La publication dans le numro 60 d 'Archipel par C. Guillot & L. Kalus

d'une stle funraire releve en 1934 dans le cimetire de Bb Ma' l la

Mecque et portant le nom de Hamza b. 'Abd Allah al-Fansr, mort en

93 3 H/1 527, que les auteurs identifient avec le grand pote soufi malais a

suscit plusieurs ractions parmi les spcialistes de l 'histoire et de la littra

turme alaises. La majorit d'entre elles saluaient la dcouverte du premier

lment permettant enfin de situer dans le temps ce mystique musulman dont

la personnalit semble avoir t abolie par la notorit de son oeuvre.The publication in issue 60 of Archipelago by C. & L. Guillot Kalus

a funeral stele raised in 1934 in the cemetery of Bab Ma ' there at the

Mecca and named Hamza b . 'Abd Allah al- Fansuri , death

93 H 3 / 1527 , which the authors identify with the great Malay Sufi poet

prompted several reactions among specialists of history and litera

Turme draw sheets . The majority of them greeted the discovery of the first

element finally to locate in time the Muslim mystic whose

personality seems to have been abolished by the notoriety of his work.L'un des spcialistes actuels de Hamzah, Vladimir 1. Braginsky, ne fut

pour sa part convaincu ni par la stle elle-mme, ni par les arguments

avancs par les auteurs de l'article en question et fit parvenir la revue un

texte dans lequel il expose les raisons de ses doutes.

Vu l'importance de l'enjeu historique li l'interprtation

One of the current specialists Hamzah , Vladimir Braginsky 1. , was not

for his part nor convinced by the stele itself, nor by the arguments

Developed by the authors of the article in question and did achieve a review

text in which he explained the reasons for his doubts.

Given the importance of the historical issue concerning the interpretation this stele ,

Editorial saw fit to bring to the attention of the various players

elements of the debate . One will find below a statement of objections

VI . Braginsky followed by a brief response from the authors of the article.En rponse Vladimir I. Braginsky

C GUILLOT & L KALUS

II n'est pas question pour nous de vouloir polmiquer en reprenant un

un les points abords par V. Braginsky. Le lecteur pourra juger lui-mme de

la valeur des arguments avancs par les uns et les autres. Il nous a cependant

paru ncessaire d'apporter quelques prcisions au sujet de l'tablissement du

texte de l'inscription tel qu'il nous est parvenu - puisque nous n'avons tou

jours pas russi obtenir la photo de la stle, supposer que cette dernire

soit encore en place - et d'ajouter une remarque ainsi qu'un lment en

faveur de notre interprtation.

L'argument principal avanc par Braginsky, savoir le doute sur le degr

de fiabilit de la fiche trouve dans les dossiers lgus par Gaston Wiet, n'est

vrai dire gure surprenant. Nous nous tions, bien sr, pos la mme ques

tion ds la dcouverte de la fiche en cause et il nous semblait avoir donn

dans l'article les raisons nous ayant amens accepter cette lecture.

Apparemment, nos arguments n'y taient pas exposs avec assez de clart,

aussi, allons-nous les prsenter de nouveau mais en fonction cette fois-ci des

doutes mis par Braginsky.

It is not a matter for us to want to argue resuming a

the points raised by V. Braginsky. The reader can judge for himself

the value of the arguments advanced by each other. He however we

appeared necessary to make some clarifications about the establishment of the

text of the inscription as it reached us - because we have tou

day failed to get the picture of the stele, assuming that the latter

yet in place - and add a remark and an element

for our interpretation.

The main argument Braginsky, namely doubts about the degree

reliability of detail found in records bequeathed by Gaston Wiet, is

indeed surprising. We had, of course, asked the same c

tion from the discovery of the profile in question, and we seemed to have given

in the article the reasons that led us to accept this reading.

Apparently, our arguments were not exposed with sufficient clarity,

Also, are we going to resubmit but according this time of

doubts raised by Braginsky.Record registration is by the hand of Gaston Wiet . This one

was not only "a form director of the Museum of Arab Art in Cairo ,

Who HAD beens compiling the Corpus of inscriptions of Mecca " but it was

Above all - and this is most important for our purposes - a world authority

incontestable and uncontested in his time in the field of Arabic epigraphy.

The sheet is part of an important set of instructions that had to be

integrated as such in the Corpus for which Gaston Wiet wrote at

time of his death, the explanatory text. In other words, this is not

not a worksheet but a final plug! Thereof door

as the title the following text, written with a typewriter:

"Epitaph Hamza Ibn Abd Allah Al-Fansuri. 933H. - Basalt stele,

24 x 36. Ten lines naskhi; fine print in relief. Unpublished. "Follows

Arabic text writing, hand written by Gaston Wiet. This is therefore a

plug ready for editing and scientific authenticity of which is to guarantee

Gaston Wiet itself.

This learned epigraphist would probably have been surprised to be fined

lessons regarding precautions to take in reading and construed

tatiodnes Arabic inscriptions and it is hardly necessary to note that not a

epigraphist level Gaston Wiet would have confused a beautiful nisba

once better known as al-Mansuri (or similar nisba), with the

al-Fansuri. We hope it is useless to insist more! We

is of course difficult to know if he knew (he or Mohammed al

Hawary) Fansur or even possibly Hamza al-Fansuri but we can

doubt. If he had known it, he would certainly have mentioned in

his comment, as he did for other businesses of the same

file.On the other hand, culture was huge but was cer Fansur

tainly far from his interests. His reading of the deceased's name

and its nisba appears as "spontaneous". Moreover, this same

Reading apparently asked him no problems SINCE no sign

expresses a possible doubt. As it should be, if he was facing a incerti

tudequ elconque, he did know. The question mark after the last

word our sign is a proof. Similarly, other fo sheets

rming the whole mentioned often wear of question marks,

ellipsis or a comment indicating the poor condition of sup

port. It seems therefore that, for copying text, you can

grant full trust Gaston Wiet.

About Notes on internal analysis of the text, Braginsky

is especially concerned about the presence and direction of al-Murabit qualifier. It

notes that "They [the authors] translate it as a" combatant at the border "and

That assumes this word Confirms That It is PRECISELY the Malay Sufi poet

Hamzah. " By reading our text carefully, you see that we

does not claim that the word al-Murabit confirms that this is the

Malay poet but our reflection the choice between two possibil

itdse translation. To demonstrate the fragility of this translation, in viewthe time and environment concerned, Braginsky cites the studies of Lvi-Provenal

and Marais, who were both leading experts in the West

Muslim - if not the Far West - but which can not

be invoked as references to the meaning of that term in

eastern lands. As for Article Nasser Rabat in the new edi

tion of the Encyclopaedia of Islam to which it refers as it is entitled

"Ribat" not "Murabit". But the two terms, certainly in etymology,

have certainly known semantic divergent fates. In any

cause, the time and Hamzah region there are no processed. The word

al-Murabit undoubtedly have taken a particular meaning in a medium

Specifically, we have also mentioned in commenting the translation

we have adopted. Braginsky believes that "By That Time [as late as

1527], this word - just like the very institution of frontier ribt (a militaryreligious

fortified settlement) - HAD lost Such a Meaning [to fighter

border] and primarly Was Understood as a "resident of a Sufi ribt" (year

analogue of Khanqah) or a "saint". It is true that the meaning of this term without

certainly evolved, but accept the proposal would lead to Braginsky

total disregard for example dozens and dozens of entries (!) -

and other texts of a different nature - in the Mamluk era

why al-Murabit almost always found among the qualified

cant sultans or emirs. But it seems hard to imagine that these

high officials have been "residents of Sufi ribats" or

they can simply be called "saints." In concluding this

about, we can only note that the problem of the meaning of

this term becomes much more complex when one moves away from

Maghreb. Indeed, for the rest of the Muslim world, one has to

Today no reliable study on this subject, the texts with the qual

ificatif or can clarify its meaning not having

been scrutinized from this angle.Braginsky arguments questioning the authenticity of the registra

tioent the proposed identification of the deceased, arguments directly related to

text or presented as an example , oddly tend to " scare off"

the origin of the deceased to the Maghreb , as far as possible from the Malay World.

But the fact that the proposed name of the deceased "independently" and "spontaneous

mentpa " Dr. Gaston Wiet on his record is the same as that of the great mystery

Malay ic no longer possible to evacuate this new data .Curiously, the epigraphic data was quite neglected as

source for the study of the history of the first centuries of Islam in the

Malay world . It is true that in most regions - except good sure that Aceh - these data are scarce and are not always easy to

decipher and interpret. Nevertheless, they can cause surprises

he 'll have to live with.

When writing of this article , a detail that we got away

seems useful to mention here as an additional argument for

the identification of the deceased of the stele of Mecca with the Malaysian mystique.

In the section of the BK1 , " Korte Mededelingen " he loved ,

P. Voorhoeve was about manuscripts from the Malay World

laconic philological remarks which interest is almost always

inversely proportional to the brevity of their development.In this section of No. 108 of the said magazine (!), He noted that one of the

texts published by Van Nieuwenhuijze in his thesis on Sams'l-din van Pasai

(K manuscript, pp. 385-386) cited three quatrains whose paternity was

attributed to "Tuan di Mekah" ("The master of Mecca") for the first and

Hamzah Fansuri in the second when nothing was said about the author

third. He then remarked that in a manuscript kept at the

National Library of Paris (mal.-pol. 235 f.l5v-21r), there were the

same text as the K handwritten statement by Van but Nieuwenhuijze

both versions included many variae lectiones. One

of these was that where K manuscript had "Tuan di Mekah" of it

BN gave "Syaikh Hamzah." Voorhoeve logically deduced in

that "Tuan di Mekah also designated Hamzah."

In northern Sumatra and especially in Aceh, this twist com

Tuan asked the title or Teungku followed by a place name, or not by di

- The use of the preposition of honorary value added by

C. Snouck Hurgronje (2) - is commonly used to designate a per

personality respected by place of residence or birth (3).

Everyone knows, for example, or di Tiro Tiro Teungku called "Cik"

(Old) to distinguish it from other famous scholars from the same

Tiro village or resident. It is in this case a sort of nisba. Thus,

Voorhoeve notes that the second quatrain, sponsored Hamzah Fansuri

according to the K manuscript is assigned by the text of the BN to "Tuan di campur"

a challenge scribe, he said, to restore in "Tuan di Pancur (Fansur)." The

"Shaikh al-Fansuri" Arabic is somehow Malay "Tuan

di Fansur, "" The Master [originating] from Fansur "But more interesting for our purposes is the fact that this same round

nure is also used to form a posthumous name of the deceased

and especially revered saints. However in this case, very often otherwise

still, the rental returns rather than the place of origin or residence of the

died during his life as would a nisba but his burial place.

Among the three most venerated saints of Banda Aceh Snouck Hurgronje quotes

Tuan (or Teungku) (4) and di Bitay Teungku (or Tuan) di Kuala. The first

would be, according to tradition, a Syrian or a Turk came as gunner

Aceh in the early sixteenth century and his tomb is (or was in any

If at the time of Snouck Hurgronje) in the Gampong of Bitay; the second

is none other than the famous seventeenth-century scholar al-Abdurrauf Singkili, origi

nary Singil, which you can still see the grave at the mouth

(Kuala) of the Aceh River. It is now more known

posthumous "Syah [Syaikh] Kuala". Both titles mentioned so mean

respectively: "The master buried Bitay" and "Master buried

the Mouth ".In the long list of saints that gives Aceh Snouck Hurgronje (5>

we can verify that the posthumous name by which they are known co

eflect in the vast majority of cases in the same structure:

Tuan / Teungku; di optional; burial place.

In his note, Voorhoeve was careful to explain this appellation

"Tuan di Mekah" considering he probably lacked elements for the

do. He only knew that Hamzah had visited Mecca, as

the latter says himself in his work, but simply could not stay

nothing justified the nickname, correspondent, remember, the place of residence or

original. The discovery of the tomb of Mecca now explains this

acihais idiocy (?), otherwise incomprehensible. This is clearly the

Hamzah posthumous name therefore means "The master buried in Mecca."

The use of this circumlocution also shows that Aceh's disciples

Hamzah - Syams-ul-din first - were perfectly aware

that their master was dead and lay in the Holy City.Footnotes

4 - The preference for one of these two equivalent terms, Tuan (Malay ) and Teungku ( aci

hate ) would have a meaning according to C. Snouck Hurgronje . The first appear to be applied

rather foreign saints and the second to local saints. The author , however, hasten

adding that the use often belies this rule (The Achehnese , II , p. 293 ) . Himself, at

along the two volumes of his work, for example because of numerous references to a saint

foreign, highly revered in Aceh in his time, he either called Tuan di

Bitay or Teungku di Bitay .