Despite the persistence of enchanting oral traditions, Kamil´s comment that ´´the circumstances of Rahman Baba´s life lie very much in the dark” is still the most apt summary of what we know about the life of Abdul Rahman Baba. The uncertainty about his life is increased by the lack of any eyewitness accounts, and is compounded by the enthusiastic cultivation of hagiographic legend
The legend portrays Rahman as a reclusive poet, scratching his poems in the mud of the Bara river, while strumming a rebab. At times he is overcome by a single note, and falls unconscious as tears wound his cheeks. Rahman is found in the company of a young boy named Mujnoon, with whom he elopes. Some of these oral traditions have become enshrined as accepted fact among Pushtuns, and many are repeated in books without consideration of their authenticity. Below is some information about Rahman Baba that is based on evidence from the Diwan.
Rahman´s Background
Lineage is of great importance in tribal societies, and Rahman leaves us in no doubt about his own Pushtun pedigree. Rahman claims to be of the Sarban tribe, who are recognized as the ´true Afghans´ because they can trace their ancestry back to the eldest son of the putative Pushtun ancestor Qais. The Sarban tribe originated in Kandahar, and migrated into the Peshawar valley from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. This period of history was characterized by a fierce rivalry between the different branches of the tribes.
Rahman was a Mohmund, of the Ghoriah khel (tribe), who lived in a small pocket of Mohmand settlers on the outskirts of Peshawar. From 1550 A.D. the Yusufzai tribe had come to dominate the area, following the defeat of the Ghoriah Khel in the battle of Sheikh Tapur. Rahman apparently lived peacefully in the area, and never mentions his involvement in these inter-tribal conflicts.
Opinion is divided about Rahman´s family background. Several commentators are convinced that his family were village maliks (chieftains), while Aqab finds no evidence for this view. Whether malik or not, Rahman describes himself as a poor man:
´´May no one be without life and livelihood, As I am lifeless and penniless. Though the wealthy drink water from a golden cup, I like this clay bowl of mine. ”
There is no specific mention of family members in the diwan, but there has been speculation about the identity of Aziz Khan, who has been variously identified as Rahman´s brother, or the Malik of Bahadur village. Other unsupported stories claim Rahman´s father was named Abdul Sattar, and that offspring of his own daughter´s family are still living in the village today.
If the body of Muhammad had not been born, God would not have created the world.´´
-- Rahman Baba
Rahman´s Village
There is agreement that Rahman lived and died in the area to the southwest of Peshawar, along what is now the outer ring-road of the city. His birth-place was Bahadar village, but he also lived in Hazarkhani. Oral tradition maintains that he moved to Kohat, and that he wandered as far as India.
As several have noticed, internal evidence from the diwan refutes the view that Rahman traveled. It seems likely that Rahman spent his whole life in his own village, as he himself claims:
´´I can swear to the fact that I do not move from my place, nor am I thankful to any creature whatsoever for anything. Neither have I seen countries down or up. My home is in the village, I don´t consider it a home, but a desert grave. ”
Rahman´s Dates
Since Rahman lived in relative obscurity, the exact dates of his birth and death are not known. Approximate dates can be deduced from two historical events mentioned in the Diwan. Rahman´s date of birth can be calculated from his mention of the end of the reign of the Mughal king Aurangzeb (1659-1707 A.D.). In D46/24 he mentions his age as being ´past 55´, and later in the same poem he refers to the accession of Shah Alum to the throne:
´´This was the name of Aurangzeb, a chapter eaten by a cow. Now is the turn of Shah Alum, a different time and style.”
Since Shah Alum took the throne in 1707 A.D., and as Rahman is as he states ´at least 55´, that would put Rahman´s birth at no later than 1652 A.D. It would be speculative to guess just how old ´past 55´ implies, but it would seem to rule out the date of 1632 A.D. given in Puta Khazana. If Rahman had been born then, he would have been more likely to have said ´past 75´. In a similar vein, the birth-date of 1653 A.D. given by Enevoldsen is wrong by at least a year (by simple subtraction). It is unlikely that Rahman was over 60 when he claimed to be ´past 55´, and if this assumption is correct, then his birth date lies somewhere between 1647 and 1652 A.D.
The date of Rahman´s death is linked with poem D 102. In it he tells of the brutal revenge killings of Gul Khan and Jamal Khan, who were burnt alive with an entire wedding party. According to Raverty this event took place around 1711 A.D. Many commentators assume that Rahman´s death was also around this time, though there is no evidence that he died then. All that can be said is that he was still alive in 1711. He could well have lived for several more years. A reasonable conclusion from these two events in Rahman´s life, is that his dates are approximately 1650 – 1715 A.D.
Rahman the Sheikh?
Rahman´s diwan itself provides the best evidence to disprove Andreyev´s view that the ´´highly illiterate Pashtun tribal society …..lay far away from the centres of Muslim scholarship and was not directly influenced by sophisticated intellectual traditions.”
Rahman´s diwan displays a subtle use of several languages including Pushtu, Arabic and Persian, as well as a wide knowledge of history, philosophy and theology. Particularly relevant to this study is the certainty that Rahman must have been trained in both fiqa (jurisprudence ) and tasawwuf (sufism) to have been capable of writing as he did. Though apparently at odds with each other, the teaching of both disciplines may have been the norm during his era, and it is recorded that other poets like Sadi (d.1292 A.D.) had received both. Rahman would not have had to have gone far to get this training, as Peshawar was starting to gain a reputation as a centre for religious learning that was later to make it a rival to Bokhara. Pata Khazana claims that Rahman´s teacher was known to have been Mullah Mohammed Yusafzai.
Rahman was anything but the uneducated Mullah that Aqab claims him to have been. Rather than suffering from too little education, Rahman complains that ´´learning drove me mad.” His thorough education is in keeping with Lewis´ view that ´´Sufism is essentially the work of sophisticated and highly literate urban men of learning.”
There can be no doubt that Rahman was a practicing Sufi, but was he attached to a particular order, either as a murid (follower) or a sheikh? Practitioners of Sufism were known by their patched cloak, which Hujwiri describes as the ´bondage of aspirants to Sufism.´ Likely from personal experience Rahman complains of the ´´service of the Fakir´s cloak,” and of the need to ´´ wash the bluish cloak.”. Although Rahman calls himself a Sheikh, it seems unlikely that he ever performed in this role, or that he was associated with any particular order.
A tradition states that a guide is needed for training in tasawwuf. Perhaps in response to this need, various unfounded theories have been made about who Rahman´s guide may have been, and to which order he was attached. Sabir suggests that Rahman had a Naqshabandi initiation in Kohat, as well as training from the sons of Pir Baba. Schimmel casually assigns Rahman to the Chishti order perhaps basing this on Raverty´s incorrect assumption that Sufis practicing musical sam? were Chishti by default. Aqab, himself of the Qadiri order, claims Rahman was a Qadiri.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove any of these claims. If Rahman had been a member of one of the Sufi orders, modern followers of that group would no doubt claim him as one of their own. Such is not the case. It is more likely that Rahman was independent, with an individualistic practice of Sufism similar to that of Shah Abdul Latif in the Sind. It is even possible that he was a uwaysi after the pattern of Pir Roshan, as is hinted at in several lines: ´´Those who have perfect intention of heart are guided without the guidance of a Pir´´ and ´´On the path which I travel to see my love, make holy Khizer and Ilyas my guides.”
´´Do not be fooled by the outer appearance of a man, Look to the inside of the nut to see whether it is soft or hard.´´
-- Rahman Baba
Rahman in Crisis
The reverence with which Rahman is honoured by Pushtuns today is no reflection of how he may have been regarded during his lifetime. The issue was Rahman´s neglect of the outward practices of Islam. There is a popular tradition that is still held by some Pushtuns, that Rahman´s pursuit of God outside the mosque led to confrontation with the established religious hierarchy. His quest for God made him a solitary mystic with little interest in formal religion. Hughes records that in 1883 one old man still knew the tree under which the villagers said Rahman used to sit and compose his poems. Rahman relates his dereliction of duty this way:
´´Ever since I took up the work of love in my hands, I have withdrawn from any other work. ”
´´If this is not the passion of love, then what is it? Otherwise who would bandon their customs? ”
Other lines from the diwan suggest that Rahman´s activities might have further inflamed the village Mullahs:
´´I got nothing from being a sheikh or from my righteousness. ”
´´From now on it is my turn, to do whatever I can at the tavern. ”
I washed my hands of piety when the musician picked up the rebab. ”
Though no date is given for confrontation with the religious establishment, D 242 points to Rahman´s clear choice to no longer sit under the Tooba tree and instead to pursue tasawwuf with reckless abandon:
´´Rather than the unacceptable worship of the hypocrite, I prefer to be drunk on Saqi´s wine. ”
´´Whether knowledge, rosary or recitation, I am happier asleep than awake with these. ”
´´I don´t like the Tooba tree´s shade, but prefer to be burnt like a kebab in the flames of your face.”
Kamil suggests that ´´Rahman Baba reached such a profound abandonment to God, that he also abandoned all religious and worldly duties”. Afghani states that Rahman not only left the mosque, but that a kufr fatwa (death sentence for apostasy) was passed on him by the local mullahs. Raverty reports that he was later reconciled back into the community. Again, there are no written records to corroborate these events, but there is some evidence from the diwan that suggests that the tension may have been peacefully resolved:
´´I couldn´t find peace in my search for him. It became unlawful for me to be careless in my religion.”
Source:rahmanbabadiwan.com
Rahman´s Background
Lineage is of great importance in tribal societies, and Rahman leaves us in no doubt about his own Pushtun pedigree. Rahman claims to be of the Sarban tribe, who are recognized as the ´true Afghans´ because they can trace their ancestry back to the eldest son of the putative Pushtun ancestor Qais. The Sarban tribe originated in Kandahar, and migrated into the Peshawar valley from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. This period of history was characterized by a fierce rivalry between the different branches of the tribes.
Rahman was a Mohmund, of the Ghoriah khel (tribe), who lived in a small pocket of Mohmand settlers on the outskirts of Peshawar. From 1550 A.D. the Yusufzai tribe had come to dominate the area, following the defeat of the Ghoriah Khel in the battle of Sheikh Tapur. Rahman apparently lived peacefully in the area, and never mentions his involvement in these inter-tribal conflicts.
Opinion is divided about Rahman´s family background. Several commentators are convinced that his family were village maliks (chieftains), while Aqab finds no evidence for this view. Whether malik or not, Rahman describes himself as a poor man:
´´May no one be without life and livelihood, As I am lifeless and penniless. Though the wealthy drink water from a golden cup, I like this clay bowl of mine. ”
There is no specific mention of family members in the diwan, but there has been speculation about the identity of Aziz Khan, who has been variously identified as Rahman´s brother, or the Malik of Bahadur village. Other unsupported stories claim Rahman´s father was named Abdul Sattar, and that offspring of his own daughter´s family are still living in the village today.
If the body of Muhammad had not been born, God would not have created the world.´´
-- Rahman Baba
Rahman´s Village
There is agreement that Rahman lived and died in the area to the southwest of Peshawar, along what is now the outer ring-road of the city. His birth-place was Bahadar village, but he also lived in Hazarkhani. Oral tradition maintains that he moved to Kohat, and that he wandered as far as India.
As several have noticed, internal evidence from the diwan refutes the view that Rahman traveled. It seems likely that Rahman spent his whole life in his own village, as he himself claims:
´´I can swear to the fact that I do not move from my place, nor am I thankful to any creature whatsoever for anything. Neither have I seen countries down or up. My home is in the village, I don´t consider it a home, but a desert grave. ”
Rahman´s Dates
Since Rahman lived in relative obscurity, the exact dates of his birth and death are not known. Approximate dates can be deduced from two historical events mentioned in the Diwan. Rahman´s date of birth can be calculated from his mention of the end of the reign of the Mughal king Aurangzeb (1659-1707 A.D.). In D46/24 he mentions his age as being ´past 55´, and later in the same poem he refers to the accession of Shah Alum to the throne:
´´This was the name of Aurangzeb, a chapter eaten by a cow. Now is the turn of Shah Alum, a different time and style.”
Since Shah Alum took the throne in 1707 A.D., and as Rahman is as he states ´at least 55´, that would put Rahman´s birth at no later than 1652 A.D. It would be speculative to guess just how old ´past 55´ implies, but it would seem to rule out the date of 1632 A.D. given in Puta Khazana. If Rahman had been born then, he would have been more likely to have said ´past 75´. In a similar vein, the birth-date of 1653 A.D. given by Enevoldsen is wrong by at least a year (by simple subtraction). It is unlikely that Rahman was over 60 when he claimed to be ´past 55´, and if this assumption is correct, then his birth date lies somewhere between 1647 and 1652 A.D.
The date of Rahman´s death is linked with poem D 102. In it he tells of the brutal revenge killings of Gul Khan and Jamal Khan, who were burnt alive with an entire wedding party. According to Raverty this event took place around 1711 A.D. Many commentators assume that Rahman´s death was also around this time, though there is no evidence that he died then. All that can be said is that he was still alive in 1711. He could well have lived for several more years. A reasonable conclusion from these two events in Rahman´s life, is that his dates are approximately 1650 – 1715 A.D.
Rahman the Sheikh?
Rahman´s diwan itself provides the best evidence to disprove Andreyev´s view that the ´´highly illiterate Pashtun tribal society …..lay far away from the centres of Muslim scholarship and was not directly influenced by sophisticated intellectual traditions.”
Rahman´s diwan displays a subtle use of several languages including Pushtu, Arabic and Persian, as well as a wide knowledge of history, philosophy and theology. Particularly relevant to this study is the certainty that Rahman must have been trained in both fiqa (jurisprudence ) and tasawwuf (sufism) to have been capable of writing as he did. Though apparently at odds with each other, the teaching of both disciplines may have been the norm during his era, and it is recorded that other poets like Sadi (d.1292 A.D.) had received both. Rahman would not have had to have gone far to get this training, as Peshawar was starting to gain a reputation as a centre for religious learning that was later to make it a rival to Bokhara. Pata Khazana claims that Rahman´s teacher was known to have been Mullah Mohammed Yusafzai.
Rahman was anything but the uneducated Mullah that Aqab claims him to have been. Rather than suffering from too little education, Rahman complains that ´´learning drove me mad.” His thorough education is in keeping with Lewis´ view that ´´Sufism is essentially the work of sophisticated and highly literate urban men of learning.”
There can be no doubt that Rahman was a practicing Sufi, but was he attached to a particular order, either as a murid (follower) or a sheikh? Practitioners of Sufism were known by their patched cloak, which Hujwiri describes as the ´bondage of aspirants to Sufism.´ Likely from personal experience Rahman complains of the ´´service of the Fakir´s cloak,” and of the need to ´´ wash the bluish cloak.”. Although Rahman calls himself a Sheikh, it seems unlikely that he ever performed in this role, or that he was associated with any particular order.
A tradition states that a guide is needed for training in tasawwuf. Perhaps in response to this need, various unfounded theories have been made about who Rahman´s guide may have been, and to which order he was attached. Sabir suggests that Rahman had a Naqshabandi initiation in Kohat, as well as training from the sons of Pir Baba. Schimmel casually assigns Rahman to the Chishti order perhaps basing this on Raverty´s incorrect assumption that Sufis practicing musical sam? were Chishti by default. Aqab, himself of the Qadiri order, claims Rahman was a Qadiri.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove any of these claims. If Rahman had been a member of one of the Sufi orders, modern followers of that group would no doubt claim him as one of their own. Such is not the case. It is more likely that Rahman was independent, with an individualistic practice of Sufism similar to that of Shah Abdul Latif in the Sind. It is even possible that he was a uwaysi after the pattern of Pir Roshan, as is hinted at in several lines: ´´Those who have perfect intention of heart are guided without the guidance of a Pir´´ and ´´On the path which I travel to see my love, make holy Khizer and Ilyas my guides.”
´´Do not be fooled by the outer appearance of a man, Look to the inside of the nut to see whether it is soft or hard.´´
-- Rahman Baba
Rahman in Crisis
The reverence with which Rahman is honoured by Pushtuns today is no reflection of how he may have been regarded during his lifetime. The issue was Rahman´s neglect of the outward practices of Islam. There is a popular tradition that is still held by some Pushtuns, that Rahman´s pursuit of God outside the mosque led to confrontation with the established religious hierarchy. His quest for God made him a solitary mystic with little interest in formal religion. Hughes records that in 1883 one old man still knew the tree under which the villagers said Rahman used to sit and compose his poems. Rahman relates his dereliction of duty this way:
´´Ever since I took up the work of love in my hands, I have withdrawn from any other work. ”
´´If this is not the passion of love, then what is it? Otherwise who would bandon their customs? ”
Other lines from the diwan suggest that Rahman´s activities might have further inflamed the village Mullahs:
´´I got nothing from being a sheikh or from my righteousness. ”
´´From now on it is my turn, to do whatever I can at the tavern. ”
I washed my hands of piety when the musician picked up the rebab. ”
Though no date is given for confrontation with the religious establishment, D 242 points to Rahman´s clear choice to no longer sit under the Tooba tree and instead to pursue tasawwuf with reckless abandon:
´´Rather than the unacceptable worship of the hypocrite, I prefer to be drunk on Saqi´s wine. ”
´´Whether knowledge, rosary or recitation, I am happier asleep than awake with these. ”
´´I don´t like the Tooba tree´s shade, but prefer to be burnt like a kebab in the flames of your face.”
Kamil suggests that ´´Rahman Baba reached such a profound abandonment to God, that he also abandoned all religious and worldly duties”. Afghani states that Rahman not only left the mosque, but that a kufr fatwa (death sentence for apostasy) was passed on him by the local mullahs. Raverty reports that he was later reconciled back into the community. Again, there are no written records to corroborate these events, but there is some evidence from the diwan that suggests that the tension may have been peacefully resolved:
´´I couldn´t find peace in my search for him. It became unlawful for me to be careless in my religion.”
Source:rahmanbabadiwan.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment