What happened to Sayf al-Rijal?

Author(s): SHER BANU A.L. KHAN

Source: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Vol. 168, No. 1 (2012), pp. 100-111
Published by: KITLV, Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41494542
Accessed: 01-01-2016 03:18 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Brill and KITLV, Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SHER BANU A.L. KHAN

What happened to Sayf al-Rijal?

Whowas Sayfal-Rijal?

Sayfal-Rijalis a little-knownSheikhal-Islam,thehighestreligiousappointee
in the seventeenth-century courtof Aceh Dar al-Salam.1He replaced the re-
nowned SheikhNur al-Din in 1643 and in turnwas succeeded by anotherfa-
mous ulama, Abd al- Ra'uf al-Sinkili,in 1661.While much inkand paper have
been devoted to illuminatingthelives and writingsof al-Raniriand al-Sinkili,
curiouslyal-Rijalhas remainedin totaleclipse. This darknessshroudingal-Ri-
jal is all themore surprisingsince he appears to have been Sheikhal-Islam for
eighteenyears,longer than his predecessor al-Raniri,who held the post for
only six years from1637 to 1643. Furthermore, Al-Rijalwas no less involved
in religiouscontroversieswhose echoes reverberatedin the whole of the Ma-
lay world. These violentand at timesbloody debates were between the more
orthodoxshari'a-orientedulamas and themore mystical-syncretistic ulamas.2
In Aceh, thiscontroversywas exemplifiedby thebloody debate between the
more orthodoxshari'a-inclinedal-Raniriand the disciples of the more philo-
sophical mystical-oriented Shams al-Din al-Sumatra'i(died 1630),believed to
be the Sheikh al-Islam in Aceh during the reign of Iskandar Muda (reigned
1607-1636).Iskandar Muda' s successor,Sultan Iskandar Thani (reigned1636-
1641),appointed al-Ranirias Sheikhal-Islam,and apparentlyitwas under the
influenceof al-RanirithatIskandar Thani orderedtheexecutionof Shams al-

1 I amgrateful toEmeritusProfessor
Anthony Reid,Associate
Professor
JanvanderPutten,
andAssociate Professor
PeterBorschberg
fortheirvaluablecomments onearlier
draftsofthis
article.
I amresponsible
fortheviewsexpressed
inthisarticle.
2 Azra2004b:106-8. Thisdivision
hadexisted
sincethefifteenth inJava,
century where theear-
liestpolemical
treatise
waswritten whatwereconsidered
against heterodoxteachings.
Opposi-
tiontoIslamicmysticismwasseenwhentheWaliSangacollectively
condemned todeathShaykh
SitiJenar,whowasaccusedofadhering toheterodoxmysticaldoctrines.
SunanPanggung was
burned todeathbecausehehadallegedlyviolated
theshari'ainfavourofmysticism.
Another
mystic,ShaykhAmong Raga,wassentencedtodeathbySultan Agung ofMataram forviolating
shari'a
andpropagatingheterodox doctrine.
mystical Formoredetails,
seeAzra2004b:106-8.

SHERBANUA.L.KHANis Assistant Professor

attheNationalUniversityofSingapore.
Her
mainfieldsofacademicinterest
includethepre-colonial
historyofSoutheastAsiaandgender
studies.
Sheistheauthorof'ThesultanahsofAceh1641-1699',
in:ArndtGraf, SusanneSchröter
andEdwinWieringa (eds),Aceh:
History, andculture,
politics Singapore:ISEAS,2010,and'The
jewelaffair:
Thesultanah,herorangkayaandtheDutchforeign envoys',in:R.MichaelFeener,
Patrick
DalyandAnthony Reid(eds),MappingtheAcehnese Leiden:
past, KITLVPress,2011.Pro-
fessor
Khanmaybereached atmlssbalk@nus.edu.sg.

tot
deTaal-,
Bijdragen Land-
enVolkenkunde 168-1
(BKI) (2012):100-11
©2012 Instituut
Koninklijk voor Land-
Taal-, enVolkenkunde

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened
toSayfal-Rijal? 101

Din's followersand burnttheirbooks in frontof theBaytal-RahmanMosque

(Azra 2004a:112). Al-Raniriremained as Sheikh al-Islam duringthe reignsof
Sultan Iskandar Thani and his successor Sultanah SafiatuddinSyah (reigned
1641-1675)untilhe was abruptlyreplaced by Sayfal-Rijalin 1643,afterwhich
he leftAceh forhis hometownin Surat.
Accordingto AzyumardiAzra (2004a:112),

s] departurewas causedby thereturnto

it is ironic,however,thathis [al-Raniri'
Acehofa Minangkabau scholarnamedSayfal-RijalfromSurat,India.Sayfal-Rijal
had previously beenbanishedfromAcehafterthearrivalofal-Raniri becauseof
hisallegedlyunorthodox Wujudiyya views. he
Now, challengedal-Raniri, which
gaverise to endless
debatesbetween them. When he
Sayfal-Rijalgainedinfluence,
was summonedtothecourtand accordedhonorary treatment;whereasal-Raniri,
wholosthisposition, was forcedtowithdrawfromthearena.

Azra does not substantiatehis claim that Sayf-al-Rijalwas banished from

Aceh because of his 'unorthodoxWujudiyya views', neitherdoes he specify
when al-Rijal was banished. Indeed, when did al-Rijal return,why and how
did he gain influenceat court,especially when al-Ranirihad ensured his vic-
toryagainst Shams al-Din's group (assuming Sayf al-Rijal belonged to this
faction)?What happened to Sayf al-Rijal afterhis appointment,and did his
appointmentmean a victoryforthe 'unorthodox' group in Aceh? These are
questionsthatneed to be addressed. Accordingto Azra (2004a:61),thereis no
further information on Sayfal-Rijalafterhe won thestruggleagainstal-Raniri
and was appointed as Sheikhal-Islam by Sultanah SafiatuddinSyah in 1643.
In an attemptto throw some light on this mysteriousfigure,Michael
Laffantoo ended up with more questions than answers about Sayf al-Rijal.
Laffan(2009:145)argues thatSayfal-Rijalwas most likelythe same person as
Sayfal-Din al-Azhari,but states that'we are in no position to declare him a
Minangkabau, an Arab or an Egyptian',speculatingthathe mighthave had
mixed blood - the son of a foreignvisitorand a Minangkabau mother.
PeterRiddell (2001:118)mentionsthatSayfal-Rijalreplaced al-Raniri,and
Riddel appears to dispense with this ulama even thoughhe writesat length
about his successor,Abd al-Ra'uf,when he returnedto Aceh in 1661. Why is
therethis deafeningsilence about al-Rijal and his writings?It is difficultto
believe thathis writingsdid not survive,when thewritingsofal-Raniribefore
him and al-Sinkiliafterhim did. So, what happened to Sayfal-Rijal?

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 SherBanuAL. Khan

Thedeparture
ofal-Raniriand theappointment
ofal-Rijal

Through mining and translatinga diary writtenby a Dutch officialnamed

PieterSourij,3TakeshiIto (1978) provides an account of the departureof Nur
al-Dinal-RanirifromAceh to Surat.This account is significantand it remains
authoritativein explainingthe mysteryof al-Raniri'sabrupt departurefrom
Aceh. Ito also throws some light on the ulama who replaced al-Raniri- a
Minangkabau named SifforResial (Sayf al-Rijal) who had recentlyarrived
fromSurat.Al-Rijalhad studied in Aceh with a certainSecke Maldin (Sheikh
Maldin), who was falselyaccused duringthetimeofIskandar Thani and 'was
done away with' by Sick Nordijn (SheikhNur al-Din al-Raniri).We also learn
thatSayfal-Rijalhad donated his whole house and adjoininglands to charity.
He had a good many followers,especially among the eunuchs, and he was a
Malay by birth(Ito 1978:490).
In his 22 August 1643 entry,Sourijreportsthatthe returnof Sayfal-Rijalto
Aceh caused a stir.Therewereso manydiscussionsabouthimand al-Ranirithat
the whole world seemed to be affectedby thisconfusion,so much so thatthe
Company'sbusinesswas severelydisrupted.All themembersoftheCouncil at
courtand otherbentara(courtofficials)requestedSultanahSafiatuddinSyah to
use her authorityto settlethe disputebetweenthe two 'bisschopperi (bishops).
Sultanah Safiatuddinrefused,saying thatshe had no knowledge of religious
mattersand she leftit to the uleebalang(Councillors and notables) to settle
the matter.Five days later,on 27 August,Sourij writesthatthe new ' bisschop '
named SuffelRadjal, was summoned to the palace by Sultanah Safiatuddin
Syah and accorded a greatroyalhonour,so thatit is to be expectedthat'the
formerSigh Nordijn'shigh spiritualstatuswill be irretrievably lost'.4
Ito (1978:491) ends his article by wondering who this Minangkabau
scholar was, who carriedthe day in the conflictwith the powerfulal-Raniri,
and confessesthat it would be interestingto know more about this person
named Sayfal-Rijal.Azra and Laffanin more recentarticlesattemptto throw
some light on Sayf al-Rijal and his teacher. While Ito and Azra speculate
that Pieter Sourij's Secke Maldin was the same person as Sheikh Jamal al-
din, Laffanshows that he was Kamal al-Din al-Jawi.They both agree with
Ito (1978:490) thatSayf al-Rijal was a disciple of this Sheikh (Azra 2004a:60;
Laffan2009:143).Aside fromwhat has been discussed so far,nothingelse is
known about Sayfal-Rijal.

3 PieterSourijwasa DutchVOCofficial whowasappointed Commissioner

bytheGovernor
General
ofBatavia,
Antonio vanDiemen, toleada delegation
toAcehtwice from
15May-18August
1642andfrom30May-14 November 1643.
4 'Dennieuwen Bisschop vandeMooren genaemt SuffelRadjal,doordeMaytbinnenontbo-
denzijnde,
wiertvandegrooten conincklijkeeraengedaen, soodatteduchtenstaeth
denvoori-
genSighNordijnsijnheijlicheijt
geheelverdwijnt salblijven/
(Ito1978:490-1.)

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened
toSayfal-Rijal? 103

It important,therefore,to revisittherecordsto see whethertheyrevealany-

thingmore about thisulama. As mentionedby Ito, the account of al-Raniri's
departureis described by Pieter Sourij in his daily register(Dagh-register),
where he reportson any mattersthatmightbe of interestand importanceto
Dutch officialsin Batavia. This articleexaminesSourij'sreportand otherDutch
recordswiththepurpose of throwingmorelighton theelusive Sayfal-Rijal.
The firstmysteryconcerningSayf al-Rijal's life is what happened to his
teacher- SheikhKamal al-din. Sourij explains thatal-Rijalwas a disciple of a
certainSheikh Maldin whom Sheikh Nur al-Din had falselyaccused during
the reignof the late king (Iskandar Thani) and om'tlevenhaddegebracht.5 Ito
(1978:490) translatesthis in
expression Sourij's report as 'done away with'
while Azra (2004a:60) believes it means he was exiled. I agree with Ito that
this Sheikh was actually executed and not exiled, since the phrase in Dutch
means to end a person's life.
The next issue regards Sultanah Safiatuddin's role in al-Raniri's depar-
ture fromAceh. Ito argues that she played a passive role and implies that
she was under the controlof the more powerfulOrangkaya Maharaja Lela,
who headed the Council at court. Ito is of the view that the decision about
the choice between the two religious scholars was a reflectionof the contest
forinfluencebetween Sultanah Safiatuddinand Orangkaya Maharaja Lela.
Ito statesthatOrangkaya Maharaja Lela lent a ready ear to the opponents of
al-Raniriand thereforeal-Ranirihad a poor chance of emergingvictoriousin
this doctrinalcontroversy.Furthermore,Sultanah Safiatuddindid not seem
anxious to standby her deceased Consort'sreligiousmentorand al-Ranirifell
into disgrace with the Sultanah (Ito 1978:491).
In contrastto Ito's argument,Ahmad Daudy speculates that al-Raniri's
abruptdeparturewas due to Safiatuddin'sactionsin gettingrid of those who
opposed her. Daudy (1978:17) argues that Islamic traditionand law at that
time barred a woman frombeing a Sultan and that al-Raniriwould surely
have objected to her appointment.
Contraryto Ahmad Daudy's speculations that Safiatuddinplayed a key
role in al-Raniri'sdeparture,Sourij's reportshows thatshe refusedto make
a choice between the two ulamas. Furthermore, thereis no evidence to show
that al-Raniriopposed her appointmentas ruler of Aceh.6 Indeed, Sourij's
reportreveals that Sultanah Safiatuddin actually supported al-Raniri after
her accession to the throne,withoutwhich 'his [al-Raniri's]hour would have
5 '[...] genaemt Siffor
Resial,afcomstighvande Manecabers,welckeeendisciple
inAtchin
bijSeckemaldin, diedenpresenten SickNordijn
(doorvalsche
beschuldingebijMarrom
Daren
Salamse om'tlevenhaddegebracht/
tijden) vanPieter
'Dagh-register 30May-14
Sourij', Novem-
ber1643,f.671v,in:NationaalArchief (NA),TheHague,VerenigdeOost-Indische
Compagnie
(VOC),nummer toegang1.04.02,inventarisnummer1144.
6 Fora moredetailed analysis ofSultanahSafiatuddin's
succession
tothethrone,
seeKhan
2009:Chapter1.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 SherBanuAL. Khan

strucklong since,as thenew one [al-Rijal]has a good many followers'.It was

because of her support thatal-Raniriheld out as Sheikh al-Islam until 1643.7
In thisregard,until 1643 both were supportingeach other.
So why did Sultanah Safiatuddinnot continueher support foral-Raniri,
instead appointingthe newly arrivedMinangkabau ulama in 1643? I argue
that as she gradually consolidated her position, she began to reversemost
of her late husband's policies and revertedto the policies of her late father,
Iskandar Muda, instead.Being politicallyastute,she sensed the mood preva-
lent at court at the time of the death of the very unpopular Pahang-born
Iskandar Thani. There is the suspicion that Sultan Iskandar Thani might
have been poisoned, since his death came so unexpectedly.8Pieter Sourij
reportsthatIskandar Thani was not loved by the Acehnese because he was
a foreigner.9 Furthermore, he was not liked because he was extravagantand
had depleted the Treasury.Afterhis death,theAcehnese orangkaya therefore
made a secretpact never to allow a foreignprinceto claim the throneof the
kingdom and never to obey him voluntarily.10 It may have been this anti-
foreign sentiment prevalent at that time that led the Acehnese elite, espe-
cially Orangkaya Maharaja Lela and other Councillors at court,to support
thenewly arrivedSayfal-Rijal,theMinangkabau ulama who was a Malay by
birth,instead of al-Raniri,an Arab foreign-born ulama. The orangkaya might
also have opposed al-Raniribecause he had been appointed Sheikh al-Islam
by the unpopular Iskandar Thani. Ito argues that the followersof Shams
al-Din, reinforcedby this Minangkabau ulama, launched a counter-attack
against al-Raniri,whose violence cannot have endeared him to the bulk of
the population (Ito 1978:491).The strongsupport forSayf al-Rijal fromboth
theorangkaya and religiousscholarswas recognizedby Sultanah Safiatuddin.
Furthermore, in line withher policy of reversingher late husband's policies,
it is more likelythatshe supportedSayfal-Rijal,who was a disciple of Sheikh
Kamal al-din and Sheikh Shams al-Din's group, who had been favoured
by her father.In any case, she appointed Sayf al-Rijal as Sheikh al-Islam to
replace the unpopular al-Raniri.
Her appointmentof al-Rijal reflectsher typical style of ruling, which
was key to her survival as rulerfor34 years. She tended to allow the court
Councillors to firstdebate the issue at hand, stepping in only at the final
stages of decision-makingto take a stand and issue her finaldecree. Based on
7 'Dagh-registervanPieter 30May-14
Sourij', November 1643,f.668r,in:NA,VOC,1.04.02,
inventarisnummer1144.
8 TheBustan reveals
a plothatchedbythosewhowereagainstIskandar Thanitopoisonhis
food.Thisplotwasfoiled, andtheconspirators
however, wereexecuted(Iskandar 1966:46).
9 'Dagh-register
vanPieter 15May-18
Sourij', 1642,
August f.572r,
in:NA,VOC,1.04.02, inven-
tarisnummer1143.
10 'RapportvanJustusSchoutenandJohan vanTwistinMalacca',July 1641,f.343v,in:NA,
VOC,1.04.02,inventarisnummer
1133.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened
toSayfal-Rijal? 105

Sourij's descriptionof how Sayf al-Rijal was chosen instead of al-Raniri,it is

clear thatthe Sultanah did not use her prerogativeas rulerto choose between
thetwo scholarsbut leftit to themajoritydecision of the Council beforemak-
ing the finalformalappointment.
AfterformallyappointingSayf al-Rijal,the Sultanah, again in contrastto
her husband who had allowed a witch-huntto take place against al-Raniri's
opponents,ensured thatno harm came to al-Raniri.Al-Raniriand his follow-
ers were not persecutedand he was able to returnsafelyto Surat.

Whatmoredo we knowaboutSayfal-Rijalafterhisappointment
as Sheikhal-slam?

We learn fromPieter Sourij that shortlyafterhis appointmentSayf al-Rijal

marrieda Muslim trader'sdaughterfroma holy family.Unfortunately, there
is no more informationon this Muslim trader'sidentity.PeterSourij's entry
on 10 September1643 mentionshis request to seek an audience with the Sul-
tanah the next day, but this was denied because of a marriagefeastforthe
new 'bisschopSuffelRadjaVand his bride,a 'levietse'Muslim trader'sdaughter.
Since both Maharaja Lela and Maharaja Adonna Lela would be involved in
the preparationsof the marriageceremony,Sourij's request was to be post-
poned untila bettertime.11

Coup in thepalace

Afterhis marriage,nothingelse is reportedabout Sayfal-Rijalto thebest ofmy

knowledge,untillate 1650and early1651.Even then,thereis no directmention
of his name. But it is my beliefthatevents in the Acehnese courtduringthis
period involvedthissame Sheikhand can help explainwhat happened to him.
The events below are described by several Dutch officialsin both the Dagh-
registersand GeneraleMissiven.Unfortunately, thereis no first-hand
accountof
these events (unlike Sourij's) since the Commissionerwho was appointed to
lead thedelegationto Aceh,JohanTruijtman,had justleftAceh on 9 November
1650.However,afterhe leftAceh he warned thattherewas exceptionallygreat
anger,envyand discord among theRijxraadenand orangkaya У2

11 I translatetheword'levietse
' tomean
holy,'[...] daeropantwoorden deConinghinedennieu-
wenaengecomen Bisschopgenaemt Suffel
Radjalaeneenen Moors coopmans dochter
van'tlevietse
geslacht endehunbeijde'tvolbrengen
geheijlicht, derfeestvandienbevolen soodatdage-
heeft,
lijxmetallestotdebruijloft
teprepareren besieh waeren, dierhalven HrCommissar
versochtend
haergelieffde'texcuseren,
tertijtsichbeter
gelegentheijtpresenteerden/ vanPieter
'Dagh-register
30May-14
Sourij', November 1643, f.678т,
in:NA,VOC,1.04.02, inventarisnummer1144.
12 'Origineel vanJohan
rapport 13January
Truijtman', 1651,ff.326r-326v,
in:NA,VOC,1.04.02,
inventarisnummer 1175.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 SherBanuAL. Khan

The firstmentionof a coup in thepalace is by JoanMaetsuyker,Governor

General of Batavia, in his reportto the VOC directors(Heeren XVII) in the
GeneraleMissivenof 1651. His reportreads as follows (my translation):

[...] froma freeburghervesselcamethefollowing rumourthatthewholecourt

there[Aceh]was in an uproar.Thegrooten [greatLaksamana],withtwo
laximana
or threeofhis accomplicestogether with some membersoftheCouncilwho did
notfavourtheCompany,had rebelledagainsttheoppersten MaradjaSiri
rijxraet
Maradja[first MaharajaSriMaharaja],a loyaland exceptional
Councillor, friend
oftheDutchnation,and publiclyaccusedhimofwantingto seizethethronewith
thehelpoftheDutch.Thiscausedsucha greatrevoltat courtundertheorangkaya
andtheirfollowers thatfora longtimeno audienceoraccesstothecourtwas given
and itwas uncertainwhether theQueenwas sick,dead oralive,so thatfinallythe
Laksamanawithhisfollowers, through had gainedsufficient
slypractices, control
ofthecourt,thatin theconfusion, MaradjadeRadja[Maharajadi Raja],son-in-law
ofMaharajaSriMaharaja,who was ridingan elephantto court,was shotin the
head and died. MaharajaSriMaharaja,withthehelp ofsomepeople,remained
alivebuthe was strippedofhis weapons,elephants,chargesand authority and
was orderedtoliveas a privateperson.Sibid'Indraand RadjaModliaer,whohad
beeninBataviaduringthepreviousyear[1650],wereaccusedbytheLaksamanaof
conspiring withtheDutchtosellAcehtotheCompany.He accusedthemoftrying
to bringsoldiersand shipsto Acehto installtheMaharajaSriMaharajaas king.
TheLaksamanaandhisfollowers cruellytormentedtheenvoys.Finallytheywere
setfreebutall theirfollowers,women,childrenand slaves,wereconfiscated and,
liketheMaharajaSriMaharaja,theywerestrippedofall authority. Therewas still
no newsaboutwhether theQueenwas aliveornot.13

Anothercoupin thepalace...

Nothingelse is reportedfromAceh untila few monthslater,when Governor

GeneralJoanMaetsuykerwritesabout what happened aftertheLaksamana's
coup:

aftertheLaksamana'scoupand
[...] therewas a greatcalmamongsttheRijxraaden
thedeathofMaharajadi Raja,theson-in-law ofMaharajaSriMaharaja.TheQueen
aftersome timeappearedagain on thethrone;however,on a certainaudience
-
day,theLaksamanawitha greatnumberofarmedmencameto court thistime
to killtheoppersten paep[highest beingtheQueen's mignon
pontiff] [sweetheart].
It so happenedthaton thatday thepaepwas absent.It is notcertainwhetherhe

13 Thisnewswasreceived on13and25August Missiven

1651(Generale 1639-1655 I
, 11:519-20).
thatthisrevolt
believe sinceithappened
tookplaceattheendof1650orearly1651, shortlyafter
Truijtman's
departure Acehon9 November
from thePerak
1650andbefore ofApril
massacre 1651.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened ?
toSayfal-Rijal 107

had priorknowledgeoftheLaksamana's intention. This,however,caused great

consternation at court.The Laksamanaopenlydefendedhis actionofattempting
to killtheopperstenpaepbyaccusinghimofcommitting boelerende with
[adultery]
theQueen,andaccusinghimoftrying tocapturethethrone.Theorangkaya Council
Itwas onlydue toHerMajesty's
acceptedthedecisionforthepaeptobe executed.14
earnestintervention whereshesworean oathinpublicthatshehad neverhad any
sexualintercourse withtheaccusedand threatenedto setfireto thepalace and
to burnherselfalivethatthepaepwas keptalive.Thistime,theLaksamana's bid
failedand he was disgraced, hismenand property
confiscated.Itcanbe seenthat
theAcehnesekingdom,as people say,was walkingon stilts.(Generale Missiven
1639-1655, 11:647;mytranslation.)

So who was thisindividual whom the Dutch referredto as oppersten paep? In

religious authorityin Aceh, the
all probabilitythis was the highest-ranking
Sheikhal-Islam,who at thattimehappened to be Sayfal Rijai. SultanahSafia-
tuddinhad appointed him to thisposition,replacingal-Raniri,in 1643. It ap-
pears thattherewere more than two factionsamong the orangkaya vyingfor
- besides the pro-Dutchfactionof the Maharaja Sri Maharaja and the
power
anti-Dutchfactionheaded by theLaksamana, a thirdfactionled by theSheikh.

Was Sayfal- Rijai murdered?

The nextaccount of eventsat theAcehnese courtis foundin the Dagh-register

of Batavia 1653. According to the account in the Dagh-register
, a letterfrom
thejuniortrader,Philips Carel de SalengrefromAceh, dated 30 January1653,
mentionsa new revolt led by another factionof orangkaya.15 I translatehis
reportas follows:

therewas a new revoltamongtheorangkaya

[...] in themeantime and itwas the
workofPaduccaMamentry [PadukaMaha Menteri],royalcommander, together
withthedeposedmen,namelyMaradjaSireMaradja[MaharajaSriMaharaja],the
Company'sfriendLaxamanaRadjaOdane Lella [MaharajaAdonaLella]and Sire
PaduccaTuwan[SriPadukaTuan].PadukaTuanand all hisrelatives weresacked
and removedfromcourt.MaharajaLeila replacedPadukaTuanas theGovernor
ofElephants.Sevendaysafterthat,an unusuallywell-manned and [well-]armed
[band]brokeintotheQueen'scourtand forcedhertoremovetheaforementioned
MaharajaLeila,and to replacehimwitha certainIntchiRembau,who at one time
servedas thePanglimaofDeli. [Thearmedband]massacred, beyondtheinstruc-
14 Maetsuyker and
Councilagreedtothisexecution
whoin thisorangkaya
doesnotspecify
whether formed
they intheCouncil.
themajority
15 Dagh-register
1653:
39-40.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 SherBanuAL. Khan

tionnayevenagainsttheexpressprohibition ofHer Majesty,together with10 to

11 [other]persons,thegrooten whobeforehe was deposed,withthehelp
priester,
ofMaharajaLeila wouldbe madeking,following a secretoathmadeto HerMaj-
esty.They [thecoup leaders] had forcedthe governing officialsto carryout this
massacre.Also Her Majestyhad to distribute thepriester'
s belongings, especially
theking'sdaggers,kris , etc.,to herladies-in-waiting ). She also had to
(bysittende
grantthecoup leadersrenewedaccessto court,honouring themwithelephants,
attendantsand staffand otherprivileges.16

The Dagh-register reporthere is unsatisfactory, and it cannotbe clearlyascer-

tained who this 'grootenpriester'was. But it appears that this 'grootenpries-
ter'is the same individual whom the Laksamana had triedto kill,who was
rumouredto be close to the Sultanah and had designs on the throne.From
the above account,it seems thattheMaharaja factionalso regardedthatindi-
vidual as a threatto theirpositions.So ifhe were theoppersten paepand grooten
priesteras describedby the Dutch and if these termsreferredto the highest-
rankingulama - the Sheikhal-Islam who was Sayfal-Rijal- can we conclude
thathe was the one who was murderedaccordingto thisaccount?
No otheraccounts or evidence can be found regardingthe alleged amo-
rous relationshipbetween the grootenpriesterand the Sultanah. Only the
Laksamana made thischargebut not theMaharaja Sri Maharaja, thoughboth
accused the grootenpriesterof aspiringto the throne.These charges of adul-
teryagainst the priest and of sexual intercourseagainst the Sultanah were
the most serious slanders one could inflictin a Muslim societysuch as Aceh,
if one were politicallymotivated to oust a person fromauthorityor even
to get rid of him/her.The Sultanah's position was seriously threatenedby
these accusations,but surprisinglyneitherthe Laksamana nor the Maharaja
factionclaimed the throneor deposed the Sultanah afterthese tumultuous
events.Perhapsneitherfactionwas strongenough to accomplishthis,and the
Sultanah's swiftand decisive action of makinga public oath and threatening
to burn herselfproved to be effectivein avertingthis disaster. Her actions
musthave proved her innocencein the eyes of her subjects.
The mosteffective politicalweapon, thefatalchargeused bytheLaksamana
and theMaharaja againstthegrootenpriester, thatis, usurpationof thethrone,
ifproven,would be tantamountto derhaka, thehighestoffencea subjectcould
commit.De Salengre's lettermentionsa 'secretoath' made to the Sultanahby
thegrooten and his accomplice,Maharaja Leila, thathe would be made
priester
king. Whetherthis was true or a mere rumour or an allegation concocted
by the priest'spolitical rivals remainsunknown. Nor do we know anything
about the Sultanah's involvementin this alleged plan. We may never know
whetherthegrootenpriester did tryto capturethethrone,but he certainlypaid
16 Dagh-register
1653:
40.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened ?
toSayfal-Rijal 109

forit withhis life.

The account in the Dagh-register unfortunately is also rathervague about
why the Sultanah was forced to distributethe priester's and his followers'
belongings and why these were given to her ladies-in-waiting.It is also not
explained why the Sultanah honoured the group who executed thiscounter-
coup when she clearlyopposed theirmurder of thegrootenpriester. By exam-
ining the contextand events surroundingsuch court politics,however, the
honouringof this group is not so surprising,since the Sultanah had always
had good relationswith the Maharaja factionand had favouredthis faction
againstthe Laksamana, in view of theirsupportof her policy of accommoda-
tion with the Dutch. Even at timeswhen the Laksamana factionappeared to
be strongerat court and openly opposed the trade concessions given to the
Dutch, she would continueto work in secret(throughher eunuchs) to help
the pro-Dutchfactionuntil she could tiltthe balance once more.17This may
explainwhy she would supporttheMaharaja factionand acceptthemin court
withhonoureven thoughshe had forbiddenthekillingof thegrootenpriester .
To the best of my knowledge, there are no other referencesto these
internaldisturbances at the Aceh court. Furthermore,the Company offic-
ers were much distractedby the murdersof Company officialsin Perak and
Kedah and theywere more focused on the next course of action - to salvage
the Company's reputationbecause of the failuresand humiliationstheyhad
experiencedin thesesmall polities.From 1653 onwards,the disturbancesthat
had threatenedthe Acehnese court were over. The Sultanah's position was
not challenged and she continuedto rule untilher death in 1675.

Afterthoughts

Not all questions have been satisfactorily

answered here. But thereis ample
evidence pointingto the murderof the person the Dutch called the oppersten
paep and grootenpriester.And if these termsreferto the Sheikh al-Islam of
Aceh,who was Sayfal-Rijalduringthatperiod,thenwe may conclude thathe
was murdered.Thus, his short-livedstintas Sheikhal-Islammay well explain
the scarcityof informationon his role and writings.This conclusion,there-
fore,must stand untilfurtherevidence suggestsotherwise.
17 Fora moredetailed seeKhan2009:113.
account,

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 SherBanuA.L.Khan

References
sources
Unpublished

Nationaal TheHague
Archief,
VerenigdeOost-Indische nummer
Compagnie, toegang1.04.02

Published
sources

Azra,Azyumardi
2004a Theorigins ofIslamic
reformism inSoutheast Asia:networks
ofMalay-Indone-
sianandMiddleEastern 'ulama'intheseventeenth andeighteenth
century. St
Leonards,NSW:Allenand Unwin.[AsianStudiesAssociationofAus-
tralia.]
2004b 'Controversy and oppositiontoWahdatal-Wujud:Discourseon Sufism
in theMalay-Indonesian Worldin the17th-18th in: Imtiyaz
centuries',
Yusuf(ed.),Measuring theeffectofIranianmysticism onSoutheastAsia.Pre-
sentations ofinternational
seminar, pp. 100-28.Bangkok:CulturalCentre,
EmbassyoftheIslamicRepublicofIran.
Dagh-register
1888 Dagh-registergehoudenintCasteelBataviavantpasserende daerteplaetseals
overgeheel anno1653.Uitgegeven
Nederlandts-India, doorhetBataviaasch
Genootschap vanKünstenen Wetenschappen, metmedwerking vande
Nederlandsch-Indische Regeering en onder toezichtvan J.A. van der
Chijs.'s Haee: Nijhoff,Batavia:Landsdrukkerii.
Daudy,Ahmad
1978 Syeikh Nural-Dinar-Raniry. Jakarta:BulanBintang.
Generale
Missiven
1964 Generale Missivenvangouverneurs-generaal en radenaan HerenXVII der
Verenigde Oostindische
Compagnie: Deel II: 1639-1655.Uitgegevendoor
W.Ph.Coolhaas.'s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. [RijksGeschiedkundige Publi-
catiën,GroteSerie112.1
Iskandar,T. (ed.)
1966 Nuru'd-din ar-Raniri:
Bustanu's-Salatin:BabII, Fasal13. Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasadan Pustaka,Kementerian PelajaranMalaysia.[SiriPe-
ngetahuan Bahasadan Sastera12.1
Ito,Takeshi
1978 'Whydid Nuruddinar-Raniri leaveAcehin 1054A.H.?',Bijdragen totde
Taal-,Land-enVolkenkunde 134:489-91.
Khan,SherBanuA.L.
2009 Rulebehind thesilkcurtain
: SultanahsofAceh1641-1699. PhD thesis,Uni-
versity ofLondon.
Laffan,Michael
2009 'Whenis a JawiJawi?A shortnoteon PieterSourij's"Maldin"and
his Minangstudent"Sayfal-Rijal"',in: Janvan der Puttenand Mary
KilclineCody (eds),Losttimes anduntoldtalesfromtheMalayworld , pp.
139-47.Singapore:NUS Press.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Whathappened
toSayfal-Rijal
? Ill

Riddell,PeterG.
2001 IslamandtheMalay-Indonesian : Transmission
world andresponses.
London:
Hurst.

This content downloaded from 140.127.23.2 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:18:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions