminence of the position of the Shaykh al-Islam is found in the ceremonial, only the Grand Vizier being higher in rank. Great importance was attached to the fatwas or legal opinions issued by the Shaykh al-Islam relating to questions of policy and public discipline.
After the National Assembly of Turkey was established in 1920, this office was in the Shar’iyya wa Awqaf Ministry until 1924, when the Ministry was abolished due to separation of religion from state. The office was replaced by the Presidency of Religious Affairs. As the successor entity to the Office of the Shaykh al-Islam, the Presidency of Religious Affairs, is the most authoritative entity in Turkey in relation to Sunni Islam.
Sheikh ul-Islam see Shaikh al-Islam
Shaykh al-Islam see Shaikh al-Islam
Seyhulislam see Shaikh al-Islam
Shaikhi
Shaikhi. See Shaykhi.
Shaikhi. See Shaykhi.
Shaikh Muhyi’l-Din al-Waili
Shaikh Muhyi’l-Din al-Waili (1778-1869). Swahili poet. He was kadhi (qadi) or chief judge, of Zanzibar. He wrote the copy of the Kitab al-Sulwa and many Swahili poems, the best known of which is perhaps Dua ya Kuombea Mvua (“Prayer for Rain”).
Waili, Shaikh Muhyi'l-Din al- see Shaikh Muhyi’l-Din al-Waili
Shaikh Muhyi’l-Din al-Waili (1778-1869). Swahili poet. He was kadhi (qadi) or chief judge, of Zanzibar. He wrote the copy of the Kitab al-Sulwa and many Swahili poems, the best known of which is perhaps Dua ya Kuombea Mvua (“Prayer for Rain”).
Waili, Shaikh Muhyi'l-Din al- see Shaikh Muhyi’l-Din al-Waili
Shajar al-Durr
Shajar al-Durr (Shajar ad-Durr) (al-Malikah Ismat ad-Din Umm-Khalil Shajar al-Durr) (Umm Khalil) (d. 1257, Cairo). Only woman to rule Egypt in her own name during the Muslim period (r.1250-1257). Shajar al-Durr was the widow of as-Salih, the last major Ayyubid Sultan. Originally a courtesan, Shajar al-Durr was remarkable woman who caught the eye of the Sultan and ultimately married him. At the time of her husband’s death in 1250, he was preparing to meet the Crusaders in a crucial battle at Mansura. His son and successor Turan Shah was on campaign in Iraq. Shajar al-Durr’s role in keeping her husband’s death a secret until Turan Shah could return and take charge of the army was invaluable. After leading the army to victory in the battle of Masura, Turan Shah proved incapable of satisfying the Mamelukes. When he began to displace as-Salih’s commanders with his own Mamelukes, he was assassinated.
Shajar al-Durr, who was carrying as-Salih’s child at the time (the child died soon after birth), was proclaimed by the Mamelukes, but the Caliph al-Musta‘sim in Baghdad refused to accept a woman as ruler. To satisfy him and elements of her own court, Shajar al-Durr married one of her husband’s Mamelukes, Aybak. However, the relationship was far from easy. Although Shajar al-Durr controlled the treasury, Aybak began to assume royal prerogatives that Shajar felt were rightly hers. At one point (around 1253), Aybak tried to gain ascendancy by declaring Egypt a province of the ‘Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad and himself the Caliph’s Viceroy. Aybak’s decision to take another wife (Shajar had forced Aybak to divorce his first wife at the time of their marriage), compelled Shajar to have Aybak assassinated in 1257. But this, in turn, led to Shajar’s own demise. Aybak’s Mamelukes seized her and imprisoned her. Eventually, the handed Shajar over to Aybak’s ex-wife and harem, who summarily executed Shajar.
Shajar al-Durr (Arabic for "String of Pearls") was the widow of the Ayyubid Sultan as-Salih Ayyub who played a crucial role after his death during the Seventh Crusade against Egypt (1249-1250). She was regarded by Muslim historians and chroniclers of the Mameluke time as being of Turkic origin. She became the Sultana of Egypt on May 2, 1250, marking the end of the Ayyubid reign and the starting of the Mameluke era.
Durr, Shajar al- see Shajar al-Durr
Shajar ad-Durr see Shajar al-Durr
Durr, Shajar ad- see Shajar al-Durr
al-Malikah Ismat ad-Din Umm-Khalil Shajar al-Durr see Shajar al-Durr
Umm Khalil see Shajar al-Durr
String of Pearls see Shajar al-Durr
Shajar al-Durr (Shajar ad-Durr) (al-Malikah Ismat ad-Din Umm-Khalil Shajar al-Durr) (Umm Khalil) (d. 1257, Cairo). Only woman to rule Egypt in her own name during the Muslim period (r.1250-1257). Shajar al-Durr was the widow of as-Salih, the last major Ayyubid Sultan. Originally a courtesan, Shajar al-Durr was remarkable woman who caught the eye of the Sultan and ultimately married him. At the time of her husband’s death in 1250, he was preparing to meet the Crusaders in a crucial battle at Mansura. His son and successor Turan Shah was on campaign in Iraq. Shajar al-Durr’s role in keeping her husband’s death a secret until Turan Shah could return and take charge of the army was invaluable. After leading the army to victory in the battle of Masura, Turan Shah proved incapable of satisfying the Mamelukes. When he began to displace as-Salih’s commanders with his own Mamelukes, he was assassinated.
Shajar al-Durr, who was carrying as-Salih’s child at the time (the child died soon after birth), was proclaimed by the Mamelukes, but the Caliph al-Musta‘sim in Baghdad refused to accept a woman as ruler. To satisfy him and elements of her own court, Shajar al-Durr married one of her husband’s Mamelukes, Aybak. However, the relationship was far from easy. Although Shajar al-Durr controlled the treasury, Aybak began to assume royal prerogatives that Shajar felt were rightly hers. At one point (around 1253), Aybak tried to gain ascendancy by declaring Egypt a province of the ‘Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad and himself the Caliph’s Viceroy. Aybak’s decision to take another wife (Shajar had forced Aybak to divorce his first wife at the time of their marriage), compelled Shajar to have Aybak assassinated in 1257. But this, in turn, led to Shajar’s own demise. Aybak’s Mamelukes seized her and imprisoned her. Eventually, the handed Shajar over to Aybak’s ex-wife and harem, who summarily executed Shajar.
Shajar al-Durr (Arabic for "String of Pearls") was the widow of the Ayyubid Sultan as-Salih Ayyub who played a crucial role after his death during the Seventh Crusade against Egypt (1249-1250). She was regarded by Muslim historians and chroniclers of the Mameluke time as being of Turkic origin. She became the Sultana of Egypt on May 2, 1250, marking the end of the Ayyubid reign and the starting of the Mameluke era.
Durr, Shajar al- see Shajar al-Durr
Shajar ad-Durr see Shajar al-Durr
Durr, Shajar ad- see Shajar al-Durr
al-Malikah Ismat ad-Din Umm-Khalil Shajar al-Durr see Shajar al-Durr
Umm Khalil see Shajar al-Durr
String of Pearls see Shajar al-Durr
Shaltut, Mahmud
Shaltut, Mahmud (1893-1963). One of a celebrated number of Azhari shaykhs who undertook the reform of al-Azhar, reversing its decline, which occurred during the nineteenth century, and recapturing its old role as an active participant in Egypt’s educational, cultural, and political destiny. Although best known and esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) and Qur’anic interpretation, Shaltut really made his mark as the shaykh of al-Azhar (1958-1963). During his tenure, al-Azhar began to take its modern shape. This transformation was complicated by the Nasser government, which sought direct control of the mosque/university. Although compromising with the state over administrative control, Shaltut managed to bring about the partial realization of the dreams of past religious reformers of al-Azhar, including Shaykhs Rifa’ah al-Tahrawi, Muhammad ‘Abduh, and Mustafa al-Maraghi.
Born in 1893, in the small village of Minyat Bani Mansur (Buhayrah Province), in Lower Egypt, Shaltut memorized the Qur’an as a child, entered the Alexandria Religious Institute in 1906, and later joined al-Azhar, where he received the ‘Alamiyah degree in 1918. After teaching at the Alexandria Religious Institute for a number of years, Shaltut joined al-Azhar through the auspices of Shaykh Mustafa al-Maraghi. The association between the two shaykhs would be a long lasting one of cooperation in both the national and Azhari spheres. When al-Maraghi was fired by King Fu‘ad in 1930, Shaltut and seventy other Azharis who supported his reform plans for al-Azhar were also dismissed. Shaltut had also supported al-Maraghi’s opposition to Fu’ad’s efforts to have himself elected the new Islamic caliph following the 1924 Ataturk cancellation of the Ottoman caliphate.
On his return to the leadership of al-Azhar in 1935, al-Maraghi asked Shaltut, who had turned to practicing law, to rejoin the university. He did so, rising through the hierarchy to become accepted as one of al-Azhar’s chief ‘ulama’ (religious scholars) after presenting a highly acclaimed study, “Civil and Criminal Responsibility in the Islamic Shari‘ah” at the International Law Conference at the Hague in 1937. In his study, Shaltut outlined his vision of a reformed Islam and of a shari‘a that could become one of the sources for modern legislation.
In 1946, Shaltut was one of the few intellectuals selected as a member of the newly formed Majma’ al-Lughah al-‘Arabiyah (Arab Language Organization. He was also invited to teach fiqh and sunnah (Prophetic traditions) at Cairo University’s Faculty of Law and became general supervisor for Muraqabat al-Buhuth al-Islamiyah (Inspectorate/Control of Islamic Research) an office that allowed him to travel widely throughout the Islamic world to promote better relations between Islamic nations. In 1957, he became the secretary general of the Islamic Conference and under secretary general of the Islamic Conference and under secretary of al-Azhar. In the following year he was chosen to be shaykh of al-Azhar, a position he held until his death in 1963.
Shaltut became the head of al-Azhar during the most radical phase of Egypt’s 1952 revolution. Most standing institutions were undergoing fundamental reorganization at the time. By 1961, the law reorganizing al-Azhar was passed by an extremely reluctant Majlis al-Ummah. Even though Shaltut shared credit as architect of the law, he was not entirely happy with it, because it brought al-Azhar under the direct domination of the state. Since 1958, power over al-Azhar had been shared with a secular authority in the shape of a minister of al-Azhar and religious affairs. The 1961 law came at a critical time in Egypt’s history, just before the imposition of Nasserist socialist laws and the declaration of the National Charter. It was a time of strong nationalist feelings and revolutionary actions that touched all areas of life. Al-Azhar was to be remolded into an instrument of a new Egyptian dominated Arab nationalist and socialist order. It was expected to fulfill this role through reorganization, reform, and a wider national and international role.
Shaltut may have had mixed feelings about the 1961 law, but it should be remembered that he came from the generation that had participated in the 1919 revolution. His 1964 book, The Azhar in a Thousand Years, shows that he had long stood for an activist al-Azhar that could play a greater international role in fighting religious fanaticism and uniting the Islamic ummah (community) with its various schools of thought. Reorganization, and the budgetary allowances that came with it, meant the partial fulfillment of the goals of his teacher, Shaykh Muhammad (Abduh, and his collaborator, al-Maraghi: reopening the door of ijtihad (individual inquiry in legal matters); reforming education at al-Azhar through the introduction of modern subjects; and ending the religious fanaticism that kept the Islamic world divided by narrowing the differences between different Muslim madhhabs (legal schools).
The reformed al-Azhar was to graduate ‘ulama’ with an all-around education. Thus to the university’s traditional religious education were added modern faculties for graduating doctors, engineers, scientists, and even a college for women. A new division, Idarat al-Thaqafah wa al-Bu‘uth al-Islamiyah (Department of Culture and Islamic Missions), delegated al-Azhar graduates to teach and preach in Islamic countries and supervised foreign students studying at al-Azhar. Cairo’s Madinat al-Bu‘uth al-Islamiyah (City of Islamic Missions) enabled thousands of students from all over the Islamic world to study at al-Azhar. Primary and secondary ma‘ahid Azhariyah (Islamic institutions) became active in graduating da‘is (missionaries) to work throughout the Islamic world. Even women graduates of the ma‘ahid and al-Azhar’s Kulliyat al-Banat (Girl’s College) could act as future da‘is among Egyptian and Arab women.
Other achievements of Shaltut’s tenure with a long term impact on Egypt and the Islamic world included the formation of al-Majlis al-A‘la lil-Shu’un al-Islamiyah (High Council for Islamic Affairs), which brought together for the first time representatives of eight Islamic madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Zaydi, ‘Ibadi, and Zahiri) to meet in Cairo in 1962 for theological discussions. The meeting resulted in the publication of the first encyclopedia to cover the different interpretations of mu‘amalat (acts concerned with humna intercourse) according to the eight sects, Mawsu‘at Nasir lil-fiqh al-Islami.
One other institution attributed to Shaltut, Majma’ al-Buhuth al-Islamiyah (Islamic Research Center), has had a deep impact on Egyptian intellectual life. Meant as a scholarly center to assure the accuracy of religious works, it has turned into an organ of censorship that monitors the purity of literature, declaring what is heretical, demanding the removal of publications from the market and libraries, as well as calling for the punishment of authors it considers “innovators” and “heretical enemies of Islam.” For Shaltut, a man famous for his innovative ten volume Tafsir al-Qur’an (Interpretation of the Qur’an and for his resourceful Al-fatawah (Formal Legal Opinion), this would hardly have been acceptable.
Maḥműd Shaltűt spent many years at Al-Azhar Islamic Institute in Cairo, Egypt, and rose to become rector or shaykh or grand imam and served in that position from 1958 to 1963. Although not as well known in the West as many other Islamic scholars, Shaltut was a prolific writer on the sharia and on tafsir, and is known for introducing the teaching of the fiqh (jurisprudence) of Zaydi and Twelver Shi'a Islam to the university alongside the fiqh of the four Sunni madhhabs (traditions of jurisprudence).
Maḥműd Shaltűt received his religious elementary education in Alexandria, Egypt. He has been described as an Islamic modernist.
Mahmud Shaltut see Shaltut, Mahmud
Shaltut, Mahmud (1893-1963). One of a celebrated number of Azhari shaykhs who undertook the reform of al-Azhar, reversing its decline, which occurred during the nineteenth century, and recapturing its old role as an active participant in Egypt’s educational, cultural, and political destiny. Although best known and esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) and Qur’anic interpretation, Shaltut really made his mark as the shaykh of al-Azhar (1958-1963). During his tenure, al-Azhar began to take its modern shape. This transformation was complicated by the Nasser government, which sought direct control of the mosque/university. Although compromising with the state over administrative control, Shaltut managed to bring about the partial realization of the dreams of past religious reformers of al-Azhar, including Shaykhs Rifa’ah al-Tahrawi, Muhammad ‘Abduh, and Mustafa al-Maraghi.
Born in 1893, in the small village of Minyat Bani Mansur (Buhayrah Province), in Lower Egypt, Shaltut memorized the Qur’an as a child, entered the Alexandria Religious Institute in 1906, and later joined al-Azhar, where he received the ‘Alamiyah degree in 1918. After teaching at the Alexandria Religious Institute for a number of years, Shaltut joined al-Azhar through the auspices of Shaykh Mustafa al-Maraghi. The association between the two shaykhs would be a long lasting one of cooperation in both the national and Azhari spheres. When al-Maraghi was fired by King Fu‘ad in 1930, Shaltut and seventy other Azharis who supported his reform plans for al-Azhar were also dismissed. Shaltut had also supported al-Maraghi’s opposition to Fu’ad’s efforts to have himself elected the new Islamic caliph following the 1924 Ataturk cancellation of the Ottoman caliphate.
On his return to the leadership of al-Azhar in 1935, al-Maraghi asked Shaltut, who had turned to practicing law, to rejoin the university. He did so, rising through the hierarchy to become accepted as one of al-Azhar’s chief ‘ulama’ (religious scholars) after presenting a highly acclaimed study, “Civil and Criminal Responsibility in the Islamic Shari‘ah” at the International Law Conference at the Hague in 1937. In his study, Shaltut outlined his vision of a reformed Islam and of a shari‘a that could become one of the sources for modern legislation.
In 1946, Shaltut was one of the few intellectuals selected as a member of the newly formed Majma’ al-Lughah al-‘Arabiyah (Arab Language Organization. He was also invited to teach fiqh and sunnah (Prophetic traditions) at Cairo University’s Faculty of Law and became general supervisor for Muraqabat al-Buhuth al-Islamiyah (Inspectorate/Control of Islamic Research) an office that allowed him to travel widely throughout the Islamic world to promote better relations between Islamic nations. In 1957, he became the secretary general of the Islamic Conference and under secretary general of the Islamic Conference and under secretary of al-Azhar. In the following year he was chosen to be shaykh of al-Azhar, a position he held until his death in 1963.
Shaltut became the head of al-Azhar during the most radical phase of Egypt’s 1952 revolution. Most standing institutions were undergoing fundamental reorganization at the time. By 1961, the law reorganizing al-Azhar was passed by an extremely reluctant Majlis al-Ummah. Even though Shaltut shared credit as architect of the law, he was not entirely happy with it, because it brought al-Azhar under the direct domination of the state. Since 1958, power over al-Azhar had been shared with a secular authority in the shape of a minister of al-Azhar and religious affairs. The 1961 law came at a critical time in Egypt’s history, just before the imposition of Nasserist socialist laws and the declaration of the National Charter. It was a time of strong nationalist feelings and revolutionary actions that touched all areas of life. Al-Azhar was to be remolded into an instrument of a new Egyptian dominated Arab nationalist and socialist order. It was expected to fulfill this role through reorganization, reform, and a wider national and international role.
Shaltut may have had mixed feelings about the 1961 law, but it should be remembered that he came from the generation that had participated in the 1919 revolution. His 1964 book, The Azhar in a Thousand Years, shows that he had long stood for an activist al-Azhar that could play a greater international role in fighting religious fanaticism and uniting the Islamic ummah (community) with its various schools of thought. Reorganization, and the budgetary allowances that came with it, meant the partial fulfillment of the goals of his teacher, Shaykh Muhammad (Abduh, and his collaborator, al-Maraghi: reopening the door of ijtihad (individual inquiry in legal matters); reforming education at al-Azhar through the introduction of modern subjects; and ending the religious fanaticism that kept the Islamic world divided by narrowing the differences between different Muslim madhhabs (legal schools).
The reformed al-Azhar was to graduate ‘ulama’ with an all-around education. Thus to the university’s traditional religious education were added modern faculties for graduating doctors, engineers, scientists, and even a college for women. A new division, Idarat al-Thaqafah wa al-Bu‘uth al-Islamiyah (Department of Culture and Islamic Missions), delegated al-Azhar graduates to teach and preach in Islamic countries and supervised foreign students studying at al-Azhar. Cairo’s Madinat al-Bu‘uth al-Islamiyah (City of Islamic Missions) enabled thousands of students from all over the Islamic world to study at al-Azhar. Primary and secondary ma‘ahid Azhariyah (Islamic institutions) became active in graduating da‘is (missionaries) to work throughout the Islamic world. Even women graduates of the ma‘ahid and al-Azhar’s Kulliyat al-Banat (Girl’s College) could act as future da‘is among Egyptian and Arab women.
Other achievements of Shaltut’s tenure with a long term impact on Egypt and the Islamic world included the formation of al-Majlis al-A‘la lil-Shu’un al-Islamiyah (High Council for Islamic Affairs), which brought together for the first time representatives of eight Islamic madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, Ja‘fari, Zaydi, ‘Ibadi, and Zahiri) to meet in Cairo in 1962 for theological discussions. The meeting resulted in the publication of the first encyclopedia to cover the different interpretations of mu‘amalat (acts concerned with humna intercourse) according to the eight sects, Mawsu‘at Nasir lil-fiqh al-Islami.
One other institution attributed to Shaltut, Majma’ al-Buhuth al-Islamiyah (Islamic Research Center), has had a deep impact on Egyptian intellectual life. Meant as a scholarly center to assure the accuracy of religious works, it has turned into an organ of censorship that monitors the purity of literature, declaring what is heretical, demanding the removal of publications from the market and libraries, as well as calling for the punishment of authors it considers “innovators” and “heretical enemies of Islam.” For Shaltut, a man famous for his innovative ten volume Tafsir al-Qur’an (Interpretation of the Qur’an and for his resourceful Al-fatawah (Formal Legal Opinion), this would hardly have been acceptable.
Maḥműd Shaltűt spent many years at Al-Azhar Islamic Institute in Cairo, Egypt, and rose to become rector or shaykh or grand imam and served in that position from 1958 to 1963. Although not as well known in the West as many other Islamic scholars, Shaltut was a prolific writer on the sharia and on tafsir, and is known for introducing the teaching of the fiqh (jurisprudence) of Zaydi and Twelver Shi'a Islam to the university alongside the fiqh of the four Sunni madhhabs (traditions of jurisprudence).
Maḥműd Shaltűt received his religious elementary education in Alexandria, Egypt. He has been described as an Islamic modernist.
Mahmud Shaltut see Shaltut, Mahmud
Shaman
Shaman. Pre-Islamic Turkish wizard/soothsayer believed capable of communicating with the dead, healing the sick, and keeping tribal lore.
Shamanism is an anthropological term referencing a range of beliefs and practices regarding communication with the spiritual world. A practitioner of shamanism is known as a shaman.
Shamanism encompasses the belief that shamans are intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the spirit worlds. Shamans are said to treat ailments/illness by mending the soul. Alleviating traumas affecting the soul/spirit restores the physical body of the individual to balance and wholeness. The shaman also enters supernatural realms or dimensions to obtain solutions to problems afflicting the community. Shamans may visit other worlds/dimensions to bring guidance to misguided souls and to ameliorate illnesses of the human soul caused by foreign elements. The shaman operates primarily within the spiritual world, which in turn affects the human world. The restoration of balance results in the elimination of the ailment.
Shaman. Pre-Islamic Turkish wizard/soothsayer believed capable of communicating with the dead, healing the sick, and keeping tribal lore.
Shamanism is an anthropological term referencing a range of beliefs and practices regarding communication with the spiritual world. A practitioner of shamanism is known as a shaman.
Shamanism encompasses the belief that shamans are intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the spirit worlds. Shamans are said to treat ailments/illness by mending the soul. Alleviating traumas affecting the soul/spirit restores the physical body of the individual to balance and wholeness. The shaman also enters supernatural realms or dimensions to obtain solutions to problems afflicting the community. Shamans may visit other worlds/dimensions to bring guidance to misguided souls and to ameliorate illnesses of the human soul caused by foreign elements. The shaman operates primarily within the spiritual world, which in turn affects the human world. The restoration of balance results in the elimination of the ailment.
Shamil
Shamil (Şeyx Şamil) (Shamyl) (Schamil) (Schamyl) (b. c. 1797, Gimry, Dagestan [now in Russia]—d. March 1871, Medina, Arabia). Popular leader in Dagestan. He was the head of the local Naqshbandiyya and the last and most successful leader of the uprising against Russian rule.
Shāmil was the leader of Muslim Dagestan and Chechen mountaineers, whose fierce resistance delayed Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus for 25 years.
The son of a free landlord, Shāmil studied grammar, logic, rhetoric, and Arabic, acquired prestige as a learned man, and, in 1830, joined the Murīdīs, a Ṣūfī (Islāmic mystical) brotherhood. Under the leadership of Ghāzī Muḥammad, the brotherhood had become involved in a holy war against the Russians, who had formally acquired control of Dagestan from Iran in 1813. After Ghāzī Muḥammad was killed by the Russians (1832) and his successor, Gamzat Bek, was assassinated by his own followers (1834), Shāmil was elected to serve as the third imam (political-religious leader) of Dagestan.
Establishing an independent state in Dagestan (1834), Shāmil reorganized and enlarged his Chechen and Dagestan forces and led them in extensive raids against the Russian positions in the Caucasus region. The Russians sent a fresh expedition against Shāmil in 1838; although it captured Ahulgo, the mountaineers’ main stronghold, Shāmil escaped. Neither that nor subsequent expeditions were able to defeat Shāmil, despite their successful penetration into his territory and their conquests of his forts and towns.
In 1857, the Russians became more determined to suppress Shāmil, whose reputation had spread throughout western Europe and whose exploits had become legendary among his own people. Sending large, well-equipped forces under generals N.I. Evdokimov and A.I. Baryatinsky, they started operations from all sides. Their military successes, coupled with the increasing exhaustion of Shāmil’s followers, resulted in the surrender of many villages and tribes to the Russians. After the invaders successfully stormed Shāmil’s fortress at Vedeno (April 1859), he and several hundred of his adherents withdrew to Mount Gunib. On August 25 (September 6, New Style), 1859, Shāmil, recognizing the futility of continuing to fight the overwhelming Russian armies that surrounded him, finally surrendered and effectively ended the resistance of the Caucasian peoples to Russian subjugation. Shāmil was taken to Saint Petersburg and then was exiled to Kaluga, south of Moscow.
After his capture, Shamil was sent to Saint Petersburg to meet the Emperor Alexander II. Afterwards, he was exiled to Kaluga, then a small town near Moscow. After several years in Kaluga he complained to the authorities about the climate and in December, 1868, Shamil received permission to move to Kiev, a commercial center of the Empire's southwest. In Kiev he was afforded a mansion on Aleksandrovskaya Street. The Imperial authorities ordered the Kiev superintendent to keep Shamil under "strict but not overly burdensome surveillance" and allotted the city a significant sum for the needs of the exile. Shamil seemed to have liked his luxurious detainment, as well as the city, as evidenced by the letters he sent from Kiev.
In 1869, shamil was given permission to perform the Hajj to the holy city of Mecca. He traveled first from Kiev to Odessa and then sailed to Istanbul, where he was greeted by the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz. He became a guest at the Imperial Topkapi Palace for a short while and left Istanbul on a ship reserved for him by the Sultan. After completing his pilgrimage to Mecca, he died in Medina in 1871 while visiting the city, and was buried in the Jannatul Baqi, a historical graveyard in Medina where many prominent personalities from Islamic history are interred. Two elder sons, (Cemaleddin and Muhammed Şefi), whom he had to leave in Russia in order to get permission to visit Mecca, became officers in the Russian army, while two younger sons, (Muhammed Gazi and Muhammed Kamil), served in the Turkish army.
Said Shamil, a grandson of Imam Shamil, became one of the founders of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, which survived between 1917 and 1920 and later, in 1924, he established the "Committee of Independence of the Caucasus" in Germany
Seyx Samil see Shamil
Shamyl see Shamil
Schamil see Shamil
Schamyl see Shamil
Shamil (Şeyx Şamil) (Shamyl) (Schamil) (Schamyl) (b. c. 1797, Gimry, Dagestan [now in Russia]—d. March 1871, Medina, Arabia). Popular leader in Dagestan. He was the head of the local Naqshbandiyya and the last and most successful leader of the uprising against Russian rule.
Shāmil was the leader of Muslim Dagestan and Chechen mountaineers, whose fierce resistance delayed Russia’s conquest of the Caucasus for 25 years.
The son of a free landlord, Shāmil studied grammar, logic, rhetoric, and Arabic, acquired prestige as a learned man, and, in 1830, joined the Murīdīs, a Ṣūfī (Islāmic mystical) brotherhood. Under the leadership of Ghāzī Muḥammad, the brotherhood had become involved in a holy war against the Russians, who had formally acquired control of Dagestan from Iran in 1813. After Ghāzī Muḥammad was killed by the Russians (1832) and his successor, Gamzat Bek, was assassinated by his own followers (1834), Shāmil was elected to serve as the third imam (political-religious leader) of Dagestan.
Establishing an independent state in Dagestan (1834), Shāmil reorganized and enlarged his Chechen and Dagestan forces and led them in extensive raids against the Russian positions in the Caucasus region. The Russians sent a fresh expedition against Shāmil in 1838; although it captured Ahulgo, the mountaineers’ main stronghold, Shāmil escaped. Neither that nor subsequent expeditions were able to defeat Shāmil, despite their successful penetration into his territory and their conquests of his forts and towns.
In 1857, the Russians became more determined to suppress Shāmil, whose reputation had spread throughout western Europe and whose exploits had become legendary among his own people. Sending large, well-equipped forces under generals N.I. Evdokimov and A.I. Baryatinsky, they started operations from all sides. Their military successes, coupled with the increasing exhaustion of Shāmil’s followers, resulted in the surrender of many villages and tribes to the Russians. After the invaders successfully stormed Shāmil’s fortress at Vedeno (April 1859), he and several hundred of his adherents withdrew to Mount Gunib. On August 25 (September 6, New Style), 1859, Shāmil, recognizing the futility of continuing to fight the overwhelming Russian armies that surrounded him, finally surrendered and effectively ended the resistance of the Caucasian peoples to Russian subjugation. Shāmil was taken to Saint Petersburg and then was exiled to Kaluga, south of Moscow.
After his capture, Shamil was sent to Saint Petersburg to meet the Emperor Alexander II. Afterwards, he was exiled to Kaluga, then a small town near Moscow. After several years in Kaluga he complained to the authorities about the climate and in December, 1868, Shamil received permission to move to Kiev, a commercial center of the Empire's southwest. In Kiev he was afforded a mansion on Aleksandrovskaya Street. The Imperial authorities ordered the Kiev superintendent to keep Shamil under "strict but not overly burdensome surveillance" and allotted the city a significant sum for the needs of the exile. Shamil seemed to have liked his luxurious detainment, as well as the city, as evidenced by the letters he sent from Kiev.
In 1869, shamil was given permission to perform the Hajj to the holy city of Mecca. He traveled first from Kiev to Odessa and then sailed to Istanbul, where he was greeted by the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz. He became a guest at the Imperial Topkapi Palace for a short while and left Istanbul on a ship reserved for him by the Sultan. After completing his pilgrimage to Mecca, he died in Medina in 1871 while visiting the city, and was buried in the Jannatul Baqi, a historical graveyard in Medina where many prominent personalities from Islamic history are interred. Two elder sons, (Cemaleddin and Muhammed Şefi), whom he had to leave in Russia in order to get permission to visit Mecca, became officers in the Russian army, while two younger sons, (Muhammed Gazi and Muhammed Kamil), served in the Turkish army.
Said Shamil, a grandson of Imam Shamil, became one of the founders of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, which survived between 1917 and 1920 and later, in 1924, he established the "Committee of Independence of the Caucasus" in Germany
Seyx Samil see Shamil
Shamyl see Shamil
Schamil see Shamil
Schamyl see Shamil
Shammar
Shammar. Name of a plateau in Saudi Arabia and of a confederation of tribes in this region. The Banu Shammar have been some of the most devoted champions of Wahhabi doctrines.
The tribe of Shammar is one of the largest tribes of Arabia, with an estimated (in 2010) 1 million in Iraq, over 2.5 million in Saudi Arabia (concentrated in Hail), a Kuwaiti population (centered in Aljahra) of around 100,000, a Syrian population that is thought to exceed 1 million, and with an unknown number in Jordan. In its "golden age", around 1850, the tribe ruled much of central and northern Arabia from Riyadh to the frontiers of Syria and the vast area known as Aljazeera in Northern Iraq.
The Shammar is a tribal confederation made up of three main branches: the Abdah, the Aslam, and the Zoba. According to the tribe's oral tradition, the Shammar originated from a bedouin Yemeni tribe called the Dhayaghem who immigrated northwards, conquering the area around the twin mountains of Aja and Salma in northern Nejd from a local chief known only as "Bahij". The first mention of Shammar comes from the 14th century. The area of the two mountains subsequently came to be known as Jabal Shammar ("Shammar's Mountain") from that time. In modern times, it has become common to link the Shammar with the tribe of Tayy, the ancient inhabitants of that area, and some genealogists believe that Shammar may have indeed absorbed some remnants of that tribe.
Oral tradition mentions that the first chiefs of the Shammar tribe were the family of Dhaigham, (Arar and Omair) from 'abda, who supposedly ruled Shammar at the center of their presence in Jabal Shammar. In the 1600s, a large section of the Shammar left Jabal Shammar under the leadership of Al Jarba and settled in Iraq, reaching as far as the northern city of Mosul. The Shammar are currently one of the largest tribes in Iraq, and are divided into two large branches. The northern branch, known as Shammar al-Jarba, is mainly Sunni, while the southern branch, Shammar Toga, converted to Shi'ism largely just before or during the 19th century after settling in southern Iraq.
The Shammar that remained in Arabia had their tribal territories in the area around the city of Ha'il, and extending from Ha'il northwards to the frontiers of the Syrian Desert. The Shammar had a long traditional rivalry with the confederation of 'Anizzah, who inhabited the same area.
The city of Ha'il became the heart of the Jabal Shammar region and was inhabited largely by settled members of Shammar and their clients. Two clans succeeded each other in ruling the city in the 19th century. The first clan, the Al Ali, were replaced by the Al Rashid with their uncles Al Sabhan, who pledged allegiance to the Al Saud family in Riyadh. Both these clans belonged to the 'Abda section of Shammar.
During the civil war that tore apart the Second Saudi State in the late 19th century, the emirs ("rulers") of Ha'il from Al Rashid intervened and were able to gradually take control of much of the Saudi realm, finally taking over the Saudi capital Riyadh in 1895 and expelling the Saudi leaders to Kuwait. The bedouin Shammari tribesmen provided the majority of the Al Rashid's military support.
The Al Rashid were defeated by Ibn Saud during his campaign to restore his family's rule in the Arabian Peninsula in the first two decades of the 20th century, with Jabal Shammar falling to Saudi rule in 1921. Later, some sections of Shammar were incorporated in the Ikhwan militias loyal to Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud also married a daughter of one of the Shammari chiefs, who bore him the current Saudi king, Abdullah.
After the establishment of modern borders, most bedouins gradually left their nomadic lifestyle. Today, most members of Shammar live in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and some sections have settled in Syria and Jordan.
Under the leadership of Banu Mohamad known as Al Jarba, there was a massive exodus of the Shammar into Iraq. Many of the Shammar in Iraq gave up the nomadic life to settle in the major cities, especially the Jazirah plain, which is the area between the Tigris and Euphrates from Baghdad all the way to Mosul. In times of drought, there were several migrations of Shammar into Iraq, which, according to the Ottoman census upon its annexation, had only 1.5 million inhabitants.
In Iraq, the Shammar became one of the most powerful tribes, owning vast tracts of land. They were important supporters of the Iraqi monarchy of the House of Hashem. Shammar power was threatened after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958 by Abdul-Karim Qassem, and the Shammar welcomed Ba'athist rule. With the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein, the tribe of Shammar lost favor in Iraq due to their close links to their Saudi relatives. After the overthrow of Saddam, Ghazi al-Yawar, from the Al Jarbah clan, was unanimously chosen as interim president. His uncle is the current Sheikh of Sheikhs of the tribe of Shammar. Samir, an Iraqi-American Shammari, pulled Saddam out of his "spider hole" in the famous picture of the capture of Saddam.
Shammar. Name of a plateau in Saudi Arabia and of a confederation of tribes in this region. The Banu Shammar have been some of the most devoted champions of Wahhabi doctrines.
The tribe of Shammar is one of the largest tribes of Arabia, with an estimated (in 2010) 1 million in Iraq, over 2.5 million in Saudi Arabia (concentrated in Hail), a Kuwaiti population (centered in Aljahra) of around 100,000, a Syrian population that is thought to exceed 1 million, and with an unknown number in Jordan. In its "golden age", around 1850, the tribe ruled much of central and northern Arabia from Riyadh to the frontiers of Syria and the vast area known as Aljazeera in Northern Iraq.
The Shammar is a tribal confederation made up of three main branches: the Abdah, the Aslam, and the Zoba. According to the tribe's oral tradition, the Shammar originated from a bedouin Yemeni tribe called the Dhayaghem who immigrated northwards, conquering the area around the twin mountains of Aja and Salma in northern Nejd from a local chief known only as "Bahij". The first mention of Shammar comes from the 14th century. The area of the two mountains subsequently came to be known as Jabal Shammar ("Shammar's Mountain") from that time. In modern times, it has become common to link the Shammar with the tribe of Tayy, the ancient inhabitants of that area, and some genealogists believe that Shammar may have indeed absorbed some remnants of that tribe.
Oral tradition mentions that the first chiefs of the Shammar tribe were the family of Dhaigham, (Arar and Omair) from 'abda, who supposedly ruled Shammar at the center of their presence in Jabal Shammar. In the 1600s, a large section of the Shammar left Jabal Shammar under the leadership of Al Jarba and settled in Iraq, reaching as far as the northern city of Mosul. The Shammar are currently one of the largest tribes in Iraq, and are divided into two large branches. The northern branch, known as Shammar al-Jarba, is mainly Sunni, while the southern branch, Shammar Toga, converted to Shi'ism largely just before or during the 19th century after settling in southern Iraq.
The Shammar that remained in Arabia had their tribal territories in the area around the city of Ha'il, and extending from Ha'il northwards to the frontiers of the Syrian Desert. The Shammar had a long traditional rivalry with the confederation of 'Anizzah, who inhabited the same area.
The city of Ha'il became the heart of the Jabal Shammar region and was inhabited largely by settled members of Shammar and their clients. Two clans succeeded each other in ruling the city in the 19th century. The first clan, the Al Ali, were replaced by the Al Rashid with their uncles Al Sabhan, who pledged allegiance to the Al Saud family in Riyadh. Both these clans belonged to the 'Abda section of Shammar.
During the civil war that tore apart the Second Saudi State in the late 19th century, the emirs ("rulers") of Ha'il from Al Rashid intervened and were able to gradually take control of much of the Saudi realm, finally taking over the Saudi capital Riyadh in 1895 and expelling the Saudi leaders to Kuwait. The bedouin Shammari tribesmen provided the majority of the Al Rashid's military support.
The Al Rashid were defeated by Ibn Saud during his campaign to restore his family's rule in the Arabian Peninsula in the first two decades of the 20th century, with Jabal Shammar falling to Saudi rule in 1921. Later, some sections of Shammar were incorporated in the Ikhwan militias loyal to Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud also married a daughter of one of the Shammari chiefs, who bore him the current Saudi king, Abdullah.
After the establishment of modern borders, most bedouins gradually left their nomadic lifestyle. Today, most members of Shammar live in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and some sections have settled in Syria and Jordan.
Under the leadership of Banu Mohamad known as Al Jarba, there was a massive exodus of the Shammar into Iraq. Many of the Shammar in Iraq gave up the nomadic life to settle in the major cities, especially the Jazirah plain, which is the area between the Tigris and Euphrates from Baghdad all the way to Mosul. In times of drought, there were several migrations of Shammar into Iraq, which, according to the Ottoman census upon its annexation, had only 1.5 million inhabitants.
In Iraq, the Shammar became one of the most powerful tribes, owning vast tracts of land. They were important supporters of the Iraqi monarchy of the House of Hashem. Shammar power was threatened after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1958 by Abdul-Karim Qassem, and the Shammar welcomed Ba'athist rule. With the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein, the tribe of Shammar lost favor in Iraq due to their close links to their Saudi relatives. After the overthrow of Saddam, Ghazi al-Yawar, from the Al Jarbah clan, was unanimously chosen as interim president. His uncle is the current Sheikh of Sheikhs of the tribe of Shammar. Samir, an Iraqi-American Shammari, pulled Saddam out of his "spider hole" in the famous picture of the capture of Saddam.
Shams al-Dawla
Shams al-Dawla (Shams al-Daula) (Abu Tahir ibn Fakhr al-Dawla Shams al-Dawla). Member of the line of the Buyids who ruled in Hamadan and Isfahan (r. 997-1021). He was in permanent conflict with his brother Majd al-Dawla.
Abu Taher (died 1021) was the Buyid ruler of Hamadan from 997 to 1021. He was the son of Fakhr al-Daula.
Fakhr al-Daula died in 997. His elder son Abu Taleb Rostam ("Majd al-Daula") took power in the bulk of his father's possessions in Jibal. Abu Taher himself gained the governorships of Hamadan and Kirmanshah, and was hence known as Shams al-Daula. Since both sons were still minors their mother, the "Sayyida", assumed the regency.
Both sons originally took the title of Shâhanshâh, implying that they were subordinate to no one. They abandoned the title, however, when they accepted their cousin Baha al-Daula's authority by 1009 or 1010 at the latest.
In 1006 or 1007, Majd al-Daula tried to throw off the Sayyida's regency. However, she gained the support of the Kurdish ruler Badr ibn Hasanwaih and Shams al-Daula. Their forces laid siege to Ray and fought several battles with Majd al-Daula's forces. When Ray was finally taken, Majd al-Daula was imprisoned for a year, and Shams al-Daula ruled in the city during that time. When the Sayyida released Majd al-Daula, Shams al-Daula returned to Hamadan.
Around 1013, following the death of the Badr ibn Hasanwaih, Shams al-Daula occupied part of the former ruler's territory. Sometime in the later part of his reign, he tried to replace Majd al-Daula as the ruler of Ray, but the Sayyida foiled his plans. He died in 1021 and was succeeded by his son Sama' al-Daula.
Abu Tahir ibn Fakhr al-Dawla Shams al-Dawla see Shams al-Dawla
Shams al-Daula see Shams al-Dawla
Shams al-Dawla (Shams al-Daula) (Abu Tahir ibn Fakhr al-Dawla Shams al-Dawla). Member of the line of the Buyids who ruled in Hamadan and Isfahan (r. 997-1021). He was in permanent conflict with his brother Majd al-Dawla.
Abu Taher (died 1021) was the Buyid ruler of Hamadan from 997 to 1021. He was the son of Fakhr al-Daula.
Fakhr al-Daula died in 997. His elder son Abu Taleb Rostam ("Majd al-Daula") took power in the bulk of his father's possessions in Jibal. Abu Taher himself gained the governorships of Hamadan and Kirmanshah, and was hence known as Shams al-Daula. Since both sons were still minors their mother, the "Sayyida", assumed the regency.
Both sons originally took the title of Shâhanshâh, implying that they were subordinate to no one. They abandoned the title, however, when they accepted their cousin Baha al-Daula's authority by 1009 or 1010 at the latest.
In 1006 or 1007, Majd al-Daula tried to throw off the Sayyida's regency. However, she gained the support of the Kurdish ruler Badr ibn Hasanwaih and Shams al-Daula. Their forces laid siege to Ray and fought several battles with Majd al-Daula's forces. When Ray was finally taken, Majd al-Daula was imprisoned for a year, and Shams al-Daula ruled in the city during that time. When the Sayyida released Majd al-Daula, Shams al-Daula returned to Hamadan.
Around 1013, following the death of the Badr ibn Hasanwaih, Shams al-Daula occupied part of the former ruler's territory. Sometime in the later part of his reign, he tried to replace Majd al-Daula as the ruler of Ray, but the Sayyida foiled his plans. He died in 1021 and was succeeded by his son Sama' al-Daula.
Abu Tahir ibn Fakhr al-Dawla Shams al-Dawla see Shams al-Dawla
Shams al-Daula see Shams al-Dawla
Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani (Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani Shams al-Din) (Shamsu’ddin Pasai) (Shamsu’ddin al-Sumatrani) (c.1575-1630). Malay mystical author from North Sumatra. His radical mysticism brought him, together with his contemporary Hamza Fansuri, in conflict with the more orthodox Nur al-Din al-Raniri. He has exercised a considerable influence on Javanese mystic literature.
Shamsu’ddin of Pasai was the author of religious texts in Arabic and Malaysian. In these texts, Shamsu’ddin saw an essential equality between man and god (wujudiyya).
Shamsu’ddin of Pasai lived and worked in Java and Sumatra. He was a heterodox Muslim mystic who enjoyed high favor during the reign of Mahkota Alam in Acheh but whose works, like those of Hamzah Fansuri, were later condemned to be burned. One of the works that survived was his Mir’at al-mu’min which was completed in 1601.
The favorite subjects of Shamsu’ddin of Pasai were the doctrine of existence and the recitation of religious formulae, while his mysticism was speculative rather than emotional. He also wrote a commentary on Hamzah Fansuri’s poems Kitab Sharh ruba’i Hamzah Fansuri, and an Arabic work Jauhar al Haka’ik.
Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani Shams al-Din see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shamsu’ddin Pasai see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shamsu’ddin al-Sumatran see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani (Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani Shams al-Din) (Shamsu’ddin Pasai) (Shamsu’ddin al-Sumatrani) (c.1575-1630). Malay mystical author from North Sumatra. His radical mysticism brought him, together with his contemporary Hamza Fansuri, in conflict with the more orthodox Nur al-Din al-Raniri. He has exercised a considerable influence on Javanese mystic literature.
Shamsu’ddin of Pasai was the author of religious texts in Arabic and Malaysian. In these texts, Shamsu’ddin saw an essential equality between man and god (wujudiyya).
Shamsu’ddin of Pasai lived and worked in Java and Sumatra. He was a heterodox Muslim mystic who enjoyed high favor during the reign of Mahkota Alam in Acheh but whose works, like those of Hamzah Fansuri, were later condemned to be burned. One of the works that survived was his Mir’at al-mu’min which was completed in 1601.
The favorite subjects of Shamsu’ddin of Pasai were the doctrine of existence and the recitation of religious formulae, while his mysticism was speculative rather than emotional. He also wrote a commentary on Hamzah Fansuri’s poems Kitab Sharh ruba’i Hamzah Fansuri, and an Arabic work Jauhar al Haka’ik.
Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani Shams al-Din see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shamsu’ddin Pasai see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shamsu’ddin al-Sumatran see Shams al-Din, Ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samatrani
Shamun, Kamil
Shamun, Kamil (Kamil Shamun). See Chamoun
Kamil Shamun see Shamun, Kamil
Shamun, Kamil (Kamil Shamun). See Chamoun
Kamil Shamun see Shamun, Kamil
Shanfara, al-
Shanfara, al-. Pre-Islamic black Arabian poet. Associated with the poet and Bedouin hero Ta’abbata Sharran, he was a terror to tribes. One of his poems, in which he celebrates a committed murder, is known for its amatory introduction (in Arabic, nasib). Another poem, generally known as Lamiyyat al-‘Arab and attributed to him, is acknowledged as one of the finest products of Arabic poetry.
Shanfara, al-. Pre-Islamic black Arabian poet. Associated with the poet and Bedouin hero Ta’abbata Sharran, he was a terror to tribes. One of his poems, in which he celebrates a committed murder, is known for its amatory introduction (in Arabic, nasib). Another poem, generally known as Lamiyyat al-‘Arab and attributed to him, is acknowledged as one of the finest products of Arabic poetry.
Shangawa
Shangawa. The banks and islands of the Niger River support the Shangawa in and around the northwestern Nigerian city of Shanga, which they are credited with founding. Shanga District forms a link between the farthest outpost of Hausa culture to the west and the outside world to the south, a link that emphasizes the importance of this ethnic group.
The Shangawa were once a subgroup of the Kengawa. According to legend, the Kengawa and Shangawa are the elder and younger branches of a priestly tribe that served the House of Kisra, reputedly Muhammad’s rival “in the East.” A number of Nigerian peoples trace their origins to Kisra or one of his sons or daughters. Kisra, who some say was Persian, fought against the spread of Islam. In Persian, the word “Kisra” may have come from “Chosroes,” the name of a Persian dynasty. The Prophet Muhammad defeated Kisra in battle, and Kisra then either fled or was allowed to emigrate in recognition of his valor.
By the thirteenth century, the Kengawa-Shangawa were part of the Songhay Empire with many of their towns occupied by Songhay troops. In the late sixteenth century, a Moroccan army defeated the Songhay soldiers by then had merged with the indigenous populations, and folklore takes not of the facts. Amidst the invasions the Shangawa found refuge in Yauri, and Shanga District was most likely founded in the early nineteenth cenurty. Invaders and slave raider forced them to retreat further into the hinterlands, and they found a haven on the islands of the Niger River.
Shangawa. The banks and islands of the Niger River support the Shangawa in and around the northwestern Nigerian city of Shanga, which they are credited with founding. Shanga District forms a link between the farthest outpost of Hausa culture to the west and the outside world to the south, a link that emphasizes the importance of this ethnic group.
The Shangawa were once a subgroup of the Kengawa. According to legend, the Kengawa and Shangawa are the elder and younger branches of a priestly tribe that served the House of Kisra, reputedly Muhammad’s rival “in the East.” A number of Nigerian peoples trace their origins to Kisra or one of his sons or daughters. Kisra, who some say was Persian, fought against the spread of Islam. In Persian, the word “Kisra” may have come from “Chosroes,” the name of a Persian dynasty. The Prophet Muhammad defeated Kisra in battle, and Kisra then either fled or was allowed to emigrate in recognition of his valor.
By the thirteenth century, the Kengawa-Shangawa were part of the Songhay Empire with many of their towns occupied by Songhay troops. In the late sixteenth century, a Moroccan army defeated the Songhay soldiers by then had merged with the indigenous populations, and folklore takes not of the facts. Amidst the invasions the Shangawa found refuge in Yauri, and Shanga District was most likely founded in the early nineteenth cenurty. Invaders and slave raider forced them to retreat further into the hinterlands, and they found a haven on the islands of the Niger River.
Shapur
Shapur (Sapor; in Arabic, Sapur). Name of several members of the Sasanian dynasty. The following were known to the Muslim historians: Shapur I ibn Ardashir (in Arabic, Sabur al-Junud) (r.241-272). Muslim sources, based on older Persian traditions, give his biography, which is for a large part legendary but contains a number of historical details otherwise unknown; Shapur II ibn Hurmizd (Dhu’l-Aktaf) (r.310-379). He is said to have waged war against several Arab tribes; Shapur III (r.383-387).
Shāpūr (Persian, meaning son of the king) is a Persian male given name. It is first attested in Middle Persian as Shahpuhr.
Shapur can refer to one of three Sassanid kings:
* Shapur I (r. 241–272)
* Shapur II (r. 309–379)
* Shapur III (r. 383–388)
Shapur may also refer to:
* Shapur Bakhtiar (1915–1991), former Prime Minister of Iran
* Shapur ibn Sahl, a ninth century Persian Christian physician from the Academy of Gundishapur
* Sapor of Bet-Nicator was the Christian bishop of Bet-Nicator
* Shapoor Zadran, an Afghan cricketer.
Sapor see Shapur
Sapur see Shapur
Shahpuhr see Shapur
Son of a King see Shapur
Shapur (Sapor; in Arabic, Sapur). Name of several members of the Sasanian dynasty. The following were known to the Muslim historians: Shapur I ibn Ardashir (in Arabic, Sabur al-Junud) (r.241-272). Muslim sources, based on older Persian traditions, give his biography, which is for a large part legendary but contains a number of historical details otherwise unknown; Shapur II ibn Hurmizd (Dhu’l-Aktaf) (r.310-379). He is said to have waged war against several Arab tribes; Shapur III (r.383-387).
Shāpūr (Persian, meaning son of the king) is a Persian male given name. It is first attested in Middle Persian as Shahpuhr.
Shapur can refer to one of three Sassanid kings:
* Shapur I (r. 241–272)
* Shapur II (r. 309–379)
* Shapur III (r. 383–388)
Shapur may also refer to:
* Shapur Bakhtiar (1915–1991), former Prime Minister of Iran
* Shapur ibn Sahl, a ninth century Persian Christian physician from the Academy of Gundishapur
* Sapor of Bet-Nicator was the Christian bishop of Bet-Nicator
* Shapoor Zadran, an Afghan cricketer.
Sapor see Shapur
Sapur see Shapur
Shahpuhr see Shapur
Son of a King see Shapur
Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi
Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi (‘Ali Yazdi Sharaf al-Din) (Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi) (d.1454). Persian poet and historian. He was the companion of the Timurid Shahrukh and his son Mirza Sultan Muhammad, who summoned him to Qum. Sharaf al-Din wrote the history of Timur.
Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi was a Persian historian, one of the greatest of 15th-century Persia. Little about his early life is known. As a young man he was a teacher in his native Yazd and a close companion of the Timurid ruler Shah Rokh (1405–47) and his son Mirza Ibrahim Sultan. In 1442/43 he became the close adviser of the governor of Iraq, Mirza Sultan Muhammad, who lived in the city of Qom.
Sharaf al-Din is the author of the Persian Zafar-Nama.
Encyclopædia Britannica
born , Yazd, Iran died 1454, Yazd
Persian historian, one of the greatest of 15th-century Iran.
Little about his early life is known. As a young man he was a teacher in his native Yazd and a close companion of the Timurid ruler Shāh Rokh (1405–47) and his son Mīrzā Ibrāhīm Sulṭān. In 1442/43 he became the close adviser of the governor of Iraq, Mīrzā Sulṭān Muḥammad, who lived in the city of Qom. His patron, however, attempted a revolt against the reigning Shāh Rokh, and Sharaf ad-Dīn was fortunate enough to be cleared of any complicity. He was granted permission to return to his native city, where he lived until his death. The work for which he is best known is the Ẓafernāmeh (1424/25; The Book of Victory). It is a history of the world conqueror Timur (Tamerlane; 1370–1405) and was probably based on the history of the same name by Nizam ad-Dīn Shami, a work written at Timur’s request.
‘Ali Yazdi Sharaf al-Din see Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi
Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi see Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi
Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi (‘Ali Yazdi Sharaf al-Din) (Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi) (d.1454). Persian poet and historian. He was the companion of the Timurid Shahrukh and his son Mirza Sultan Muhammad, who summoned him to Qum. Sharaf al-Din wrote the history of Timur.
Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi was a Persian historian, one of the greatest of 15th-century Persia. Little about his early life is known. As a young man he was a teacher in his native Yazd and a close companion of the Timurid ruler Shah Rokh (1405–47) and his son Mirza Ibrahim Sultan. In 1442/43 he became the close adviser of the governor of Iraq, Mirza Sultan Muhammad, who lived in the city of Qom.
Sharaf al-Din is the author of the Persian Zafar-Nama.
Encyclopædia Britannica
born , Yazd, Iran died 1454, Yazd
Persian historian, one of the greatest of 15th-century Iran.
Little about his early life is known. As a young man he was a teacher in his native Yazd and a close companion of the Timurid ruler Shāh Rokh (1405–47) and his son Mīrzā Ibrāhīm Sulṭān. In 1442/43 he became the close adviser of the governor of Iraq, Mīrzā Sulṭān Muḥammad, who lived in the city of Qom. His patron, however, attempted a revolt against the reigning Shāh Rokh, and Sharaf ad-Dīn was fortunate enough to be cleared of any complicity. He was granted permission to return to his native city, where he lived until his death. The work for which he is best known is the Ẓafernāmeh (1424/25; The Book of Victory). It is a history of the world conqueror Timur (Tamerlane; 1370–1405) and was probably based on the history of the same name by Nizam ad-Dīn Shami, a work written at Timur’s request.
‘Ali Yazdi Sharaf al-Din see Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi
Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi see Sharaf al-Din, ‘Ali Yazdi
Sha‘rani, al-
Sha‘rani, al-. Name carried by several individuals. The best-known among them is Abu’l-Mawahib ‘Abd al-Wahhab. A Sufi of the Shadhiliyya order, he was a very prolific author, whose works have been quite popular because of his easy style. He exaggerated his own value, but was a champion of justice.
ʿAbdul Wahhab Shaʿrani (1492-1565), full name ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad aš-Šhaʿrānī, was an Egyptian Hanafi scholar and mystic, founder of an Egyptian order of Sufism known as Šaʿrawiyyah. Besides voluminous mystic writings, he also composed an epitome of a 13th-century treatise on medical substances, Muẖtaṣar taḏkirat as-Suwaydī fī l-ṭibb.
The Šaʿrawiyyah order gradually declined after Shaʿrani's death, although it remained active until the 19th century.
Abu’l-Mawahib ‘Abd al-Wahhab see Sha‘rani, al-.
ʿAbdul Wahhab Shaʿrani see Sha‘rani, al-.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad aš-Šhaʿrānī see Sha‘rani, al-.
Sha‘rani, al-. Name carried by several individuals. The best-known among them is Abu’l-Mawahib ‘Abd al-Wahhab. A Sufi of the Shadhiliyya order, he was a very prolific author, whose works have been quite popular because of his easy style. He exaggerated his own value, but was a champion of justice.
ʿAbdul Wahhab Shaʿrani (1492-1565), full name ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad aš-Šhaʿrānī, was an Egyptian Hanafi scholar and mystic, founder of an Egyptian order of Sufism known as Šaʿrawiyyah. Besides voluminous mystic writings, he also composed an epitome of a 13th-century treatise on medical substances, Muẖtaṣar taḏkirat as-Suwaydī fī l-ṭibb.
The Šaʿrawiyyah order gradually declined after Shaʿrani's death, although it remained active until the 19th century.
Abu’l-Mawahib ‘Abd al-Wahhab see Sha‘rani, al-.
ʿAbdul Wahhab Shaʿrani see Sha‘rani, al-.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn Aḥmad aš-Šhaʿrānī see Sha‘rani, al-.
Sha‘rawi, Huda
Sha‘rawi, Huda (Hoda Shaarawi) (Huda Shaarawi) (b. June 23, 1879 - d. December 12, 1947). Egyptian feminist leader. Born in Minya in Upper Egypt to Sultan Pasha, a wealthy landowner and provincial administrator, and Iqbal Hanim, a young woman of Circassian origin, Nur al-Huda Sultan (known after her marriage as Huda Sha‘rawi) was raised in Cairo. Following her father’s death when she was four, Huda was raised in a household headed by both her mother and a co-wife. Tutored at home, Huda became proficient in French (the language of the elite) but, despite efforts to acquire fluency in Arabic, was permitted only enough instruction to memorize the Qur’an. Through comparisons with her younger brother, Huda became acutely aware of gender difference, the privileging of males, and the restrictions placed upon females. At thirteen, she reluctantly acquiesced to marriage with her paternal cousin, ‘Ali Sha‘rawi, her legal guardian and the executor of her father’s estate. At fourteen, she began a seven year separation from her husband. During this time, (the 1890s), she attended a women’s salon, where through discussions with other members, Huda became aware that veiling the face and female confinement in the home were not Islamic requirements, as women had been led to believe. (Such critical examination of customary practice vis-a-vis religious prescription was part of the Islamic modernist movement initiated by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abduh in the nineteenth century.)
In 1900, Sha‘rawi resumed married life. She gave birth to a daughter, Bathna, in 1903 and a son, Muhammad, in 1905. In 1909, Sha‘rawi helped found the secular women’s philanthropy, the Mabarrat Muhammad ‘Ali, bringing together Muslim and Christian women to operate a medical dispensary for poor women and children. That same year she helped organize the first “public” lectures for and by women, held at the new Egyptian University and in the offices of the liberal newspaper, Al-jaridah. In 1914, she participated in forming the Women’s Refinement Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa’i al-Tahdibi) and the Ladies Literary Improvement Society (Jam‘iyat al-Raqy al-Adabiyah lil-Sayyidat al-Misriyat). Sha‘rawi was active in the movement for national independence from 1919 to 1922. An organizer of the first women’s demonstration in 1919, she became the president of the Women’s Central Committee (Lainat al-Wafd al-Markaziyah lil-Sayyidat) of the (male) nationalist Wafd party. Sha‘rawi led militant nationalist women in broadening the popular base of the party, organizing boycotts of British goods and services, and assuming central leadership roles when nationalist men were exiled.
In 1923, the year after independence, Sha‘rawi spearheaded the creation of the Egyptian Feminist Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa’i al-Misri -- EFU) and, as president, led the first organized feminist movement in Egypt (and in the Arab world). That same year, while returning from the Rome Conference of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance (which she attended as an EFU delegate), she removed her face veil in public in an act of political protest. Sha‘rawi generously donated her personal wealth to the work of the Egyptian Feminist Union, while also supporting other organizations and individuals. She opened the House of Cooperative Reform (Dar al-Ta‘awun al-Islahi), a medical dispensary for poor women and children and a center for crafts training for girls, in 1924 under the aegis of the EFU, and the following yera founded L’Egyptienne, a monthly journal serving the feminist movement. Several years later, in 1937, she established the Arabic bi-monthly Al-misriyah (The Egyptian Woman).
The feminist movement of which Sha‘rawi was a leader brought together Muslim and Christian women of the upper and middle classes who identified as Egyptians. Although a secular movement, its agenda was articulated within the framework of modernist Islam. The feminist movement supported women’s right to all levels of education and forms of work, called for full political rights for women, advocated reform of the Personal Status Code, pressured the government to provide basic health and social services to poor women, and demanded an end to state-licensed prostitution. Along with these woman-centered reforms, Sha‘rawi stressed the nationalist goals of the feminist movement, calling for Egyptian sovereignty, including an end to British military occupation and the termination of the capitulations, which extended privileges and immunities to foreigners. In 1937, she created three dispensaries, a girls’ school, and a boys’ school in villages in the province of Minya, and later a short-lived branch of the Egyptian Feminist Union in the city of Minya. As a nationalist feminist, Sha‘rawi was active in the international women’s movement, serving on the executive board of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance (later called the International Alliance of Women for Suffrage and Equal Citizenship) from 1926 until her death. In 1938, she hosted the Women’s Conference for the Defense of Palestine. Sha‘rawi played a key role in consolidating Pan-Arab feminism, which grew out of Arab women’s collective national activism on behalf of Palestine, organizing the Arab Feminist Conference in Cairo in 1944. She was elected president of the Arab Feminist Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa‘i al-‘Arabi), created in 1945. Shortly before her death in 1947, the Egyptian state awarded Sha‘rawi its highest decoration.
Huda Sha'rawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Hoda Shaarawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Huda Shaarawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Shaarawi, Huda see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Shaarawi, Hoda see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Sha‘rawi, Huda (Hoda Shaarawi) (Huda Shaarawi) (b. June 23, 1879 - d. December 12, 1947). Egyptian feminist leader. Born in Minya in Upper Egypt to Sultan Pasha, a wealthy landowner and provincial administrator, and Iqbal Hanim, a young woman of Circassian origin, Nur al-Huda Sultan (known after her marriage as Huda Sha‘rawi) was raised in Cairo. Following her father’s death when she was four, Huda was raised in a household headed by both her mother and a co-wife. Tutored at home, Huda became proficient in French (the language of the elite) but, despite efforts to acquire fluency in Arabic, was permitted only enough instruction to memorize the Qur’an. Through comparisons with her younger brother, Huda became acutely aware of gender difference, the privileging of males, and the restrictions placed upon females. At thirteen, she reluctantly acquiesced to marriage with her paternal cousin, ‘Ali Sha‘rawi, her legal guardian and the executor of her father’s estate. At fourteen, she began a seven year separation from her husband. During this time, (the 1890s), she attended a women’s salon, where through discussions with other members, Huda became aware that veiling the face and female confinement in the home were not Islamic requirements, as women had been led to believe. (Such critical examination of customary practice vis-a-vis religious prescription was part of the Islamic modernist movement initiated by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abduh in the nineteenth century.)
In 1900, Sha‘rawi resumed married life. She gave birth to a daughter, Bathna, in 1903 and a son, Muhammad, in 1905. In 1909, Sha‘rawi helped found the secular women’s philanthropy, the Mabarrat Muhammad ‘Ali, bringing together Muslim and Christian women to operate a medical dispensary for poor women and children. That same year she helped organize the first “public” lectures for and by women, held at the new Egyptian University and in the offices of the liberal newspaper, Al-jaridah. In 1914, she participated in forming the Women’s Refinement Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa’i al-Tahdibi) and the Ladies Literary Improvement Society (Jam‘iyat al-Raqy al-Adabiyah lil-Sayyidat al-Misriyat). Sha‘rawi was active in the movement for national independence from 1919 to 1922. An organizer of the first women’s demonstration in 1919, she became the president of the Women’s Central Committee (Lainat al-Wafd al-Markaziyah lil-Sayyidat) of the (male) nationalist Wafd party. Sha‘rawi led militant nationalist women in broadening the popular base of the party, organizing boycotts of British goods and services, and assuming central leadership roles when nationalist men were exiled.
In 1923, the year after independence, Sha‘rawi spearheaded the creation of the Egyptian Feminist Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa’i al-Misri -- EFU) and, as president, led the first organized feminist movement in Egypt (and in the Arab world). That same year, while returning from the Rome Conference of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance (which she attended as an EFU delegate), she removed her face veil in public in an act of political protest. Sha‘rawi generously donated her personal wealth to the work of the Egyptian Feminist Union, while also supporting other organizations and individuals. She opened the House of Cooperative Reform (Dar al-Ta‘awun al-Islahi), a medical dispensary for poor women and children and a center for crafts training for girls, in 1924 under the aegis of the EFU, and the following yera founded L’Egyptienne, a monthly journal serving the feminist movement. Several years later, in 1937, she established the Arabic bi-monthly Al-misriyah (The Egyptian Woman).
The feminist movement of which Sha‘rawi was a leader brought together Muslim and Christian women of the upper and middle classes who identified as Egyptians. Although a secular movement, its agenda was articulated within the framework of modernist Islam. The feminist movement supported women’s right to all levels of education and forms of work, called for full political rights for women, advocated reform of the Personal Status Code, pressured the government to provide basic health and social services to poor women, and demanded an end to state-licensed prostitution. Along with these woman-centered reforms, Sha‘rawi stressed the nationalist goals of the feminist movement, calling for Egyptian sovereignty, including an end to British military occupation and the termination of the capitulations, which extended privileges and immunities to foreigners. In 1937, she created three dispensaries, a girls’ school, and a boys’ school in villages in the province of Minya, and later a short-lived branch of the Egyptian Feminist Union in the city of Minya. As a nationalist feminist, Sha‘rawi was active in the international women’s movement, serving on the executive board of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance (later called the International Alliance of Women for Suffrage and Equal Citizenship) from 1926 until her death. In 1938, she hosted the Women’s Conference for the Defense of Palestine. Sha‘rawi played a key role in consolidating Pan-Arab feminism, which grew out of Arab women’s collective national activism on behalf of Palestine, organizing the Arab Feminist Conference in Cairo in 1944. She was elected president of the Arab Feminist Union (al-Ittihad al-Nisa‘i al-‘Arabi), created in 1945. Shortly before her death in 1947, the Egyptian state awarded Sha‘rawi its highest decoration.
Huda Sha'rawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Hoda Shaarawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Huda Shaarawi see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Shaarawi, Huda see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Shaarawi, Hoda see Sha‘rawi, Huda
Shari’ati, Ali (b. November 23, 1933, Mazinan, Rezavi Khorasan Province, Iran - June 19, 1977, Southampton, England). Iranian social and religious critic. Shari’ati’s writings were extremely popular and influential among Iranian students of the seventies, including political groups such as the Mujahidin-i Khalq.
Shari’ati was born in Sabzevar, in the province of Khurasan. His father was an expert in Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir), but Shari’ati did not pursue a formal Muslim education, choosing instead to work on a doctorate in sociology and religion at the Sorbonne. He was imprisoned briefly upon his return from Paris in 1964, and his return from Paris in 1964, and again from mid-1973 until 1975.
From 1967 until the summer of 1973 Shari’ati was active in the Husainiyya Irshad, a pious, scholarly institution that became a popular center of Islamic debate, especially along non-traditional lines. It was in his lectures at the Husainiyya Irshad that Shari’ati developed and elaborated his major ideological themes, using a blend of Western sociological and Islamic terms.
Shari’ati lashed out at the Shi‘ite clergy (ulama) in Iran for shunning roles of leadership in social and political reforms. He further antagonized many ulama by arguing that one should study Islam outside of the madrasas, in a forum like the Husainiyya Irshad. Shi‘ite Islam, Shari‘ati said, was a religion of protest and purification and had been corrupted by the traditional ulama in conjunction with the state.
Two years after he was released from his last term in jail, Shari’ati went to England. In 1977, he was found dead there, in his brother’s home. He is widely believed to have been killed by members of the Iranian secret police, SAVAK.
Shari'ati was an Iranian intellectual and critic of the regime of the Shah (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, 1919–80), ʿAli Shariʿati developed a new perspective on the history and sociology of Islam and gave highly charged lectures in Tehran that laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Shariʿati received early training in religion from his father before attending a teachers college. He later studied at the University of Mashhad where he earned a degree in Arabic and French. He became active in politics while a student and was imprisoned for eight months. He received a Ph.D. in sociology from the Sorbonne in Paris, and while there he met Jean-Paul Sartre, French sociologists, and Iranian student dissidents. Profoundly influenced by his experience in Paris, Shariʿati returned to Iran and was jailed for six months in 1964. After his release, he taught at the University of Mashhad until his lectures and popularity were deemed threatening by the administration. He then went to Tehran where he helped establish the Husayniya-yi Irshad (a center for religious education) in 1969. In the following years Shariʿati wrote and lectured on the history and sociology of Islam and criticized the Pahlavi regime, Marxism, Iranian intellectuals, and conservative religious leaders. His teachings brought him great popularity with the youth of Iran but also trouble from the clerics and government. He was imprisoned again in 1972 for 18 months and then placed under house arrest. He was released and left Iran for England in 1977. Shortly after he arrived Shariʿati died of an apparent heart attack but his supporters blame the SAVAK, the Iranian security service, for his death.
Shariʿati’s teachings may be said to have laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution because of their great influence on the Iranian youth. His teachings attacked the tyranny of the Shah and his policy of Westernization and modernization that, Shariʿati believed, damaged Iranian religion and culture and left the people without their traditional social and religious moorings. Shariʿati called for a return to true, revolutionary Shiʿism. He believed that Shiʿite Islam itself was a force for social justice and progress but also that it had been corrupted in Iran by its institutionalization by political leaders.
Ali Shariati is held as one of the most influential Iranian intellectuals of the 20th century and has been called the 'ideologue of the Iranian Revolution'. Shariati's most important books and speeches include:
1. Hajj (The Pilgrimage)
2. Marxism and Other Western Fallacies : An Islamic Critique
3. Where Shall We Begin?
4. Mission of a Free Thinker
5. The Free Man and Freedom of the Man
6. Extraction and Refinement of Cultural Resources
7. Martyrdom (book)
8. Ali
9. An approach to Understanding Islam PART1- PART2-
10. A Visage of Prophet Muhammad
11. A Glance of Tomorrow's History
12. Reflections of Humanity
13. A Manifestation of Self-Reconstruction and Reformation
14. Selection and/or Election
15. Norouz, Declaration of Iranian's Livelihood, Eternity
16. Expectations from the Muslim Woman
17. Horr (Battle of Karbala)
18. Abu-Dahr
19. Islamology
20. Red Shi'ism vs. Black Shi'ism
21. Jihad and Shahadat
22. Reflections of a Concerned Muslim on the Plight of Oppressed People
23. A Message to the Enlightened Thinkers
24. Art Awaiting the Saviour
25. Fatemeh is Fatemeh
26. The Philosophy of Supplication
27. Religion versus Religion
28. Man and Islam - see chapter "Modern Man and His Prisons"
29. Arise and Bear Witness
Ali Shari'ati see Shari’ati, Ali
The Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution see Shari’ati, Ali
No comments:
Post a Comment