Interaction of Bhuddhists With Islam

eraction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before th
The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire
Table of Contents
The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the
Mongol Empire.........................................................................................................................1
Introduction: Historiographical Bias..............................................................................1
Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE).............................................................3
1 The Spread of Buddhism in Central Asia and Adjacent Regions before the
Advent of the Arabs............................................................................................3
Geography...........................................................................................................3
West and East Turkistan......................................................................................5
Han China............................................................................................................5
The Eastern and Western Turk Empires..............................................................6
The Situation of Buddhism in West Turkistan at the Advent of the Western
Turks.......................................................................................................7
The Decline of the Western Turks.......................................................................8
Tibet.....................................................................................................................8
Gangetic India......................................................................................................8
Kashmir and Nepal..............................................................................................9
Summary..............................................................................................................9
2 Sogdia and Bactria on the Eve of the Umayyad Period......................................10
Zoroastrian Relations with Buddhism...............................................................10
Zurvanism..........................................................................................................10
White Hun Rule and Its Aftermath in Sogdia....................................................11
Bactria................................................................................................................11
Gandhara............................................................................................................12
Summary............................................................................................................12
3 The First Encounter of the Muslims and Buddhist Asia.....................................12
The Pre-Islamic Presence of Buddhism in North Africa and West Asia...........12
The Establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate..................................................13
The Umayyad Attack on Bactria.......................................................................14
Previous Umayyad Experience with Non-Muslims in Iran...............................14
The Slow Advance of the Umayyids into Southern Sogdia..............................15
Summary............................................................................................................16
4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent...................................17
The Situation of the East-West Trade Routes...................................................17
The Invasion of Sindh........................................................................................17
The Occupation of Sindh...................................................................................18
The Expedition to Saurashtra............................................................................19
Evaluation of the Sindhi Campaign...................................................................19
The Umayyad Recapture of Bactria..................................................................19
First Attempts to Spread Islam..........................................................................20
5 Tibet on the Eve of the Arrival of the First Muslim Teacher..............................20
The Organized Bon Religion and the Native Tibetan Tradition.......................21
Songtsen-gampo's Relation with Zhang-zhung.................................................22
The Introduction of Buddhism..........................................................................22
Adaptation of the Khotanese Script...................................................................23
The So-Called "Bon" Opposition Faction.........................................................24
The Reigns of the Following Two Tibetan Emperors.......................................25
The Rule of Empresses......................................................................................25
The Tibetan-Umayyad Alliance........................................................................26
Analysis of the Muslim Mission to Tibet..........................................................27
i
Table of Contents
The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol
Empire
Refugee Monks from Khotan in Tibet...............................................................27
6 Further Umayyad Expansion in West Turkistan.................................................28
The Shifting of Alliances and Control of Territories........................................28
The Reassertion of Umayyad Rule in Sindh.....................................................28
Umayyad Loss and Regaining of Sogdia..........................................................29
Analysis of the Tang Attacks on Umayyad-Held Sogdia..................................29
The Invitation of Sogdians to Mongolia and Their Subsequent Eviction.........30
The Manichaean Factor.....................................................................................30
The Expulsion of Non-Han Buddhist Monastics from Tang China..................31
Final Events of the Umayyad Period.................................................................31
Part II: The Early Abbasid Period (750 - Mid-Ninth Century CE)..............................32
7 The Rise of the Abbasids and Decline of Tang China........................................32
The Regional Context........................................................................................32
The Founding of the Abbasid Caliphate............................................................33
The Defeat of Tang China and the An Lushan Rebellion.................................33
8 The Religious Conversions of the Eastern Turks................................................34
First Contacts with Buddhism...........................................................................34
The Adoption of the Sogdian Language for Secular Use..................................35
Religious Persecution in Han China and Sogdia...............................................36
The First Written Translations of Buddhist Texts into Tocharian.....................36
The Sogdian Forgoing of Translating Buddhist Texts into Their Own
Language at This Time.........................................................................36
The Translation of Buddhist Texts into Old Turk.............................................37
Analysis and Summary......................................................................................38
9 The Religious Conversions of the Uighurs..........................................................38
The Initial Choice of Buddhism........................................................................39
Doubts about Buddhism in Face of Developments in Tang China and Tibet...39
Reasons for Choosing Manichaeism: The Wish to Maintain Friendly
Relations with Tang China...................................................................40
Economic Benefits and Geopolitics..................................................................40
The Conversion to Manichaeism.......................................................................40
Popular Resistance to the Conversion...............................................................41
Summary of the Central Asian Pattern of Religious Conversion......................41
10 Islamic Sectarian Disputes and the Declaration of Jihads.................................42
Sectarian Discord within Islam during the Early Abbasid Period.....................42
The Abbasid Destruction of Valabhi.................................................................43
The Difference in Policy toward Manichaeism and Other Non-Muslim
Religions...............................................................................................43
The Strong Interest of the Abbasids in Indian Culture......................................44
The Growth of Islam among Non-Muslims in West Turkistan.........................45
Evaluation of the Destruction of Valabhi..........................................................45
The Abbasid Invasion of Gandhara...................................................................46
Analysis of the Abbasid Campaign and Victory...............................................46
11 Tibetan Politico-Religious Maneuverings at the End of the Eighth Century....48
Tibetan Relations with China............................................................................48
The Invitation of Shantarakshita to Tibet..........................................................48
The Building of Samyay Monastery..................................................................49
ii
Table of Contents
Empire
Cultural Contacts with China............................................................................50
The Completion of Samyay Monastery.............................................................50
Peace with China and Establishment of the Tibetan Religious Council...........51
Analysis of the Policy of the Tibetan Religious Council..................................51
Purge of the Xenophobes...................................................................................52
Neutralization of the Pro-Tang China Faction..................................................53
Summary of Tibetan Policy in Sogdia...............................................................54
Emperor Tri Relpachen.....................................................................................55
12 The Establishment of Buddhist Kingdoms by the Uighurs...............................55
The Kyrgyz Conquest of Mongolia...................................................................55
The Uighur Migration into Turkistan and the Gansu Corridor.........................56
Previous Uighur Familiarity with Buddhism....................................................57
The Breakup of the Tibetan Empire..................................................................57
The Subsequent Political Division of East Turkistan and Gansu......................58
The Repression of Buddhism in Han China......................................................58
Analysis of the Repression................................................................................59
Aftermath...........................................................................................................59
Effects of These Developments on the Uighurs' Conversion to Buddhism......60
The Position of Islam at the End of the Early Abbasid Period..........................61
Part III: The Spread of Islam among and by the Turkic Peoples (840 - 1206 CE)......61
13 The Establishment of New Empires in Central Asia.........................................61
The Founding of the Qarakhanid Empire..........................................................61
Relations between the Qarakhanids and the Uighurs........................................62
Early Relations between the Qarakhanids and Tibet.........................................62
The Saffarid Kingdom.......................................................................................63
The Samanid and Buyid Kingdoms...................................................................63
The Khitan Empire............................................................................................64
14 The Founding of the First Two Turkic Islamic States.......................................65
The Conversion of the Qarakhanids to Islam....................................................65
Analysis of the Motives for the Conversion......................................................66
Consolidation of the Qarakhanid Islamic State.................................................66
The Rise of the Ghaznavids and the Fall of the Samanids................................67
15 The Qarakhanid Campaign against Khotan.......................................................67
Khotanese Missions to Han China.....................................................................67
The Position of Buddhism in Khotan................................................................68
The Declaration of a Holy War.........................................................................69
Analysis of the Kashgari Uprising.....................................................................69
Evaluation of Using the Model of a Holy War to Describe the Khotanese
Action in Kashgar.................................................................................69
Evaluation of the Qarakhanid Action as a Holy War........................................71
16 Analysis of the Siege of Khotan........................................................................72
The Political and Religious Climate among the Tanguts..................................72
The Situation in the Tibetan Regions................................................................72
King Yeshey-wo's Efforts to Revitalize Buddhism in Western Tibet...............73
Tibetan Military Aid to Khotan.........................................................................74
Probable Qarakhanid Military Strategy.............................................................75
The Tangut Connection.....................................................................................75
iii
Table of Contents
Empire
Possible Military Agreements with the Tanguts................................................76
The Disappearance of Buddhism in Khotan......................................................76
17 Tangut, Tibet, and Northern Song China in the Eleventh Century...................77
Tangut Thwarting of Qarakhanid Plans for Further Expansion........................77
Tangut Receipt of Han Chinese Buddhist Scriptures........................................78
Uighur and Yugur Assistance in Establishing Tangut Buddhism.....................79
Subsequent Sino-Tangut Political and Religious Relations..............................80
The Revival of Buddhism in Central Tibet.......................................................80
Qarakhanid Relations with Buddhists after the Fall of Khotan.........................81
18 The Ghaznavids and Seljuqs..............................................................................81
The Ghaznavid Campaign in Gandhara and Northwestern India......................81
Ghaznavid Attitudes toward Buddhism outside India.......................................83
The Decline of the Ghaznavids and Rise of the Seljuqs....................................84
The Political and Religious Situation in Kashmir.............................................84
Seljuq Expansion and Religious Policy.............................................................84
The Nizari Order of Assassins...........................................................................85
19 Twelfth-Century Developments in Central Asia...............................................85
The Establishment of the Jurchen Empire.........................................................85
The Political and Religious Situation in the Tibetan Regions...........................86
The Rise of Tibetan Cultural Influence on the Tanguts....................................87
The Qaraqitan Takeover of the Qocho Uighurs and Qarakhanids....................87
The Spread of Islam among Central Asian Turks by Sufi Masters...................88
20 The Ghurid Campaigns on the Indian Subcontinent.........................................88
The Initial Military Drive across Northern India...............................................88
The Conquest of Bihar and Bengal....................................................................89
The Occupation of Northern India.....................................................................89
Evaluation of the Ghurid Damage to Buddhism...............................................90
Repercussions on the Development of Buddhism in Neighboring States.........90
Analysis of the Decline of Buddhism on the Indian Subcontinent....................91
Bibliography.................................................................................................................92
Links............................................................................................................................113
iv
The Historical Interaction between the
Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the
Mongol Empire
This is the printer-friendly version of: http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / x / nav /
group.html_2124837990.html
Alexander Berzin, 1996

lightly revised, January 2003, December 2006
Introduction: Historiographical Bias

There is a long history of Muslims being regarded by the Christian West as the forces of the
devil. This began at the end of the eleventh century CE with the Crusades to take the Holy
Lands from the Muslims. It continued with the fall of −−the center of Eastern Orth−odox
Chri−stian−ity at Constantinople to the Turks in the mid-fifteenth century and was strongly
reawakened by the massive Turkish defeat of the Bri−tish and Australians at Gallipoli during
the First World War. Western mass media often depicts Islamic reli−gious figures as "mad
mullahs" and demonizes Muslim leaders such as Colonial Gadaffi, Sadam Hussein, Idi Amin,
Ayatollah Khomeini, and Yasar Arafat. Many Westerners characterize all Muslims as fanatic
terrorists and immediately suspect an Islamic fundamentalist hand behind such wanton acts of
violence as the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In response to this
disrespect of their leaders, religion and cultures, many Muslims view the West, in turn, as the
land of Satan threatening their values and holy sites. Such attitudes of mutual paranoia and
distrust present a major obstacle for understanding and cooperation between the non-Muslim
and the Islamic world.
This paranoia and prejudice toward the Muslims has carried over into the Western
presentation of Asian history, particularly that of the interaction between the Muslims and
Buddhists during the spread of Islam to Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Parallel to
Western journalism primarily reporting about Muslims the involvement of their fanatic
element in terrorist acts -- as if this were representative of the entire world of Islam -- popular
Western historical accounts of the period focus on the destruction of Buddhist monasteries and
the slaughter of monks who would not convert. With the emphasis on the brutal incidents that
did in fact occur, people receive the distorted impression that the interaction was only negative
and violent.
One source of the distortion was the hidden agenda of many of the British administrator
historians during the British Raj, particularly during the nineteenth century. To gain the
allegiance of their Indian subjects and legitimize colonial rule, many of these historians tried
to show how the British administration was more humane and its taxation policy more just
than under any of the previous Muslim dynasties. If archeologists found temples in ruin, they
explained that Muslim fanatics had destroyed them. If statues and other treasures were
missing, they concluded either that Muslim raiders had plundered them or that the Buddhists
had hid them in fear of Muslim raids. If Muslim rulers gave permission to repair temples, they
assumed that Muslim armies had previously destroyed them. Discounting economic or
geopolitical motives and confusing military policy with religious policy, they popularized the
view that the wish to spread Islam and to convert infidels by the sword motivated all invasions
1
by Muslim armies. They equated conquest with conversion and subsequent revolt with the
wish to throw off Islam.
British missionaries especially encouraged this view, emphasizing Muslim intolerance in

order to show themselves in a better light. Thus, many British historians lumped together the
Arab, various Turkic, and Mughal conquests of the subcontinent, and characterized them all as
Islamic invasions, rather than as invasions by individual political entities that differed widely
from each other. Other Western historians have followed suit. Even today, political leaders
and the news media regularly speak of Muslim terrorists, never of Christian, Jewish, or Hindu
terrorists.
Western historiography is not alone in presenting a one-sided picture. The Buddhist and
Islamic pious histories of the Tibetan, Mongolian, Arabic, Persian, and Turkic traditions have,
for the most part, described the interactions between Central Asian states as if the defense and
spread of religion were the only motivating forces determining events. Buddhist pious
histories present a violent picture and describe conversion as occurring only by force. Islamic
pious histories present a more peaceful picture. They tend to explain that Buddhists converted
to Islam either because of the moral superiority of the Muslim faith or in order to escape
Hindu oppression. The assumption is that the determining characteristic of Indian despots was
their Hindu religion, not their political or economic policies.
Chinese dynastic histories have yet another priority, namely demonstrating the moral
superiority of one or another Chinese ruling house and the submission of all foreign cultures
to it. This hidden agenda also distorts the picture they present of international and interfaith
relations.
Certain texts interpolate events onto the distant past, misrepresenting the relation between
Buddhism and Islam. The early fourteenth-century Kashmiri Muslim writer, Rashid al-Din,
for example, in his Life and Teachings of Buddha, which survives in Persian and Arabic,
explains that before the time of the Prophet, the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina were all
Buddhists. They worshiped idols at the Kaaba in the form of Buddha.
Even predictions of the future do not escape religious bias. Both Buddhists and Muslims, for
example, discuss the coming of a great spiritual leader who will overcome negative forces in
an apocalyptic war. The Buddhist version derives from the Kalachakra Tantra, a text that
appeared in India between the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, and which is extremely
popular among the Tibetans and Mongols. Warning of a future invasion of lands with a mixed
Buddhist and Hindu population by forces claiming allegiance to Mecca and Baghdad, this text
poses the Buddhist king Rudrachakrin against the final Muslim prophet, Mahdi. It describes
the latter as the leader of the barbarian non-Indic forces that will try to conquer the universe
and destroy all spirituality. By calling Rudrachakrin a "Kalki" ruler, the text rallies Hindus as
well to this sectarian vision of the future. Kalki is the tenth and final incarnation of the Hindu
god Vishnu who will also fight in an apocalyptic war.
Muslim areas, such as Baltistan in northeastern Pakistan, having historical contact with the
Tibetan Buddhist cultural area, developed in response a counterversion of the apocalypse. In
it, Mahdi's opponent, Dajjal, is identified as King Gesar, the Central Asian mythical hero
regarded over the centuries by various Buddhist peoples as the manifestation of not only King
Rudrachakrin, but even Chinggis Khan.
[See: The Kalachakra Presentation of the Prophets of the Non-Indic Invaders {1}.]
Introduction: Historiographical Bias 2

When one looks more carefully at the history, however, one finds ample evidence of friendly
interaction and cooperation between the Buddhists and Muslims in Central and South Asia in
the political, economic and philosophical spheres. There were many alliances, a great deal of
trade, and frequent exchange of spiritual methods for self-improvement. This does not deny
the fact that a number of negative incidents did occur between the two peoples. However,
geopolitics and the drive for economic and territorial expansion far outweighed religious
factors in motivating most of these conflicts, despite militant leaders often having used the call
for a holy war to rally troops. Moreover, sane and responsible rulers far outnumbered fanatical
leaders on both sides in shaping policies and events.
Muslims and Buddhists still constitute a large proportion of the population of especially
Central Asia. A more dispassionate account of the historical relations between the two
religions and peoples in the area is vital not only for the purposes of impartial scholarship, but
for the future peaceful development of the region.
Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE)

1 The Spread of Buddhism in Central Asia and Adjacent Regions
before the Advent of the Arabs
Long before the Arabs brought Islam to Central Asia in the mid-seventh century CE,
Buddhism had flourished there for hundreds of years. It was particularly prominent along the
Silk Route, which carried trade between India and Han China, and led from both to Byzantium
and to the Roman Empire. Let us briefly outline the early spread of Buddhism to this part of
the world so that we might appreciate better the historical background that Islam encountered.
Geography
In terms of current geographic areas, −the early Buddhist regions of Central Asia included at
various times:
(1) Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir,
(2) the northern Pakistani mountain valleys such as Gilgit,
(3) Pakistani Punjab, including the Swat Valley, and −eastern Afghanistan south of the Hindu
Kush Moun−tains,
(4) the Amu Darya River Valley to the north of the Hindu Kush, including both Afghani
Turkistan to the south of the Amu Darya and southern West Turkistan (southeastern
Uzbekistan and southern Tajikistan) to the north of the river,
(5) northeastern Iran and southern Turkmenistan,
(6) the area between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers, namely central West Turkistan
(eastern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan),
(7) the area to the north of the Syr Darya, namely northern West Turkistan (Kyrgyzstan and
eastern Kazakhstan),
Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE) 3

(8) southern Xinjiang (Sinkiang) in −the Peoples' Republic of China, namely southern East
Turkistan, both to the north and south of the Takla−makan Desert around the periphery of the
Tarim Basin,
(9) northern Xinjiang, between the Tianshan (T'ian-shan) and Altai Mountains,
(10) the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Qinghai (Ch'ing-hai), southeastern Gansu (Kan-su),
western Sichuan (Sze-ch'uan), and northwestern Yunnan (Yün-nan), all in the Peoples'
Republic of China,
(11) Inner Mongolia, in the Peoples' Republic of China, the Republic of Mongolia (Outer
Mongolia), and the Buryat Republic in Siberia, Russia.
[View Map One: Modern Central Asia {2}.]
The historical names for these areas were:
1. Kashmir, with its capital at Srinagar,

2. Gilgit,
3. Gandhara, with its major cities being Takshashila on the Pakistani Punjab side of the
Khyber Pass and Kabul on the Afghani side, with Swat being called Oddiyana
4. Bactria, spanning the Oxus River Valley, with its center at Balkh, near modern-day
Mazar-i-Sharif,
5. Parthia, later Khorasan, with its main city at Merv, and sometimes its portion in
southern Turkmenistan referred to as Margiana,
6. Sogdia, later Ma Wara'an-Nahr, between the Oxus and the Jaxartes Rivers, with its
main centers, going roughly from west to east, at Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, and
Ferghana,
7. no specific name, but with its main center at Suyab to the south of Lake Issyk Kul,
8. no specific name, but with the main oasis city-states along the southern rim of the
Tarim Basin, going from west to east, being Kashgar, Yarkand, Khotan, and Niya, and
along the northern rim, Kucha, Karashahr, and Turfan (Qocho), and with the two
routes joining in the east at Dunhuang (Tun-huang),
9. Dzungaria, with the main city at its eastern gateway across the Tianshan Mountains
from Turfan being Beshbaliq (Beiting, Pei-t'ing), near present-day Urumqi,
10. Tibet, with its capital at Lhasa,
11. Mongolia.
[View Map Two: Traditional Central Asia {3}.]
Although some of these names changed several times over the course of history, we shall limit
ourselves to this one set to avoid confusion. We shall refer to the area of the Peoples' Republic
of China excluding Gansu, Inner Mongolia, the ethnic Tibetan regions, Manchuria, and the
southern hill tribe areas as "Han China," the homeland of the ethnic Han people. We shall use
the term "northern India" to refer primarily to the Gangetic Plain, not including within it
Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Indian Punjab, Rajasthan, or any states of the
Republic of India east of West Bengal. By "Iran," we mean the areas currently within the
borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, by "Arabs," the people of the entire Arabian
Peninsula and southern Iraq.
Geography 4
West and East Turkistan
Although there are several traditions concerning the dates of Shakyamuni Buddha, most
Western scholars accept that he lived between 566 and 486 BCE. He originally taught in the
central part of the Gangetic Plain of northern India. Slowly his followers spread his message
to the surrounding areas, where monastic communities of monks and nuns soon arose. In this
way, Buddhism gradually developed into an organized religion, preserving and transmitting
orally the teachings of Buddha.
Buddhism initially spread from northern India to Gandhara and Kashmir in the middle of the
third century BCE through the efforts of the Mauryan King Ashoka (ruled 273 - 232 BCE).
Two centuries later, it made its first inroads into both West and East Turkistan (Turkistan)
when it expanded from Gandhara to Bactria and from Kashmir to Khotan during the first
century BCE. It also had passed, by that time, from Kashmir to Gilgit and from northern India
to present-day Sindh and Baluchistan in southern Pakistan, through eastern Iran and on to
Parthia. According to traditional Buddhist histories, two merchants from Bactria were among
the direct disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha. However, there is no evidence of their having
established Buddhism in their homeland at that early stage.
[View Map Three: The Spread of Buddhism into Central Asia {4}.]
By the first century CE, Buddhism had penetrated deeper into West Turkistan, spreading from
Bactria to Sogdia. During that century, it also expanded further along the southern rim of the
Tarim Basin, passing from Gandhara and Kashmir to Kashgar, and from Gandhara, Kashmir,
and Khotan to the kingdom of Kroraina at Niya. Kroraina was abandoned to the desert in the
fourth century and most of its citizens relocated in Khotan.
During the second century CE, Buddhism reached the northern rim of the Tarim Basin as well,
passing from Bactria to the Tocharian people of Kucha and Turfan. According to some
sources, the Tocharians there were descendents of the Yuezhi, a Caucasian people who spoke
an ancient western Indo-European language. In the second century BCE, one group of the
Yuezhi, later known as the Tocharians, had migrated to the west and settled in Bactria.
Consequently, Eastern Bactria became known as "Tocharistan". Despite sharing the same
name, no political connection existed, however, between the Tocharians of Eastern Bactria
and the Tocharians of Kucha and Turfan.
There was an Iranian cultural presence in many of these regions of West and East Turkistan,
particularly in Bactria, Sogdia, Khotan, and Kucha. Consequently, Central Asian Buddhism
came to incorporate Zoroastrian features to varying degrees. Zoroastrianism was the ancient
religion of Iran. The shared Zoroastrian elements appeared both in the Sarvastivada form of
Hinayana Buddhism that flourished in Bactria, Sogdia, and Kucha, as well as in the Mahayana
Buddhism that came to predominate in Khotan.
Han China
The Han Chinese maintained military garrisons in the oasis city-states of the Tarim Basin
from the first century BCE to the second century CE. Buddhism, however, did not spread to
Han China until after these colonies had regained their independence.
Starting in the middle of the second century CE, Buddhism came to Han China first from
Parthia. Its spread was subsequently expanded by monks from the other Buddhist lands of
West and East Turkistan 5

Central Asia, as well as northern India and Kashmir. Central Asian and north Indian monks
helped the Han Chinese translate Sanskrit and Gandhari Prakrit texts into Chinese, although
the Central Asians themselves at first preferred these original Indian versions for their
personal use. With constant exposure to international caravans visiting them along the Silk
Route, most were comfortable with foreign languages. In the course of their translation work
for the Han Chinese, however, the Central Asians never transmitted Zoroastrian elements. Han
Chinese Buddhism, instead, took on many Daoist (Taoist) and Confucian cultural traits.
During the Six Dynasties Period (220-589 CE), Han China split into many short-lived
kingdoms, divided roughly between north and south. A succession of mostly non-Han Chinese
dynas−ties -- early predeces−sors of the Turks, Tibetans, Mongols, and Man−chus -- invaded
and ruled the north, while the south maintained more traditional Han Chinese civilization.
Buddhism in the north was devotionally oriented and subservient to the whims of government
control, while in the south it was independent and emphasized philosophical enquiry.
Due to the influence of Daoist and Confucian ministers jealous of government support of
Buddhist monasteries, the Indian religion suffered suppression in two of the northern Chinese
kingdoms between 574 and 579. Wendi, however, who reunified Han China after three and a
half centuries of fragmentation and founded the Sui Dynasty (589 - 618), called himself a
Buddhist universal emperor (Skt. chakravartin). Declaring that his rule (589 - 605) would turn
China into a Buddhist "Pure Land" paradise, he revived the Indian faith to new heights.
Although several early emperors of the Tang Dynasty (T'ang) (618- 906) favored Daoism,
they also continued supporting Buddhism.
The Eastern and Western Turk Empires
From the beginning of the fifth century, the Ruanruan people ruled a vast empire centering in
Mongolia and stretching from Kucha to the borders of Korea. They adopted a blend of the
Iranian-influenced Khotanese and Tocharian forms of Buddhism and introduced it to
Mongolia. The Old Turks, living in Gansu within the Ruanruan domain, overthrew the latter
in 551. The Old Turk Empire they established split into an eastern and western division within
two years.
The Eastern Turks ruled Mongolia and continued the Ruanruan form of Khotanese/Tocharian
Buddhism found there, combining it with northern Han Chinese elements. They translated
many Buddhist texts into the Old Turk language from a variety of Buddhist tongues with the
help of monks from northern India, Gandhara, and Han China, but particularly from the
Sogdian community in Turfan. As the principal merchants of the Silk Route, the Sogdians
produced monks who were natural polyglots.
The main character of Old Turk Buddhism was its appeal to common people, incorporating
within Buddha's entourage many popular, locally worshiped deities, including both traditional
shamanic, Tengrian, and Zoroastrian ones. Tengrism was the traditional pre-Buddhist belief
system of the various peoples of the Mongolian steppes.
The Western Turks at first ruled Dzungaria and northern West Turkistan. In 560, they
captured the western portion of the Silk Route from the White Huns (Hephthalites) and
migrated progressively to Kashgar, Sogdia, and Bactria, establishing a certain presence in
Afghani Gandhara as well. In the course of their expansion, many of their people adopted the
Buddhist faith, specifically the forms found in the regions they conquered.
Han China 6
The Situation of Buddhism in West Turkistan at the Advent of the Western

Turks
For centuries before the migration of the Western Turks, Buddhism had been flourishing in
central and southern West Turkistan under the successive rule of the Graeco-Bactrians,
Shakas, Kushans, Persian Sassanids, and the White Huns. The Han Chinese pilgrim to India,
Faxian (Fa-hsien), traveling in this area between 399 and 415, had reported it filled with active
monasteries. However, when the Western Turks arrived in this region a century and a half
later, they found Buddhism in a weakened state, particularly in Sogdia. It had apparently
declined during the period of White Hun rule.
The White Huns were, for the most part, staunch supporters of Buddhism. In 460, for
example, their ruler had sent a shred from Buddha's robe as a reliquary offering from Kashgar
to one of the northern Chinese courts. However, in 515, the White Hun king, Mihirakula, had
instigated a persecution of Buddhism, purportedly under the influence of jealous Manichaean
and Nestorian Christian factions in his court. The worst damage was in Gandhara, Kashmir,
and the western part of northern India, but also extended to Bactria and Sogdia on a more
limited scale.
In approximately 630, when the next notable Han Chinese pilgrim to India, Xuanzang
(Hsüan-tsang), visited Samarkand, the Western Turk capital in Sogdia, he found that although
there were many lay Buddhist followers, the local Zoroastrians were hostile toward them. The
two main Buddhist monasteries were empty and closed. In 622, however, several years before
Xuanzang's visit to Samarkand, its Western Turk ruler, Tongshihu Qaghan, had formally
adopted Buddhism under the guidance of Prabhakaramitra, a visiting northern Indian monk.
Xuanzang encouraged the king to reopen the deserted monasteries near the city and to
construct even more.
The king and his successors followed the Chinese monk's advice and built several new
monasteries in Sogdia -- not only in Samarkand, but in the Ferghana valley and present-day
western Tajikistan as well. They also spread a blend of the Sogdian and Kashgari forms of
Buddhism to northern West Turkistan. There, they built new monasteries in the Talas River
Valley in present-day southern Kazakhstan, the Chu River Valley in northwestern Kyrgyzstan,
and in Semirechiye in southeastern Kazakhstan near present-day Almaty.
In contrast to Sogdia, Xuanzang reported the flourishing of many Buddhist monasteries in

Kashgar and Bactria, the other major areas controlled by the Western Turks. Kashgar had
hundreds of monasteries and ten thousand monks, while in Bactria the numbers were more
modest. The greatest monastery of the entire region was Nava Vihara (Nawbahar, Nowbahar)
in Balkh, the main city of Bactria. It served as the principal center of higher Buddhist learning
for all of Central Asia, with satellite monasteries in Bactria and Parthia, also called
navaviharas.
Run like a university, Nava Vihara admitted only monks who had already composed scholarly
texts. It was famous for its stunningly beautiful Buddha statues, draped with luxurious silk
robes and lavishly adorned with magnificent jewel ornaments, in accordance with local
Zoroastrian custom. It had particularly close links with Khotan, to which it sent many
teachers. According to Xuanzang, Khotan at the time had a hundred monasteries with five
thousand monks.
The Situation of Buddhism in West Turkistan at the Advent of the Western Turks 7
The Decline of the Western Turks
By the middle of the seventh century, the Western Turk control of these areas in West and
East Turkistan began to wane. First, the Turks lost Bactria to the Turki Shahis, another Turkic
Buddhist people who were ruling Gandhara. Xuanzang had found the situation of Buddhism
in Gandhara worse than that in Bactria, despite the Western Turks' having established a
monastery in Kapisha, not far to the north of Kabul, in 591. The main monastery on the Kabul
side of the Khyber Pass, Nagara Vihara, just south of modern-day Jalalabad, housed the skull
relic of the Buddha and was one of the holiest pilgrimage sites in the Buddhist world. Its
monks, however, had become materialistic and were charging pilgrims a gold coin each to
view the relic. There were no centers of study in the entire region.
On the Punjabi side, the monks preserved merely the monastic rules of discipline and had
hardly any understanding of the Buddhist teachings. In the Swat Valley (Oddiyana), for
example, Xuanzang found many of the monasteries in ruins and, in those still standing, the
monks merely performing rituals to gain protection and powers from supernatural beings.
There was no longer any tradition of study or meditation.
An earlier Han Chinese traveler, Songyun (Sung-yün), had visited Swat in 520, five years
after Mihirakula's persecution. He had reported that the monasteries were still flourishing at
that time. The White Hun ruler apparently did not implement his anti-Buddhist policy very
strongly in the more remote regions of his realm. The subsequent decline of the monasteries in
Swat was due to several severe earthquakes and floods that occurred during the century
between the two Chinese pilgrims' visits. With the mountainous valley impoverished and trade
through Gilgit to East Turkistan cut off, the monasteries had lost almost all their economic
support and contact with other Buddhist cultures. Local superstitious beliefs and shamanic
practices had then blended with what was left of Buddhist understanding.
In 650, the Western Turk Empire shrank further with the loss of Kashgar to the Han Chinese,
who had been expanding their empire since the founding of the Tang Dynasty in 618. Before
gaining control of Kashgar, the Tang forces had taken Mongolia from the Eastern Turks and
then the city-states along the northern rim of the Tarim Basin. In face of the growing Han
threat and the inability of the weak Western Turks to defend them, Kashgar and independent
Khotan on the southern rim peacefully submitted.
Tibet
During the second quarter of the seventh century, the Tibetans unified their country. King
Songtsen-gampo (Srong-btsan sgam-po, r. 617 - 649) established an empire that stretched
from northern Burma to the borders of Han China and Khotan. It included Nepal as a vassal
state, which at this time was limited to the Kathmandu Valley. After establishing his empire,
Songtsen-gampo introduced Buddhism into his country in the late 640s. This was on an
extremely limited scale, however, blending various aspects from Han China, Nepal, and
Khotan. As the Tibetans expanded their territory, they captured Kashgar from Tang China in
663 and, in the same year, established their rule in Gilgit and the Wakhan Corridor connecting
western Tibet with eastern Bactria.
Gangetic India
Buddhism had coexisted harmoniously with Hinduism and Jainism on the Gangetic Plain of
northern India from the earliest times. Since the fourth century CE, the Hindus regarded
The Decline of the Western Turks 8

Buddha as one of the ten incarnations (Skt. avatara) of their supreme god, Vishnu. On a
popular level, many Hindus saw Buddhism as another form of their own religion. Emperors of
the First Gupta Period (320 - 500) frequently patronized temples, monasteries, and teachers of
both persuasions. They built numerous Buddhist monastic universities where philosophical
debate flourished, the most famous being Nalanda in present-day central Bihar. They also
allowed other Buddhist countries access to the pilgrimage sites within their realm. Emperor
Samudragupta, for example, gave permission for the Sri Lankan king, Meghavanna (r. 362 -
409), to build the Mahabodhi Monastery at Vajrasana (modern Bodh Gaya), where the
Buddha attained enlightenment.
The White Huns ruled Gandhara and the western part of northern India for almost the entire
sixth century. Mihirakula's destruction of monasteries extended as far as Kaushambi, a short
distance to the west of modern-day Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. With the beginning of the
Second Gupta Period (late sixth century - 750), its emperors strove to repair the damage.
However, Xuanzang still found many monasteries to the west of Kaushambi in ruins when he
visited. Those in Magadha to the east, however, such as Nalanda and Mahabodhi, were still
flourishing.
Emperor Harsha (r. 606 - 647), the strongest Gupta patron of Buddhism, kept a thousand
monks from Nalanda at his imperial court. He venerated Buddhism to such a high degree that
he reportedly touched Xuanzang's feet in the traditional Hindu show of respect when he first
met with the Han Chinese monk.
In 647, Arjuna, an anti-Buddhist minister, overthrew Harsha and briefly usurped Gupta rule.
When he mistreated a visiting Han Chinese pilgrim, Wang Xuance (Wang Hsüan-tse), and had
most of his party robbed and killed, the monk, who was also an envoy of the Tang emperor,
Taizung (T'ai-tsung, r. 627-650), escaped to Nepal. There, he requested the help of the Tibetan
emperor, Songtsen-gampo, who, in 641, had married the Tang Emperor's daughter, Princess
Wencheng (Wen-ch'eng). With the help of his Nepali vassals, the Tibetan ruler overthrew
Arjuna and reestablished Gupta rule. Subsequently, Buddhism continued to enjoy a favored
status in northern India.
Kashmir and Nepal
In Kashmir and Nepal, as in northern India, Buddhism also flourished in primarily Hindu
states. Xuanzang reported that Buddhism in Kashmir had mostly recovered from Mihirakula's
persecution, especially with support from the founder of the currently new Karkota Dynasty
(630 - 856).
Nepal, on the other hand, had escaped White Hun rule. The rulers of the Licchavi Dynasty
(386 - 750) maintained unbroken support of Buddhism. In 643, the Tibetan emperor,
Songtsen-gampo, ousted Vishnagupta, a usurper to this dynasty, and restored King
Narendradeva, the pretender to the Nepali throne, who had been receiving asylum in Tibet.
This incident, however, had little impact on the state of Nepali Buddhism in the Kathmandu
Valley. Songtsen-gampo subsequently married Princess Bhrkuti, King Narendradeva's
daughter, cementing ties between the two countries.
Summary
Buddhism was found, then, in almost all parts of Central Asia when the Muslim Arabs arrived
in the middle of the seventh century. It was the strongest in Bactria, Kashmir, and the Tarim
Gangetic India 9
Basin, was popular but at a low level of understanding in Gandhara and Mongolia, had just
been introduced into Tibet, and was enjoying a recent revival in Sogdia. It was not, however,
the exclusive faith of the area. There were also Zoroastrians, Hindus, Nestorian Christians,
Jews, Manichaeans, and followers of shamanism, Tengrism, and other indigenous,
nonorganized systems of belief. Bordering Central Asia, Buddhism was strong in Han China,
Nepal, and northern India, where its adherents lived peacefully with Daoists, Confucianists,
Hindus, and Jains.
On the eve of the Muslim Arab arrival in Central Asia, the Turki Shahis ruled Gandhara and
Bactria, while the Western Turks controlled Sogdia and parts of northern West Turkistan. The
Tibetans held Gilgit and Kashgar, while Tang China controlled the rest of the Tarim Basin as
well as Mongolia. The Eastern Turks of Mongolia were temporarily held in abeyance during a
short interim period of Han Chinese rule.
2 Sogdia and Bactria on the Eve of the Umayyad Period
As Sogdia and Bactria were major areas to which the Arabs first spread Islam in Central Asia,
let us look more closely at the religious background of their people. This will help us
understand their initial response to the Muslim faith.
Zoroastrian Relations with Buddhism
The majority of the inhabitants of Sogdia and Bactria were Zoroastrian, while Buddhists,
Manichaeans, Nestorian Christians, and Jews formed significant minorities. Buddhism had
spread throughout the region during the Kushan rule from the end of the second century BCE
to 226 CE, but it never superseded Zoroastrianism in popularity. Buddhism was naturally the
weakest in Sogdia since it lay the furthest away from the Kushan centers of power in Kashmir,
Gandhara, Oddiyana, and Kabul.
The Persian Sassanids (226 - 637) ruled Sogdia, Bactria, Kashgar, and parts of Gandhara until
the White Huns took over the region at the start of the fifth century, causing them to retreat to
Iran. Although the Sassanids were a nationalistic, avidly pro-Zoroastrian dynasty, whose more
orthodox rulers severely persecuted any Zoroastrian sects they considered heresies, they were
mostly tolerant of other religions. They allowed them to keep their religions, provided each
adult male paid a graduated poll tax.
The only major exception to this trend was during the second half of the third century when
the Zoroastrian high priest, Kartir, directed the religious policy of the empire. With purist
fervor to eliminate all images of deities in the realm and have only the Zoroastrian sacred fire
as the focus of devotion, Kartir had ordered several Buddhist monasteries destroyed,
especially in Bactria. This was because the statues and wall paintings of Buddha in them
incorporated many Zoroastrian elements. For example, Buddhas were often depicted encircled
with a halo of flames and an accompanying inscription or graffiti scrawl labeling them as
"Buddha-Mazda." Bactrian Buddhism, then, would have appeared to the high priest as a
Zoroastrian heresy. Buddhism revived, however, after Kartir's persecution.
Zurvanism
Zurvanism was a Zoroastrian sect sometimes favored by certain Sassanid emperors and at
other times denounced by more orthodox rulers as a heresy to be eradicated. Although pockets
of Zurvanism were found throughout the Sassanid Empire, including even Zoroaster's
Summary 10
birthplace, Balkh, the main area toward which the Zurvanites gravitated was Sogdia. This was
perhaps due to its remoteness.
Sogdian Zurvanites were the Zoroastrian group most intolerant toward other religions -- far
more hostile than their fellow Zurvanites in Bactria. Their aggressive attitude was perhaps due
to defensiveness that arose from having been objects of prejudice in Iran, combined with
self-confidence that the concentration of their numbers in Sogdia provided. Their prejudice
had caused many Buddhist, Manichaean, and Nestorian Christian Sogdians to leave their
homeland and settle as merchants further east along the Silk Route in the city-states of the
Tarim Basin, particularly Turfan. As the Tokharians of Turfan were likewise an immigrant
community that had come from the West, the Sogdian refugees probably received a
sympathetic reception from them.
White Hun Rule and Its Aftermath in Sogdia
The White Huns who took over Sogdia from the Sassanids were, for the most part, staunch
supporters of Buddhism. They ruled not only the former Sassanid holdings of Central Asia,
but also parts of northern India, Kashmir and Khotan. As already noted, Faxian reported
Buddhism strong in Sogdia when he visited at the beginning of the fifth century. The majority
of the people there, however, were still Zurvanites, who probably did not appreciate the
Buddhist revival.
In 515, the White Hun king, Mihirakula, instituted a brief, but devastating persecution of
Buddhism. His troops are purported to have destroyed fourteen hundred monasteries. The
worst damage was in the Gandhari plains, Kashmir, and northwestern India, the centers of his
power. Mihirakula did not implement his policy in the more remote areas of his empire, such
as Swat. However, it undoubtedly affected some of them to a certain degree. The monasteries
of Samarkand, for example, were not destroyed, but were completely emptied of monks.
The local Zurvanites' antipathy toward Buddhism undoubtedly prevented the reopening of
these Sogdian monasteries. Their paranoia was perhaps fanned even more strongly by the
stringent reassertion of orthodox Zoroastrianism in Iran and the persecution of heretical sects
carried out shortly afterward by the Sassanid emperor, Khosrau I (r. 531 - 578). Thus, the
Western Turks found Buddhism weak in Sogdia in 560, and Xuanzang reported in 630 that the
monasteries of Samarkand were still closed and the local "Zoroastrian" community was
hostile toward Buddhism.
In Iran itself, Xuanzang reported three Buddhist monasteries left in former Parthia in the
northeast of the country. According to the eleventh century Muslim historian, al-Biruni, there
had previously been a large number all the way to the borders of Syria. The Sassanids had
apparently destroyed the rest.
Bactria
Xuanzang found Buddhism thriving in Bactria, especially at Nava Vihara Monastery at Balkh.
Although Balkh was the holiest city of Zoroastrianism and the majority of the inhabitants
were followers of that faith, including its Zurvanite sect, they were nevertheless tolerant of
Buddhism. Perhaps because they had far less Zurvanite refugees from Iran than did Sogdia,
they were less defensive of their religion. Living at the spiritual center of the Zoroastrian
world, they apparently did not feel threatened by the presence of a Buddhist monastic institute
of learning. This atmosphere, plus the fact that the high standard of education and scholarship
Zurvanism 11
at Nava Vihara attracted support and applicants for study from Buddhist communities
throughout Central Asia, guaranteed its continuing survival and flourishing despite any
damage it might have received during Mihirakula's brief persecution.
Gandhara
Although the first Arabs in Central Asia were unable to reach Gandhara, let us for the sake of
completeness analyze the state of Buddhism there as well. Xuanzang reported the Gandhari
monasteries to be functioning, but at a very low spiritual level. The Kabul region and the
Punjabi plains of Gandhara would have received the brunt of the damage from Mihirakula's
forces. The Buddhists there, especially in Gandhara, lived in a largely Hindu environment that
emphasized devotional practice, and which accepted Buddha as a Hindu god. With no great
centers of learning, it is no wonder that although the monasteries stayed open, they were
focused on the devotional needs of pilgrims and not on the study of Buddhism. In short, the
monasteries of Gandhara never fully recovered from Mihirakula's destruction.
Summary
With this as the background, we could predict that neither the Zurvanite majority nor the
Buddhist minority in Sogdia would have been initially receptive to Islam. The Zurvanites had
experienced being a small sect despised by the powerful orthodox Zoroastrians in Iran, and the
Buddhists of Sogdia had a similar experience at the hands of the Zurvanites. Thus, most of
them had no difficulty in accepting what came to them with Arab rule, namely protected
(Arab. dhimmi) status as second-class, non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state. Adapting the
Sassanid custom in Iran, the Arabs required each adult male to pay a graduated poll tax (Arab.
jizya) to maintain his religion. In Bactria, both the Zoroastrians and Buddhists were strong and
self-confident in their beliefs. They would continue them as well, despite the cost.
3 The First Encounter of the Muslims and Buddhist Asia
The Pre-Islamic Presence of Buddhism in North Africa and West Asia
India and West Asia have a long history of land and sea trade between them. Commercial
relations between India and Mesopotamia began as early as 3000 BCE and between India and
Egypt, through the intermediary ports of Yemen, from 1000 BCE. The Baveru Jataka, a
chapter from an early Buddhist collection of accounts of the previous lives of the Buddha,
refers to maritime trade with Babylon (Sanskrit: Baveru).
In 255 BCE, the Indian Mauryan emperor, Ashoka (r. 273 - 232 BCE), sent Buddhist monks
as ambassadors to establish relations with Antiochus II Theos of Syria and Western Asia,
Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt, Magas of Cyrene, Antigone Gonatas of Macedonia, and
Alexander of Corinth. Eventually, communities of Indian traders, both Hindu and Buddhist,
settled in some of the major sea and river ports of Asia Minor, the Arabian Peninsula and
Egypt. Indians of other occupations soon followed. The Syrian writer, Zenob Glak, wrote of
an Indian community, complete with its own religious temples, on the upper Euphrates River
in modern-day Turkey to the west of Lake Van in the second century BCE, and the Greek
ex-patriot, Dion Chrysostom (40 - 112 CE), wrote of a similar community in Alexandria. As
evidenced by archeological remains, other Buddhist settlements were south of Baghdad on the
lower Euphrates River at Kufah, on the eastern Iranian coast at Zir Rah and at the mouth of
the Gulf of Aden on the island of Socotra.
Bactria 12
With the decline of Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations in the middle of the first
millennium CE and the simultaneous curtailing of Byzantine shipping in the Red Sea, much of
the trade between India and the West came by sea to the Arabian Peninsula and then
proceeded by land through Arab intermediaries. Mecca, the birthplace of the Prophet
Muhammad (570 - 632 CE), became an important trade center where merchants met from the
East and the West. More Indian communities established themselves in the Arabian cultural
area. Among them, one of the most prominent were the Jats (Arab. Zut), many of whom
settled in Bahrain and at Ubla, near modern-day Basrah at the head of the Persian Gulf. The
Prophet's wife, Aisha, was once treated by a Jat physician. Thus, Muhammad was undeniably
familiar with Indian culture.
[View Map Four: Early Indian Settlements in West Asia and North Africa. {5}.]
As further evidence, the mid-twentieth century scholar, Hamid Abdul Qadir, in his Buddha the
Great: His Life and Philosophy (Arabic: Budha al-Akbar Hayatoh wa Falsaftoh), proposes
that the Prophet Dhu'l Kifl (The Man from Kifl), mentioned twice in the Quran as patient and
good, refers to Buddha, although most assert him to be Ezekiel. According to this theory,
"Kifl" is the Arabic rendition of "Kapilavastu," the Buddha's birthplace. This scholar also
suggests that the Quranic reference to the fig tree likewise refers to the Buddha who attained
enlightenment at the foot of one.
The Tarikh-i-Tabari, a tenth century reconstruction of the early history of Islam written in
Baghdad by al-Tabari (838 - 923), speaks of another group of Indians present in Arabia, the
Ahmaras or "Red-Clad People" from Sindh. These were undoubtedly saffron-robed Buddhist
monks. Three of them reportedly explained philosophical teachings to the Arabs during the
first few years of the Islamic era. Thus, at least some Arab leaders were aware of Buddhism
before they extended Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula.
The Establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate
After the Prophet passed away, Abu Bakr (r. 632 - 634) and then Umar I (r. 634 - 644) were
elected caliph, his worldly successor. During the reign of the latter, the Arabs conquered
Syria, Palestine, Egypt, part of North Africa and began their assault on Iran. A six-man
council then offered the caliphate to Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, but with
conditions he could not accept. The caliphate then passed to Uthman (r. 644 - 656), who
completed the overthrow of the Sassanids in Iran in 651 and established the Murjiah
movement within Islam. He decreed that non-Arabs could become Muslims if outwardly they
obeyed Sharia law and accepted the rule of the caliph. Only Allah, however, could judge their
inner piety.
Uthman was eventually assassinated by the faction that supported Ali. Civil war ensued in
which first Ali and then his eldest son, Hassan, were murdered after briefly holding the
caliphate. Mu'awaiya, the Prophet's brother-in-law and leader of the supporters of Uthman,
finally triumphed, declaring himself the first caliph (r. 661 - 680) of the Umayyad line (661 -
750). He shifted the capital from Mecca to Damascus, while the rival claim to the caliphate
fell upon Ali's younger son, Husayn. The earliest contacts between the Muslim Arabs and
Buddhists in Central Asia occurred shortly thereafter.
[View Map Five: Central Asia, Early Umayyad Period. {6}.]
The Pre-Islamic Presence of Buddhism in North Africa and West Asia 13

The Umayyad Attack on Bactria
In 663, the Arabs in Iran launched their first attack on Bactria. The invading forces captured
from the Turki Shahis the area around Balkh, including Nava Vihara Monastery, causing the
Turki Shahis to retreat southward to their stronghold in the Kabul Valley. Soon, the Arabs
were able to extend their control northward and make their first inroads into Sogdia by taking
Bukhara from the Western Turks.
The Arab military policy was to kill all who resisted, but to grant protected status to those who
submitted peacefully and to exact tribute from them in either money or goods. They
guaranteeed the latter arrangement through making a legal covenant (Arab. ' ahd) with any
city that submitted by treaty. Strictly following Islamic law that once given, a covenant or
contract is binding and cannot be retracted, the Arabs gained the trust of potential new
subjects so that there was less resistance to their takeover.
Religious policy followed the military one. Those who accepted Arab rule by treaty were
allowed to keep their religions by paying a poll tax. Those who resisted faced conversion to
Islam or the sword. Many, however, voluntarily accepted Islam. Many wished to avoid the
poll tax, while others, particularly merchants and artisans, saw additional economic
advantages that would come from conversion.
Although some Buddhists in Bactria and even an abbot of Nava Vihara converted to Islam,
most Buddhists in the region accepted protected status as loyal non-Muslim subjects within an
Islamic state and paid the poll tax for non-Muslims exacted upon them. Nava Vihara
Monastery remained open and functioning. The Han Chinese pilgrim Yijing (I-ching) visited
Nava Vihara around the turn of the eighth century and reported it flourishing.
An Umayyad Arab author, Omar ibn al-Azraq al-Kermani, wrote a detailed account of Nava
Vihara at the beginning of the eighth century, preserved in the tenth-century work Book of
Lands (Arabic: Kitab al-Buldan) by Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani. He described it in terms
readily understandable to Muslims by drawing the analogy with the Kaaba in Mecca. He
explained that the main temple had a square stone in the center, draped with cloth, that people
circumambulated. The square stone was undoubtedly referring to the platform upon which
was erected a stupa reliquary monument, commonly found in the center of Bactrian and
Tocharian temples. The cloth that draped it was in accordance with the Iranian custom for
showing veneration, applied equally to Buddha statues as well as stupas, and
circumambulation was the common Buddhist manner of worship. Nevertheless, al-Kermani's
description indicates an open and respectful attitude by the Umayyad Arabs in trying to
understand the non-Muslim religions, such as Buddhism, that they encountered in their newly
conquered territory
Previous Umayyad Experience with Non-Muslims in Iran
Prior to their invasion of Bactria, the Umayyads had conferred protected status and levied the
poll tax on their Zoroastrian, Nestorian Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist subjects in Iran. Some
local Arab officials, however, were less tolerant than others. Sometimes, protected subjects
had to wear special clothes or badges identifying their status and were further humiliated by
receiving a blow on the neck when they bowed in submission each time that they paid their
poll tax. Although protected subjects had freedom of worship, some severe officials forbade
them to build any new temples or churches. On the other hand, those who came for Friday
prayers at the mosques sometimes received a monetary reward. In later times, if any member
The Umayyad Attack on Bactria 14

of a non-Muslim family converted to Islam, he would inherit all that family's property. In
addition, more aggressive officials frequently took foreigners, especially Turks, as slaves, but
then offered them freedom if they converted.
The wish to avoid any such restrictions or humiliation and to receive financial or social
benefits naturally drove many to denounce their religion and accept the new faith. Thus, many
Zoroastrians in Iran eventually refused protected status and converted to Islam. It is unclear if
a similar situation developed among the Buddhists in Bactria and Bukhara, but it is not
unreasonable to assume that it did.
The process of converting to Islam was primarily an external affair at this time, in accordance
with the Murjiah custom. One had simply to proclaim one's acceptance of the primary articles
of Islamic faith and carry out the basic religious duties of praying five times each day, paying
the tax for relief of the Muslim poor, fasting during the month of Ramadan, and making
pilgrimage to Mecca once in one's life. Above all, one had to submit to Umayyad rule, for the
main point demanded was a change of political, rather that spiritual allegiance. Those who
broke the Sharia laws were tried in an Umayyad court and were punished, but still remained
officially Muslim citizens with all civil privileges. Only Allah could decide who was sincere
in their religious beliefs.
Such custom was tailored for winning subjects who would be faithful and obedient to Arab
rule. It naturally attracted those who would convert simply as a political, social, or economic
expedient, while internally maintaining belief in their own religions. The children and
grandchildren of such converts, however, growing up in the external framework of Islam,
became far more sincere than their parents and grandparents in accepting the new faith. In this
way, the Islamic population of Central Asia began gradually to grow in a nonviolent manner.
The Slow Advance of the Umayyids into Southern Sogdia
The Umayyad takeover of the rest of Sogdia was not a simple matter. Three other powers
were also vying to wrest control of the area from the Western Turks in order to gain control of
the lucrative Silk Route trade that passed through it. These were the Tibetans from Kashgar,
the Tang Chinese forces based in the rest of the Tarim Basin states, and eventually the Eastern
Turks from Mongolia. The ensuing struggle became very complex. It is not necessary to give
all the details. Let us simply summarize the important events during the second half of the
seventh century and the first decade of the eighth so that we might appreciate the competition
the Arabs faced.
[View Map Six: Power Struggles in Central Asia, End of the Seventh Century {7}.]
First, in 670, the Tibetans took from Tang China the rest of the Tarim Basin city-states,
starting with Khotan and several districts north of Kashgar. In face of a growing Tibetan
military threat, the Tang forces gradually withdrew to Turfan from the rest of the Tarim Basin
and the Tibetans filled the vacuum. The Tang army then skirted the Tibetans by crossing the
Tianshan Mountains from Turfan to Beshbaliq and, proceeding westward, establishing a
military presence in Suyab, northern West Turkistan, in 679. This was an exception, however,
to the general trend of decline in Tang China. In 682, the Turks in Mongolia revolted against
Tang rule and established the Second Eastern Turk Empire and, in 684, the Tang Dynasty
itself was overthrown by a coup. It was not restored until 705, and not stabilized until 713.
Previous Umayyad Experience with Non-Muslims in Iran 15

Meanwhile, the Arab hold on Bactria started to weaken. In 680, at the beginning of the short
reign of Caliph Yazid (r. 680 - 683), Ali's younger son Husayn led an unsuccessful rebellion
against the Umayyads in which he was killed at the Battle of Karbala in Iraq. This conflict
diverted the focus of the Caliphate's attention away from Central Asia. Subsequently, by the
end of Yazid's reign, the Umayyads lost control of most of the Bactrian city-states, but
maintained their hold on Bukhara in Sogdia. In later years, remembrance of the martyrdom of
Husayn helped crystallize the Shiite sect of Islam in counterpoint to the Sunni faction that
developed from the Murjiah movement of the Umayyad line.
The Tibetan emperor of the time was preoccupied with an internal power struggle with a rival
clan. Consequently, the Tibetans lost their strong grip on the Tarim Basin states in 692,
although they continued to maintain a presence there, especially along the southern rim. The
Han Chinese had a long tradition of trade relations with these states from their stronghold in
Turfan, which classical Chinese histories refer to as "tribute missions." Thus, although Tang
China now became the dominant foreign power in much of the Tarim Basin beyond Turfan,
this was on the basis of trade, not political or military control, particularly in the southern
states.
In 703, the Tibetans formed an alliance with the Eastern Turks against the Tang forces at the
eastern end of the Tarim Basin, but were unsuccessful in turning them out from Turfan. The
Western Turks also set themselves against the Tang troops, but on the western front, and
succeeded in ousting them from Suyab. The Western Turks then established the Turgish
Turks, one of their subtribes, as rulers over northern West Turkistan. The Turgish homeland
was the area around Suyab itself.
The Tibetans now allied themselves with the Turki Shahis of Gandhara and attempted, in 705,
to drive the already weakened Umayyad forces from Bactria. For the time being, the Arabs
were able to hold their ground. However, in 708, during the rule of Caliph al-Walid I (r.
705-715), the Turki Shahi prince, Nazaktar Khan, expelled the Umayyads from Bactria and
established a fanatic Buddhist rule for several years. He even beheaded the former abbot of
Nava Vihara who had converted to Islam.
Despite their loss of Bactria, the Umayyad forces continued to hold Bukhara in Sogdia.
Advancing from the north, the Turgish took control of the rest of Sogdia and expanded
beyond, taking Kashgar and Kucha in the western Tarim Basin. The Eastern Turks, another
Tibetan ally, then entered the power struggle for Sogdia and, coming through Dzungaria,
attacked the Turgish from the north, eventually capturing the Turgish homeland in Suyab.
With the attention of the Turgish focused on their northern front, the Umayyad troops took
advantage of the opportunity and, advancing from Bukhara, took Samarkand from the
southernmost stretches of the Turgish domain.
Summary
The Umayyad Arabs' initial hold on Bactria was not very strong and, consequently, their
advance into Sogdia was very slow. They lacked the strength to launch attacks at will, but had
to wait for moments of military distraction among the other major powers vying for Sogdia in
order to make any progress. They were certainly not engaged in a holy war trying to spread
Islam throughout Central Asia, but merely one of several power brokers struggling for
political and territorial gain. The Arab General Qutaiba built the first mosque of Sogdia in
Bukhara in 712. The fact that the next one was not built there until 771 indicates how slow the
spread of Islam in fact was.
The Slow Advance of the Umayyids into Southern Sogdia 16

4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent
The Situation of the East-West Trade Routes
The overland Silk Route from China to the West passed from East to West Turkistan, and on
through Sogdia and Iran to Byzantium and Europe. An alternative route passed from West
Turkistan through Bactria, the Kabul and Punjabi portions of Gandhara, then by ship down the
Indus River to Sindh, and on through the Arabian and Red Seas. From Gandhara, Chinese and
Central Asian trade also continued to northern India.
[View Map Seven: The Silk Route {8}.]
Buddhist monasteries dotted the Silk Route from China to the Sindh ports. They provided rest
facilities and capital loans for merchants. Further, they housed lay Buddhist artisans who cut
the semiprecious gems brought from China. The Buddhist merchants and artisans provided the
main financial support for the monasteries. Thus, commerce was essential for the welfare of
the Buddhist community.
Before the Arab conquest of Iran, the Sassanids ruling Iran exacted a high tariff on any goods
transported overland through their territory. Consequently, Byzantium favored trade via the
less costly sea route through Sindh to Ethiopia and then on by land. In 551, however, silk
worm cultivation was introduced to Byzantium and the demand for Chinese silk went down.
The Arab military campaigns in the seventh century further inhibited trade until the overland
commercial route through Iran could be secured. At the turn of the eighth century, the Han
Chinese pilgrim Yijing reported that the trade from China to Sindh was severely curtailed in
Central Asia due to incessant warfare among the Umayyads, Tang Chinese, Tibetans, Eastern
Turks, Turki Shahis, and Turgish. Consequently, Chinese goods and pilgrims traveled
primarily by sea via the Strait of Malacca and Sri Lanka. Thus, on the eve of the Umayyad
invasion, the Buddhist communities in Sindh were experiencing difficult times.
The Invasion of Sindh
Throughout the early years of their caliphate, the Umayyads had tried several times to invade
the Indian subcontinent. Undoubtedly, one of their main objectives was to gain control of the
trade route branch that ran down the Indus River valley to the seaports of Sindh. As they never
succeeded in wresting Gandhara from the hands of the Turki Shahis, they were never able to
pass through their territory to enter the subcontinent through the Khyber Pass. The only
alternative was to skirt Gandhara, take Sindh to its south, and attack Gandhara on two fronts.
[View Map Eight: Umayyad Campaigns against Sindh and Bactria {9}.]
The first two attempts to take Sindh were unsuccessful. However, in 711, at about the same
time as they took Samarkand, the Arabs finally achieved their aim. At that time, Hajjaj
bin-Yusuf Sakafi was the governor of the easternmost provinces of the Umayyad Empire,
which included modern-day eastern Iran, Baluchistan (Makran), and southern Afghanistan. He
decided to dispatch his nephew and son-in-law, General Muhammed bin-Qasim, with twenty
thousand troops, to launch a double-pronged invasion of Sindh by land and by sea. The initial
target was the coastal city of Debal, near present-day Karachi.
Sindh, at this time, had a mixed population of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. Xuanzang
reported more than four hundred Buddhist monasteries there with twenty-six thousand monks.
4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent 17

The Buddhists constitiuted the majority of the urban mercantile and artisan class, while the
Hindus were mostly rural farmers. The area was ruled by Chach, a Hindu brahmin with a rural
basis, who had usurped control of the government. He supported agriculture and was not
interested in protecting trade.
The Hindus had a warrior caste which, along with their political and religious leaders, fought
the huge Umayyad force. The Buddhists, on the other hand, lacking any martial tradition or
caste, and discontent with Chach's policies, were willing to avoid destruction and submit
peacefully. General bin-Qasim's troops won the victory, and reportedly massacred large
numbers of the local population, inflicting heavy damage on the city as punishment for their
stiff resistance. It is hard to know how exaggerated that report was. After all, the Arabs wished
to preserve a financially viable Sindh in order to increase and profit from the trade that passed
through it. Nevertheless, the Umayyads razed the main Hindu temple and erected a mosque on
its site.
The Umayyad forces then set out against Nirun near present-day Pakistani Hyderabad. The
Buddhist governor of the city surrendered voluntarily. However, to set a further example, the
triumphant Muslims constructed here as well a mosque on the site of the main Buddhist
monastery. They spared the rest of the town.
Both Buddhists and Hindus cooperated with the Arabs, although more Buddhists did than
Hindus. Thus, two-thirds of the Sindhi towns submitted peacefully to the invaders and made
treaty agreements. Those who resisted were attacked and punished; those who submitted or
cooperated gained security and freedom of religion.
The Occupation of Sindh
With the consent of Governor Hajjaj, General bin-Qasim now pursued a policy of tolerance.
The Buddhists and Hindus were given the status of protected subjects (dhimmi). So long as
they remained loyal to the Umayyad caliph and paid the poll tax, they were allowed to follow
their faiths and keep their land and property. Many Buddhist merchants and artisans, however,
voluntarily converted to Islam. As competition arose from Muslim quarters, they saw
economic advantage in changing religions and paying less tax. In addition to the poll tax,
dhimmi merchants had to pay double duty on all goods.
On the other hand, although the general had a certain interest in propagating Islam, this was
not his main concern. Of course, he welcomed conversion, but his primary preoccupation was
maintaining political power. He needed to raise as much wealth as possible to pay back Hajjaj
for the huge expense of his campaign and all the previous military failures.
The Arab general accomplished his aim not only by means of the poll, land, and trade taxes,
but also through a pilgrim tax that the Buddhists and Hindus had to pay to visit their own holy
shrines. Perhaps this indicates that the Buddhist monks of Sindh, like their counterparts in
Gandhara to the north, also had the degenerate custom at this time of charging pilgrims
admission to their temples and that the Umayyads merely took over the income. Thus, for the
most part, the Muslims did not destroy any further Buddhist or Hindu temples in Sindh, or the
images or relics enshrined within them, since they attracted pilgrims and generated revenue.
The Invasion of Sindh 18

The Expedition to Saurashtra
The largest center of Buddhist activity in western India at the time was at Valabhi, located on
the coast of eastern Saurashtra in present-day Gujarat. The region was ruled by the Maitraka
Dynasty (480 - 710) that had broken away from the First Gupta Empire during its final years
of decline before the White Hun takeover. According to Xuanzang, there were over a hundred
monasteries in the area with six thousand monks.
The greatest of these institutions was the Dudda Vihara Complex, a vast monastic university
where monks received a broad education that included not only Buddhist religious subjects,
but medicine and secular sciences as well. Many of its graduates went on to government
service under the Maitrakas. Its kings, in turn, granted the monasteries several villages each
for their support. The Han Chinese pilgrim Yijing visited Valabhi in the final years of
Maitraka rule and attested to its continuing greatness.
In 710, one year before the Umayyad invasion of Sindh, the Maitraka kingdom dissolved, with
the Rashtrakutas (710 - 775) taking charge of most of it. The new rulers continued their
predecessors' patronage of the Buddhist monasteries. The training programs at Dudda Vihara
were not disturbed.
Shortly thereafter, General bin-Qasim sent expeditions to Saurashtra, where his forces made
peaceful treaty settlements with the Rashtrakuta rulers. Sea trade from central India to
Byzantium and Europe passed through the Saurashtran ports. The Arabs wished to tax it as
well, especially if Indians tried to divert commerce there from Gandhara to avoid the Sindhi
ports.
The Muslim soldiers inflicted no damage on the Buddhist institutions of Valabhi at this time.
They continued to flourish and take in refugee monks displaced from Sindh. In the subsequent
years, many new monasteries were added at Valabhi to accommodate the influx.
Evaluation of the Sindhi Campaign
Umayyad destruction of Buddhist monasteries in Sindh seems to have been a rare and initial
event in their occupation. The conquering generals ordered it in order to punish or deter
opposition. It was not the rule. When, later, areas such as Saurashtra submitted peacefully, the
Umayyad forces left the monasteries alone. If the Muslim Arabs were intent on eliminating
Buddhism, they would not have left Valabhi untouched at this time. Thus, we may infer that
the acts of violence against the Buddhist monasteries were, for the most part, politically, not
religiously motivated. Of course, individual participants in the events may have had their own
personal motivations.
After spending only three years in Sindh, General bin-Qasim returned to Hajjaj's court,
leaving to his underlings the task of implementing his pragmatic policy of exploiting the
Buddhists' and Hindus' religious sentiment to generate revenue. Within a very short time of
his departure, however, the local Hindu rulers regained control of most of their territories,
leaving the Arabs in only a few of the major Sindhi cities.
The Umayyad Recapture of Bactria
In 715, Governor Hajjaj, encouraged by the success of his nephew in Sindh, sent General
Qutaiba to retake Bactria by attacking from northeastern Iran. The general was successful and
The Expedition to Saurashtra 19

proceeded to inflict heavy damage on Nava Vihara as punishment for the previous
insurrection. Many monks fled eastward to Kashmir and Khotan. The Karkota king,
Lalitaditya (r. 701 - 738), built many new monasteries in Kashmir, at the encouragement of
his Bactrian Buddhist minister, to accommodate the great influx of learned refugees. This
greatly boosted the level of Kashmiri Buddhism.
Nava Vihara quickly recovered and soon was functioning as before, indicating that the
Muslims' damaging of Buddhist monasteries in Bactria was not a religiously motivated act.
Had it been, they would not have allowed the rebuilding of such an institution.
After the Umayyad victory in Bactria over the Turki Shahis and their Tibetan allies, the
Tibetans changed sides and, for political expediency, allied themselves now with the Arabs.
Having failed in their other alliances to regain the East Turkistani oasis cities that they had
lost twenty-two years earlier, the Tibetans undoubtedly hoped that, with the Umayyads, they
could conquer the Silk Route and then share its control. Religious differences apparently
played no role when it came to expanding power and increasing the coffers of the state.
With the help of the Tibetans, General Qutaiba next took Ferghana from the Turgish, but was
killed in battle while preparing to launch a further expedition to conquer Kashgar from the
Turgish as well. The Arabs never found another opportunity to advance into East Turkistan.
First Attempts to Spread Islam
Despite the general trend of religious tolerance by previous Umayyad caliphs, Umar II (717 -
720) inaugurated a policy of spreading Islam by sending spiritual teachers (Arab. ulama) to
distant lands. His position, however, was rather weak and he could not enforce his policy
strictly. For example, the Caliph decreed that local chieftains could rule in Sindh only if they
converted to Islam. However, since the Umayyads had lost effective political control of Sindh
at the time, he was mostly ignored and did not force the issue. The Muslim converts lived in
harmony with the Sindhi Buddhists and Hindus, a pattern that continued even after the decline
of Umayyad rule. Pala Dynasty (750 - late twelfth century) inscriptions from northern India
during the subsequent centuries continue to refer to Buddhist monks from Sindh.
Umar II also decreed that all Umayyad allies should follow Islam. Thus, the Tibetan imperial
court sent an envoy requesting a teacher come to its land to preach the new faith. The Caliph
sent al-Salit bin-Abdullah al-Hanafi. The fact that this teacher had no recorded success in
gaining converts to Islam in Tibet demonstrates that the Umayyads were not insistent in their
attempt to spread their religion. In fact, Arab tribalism was far more important to the
Umayyads than establishing a multicultural Islamic society. Wherever they conquered in
Central Asia, they transplanted their religion and culture primarily for themselves.
There were other reasons as well why Tibet was not receptive to the Muslim teacher. These
had little to do with the doctrines of Islam itself. Let us look more closely at the political
background of this first encounter between Islam and Buddhism in Tibet.
5 Tibet on the Eve of the Arrival of the First Muslim Teacher
When al-Salit bin-Abdullah al-Hanafi arrived in Tibet, there were already two religious
traditions sponsored by the imperial court, so-called "Bon" and Buddhism. The former was the
native faith of Tibet, while the latter had been introduced by Tibet's first emperor,
Songtsen-gampo (r. 617 - 649). According to traditional Tibetan accounts, there was much
The Umayyad Recapture of Bactria 20

rivalry between the two. Modern scholarship, however, presents a more complex situation.
The Organized Bon Religion and the Native Tibetan Tradition
Bon did not become an organized religion until after the eleventh century, at which time it
shared many features in common with Buddhism. Before that, the pre-Buddhist native
tradition of Tibet, sometimes confusingly also called "Bon," consisted primarily of rituals for
supporting an imperial cult, such as elaborate sacrifices for imperial funerals and for the
signing of treaties. The tradition also included systems of divination, astrology, healing rituals
to placate harmful spirits, and herbal medicine.
In its historical literature, the organized Bon religion traces itself from Shenrab (gShen-rab), a
teacher from the fabled land of Olmo-lungring ('Ol-mo lung-ring) on the eastern edge of
Tagzig (sTag-gzig), who brought it to Zhang-zhung (Zhang-zhung) in the remote, distant past.
Zhang-zhung was an ancient kingdom with its capital in western Tibet near the sacred Mount
Kailash. Some modern Russian scholars, basing themselves on linguistic analysis, identify
Olmo-lungring with Elam in ancient western Iran and Tagzig with Tajik, referring to Bactria.
Accepting the Bon assertion that its Buddhist-like aspects predate Songtsen-gampo, these
scholars postulate that the original impetus for the system came from a Buddhist master from
Bactria visiting Zhang-zhung, perhaps via Khotan or Gilgit and Kashmir, some time during
the early first millennium CE. Zhang-zhung traditionally had close economic and cultural
relations with both these neighboring regions. Agreeing with the Bon account, they explain
that this master, once in Zhang-zhung, combined many Buddhist-like features with indigenous
ritual practices.
Other scholars see the Bon account of its source as a fourteenth-century interpolation that
amalgamates many factors. Olmo-lungring spreading Bon to its east would parallel Tibet
bringing Buddhism to Mongolia, and Tagzig, literally "The Land of Tigers and Leopards,"
would be a composite of the fierce land of the Mongols and, earlier, the Khitans.
"Tagzig" (pronounced "tazi" or "tazig"), however, was the Tibetan transliteration of the
Sanskrit term tayi, a name used for the non-Indic invaders in the Kalachakra literature. The
Sanskrit tayi, in turn, is a phonetic transcription of either the Arabic and Aramaic term tayy
(plural: tayayah, tayyaye) or the Modern Persian form of it, tazi. The Tayyayah were the
strongest of the pre-Muslim Arab tribes, the Tayy'id, and, consequently, "tayayah" was used in
Syriac and Hebrew as a generalized name for the Arabs from the first century CE. The
Modern Persian form tazi was the term used in reference to the Arab invaders of Iran, for
example, by the last Sassanid ruler, Yazdgird III (r. 632 - 651), a contemporary of Emperor
Songtsen-gampo.
It could be argued that Zhang-zhung derived the form tagzig from the Middle Persian "tazig,"
used in the early period of the Sassanid Empire (226 - 650), which extended over not only
Iran, but also Bactria. After all, the Sassanids were staunch Zoroastrians and Balkh, in Bactria,
was the birthplace of Zoroaster. Moreover, the Sassanids tolerated Buddhism in Bactria,
where it had been well-established for several centuries. Since early Bon has many features
that resemble Zoroastrian dualism as well as Buddhism, the Bon assertion that its
Buddhist-like aspects predate Emperor Songtsen-gampo and derive from Tagzig would seem
plausible.
It seems odd, however, that pre-Songtsen-gampo Zhang-zhung would have adopted the word
used by the Sassanids for Arabs for the lands that were ruled by the Sassanids. It is highly
5 Tibet on the Eve of the Arrival of the First Muslim Teacher 21

unlikely that Zhang-zhung used the name Tagzig −in reference to the Arabs themselves. After
all, the Arab Umayyads did not conquer Iran from the Sassanids until 651, Bactria until 663,
and Bukhara in Sogdia until a few years later. This was several decades after the conquest of
Zhang-zhung by Emperor Songtsen-gampo. Thus, if the name Tagzig was used in
pre-Songtsen-gampo Zhang-zhung and later borrowed into Tibetan, it could only have been
used to refer to Iranian cultural areas that were later ruled by the Arabs or in which the
Tibetans later fought the Arabs. This is unlikely.
More probable is that in the early eighth century, when the Tibetans did have contact with the
Arabs in Bactria and would have learned the name Tagzig for them, the Bon faction in the
Tibetan court borrowed the name and applied it in retrospect to the Bactrian area from which
their religion derived. Such a theory would not rule out the assertion that the Bon religion
derived from Bactrian sources.
[See: Historical Sketch of Buddhism and Islam in Afghanistan {10}.]
Moreover, if this theory of the origin of the name Tagzig were true, then its adoption into
Tibetan would have predated the usage of this term to translate the Sanskrit tayi in the
Sanskrit Kalachakra literature. The first translations of the Kalachakra literature from Sanskrit
into Tibetan were made only in the mid-eleventh century; while the first Tibetan translations
within that literature that contained the term Tagzig were introduced into Tibet only in 1064.
[View Map Nine: Early Tibet {11}.]
Songtsen-gampo's Relation with Zhang-zhung
Songtsen-gampo was the thirty-second ruler of Yarlung (Yar-klungs), a small kingdom in

central Tibet. In the course of expanding his territory and establishing a vast empire that
stretched from the borders of Bactria to those of Han China and from Nepal to the borders of
East Turkistan, he conquered Zhang-zhung. According to its historical records, Zhang-zhung
at one time also spanned the entire Tibetan plateau. At the time of its defeat, however, it
included only western Tibet.
Let us leave aside the issues of the furthest extent of Zhang-zhung's borders, the presence of
Buddhist-like features in Zhang-zhung at the height of its empire, and their possible origin.
Still, we can reasonably assume from evidence found in the tombs of the Yarlung kings
preceding Songtsen-gampo that at least the Zhang-zhung system of court rituals was common
to both the emperor's home region as well as to the land that he conquered in western Tibet.
Unlike Buddhism, the Zhang-zhung rituals were not a foreign system of practice and belief,
but an integral part of the pan-Tibetan heritage.
In order to stabilize political alliances and his own position of power, Songtsen-gampo
married princesses first from Zhang-zhung and then, late in his reign, from Tang China and
Nepal. After wedding the Zhang-zhung princess, he had her father, Lig-nyihya (Lig-myi-rhya),
the last Zhang-zhung king, assassinated. This allowed the focus of native ritual support of the
imperial cult to shift to himself and his rapidly expanding state.
The Introduction of Buddhism
Songtsen-gampo introduced Buddhism to Tibet through the influence of his Han Chinese and
Nepali wives. It did not take root, however, or spread to the general population at this time.
The Organized Bon Religion and the Native Tibetan Tradition 22

Some modern scholars question the historicity of the Nepali wife, but architectural evidence
from the period indicate at least a certain amount of cultural influence from Nepal at this time.
The main manifestation of the foreign faith was a set of thirteen Buddhist temples the
Emperor had built on specially chosen geomantic sites around his realm, including Bhutan.
With Tibet conceived as a demoness lying on her back and locations for the temples carefully
selected according to the rules of Chinese acupuncture applied to the body of the demoness,
Songtsen-gampo hoped to neutralize any opposition to his rule from local malevolent spirits.
Of the thirteen Buddhist temples, the major one was constructed eighty miles from the
imperial capital, at the site that later became known as "Lhasa" (Lha-sa, The Place of the
Gods). At the time, it was called "Rasa" (Ra-sa, The Place of the Goats). Western scholars
speculate that the Emperor was persuaded not to build the temple at the capital so as not to
offend the traditional gods. It is unclear who manned these Buddhist temples, but presumably
they were foreign monks. The first Tibetan monastics did not ordain until nearly a century and
a half later.
Although pious histories depict the Emperor as a paragon of the Buddhist faith and although
Buddhist rituals were undoubtedly performed for his benefit, they were not the exclusive form
of religious ceremony sponsored by the imperial court. Songtsen-gampo kept at his court
priests of the native tradition and their supporting nobility, and commissioned statues of
indigenous deities to be placed alongside Buddhist ones in the main temple in Rasa. Like his
predecessors, he and his successors were all buried in Yarlung according to pre-Buddhist,
ancient pan-Tibetan rites. Much like Chinggis Khan almost six centuries later, the Tibetan
Emperor welcomed not only his native tradition, but a foreign religion as well, namely
Buddhism, that could provide rituals to increase his power and benefit his empire.
Adaptation of the Khotanese Script
Further evidence of Songtsen-gampo's policy of using foreign invention to boost his political
power is his adoption of a written script for the Tibetan language. Taking advantage of
Zhang-zhung's long history of cultural and economic relations with Khotan, Gilgit, and
Kashmir, the Emperor sent a cultural mission, led by Tonmi Sambhota (Thon-mi sambhota) to
the region. In Kashmir, it met with the Khotanese master, Li Chin (Li Byin) -- Li, the Tibetan
word for Khotan, clearly indicates this master's country of origin. With his help, the mission
devised an alphabet for writing the Tibetan language based on the Khotanese adaptation of the
Indian Upright Gupta script. Tibetan historical accounts confuse the place of composition of
the new script with the place of origin of its model, and thus explain that written Tibetan is
based on the Kashmiri alphabet.
Modern Tibetan scholars have discovered that, prior to this development, Zhang-zhung
already had a written script and that this was the basis for the Tibetan cursive letters. The
model for the Zhang-zhung script, however, would also have been the Khotanese alphabet.
Songtsen-gampo purportedly used the new script for a translation he commissioned of a

Sanskrit Buddhist text that had reached Yarlung as a gift from India two centuries earlier. The
main translation activity at this time, however, was of Chinese astrological and both Chinese
and Indian medical texts, and this was quite limited. The Emperor employed the system of
writing primarily for sending secret military messages to his generals in the field. This
followed the Zhang-zhung custom of using coded written messages (Tib. lde'u) for such
purposes.
The Introduction of Buddhism 23

The So-Called "Bon" Opposition Faction
One faction in the Tibetan imperial court was against Songtsen-gampo's patronage and
reliance on Buddhism. They were undoubtedly behind his decision for not having the main
Buddhist temple built at the imperial capital or even in the Yarlung Valley. Later Tibetan
histories call them proponents of the "Bon" religion. For more than a century, including the
time of al-Salit's visit, they offered strong resistance to imperial policy. The Muslim cleric's
lack of success in Tibet must be understood within this context. But, who were these followers
of "Bon" who opposed Buddhism and, later, were no doubt responsible for the cool reception
to Islam? And what were the reasons for their hostility?
According to Tibetan scholars, the word bon means an incantation used to control spiritual
forces and refers to a twelve-part system that includes divination, astrology, healing rituals,
and herbal medicine.
Prior to the late eleventh century, Bon was not an organized religion. According to some
scholars, the Tibetan word bon was not even used yet, at that time, for the pre-Buddhist
indigenous system of beliefs and rituals that included the four traditional arts of divination,
astrology, healing rites, and herbal medicine. It was applied only to a specific faction in the
imperial court. Although this Bon faction included certain priests (Tib. gshen) of the native
tradition and specific nobility associated with them, the defining characteristic of the group
was not its religious belief, but primarily its political position. There were followers of the
native traditions of divination and so on both inside and outside the court, even including the
Emperor himself, who were not called "adherents of Bon." There were "Bon" nobility at the
court who did not necessarily rely on these four traditional arts. Not even every priest of the
native tradition was part of this faction. For instance, inside the court there were those who
performed rituals for supporting the imperial cult and, upon the Emperor's death, would
conduct the traditional imperial funeral rites. Outside the court, there were those who
performed divination or healing rituals to overcome harmful spirits. None of them were
considered "members of Bon."
The "Bon" group, then, was limited to an anti-imperial, conservative and, above all,
xenophobic faction of self-interested parties at court. They were an opposition faction that
wished to take power themselves. Being against the Emperor, they were naturally opposed to
anything that could boost imperial strength, particularly if it were a foreign invention. Thus,
the hostility of this faction toward foreign rituals and beliefs was not simply a manifestation of
religious intolerance, as later Tibetan Buddhist histories would imply. Although they might
have used religious grounds to justify their anti-Buddhist policy recommendations -- for
instance, a Buddhist presence would anger the traditional gods and bring disaster -- this does
not imply that they necessarily supported the entire native religious tradition. The "Bon"
faction, after all, did not include the priests who performed indigenous rituals to support the
Emperor.
The anti-Buddhist sentiment of the so-called "Bon" faction was also not a sign of
Zhang-zhung insurrection. The native priests and supporting aristocracy who formed the
opposition were undoubtedly from central Tibet, not outsiders from Zhang-zhung. The latter
was an occupied territory, not an integrated political district of the empire. It is unlikely that
its leaders would have served as trusted members of the imperial court.
In short, the so-called anti-Buddhist "Bon" faction that later contributed to rendering the visit
of the Muslim cleric insignificant was neither a religiously nor a regionally defined group. It
The So-Called "Bon" Opposition Faction 24

consisted of opponents to the imperial rule at Yarlung who were motivated by reasons of
power politics. They resisted and obstructed any foreign links that might strengthen the
Tibetan emperor's political position, weaken their own status, and offend their traditional
gods. Even after the death of Songtsen-gampo, the xenophobia of this faction continued to
grow.
The Reigns of the Following Two Tibetan Emperors
The foreboding of the xenophobic faction in the Tibetan court turned out to be well-founded
when, during the first years of the reign of the next Tibetan emperor, Mangsong-mangtsen
(Mang-srong mang-btsan, r. 649 - 676), Tang China invaded Tibet. The Han Chinese forces
reached as far as Rasa and caused great damage before they were finally repulsed and
defeated.
During the ensuing years of his rule, Mangsong-mangtsen was dominated by a powerful
minister from another faction who sought to expand the empire further. This minister
conquered Tuyuhun, a Buddhist kingdom to the northeast of Tibet that followed the
Khotanese style of Buddhism, and Kashgar, also within the Khotanese cultural sphere. In 670,
he conquered Khotan itself and took control of the rest of the oasis states of the Tarim Basin
other than Turfan. The Khotanese king fled to the Tang imperial court, where the Chinese
emperor offered him support, commending him for his resistance to the Tibetans.
According to Khotanese accounts, the Tibetans caused much destruction during the conquest
of the oasis state, including damaging Buddhist monasteries and shrines. Shortly afterward,
however, they repented their actions and took great interest in the Buddhist faith. This pious
account, however, may be an interpolation of the model of King Ashoka, who destroyed many
Buddhist temples and monuments before repenting and adopting Buddhism. Nevertheless,
some Western scholars trace Tibet's more serious involvement with Buddhism from this point.
If Buddhism had already been strong among the Tibetans, they would have honored, not
ravaged the Khotanese monasteries.
Adopting the Khotanese manner of rendering Buddhist technical vocabulary through an

etymology of each syllable, the Tibetans now began to import and translate a few select
Khotanese Buddhist texts. The cultural contact went both ways as scholars also translated an
Indian medical work into Khotanese that had previously been rendered from Sanskrit into
Tibetan. With the imperial court establishing such strong foreign links as these, the
apprehension of the xenophobic opposition once more began to grow.
A power struggle between the subsequent Tibetan emperor, Tri Dusong-mangjey (Khri
'Dus-srong mang-rje, r. 677 - 704), and this previous minister's clan seriously weakened the
Yarlung court. Tibet lost its military and political hold over the Tarim states, though
maintained a cultural presence in its southern oases. The Tibetan Empire, however, was still
ambitious. In 703, Tibet allied itself with the Eastern Turks against Tang China.
The Rule of Empresses
During this period, Chinese Empress Wu (r. 684 - 705) led a coup temporarily overthrowing
the Tang Dynasty by declaring that she was Maitreya, the future Buddha. The Tibetan queen
mother, Trima Lo (Khri-ma Lod), mother of Emperor Tri Dusong-mangjey, was from a
powerful clan in northeastern Tibet that had not only Khotanese Buddhist sympathies due to
Tuyuhun influence, but also close links with Tang China. She was in communication with
The Reigns of the Following Two Tibetan Emperors 25

Empress Wu, and when her son, the Tibetan emperor, died in 704, she deposed her own
grandson and ruled as empress dowager until her death in 712. She arranged with Empress
Wu for a Han Chinese princess, Jincheng (Chin-ch'eng), to come to Tibet as a bride for her
great-grandson, Mey-agtsom (Mes ag-tshoms), also known as Tri Detsugten (Khri
lDe-gtsug-brtan), who was a mere infant at the time. Princess Jincheng was a devout Buddhist
and brought a Han Chinese monk with her to teach the ladies at the Tibetan court.
The xenophobic faction of native priests and nobility became extremely agitated at this
development. Their influence at court was now challenged once more by Han Chinese
Buddhist monks as in the days of Songtsen-gampo. This time, however, the threat was more
serious since the foreigners were now present at the capital itself. With the supernatural forces
of this alien religion invited again to boost imperial power, they feared a reprisal by their
native gods as had manifested sixty years earlier with the Tang invasion of central Tibet. For
the moment, however, the "Bon" faction could only bide its time.
Empress Dowager Trima Lo, being friendly with the Chinese court, now turned Tibet's
military ambitions away from that direction and formed an alliance in 705 with the Turki
Shahis in Gandhara and Bactria, this time against the Umayyad Arabs. When the Empress
Dowager passed away in 712 and Mey-agtsom ascended the throne (r. 712 - 755), he was still
a minor. Empress Jincheng, like the late Empress Dowager, subsequently exerted a strong
influence on the Tibetan court.
The Tibetan-Umayyad Alliance
Meanwhile, the power struggle over West Turkistan continued. In 715, after the Arab general,
Qutaiba, had taken Bactria back from the Turki Shahis, Tibet switched sides and allied itself
with the Umayyad forces they had just been fighting. The Tibetan troops then helped the Arab
general take Ferghana from the Turgish and prepare for an advance against Turgish-held
Kashgar. The Tibetans' alliance with the Turki Shahis and then the Umayyads was
undoubtedly an expediency for keeping a foothold in Bactria with the hope of reestablishing
its military, economic, and political presence in the Tarim Basin. Tax from the lucrative Silk
Route trade was the ever-present lure for their actions.
One might be tempted to speculate that the prior Tibetan alliance with the Turki Shahis to
defend Bactria from the Umayyads was due to the so-called "Bon" faction identifying it with
Tagzig, the homeland of Bon, and wishing to prevent the desecration of its main monastery,
Nava Vihara. This conclusion, however, does not follow even if one were to allow its two
fallacious premises that Bon at this time was an organized religion and that the Bon faction
was a religiously defined group. Even if there might have been a Bactrian Buddhist origin to
some aspects of the Bon faith, the followers of Bon did not identify these features as Buddhist.
Later adherents of Bon, in fact, claimed that the Buddhists in Tibet had plagiarized many of
their teachings from them.
Therefore, the Bon faction in the Tibetan court was not leading a "holy war" in Bactria.
Furthermore, neither were the Buddhists, as is indicated by the fact that after the loss of
Bactria and the devastation of Nava Vihara, the Tibetans did not continue to defend Buddhism
in Bactria, but changed alliances and joined with the Muslim Arabs. The primary motivating
force behind the Tibetans' foreign policy was political and economic self-interest, not religion.
The Rule of Empresses 26

Analysis of the Muslim Mission to Tibet
In order not to displease its Umayyad allies and jeopardize their relationship, the Tibetan court
had agreed in 717 to invite a Muslim teacher at Caliph Umar II's insistence. However, it had
little to do with an actual interest in the doctrines of Islam. At best, Empress Jincheng might
have viewed it as Emperor Songtsen-gampo had originally regarded Buddhism, namely as
another source of supernatural power that might strengthen the imperial position. The
conservative priests and nobility at the Tibetan court, on the other hand, would have been
hostile toward the Arab cleric. They would have feared yet another foreign influence, the
rituals of which might further strengthen the imperial cult, weaken their own power, and invite
disaster upon Tibet.
The cool reception the Muslim teacher received in Tibet, then, was due primarily to the
general atmosphere of xenophobia spread by the opposition faction at the Tibetan court. It was
not an indication of an Islamic-Buddhist or Islamic-Bon religious conflict. For almost seventy
years, this faction's hostility had been directed toward Buddhism and it continued to be so
directed. To appreciate how their attitude toward Islam fit into this pattern of xenophobia, let
us look briefly at the events that followed in Tibet.
Refugee Monks from Khotan in Tibet
The Tang Dynasty had restored its rule in 705 with the abdication of Empress Wu. The
situation had not stabilized, however, until the reign of the Empress' grandson, Xuanzong
(Hsüan-tsung, r. 713 - 756). This powerful new emperor pursued an anti-Buddhist policy to
try to weaken support for his grandmother's movement. In 720, an anti-Buddhist sympathizer
of the Tang Emperor deposed the local Buddhist king of Khotan and took the throne. Much
religious persecution ensued and many Buddhists fled. Since a large influx of Bactrian monk
refugees had arrived in Khotan five years earlier due to the Umayyad damage of Nava Vihara,
it is not unreasonable to suspect that they would have been the first to flee Khotan, fearing a
repeat of their traumatic experience in Bactria.
In 725, Empress Jincheng arranged for refugee Buddhist monks from Khotan and Han China
to receive asylum in Tibet and had seven monasteries built for them, including one in Rasa.
This step made the xenophobic ministers at court even more frantic. When the Empress died
in 739 in a smallpox epidemic, they used the occasion to deport all foreign monks in the
country to Gandhara, ruled by Tibet's traditional Buddhist ally, the Turki Shahis. Convinced
that their gods had once more been offended and had taken retribution, the ministers declared
that the presence of the foreigners and their religious rites in Tibet had been the cause of the
widespread epidemic. Gandhara was a reasonable destination for the monks since the Turki
Shahis had also been the rulers of Bactria from which many of the monastics undoubtedly
hailed. A large number finally settled in the mountainous region of Baltistan to the north of
the Oddiyana portion of Gandhara.
The power of this xenophobic faction culminated sixteen years later when, in 755, they
assassinated Emperor Mey-agtsom for his strong leanings toward Tang China and Buddhism.
Four years earlier, the same year that the Tang forces were massively defeated and driven out
of West Turkistan, the Emperor had sent a Tibetan mission to Han China to learn more about
Buddhism. It was headed by Ba Sangshi (sBa Sang-shi), the son of a former Tibetan envoy to
the Tang court. When the Tang Emperor Xuanzong was deposed in a rebellion in 755, the
"Bon" faction was convinced that if they did not stop Mey-agtsom from continuing his folly
and, as a follow-up to this mission, from undoubtedly inviting more Han Chinese monks to the
Analysis of the Muslim Mission to Tibet 27

Tibetan court, not only would they lose power, but disaster to the country would surely follow
again as it just had to Tang China. Consequently, after having the Emperor murdered, they
instituted a six-year persecution of Buddhism in Tibet. Tibet's lack of receptiveness to Islam,
then, despite the invitation of a Muslim teacher by the imperial court, was yet another incident
in this history of Tibetan internal, politico-religious strife.
6 Further Umayyad Expansion in West Turkistan
The remainder of the Umayyad period over the ensuing years of the first half of the eighth
century saw a bewildering frequent change of alliances as even more powers entered the fray
for control of West Turkistan and the Silk Route. Through a review of the main events, it will
become obvious that the Umayyad Arabs were not fanatic religious extremists campaigning to
spread Islam to a sea of infidels, but merely one of many ambitious peoples fighting for
political and economic gain. All the powers, including the Umayyads, made and broke
alliances continually, not based on religion, but on pragmatic, military grounds.
The Shifting of Alliances and Control of Territories
By the middle of Umar II's reign (r. 717 - 720), the Umayyads controlled Bactria and the cities
of Bukhara, Samarkand, and Ferghana in Sogdia. The Tibetans were their allies. The Turgish
Turks held the rest of Sogdia, particularly Tashkent, as well as Kashgar and Kucha in the
western Tarim Basin. The Tang Chinese forces were in Turfan at the eastern end of the Tarim
Basin and in Beshbaliq across the Tianshan Mountains to Turfan's north. The Eastern Turks
held the rest of West Turkistan north of Sogdia, including Suyab, while the Tibetans
maintained a presence along the southern Tarim route. A Tang sympathizer, however, was on
the throne of Khotan. The Turki Shahis were confined to Gandhara. Except for the Umayyad
Arabs, all the other power brokers in Central Asia were supporters of Buddhism to varying
degrees. This seems, however, to have had no influence on the events that followed.
[View Map Ten: Central Asia, Approximately 720 CE {12}.]
Taking advantage of the death of the Umayyad General Qutaiba, the Tang forces were the first
to move. Setting out from their stronghold in Turfan and crossing East Turkistan north of the
Tianshan Mountains, they took Kucha and Kashgar from the Turgish, attacking from the rear.
Crossing the far western flank of the Tianshan into West Turkistan, they then captured Suyab
from the Eastern Turks, Ferghana from the Umayyads, and Tashkent also from the Turgish.
At this point, the Turgish reorganized themselves under a different leader and a new group of
Turks emerged on the scene, the Qarluqs (Kharlukh, Tib. Gar-log) in Dzungaria, who were
also patrons of Buddhism. The Qarluqs replaced the Eastern Turks in the territory of northern
West Turkistan beyond Tang-held Suyab and allied themselves with the Han Chinese. The
Turgish, in turn, joined the Arab-Tibetan alliance. The Turgish then recaptured their homeland
of Suyab and the Umayyads, in turn, took back Ferghana. Tashkent became temporarily
independent. The Tang forces were left holding only Kashgar and Kucha.
[View Map Eleven: Central Asia, Approximately 725 CE {13}.]
The Reassertion of Umayyad Rule in Sindh
In 724, the new Umayyad caliph, Hashim (r. 724 - 743), sent General Junaid south to reassert
control over Sindh. The Arab-led forces succeeded in Sindh, but failed in their attempt to take
Refugee Monks from Khotan in Tibet 28

Gujarat and West Punjab. As Governor of Sindh, General Junaid continued the previous
Umayyad policy of exacting both a poll tax on the Hindus and Buddhists as well as a tax on
pilgrims to the holy sites of both these religions.
Although the Hindu Pratihara rulers in West Punjab had the strength to drive the Umayyad
forces from Sindh, they refrained from such action. The Muslims had threatened to destroy the
major Hindu shrines and images if the Pratiharas attacked, and the latter considered the
preservation of their holy places more important than regaining control over traditional
territory. This is further indication that the Umayyad Arabs regarded the destruction of
non-Muslim religious sites as primarily acts of power politics.
Umayyad Loss and Regaining of Sogdia
Meanwhile, with their confidence boosted by the return of their homeland in Suyab, the
Turgish ended their short-term alliance with the Umayyads. Taking advantage of the
deployment in Sindh of the major part of the Arab forces, the Turgish turned on the
Umayyads, expelling them from Ferghana and nearby areas in Sogdia. The Tibetans followed
the Turgish lead and also switched sides. The new Turgish-Tibetan alliance then turned on the
Umayyads and, by 729, drove them from most of the rest of Sogdia and Bactria. The Arabs
were left holding only Samarkand.
The Umayyads then allied themselves temporarily with Tang China to counter the powerful
Turgish-Tibetan alliance. They defeated the Turgish at Suyab in 736. With the death of their
king two years later, the Turgish tribes broke up and became very weak. The Han Chinese
kept Suyab and continued their wars against the Tibetans, while the Umayyads moved back
into Bactria and the rest of Sogdia. This prompted the Tibetans to reactivate their traditional
alliance with the Turki Shahis by a visit of the Tibetan emperor to Kabul in 739 to celebrate a
marriage alliance between Kabul and Khotan.
The Tang court now began a policy of supporting dissidents in the Umayyad-held cities of
Sogdia. At one point, they even swept down from Suyab and pillaged Tashkent, which
previously they had briefly held. Sino-Arab relations became strained. The conflict, however,
was not based on religious grounds, but was purely politically motivated. Let us examine it
more closely.
[View Map Twelve: Central Asia, Approximately 740 CE {14}.]
Analysis of the Tang Attacks on Umayyad-Held Sogdia
By exploring some of the policies of Xuanzong, the Tang Chinese emperor at this time, we
can understand even more clearly that the late Umayyads were not aggressively seeking
converts to Islam and that the Tang Emperor's support of anti-Umayyad dissidents in Sogdia
was not due to a Buddhist antipathy toward Islam.
Two events set the stage for the Emperor's policies. Firstly, when Xuanzong's grandmother,
Empress Wu, had overthrown the Tang Dynasty by appealing to Buddhist millenarianism, she
had exempted all Buddhist monks from taxes in order to win their support. Secondly, soon
after the Emperor had ascended the throne, many Sogdians who had settled in Mongolia
flocked to Han China. The Emperor's responses to these two developments eventually led to
his actions in Sogdia.
The Reassertion of Umayyad Rule in Sindh 29

The Invitation of Sogdians to Mongolia and Their Subsequent Eviction
Although there had been Sogdian merchants along the Silk Route and in Han China for
centuries before, a large influx of Sogdian immigrants came to the area in the mid-sixth
century. Their influx was due to the religious suppressions of the Iranian Sassanid emperor,
Khosrau I (r. 531 - 578). During the First Eastern Turk Empire (553 - 630), these Sogdians
held a favored position with the Eastern Turks. Many were invited to Mongolia from their
community in Turfan and were instrumental in translating Buddhist texts into the Old Turk
language. The government used the Sogdian language and script for its financial business.
During the course of the Second Eastern Turk Period (682 - 744), however, the powerful
minister, Tonyuquq, steered its rulers on an anti-Buddhist course.
Tonyuquq blamed the Tang defeat of the First Eastern Turk Dynasty on the negative influence
of Buddhism on the Turks. Buddhism taught gentleness and nonviolence, which robbed the
Turks of their martial spirit. He called for a return to the traditional pan-Turkic cult of the
nomadic warrior, wishing to use its strong ethos to unite all Turkic tribes behind him and fight
the Han Chinese.
The Eastern Turks were the holders of Otukan (Turk. Ötukän), the Mongolian mountain
sacred to all Turks according to their pre-Buddhist Tengrian and shamanist religions.
Tonyuquq argued that the rulers he served were therefore morally obliged to uphold Turkic
culture and values. Associating the Sogdians with Buddhism and the Han Chinese, he
influenced Qapaghan Qaghan (r. 692 - 716) to drop the use of Sogdian and, for administrative
purposes, employ instead the Old Turk language written in a Runic-style script. As the
Sogdian population of Mongolia became increasingly unwelcome, they emigrated en masse to
northern China in 713, settling particularly in Chang'an (Ch'ang-an) and Loyang (Lo-yang),
the terminus cities of the Silk Route.
[View Map Thirteen: Sogdian Migrations {15}.]
The Manichaean Factor
The Sogdian community in Mongolia had not been exclusively Buddhist. The majority, in
fact, followed Manichaeism. This Iranian religion, founded in Babylon by Mani (217 - 276
CE), was an eclectic faith that adopted many features of the local beliefs that it encountered as
it spread. It had two major forms -- a western one in Asia Minor that accorded with
Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and a later eastern one along the Silk Route that adopted
strong Buddhist elements. Syriac and then Parthian were the official languages of the former,
while Sogdian played a similar role for the latter.
Manichaeism had a strong missionary movement and the Sogdian followers of its eastern
form, once in Han China, claimed it to be a form of Buddhism in order to win converts. They
introduced it in this fashion to Empress Wu at the Chinese imperial court in 694 and, after
their emigration from Mongolia, reintroduced it to the court in 719. This was after the
Buddhist millenarian usurpation by the Empress had been overthrown and Tang rule
restabilized. In 736, however, Emperor Xuanzong passed a decree forbidding Han Chinese
from following Manichaeism and restricting the religion to non-Han subjects and foreigners.
The reason given was that Manichaeism was a shallow imitation of Buddhism and was being
spread as an imposter faith on the basis of a lie.
The Invitation of Sogdians to Mongolia and Their Subsequent Eviction 30

The Tang Emperor, however, was not sympathetic to Buddhism, and this criticism was not
because of his wish to uphold the pure Buddhist teachings by cleansing it of heresy. There
were many Han Chinese who were dissatisfied with the Emperor's ambitious Central Asian
campaigns because of the consequently high demand on them for taxes and military service.
Xuanzong would have undoubtedly wished to avoid having a foreign, quasi-Buddhist religion
available for Han Chinese that could act as a rallying point for focusing their dissent and
possible rebellion.
The Emperor's grandmother had deposed the Tang line by appealing to the cult of Maitreya
Buddha. Since in Sogdian texts, Mani was frequently identified with Maitreya, and his
grandmother had been favorably disposed toward Manichaeism, fears of a similar millenarian
rebellion directed at him undoubtedly prompted the Emperor's move against the Iranian
religion.
Of the three religions of the Sogdian merchants in Han China -- Manichaeism, Nestorian
Christianity, and Buddhism -- the first was by far the most aggressively oriented toward
gaining converts. Several decades earlier, Arab and Iranian Muslim merchants had also started
traveling to Han China. They came primarily by sea, not overland via the Silk Route, and
settled in the coastal cities of southeastern China. A Muslim teacher, Sa'ad bin Ali wa Qas (d.
681), had even come with them. Yet, Xuanzong never issued a similar edict banning Han
Chinese from following Islam. In fact, no subsequent Chinese emperor, Buddhist or
otherwise, ever did either. They always followed a policy of religious tolerance toward Islam.
This indicates that even if the first Muslims in Han China were involved in trying to spread
their religion, this was not a major effort and never seen as a threat.
The Expulsion of Non-Han Buddhist Monastics from Tang China
As the years passed, the Tang Government became increasingly in need of funds to finance
the Emperor's ever more extensive campaigns in Central Asia. The tax-exempt status of the
Buddhist monasteries from the time of Empress Wu's usurpation seriously limited government
income. Therefore, in 740, Xuanzong turned his support even more strongly toward Daoism,
reimposed taxes on the Buddhist monasteries, and severely restricted the number of Han
Chinese monks and nuns in his realm. He also expelled all non-Han Buddhist monastics as an
unnecessary financial drain on the public.
Xuanzong's support of anti-Umayyad dissidents in Sogdia, then, was clearly politically and
economically motivated and had nothing to do with Islamic-Buddhist relations. The Emperor
was not even a Buddhist and his deportation of Sogdian monks from Han China was certainly
not a move to send them back to Sogdia to strengthen an anti-Islamic movement among
Sogdian Buddhists. He expelled monks of other non-Han nationalities as well, not only
Sogdians. Tang China was solely interested in gaining more territory in Central Asia at the
expense of the Umayyads and controlling more of the lucrative Silk Route trade.
Final Events of the Umayyad Period
The last major event of the Umayyad period significant for future relations between Islam and
Buddhism in Central Asia occurred in 744. The Uighur (Uyghur) Turks lived originally in the
mountains of northwestern Mongolia, with some of their tribes wandering as far as the
Tocharian-ruled Turfan region to the south and the Lake Baikal area of Siberia to the
northeast. They were traditional allies of the Han Chinese against the Eastern Turks who
controlled the Mongolian areas sandwiched between them.
The Manichaean Factor 31

[View Map Fourteen: Turkic Tribes, End of the Umayyad Period {16}.]
In 605, as the first Han Chinese moved into the Tarim Basin in more than four centuries, the
Sui Chinese emperor, Wendi (Wen-ti), had helped the Uighurs conquer Turfan, the center of
Old Turk Buddhism. The Uighurs quickly adopted the Buddhist faith, especially in light of
Wendi having declaring himself a Buddhist universal emperor. In 629, one of the first Uighur
princes took the Buddhist name "Bodhisattva," a title also used by Eastern Turk religious
rulers. In the 630s, Tang China took Turfan from the Uighurs, but the latter still helped the
Han Chinese put an end to the First Eastern Turk Dynasty shortly thereafter.
A half century later, the Second Eastern Turk Dynasty conquered the Uighur homeland with
its aggressively pan-Turkic military policy. However, in 716, shortly after the Sogdians had
fled Mongolia, the Uighurs won their independence. Subsequently, they continued to help
their Han Chinese allies harass the Eastern Turks. Now, in 744, with the help of the Qarluqs in
Dzungaria and northern West Turkistan, the Uighurs attacked and defeated the Eastern Turks
and established their own Orkhon Empire in Mongolia.
The Oghuz tribe of Eastern Turks, known as the Turks of White Dress, migrated at this point
from modern-day Inner Mongolia to the northeastern corner of Sogdia, near Ferghana. They
soon played an important role in the complicated developments in Sogdia at the beginning of
the Abbasid period. Furthermore, once in power, the Uighurs frequently fought with their
vassals, the Qarluqs. The Uighurs and Qarluqs now inherited the roles of rival leaders of the
eastern and western branches of the Turkic tribes. The Uighurs were in the ascendency,
however, since they controlled Otukan, the Turks' sacred mountain in central Mongolia near
the Orkhon capital, Ordubaliq. The rivalry of these two Turkic people also set the stage for
future developments.
Thus, the Umayyad era ended in 750 with the Arabs having lost and regained Bactria and
Sogdia yet again. Their hold on the region was still precarious and their relations with the
Buddhists, both among their subjects and their everchanging allies and enemies, was still
mostly based on political, military, and economic expediencies as before.
Part II: The Early Abbasid Period (750 - Mid-Ninth

Century CE)
7 The Rise of the Abbasids and Decline of Tang China
The Regional Context
Before discussing historical developments during the early Abbasid caliphate, let us briefly
review the political situation in Central Asia just before the dawn of this period. The
Umayyads ruled Sogdia and Bactria, while the Tang Chinese army occupied the region to the
north and west, in Suyab, Kashgar, and Kucha, threatening invasion. The Tang forces also
held Turfan and Beshbaliq. The Oghuz Turks of White Dress had newly migrated from
southern Mongolia to a remote northeastern corner of Sogdia. The rest of northern West
Turkistan and Dzungaria were held by the Qarluqs, and Mongolia was newly under the control
of the Uighurs.
Tang China and the Uighurs were allies. The Tibetans were in a weak position, but maintained
a presence in the southern Tarim states, although the Khotanese king favored the Tang court.
Final Events of the Umayyad Period 32

The former Tibetan allies, the Turgish, had been virtually eliminated. The only confederates
left to the Tibetans were the Turki Shahis in Gandhara, nominally allied by marriage to
Khotan.
[View Map Fifteen: Central Asia, Eve of the Abbasid Period {17}.]
The Founding of the Abbasid Caliphate
Although the two main Islamic sects, Sunni and Shia, did not formally crystallize until the
eleventh century, for ease of discussion let us speak of their forerunners with these terms. The
Murjiah movement, upheld by the Umayyads, was the forerunner of Sunni. It supported the
caliphate line of succession from the Prophet's brother-in-law, Mu'awaiya, the first Umayyad
caliph. Shia evolved from the opposition faction, which claimed that legitimacy of succession
traced from the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, Ali. Since the majority of Arabs supported
the Umayyads and thus Sunni Islam, most non-Arab Muslims favored Shia.
The Umayyad caliphs were Arabs coming from the Arabian Peninsula. They favored Arabs in
all respects, far more than Muslims in general. They forbade Non-Arab Muslim troops, for
example, from sharing in booty gained from victory in battle. Non-Muslim Arabs, on the other
hand, such as Christians or Jews from Arabia, were preeminently trusted over non-Arab
Muslims. Some were even appointed as governors of non-Arab regions within the caliphate.
This partisan policy caused huge resentment, especially among Iranian Muslims who
considered themselves culturally superior to the Arabs.
Abu Muslim was a Bactrian convert to Shia Islam from Balkh. He became an associate of Abu
l'Abbas, an Arab descendent of Abbas, an uncle of the Prophet, while both were imprisoned in
Bactria (Khorasan) for anti-Umayyad activities. Drawing upon Iranian and Central Asian
dissatisfaction and alienation, Abu Muslim later led a rebellion that overthrew the Umayyads
in 750. After conquering Damascus, the Umayyad capital, he proclaimed Abu l'Abbas, also
known as as-Saffah (r. 750 - 754), the first caliph of the Abbasid line. As a reward, as-Saffah
appointed Abu Muslim governor of Bactria. The Abbasid Caliphate lasted until 1258, but
ruled Bactria and Sogdia only until the mid-ninth century.
Since the Abbasid caliphs were Arabs from an Iranian cultural area, the Iranian and Central
Asian Muslims initially supported their usurpation of power. Thinking that the Abbasids were
distant enough from Arabia not to have the same racial prejudice as the Umayyads had, they
hoped the new dynasty would no longer treat them as second-class citizens.
The Defeat of Tang China and the An Lushan Rebellion
In 751, Abu l'Abbas joined forces with the Qarluqs and turned against the Tang Chinese
forces that were menacing both of them. They defeated the Tang army at the Talas River in
present-day southern Kazakhstan, decisively ending Han Chinese presence in West Turkistan.
This marked the turning of the tide, after which Han Chinese occupation and rule of East
Turkistan gradually dwindled and ended as well.
The Tang defeat and the heavy cost of all Emperor Xuanzong's seemingly fruitless campaigns
in Central Asia finally became too overwhelming for the Chinese population to bear any
longer. In 755, An Lushan (An Lu-shan), the son of a Sogdian soldier in Tang service and an
Eastern Turk mother, led a popular revolt in the Tang capital, Chang'an. Although the
Emperor recalled many of his troops from Kashgar, Kucha, Beshbaliq, and Turfan, leaving
The Regional Context 33

behind only a skeletal force, and received military assistance from the king of Khotan, he was
unable to quash the rebellion. He was forced to flee in humiliation to the mountains of
Sichuan. The Tang forces finally succeeded only by turning to the Uighurs in Mongolia for
rescue.
While fighting the rebels in Chang'an and Loyang, the Uighurs pillaged and practically
destroyed both cities, including the many Buddhist temples and monasteries found in each.
Nevertheless, as a result of contact with the Sogdian merchant communities there, Bogu
Qaghan, the Uighur emperor, adopted the Manichaean faith held by most of these merchants.
He subsequently declared it the state religion of the Uighur nation in 762. Although An
Lushan was half Sogdian, apparently the rebels were mostly Han Chinese and not from among
the non-Han community. Otherwise Bogu Qaghan would have been fighting against the
Sogdians as well and would therefore not have been receptive to their religion.
Over the course of several centuries, the Uighurs changed their state religion from shamanism
first to Buddhism, then Manichaeism, and then back to Buddhism before finally converting to
Islam. The Eastern Turks before them had exchanged shamanism for Buddhism and then
reverted to shamanism. Let us examine some possible reasons for these changes of religion
among these two Turkic peoples. It may help us to understand better the mechanics behind the
later conversion of most Turkic tribes from Buddhism or shamanism to Islam.
8 The Religious Conversions of the Eastern Turks
First Contacts with Buddhism
After the fall of the Han Dynasty in 220 CE, Buddhism became strong in northern China,
which was fragmented and ruled by a succession of non-Han Chinese people and states. The
greatest patron of Buddhism among them was the Toba Northern Wei Dynasty (386 - 535),
which spanned Inner Mongolia and northern Han China.
[View Map Sixteen: Early Mongolia {18}.]
The Old Turks, the earliest recorded group to have spoken a Turkic language, emerged on the
pages of history as a class of metalworkers living in the cities of the Toba realm. Their origin,
however, was undoubtedly as a nomadic tribe from the steppes to the north since their sacred
mountain, Otukan, was located in central Mongolia on the other side of the Gobi Desert from
Toba-held lands.
The Old Turks followed a religious tradition that blended shamanism with what Western
scholars have named "Tengrism," a faith worshiping Heaven (Turk. Tengri) as the supreme
God and venerating certain mountains as seats of power. Tengrism was never an organized
religion and appeared in several forms among almost all the peoples of the Central Asian
steppes -- Turk, Mongol, and Tangut alike. In its Turkic form, it supported the Turkic social
structure, which was built on the basis of a hierarchy of tribes. One tribe is dominant and its
chief is the source of a hereditary line of rulers for all.
The Turkic form of Tengrism, then, regards any Turkic chief controlling Otukan as supreme
ruler (Turk. qaghan) of all Turkic tribes and embodiment of society's fortune. If Turkic
society's fortune declined, the qaghan was accountable and could even be sacrificed. His son
would then succeed to his position.
The Defeat of Tang China and the An Lushan Rebellion 34

With such a belief system, the Turks first encountered Buddhism in the Toba cities. This was
specifically in its northern Chinese form emphasizing devotion by the public and subservience
of religious clerics to the state. This social style of Buddhism fit comfortably with Turkic
Tengrian ideas of tribal hierarchy.
Dissatisfied with Toba rule, the majority of Turks moved west to Gansu, under the dominion
of the Ruanruan state (400 - 551). The Ruanruans ruled the deserts, grasslands, and forest
regions from Kucha to the borders of Korea, including a large part of Mongolia. As the
Ruanruan gradually adopted the Tocharian and Khotanese forms of Buddhism found in the
East Turkistani oasis cities they controlled and spread it throughout their realm, the Old Turks
met with this Iranian-influenced form of Buddhism as well. In a Zoroastrian milieu, Buddha
became a "king of kings," a "god of gods."
Bumin Khan overthrew the Ruanruan in 551. Assuming the guardianship of Mount Otukan, he
declared himself qaghan and established the Old Turk Empire. Two years later, it split into an
eastern and western division.
The First Eastern Turk Empire (553 - 630), founded by his son, Muhan Qaghan (553 - 571)
and centered in Mongolia, inherited the Turkic spiritual legacy of shamanism and Tengrism.
As this religious tradition lacked an organized structure, it was weak in providing a unifying
force for building a new nation. Looking to the Ruanruan and Toba Wei states for models, the
Qaghan realized that Buddhism was capable of the task. Therefore, as the Turks were already
acquainted with the northern Chinese and Tocharian/Khotanese forms of Buddhism, the
Qaghan was keen to establish more contact with this faith and fit it into the envelope of
traditional Turkic belief. Just as Buddhist monks prayed for the welfare of northern Chinese
Buddhist states, they could do the same for the Eastern Turk Empire. Moreover, just as
Buddha's entourage had expanded to include all Zoroastrian gods, with Buddha as their king,
it could further enlarge to accommodate the multitude of Turkic gods (tengri) as well.
After the breakup of the Northern Wei Empire, its smaller successor states continued its
patronage of northern Chinese Buddhism. Two of them, the Northern Qi (Ch'i) (550 - 577)
and the Northern Zhou (Chou) (557 - 581), became tributary states of the Eastern Turks. As a
sign of friendship, the Northern Qi minister built a northern Chinese-style Buddhist temple for
the six thousand Turks still living in Chang'an. Muhan Qaghan gladly reciprocated the gesture
by inviting several Han Chinese monks north to his stronghold in Mongolia to instruct his
people.
The Adoption of the Sogdian Language for Secular Use
As successors to the Ruanruan, the Eastern Turks ruled the Tocharian oasis of Turfan. Many
previous ethnic groups of nomadic peoples from the Mongolian steppes or the desert fringes,
such as the Toba Wei, had adopted Han Chinese culture and then lost their identity. Aware of
this precedent, Muhan Qaghan wished to avoid this happening to his people as well.
Therefore, soon after establishing his Eastern Turk Empire, he turned to the Sogdian merchant
community of Turfan to provide it with a non-Chinese written language for administrative and
financial purposes.
The Qaghan chose Sogdian, as it was the only Central Asian language of the Tarim Basin at
the time to have a written form. Its use was limited to the secular sphere, originally business,
and was found not only in Turfan, but also all along the Silk Route. Local tongues, such as
Tocharian and Khotanese, were still strictly oral at that time.
First Contacts with Buddhism 35

Religious Persecution in Han China and Sogdia
Between 574 and 579, during the reign of the second Eastern Turk qaghan, Tapar (r. 572 -
581), the Northern Qi and Northern Zhou tributary states of the Eastern Turk Empire instituted
a persecution of Buddhism. It was primarily due to the influence of Daoist ministers jealous of
government support of the monasteries. Many more Han Chinese monks and four visiting
Gandhari Buddhist translators from Kabul, led by Jinagupta (528 - 605), fled from Chang'an
to the Eastern Turk court. There, they joined ten Han Chinese monks who had just returned
from India with 260 Buddhist texts for translation and who, like them, were also receiving
asylum.
At approximately the same time as this development in northern Han China, the Sassanid
emperor, Khosrau I (r. 531 - 578), was severely persecuting Manichaeism and what he
considered heretical Zoroastrian sects in Iran and Sogdia. This caused a new wave of
migration of religious refugees to the oasis cities of East Turkistan. Due to the efforts of the
Manichaean missionary, Mar Shad Ohrmizd (d. 600), who accompanied the immigrants, the
Sogdians -- especially in Turfan -- began for the first time to translate Manichaean texts into
their language from the original Parthian and Syriac versions used in their homeland. They
most likely took this step because they were convinced of the necessity for their religious
community to be independent of the vicissitudes of politics at home and to become
self-sufficient.
The First Written Translations of Buddhist Texts into Tocharian
In East Turkistan up until this time, Buddhist texts were written, studied, and chanted
primarily in the original Indian languages of Sanskrit or Gandhari Prakrit, or sometimes in
Chinese translation. There is no evidence of Buddhist scriptures having even been translated
into Central Asian languages up to this point, let alone committed to writing. The first signs of
such activity appeared only now in the mid-sixth century.
The earliest written Tocharian documents date from this period and are translations of
Buddhist texts from Sanskrit into the Turfanese dialect. Perhaps the Tocharian Buddhists of
Turfan were inspired by the Manichaean Sogdians in their midst to take this step, also to
ensure their independent and individual cultural identity. Although earlier Tocharian Buddhist
masters, such as Kumarajiva (344 - 413), had actively participated in translating Indian texts
into Chinese, the Tocharians had continued to maintain their own form of Buddhism based on
the Sanskrit scriptures. Because they viewed the oases along the northern rim of the Tarim
Basin as their homeland and had no contact with their original European roots, and because
their cities had been ruled by a succession of foreign dynasties, the issue of maintaining an
independent cultural identity would have been important to them. The persecution of
Buddhism in Han China undoubtedly added weight to their decision to write down their
language and translate their scriptures.
The Sogdian Forgoing of Translating Buddhist Texts into Their Own Language
at This Time
The Sogdian Buddhist community of Turfan, however, did not follow the Sogdian
Manichaean or Tocharian Buddhist example of translating their scriptures into their language
and committing them to writing. They did not take this move for another century for a
complex of possible reasons. Let us postulate some of them.
Religious Persecution in Han China and Sogdia 36

Firstly, the Sogdians of East Turkistan were merchants and traders and, unlike the Tocharians,
probably did not feel any particular allegiance to the city-states in which they lived. They
never regarded them as their homeland, but looked instead to Sogdia. Establishing an
individual identity, then, for an occupied homeland in which they were now living was not so
pertinent to them.
Secondly, the expatriot Sogdian community in East Turkistan was multireligious. They were
unified by their occupation and written language used for their trade. Unlike the Tocharians,
they did not need to use religion for this purpose. Furthermore, unlike the Manichaean
Sogdians who had no direction to turn to for religious support other than Sogdia and the rest
of the Sassanid Empire, the Sogdian Buddhists of Turfan could look toward Han China. They
seemed not to be particularly attached, then, to the language of their religious texts. They
seemed to have felt equally at ease with the Sanskrit and Gandhari Prakrit versions used in
their homeland, as well as the Chinese translations they had also helped to prepare. Despite
the persecution of Buddhism in Han China and unstable religious situation in Sogdia, they
apparently did not see any reason to translate their texts into their own language at this time.
If the Sogdian Buddhists of East Turkistan wished to take distance from the religious
insecurity in their homeland, they could use more Chinese in their religious practice. Their
Manichaean brethren, on the other hand, when faced with a similar situation, had no choice
but to establish their own tradition in their own native tongue. In using Chinese for religious
purposes, the Sogdian Buddhists apparently did not feel their cultural identity threatened,
since that identity was based on factors from their secular life. In fact, the trend of the Sogdian
Buddhists in East Turkistan to rely more strongly on the Chinese language and tradition in
their religious lives quite likely received impetus from the wave of Manichaean Sogdian
refugees into their midst. The newcomers also rejected the religious languages of their birth.
The Translation of Buddhist Texts into Old Turk
Tapar Qaghan, however, had different priorities from the Sogdians. As ruler of a newly
established empire, he did not wish his subjects, the Eastern Turk people, to rely on the
Chinese language in any way. His predecessor had followed the policy of using a foreign
tongue in the secular sphere by adopting both the Sogdian language and the Sogdian script. As
the Sogdians did not have their own state, there was nothing threatening in this move. With an
influx of Han Chinese refugee monks into his realm, however, Tapar now felt the pressing
need to establish an identity for his people independent from the Han Chinese in the religious
sphere as well. He therefore chose a blend of the Indian, northern Chinese, and
Tocharian/Khotanese forms of Buddhism, expanded to include Tengrian aspects. The
persecution of Buddhism in northern China was reminiscent enough of the persecution of
Manichaeism in Sogdia to convince him to follow the Tocharian Buddhist and Manichaean
Sogdian examples in Turfan. He therefore established a translation bureau in his capital in
Mongolia to render Buddhist texts into a uniquely Central Asian form.
To be consistent with the secular sphere and establish a unified high culture for his people, the
Qaghan wished to use Sogdian for religious purposes as well. However, Buddhist texts in the
Sogdian language did not exist at the time. The Sogdians were increasingly relying on the
Chinese versions for their own personal use. If the Qaghan could not have Buddhist texts in
the Sogdian language and if using the new Tocharian translations would only lead to the
further complication of his people having to learn yet another foreign tongue, the only feasible
solution for establishing cultural unity was to have Buddhist texts in the Old Turk language,
but written in the Sogdian secular script. Therefore, he invited more Sogdians to Mongolia
The Sogdian Forgoing of Translating Buddhist Texts into Their Own Languageat This Time 37
and asked them to adapt their alphabet to the specific needs of the project and help the refugee
Han Chinese monks at the translation bureau accomplish this task.
The Gandhari master, Jinagupta, who had come with the Han Chinese and initially headed the
bureau, could easily appreciate the Qaghan's decision, having previously had long experience
in Khotan and thus not being attached to strict Han Chinese forms. The Old Turk translations,
then, blended Indian, northern Chinese and Tocharian/Khotanese Buddhist elements with
aspects of Tengrism, as the Qaghan had wished. The project was so successful, Buddhism
soon became popular among ordinary people and even the soldiers of the Eastern Turk realm.
Analysis and Summary
A common feature of Central Asian history is founders of new dynasties adopting a

well-established, well-organized foreign religion as the official state creed in order to unify
their people. This most frequently happened when their native religious traditions either were
totally decentralized or were headed by influential conservative factions opposed to the new
rule. The foreign power whose religion they adopted, however, could not be too strong,
otherwise the new dynasty faced the threat of losing its identity and independence.
The Eastern Turks thus turned to the Sogdians, and not to the Han Chinese, to help them unify
their empire. Another reason for this choice was undoubtedly that the urban Sogdian
merchants had explained to the nomadic Turks of the steppes the significance of the Silk
Route territory they had conquered and had convinced them of its importance. The Turk rulers
quickly realized that integration with the Sogdians would be of great economic benefit to
themselves.
Furthermore, although the main religion of the Sogdians was Manichaeism, not Buddhism, the
Eastern Turks turned to the latter, not the former, as their unifying religion. This was probably
because, despite the temporary setback of Buddhism in northern Han China during the 570s,
Buddhism was the strongest religion of the area at the time.
The wisdom of the Eastern Turk choice of new religions was reinforced when, in 589, Wendi
(Wen-ti), the founder of the Sui (Sui) Dynasty, succeeded in reunifying Han China by rallying
victory behind the banner of Buddhism. The Indian religion had thereby demonstrated its
supernatural power in fortifying yet another new dynastic house. The Turks' wisdom in
deciding to practice this religion in their own language and in the Sogdian script was likewise
reconfirmed as they managed not to be consumed in the Sui military rally across northern Han
China.
When Tonyuquq convinced the Second Eastern Turk qaghans more than a hundred years later
to drop Buddhism and return to the customs and practices of Tengrism and the Turkic
shamanic tradition, the main reason was that Buddhism had proved itself weak by permitting
Tang China to end the First Eastern Turk Dynasty in the 630s. Success in providing
transcendental power for military and political gain, then, appears to have been the main
criterion used by the Turks and by other later Turkic and Mongolian peoples for choosing a
religion.
9 The Religious Conversions of the Uighurs
The Translation of Buddhist Texts into Old Turk 38

The Initial Choice of Buddhism
The Uighurs used the same criterion for adapting foreign religions as did the Eastern Turks.
They first chose Buddhism as their state religion when the Chinese Sui forces had helped them
conquer Turfan in 605. They were apparently as impressed as the Eastern Turks had been by
the Sui military success in unifying Han China under the spiritual protection of Buddhism. As
the Sui founder styled himself a Buddhist universal emperor (Skt. chakravartin), both the
Uighur and Eastern Turk leaders called themselves "bodhisattva princes." However, also like
the Eastern Turks, the Uighurs adopted primarily a Central Asian, not a Han Chinese form of
Buddhism, to escape assimilation into Han Chinese culture. They basically followed the
Tocharian/Khotanese form of Buddhism found in Turfan, blending it with traditional Turkic
and some northern Chinese elements, as had done the Eastern Turks.
The Tang Dynasty (618 - 906) replaced the Sui only twenty-nine years of its rule. Although
the early Tang emperors reinstated the Con−fucian examination system for government
service and favored Daoism, they supported Buddhism as well. In fact, the Sui and early Tang
periods were the highpoint for the development and spread of most of the Han Chinese
Buddhist sects. Although the Eastern Turks saw Buddhism as responsible for the loss of their
own first dynasty, the Uighurs of the time apparently did not see either the Sui capitulation to
Tang China in 618 or their own loss of Turfan to the Tang forces, also in the 630s, as a fault of
Buddhism. They remained loyal Tang allies and continued with Buddhism.
Doubts about Buddhism in Face of Developments in Tang China and Tibet
Since the time of the usurpation of the Tang Dynasty by Empress Wu between 684 and 705,
Tang military power, although highly successful in many ways, had been continually
undermined by Xuanzong's inability to draft Buddhist monks into military service or tax the
monasteries to help finance his campaigns. In 740, the Emperor had restricted the number of
Han Chinese monks, expelled all foreign monastics from Tang China, and withdrawn tax
exempt status from the monasteries. Despite these steps, the Tang forces were defeated on the
Talas River in West Turkistan in 751 and, in 755, Xuanzong had been deposed by the An
Lushan rebellion.
The Uighur ruler, Bogu Qaghan, in overthrowing the Eastern Turks in 744, had inherited the
role of safekeeper of the Turks' sacred mountain, Otukan. Consequently, his situation was
completely different from that of previous Uighur leaders. Morally responsible now for all
Turkic tribes, the Qaghan was undoubtedly aware of Tonyuquq's criticism of Buddhism as
leading to an inevitable loss of pan-Turkic martial values. This critique of Buddhism was
doubly proven by the humiliating defeats of Xuanzong in West Turkistan and in his own
capital, Chang'an. From a Turkic point of view, the Tang Emperor had obviously not gone far
enough in eliminating the Buddhist source of his military weakness.
In addition, a few months before the An Lushan rebellion, the Tibetan emperor, Mey-agtsom,
had been assassinated for his pro-Buddhist leanings. Tibet, the other main power in the region,
was now in the midst of a period of suppression of Buddhism. Therefore, in choosing a
religion to unify his people, Bogu Qaghan could not possibly take Buddhism and have any
credibility as leader of all Turks. On the other hand, he was blocked from choosing the blend
of Tengrism and Turkic shamanism as well, since that was the faith of the Eastern Turks
whom he had defeated to gain his position. The traditional religion clearly had not had the
power to sustain a militarily strong nation.
The Initial Choice of Buddhism 39

Reasons for Choosing Manichaeism: The Wish to Maintain Friendly Relations

with Tang China
For a century and a half, the Uighurs had been more or less allies of Tang China. They had
demonstrated their military superiority to the Tang forces by suppressing the An Lushan
rebellion, when the latter had failed to do so. Nevertheless, the Uighur qaghans still wished,
for the moment, to maintain friendly relations with Tang China. Despite the Uighurs' sacking
of Chang'an and Loyang, the Tang court wished the same.
In 713, the powerful Eastern Turk minister, Tonyuquq, had convinced Qapaghan Qaghan (r.
692 - 716) to deport the Sogdian community from Mongolia as he steered the empire toward a
revival of its shamanic and Tengrian traditions. The community included both Buddhists and
Manichaeans, and the Tang court had allowed them all to join with the Sogdians already
settled in Chang'an and Loyang. In 732, however, Xuanzong had banned any Han Chinese
from following Manichaeism and had restricted it to the foreign community. Eight years later,
he had deported all foreign Buddhist monks, yet still tolerated aliens in Tang China who
professed Manichaeism. If the Uighurs were to adopt this latter religion, they could maintain
friendly relations with Tang China without offending its religious policies. There were
additional reasons, however, for making this choice.
Economic Benefits and Geopolitics
The Uighurs were intent on further expansion of their territory, particularly into the Tarim
Basin where they could control the lucrative Silk Route trade. Tang China had only a weak
presence in Turfan, Beshbaliq, and along the northern branch of the route in Kucha and
Kashgar. The Tibetans also had only a weak presence along the Silk Route's southern branch.
Sogdian merchants, however, were found in all the oasis city-states, primarily Turfan.
Having triumphed over the An Lushan rebellion, while the Tang emperor had been forced to
flee in humiliation, the Uighurs were now the heroes of the day. The Tang government had
not only lost face, but was in an even weaker position than before to exercise effective control
over Turfan or anywhere else in the Tarim Basin. Although Tang China had given the
Sogdians political asylum in 713, yet by expelling the Buddhist monks among them, they had
undoubtedly lost the confidence of the Sogdian community. If the Uighurs were to adopt a
major Sogdian religion, they would readily be accepted as the protectors and overlords of the
Turfan Sogdians. This would give them a foothold in the Tarim Basin for further expansion
and possible control of the Silk Route.
The Conversion to Manichaeism
It was undoubtedly with such thoughts in mind that Bogu Qaghan declared Manichaeism the
Uighur state religion in 762, since Buddhism was not a viable alternative at this time.
Furthermore, with its stress on the forces of light gaining the victory over the powers of
darkness, Manichaeism would have given the impression of being more suited than Buddhism
for a martial nation. Following the lessons learned from the First and Second Eastern Turk
Dynasties, the Qaghan borrowed the Sogdian alphabet, but not the Sogdian language, and
modified it for writing Uighur. He used it for both administrative as well as religious
purposes, employing Sogdians to translate Manichaean texts into Uighur.
Having gained experience translating Buddhist texts into Old Turk, the Sogdians had begun to
render Buddhist scriptures into their own language during the interim (630 - 682) between the
Reasons for Choosing Manichaeism: The Wish to Maintain Friendly Relations with Tang China
40
First and Second Eastern Turk Dynasties. This was the period when not only Mongolia and
Turfan, but also the entire Tarim Basin had been conquered by Tang China. The Sogdian
translators had used primarily Han Chinese sources, the tradition and language with which
they were most familiar. With Tang China in such a dominant political position, the Sogdian
Buddhists probably had finally felt their identity threatened enough to take this step to
distance themselves from possible absorption by Han Chinese culture. Since this Buddhist
translation activity was still continuing at the time the Uighurs commissioned the Sogdian
translators to prepare Uighur Manichaean texts, and since the Sogdians had already worked
with the Old Turk language which was related to Uighur, the Sogdians naturally borrowed a
considerable amount of Buddhist terminology for their new task.
Popular Resistance to the Conversion
As a result of the Uighur rule of Turfan from 605 to the 630s, many Uighurs had already
adopted the Eastern Turk form of Buddhism, particularly the warriors and common people.
Yet after the Uighur suppression of the An Lushan rebellion, Bogu Qaghan led his men in
destroying all Buddhist monasteries and temples when pillaging Chang'an and Loyang. He
ordered the subsequent destruction of Buddhist monasteries in other parts of his realm as well,
as far away as Semirechye in northern West Turkistan. In so doing, he was undoubtedly trying
to reaffirm the pan-Turkic martial tradition and justify his choice of Manichaeism by
demonstrating even further the weakness of Buddhism. −
Numerous Uighur soldiers, however, undoubtedly still followed a mixture of Buddhism,

Tengrism, and Turkic shamanism at this time. This is indicated by the fact that Bogu Qaghan
had to force his people into accepting Manichaeism. He organized them into units of ten, with
one person responsible for the religious obser−vances of each group. Nevertheless, this mainly
Sogdian religion never became widespread among the Uighurs. It was limited primarily to the
aristocratic nobility, to whom it appealed because of its emphasis on a pure and clean religious
elite who were morally superior to the so-called "dirty masses." Buddhism undoubtedly
continued among these "dirty masses" throughout the period of Uighur rule over Mongolia.
Furthermore, the Uighur nobility itself was not exclusively committed to Manichaeism.
Twenty years after the official state conversion, Alp Qutlugh (r. 780 - 790) assassinated Bogu
Qaghan for his financial excesses in support of this new religion. Assuming the title qaghan,
he requested Patriarch Timotheus (r. 780 - 819) to assign a Nestorian Christian metropolitan
for his realm. This form of Christianity, however, like Manichaeism, was still basically a
Sogdian faith. Its patronage fit logically within the general Uighur strategy for winning the
allegiance of the people of the Tarim Basin as led economically by the Sogdian merchants.
Summary of the Central Asian Pattern of Religious Conversion
These examples of the Eastern Turk and Uighur conversions are illustrative, then, of the
phenomenon of Central Asian Turkic nations changing religions. When such changes were
made by rulers on a voluntary basis, they were mostly part of a calculated political strategy to
gain power and support or economic advantage, rather than a spiritual decision.
One must not be too cynical in assigning purely Machiavellian motives to these conversions,
however, and totally dismiss any religious considerations. There must be elements in the
religion to be adopted that resonate with the mentality of the local culture; otherwise, no one
would be able to relate to the faith. Nevertheless, one must also not be idealistic and imagine
that Central Asian rulers of people with strong martial traditions made their decisions about
The Conversion to Manichaeism 41

such matters based purely on their appreciation of the superiority of the sophisticated
metaphysical intricacies of one religion over another. They were more impressed when a
religion provided the supernatural power that led to military victory, and changed national
religion seeking similar support for their own expansionist efforts.
This was true not only in these instances with the Eastern Turks and Uighurs, but was also the
case with the Tibetan Emperor Songtsen-gampo's interest in Buddhism in the mid-seventh
century. It also explains why the Tibetan court around the young Emperor Mey-agtsom was
open to considering Islam in the early ninth century, when it might help them gain more
territory through their alliance with the Abbasids and why, when such advantage was not
forthcoming, they lost total interest in the Muslim faith.
10 Islamic Sectarian Disputes and the Declaration of Jihads
Sectarian Discord within Islam during the Early Abbasid Period
The Abbasids had succeeded in evicting the Tang Chinese forces from West Turkistan and the
An Lushan rebellion in Han China had seriously weakened the Tang grip on Kashgar, Kucha,
Turfan, and Beshbaliq. Nevertheless, it was not the Arabs, but the Qarluqs and Tibetans who
took advantage of the power vacuum. The Qarluqs moved south, taking Suyab, Ferghana, and
eventually Kashgar, while the Tibetans restrengthened their hold over the southern Tarim
Basin city-states, especially Khotan, which they retook in 790. The Tibetans cut off all contact
between the Khotanese royalty and the Tang court. The Tang, however, maintained a small
outpost in Kucha and fought a protracted three-way war with the Tibetans and Uighurs over
Turfan and Beshbaliq.
[View Map Seventeen: Central Asia, Late Eighth Century {19}.]
The Abbasids were never able to expand into any of the formerly Tang-held areas in West
Turkistan because they became almost immediately embroiled in Islamic sectarian fighting in
Sogdia. As soon as the second caliph, al-Mansur (r. 754 - 775), ascended the throne, he had
Abu Muslim, the Shiite Bactrian who had helped the Abbasids establish their dynasty, put to
death. Although his predecessor, Abu l'Abbas, had shown promise of nonpartisan treatment of
all non-Arab subjects in his vast realm, al-Mansur reinstated the Umayyad preference for
ethnic Arabs and the Sunni line of Islam. Subsequently, Sogdian opponents to Abbasid rule
made Abu Muslim posthumously the defender of their Iranian culture against Arab
domination. Using his martyrdom to rally their rebellions around avenging his death, they
eventually regarded Abu Muslim as even a prophet.
Abu Muslim had originally used as his standard a black flag symbolizing the House of Ali.
The Abbasids followed this precedent and used black for both their standard and dress. The
Abu Muslim rebels, in protest, adopted the color white for their banners and clothing, which
happened also to be the holy color of the Manichaeans and used for their robes. The Syriac
epithet for Manichaeans was "Those with White Gowns."
Manichaeism had many forms, blending with Zoroastrianism, Christianity, or Buddhism to

resonate with people from different cultures. Its sophisticated ideas appealed to many
intellectual officials in the Abbasid court, who developed an Islamic sect that combined
Manichaeism with Shia Islam. The Abbasid authorities, as guardians of orthodoxy, eventually
viewed the Manichaean Shiite sect as a threat. Branding it a heresy, they suspected its
followers of anti-Abbasid sympathies akin to those of the Abu Muslim rebels in Sogdia and
Summary of the Central Asian Pattern of Religious Conversion 42

persecuted them. Although Manichaean Shia did not survive as a separate Islamic sect, many
of its followers later absorbed themselves into the Ismaili sect of Shia. It, too, eventually
became an object of severe persecution by the Abbasids.
During the reign of the next caliph, al-Mahdi (r. 775 - 785), most of Sogdia fell under the
control of the white-robed rebels, led by al-Muqanna, the "Veiled Prophet," an associate of
Abu Muslim. The Oghuz Turks, who also wore white, gave military assistance to the rebels,
although they never adopted Islam. By this time, the Sogdian rebels now followed a new
Islamic sect, Musalemiyya, the customs of which did away with many orthodox traditions,
such as praying five times a day. Thus, the Abbasid campaigns to quash the Sogdian rebels
and their Oghuz Turk allies also became campaigns to preserve the purity of Islam.
In 780, the Abbasid forces put down a rebellion in Bukhara, but further uprisings continued.
The Abbasids became preoccupied with suppressing these rebellions and with keeping the
purity of Islam against the Musalemiyya and Manichaean Shia sects. Their urgency and
harshness in dealing with heresies involving Manichaean elements was perhaps reinforced by
former Zoroastrian priests who had converted to Islam and advised the government to follow
the Sassanid example of authoritarianism in religious matters.
The Abbasid Destruction of Valabhi
In the early 780s, the Abbasid rulers in Sindh attacked Saurashtra and destroyed the large
complex of Buddhist monasteries at Valabhi. After the fall of the Rashtrakuta Dynasty in 775,
these religious institutions were without royal patronage and extremely vulnerable. This
destruction, however, must be understood within the context of the uprisings in Sogdia and the
persecution of the Musalemiyya and Manichaean Shia movements.
Valabhi was not only a center of Buddhist studies, it was also one of the holiest sites of the
Shvetambara sect of Jainism. It had a very large number of Jain temples, not only Buddhist,
and the Abbasid soldiers razed them as well. In fact, the Jain temples were in all likelihood
their primary military targets. "Shvetambara" means "Those Dressed in White," as monks of
this tradition wear robes of this color. Undoubtedly misidentifying the members of this Jain
sect as allies of the white-clad faction of Abu Muslim Musalemiyya rebels, their Orghuz Turk
supporters, and the Manichaean Shiites, the Sindhi Arab leaders naturally would have
perceived them as a threat and would have felt they must be eliminated. Once at Valabhi, they
would not have differentiated the Jain temples from the Buddhist monasteries, and thus they
destroyed everything.
As popular histories often cite the destruction of Valabhi as an example of Islamic intolerance
of other faiths, let us examine the Abbasid religious policy as a whole in order to evaluate
more objectively the historians' judgment.
The Difference in Policy toward Manichaeism and Other Non-Muslim Religions
Despite their holy war against the Musalemiyyas and Manichaean Shiites, and in Saurashtra
against the Jains and Buddhists whom they most probably confused as supporters of these
sects, the early Abbasid caliphs continued the Umayyad policy of tolerance toward
non-Muslim religions. They widely granted protected dhimmi status to their Buddhist,
Zoroastrian, Nestorian Christian, and Jewish subjects. The only non-Muslims in their realm
whom they persecuted were those who professed the Manichaean faith.
Sectarian Discord within Islam during the Early Abbasid Period 43

Unintentionally, the Arabs were continuing the anti-Manichaean policy of their predecessors
in Sogdia, the Iranian Sassanids, and the Tang Chinese, but for different reasons. Firstly, the
Manichaeans were undoubtedly identified in the Arabs' minds with the Manichaean Shiites.
Secondly, with its strong missionary movement and call to transcend the darkness and mire of
this world, Manichaeism was challenging the appeal of orthodox Islam among the
sophisticated Muslims in the Abbasid court. Any Muslim who leaned toward Manichaeism for
spiritual matters was therefore accused of being a Manichaean Shiite, in other words an
anti-Abbasid rebel.
The Strong Interest of the Abbasids in Indian Culture
Not only did the early Abbasids grant protected subject status to the non-Manichaean
non-Muslims in their realm, they took great interest in foreign culture, particularly that of
India. Although Arabs and Indians have had a great deal of economic and cultural contact
since pre-Islamic days, with merchants and settlers from each group living in the area of the
other, the Umayyad conquest and subsequent occupation of Sindh stimulated even greater
exchange. In 762, for example, Caliph al-Mansur (r. 754 - 775) completed the construction of
Baghdad, the new Abbasid capital. Not only did Indian architects and engineers design the
city, they even gave it its name from the Sanskrit Bhaga-dada, meaning "Gift of God."
In 771, a political mission from Sindh brought Indian texts on astronomy to Baghdad, marking
the beginning of Arab interest in the subject. The Abbasid caliph realized the importance of
more precise astronomical and geographic calculations for religious purposes, namely in order
to determine accurately the direction of Mecca and the time of the new moon. He also
appreciated that Indian civilization had the highest development of science in the region, not
only in these subjects, but also in mathematics and medicine. The fact that these sciences had
developed within a non-Muslim context did not at all preclude the Arabs' openness to them.
The next caliph, al-Mahdi (r. 775 - 785), whose forces destroyed Valabhi, built a translation
bureau (Arab. Baitu'l Hikmat) with scholars from all regional cultures and religions rendering
texts, particularly on scientific topics, into Arabic. A large number of these works were of
Indian origin, and not all their Sindhi translators were Muslims. Many were Hindus and
Buddhists. The Abbasids were clearly pragmatic and interested in knowledge. Fundamentally,
they were not opposed to Indian or other non-Manichaean foreign religions. Their caliphs
seemed to take seriously the Hadith injunction of the Prophet to "seek knowledge, even if it be
in China."
This openminded, nonsectarian policy of seeking knowledge was not a passing fad, but
continued with the next caliph, Harun al-Rashid (r. 786 - 809), who expanded it even further.
His minister, Yahya ibn Barmak, for example, was a Muslim grandson of one of the Buddhist
administrative heads (Skt. pramukha) of Nava Vihara Monastery. Under his influence, the
Caliph invited to Baghdad many more scholars and masters from India, especially more
Buddhists. There, the Buddhist scholars undoubtedly became aware of the trend toward
Manichaean Shia among intellectuals of the Abbasid court and of the threat with which the
authorities perceived them.
Having previously specialized in scientific texts, the translation bureau now began to produce
works of a religious nature as well. For example, an Arabic version appeared at this time of
the account of Buddha's previous lives, Kitab al-Budd, based on two Sanskrit texts:
Jatakamala and Ashvaghosha's Buddhacharita. Parts of it were incorporated into the epic,
Kitab Bilawhar wa Budhasaf, by Aban al-Lahiki (750 - 815), a poet of Baghdad. Although his
The Difference in Policy toward Manichaeism and Other Non-Muslim Religions 44

version is no longer extant, many more were subsequently penned in many languages. The
earliest surviving Arabic one is by Ibn Babuya of Qum (d. 991). This work passed from
Islamic sources into Christian and Jewish literature as the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat,
still retaining many Buddhist teachings. A further example of Abbasid openmindedness
toward Buddhism is the Kitab al-Fihrist, a catalogue of both Muslim and non-Muslim texts,
prepared at this time, which included a list of Buddhist works.
The Growth of Islam among Non-Muslims in West Turkistan
Harun al-Rashid was the greatest and most cultured of the Abbasid caliphs. Under him, Arabic
poetry, literature, philosophy, science, medicine, and art all flourished. During his time, high
Islamic culture had an evergrowing appeal to the non-Arab, non-Muslim aristocrats,
landowners, and city-dwellers of West Turkistan, whose mentalities were totally different
from that of the nomadic warriors of the steppes. Consequently, such persons gradually
converted in ever-increasing numbers to the Muslim faith. The protected non-Muslim
religions, such as Buddhism, remained strong mostly among the poorer peasant classes in the
countryside, who followed them even more strictly than before as they started to become
ethnic and religious minorities. They especially flocked to religious shrines for devotional
practice.
Evaluation of the Destruction of Valabhi
The Abbasid destruction of the Buddhist monasteries at Valabhi, then, must be seen in the
context of this larger picture. Islam was winning converts in Sogdia and Bactria at this time,
not by the sword, but by the appeal of its high level of culture and learning. Buddhism was
certainly not lacking in erudite scholarship and culture. However, in order to drink of it, one
needed to enter a monastery. Nava Vihara, though still functioning during this period, was
declining in prominence and was only one institution of learning. There were many Buddhists.
The greatest Buddhist monastic universities of the day, such as Nalanda, were far off in the
central part of northern India. Thus, the stronger and more readily accessible that Islamic high
culture and study became in Central Asia, the more it eclipsed Buddhism among the upper,
educated urban classes. This was, above all, a peaceful mechanism.
The destruction at Valabhi, then, was an exception to the general religious trends and official
policies of the early Abbasid period. There are two plausible explanations for it. It was either
the work of a militant fanatic general acting on his own, or a mistaken operation ordered
because of the Arabs' confusing the local "white-clad" Jains with supporters of Abu Muslim
and then not differentiating the Buddhists from the Jains. It was not part of a jihad specifically
against Buddhism.
The Arabic word jihad literally means "striving," namely to serve Allah. It does not mean the
type of holy war that is aimed at converting infidels by force to the only true faith. Rather, it is
military action taken to defend fellow Muslims who are being attacked for practicing pure
Islam or prevented in some way from their spiritual life. The Buddhists of Valabhi were not
threatening Islam and were therefore mistaken objects for a justifiable jihad.
[See: Holy Wars in Buddhism and Islam: The Myth of Shambhala {20} {30}.]
The Strong Interest of the Abbasids in Indian Culture 45

The Abbasid Invasion of Gandhara
Although the Qarluqs and Abbasids had defeated Tang China at the Talas River in 751, the
Qarluqs, having expanded into Suyab, Ferghana and Kashgar, soon broke their alliance with
the Arabs and joined the Tibetans and their vassals, the Turki Shahis of Kabul. The
White-Clad Oghuz, who had been supporting the Abu Muslim rebels, joined them as well in a
concerted effort to gain control of Abbasid Sogdia and Bactria. The alliance therefore backed
further Abu Muslim-styled rebellions against the Abbasids, such as the one led in Samarkand
by Rafi bin-Layth from 806 to 808. Their combined forces even lay siege to Samarkand to aid
the rebels.
Caliph al-Rashid died in 808 on his way to put down the rebellion. After his death, his empire
was divided between his two sons in accordance with his wish. The two sons, however, made
temporary peace with the Tibetans and their allies so that they could fight a civil war to gain
total control of their father's entire inheritance. Al-M'amun won and became the next caliph (r.
813 - 833). Undoubtedly blaming the Tibetan-Turki Shahi-Qarluq-Oghuz alliance for the
death of his father, and associating the lot with the Abu Muslim Musalemiyya rebellions in
Sogdia, he declared a holy war and sent General al-Fadl bin-Sahl to launch an all-out attack on
the Turki Shahi state in Gandhara.
By 815, the Abbasids gained the victory and the Turki Shahi ruler, known as the Kabul Shah,
was forced to present himself to the caliph at Merv and convert to pure Islam. As a token of
his country's submission, he sent a golden Buddha statue to Mecca, where it was kept for two
years at the Kaaba treasury. It was displayed to the public with the notice that Allah had led
the King of Tibet to Islam. The Arabs were confusing the King of Tibet with his vassal, the
Turki Shah of Kabul. −In 817, the Arabs melted down the Buddha statue at the Kaaba to mint
gold coins.
After their success against the Turki Shahis, the Abbasids attacked the Tibe−tan-controlled
region of Gilgit and within a short time annexed it as well. They sent a captured Tibetan
commander in humiliation back to Baghdad. Although successful against the Tibetans and
also in taking Ferghana from the Qarluqs, the Arab generals pressed their victories no further
to the east or north. This was because the Abbasids were rapidly losing their grip on West
Turkistan and eastern Iran as local military leaders were beginning to take over as governors
of these regions and rule them as autonomous Islamic states.
The first region to declare its autonomy was Bactria, where General Tahir founded the Tahirid
Dynasty (819 - 873). As the Abbasids withdrew from Kabul and Gilgit, turning their attention
to these more pressing matters, the Tibetans and Turki Shahis regained their former holdings.
Despite the forced conversions of the leaders of these lands, the Abbasids had not persecuted
Buddhism there. In fact, the Arabs maintained trade with the Tibetans throughout this time,
importing primarily musk. The Muslims and Buddhists even established cultural links with
each other. Fazl Ullah, for example, translated into Tibetan at this time the Persian classics,
Gulistan and Bostan.
Analysis of the Abbasid Campaign and Victory
Caliph al-Ma'mun had declared his campaign against the Tibetan-Turki Shahi-Qarluq-Oghuz
alliance a jihad, a holy war. He was defending his Islamic subjects from heretical fanatics who
were hampering their practice of the pure faith with campaigns of terror and rebellion. That
was why, when he won, he not only insisted that the Kabul Shah convert to orthodox Islam,
The Abbasid Invasion of Gandhara 46

but also sent back the Buddha statue to be displayed at the Kaaba as evidence of the victory of
Islam.
Reminiscent of what had undoubtedly inspired the Abbasid destruction of Valabhi,

al-Ma'mun, however, probably misidentified his conquered enemies as members of the
Musalemiyya and Manichaean Shia sects. His jihad against them would have been simply an
extension of his father's previous domestic campaigns. But, although the members of this
foreign alliance supported the Abu Muslim rebels, they by no means followed their faith or
Manichaean Shia. If they had, it would make no sense that throughout this period the Tibetans
and Qarluqs were also fighting the Uighurs, the champion of the Sogdian Manichaean world.
The Tibetans were undoubtedly ignorant of the Islamic religious implications of the Sogdian
rebellions. Furthermore, like the similar Tang Chinese effort sixty years earlier, the Tibetan
attempt to destabilize Abbasid rule in Sogdia was not part of a program to win converts to
Buddhism. It was purely a political and economic move to gain power, territory, and tax from
the Silk Route trade. Tibetan religious leaders at the time were preoccupied with stabilizing
Buddhism within their own borders and keeping it free from both internal corruption and
secular control. Although these leaders participated in government, their sphere of influence
did not extend to military matters. Their concern in external affairs was focused purely on
cultural relations with Pala India and Tang China vis-a-vis the future of Buddhism in Tibet.
The Abbasids, in turn, were undoubtedly ignorant of the Turki Shahi and Tibetans' religious
beliefs. What they saw was simply foreign forces supporting a cult of religious fanatic rebels
who were not only interfering in their subjects' practice of Islam, but perhaps more
importantly, trying to oust them from political power. The jihad was, in fact, directed at the
Turki Shahi and Tibetans' politics, not their Buddhist religion.
Al-Ma'mun was by no means a closedminded, religious fanatic. Like his father, Harun
al-Rashid, he was culturally broadminded and continued to patronize the translation of Indian
texts. His reign not only saw new heights in the scientific age of the Abbasids, but also an
everincreasing dissemination of positive information about Indian civilization among the
Arabs and their Muslim subjects. In 815, for example, the same year as the Caliph's defeat of
the Kabul Shah, al-Jahiz (b. 776) published in Baghdad Fakir as-Sudan ala l'Bidan (The
Superiority of the Black over the White), which contained praise of the great cultural
achievements of India. There were positive feelings about India, then, among the Abbasids at
this time, and this would undoubtedly have extended to Indians of all religions, including
Buddhism.
If al-Ma'mun's jihad were against Buddhism itself, he should have aimed it not merely at the
Tibetan-Turki Shahi-Qarluq-Oghuz alliance, but at the Indian subcontinent where Buddhism
was much more in evidence and better established. However, after victory in Kabul, the
Caliph's forces attacked Gilgit and Ferghana, not Oddiyana. They had other objectives in
mind.
Let us examine the situation in Tibet just prior to al-Ma'mun's victories in Gandhara and Gilgit
to appreciate the situation more fully. This may also help us to understand why the submission
of the Kabul Shah and Tibetan military commander had hardly any effect on spreading Islam
to Tibet or to its vassal states.
Analysis of the Abbasid Campaign and Victory 47

11 Tibetan Politico-Religious Maneuverings at the End of the

Eighth Century
Tibetan Relations with China
Tibet and China had first established diplomatic relations in 608 when Emperor
Songtsen-gampo's father, Namri-lontsen (gNam-ri slon-mtshan), had sent the first Tibetan
mission to the Chinese court at the time of the Sui Dynasty. Songtsen-gampo, in turn, had sent
a mission to the Tang court in 634 and had married the Han Chinese princess, Wencheng, in
641. Four years later, he had commissioned the first Tibetan temple on Wutaishan (Wu-t'ai
shan, Tib. Ri-bo rtse-lnga), the sacred Chinese Buddhist mountain southwest of Beijing. Since
then, Tibet had periodically sent further envoys to the Tang court, despite frequent warfare
between the two empires.
Emperor Mey-agtsom, a century later, had been particularly interested in Han Chinese
Buddhism, undoubtedly due to the influence of his Han Chinese Buddhist wife, Empress
Jincheng. Despite the weak state of Buddhism in Tang China after the restrictions imposed
upon it by Emperor Xuanzong in 740, Mey-agtsom had sent a mission there in 751 to learn
more about the religion. The interest in Buddhism that his young son, the future Tibetan
emperor Tri Songdetsen (Khri Srong-lde-btsan) (742-798), had shown also purportedly
prompted his delegation of the mission. It was led by Ba Sangshi (sBa Sang-shi), the son of a
previous Tibetan envoy to Tang China.
In 755, xenophobic opposition ministers assassinated Emperor Mey-agtsom. This was the
same faction that sixteen years earlier had expelled the Han Chinese and Khotanese monks
from Tibet that the ethnic Han Chinese Empress Jincheng had invited. The assassination
occurred in the same year as the An Lushan rebellion and, as before, the ministers probably
feared that the Emperor's leanings toward Buddhism and Tang China would bring disaster to
Tibet. Perhaps, also, the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 and the An
Lushan rebellion encouraged their bold move. Reminiscent of the attack against Han Chinese
Buddhism perpetrated by An Lushan, the xenophobic ministers instigated a suppression of
Buddhism in Tibet that lasted six years. Its aim, however, was more likely the pro-Tang
faction in court.
The Invitation of Shantarakshita to Tibet
The delegation to China, led by Ba Sangshi, returned to Tibet in 756, bringing with them
Buddhist texts. Ba Sangshi temporarily hid the texts, because of the anti-Buddhist atmosphere
of the times, but encouraged Tri Songdetsen, still a minor at that time, in the direction of
Buddhism.
In 761, Tri Songdetsen reached adulthood and, upon ascending the throne, officially
proclaimed himself a Buddhist. He then sent a delegation to the recently founded Pala Empire
(750 - end of the twelfth century) in northern India. He entrusted the mission, headed by
Selnang (gSal-snang), to invite the Buddhist master Shantarakshita, the Abbot of Nalanda, to
Tibet for the first time.
Shortly after the Indian abbot's arrival, a smallpox epidemic broke out in Tibet. The
xenophobic faction in court blamed the foreign monk for the epidemic and expelled him from
Tibet, as they had done to the Han Chinese and Khotanese monks in Tibet when a similar
epidemic had erupted in 739.
11 Tibetan Politico-Religious Maneuverings at the End of the Eighth Century 48

Tri Songdetsen was not to be thwarted in his intent to strengthen the position of Buddhism in
his realm. He was an extremely powerful and ambitious leader. During his reign, Tibet
followed an aggressive expansionist policy. Taking advantage of Tang weakness after the An
Lushan rebellion, he recaptured large portions of northeastern Tibet that Tang China had
previously taken. He even held the Tang capital, Chang'an, briefly in 763, the year after the
conversion to Manichaeism of the Uighur qaghan, Bogu.
[View Map Eighteen: Tibet in the Early Ninth Century. {21}]
Tri Songdetsen then moved into the Gansu Corridor, blocking Tang China's direct access to
the Silk Route, the main northern branch of which lay between Tang outposts in Turfan and
Kucha. This forced Chinese trade to circumvent the Tibetan-held territory by passing to the
north through Uighur lands in Inner Mongolia. The Tibetans then entered a protracted
three-way war against the Uighurs and Tang China for control of Turfan and Beshbaliq, where
the Tang government maintained only nominal charge. Chinese trade, diverted through Inner
Mongolia, needed to pass through these two cities to reach the main northern Silk Route.
With his confidence and power bolstered by his military victories, Tri Songdetsen once more
dispatched Selnang to India to reinvite Shantarakshita. This time, the Indian abbot brought
with him Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), to tame the spiritual forces in Tibet that were
inimical to the establishment of Buddhism.
The Building of Samyay Monastery
The great Indian Buddhist monastic universities of Bihar, such as Nalanda, the home
institution of Shantarakshita, had enjoyed unbroken state support for several centuries, even
through changes of political dynasties. Emperor Harsha (606 - 647) of the previous Gupta
Dynasty had supported a thousand Nalanda monks at his court and had even touched the feet
of the Han Chinese monk, Xuanzang, as a sign of respect.
The current Pala Dynasty was patronizing Buddhism to an even greater extent. Its first
emperor, Gopala (750 - 770), had founded the Buddhist monastic university of Odantapuri,
while its second, Dharmapala (770 - 810), established Vikramashila and Somapura. Even
though Dharmapala had extended his empire to the borders of Gandhara in the west and
Bengal in the east, he had never involved the Buddhist monasteries in the political and
military vicissitudes of the state. Nor had he tried to regulate them. The monasteries of
northern India enjoyed total freedom to pursue religious training.
In 766, Tri Songdetsen, inspired by the example of the Indian Emperor Gopala, commissioned
Samyay Monastery to be built on the model of Odantapuri. It was to be the first Buddhist
monastery of the country devoted to use primarily by Tibetans. During the course of its
construction, the first seven native Tibetans were ordained as monks and, by the time of its
completion in 775, over three hundred countrymen had joined their ranks. Prior to this, there
had only been Buddhist temples in Tibet and a few minor monastic facilities built for foreign
monks, such as the Khotanese and Han Chinese refugees of 720.
Although the Tibetan monks were ordained in the Indian tradition, Tri Songdetsen pursued a
policy of cultural synthesis. Part of his motive for this policy, however, might have been
political expediency. He needed to balance demands from three vying factions in his court --
native Tibetan, pro-Indian, and pro-Chinese. Thus, he had the main temple at Samyay built in
three stories, with one story each in the architectural style of Tibetan, northern Indian, and
The Invitation of Shantarakshita to Tibet 49

Han Chinese cultures. One is reminded of the founder of his dynasty, Songtsen-gampo,
attempting a similar balance by marrying for political purposes princesses from Zhang-zhung,
Nepal, and Tang China.
Cultural Contacts with China
Although Tri Songdetsen fought against China to gain control of the western end of the Silk
Route, he seemed to lack cultural bias against the Han Chinese, particularly regarding
Buddhism. His military motives were primarily political and economic.
After the An Lushan rebellion was put down and imperial rule restored, the subsequent Tang
emperors not only lifted the restrictions imposed on Buddhism by Emperor Xuanzong, but
also patronized the religion. Unlike the case in Pala India, however, the Han Chinese
Buddhists, in turn, likewise supported the state. It is unclear whether this came from the
Buddhists own initiative or from a state policy to exploit the popularity of Buddhism to
bolster support for its rule. The latter seems more likely, given the precedents of the Sui
Dynasty founder declaring himself a chakravartin emperor and the Tang Empress Wu
declaring herself Maitreya Buddha.
In 766, Emperor Daizong (r. 763 - 780) founded a new monastery on Wutaishan called "The
Golden Pavilion Temple that Protects against Demon−ic Forces and Defends the Nation." A
popular new Han Chinese Buddhist text appeared, The Sutra of the Bodhisattva King Who
Defends the Nation. The Tang Emperor reimposed further persecutions against the
Manichaeans in 768 and 771, to defend the "purity" of Buddhism from this religion branded a
false imitation.
These developments followed the pattern of northern Chinese Buddhism during the Six
Dynasties Period (280 - 589). At that time, the non-Han rulers of northern China strictly
controlled the Buddhist monasteries and sponsored them to perform rituals for their military
success. The monks, in turn, requiring imperial protection to survive the dangerous times,
were obliged to acknowledge these rulers as Buddhas, serve their governments, and
compromise the purity of the Buddhist teachings so as to sanction even these leaders' most
severe policies.
Tri Songdetsen was interested to learn more about these recent developments in China, in
accord with his policy of pursuing a cultural synthesis of Tibetan, Indian, and Chinese
customs. Thus, in the late 760s, he dispatched not only Ba Sangshi, but also Selnang on a
second mission to Tang China. On their return, the Emperor built the Nang Lhakang (Nang
Lha-khang) Buddhist temple at Dragmar (Brag-dmar). The site was near the imperial court,
close to Samyay Monastery, which was still under construction. The temple was modeled after
the new Golden Pavilion Temple that Protects against Demon−ic Forces and Defends the
Nation. The implication was that Buddhism would take a second place to the state, as in Han
China, and be obliged to serve the interests of the ever-growing Tibetan imperial power.
The Completion of Samyay Monastery
Samyay was completed in 775 and the Emperor appointed Shantarakshita as its first abbot.
Padmasambhava, however, left shortly before its completion. He felt that the Tibetans were
not yet ready for the most profound Buddhist teachings, particularly concerning dzogchen
(rdzogs-chen, the great completeness). Therefore, he hid texts on the subject in the walls and
pillars of the monastery, for later recovery when the times would be riper.
The Building of Samyay Monastery 50

Both northern Indian and Han Chinese teachers were now invited to Samyay to help translate
and teach Buddhist texts. Originally, however, Samyay was not devoted exclusively to
Buddhism. Its activities encompassed a larger spectrum of culture. Masters of the indigenous,
pan-Tibetan tradition were present as well, to translate materials from the Zhang-zhung
language into Tibetan. In this sphere too, Samyay reflected the imperial policy of cultural
synthesis.
In 779, the Emperor declared Buddhism the state religion of Tibet. He exempted certain rich
families from taxes and assigned them instead the financial support of the fast-growing
monastic community. Two hundred families were to provide the resources for the main
temple's offerings in Lhasa, and three families were to donate the provisions for supporting
each monk.
Tri Songdetsen was perhaps inspired to take this move by the example of King Shivadeva II
(704 - 750) of the Nepali Licchavi Dynasty. In 749, this Nepali king, although not declaring
Buddhism the state religion, had assigned an entire village to support his personal monastery,
Shivadeva Vihara. Although the Maitraka and Rashtrakuta kings of Saurashtra had a similar
policy of support for the monasteries of Valabhi, it is less likely that Tri Songdetsen was
aware of this precedent.
Peace with China and Establishment of the Tibetan Religious Council
The Tibetan Emperor, still pursuing a cultural synthesis, requested the new Tang emperor,
Dezong (r. 780 - 805), in 781 to send two monks every other year from Han China to Samyay
to instruct the Tibetans. Two years later, in 783, Tang China and Tibet, after decades of war
over Turfan and Beshbaliq, signed a peace treaty, leaving the Tang forces in control of the two
East Turkistani cities.
Shantarakshita, the Indian abbot of Samyay, died shortly afterwards, also in 783. Before
passing away, he warned Tri Songdetsen that, in the future, the Buddhist teachings would
decline in Tibet because of Han Chinese influence. He advised the Emperor to invite from
India his disciple, Kamalashila, to settle the problem at that time.
Tri Songdetsen appointed Selnang to succeed Shantarakshita as the first Tibetan abbot of
Samyay. In the same year, 783, the Emperor established a Religious Council headed by the
Samyay Abbot, to decide upon all religious issues. This was the beginning of the Tibetan form
of government eventually having both lay and ordained ministers. Understanding its evolution
within the context of the politics of the time may help us to understand why Islam did not
spread to Tibet or its vassal states after the submission of the Kabul Shah and the Tibetan
military commander to the Abbasids three decades later.
Analysis of the Policy of the Tibetan Religious Council
There were three main factions in the Tibetan imperial court at this time -- the pro-India, the
pro-Tang China, and the xenophobes -- each supported by specific clans. Selnang was a
member of the clan that led the pro-India faction. Having headed imperial missions to both
Pala India and Tang China, he knew how favorably the situation of Buddhism in the former
compared with that in latter. In Pala India, the monasteries received state sponsorship and
enjoyed total autonomy, without any obligation toward the state. Neither was involved in each
other's affairs. Moreover, since Selnang's visit, the Pala emperors were sending tribute
payments to the Tibetan court, although this description might well have been a euphemism
The Completion of Samyay Monastery 51

for sending trade delegations. Nevertheless, the hope might have been there that the Pala State
would also support Buddhist institutions in Tibet. In Tang China, on the other hand, the
Buddhist monasteries received state support only at the price of government control.
Buddhism had frequently been under joint government sponsorship and control in Han China,
particularly in the north. However, since the ruling houses were frequently challenged and
overthrown, the religion was often on unstable grounds. For example, the Toba Northern Wei
Dynasty (386 - 535) had a government bureau to administer the Buddhist monasteries in the
realm, with a head monk chosen by the emperor. This bureau had the power to expel from the
monasteries corrupt monks who flaunted monastic discipline and abused their position. Often
the bureau exercised its regulatory functions according to law. However, when the
government came under the control of ministers jealous of imperial favor toward Buddhism,
the bureau was dissolved and full-scale religious persecutions followed against the Buddhists,
for example in 446.
In establishing a Religious Council, Tri Songdetsen was perhaps following the Han Chinese
model, but he blended certain Indian and Tibetan elements with it. In accord with
Indian-Nepali precedents, the state would support the monasteries by exempting certain
families from tax and assigning them to provide provisions for the monasteries and monks
instead. As in Han China, the monasteries, in turn, would perform rituals for the welfare of the
state. This accorded as well with the long-standing Tibetan custom of having priests of Tibet's
native pre-Buddhist tradition serving in the imperial court, performing rituals. As in the Han
Chinese model, the bureau would regulate internal Buddhist affairs; but, as in the Indian
model, it would enjoy autonomy from government regulation.
Selnang, as a member of the main pro-India clan in the Tibetan court and the first head of the
Religious Council, naturally favored closer ties with India and weaker bonds with Tang China.
Further, he was especially concerned with avoiding Han Chinese-style government control or
persecution of Buddhism. However, Tri Songdetsen had just bowed to Tang China on the
political front. This strengthened the hand of the pro-China faction in the Tibetan court. The
situation was ripe for this faction to push the Emperor to implement a Han Chinese-style
policy of government control of the monasteries. It was also ripe for the xenophobes at court
to react against the strong connection being forged with Tang China and to renew its own
purge of foreign influences, including Buddhism.
Selnang and the Religious Council needed to act quickly and decisively. The solution would
be to strengthen the Council's position so that not only would be it autonomous, it would also
have a strong influence on the government itself. Thus, Selnang convinced Tri Songdetsen to
allow the members of the Religious Council to attend all ministerial meetings and to have the
power to overrule his ministers. Under the Tibetan Abbot's initial guidance, the Religious
Council soon became more powerful than the Emperor's Council of Ministers itself.
Purge of the Xenophobes
As a first move, in 784, the Religious Council instituted a purge of the conservative
xenophobes, sending its leaders into exile in Gilgit and Nanzhao (Nan-chao), present-day
northwestern Yunnan Province in the Peoples' Republic of China. Since this faction had
assassinated the Emperor's father twenty-nine years earlier and had instigated a six-year
persecution of Buddhism, they clearly posed the greatest threat.
Analysis of the Policy of the Tibetan Religious Council 52

Twelfth-century Tibetan Buddhist historical chronicles describe the event as a persecution of

the Bon priests who were opposed to Buddhism. Although the later presence of adherents of
organized Bon in Gilgit and Nanzhao indicates that many who were sent into exile followed
the pre-Buddhist Tibetan tradition, the purge was essentially political in nature. It was not
based on religious doctrinal differences. Before the end of the eleventh century, Bon, after all,
was not an organized religion and the term bon simply referred to this opposition, xenophobic
faction at the imperial court.
Masters of Buddhism and the native Tibetan tradition had worked side by side translating their
respective texts at Samyay up until then. However, because the political situation was
extremely unstable at this point, Drenpa-namka (Dran-pa nam-mkha'), the main spiritual
leader of the indigenous system at Samyay, hid copies of most of his tradition's texts for
safekeeping in crevices within the monastery walls. Later Tibetan Bon histories, supporting
the report of a religious persecution, say that he feigned accepting Buddhism in order to
remain at Samyay and safeguard these texts. Regardless of his motives, however, it is clear
that this native master did stay on at the monastery. After the purge, he taught a hybrid of his
tradition and Buddhism to such famous Tibetan masters as the translator Vairochana.
The Tibetan Bon and Buddhist religious histories often depict events in light of their own
political agendas. No Tibetan source, however, says that either Drenpa-namka or any of his
fellow practitioners of the native tradition were forced to renounce their customs and beliefs
and convert to Buddhism. It is much more likely that the Tibetan indigenous tradition and
Buddhism had been mixed with each other since at least the time of Emperor
Songtsen-gampo. The first Tibetan Emperor had ordered rituals of both traditions to be
performed, and Drenpa-namka simply continued and perhaps even furthered this trend. The
mutual influence of each religious system on the other would in any case have naturally
occurred and grown due to the presence of spiritual masters of both at Samyay.
Most, if not all of the xenophobic political faction that had been purged from the imperial
court may have followed the Tibetan native tradition. That does not necessarily mean,
however, that all practitioners of its rituals or all elements of its system were banished from
Tibet, as the religious histories would lead us to believe. In 821, a second peace treaty with
Tang China was concluded with full rituals from the native tradition, including animal
sacrifice. The founders of the organized Bon religion and eclectic Bon/Buddhist masters at the
beginning of the eleventh century uncovered the texts hidden by Drenpa-namka. These two
facts clearly indicate that the Tibetan Religious Council did not implement a policy of forced
conversion to Buddhism. They also indicate that the native faith continued to be tolerated in
central Tibet even after the purges of 784.
If this was the case with the indigenous Tibetan faith and native Tibetans themselves, we may
safely conclude that the Council did not pressure the Tibetan government in the following
decades to support rebellions in Sogdia in order to persecute a foreign religion, namely Islam,
and to convert non-Tibetans to Buddhism.
Neutralization of the Pro-Tang China Faction
After the purge of 784, the Tibetan government was left with two opposing factions. Some
ministers came from the powerful clan from northeastern Tibet that favored Tang China and
from which Empress Dowager Trima Lo had come. The other faction, to which Selnang
belonged, came from a rival clan from central Tibet that was distrustful of the Tang court,
encouraged continuing wars against it, and sought closer links with Pala India and a strong
Purge of the Xenophobes 53

Religious Council.
In 786, the three-year peace with Tang China ended. The Uighurs had aided the Jucu rebellion
(783 - 784) against the Tang ruling house, and the Tibetans had helped the Tang forces defeat
them. The Tang court had promised to hand over Turfan and Beshbaliq to the Tibetans as a
reward for their help, but when the Tang emperor ignored their agreement, the Tibetans
attacked.
Over the next five years, the Tibetans took Dunhuang from Tang China, eliminated the Tang
forces from the competition with the Uighurs for Turfan and Beshbaliq, and reasserted its
strong hold over the southern Tarim Basin states, particularly Khotan. The Uighurs took
advantage of the situation and, driving their nominal vassals, the Qarluqs, out of Dzungaria
and parts of northern West Turkistan, took from Tang China Kucha as well. The Tang forces
continued to challenge, however, Tibetan control of the Gansu Corridor.
At this juncture in Sino-Tibetan relations, the Tibetan emperor, Tri Songdetsen, convened the
famous debate at Samyay (792 -794), at which representatives of northern Indian Buddhism
defeated the Han Chinese Buddhist monks. This decided once and for all that the main form of
Buddhism to be practiced in Tibet would be northern Indian, not Han Chinese. A similar
debate and outcome occurred with respect to the medical system to be adopted as well. This
development, however, was just as much a triumph of the political view of the anti-Tang
China faction as it was of the Indian Buddhist philosophical tenets and practice of medicine.
The Religious Council undoubtedly backed the pro-India over the pro-Tang China faction.
Furthermore, the fact that Selnang was the interpreter for much of the debate indicates the
opportunity he had to influence the outcome.
Summary of Tibetan Policy in Sogdia
Emperor Tri Songdetsen retired in 797 and died the next year. He was succeeded by his son
Muney-tsenpo (Mu-ne btsan-po) (r. 797 - 800). He, in turn, was succeeded by a second son,
Tri Desongtsen (Khri lDe-srong-btsan) (r. 800 - 815), also known as Saynaleg (Sad-na-legs).
During the latter's reign, Caliph al-Ma'mun had been fully justified in seeing Tibet as a
powerful nation posing a threat, especially when Tibet and its allies were menacing Sogdia
and supporting revolt. However, his analysis of Tibet's motives and his subsequent declaration
of the conflict as a holy war were incorrect.
Having reestablished its hold on East Turkistan, Tibet was certainly seeking to extend its
territory into West Turkistan and therefore would certainly try to destabilize the rule of its
enemies. However, Tibet was not concerned with undermining its enemy's religion. The
Religious Council of monks was obsessed with gaining unopposed internal power within
Tibet to ensure the growth of Buddhism in the country. Once it had rid the government of
factions that might oppose or try to control it, its main activities were compiling a dictionary
for standardizing translations from Sanskrit into Tibetan and regulating which texts to
translate so that Buddhism would be best understood and remain pure. It was not concerned
with other religions or spreading Buddhism either inside or outside Tibet.
Furthermore, in supporting the Sogdian followers of Musalemiyya Islam and Manichaean

Shia in their anti-Abbasid rebellion, Tibet was not at all showing its favor toward their
religious sects. Emperor Tri Songdetsen's edicts concerning the choice of Indian Buddhism as
the mainstay for Tibet clearly rejected Manichaeism as well. They repeat the critique of the
Tang Chinese Emperor Xuanzong that Manichaeism is a shallow imitation of Buddhism and is
Neutralization of the Pro-Tang China Faction 54

based on a lie.
Emperor Tri Relpachen
One of the main reasons the Abbasids were able to defeat the Tibetan vassal, the Shah of
Kabul, in 815 and make further incursions into Tibetan-held Gilgit in the following years was
undoubtedly the death of Tri Desongtsen that year. The new Tibetan emperor, his son Tri
Relpachen (Khri Ral-pa-can, r. 815 - 836), ascended the throne as a young child and Tibet did
not have strong leadership at the time. Soon afterward, however, as Tri Relpachen matured, he
became extremely powerful and strengthened the position of Buddhism even further.
The Abbasids withdrew from Kabul and Gilgit in 819, with the founding of the Tahirid state.
In 821, Tibet signed a second peace treaty with Tang China and in the next year reached a
similar agreement with the Uighurs. The Tibetans kept the Gansu Corridor and Dunhuang, as
well as Turfan and Beshbaliq. The latter two cities had changed hands between the Tibetans
and Uighurs several times in the preceding three decades.
Boosted by his victories, Emperor Tri Relpachen built many new Buddhist temples in
celebration of the peace and moved his capital from the Yarlung Valley to Lhasa, the site of
the main Buddhist sanctuary in Tibet. According to Tibetan pious histories, Tri Relpachen
also founded a Translation Bureau to compile a Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary and to standardize
the terminology and style of translating Buddhist texts. Actually, these projects began under
his father, Tri Desongtsen. The pious histories ascribed them to him, however, to support their
identification of Songtsen-gampo, Tri Songdetsen, and Tri Relpachan as the three main
imperial patrons of Buddhism at the time and thus incarnations of the Buddha-figures
Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, and Vajrapani. This echoes these histories ascribing the three
Buddha-figures as the patron Buddhas of Tibet, China and the Manchus, and Mongolia,
respectively, and the Gelug founder, Tsongkhapa (Tsong-kha-pa, 1357 - 1419), as the
embodiment of all three.
Like the fierce figure Vajrapani, however, Emperor Tri Relpachen became slightly fanatic in
his religious fervor. He not only increased the number of families assigned to support each
monk from three to seven, putting a serious strain on the state economy, but decreed that
anyone pointing a derisive finger at a monk would have it cut off. With Buddhism in such a
strong position and the Abbasids' attention diverted elsewhere, the conversion to Islam of the
Shah of Kabul had little lasting impact on the spread of Islam to Tibet or its vassal states in
Kabul or Gilgit.
12 The Establishment of Buddhist Kingdoms by the Uighurs
The Kyrgyz Conquest of Mongolia
The Kyrgyz (Kirghiz) were originally a Mongolian people from the mountain forests of the
present-day Altai and Tuva districts of southern Siberia north of Dzungaria. Some of their
tribes also lived in the western reaches of the Tianshan Range to Dzungaria's south. The
Eastern Turk Empire had included the tradi−tional Kyrgyz Altai lands and, when the Uighurs
took over that empire, the Uighurs conquered and devastated them in 758. Thereafter, the
Kyrgyz and Uighurs remained ever enemies. Many Kyrgyz shifted to the western Tianshan
area, where they allied themselves with the Qarluqs, Tibetans, and Abbasids against the
Uighurs and Tang China.
Summary of Tibetan Policy in Sogdia 55

Since the second half of the eighth century, Tibetan-Arab trade had passed from western Tibet
through the Wakhan Corridor to western Bactria and on to Sogdia. A second route, however,
passed from northeastern Tibet, through the Tibetan holdings in the Gansu Corridor, to the
crucial areas of Turfan and Beshbaliq, disputed by the Tibetans, Uighurs and Tang China until
settled in favor of the Tibetans in 821. It then continued across southern Dzungaria, over the
western spur of the Tianshan Mountains to northern West Turkistan, all of which was held by
the Qarluqs until the 790s and then the Uighurs, and finally on to Arab-held Sogdia. Uighur
bandits constantly plagued the portion of the route that passed through the Tianshan
Mountains. The Kyrgyz played an important role in fighting these bandits and keeping the
trade route open and safe.
[View Map Nineteen: Tibetan-Arab Trade Routes {22}.]
The Tibetan merchants on this route were Buddhists, as evidenced by the Buddhist mantras
(sacred syllables) they carved in Tibetan script on rocks found near Lake Issyk Kul in
modern-day eastern Kyrgyzstan. They were not subject to religious persecution or restrictions
in the Muslim lands at the western terminus of the Central Asian Silk Route, otherwise they
would not have risked the journey. This is another indication that the 815 jihad by Caliph
al-Ma'mun against the Tibetan-Turki Shahi-Qarluq-Oghuz alliance was directed at political
objectives, not at a mass, forced conversion of people viewed as infidels.
After the peace treaties with the Tibetans and Tang China in 821, the Uighurs gradually
became weakened by internal discord and the difficulties imposed by the Tibetan wedge
dividing their territories in Mongolia and Dzungaria. In 840, after a particularly severe winter
of heavy snowfall had decimated the Uighur herds, the Kyrgyz overthrew the Orkhon Empire
in Mongolia, Dzungaria, and the eastern portion of northern West Turkistan. −The Kyrgyz
then ruled the area from their base in the Altai Mountains until they themselves were
displaced by the Khi−tans (Kitan) in 924.
The Uighur Migration into Turkistan and the Gansu Corridor
With the Kyrgyz takeover of their empire, the majority of the Orkhon Uighurs migrated
southward. Most went to Turfan (Qocho), Beshbaliq, and Kucha. These city-states along or
adjacent to the northern rim of the Tarim Basin with Tocharian culture and large Sogdian and
Han Chinese minorities were their natural destination.
The Uighurs had maintained a small presence in Turfan since at least the fourth century CE
and had ruled it briefly between 605 and the 630s. They had controlled both it and Beshbaliq
periodically between the 790s and 821. They now had a peace treaty with the Tibetans who
were currently ruling the two city-states. Furthermore, they had a presence in Kucha since the
790s after having taken it from Tang China.
Kucha was also disputed by the Qarluqs from Kashgar and the Tibetans from Turfan, and it is
unclear who was actually governing it at this time. However, even if it had been the Qarluqs,
the latter were still the nominal vassals of the Uighurs, despite their almost incessant battles
against them over the last century. The Uighurs would neither have been evicted by the
Qarluqs nor denied further entry. Thus, with long familiarity with the sedentary urban culture
of these oasis states, it was not difficult for the Uighur refugees to move there and make the
transition from nomadic steppe life.
The Kyrgyz Conquest of Mongolia 56

There were three other smaller bands of Orkhon Uighurs who did not settle in these northern
Tarim city-states. The largest of the three migrated to the city-states of the Gansu Corridor,
ruled by the Tibetans, and later became known as the Yellow Yugurs. Of the other two, one
migrated to the west from the Uighur-held eastern portion of northern West Turkistan and
settled among the Qarluqs in the Chu River Valley in northern Kyrgyzstan. Another settled
among the Qarluqs in Kashgar. A minor group went east to Manchuria, quickly assimilated
and does not appear mentioned in histories again.
[View Map Twenty: Dispersion of the Orkhon Uighurs from Mongolia and Dzungaria {23}.]
All four groups of Uighurs adopted Buddhism after migration. Those on the northern rim of
the Tarim Basin adopted the Tocharian/Sogdian/Han Chinese form of Turfan and Kucha,
those in the Gansu Corridor a Han Chinese/Tibetan blend, those in the Chu Valley the West
Turkistani Sogdian style, while those in Kashgar the Kashgari form. Except for the Yellow
Yugurs, all the other Uighur branches eventually converted centuries later to Islam. To
understand better the dynamics of conversion among the Turks, let us once more examine the
reasons for the Uighur change of religion, this time from Manichaeism to Buddhism. We shall
focus our discussion on the two largest groups, the Qocho (Qoco) Uighurs and Yellow
Yugurs.
Previous Uighur Familiarity with Buddhism
Before the conversion of the Orkhon Uighur nobility to Manichaeism, the Uighurs had
previously adopted Buddhism when they had ruled Turfan during the early seventh century.
The Uighur warriors and common people had maintained a certain level of devotion to
Buddhism throughout the period of the Uighur Orkhon Empire. This is evidenced by the
anti-Buddhist rhetoric of some of the later Uighur qaghans. Nevertheless, the Uighur
Manichaean texts of this period contained strong Buddhist elements due to the background of
the Sogdian translators. Furthermore, the Uighur aristocracy itself had not been exclusively
Manichaean. Many also followed the Nestorian Christian faith. Some even accepted
Buddhism, as evidenced by the Tibetan emperor, Tri Relpachen, having commissioned several
translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into Uighur shortly after the peace treaty of 821.
However, there were reasons other than familiarity that undoubtedly contributed to the
Uighurs' change of religions.
The Breakup of the Tibetan Empire
In 836, four years before the Kyrgyz takeover of the Orkhon Uighur realm, Emperor
Relpachen of Tibet was assassinated by his brother, Langdarma (gLang-dar-ma, r. 836 - 842).
Assuming the throne, the new emperor instituted a severe repression of Buddhism throughout
Tibet. It was aimed at ending the Religious Council's interference in politics and the drain on
the economy made by Tri Relpachen's policy of legislating ever more grandiose public
support of the monasteries. Langdarma closed all the monasteries and forced the monks to
disrobe. He did not physically destroy these complexes, however, or their libraries. Even
without access to the scriptural literature, Buddhism continued among many Tibetan lay
practitioners.
In 842, Langdarma was assassinated by a monk who, according to one scholar, was the
deposed head of the Religious Council and former abbot of Samyay. Civil war ensued over
succession to the throne, resulting in the breakup of the Tibetan Empire. Over the next two
decades, Tibet gradually withdrew from its holdings in Gansu and East Turkistan. Some
The Uighur Migration into Turkistan and the Gansu Corridor 57

became independent political entities -- first Dunhuang, which became known as the state of
Guiyijun (Kuei i-chün, 848 - 890s) governed by a local Han Chinese clan, and then Khotan
(851 - 1006) ruled by its own, unbroken royal line. In others, local Han Chinese took initial
control but did not establish a strong rule, for instance Turfan, starting in 851. By 866,
however, the Uighur immigrant communities in these former Tibetan holdings had become
strong enough to establish their own rule.
The Subsequent Political Division of East Turkistan and Gansu
The Qocho Uighur Kingdom (866 - 1209) at first included the area between Turfan and
Beshbaliq. Eventually it spanned the northern rim of the Tarim Basin as far as Kucha. The
eastern portion of the southern rim up to the borders of Khotan became no-man's land, with a
few Tibetan tribes staying behind. Trade through it between Han China and Khotan and then
on to the west came to a standstill. Kashgar remained in Qarluq hands.
[View Map Twenty-one: Central Asia, Mid-Ninth Century {24}.]
The Yellow Yugur Kingdom (866 - 1028) occupied the Gansu Corridor. Guiyijun helped the
immigrant Uighurs establish it through military aid to expel the remaining remnants of
Tibetan rule. Many Tibetans fled south to the Kokonor region where most had originated and
where eventually the Tsongka (Tsong-kha) Kingdom arose. The Yellow Yugurs soon turned
on their allies in Guiyijun, taking it over in the 890s.
One further group of people, the Tanguts, lived in the area and soon became a major force in
the historical development. They were related to the Tibetans and their territory in eastern
Gansu separated the Yellow Yugurs from the Han Chinese at Chang'an. In the mid-seventh
century, the Tanguts had fled their homeland in the Kokonor region due to constant attacks by
central Tibet and had taken refuge in eastern Gansu under Tang protection. There they met
with Buddhism for the first time. Their ranks were swelled a century later by further Tangut
refugees fleeing Tibetan military activity in the region after the An Lushan rebellion.
All these areas of Gansu and East Turkistan to which Tibetan culture had spread were spared
Langdarma's repression of Buddhism. Many Tibetan Buddhist refugees, in fact, sought asylum
there and thus Buddhism was flourishing in these regions when the Orkhon Uighurs arrived.
Han Chinese-style Buddhism, however, was the major form but with strong Tibetan
influences and, in Turfan, large doses of Sogdian and Tocharian elements.
The Repression of Buddhism in Han China
Meanwhile, Buddhism was suffering an even worse persecution in Han China than in Tibet.
During the century after the Tang emperor, Xuanzong's, reforms to curb Buddhist power, the
Han Chinese Buddhist monasteries had again received tax exempt status. They held a
disproportionate share of the nation's wealth, particularly precious metals used for temple
images, and employed a large number of laypeople on the vast estates they owned. The ladies
and eunuchs of the imperial harem were extremely devoted to the monks and nuns, and
influenced the emperors to indulge these excesses.
When Emperor Wuzong (Wu-tsung, r. 841 - 847) ascended the throne, the Daoist court
officials persuaded him to overthrow the previous emperor's policy toward the Buddhist
monasteries. Prompted by these officials' jealous anxiety over the imperial harem's influence
on policy and by their concern for the national economy, Wuzong took action. In 841, he
The Breakup of the Tibetan Empire 58

ordered all monks who kept women and preyed on the superstitions of the people to be
disrobed and all excess money and real estate owned by the monasteries confiscated. In so
doing, he was fulfilling the traditional role of northern Han Chinese emperors as protectors of
the purity of the Buddhist doctrine.
The Daoist ministers, however, were not satisfied with the Emperor's move. They called for
the removal of all foreign influences in Han China and a return to traditional values and ethics.
Identifying not only Manichaeism and Nestorian Christianity, but also Buddhism as foreign
religions, they moved first against the former two, as they were present in Han China on a
more limited scale. In 843, they influenced the Emperor to impose a total ban on Manichaeism
and Nestorian Christianity throughout the empire and evict all its clerics. This affected not
only the Sogdian merchant community, but also any Uighur nobility that might seek refuge in
Han China. In 845, the Daoist faction convinced the Emperor to destroy all but a few Buddhist
temples and monasteries, confiscate and melt down their images made of precious metals,
return all monks and nuns to lay life, dismiss all laypersons in service on monastic land, and
appropriate all monastic-owned property.
Analysis of the Repression
It is noteworthy that this persecution and ban on foreign religions was never extended to
Islam. The Muslim merchant community was limited to the coastal cities of the Southeast.
They did not ply the Silk Route until centuries later. The Sogdians, Han Chinese, and Tibetans
carried out that trade, with the Uighurs eager to gain a share. The competition was fierce and
the fact that the Daoist ministers' severity was directed not only at the Buddhists, but against
the Manichaeans and Nestorian Christians as well, indicates that they were primarily
motivated by economic concerns.
Tibet was in the throws of a civil war and clearly about to lose its hold over Gansu and East
Turkistan. The only rivals left for the power vacuum the Tibetans would leave on the Silk
Route were the Uighurs and the Sogdians. The fact that the persecution was directed only at
religions held by the Sogdians, Han Chinese, Tibetans, and Uighurs, and not by the Arabs or
Persians, confirms that the focus of the Tang ministers' policy was the Silk Route and Central
Asia, not the South Seas. If religious persecution in Central Asia was not being implemented
for political reasons, it was for economic concerns, and hardly ever on spiritual or doctrinal
grounds.
Aftermath
Upon the death of Wuzong in 847, the new emperor, Xuanzong (Hsüan-tsung, r. 847 - 860),
executed the Daoist leaders and soon gave permission for the restoration of Buddhism. Most
of the Han Chinese Buddhist sects, however, could not survive this severe persecution. Only
the Chan (Jap. Zen) and Pure Land schools recovered, the former because of its location in the
more remote mountainous areas of western Han China and its lack of dependency on monastic
libraries, and the latter because of its popular, nonscholarly base.
As the Tang Dynasty withered in power until its end in 907 and Han China split apart during
the Five Dynasties Period (907 - 960), the Han Chinese lost all effective influence in Central
Asia. The strategy of the Daoist ministers for eliminating competition on the Silk Route and
gaining economic advantage for Tang China ended in failure.
The Repression of Buddhism in Han China 59

Effects of These Developments on the Uighurs' Conversion to Buddhism
This was the political and economic context, then, within which the Orkhon Uighurs changed
religions from Manichaeism to Buddhism. As with the Eastern Turk shift from shamanism to
Buddhism and back, and the earlier conversion of the Uighurs from shamanism to Buddhism
and then Manichaeism, three factors primarily influenced the change and choice of religion.
First was the need for a unifying force to rally the people behind a new dynasty. Second was
the search for supernatural power to support the new rule, based on evaluating the success of
various religions in propping up other foreign regimes. Third was the overriding priority of
gaining economic benefit from controlling the Silk Route trade.
The Qocho Uighurs and Yellow Yugurs were starting not only new dynasties, but also new
ways of life as sedentary urban dwellers of oases. Manichaeism had proven bankrupt as a state
religion capable of providing the supernatural power to sustain their previous Orkhon Empire.
They needed a new religion around which to rally and to provide them with the extraworldly
support needed to make the transition successfully.
The Tibetan Empire had just collapsed and Tang China was on the eve of disintegration. The
Uighurs had previously fought against both and knew their strengths and weaknesses. From a
nomadic, shamanic point of view, the failure of both could only be attributed to their recent
persecution of Buddhism. The Tibetans and Tang China had both offended the Buddhist
deities and had lost their support. The supernatural power of Buddhism was clearly proven. A
century earlier the Uighurs had decided that the defeats of the Tang emperor by the Abbasids
and the An Lushan rebellion had been due to the weakness of Buddhism and so had discarded
that faith themselves in favor of Manichaeism. However, the course of events had shown that
their evaluation had been mistaken.
Furthermore, both Tibet and Tang China were now cut off from the Silk Route and too weak
to control its lucrative trade, which was still mostly in the hands of the Sogdians. Many central
Tibetan and Han Chinese Buddhist refugees, fleeing persecution in their own lands, were
flocking to the territories through which the eastern part of the Silk Route passed, namely
Turfan, Guiyijun, the Gansu Corridor, the Kokonor region of northeastern Tibet, and the
Tangut realm. This was because Buddhism continued to flourish in all these areas without
government hindrance. Thus, Buddhism was undoubtedly stronger along the eastern portion of
the Silk Route than Manichaeism or Nestorian Christianity was. In addition, as both Tibet and
Tang China had just ended periods of repression of Buddhism, those who followed this faith
along the Silk Route were without a strong royal patron. The monastics and laypeople would
equally welcome a religious ruler who would assume this role.
Therefore, since Buddhism was so well-established and stable in East Turkistan and Gansu,
among not only the Sogdians, but the other Central Asian peoples in the region as well, and
since many Uighurs were already familiar with it, particularly those already living in these
areas, Buddhism was the logical choice of religion for the Qocho Uighur and Yellow Yugur
princes. Becoming the upholders of Buddhism would put them in the strongest position to be
accepted as lords and protectors of the Silk Route. The rulers of both kingdoms, therefore,
assumed the title "bodhisattva prince," as previous Uighur rulers had done a century and a half
earlier when they had formerly controlled Turfan.
With the help of the multilingual Sogdians, the Uighurs now began translating the Buddhist
scriptures into their language, not from Sogdian editions, however, but from Han Chinese and
Tocharian texts, borrowing elements from previous Old Turk translations. The Sogdians did
Effects of These Developments on the Uighurs' Conversion to Buddhism 60

not translate from their own texts perhaps because they wished to maintain their unique
cultural identity and not become lost in a Uighur Buddhist culture in which everyone followed
the same scriptural tradition.
The Position of Islam at the End of the Early Abbasid Period
In the mid-ninth century when the Abbasid caliphate was beginning to lose its direct hold on
Central Asia, Islam was still mostly limited there to Sogdia. It was found among the Arab
descendants and the local population who had accepted the faith not out of force, but mostly
due to the attraction of Islamic high culture. When the Abbasids had led jihads against
Saurashtra and Kabul, although their opponents were Buddhists, their holy wars had not been
aimed at destroying Buddhism per se. In both cases, the Muslim leaders had confused the
upholders of Buddhism with the anti-Abbasid Musalemiyya and Manichaean Shiite rebels.
For the most part, the Abbasids were tolerant of Buddhism and maintained trade and cultural
relations with Buddhist countries.
In the following decades a major shift occurred as Central Asia came under the rule of various
Turkic peoples. Several of the Turkic states adopted Islam because their leaders had been
slave military chiefs under the Abbasids and had won their freedom by converting to Islam.
One of them, however, the Qarakhanid state, voluntarily accepted Islam for many of the same
reasons that previous Turkic peoples, such as the Eastern Turks and Uighurs, had earlier
changed religions and adopted Buddhism, shamanism, or Manichaeism. Foremost on the
minds of these Turkic rulers were issues of supernatural power to support their state and
geopolitical strategies for gaining control of the Silk Route trade. The further spread of Islam
into Central Asia and India and its interaction with Buddhism in both these regions will
become more understandable within that context.
Part III: The Spread of Islam among and by the Turkic

Peoples (840 - 1206 CE)
13 The Establishment of New Empires in Central Asia
The Founding of the Qarakhanid Empire
When the Orkhon Uighur Turks were driven from Mongolia by the Kyrgyz takeover in 840
CE, they lost possession of the sacred earth-goddess mountain Otukan near their former
capital, Ordubaliq. According to the pre-Buddhist and pre-Manichaean Tengrian beliefs of the
Old Turks, whoever controlled this mountain was the theoretical ruler of the entire Turkic
world. Only he and his descendants had the spiritual authority to assume the title qaghan, and
only his tribe could provide political leaders for the other Turkic tribes. The spiritual force
(qut) representing the fortune of the Turks as a whole resided in this mountain and would
embody in the qaghan as his own vital force or charismatic power responsible for his success
or failure.
The rulers of the two major kingdoms constituted by Uighur refugees, the Qocho Uighurs in
the northern Tarim Basin and the Yellow Yugurs in the Gansu Corridor, did not qualify for
this politico-religious title since their dominions did not extend to Mongolia. Neither did the
Kyrgyz ruler of Mongolia itself, since the Kyrgyz were racially a Mongolian people and did
not originally speak a Turkic language. They were a people of the Siberian forest, not of the
steppe, and did not believe in the sanctity of Otukan.
The Position of Islam at the End of the Early Abbasid Period 61

There was a second sacred mountain, however, Balasaghun, on the Chu River in northern
Kyrgyzstan near Lake Issyk Kul. It had been under the control of the Western Turks who had
built several Buddhist monasteries on its slopes. As the mountain now lay within the Qarluq
Turk domain, the Qarluq ruler, Bilga Kul Qadyr, in 840 declared himself "qaghan," the
rightful leader and protector of all Turkic tribes, and changed the name of his kingdom and
dynasty to Qarakhanid (Karakhanid).
Soon after its founding, the Qarakhanid Empire split into two. The western branch had its
capital at Taraz on the Talas River and included the city-state of Kashgar to the southeast,
across the Tianshan Mountains at the extreme western end of the Tarim Basin. The eastern
division, to the north across the Kyrgyz Range, centered around the sacred mountain of
Balasaghun on the Chu.
[View Map Twenty-two: Northern Central Asia, Approximately 850 CE {25}]
Relations between the Qarakhanids and the Uighurs
Throughout their period (840 - 1137), the Qarakhanids never launched a military campaign
against their former overlords, the Uighurs, although previously, as Qarluqs, they had
frequently fought. Two of the four Orkhon Uighur refugee communities were very small and
had settled within the Qarakhanid Empire -- in Kashgar and along the Chu River Valley. It is
unclear to what extent they became assimilated or if they sustained themselves as alien
minorities. The Qarakhanids maintained, however, a cultural rivalry with the other two, much
larger groups, the Qocho Uighurs and the Yellow Yugurs. They would try to use other,
nonmilitary means to gain ascendency over them.
The Qocho Uighurs became highly urbanized in the northern oases of the Tarim Basin.
Having abandoned their former martial traditions of the steppes and adopted Buddhism, they
lived mostly in peace with the surrounding kingdoms. The Yellow Yugurs also became
urbanized in the city-states of the Gansu Corridor, also became Buddhists, but were in almost
constant warfare with their neighbors, the Tanguts, to the east who continually threatened
them. Both Uighur branches had friendly relations with Han China, since local Han settlers in
the area had helped them depose the region's former Tibetan rulers and establish their
kingdoms.
Together, the two Uighur peoples constituted the only Turkic group at the time with a written
language and a high culture, which they had gained with the help of the Sogdian merchants
and monks living in both their realms. The Qarakhanids lacked these qualities, despite their
control of Kashgar, which also had a Sogdian presence. However, with possession of
Balasaghun, they had a strong claim for the leadership of the Turkic people.
Early Relations between the Qarakhanids and Tibet
The Qarakhanids maintained the Qarluq custom of supporting a blend of Buddhism, Turkic
shamanism, and Tengrism, as had the Western Turks before them. They also continued their
traditional friendly relations with their former, long-term military ally, Tibet. The latter,
although politically weak, still exerted a strong cultural influence on the areas immediately to
the east of the Qarakhanids. For more than a century after the assassination of Langdarma in
842, Tibetan was the international language of commerce and diplomacy used from Khotan to
Gansu. Due to the long Tibetan occupation of the area, it was the only common tongue in the
region. Many Han Chinese and Uighur Buddhist texts were transliterated into Tibetan
The Founding of the Qarakhanid Empire 62

characters for the most widespread use, with some even being sponsored by the Kyrgyz royal
family.
As further indication of the close link between the Qarakhanids and Tibetans, after
Langdarma's repression of the Buddhist monastic tradition, three central Tibetan monks
escaped persecution by passing through western Tibet and accepting temporary asylum in the
Qarakhanid territory of Kashgar. The Qarakhanids were sympathetic to their plight and
Buddhism was stable enough in that area for them to feel secure. Proceeding eastward, most
likely along the southern rim of the Tarim Basin, and instructing many of their compatriots in
Gansu, they finally settled in the Kokonor region of northeastern Tibet, where the Tsongka
Kingdom soon was founded. They were responsible for the survival of the monks' ordination
lineage that was revived in central Tibet from Tsongka a century and a half later.
The Saffarid Kingdom
After General Tahir founded the Tahirid state in Bactria in 819, the next local Islamic leader
to declare autonomy under the Abbasids was Yaqub bin al-Saffar, who established the
Saffarid Dynasty (861 - 910) from his stronghold in Sistan, southeastern Iran. His was an
extremely ambitious military rule, which in 867 set out to conquer all of Iran. In 870, the
Saffarids invaded Kabul. In the face of imminent defeat, the last of the Buddhist Turki Shahi
rulers was ousted by his brahman minister, Kallar, who abandoned Kabul to the Saffarids and
established the Hindu Shahi Dynasty (870 - 1015) in Gandhara and Oddiyana.
[View Map Twenty-three: Southern Central Asia, End of the Ninth Century {26}.]
The Saffarid leader plundered the monasteries of the Kabul Valley and sent Buddha statues
from them as war trophies to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad. This militant Muslim occupation
of Kabul was the first serious blow against Buddhism there. The previous defeat and
conversion to Islam of the Kabul Shah in 815 had had only minor repercussions on the general
state of Buddhism in the region.
The Saffarids continued their campaign of conquest and destruction northward, capturing
Bactria and ousting the Tahirids in 873. Their glory, however, was short-lived. In 879, the
Hindu Shahis regained control of the Kabul region. They patronized both Hinduism and
Buddhism among their people, and Buddhism revived throughout the area.
The Buddhist monasteries of Kabul soon regained their past opulence and glory. Asadi Tusi,
in his Garshasp Name written in 1048, describes Subahar Monastery found by the Ghaznavids
when they took Kabul from the Hindu Shahis approximately fifty years earlier. One of its
temples had walls of marble, doors of gilt, floors of silver and, in its center, an enthroned
Buddha made of gold. Its walls were decorated with representations of the planets and twelve
signs of the zodiac, identical to the Zurvanite motif found in the throne room of the Iranian
Sassanid palace, Taqdis, centuries earlier.
The Samanid and Buyid Kingdoms
Meanwhile, the Persian governors of Bukhara and Samarkand had also declared their
autonomy from the Abbasids and had founded the Samanid Dynasty (874 - 999). In 892, the
Samanid founder, Ismail bin Ahmad (r. 874-907), captured the Western Qarakhanid capital,
Taraz, causing its ruler, Oghulchaq, to shift his capital to Kashgar. Ismail bin Ahmad then
took Bactria from the Saffarids in 903, causing their harsh rulers to retreat to central Iran.
Early Relations between the Qarakhanids and Tibet 63

The Samanids promoted a return to traditional Iranian culture, but remained politically loyal
to the Arabs. They were the first to write Persian in the Arabic script and did much to develop
Persian literature. At the height of their rule, under Nasr II (r. 913 - 942), peace prevailed in
Sogdia and Bactria, with a high level of culture.
The Samanids were Sunni, but Nasr II was also sympathetic to the Shiite and Ismaili sects. He
was also tolerant of Buddhism, as evidenced by the fact that carved Buddha images were still
made and sold in the Samanid capital, Bukhara, during this period. The Samanids were even
sympathetic to the much-persecuted Manichaeans, and many found refuge in Samarkand
during their rule.
The only religious group that felt unwelcome were the Zoroastrians, the followers of the
religion of the Samanid founder before he converted to Islam. A large community of them
emigrated to India, arriving in Gujarat by sea in 936. There, they became known as the Parsis.
Shortly afterwards, Nasr II's successor, Nuh ibn Nasr (r. 943 - 954), severely repressed the
Ismaili sect of Islam.
Throughout this period, the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad grew ever weaker. Soon after the
downfall of the Saffarids in 910, the Buyids established their dynastic rule over most of Iran
(932 - 1062). The Buyids were Shiites and, during their reign, effectively controlled the
Baghdad caliphs. They continued to support the Abbasid interest in foreign learning, however,
particularly science. In 970, a group of Baghdad scholars known as the "Brethren of
Purity(Ikhwanu's-Safa)" published a fifty-volume encyclopedia covering all fields of
contemporary knowledge, including material translated from Greek, Persian, and Indian
sources.
The Khitan Empire
Meanwhile, another important empire was rising in southwestern Manchuria that would soon
affect the balance of power in Central Asia. This was the empire of the Khitans. Apaochi (872
- 926) united the various Khitan tribes in the area and declared himself " khan" in 907, a year
after the fall of the Chinese Tang Dynasty. The Khitans followed a blend of the Han Chinese
and Korean traditions of Buddhism together with their native form of shamanism. Apaochi
had already built a Khitan Buddhist temple in 902 and, in 917, proclaimed Buddhism as the
state religion.
[View Map Twenty-four: Central Asia, Early Tenth Century {27}.]
The Khitans were the first known group to have spoken a Mon−golian language. They had a
highly evolved civilization with particular skill in metalwork. Wishing to keep a separate
identity for his people, in 920 Apaochi commissioned a written script for the Khitan
lan−guage, modeled after the Han Chinese charac−ters, but far more complex. In the
following centuries, it became the basis for the Jurchen and Tangut writing systems.
In 924, Apaochi Khan over−threw the Kyrgyz and conquered Mon−go−lia. He was extremely
broad-minded, however, and tolerated the Manichaean and Nestorian Christian believers left
there after the departure of the Orkhon Uighurs. He also extended his suzerainty over the
Gansu Corridor and the northern Tarim Basin, where the Yellow Yugurs and Qocho Uighurs
submitted peacefully and became vassal states. In 925, he adopted the Uighur script as a
second, simpler form of writing Khitan. He even invited the two Uighur groups to return to
their steppe lands. However, having well adopted to sedentary urban life and perhaps also
The Samanid and Buyid Kingdoms 64

fearing a total Khitan takeover of the Silk Route in their absence, the Uighurs and Yugurs both
declined.
The Khitan Empire quickly expanded in many directions. Soon, it included all of Manchuria,
part of northern Korea, and a great of northeastern and northern Han China. Apaochi's
successors declared the Liao (Liao) Dynasty (947 - 1125) , which was a constant rival and
enemy of the Chinese Northern Song (Sung) Dynasty (960 - 1126). The latter had succeeded
in reunifying the rest of Han China after a half century of fragmentation.
Although the Khitan nobility that occupied Han Chinese territory became largely Sinicized,
the Khitans outside of Han China kept their own customs and cultural identity. The Khitan
rulers always maintained their imperial court and center of military power in southwestern
Manchuria. They paid only lip service to Confucian ritual and emphasized instead strong
Buddhist customs, which they blended with their traditional shamanic beliefs. Slowly,
Buddhist values predominated. The last recorded human sacrifice at a Khitan imperial burial
was in 983. The Khitan emperor, Xingzang (Hsing-tsang), took Buddhist precepts in 1039 and
prohibited the sacrifice of horses and oxen at funerals in 1043.
Since the Khitans had been familiar with Han Chinese Buddhism for centuries before
declaring their dynasty and also because the most extensive Buddhist literature was available
in the Chinese language, Han civilization soon overshadowed Uighur elements as the main
foreign influence on Khitan society. The Qocho Uighurs and Yellow Yugurs felt increasingly
estranged. Subsequently, while maintaining diplomatic and trade relations with their
overlords, the Khitans, they pursued a more autonomous course. They never rebelled,
however, perhaps for a number of reasons. The Khitans had military superiority. Not only
would the Uighur and Yugurs be unable to vanquish them, they would, on the contrary, be
able to profit from having them as protectors. Furthermore, both Uighur groups, despite
having adopted Buddhism, undoubtedly still had their eyes on the sacred Otukan Mountain in
Mongolia, under Khitan control, and did not wish to lose all contact with it. Uighur Buddhism,
like its Old Turk predecessor and the parallel Khitan form, combined Tengrian and shamanic
elements into the faith.
14 The Founding of the First Two Turkic Islamic States
The Conversion of the Qarakhanids to Islam
During the 930s, Nasr bin Mansur, a prominent member of the Samanid royal family, defected
to the Western Qarakhanids and was installed as the governor of Artuch, a small district north
of Kashgar. He was undoubtedly trying to infiltrate behind the Qarakhanid lines in order to
facilitate a further expansion of the Samanid Empire. Being a devout Muslim, the Samanid
ordered a mosque constructed at Artuch, the first in the Tarim Basin. When Satuq, the nephew
of the Western Qarakhanid ruler, Oghulchaq, visited the area, he developed an interest in the
new religion and converted.
According to Islamic historical accounts, when Satuq tried to convince his uncle to change
religions as well, the latter resisted, which led to a prolonged clash. The nephew eventually
overthrew his uncle and assumed the title Satuq Bughra Khan. With his declaration of Sunni
Islam as the state religion, the Western Qarakhanids of Kashgar became the first Turkic tribe
officially to adopt the Muslim faith. This occurred in the late 930s.
The Khitan Empire 65

Analysis of the Motives for the Conversion
Although religious fervor may have motivated Satuq's actions, he undoubtedly had an
additional reason -- ambition for power. In order to achieve his aim of ruling the Qarakhanids,
he allied himself with the Samanid infiltrator who also had a similar objective. To gain his
trust, Satuq would need to adopt a strategy.
The Iranian Samanids had followed the Arab Abbasid custom of taking Turkic tribespeople as
slaves and conscripting their warriors into their army. Although the Samanids were
exceptionally tolerant of other religions, they would nevertheless offer these slaves nominal
freedom if they converted to Islam. More than a thousand Qarakhanids living in Samanid
territory had changed religions in this manner. If Satuq voluntarily submitted himself and his
followers to Islam, he would easily gain the confidence of the Samanids and seal a military
alliance.
Furthermore, if Satuq had ambitions of his own to turn the tide of Western Qarakhanid losses
of territory and forge the Turks into a regional power, his move would be facilitated by
unifying his people around a new religion. This was the time-tested pattern of previous
Tibetan, Eastern Turk, and Uighur successes. The combination of Buddhism and shamanism
had failed to provide the supernatural support for his uncle to keep control of his lands across
the Tianshan Mountains; whereas with Islam behind them, the Samanids had succeeded in
gaining the victory. The choice of new religions was obvious.
The Qocho Uighurs were currently thriving as the upholders of Buddhism and lords of the
northern branch of the Silk Route through the Tarim Basin. Their ethnic cousins, the Yellow
Yugurs, also strong Buddhists, controlled the Gansu Corridor where, after the northern and
southern branches joined at Dunhuang, the Silk Route funneled into Han China. In order to
rally the Turkic tribes behind his ambition, away from the Uighurs, Satuq needed a religion
not only different from Buddhism. He needed one that also would allow him to reopen the
alternative southern branch of the route and shift the focus of control of the trade from the
eastern to the western sectors.
As the western terminus of the Silk Route in Sogdia was in Islamic hands, Satuq's plan seems
to have been to conquer Sogdia. Then, driving eastward from Kashgar, he could use Islam to
forge a cultural unity along the southern branch of the route and on through the Gansu
Corridor, with himself as protector and overlord. Just as the Uighurs had used the flag of
Buddhism to win and consolidate their hold on the northern Tarim branch of the Silk Route,
Satuq apparently hoped to accomplish the same for the Qarakhanids with the southern branch
under the banner of Islam. First, however, in order to rally the Turkic peoples behind him, he
required the Turks' sacred mountain to turn the supernatural advantage to his side.
Consolidation of the Qarakhanid Islamic State
In 942, Satuq Bughra Khan, with the help of his Samanid allies, tried to conquer the Eastern
Qarakhanids and gain control of Balasaghun. Being unsuccessful, he then turned against the
Samanids themselves, helping local opposition groups to undermine their rule in Sogdia. This
is added evidence that political ambition outweighed any feelings he might have had of
religious kinship with his fellow Muslims.
Over the next decades, Satuq's successors not only won Balasaghun and reunified the
Qarakhanids, but also took Samarkand and Bukhara from the Samanids. As overlords and
Analysis of the Motives for the Conversion 66

protectors of the Turks' sacred mountain, they assumed the title qaghan by the end of the
century. They could now turn their attention to their main objective, the southern Tarim
branch of the Silk Route.
The Rise of the Ghaznavids and the Fall of the Samanids
In 962, Alptigin, an enslaved Turkic military chief under the Samanids who had won his
nominal freedom by converting to Sunni Islam, seized from his masters Ghazna in
modern-day southeastern Afghanistan. His son-in-law, Sabuktigin (r. 976-997), founded there
the autonomous Ghaznavid Dynasty (976-1186), paying allegiance only to the Abbasid court.
His was the second Islamic Turkic state to rise in Central Asia. He conquered the Kabul
Valley from the Hindu Shahi ruler Jayapala (r. 964-1001), driving the Hindu Shahis back to
Gandhara and Oddiyana, and extended his rule as far as northeastern Iran. He also invaded
Sindh from Mukran (Baluchistan) and annexed some of its western portions.
The Persian Samanids further declined in power and were finally overthrown in 999. The
Turkic slave soldiers in their service, preferring their own ethnic ways, helped the Ghaznavids
and Qarakhanids depose them. Sabuktigin's son and successor, Mahmud of Ghazni (r.
998-1030), divided what was left of the Samanid lands in Sogdia and Bactria with the
Qarakhanid Qaghan. He also took Khwarazm -- corresponding to modern-day northwestern
Turkmenistan and western Uzbekistan -- and most of Iran.
[View Map Twenty-five: Early Qarakhanid and Ghaznavid Empires, Mid-Tenth Century
{28}.]
Despite being a Turk, Mahmud glorified the Iranian Sassanid Empire and patronized its
cultural tradition, as had the Samanids before him. He summoned Persian scholars and writers
to Ghazna, enlisting from Khwarazm, for example, Abu Raihan Muhammad ibn-I-Ahmad
al-Biruni (973-1048) in his service as court astrologer. He encouraged the use of the Persian
language wherever he conquered and would undoubtedly have appreciated the Iranian
Sassanid motifs of depictions of the planets and signs of the zodiac on the walls of Subahar
Monastery his father had found in Kabul.
Thus, although Islamic Turkic kingdoms now controlled Sogdia and Bactria for the first time
in history, the tone of each was different. The Qarakhanids were the upholders of Turkic
tradition, whereas the Ghaznavids favored Iranian culture. The leaders of the former had
voluntarily converted to Islam mostly for economic and political gain, while those of the latter
in order to gain relative freedom as enslaved military chiefs serving a foreign Muslim rule.
Each spread Islam beyond West Turkistan during the course of their military expansion -- the
Qarakhanids to parts of East Turkistan, while the Ghaznavids to northern India. Let us
examine their motives to assess whether their efforts were part of an actual holy war against
other religions or only nominally a jihad, but in fact more political and economic in nature.
15 The Qarakhanid Campaign against Khotan
Khotanese Missions to Han China
Khotan, lying to the east of the Qarakhanid stronghold in Kashgar, was a wealthy Buddhist
state. Its mines were the main source of jade for all the lands along the Silk Route, especially
Han China. Occasionally, its kings had even visited Han China, for instance in 755 to offer
military aid in quelling the An Lushan rebellion. However, since the Tibetan reassertion of its
Consolidation of the Qarakhanid Islamic State 67

rule over Khotan in 790, all contact between the Khotanese and Han Chinese courts had
ended. The Khotanese had not sought to reestablish this contact even when they regained
independence in 851. The trade route across the southern rim of the Tarim Basin had fallen
into disuse for almost a century and a half, and the Tibetan tribes settled along it often raided
Khotan.
In 938, however, shortly after Satuq Bughra Khan's usurpation of the Qarakhanid throne, the
Khotanese king sent a tribute and trade mission to Han China via this southern Tarim route.
Despite Han China's weakness in being split into several kingdoms during the prevailing Five
Dynasties Period (907 - 960), Khotan felt the pressing need to reestablish relations. The king
was motivated to take this step undoubtedly because of feeling threatened by the political
unrest to the west in Kashgar.
[View Map Twenty-six: Central Asia at the Time of the Qarakhanid Invasion of Khotan,
Approximately 1000 CE {29}.]
Although Khotan had not been trading directly with Han China during the previous century
and a half, it still engaged in a considerable amount of commercial activity with other regions.
All trade routes from Khotan, however, either passed through Kashgar to go on to either West
Turkistan or the northern Tarim Basin, or they passed through Yarkand on the way to Kashgar
to cross the Karakorum Mountains to Kashmir and on to the plains of India. If Kashgar and its
environs were politically unstable and unsafe for commercial traffic, it would be difficult for
Khotan to survive economically. This was surely one of the primary reasons for initially
reopening the southern Tarim branch of the Silk Route to Han China -- to reestablish an
alternative market for Khotanese jade and other goods.
As the Qarakhanids subsequently pursued an expansionist policy, the Khotanese undoubtedly

felt territorially threatened as well. Thus, an additional reason for relations with Han China
was the hope for a renewed military alliance as the two countries had frequently enjoyed in
the past.
From their reopening of the southern Tarim trade route until 971, the Khotanese sent
numerous missions to the Han Chinese courts with presents of jade and seeking protection for
their territorial integrity. Aside from trade benefits, it does not appear that they ever received
any military aid from their former allies, even after the reunification of Han China in 960 with
the founding of the Northern Song Dynasty.
The Northern Song forces were preoccupied with almost constant warfare against the Tanguts
to their immediate west. Although travel from Han China to Central Asia could skirt the
conflict by passing through the southeastern corner of Tsongka and continuing northward to
the Gansu Corridor, the Northern Song was too weak to divert attention from the Tangut
conflict and implement direct military intervention in East Turkistan. The Khotanese would
have to fend against any possible invasion without Han Chinese help.
The Position of Buddhism in Khotan
The Khotanese tribute and trade missions to Han China were mostly accompanied by
Buddhist monks. This was the usual custom in Buddhist countries, since monks were
frequently the most highly educated and literate members of society. States often engaged
them for diplomatic purposes.
Khotanese Missions to Han China 68

In general, Buddhist activity was very strong in Khotan at this time. The Khotanese king,
Visha Shura (r. 967 - 977) sponsored a large number of translations of Sanskrit Buddhist texts
into his language and sent many Buddhist teachers to the Qocho Uighurs. Although the
Khotanese had begun to translate Buddhist texts into their language by the mid-sixth century,
at about the same time as the Tokharians had begun to do likewise, the greatest efforts in such
work were at this time.
The Declaration of a Holy War
According to an Islamic historical account, the natives of Kashgar, not being Turkic people,
resisted conversion to the faith at the hands of the Qarakhanids. They were supported by their
fellow Buddhists in Khotan, who helped them to temporarily overthrow Turkic Muslim rule in
971 while the Qarakhanid forces were concentrated in a campaign in Sogdia against the
Samanids.
Four imams then sent Yusuf Qadr Khan, the brother of the Qarakhanid Qaghan, on a holy war
to retake Kashgar. The Khan was not only successful, but pressed further eastward, adding
Yarkand to the Qarakhanid Empire and converting its people to Islam. He then laid siege to
Khotan for twenty-four years. Despite help the Khotanese received from their former rulers
and fellow Buddhists, the Tibetans, the city-state fell in 1006.
Shortly afterward, the Khotanese staged an uprising against Islam and the four imams were
martyred. However, Yusuf Qadr Khan returned from battle with the Ghaznavids and quashed
the rebellion. Khotan was then absorbed into the Qarakhanid realm and converted once and
for all to the Islamic faith.
Analysis of the Kashgari Uprising
This account immediately raises an important question. If the Buddhist natives of Kashgar
resisted conversion to Islam at the hands of the Qarakhanids because they were not Turkic
people, doesn't this imply that the reason for their opposition was not their Buddhist religion,
but rather their ethnic origin as Indo-Iranians? This account indirectly states that the Buddhist
Qarakhanid Turks of Kashgar did not resist conversion. Therefore, it would seem that religion
was not the main issue. The native Kashgaris were trying to overthrow Qarakhanid rule, not
specifically the Islamic religion of their foreign conquerors.
Even if we accept that the Kashgari uprising was to a certain extent religiously motivated and
that religious allegiance was a contributing factor in the Khotanese and Qarakhanid campaigns
in East Turkistan, geopolitics and economics undoubtedly also played an important role. An
overriding concern that always weighed strongly in the policy decisions of almost all Central
Asian rulers was the wish to control or at least to profit from the lucrative Silk Route trade.
The Khotanese move against Kashgar and the Qarakhanid counterstep against Khotan must
also be evaluated within that context
Evaluation of Using the Model of a Holy War to Describe the Khotanese Action
in Kashgar
The pious Islamic histories describe the events as if Khotan led a Buddhist equivalent of a
jihad, a holy war against the Muslims of Kashgar to defend the practice there of the pure
Buddhist faith. The Qarakhanids, faced with Buddhist oppression of Islam, justifiably
responded, in turn, with a jihad of their own, against Khotan. This explanation, however, is
The Position of Buddhism in Khotan 69

not only unidimensional in that it discounts any motivating factors to events other than
religion, but also seems to interpolate considerations relevant to an Islamic culture onto a
Buddhist one to which they do not pertain.
[See: Holy Wars in Buddhism and Islam: The Myth of Shambhala - Full Version {20} {30}.]
The only Buddhist scripture that speaks of religious war is the Kalachakra Tantra. In its
millenarian vision of the future, this text predicts an apocalyptic battle in the twenty-fifth
century CE when non-Indic forces will try to eliminate all possibility for spiritual practice.
Victory over them will herald a new golden age, particularly for Buddhism. Although the text
is interpreted as also calling for individual spiritual struggle within each person against the
internal forces of darkness and ignorance, it has never been taken as a recommendation for
external battle whenever a Buddhist society is threatened.
Even if one were to interpret the Kalachakra Tantra in this way, the non-Indic forces, led by
Mahdi, would not have referred to Muslims in general. Although the textual description of the
customs of these forces indicates an Islamic affiliation, such as the halal slaughter of cattle
and circumcision, the list of their prophets includes eight teachers. Seven comprise the
standard Ismaili Shia list, and the additional figure is Mani, indicating, perhaps, an association
with the Manichaean and Manichaean Shiite converts to Ismaili Shia. The other Shia sects, as
well as Sunni, assert a list of twenty-five prophets and their list does not include Mahdi, which
the Ismaili list does.
From the point of view of Western scholarship, the historical references and at least a few
other points in the Kalachakra Tantra in all likelihood were first formulated in the Kabul
region of eastern Afghanistan and in Oddiyana during the second half of the tenth century.
Both areas, at first, were under Hindu Shahi rule and then, in 976, Kabul was taken by the
Ghaznavids. The inclusion of the Kabul region as a source of Kalachakra material is suggested
by the fact that the symbolic universe(mandala) depicted in the Kalachakra Tantra echoes the
Sassanid imperial motifs found in the frescoes of one of the temples of Subahar Monastery
rebuilt in Kabul after the 879 Hindu Shahi defeat of the Saffarids. All three have a circle of
representations of the planets and signs of the zodiac surrounding a central royal figure
considered, as in the Sassanid palace at Taqdis, the "King of Space and Time (Zamin o
Zaman)." " Kalachakra" means literally "Circle of Time," with "Circle" occasionally
interpreted to mean the expanse of the universe.
In 968, the Ismaili kingdom of Multan (northern Sindh) became a vassal state of the Ismaili
Fatimid Empire (910 - 1171 CE), founded in North Africa. In 969, the Fatimids conquered
Egypt and, with their new capital near Cairo, soon extended their empire as far as western
Iran. The messianic Ismaili Fatimids threatened a takeover of the Islamic world before the
expected apocalypse and end of the world in the early twelfth century, five hundred years after
the Prophet. Those within the Abbasid political sphere, including the Kabul area under the
Ghaznavids, feared an invasion from the Fatimids and their allies.
Having been branded as heretics and threats to Abbasid rule, Manichaeans, Manichaean
Shiites, and Manichaean converts to Ismaili Shia fled from the Abbasid Empire. It is
reasonable to assume that many sought refuge in Multan. Since conversion to Ismaili Shia
allowed for initial syncretism, these converts would have been allowed to add Mani to the
Ismaili list of prophets. Thus, the Kalachakra warning of an invasion was most likely referring
to the Ismailis of Multan, made heretical and even more menacing by the inclusion of
Manichaean elements among their beliefs. Afghan Buddhist scholars would undoubtedly have
Evaluation of Using the Model of a Holy War to Describe the Khotanese Actionin Kashgar 70
met Manichaean Shiites from the Abbasid court while working in Baghdad in the late eighth
century. As a legacy of that time, the Buddhists might have confused all Ismailis with
Manichaean Shiite converts.
[See: The Kalachakra Presentation of the Prophets of the Non-Indic Invaders {31}.]
In any case, the Kalachakra Tantra depicts the invaders as the enemies of all spiritual
practice. This would include the pure practice of not only Buddhism and Hinduism, but also
Islam, as the text calls for followers of all religions to put aside their differences and form a
united front to oppose this threat. Under the Hindu Shahis, the Kabul Valley had a mixed
population of Buddhists, Hindus, and both Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Even if one were to take the Kalachakra Tantra as calling for external battle against all
Muslims, not simply its fanatic messianic elements, it would be anachronistic to assert that the
Khotanese were inspired by its teachings to declare a Buddhist jihad against the Qarakhanids
in Kashgar. The earliest reference indicating the presence of Kalachakra teachings on the
Indian subcontinent points to Kashmir at the end of the tenth or beginning of the eleventh
century. A Hindu critique of the Kalachakra meditation system in the sixteenth chapter of the
Kashmiri Shaivite tantra text Illuminating the Tantras (Skt. Tantraloka), written by the
Kashmiri pandit Abhinavagupta. According to some scholars, Abhinavagupta wrote his text
between 990 and 1014 and died in 1025. There is no indication, however, that the full
Kalachakra system, including teachings about an invasion, was available in Kashmir at that
time, or earlier, in 971, when Khotan sent military forces to support the Kashgari uprising.
Even if this aspect of the Kalachakra teachings were present in Kashmir at that time, there is
no indication that the Kalachakra Tantra ever reached Khotan, despite the geographic
proximity of Kashmir and Khotan and the considerable cultural and economic exchange.
Therefore, as Buddhism lacks any custom or tradition of holy wars in the Islamic sense, it is
more likely that Khotan was using the Kashgari uprising as a convenient occasion to launch an
offensive to overthrow the Qarakhanids. This was in order to secure a more stable political
environment for economic trade along the western sector of the Silk Route. Since the
Khotanese had no problems with the Islamic market for their goods in West Turkistan, it is
unlikely that they felt religiously threatened by Satuq Bughra Khan declaring Islam the state
religion of Kashgar.
[See: Holy Wars in Buddhism and Islam: The Myth of Shambala - Full Version {32}.]
Evaluation of the Qarakhanid Action as a Holy War
On the Qarakhanid side, the four imams certainly were historical figures -- the tombs of these
martyrs were venerated in Khotan even into the twentieth century. Moreover, they may well
have called for a jihad, interpreting the Khotanese support of the native Kashgari uprising as a
Buddhist holy war. However, it is unlikely that the four Islamic clerics had the power to
initiate military missions on their own authority solely for religious causes.
The Qarakhanid qaghans and generals were strong military leaders themselves and, with a
strong agenda of expanding their empire at the expense of both Muslim and non-Muslim
states, they personally designed and directed their troops' campaigns. They did not launch a
holy war against all their Buddhist neighbors, for instance the Qocho Uighurs, but only
Khotan. Let us therefore examine the situation of the nearby kingdoms in order to appreciate
the regional considerations that might have shaped the Qaghan's military decisions.
Evaluation of the Qarakhanid Action as a Holy War 71

16 Analysis of the Siege of Khotan
The Political and Religious Climate among the Tanguts
With the establishment of the Khitan Liao Dynasty in Mongolia, Manchuria, and parts of
northern Han China in 947, and the Northern Song reunification of the rest of Han China in
960, the Tanguts became pressed from both the north and the east. In southern Gansu, Ningxia
(Ning-hsia), and western Shaanxi (Shan-hsi), they occupied a strategic area at the direct
gateway from Central Asia to Chang'an, the eastern terminus of the Silk Route, held by the
Northern Song. Although trade from the west could skirt the Tanguts by passing from the
Gansu Corridor through Tsongka, their lands contained the most direct road and many powers
were keen to take the area from them. The Tanguts, however, withstood all attacks. After
protracted wars against both the Khitans and the Northern Song, the Tangut ruler, Jiqian
(Chi-ch'ian) (r. 982 - 1004), declared himself, in 982, the first emperor of an independent
Tangut Dynasty (982 - 1226), known in Chinese as the Xixia (Hsi-hsia) and in Tibetan as the
Minyag (Mi-nyag).
For the next fifty years the Tanguts, wishing to expand their empire westward to control more
of the Silk Route, fought incessant wars against an alliance of their immediate neighbors, the
Yellow Yugurs and the Tibetans of Tsongka. The Northern Song court was friendly with both,
trying to woo them from the Khitan sphere of influence. Consequently, the Tanguts continued
hostile relations with both the Han Chinese and the ever-menacing Khitans to the north.
Buddhism had originally come to the Tanguts from Tang China in the seventh century. When
the three Tibetan monks who fled the persecution of Buddhism in Tibet by Emperor
Langdarma (r. 836 - 842) arrived in Tsongka, they gave religious instruction to a local
Buddhist, to whom they gave the spiritual name Gewasang (dGe-ba gsang). The fact that this
initiate then went to the Tangut territory for further studies indicates that Buddhism had
become fairly widespread among the Tanguts by that time, at least in aristocratic circles.
The traditional religion of the Tanguts was a blend of a non-Confucian type of ancestor
worship with the form of shamanism and Tengrism followed by most Central Asian people
associated with the Mongolian steppes. Like the Turks, the Tanguts also had a cult of sacred
mountains believed to be the seats of power for their rulers. Although the Tangut emperor,
Jiqian, upon assuming the imperial throne, honored his native tradition by building a temple of
ancestors, which received enthusiastic popular support, he also respected Buddhism. He had
his son, for example, the future emperor Deming (Te-ming) (r. 1004 - 1031), study its texts as
a child.
The Situation in the Tibetan Regions
Meanwhile, central Tibet was slowly recovering from the civil strife that had followed the
assassination of Langdarma in 842. After several weak reigns of the last emperor's adopted
son and his successors, Tibet divided in 929 into two kingdoms. One continued on a weak
political level in central Tibet and the other, the Ngari (mNga'-ris) Dynasty, established itself
in the old Zhang-zhung homeland in the west. Eventually, both became interested in reviving
the Buddhist monastic tradition from the monks in Tsongka.
Buddhism in Tsongka had continued to thrive, unaffected by Langdarma's persecution. In 930,

Tibetans from this area began to help translate Buddhist texts from their language into Uighur.
This was five years after the Khitans had adopted the Uighur script as their second writing
16 Analysis of the Siege of Khotan 72

system and, thus, was the period when Uighur cultural influence on the Khitans was reaching
its height. It is unclear if the religious cooperation of the Tsongka Tibetans with the Uighurs
was exclusively with their immediate neighbors to the north, the Yellow Yugurs, or also with
the Qocho Uighurs further to the west. The two Turkic groups shared the same language and
culture.
Tibeto-Uighur religious contact and translation work increased during the second half of the
tenth century, especially during the time when the Tibetans and Yellow Yugurs were allied in
war against the Tanguts. The Han Chinese pilgrim, Wang Yande (Wang Yen-te), visited the
Yellow Yugur capital in 982, the year the Tangut Empire was founded, and reported more
than fifty monasteries.
King Yeshey-wo's Efforts to Revitalize Buddhism in Western Tibet
The Buddhist monastic lineage of ordination was revived in central Tibet in the mid-tenth
century from the three central Tibetan monks who had moved from Tsongka to Kham.
Subsequently, the Ngari kings of western Tibet made great efforts to restore Buddhism even
further to its previous level. In 971, King Yeshey-wo (Ye-shes 'od) sent Rinchen-zangpo
(Rin-chen bzang-po, 958 - 1055) and twenty-one youths to Kashmir for religious and language
instruction. They also visited Vikramashila Monastic University in the central part of northern
India.
Kashmir, at this time, was in the final phases of the Utpala Dynasty (856 - 1003) that had
followed Karkota rule. The Utpala period had witnessed much civil war and violence in
Kashmir. Certain aspects of Buddhism had become mixed with the Shaivite form of
Hinduism. However, by the beginning of the tenth century, Kashmiri Buddhism had received
new impetus with the revival of Buddhist logic from the northern Indian monastic universities.
A brief setback had occurred during the rule of King Kshemagupta (r. 950 - 958), when this
zealous Hindu ruler had destroyed many monasteries. However, by the time of
Rinchen-zangpo's visit, Buddhism was slowly being reestablished.
Although Buddhism had recently reached its high point in Khotan, which had for centuries
been closely connected with western Tibet, the armed struggle between Khotan and the
Qarakhanids had begun in Kashgar in the year of Rinchen-zangpo's departure. Khotan was no
longer a safe place for Buddhist study. Furthermore, the Tibetans wished to learn Sanskrit
from its source in the Indian subcontinent and translate themselves from the original tongue.
Khotanese renditions of Sanskrit Buddhist texts were often paraphrases, whereas the Tibetans,
plagued by confusion about Buddhist doctrine, wished for more accuracy. Thus, despite
Buddhism also being in a precarious position in Kashmir, it was the only relatively safe,
nearby place where the Tibetans could receive reliable instruction.
Only Rinchen-zangpo and Legpay-sherab (Legs-pa'i shes-rab) survived the journey and
training in Kashmir and the northern Indian Gangetic Plains. Upon his return to western Tibet
in 988, Yeshey-wo had already established several Buddhist translation centers with the
Kashmiri and Indian monk scholars that Rinchen-zangpo had sent back to Tibet with
numerous texts. Monks invited from Vikramashila started a second line of monastic
ordination.
In the last years of the tenth century, Rinchen-zangpo built several monasteries in western
Tibet, which at that time included portions of Ladakh and Spiti in present-day
trans-Himalayan India. He also visited Kashmir twice more to invite artists to decorate these
The Situation in the Tibetan Regions 73

monasteries so as to attract the devotion of the common Tibetan. This was despite a change of
dynasty in Kashmir, with the founding of the First Lohara line (1003 - 1101). The dynastic
transition was peaceful and did not disturb the situation of Kashmiri Buddhism.
The Qarakhanid siege of Khotan had begun in 982, six years before Rinchen-zangpo's return.
On his arrival, many Buddhists were already flocking to western Tibet as refugees, which
undoubtedly also helped with the revival of Buddhism there. They were probably from
Kashgar and the areas between there and Khotan that lay along the Qarakhanids' line of
supply. Although most who fled would have passed through Ladakh on their way to Tibet,
they did not turn to the west and settle in nearby Kashmir, a much less difficult and shorter
journey. This was perhaps due to the Ngari Kingdom appearing to be more politically and
religiously stable in face of Yeshey-wo's strong rule and patronage. Another factor may have
been the long cultural ties between the region and Tibet. In 821, Khotanese monks had also
fled to western Tibet seeking refuge from persecution.
Tibetan Military Aid to Khotan
The western Tibetan Ngari Kingdom was just a few years old when the Qarakhanids of
Kashgar converted from Buddhism to Islam in the 930s. Having arisen as a political entity
from a split with central Tibet over a succession issue in 929, Ngari was at first militarily
weak. It could hardly risk enmity with the Qarakhanids because of religious differences. In
order to survive, it would have had to maintain friendly relations with its neighbors.
According to later Tibetan Buddhist histories, however, King Yeshey-wo of Ngari went to the
aid of besieged Khotan around the turn of the eleventh century. This was undoubtedly due as
much to fear of further Qarakhanid political expansion as it was to concern for the defense of
Buddhism. Although the Tibetans and Qarluq/Qarakhanids had been allies for centuries, they
had never threatened each others' territories. Furthermore, Tibet had always considered
Khotan within its legitimate sphere of influence. Therefore, once the Qarakhanids overstepped
the boundary of this sphere, relations between the two nations changed.
According to traditional Buddhist histories, King Yeshey-wo was taken hostage by the
Qarakhanids (Tib. Gar-log, Turk. Qarluq), but did not allow his subjects to pay the ransom.
He advised them to let him die in prison instead and use the funds to invite more Buddhist
teachers from northern India, specifically Atisha from Vikramashila. Many Kashmiri masters
were visiting western Tibet at the beginning of the eleventh century and several were
spreading corruptions of Buddhist practice there. As this was compounding the already poor
level of understanding of Buddhism in Tibet due to the destruction of the monastic centers of
study at the time of Langdarma, Yeshey-wo wished to clear this confusion.
There are many historical inconsistencies in this pious account of Yeshey-wo's sacrifice. The
siege of Khotan ended in 1006, while Yeshey-wo issued a final edict from his court in 1027 to
regulate the translation of Buddhist texts. Thus, he did not die in prison during the war.
According to Rinchen-zangpo's biography, the king died of sickness in his own capital.
Nevertheless, this apocryphal account indirectly indicates that the western Tibetans were not a
strong military power at the time. They were not effective in lifting the siege of Khotan and
did not pose a serious threat to any future Qarakhanid expansion along the southern Tarim
branch of the Silk Route. They would not be able to defend the Tibetan nomads living there.
King Yeshey-wo's Efforts to Revitalize Buddhism in Western Tibet 74

Probable Qarakhanid Military Strategy
The Qocho Uighurs controlled the northern branch of the Silk Route. Although these rival
Turkic people were not especially warlike, they were vassals of the Khitans who were a
considerable military power at the time. If the Qarakhanids were to attack the Qocho realm at
nearby Kucha, for example, the Khitans would undoubtedly be drawn into the war. Khotan, on
the other hand, which likewise lacked a martial tradition, was far more vulnerable. Although it
had been sending missions to several Han Chinese courts trying to elicit support, it was
basically isolated. Ngari could hardly help with an effective defense.
The southern branch of the Silk Route, after having fallen into disuse for nearly a century and
a half, had been reopened by the Khotanese in 938 and was once more carrying the jade trade
to Han China. However, it was mostly deserted, except for a few Tibetan nomads, and poorly
defended. To conquer the northern route would entail a series of battles to take each of the
Qocho Uighur oases from Kucha to Turfan, whereas the southern route could be won by
victory in merely one battle, that for Khotan.
If the Qarakhanids could take Khotan and link it to their empire, which stretched west of
Khotan through Kashgar and on to the main cities of Sogdia, they would automatically
command the entire southern branch of the Central Asian Silk Route as far as Dunhuang,
where it joined with the northern branch. They would then control an alternative trade route to
that which passed through the northern Tarim under Qocho rule and would profit enormously,
both financially and in heightened prestige. They would not need to launch a military
campaign to win ascendency over Qocho, but could supplant them economically instead by
cutting them out of the Silk Route trade. A major factor in formulating a military strategy for
capturing the southern branch of the Route, however, was how the states to the east would
react to a Qarakhanid drive.
The Tangut Connection
Since the 890s when they had conquered the independent state of Guiyijun, the Yellow
Yugurs had governed Dunhuang at the eastern end of the southern Tarim route where it joined
the northern branch. The Yellow Yugur territory, under Khitan suzerainty since the 930s,
extended southeastward from there and contained the Gansu Corridor through which the Silk
Route continued. The Route then passed through Tangut-held southern Gansu before entering
Han China, or diverted southward to the Kokonor region, the terminus of Arab-Tibetan trade,
currently ruled by the Tibetan Kingdom of Tsongka.
As the Tanguts were extremely hostile toward the Northern Song at this time, they blocked all
trade through their territory intended for Han China and became the major recipient of the
goods themselves. The trade route to Chang'an was subsequently diverted to skirt the Tanguts
by passing south from the Yellow Yugur territory to Tsongka and from there to Han China.
Thus, in 982, with the establishment of his dynasty, the Tangut emperor, Jiqian, had
immediately launched a war of expansion to take the Yellow Yugur and Tsongka territories,
and cut off all access of the Northern Song to the Central Asian lands to the west.
Following the classic strategy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend," the Qarakhanids quickly
established friendly relations with the Tanguts. The latter's preference for Buddhism did not
seem to be an obstacle for diplomatic negotiations. Geopolitical considerations seem to take
preference over religious ones when economic gain is at stake.
Probable Qarakhanid Military Strategy 75

Possible Military Agreements with the Tanguts
Although there are no clear records, it seems reasonable to surmise from the fact that the
Qarakhanids launched their siege of Khotan also in 982, that the Qarakhanids and Tanguts
made an agreement. One possibility for the terms is if the Tanguts did not obstruct a
Qarakhanid takeover of Khotan and the southern Tarim, the Qarakhanids, in turn, would not
interfere with a Tangut invasion of the rest of Gansu and the Kokonor region. If the Khitans
were to come to the defense of the Yellow Yugurs, the Tanguts would be in a much better
position to repel them than the Qarakhanids would be. For the latter to launch their own attack
on the Yellow Yugurs and have to fight the Khitans as well would require an unsustainable
line of supply across the southern Tarim desert waste.
If both the Qarakhanids and Tanguts succeeded in their military offensives, they would win
unrivaled control of the southern Silk Route from northeastern Tibet and the borders of Han
China to Samarkand, effectively eliminating the Northern Song and Qocho Uighurs from any
share of the trade. Although Khotanese Buddhists may well have supported Kashgari
resistance to Islam, this would undoubtedly have merely provided the Qarakhanids with a
moral circumstance for imposing their siege. In those times, however, nations did not require
excuses for military offensives.
It is also possible to explain the course of events without having to conjecture a

Qarakhanid/Tangut mutual nonaggression pact concerning Khotan and the Gansu Corridor.
Although the two nations would have needed to divide control of the Silk Route trade, the
Qarakhanid Qaghan would undoubtedly also have wanted to include the Yellow Yugurs in his
sphere of influence as leader of all the Turkic tribes. If direct military confrontation with
either the Qocho Uighurs or Yellow Yugurs was too risky because of possible Khitan
intervention, there were other means to gain their allegiance.
If, for example, the Qarakhanid Qaghan enjoyed great military and economic success in
conquering the southern Tarim trade route and linking it with his territories in West Turkistan,
the two Uighur groups would become convinced of his superior spiritual power (qut).
Recognizing the Qaghan's victory as a clear demonstration of his rightful authority over all the
Turks as safekeeper of the sacred Balasaghun Mountain, they might give up all hopes for
regaining Otukan from the Khitans and turn instead to their rightful leader. Seeing that the
Qaghan had chosen religions correctly by adopting Islam and gaining its supernatural power
to win Balasaghun and the southern Tarim, they would naturally also turn from Buddhism to
Islam -- not as a sign of submission to Allah, but of submission to the Qarakhanid Qaghan.
The Qaghan's primary objective, then, in his southern Tarim campaign was undoubtedly not
the actual spread of Islam for reasons of righteousness or the avenging of martyrs. It was
much more likely, in the short term, in order to gain economic advantage and territorial gain
and, in the long term, to win the religious conversion of the Turks as a means for gaining their
unified political loyalty to him through the rallying device of a foreign faith. This is the
conclusion that arises from the historical pattern of previous Turkic rulers leading their people
to convert to Buddhism, shamanism, and Manichaeism. Regardless of the Qaghan's motives,
however, many Turks were undoubtedly sincere in their conversion to Islam.
The Disappearance of Buddhism in Khotan
Accounts of the Qarakhanid occupation of Khotan, following the siege and subsequent
uprising, are marked by a silence concerning the native population. One year after the
Possible Military Agreements with the Tanguts 76

insurrection was crushed, the Khotanese trade and tribute mission sent to Han China contained
only Turkic Muslims. The Turkic language of the Qarakhanids totally replaced Khotanese and
the entire state became Islamic. Buddhism completely disappeared.
The Tibetans lost contact with their former possession to such an extent that the Tibetan name
for Khotan, Li, lost its original meaning and came to refer to the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal
as an acronym for its former ruling dynasty, the Licchavi (386 - 750). All the Buddhist myths
concerning Khotan were transferred to Kathmandu as well, such as its founding by Manjushri
draining a lake by cleaving a mountain with his sword. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
the Tibetans lost sight that these myths had ever been associated with Khotan. Thus, the
Tibetan Buddhist accounts of the sacrifice of King Yeshey-wo have his imprisonment by the
"Garlog," i.e. the Qarakhanid Qarluqs, anomalously occurring in Nepal. Although there was a
civil war in Nepal between 1039 and 1045, there were hardly any Turkic tribes there, yet
alone Qarluqs at the time.
From this piece of evidence, added to our previous analysis, it would seem that the
disappearance of Buddhism among the Khotanese was the result of the decimation of the
population in the twenty-four year siege and subsequent crushing of the survivors' rebellion,
rather than by a forceful conversion of the Buddhists to Islam. The Qarakhanids were
primarily concerned with converting the Turks -- and not other people under their rule -- as
part of their effort to unite all Turkic tribes beneath them as guardians of the sacred mountain,
Balasaghun. In 1043, for example, they held a mass conversion of ten thousand Turks to
Islam. It was accompanied by the sacrifice of twenty thousand head of cattle, indicating the
traditional shamanist tone and thus ethnic significance of the event.
The Qarakhanids followed the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Samanid examples and offered
protected subject status to the non-Turks who followed other religions. The case with
Nestorian Christianity is well documented. Samarkand continued to have a Nestorian
metropolitan during its Qarakhanid period. Furthermore, after the overthrow of the
Qarakhanid Empire in 1137, Kashgar also received a metropolitan, indicating that Nestorian
Christianity was present and tolerated during their rule. One can infer that the same was true
with Buddhism there, especially since these next rulers of Kashgar favored Buddhism and,
during their reign, Kashgar provided several Buddhist statesmen.
The fact that there was a small Nestorian community in Khotan with two churches prior to the
siege and no mention of it afterward, despite Qarakhanid tolerance of Christianity, gives
further weight to the conclusion that most of the native population of Khotan, both Christian
and Buddhist, perished during the military occupation. Otherwise, the Khotanese Nestorians
would surely have resurfaced in historical accounts, as was the case with their brethren in
Kashgar.
17 Tangut, Tibet, and Northern Song China in the Eleventh

Century
Tangut Thwarting of Qarakhanid Plans for Further Expansion
After the fall of Khotan, the Qarakhanids could not press further eastward in their campaign to
capture the rest of the southern Tarim. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked from the south and war
ensued between the two Turkic powers from 1006 to 1008. Yusuf Qadr Khan left Khotan to
fight in this war and successfully repelled the Ghaznavids. He then returned to Khotan to put
down an insurrection. Having done so, he immediately resumed sending tribute and trade
The Disappearance of Buddhism in Khotan 77

missions to the Northern Song court in 1009. This clearly indicates the high priority that
control of the southern Silk Route trade held for him.
Internal strife for succession to the throne preoccupied the Qarakhanids in the subsequent
years, with Yusuf finally emerging as qaghan in 1024. Although the Qarakhanids did not have
the opportunity during this period to seize the southern Tarim east of Khotan, Sino-Khotanese
trade, led by Turkic Muslim merchants, was never interrupted.
[View Map Twenty-seven: The Height of the Qarakhanid, Ghaznavid, and Tangut Empires,
First Half of the Eleventh Century {33}.]
Meanwhile, the Tanguts moved ahead with their own military plans for expansion. The second
Tangut emperor, Deming (r. 1004 - 1031), made peace with Northern Song China in 1006,
two years after the fall of Khotan. Thereafter, the Tangut court followed the Confucian rituals
and ceremony of its Northern Song counterpart, which flattered the latter's sense of high
civilization and greatly enhanced the efficiency of the Tangut court.
Up until then, the Northern Song had been friendly with both the Yellow Yugurs and
Tsongka. However, the Tangut peace initiative toward the Northern Song effectively
neutralized this political tilt. No longer having to worry about their eastern flank or Northern
Song interference in their military designs, the Tanguts then proceeded to attack and conquer
the Yellow Yugur Kingdom, beginning their campaign in 1028. The Tibetans living there fled
to Tsongka, which also came under Tangut assault.
By this time, the Tanguts had grown so strong that the Qarakhanids no longer had the military
possibility to push further east in the Tarim Basin. Under the greatest Tangut king, Yuanhao
(Yüan-hao) (r. 1031 - 1048), the Tanguts not only completed their conquest of the Yellow
Yugurs, but took as well the territory from Dunhuang to the Qarakhanid border at Khotan.
They were never successful, however, in taking Tsongka from the local Tibetans.
Although the Tanguts had made peace with the Northern Song court, they heavily taxed and
restricted the Central Asian trade that passed through their newly expanded territory on its
way to Han China. Tsongka soon replaced Central Asia as the major trading partner for
Northern Song China, especially supplying them with not only their main product, tea, but
also horses, highly prized as essential for any military efforts.
Furthermore, the Ghaznavid repeated attacks and conquest of Gandhara and northwestern
India between 1001 and 1021, with their looting and destruction of wealthy Hindu temples
and Buddhist monasteries there, effectively ended religious travel to and from India along the
Silk Route. For centuries, pilgrims had gone from Central Asia or Han China to the
monasteries of India to invite Buddhist teachers and bring back religious texts and relics. The
last such visits recorded in Northern Song sources, however, were by Dharmashri, who
arrived in Han China in 1027, and Sumanas in 1036. No further religious expeditions to or
from India were possible after that.
Tangut Receipt of Han Chinese Buddhist Scriptures
The Han Chinese Buddhist canon had first been printed between 972 and 983 under the
patronage of the first two emperors of the Northern Song Dynasty. Before this, the canon had
existed only in the form of handwritten manuscripts. In 1029, one year after Deming had
begun his conquest of the Yellow Yugurs, the Tanut emperor, having studied Buddhism as a
Tangut Thwarting of Qarakhanid Plans for Further Expansion 78

child, had sent a delegation to the Northern Song court with an offering of seventy horses,
requesting a copy of this canon. It was no longer possible to obtain texts from India. The
Northern Song emperor, Renzong (Jen-tsung) (r. 1023 - 1064), granted his petition in the spirit
of his predecessor's peace treaty negotiated with the Tangut ruler.
From this period onward, subsequent Tangut emperors sent repeated missions to Han China
seeking further Buddhist texts. This was not only because the most complete collection of
Buddhist literature existed in the Chinese language. It was also because, initially, the Tanguts
were at war with the Yellow Yugurs and the Tsongka Tibetans, the major alternative source of
scriptures now that India was no longer a possibility. Although religious reasons may have
motivated the Northern Song emperors' continuing compliance with the Tangut requests, they
undoubtedly also appreciated the possibility of another source of much-needed horses. They
also surely hoped for a loosening of Tangut trade barriers with Central Asia.
Uighur and Yugur Assistance in Establishing Tangut Buddhism
After Yuanhao completed the Tangut conquest of the Yellow Yugurs in 1034, Yugur and
Uighur cultural influence on the Tanguts began to grow. The Yellow Yugur Buddhist
monasteries contin−ued to flourish under Tangut rule. Learned Yugur and Uighur monks
traveled throughout the Tangut terri−tories and faith in Bud−dhism dramatically rose among
the common people. A number of Tanguts settled in Qocho territory. Although there was
occasional political conflict between the Tanguts and Qocho Uighurs, the two nations
basically enjoyed peaceful relations, with the Uighurs accepting a subservient position to the
Tanguts, as they had with the Khitans in Mongolia.
Although the Tanguts borrowed many pragmatic aspects of Han Chinese culture, they did not
want to become totally assimilated. They wished to maintain their own identity, as many other
non-Han rulers of parts of northern China had done before them. Like the Old Turks, Uighurs,
and Khitans, they thought to create a distance by having their own writing system and
translations into their own tongue. Therefore, in 1036, the Tanguts adopted a character script
−for writing their language. Developed from the Khitan characters, it was the most complex
writing system ever devised in Asia.
Using this script, the Yugurs and Uighurs, having had experience with the Khitans, helped the
Tanguts translate into their language not only Han Chinese Bud−dhist, but also Confu−cian
texts useful for statecraft. As the script was difficult to learn, the Tanguts at first transliterated
their Buddhist liturgical texts into the Tibetan alphabet, as had been the case earlier with
Uighur and Han Chinese versions used in the area. Thus, Tibetan culture was also still present
in the region.
In 1038, Emperor Yuanhao declared Buddhism the state religion of the Tanguts. As the
Tangut imperial family considered itself descendent from the Toba Wei rulers of northern
China (386 - 534), its declaration was paramount to a reinstatement of the Toba policy of state
regulation of Buddhism. Therefore, in 1047, the Emperor passed −a law obli−ging the
bureaucracy and general population to perform Buddhist rituals and prayers. Thus, the spread
of Buddhism among the Tanguts was promulgated by the state. With strict government
control, however, the scholastic and literary standards in the Tangut monasteries were always
kept stringent and high.
Tangut Receipt of Han Chinese Buddhist Scriptures 79

Subsequent Sino-Tangut Political and Religious Relations
A four-year war between the Tangut Empire and Northern Song China broke out during the
latter part of Yuanhao's reign, between 1040 and 1044. The Northern Song court undoubtedly
wished for more expanded trade with the Silk Route nations, but had great difficulty gaining
ascendency over the Tanguts. In 1048, Yuanhao was assassinated by his son, whom he had
previously penalized for his Han Chinese Daoist leanings over nationalistic Tangut Buddhist
support. Thereafter, a succession of weak emperors held the Tangut throne for half a century,
often with their queen mothers holding the reigns of power. Tangut military might declined to
a certain extent and Central Asian trade with Han China proceeded with less restriction.
During this period, the Tanguts, Khitans, and Northern Song China frequently attacked each
other. The Northern Song was never able to gain ascendency and, as the weakest of the three,
agreed, in 1082, to pay annual tribute to the Tanguts and Khitans as a means of appeasement.
Both before and after this agreement, however, −the Tanguts continued to send missions to
Han China to bring back Buddhist texts. Some of the Tangut emperors and queen mothers
even participated in their translation. The Yugurs and Uighurs continued to help with religious
affairs, also translating into Tangut additional Buddhist texts from Sanskrit and Tibetan, but
only occasionally from Uighur itself.
Buddhism continued strongly in the Qocho Uighur realm as well. In 1096, for example, the
Qocho ruler presented the Northern Song emperor with a jade Buddha. The religion, however,
was never legally imposed on the people or placed under strict governmental control as it was
in the Tangut state. Buddhism was also flourishing in Tsongka at this time. The Tsongka court
used Buddhist monks to man its missions to the Northern Song court.
The Revival of Buddhism in Central Tibet
Throughout the eleventh century, a steady stream of Tibetans went to Kashmir and northern
India to study Buddhism. Many brought back with them masters from these regions to help
revive Buddhism in newly constructed monasteries in their land. Although the initial activity
in this direction came from the Ngari Kingdom of western Tibet, it soon spread to the central
part of the country as well, starting with the founding of Zhalu (Zha-lu) Monastery in 1040.
Each Indian master or returning Tibetan student who arrived in Tibet brought with him or her
the lineage of a particular style of Buddhist practice. Many of them built monasteries around
which crystallized not only religious, but also secular communities. It was not until the
thirteenth century that clusters of these transmission lineages consolidated to form the various
sects of the so-called "New Period" schools of Tibetan Buddhism -- Kadam (bKa'-gdams),
Sakya (Sa-skya) and a number of different lines of Kagyu (bKa'-rgyud).
Other eleventh century Tibetan masters began to discover the texts that had been hidden for
safekeeping in central Tibet and Bhutan during the turbulent years of the late eighth and early
ninth centuries. The Buddhist ones found became the scriptural basis for the " Old Period" or
Nyingma (rNying-ma) school, while those from the indigenous Tibetan tradition, recovered
slightly earlier, formed the foundation for establishing the organized Bon religion. Several
masters discovered both types of text, which were often very similar to each other. Organized
Bon, in fact, shared so many features in common with both the New and Old Translation
Buddhist schools that subsequent masters from each of the religions claimed that the other had
plagiarized from them.
Subsequent Sino-Tangut Political and Religious Relations 80

The Ngari royal family continued to play an important role in sponsoring not only the
translation of Buddhist texts freshly brought from Kashmir and northern India, but also the
revision of previous translations and the clarification of misunderstandings about certain
delicate points of the religion. The Council of Toling (Tho-ling), convened by King Tsedey
(rTse-lde) at Toling Monastery of Ngari in 1076, gathered together translators from the
western, central and eastern regions of Tibet, as well as several Kashmiri and northern Indian
masters, and was instrumental in coordinating the work. The 1092 edict of Prince Zhiwa-wo
(Zhi-ba 'od) set the standards for determining which texts were reliable.
Qarakhanid Relations with Buddhists after the Fall of Khotan
Throughout this period, the Qarakhanids sent Muslim merchants from Khotan to the Northern
Song capital via the southern Tarim route held by the Tanguts. Between 1068 and 1077, there
were so many missions -- at least two each year -- that the Northern Song authorities had to
impose limitations on their size and frequency. This trade continued until the fall of the
Qarakhanids in 1137.
The strong Buddhist faith of the Tanguts, Tibetans, Qocho Uighurs, and Han Chinese never
seemed to deter the Qarakhanids' zeal for economic gain. Had their international relations
been directed solely by the aim of converting infidels to Islam, they would surely have
boycotted the Buddhist trade and attacked the Tanguts, Uighurs, or Ngari Tibetans when they
were in a weakened condition. However, in keeping with the pattern that has appeared over
and again in the history of Muslim-Buddhist relations in Central Asia and the Indian
subcontinent, Muslim conquest of territory has been marked by the quick destruction of the
institutions of the local religions; while subsequent occupation has been characterized by
economic exploitation. The latter always has required a certain degree of religious tolerance
and, once established, has taken precedence in shaping political policy.
18 The Ghaznavids and Seljuqs
The Ghaznavid Campaign in Gandhara and Northwestern India
After Mahmud of Ghazni was repulsed in 1008 in his attack on the Qarakhanid Empire to his
north, he enlisted the Seljuq Turks in southern Sogdia and Khwarazm to defend his kingdom
from Qarakhanid retribution. The Seljuqs were an enslaved Turkic tribe that had been used as
defense forces by the Samanids and had converted to Islam in the 990s. Having secured his
homeland, Mahmud now turned his attention back to the Indian subcontinent.
Several decades earlier, in 969, the Fatimids (910 - 1171) had conquered Egypt and had made
it the center of their rapidly expanding empire. They were seeking to unite the entire Muslim
world under their banner of the Ismaili sect in preparation for the coming of the Islamic
messiah, an apocoplyptic war, and the end of the world, predicted for the beginning of the
twelfth century. Their domain extended from northern Africa to western Iran and, as a major
sea power, they sent missionaries and diplomats far afield to extend their influence and faith.
They were the major rivals of the Sunni Abbasids for the leadership of the Islamic world.
The vestiges of Muslim rule in Sindh after the Umayyad conquest were extremely weak.
Sunni governors paid nominal allegiance to the Abbasid caliph, while in fact sharing power
with local Hindu rulers. Islam coexisted peacefully with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.
Ismaili missionaries, however, found a receptive audience among Sunnis and Hindus there
dissatisfied with the status quo. By 959, the ruler of Multan, northern Sindh, converted to
The Revival of Buddhism in Central Tibet 81

Ismaili Shia and, in 968, Multan declared itself an Ismaili Fatimid vassal state, independent of
the Abbasids. At this point, the Abbasids, joined by their Ghaznavid vassals, were surrounded
to the east and west by their Fatimid rivals. They feared an impending two-front invasion. To
attack the Ghaznavids, the Ismailis of Multan would merely need to pass through the territory
of the Ghaznavid enemies, the Hindu Shahis.
Although his father had favored the Shiite form of Islam, Mahmud of Ghazni had adopted
Sunni, the predominant faith of not only the Abbasids, but also of the Qarakhanids and
Samanids. He was infamous for being intolerant of other forms of Islam. After ascending to
the throne in 998 and consolidating his power in Afghanistan, he attacked the Hindu Shahis in
Gandhara and Oddiyana in 1001 and defeated his father's enemy, Jayapala, whom he also
perceived as a potential threat. Although Oddiyana was still a main center of Buddhist tantra,
with both King Indrabhuti and Padmasambhava having hailed from there prior to the Hindu
Shahi rule, it lacked any flourishing Buddhist monasteries. Its Hindu temples, on the other
hand, abounded with wealth. Consequently, Mahmud looted and destroyed them.
Jayapala's successor, Anandapala (r. 1001 to 1011), now formed an alliance with Multan. But
by 1005, Mahmud defeated their joint forces and annexed Multan, thus neutralizing the
Fatimid Ismaili threat to the Sunni Abbasid world from the east. Mahmud called his troops
"ghazi," warriors for the faith, and termed his campaign a "jihad" to defend orthodox Sunni
observance against the heresy of Ismaili Shia. Although religious zeal might have been part of
his motivation, a greater part was undoubtedly his wish to establish himself as the defender of
the Abbasids as leaders of the Islamic world. Playing such a role would legitimize his own
rule as an Abbasid vassal and the loot that he plundered would help finance anti-Fatimid
campaigns of the Abbasids elsewhere. For example, the ancient Hindu sun temple, Suraj
Mandir, in Multan, was reputedly the wealthiest temple of the Indian subcontinent. Its
treasures only increased Mahmud's thirst for more riches, further to the east.
After Mahmud's unsuccessful campaign against the Qarakhanids, he returned to the Indian
subcontinent and, in 1008, defeated an alliance between Anandapala and the Rajput rulers in
present-day Indian Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. He confiscated the enormous Hindu Shahi
treasury in Nagarkot (present-day Kangra), and, over the next years, plundered and destroyed
the wealthy Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in the area. Among the Buddhist
monasteries that he destroyed were those in Mathura, south of present-day Delhi.
In 1010, Mahmud quashed a rebellion in Multan and, in either 1015 or 1021 (depending on
which source one accepts), he pursued the next Hindu Shahi ruler, Trilochanapala (r. 1011 -
1021), who was consolidating his forces at Lohara fort in the western foothills leading to
Kashmir. Mahmud, however, was never able to take the fort, or to invade Kashmir. It is
unclear how strong a role the Hindu founder of the First Lohara Dynasty of Kashmir (1003 -
1101), Samgrama Raja (r. 1003 - 1028), played in Mahmud's defeat. According to traditional
Buddhist accounts, the Ghaznavid ruler was stopped by Buddhist mantras recited by
Prajnarakshita, a disciple of Naropa.
Due to the heavy damage that Mahmud's forces inflicted on the Buddhist monasteries in
Indian Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, many Buddhist refugees sought asylum elsewhere. But,
with the Ghaznavid troops attacking in the direction of Kashmir, most refugees did not feel
secure in fleeing there. Such a large number flooded instead across the Himalayas via Kangra
to Ngari in western Tibet that in the 1020s its king passed a law restricting foreigners from
staying in the country more than three years.
The Ghaznavid Campaign in Gandhara and Northwestern India 82

In summary, the Ghaznavid jihad in the Indian subcontinent was originally directed against
the Ismailis, not the Buddhists, Hindus, or Jains. However, once Mahmud had accomplished
his religious and political goal, his victory incited him to gain further territory and especially
loot from the wealthy Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries in them. As with the Umayyad
campaign three centuries earlier, the Turkic forces destroyed temples and monasteries, after
thoroughly looting them, as part of their initial conquest of areas, but did not seek to impose
Islam on all their new subjects. Mahmud was pragmatic and utilized unconverted Hindu
troops and even a Hindu general against Shiite Muslims who resisted him in Buyid Iran. His
main target remained the Shiites and Ismailis.
Ghaznavid Attitudes toward Buddhism outside India
Al-Biruni, the Persian historian who accompanied Mahmud's invasion of the Indian
subcontinent, spoke favorably of Buddhism and wrote that Indians referred to Buddha as a
"Prophet." Perhaps this indicates his familiarity with the Middle Persian term burxan,
meaning prophet, used for "Buddha" in Sogdian and Uighur Buddhist texts, and earlier in
Manichaean texts for all prophets. It may also indicate, however, that the Buddhists were
accepted as "people of the Book" and, along with the Hindus and Jains, afforded protected
subject dhimmi status after the initial destruction.
Further evidence to support this second conclusion is that the Ghaznavids did not persecute
Buddhism in their earlier holdings in Sogdia, Bactria, or Kabul. In 982, Buddhist frescoes
were still visible in Nava Vihara and the colossal Buddha figures carved in the cliffs of
Bamiyan in central Afghanistan were still undamaged. Al-Biruni reported many Buddhist
monasteries still functioning on the southern borders of Sogdia at the turn of the millennium.
Like the Samanids before them, the Ghaznavids promoted Persian culture. Both Persian and
Arabic literature, from the ninth through the twelfth centuries, abounded with references to the
beauty of the Buddhist monuments, indicating that monasteries and mosques functioned
peacefully, side by side. For example, Asadi Tusi described the splendor of Subahar
Monastery of Kabul in his 1048 work, Garshasp Name. Persian poetry often used the simile
for palaces that they were as beautiful as a "Nawbahar" (Nava Vihara).
Buddha images, particularly of Maitreya, the future Buddha, were depicted at Nava Vihara
and Bamiyan with moon discs behind their heads. This led to the poetic depiction of pure
beauty as someone having "the moon-shaped face of a Buddha." Thus in eleventh century
Persian poems, such as Varqe and Golshah by Ayyuqi, the Pahlavi word bot, deriving from
the earlier Sogdian term purt, is used with a positive connotation for "Buddha," not with its
second, derogatory meaning as "idol." It implies the ideal of asexual beauty, and is applied
equally to both men and women.
It is unclear whether the Arabic word al-budd derives from the Persian or was coined directly
at the time of the Umayyad conquest of Sindh. Originally, the Umayyads used the term for
both Buddhist and Hindu images, as well as the temples that contained them. Occasionally,
they used it as well for any non-Muslim temple, including Zoroastrian, Christian, and Jewish.
Later, however, it too came to have both a positive and a negative meaning as "Buddha" and
"idol."
All these references indicate that either Buddhist monasteries and images were present in
these Iranian cultural areas at least through the early Mongol period in the thirteenth century
or, at minimum, that a strong Buddhist legacy remained for centuries among the Buddhist
Ghaznavid Attitudes toward Buddhism outside India 83

converts there to Islam. If the Ghaznavids tolerated Buddhism in their non-Indian lands and
even patronized literary works extolling its art, it seems unlikely, then, that their long-term
policy on the subcontinent was one of conversion by the sword. As with the Umayyads, the
Ghaznavid manner of conquest was not the same as their manner of rule.
The Decline of the Ghaznavids and Rise of the Seljuqs
Despite their military successes on the Indian subcontinent, the Ghaznavids were unable to
control the Seljuqs under them, and in 1040 the latter rebelled. The Seljuqs took over
Khwarazm, Sogdia, and Bactria from the Ghaznavids and, in 1055, conquered Baghdad, the
seat of the Abbasid caliphs.
[View Map Twenty-eight: The Seljuq Empire, Second Half of the Eleventh Century {34}.]
The Seljuqs were Sunnis and as adamantly anti-Shiite and anti-Ismaili as were the
Ghaznavids. They were anxious to wrest the caliphs from the influence and control of the
Buyid Shiites in Iran. In 1062, they finally conquered the Buyid Kingdom and, the next year,
proclaimed their own empire. The final parts of the Seljuk Empire lasted until submitting to
the Mongols in 1243.
In face of their defeat to the Seljuks, the Ghaznavids withdrew to the east of the Hindu Kush
Mountains, restricted to Ghazna, Kabul, and the Punjab. They maintained a military force
enlisted from the various Muslim Turkic mountain tribes in their realm, and relied on taxes
gathered from the wealthy non-Muslims of the Indian subcontinent to finance their state. Their
policy toward Kashmir clearly exemplifies their attitude toward other religions.
The Political and Religious Situation in Kashmir
From 1028 until the end of the First Lohara Dynasty in 1101, Kashmir underwent a steady
decline in economic prosperity. Consequently, the Buddhist monasteries suffered from
minimal financial support. Furthermore, cut off by Ghaznavid territory from easy access to the
great Buddhist monastic universities of the central part of northern India, the standards at the
Kashmiri monasteries gradually declined. The last king of this dynasty, Harsha (r. 1089 -
1101), instituted yet another religious persecution, this time razing both Hindu temples as well
as Buddhist monasteries.
During the Second Lohara Dynasty (1101 - 1171), and especially during the reign of King
Jayasimha (r. 1128 - 1149), both religions recovered once more with royal support. However,
the economic situation of the kingdom as a whole declined even further, continuing through
the subsequent succession of Hindu rulers as well (1171 - 1320). Although the monasteries
were impoverished, Buddhist activity flourished until at least the fourteenth century, with
teachers and translators periodically visiting Tibet. Yet, despite Kashmir's weakness for more
than three centuries, neither the Ghaznavids nor their Muslim successors in India sought to
conquer it until 1337. This is further indication that the Islamic rulers were more interested in
gaining riches than converts from the Buddhist monasteries. If the latter were poor, they left
them alone.
Seljuq Expansion and Religious Policy
Meanwhile, the Seljuqs expanded their empire westward, conquering the Byzantines in 1071.
The Seljuq sultan, Malikshah (r. 1072 - 1092), imposed his overlordship upon the
The Decline of the Ghaznavids and Rise of the Seljuqs 84

Qarakhanids in Ferghana, northern West Turkistan, Kashgar, and Khotan. Under the influence
of his minister, Nizamulmulk, the Seljuqs built religious schools (madrasah) in Baghdad and
throughout Central Asia. Although madrasahs had first arisen in ninth century northeastern
Iran, devoted to purely theological study, these new madrasahs were oriented toward
supplying a civil bureaucracy for the Seljuqs that was well educated in Islam. The Seljuqs had
a very pragmatic approach to religion.
Having opened Anatolia to Turkic settlement, the Seljuqs went on to take Palestine as well.
The Byzantines appealed to Pope Urban II in 1096, who declared the First Crusade to reunite
the Western and Eastern Roman Empires and win back the Holy Lands from the " infidels."
The Seljuqs, however, were by no means anti-Christs. They did not, for example, eradicate
Nestorian Christianity from Central Asia.
Nor were the Seljuks particularly anti-Buddhist. Had they been, they would have either led or
backed their Qarakhanid vassals in a holy war against the Tanguts, Qocho Uighurs, and Ngari
Tibetans, all of whom were strongly Buddhist and militarily weak. On the contrary, during
their rule of Baghdad, the Seljuqs allowed al-Shahrastani (1076 - 1153) to publish there his
Kitab al-Milal wa Nihal -- a philosophical text in Arabic containing an account of the
Buddhist tenets and, like al-Biruni, referring to Buddha as a Prophet.
The Nizari Order of Assassins
The extremely negative image the European and Byzantine Christians had of the Seljuqs and
Islam in general was partially due to their faulty identification of all of Islam with the Nizari
branch of the Ismailis, known to the crusaders as the "Order of Assassins." Starting in
approximately 1090, the Nizaris led a terrorist revolt throughout Iran, Iraq, and Syria, with
youths intoxicated on hashish being sent to assassinate military and political leaders. They
wished to prepare the world for their leader, Nizar, to become not only caliph and imam, but
Mahdi, the final prophet who would lead the Islamic world in a millenarian war against the
forces of evil.
Over the next decades, the Seljuqs and Fatimids launched holy wars against the Nizaris,
massacring them in large numbers. The Nizari movement eventually lost all popular support.
These holy wars also had a devastating effect on the Seljuqs and, in 1118, the Seljuq Empire
split into several autonomous sections.
Meanwhile, the Ghaznavids continued to weaken in power. They lacked the human resources
to rule even their diminished kingdom. The Qarakhanids also declined in power.
Consequently, the Ghaznavids and Qarakhanids were forced to become tributary states to the
autonomous Seljuq province in Sogdia and northeastern Iran.
19 Twelfth-Century Developments in Central Asia
The Establishment of the Jurchen Empire
The Jurchen were a Tungusic Manchu people whose homeland was in northern Manchuria
and the adjacent region of southeastern Siberia across the Amur River. They were for−est
dwellers whom the Khitans conscripted for their ritual hunts. Buddhist influence reached them
from both Northern Song China and Koryo Korea (918 - 1392). −In 1019, they requested the
Northern Song emperor for a copy of the newly printed Buddhist canon and, by 1105, Han
Chi−nese monks were performing Buddhist ceremonies at the Jurchen court. The main source
Seljuq Expansion and Religious Policy 85

of Buddhism, however, was from the Khitans.
In 1115, the Jurchens declared their Jin Dynasty (Chin) (1115 - 1234) and proceeded to
expand their holdings into an empire. After de−feat−ing the Khitans in 1125, they conquered
the rest of north−ern Han China during the next year. The Han Chinese capital was moved to
the south, thus ending the Northern Song Dynasty and begin−ning the South−ern Song (1126 -
1279). The Jurchens ruled over Manchuria, southeastern Siberia, northern and central Han
China, and Inner Mongolia. The Tanguts were to the northwest, while Mongolia itself broke
up into many small tribal areas.
[View Map Twenty-nine: Height of the Qaraqitan and Jurchen Empires, Second Half of the
Twelfth Century {35}.]
The Khitan form of Buddhism continued in the Inner Mongolian regions taken over by the
Jurchens. In the later years of the Jin, Han Chinese forms took more precedence. This
sequence was paral−leled in the development of the Jurchen written language. At first, the
Jurchen adapted and modified the Khitan character script, but in later times used a mixture of
Han Chinese charac−ters as well.
The early Jurchen empe−rors strongly patroni−zed Bud−dhism. They built many temples in
their capi−tal, Beijing, and throughout their domain. By the middle of the twelfth century,
there were more than thirty thousand monks in the Jin Empire, with monastics holding a
higher position than court offi−cials. The Jurchen court replaced the Northern Song as the
main source the Tanguts petitioned for sending them further Han Chinese Buddhist texts.
The Political and Religious Situation in the Tibetan Regions
After a brief civil war in Tsongka at the turn of the twelfth century, Tsongka relations with
Northern Song China, their previous trading partner, soured. The Northern Song forces took
advantage of the unsettled situation to attack. They captured, lost, and recaptured Tsongka
several times, starting in 1102. This caused the former enemies, Tsongka and the Tanguts, not
only to make peace, but also to form a military alliance in 1104 against Northern Song China.
War continued until the Jurchens overthrew the Northern Song in 1126. The Han Chinese
forces withdrew completely from Tsongka, which then became independent once more until
conquered by the Jurchens in 1182. The Tanguts allied with the Jurchens and continued the
fight against the Southern Song, which was paying annual tribute now to the Tanguts, Jurchen,
and the Khitan successors, the Qaraqitans.
Meanwhile, in other Tibetan cultural areas, the focus of Buddhist activity shifted from western
to central Tibet by the end of the eleventh century when the line of Ngari kings came to an
end. During the first half of the twelfth century, Ngari was ruled by a line of non-Tibetan
tribal people, the Khasas, who followed Buddhism to a much less degree. In the middle of the
century, the Khasa king, Nagadeva, lost control of the area and, conquering western Nepal,
reestablished his rule in that region. Thereafter, western Tibet split into several kingdoms, all
of which continued the revival and support of Buddhism, but on a much lower scale than in
the previous century.
Central Tibet at this time was also divided into many small, independent regions. They often
centered around the new Buddhist monasteries, most of which were built like forts. Unified
rule came to the area only in 1247 when central Tibet was reorganized under Mongol
suzerainty. Despite the environment of political disunity, however, Buddhism in central Tibet
The Establishment of the Jurchen Empire 86

reached new heights during the twelfth century. The Tibetans not only continued with their
translation work, primarily from Sanskrit, but also began to compose a large corpus of
commentarial literature. Each of the monasteries developed its own specialities and distinctive
features.
The Rise of Tibetan Cultural Influence on the Tanguts
Because of the Tangut's shift of alliance from the Northern Song to Tsongka, the main
influence on Tangut Buddhism in the twelfth century likewise shifted from Han China to
Tibet. The Tanguts translated increasingly more texts from the Tibetan language and started to
compose their own Buddhist literature, strongly modeled on the Tibetan commentaries. Many
Tangut monks traveled to central Tibet to study. One of them, Minyag Gomring (Mi-nyag
sGom-rings), became a disciple of Pagmo-drupa (Phag-mo gru-pa, 1110 - 1170), from whom
many of the Kagyu sects are traced. In 1157, the Tangut monk founded the monastery that
later became the center of the Drigung Kagyu (' Bri-gung bKa'-rgyud) tradition, Drigung-til ('
Bri-gung mthil).
Another Tangut, the master translator Tsami Lotsawa (rTsa-mi Lo-tsa-ba), went on to
northern India, also in the mid-twelfth century, became the abbot there of the monastery at
Vajrasana (Bodh Gaya) and brought back from Kashmir one of the lineages of the Kalachakra
Tantra. Teachers from both Kashmir and Tibet were invited back to Tangut where they
became imperial tutors. The mutual exchange grew ever wider.
Despite their incessant military battles with Northern Song China, the Tanguts also continued
adopting certain features from Han Chinese society as well -- for example, in 1146, a
Confucian-style educational system for training bureaucrats. This process of increasing
Sinification, despite Tangut efforts to maintain their cultural integrity, was due to the
influence of Emperor Renxiao's (Jen-hsiao) (r. 1139 - 1193) mother, who was an ethnic Han
Chinese.
Eventually, the Tanguts became one of the most highly cultured peoples of Central Asia. In
1170, for example, Emperor Renxiao promulgated an extensive legal code that covered both
the civil and religious spheres. It divided Tangut Buddhist monasteries into ethnic divisions
according to the origins of its monks -- Tangut, Tibetan, Han Chinese, or mixed Tangut-Han
blood. There was no mention of Uighur or Yellow Yugur monks, perhaps because of Qocho's
submission to the Qaraqitans in 1124. All monks, regardless of origin, were required to study
the Tangut, Tibetan, Han Chinese, and Sanskrit languages and literature. In order to assume a
monastic administrative post, they needed to pass an examination demonstrating their mastery
specifically of several Buddhist texts in their Tibetan translation. This paralleled the civil law,
adopted from Han China, requiring candidates for bureaucratic positions in the government to
pass stringent examinations on the Confucian classics.
The Qaraqitan Takeover of the Qocho Uighurs and Qarakhanids
In 1124, with the Jurchens attacking from the south, the Khitan ruler, Yelu Dashi, lost control
of Mongolia itself and fled with his troops to the Qocho Uighur summer capital at Beshbaliq.
He was well received and entertained by the Khitans' traditional, peaceful, subordinate
vassals. Faced with Yelu Dashi's ambition to carve out new territory for himself, the Uighurs
voluntarily submitted themselves to the powerful Khitan refugee's rule. He declared his
dynasty the Qaraqitan or Western Liao (1124-1203) and appropriated control of Dzungaria.
Perhaps the Qocho Uighurs submitted so readily because of their fear of the new alliance of
The Political and Religious Situation in the Tibetan Regions 87

Jurchens and Tanguts threatening to their east and sought Khitan protection as in the past.
In 1137, Yelu Dashi conquered the Qarakhanids, incorporating their lands in Kashgar,
Khotan, Ferghana, and parts of northern West Turkistan into his empire. In 1141, he defeated
the Seljuqs at Samarkand and extended his territory to Sogdia, Bactria, and Khwarazm. The
Seljuq state in Iran crumbled with an internal revolt, after which Iran broke into several small
states with a succession of many short dynasties until the Mongol conquest in 1220. The main
stronghold left to the Seljuqs was Anatolia.
Yelu Dashi followed the traditional Khitan blend of Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism,
Tengrism, and shamanism. He was extremely tolerant and protected all religions in his realm,
including Islam. Nestorian Christianity flourished with metropolitans in Samarkand and
Kashgar, indicating that the various religions in Central Asia had basically coexisted in
harmony up until then.
The Spread of Islam among Central Asian Turks by Sufi Masters
The Sufi movement in Islam, emphasizing personal experience of divine reality, arose during
the second half of the ninth century through the teachings of Abu'l Qasim al-Junayd (d. 910)
in Iraq and Abu Yazid Tayfur al-Bistami (d. 874) in Khorasan, northeastern Iran. Wandering
masters started to spread it through Central Asia from the eleventh century, during the
Qarakhanid, Ghaznavid, and Seljuk periods. Their Sufi techniques filled a spiritual need left
by the suppression of the Shiite and Ismaili sects, particularly after the Seljuq conquest of
Baghdad in 1055.
The key figure to bring Sufism to the Turkic nomadic tribes was Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali
al-Yasavi (d. 1166). The popularity of the Yasaviyya order, traced from him, was due to his
incorporation of traditional Turkic cultural and, specifically, shamanic elements into Islam. He
wore Turkic dress, allowed the religious use of Turkic languages outside of the context of
prayer, employed cattle sacrifice in certain rituals, and permitted women to participate in
sessions to attain spiritual ecstasy. The Sufi custom of building spiritual guesthouses
(khanaqah) around religious masters, open to all travelers, and with not only individual
spiritual seekers wandering from one to another, but even the entire community of such a
house, including the master, wandering together on spiritual journeys for months on end,
appealed greatly to the Turkic nomad tradition.
Through such means, Islam gained ever-increasing popularity among the Turkic masses. The
rapid growth of Islam in Central Asia at this time, then, was not due to conversion by the
sword, but by several great masters' skillful adaptation of the religion to Turkic culture. This
expansion of Islam did not occur at the expense of Buddhism and was not met with a hostile
Buddhist reaction. In fact, it occurred primarily under a Buddhist rule, that of the Qaraqitans,
and received their support.
20 The Ghurid Campaigns on the Indian Subcontinent
The Initial Military Drive across Northern India
In 1148, Ala-ud-Din of the nomadic Guzz Turks from the mountains of Afghanistan
conquered the region of Ghur in eastern Iran, which gave its name to his Ghurid Empire (1148
- 1215). He proceeded to take Bactria from the Qaraqitans and, in 1161, Ghazna and Kabul
from the Ghaznavids. The latter were forced to move their capital to the Punjabi city of
The Qaraqitan Takeover of the Qocho Uighurs and Qarakhanids 88

Lahore, which still had a Hindu majority at this time. In 1173, the Ghurid founder appointed
his brother, Muizz-ud-Din Muhammad (Muhammad Ghori, r. 1173-1206), governor of
Ghazna and encouraged him to raid the Indian subcontinent.
[View Map Thirty: Indian Subcontinent at the Time of the Ghurid Conquests, End of the
Twelfth Century {36}.]
Like his predecessor, Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori first took, in 1178, the Ismaili
Multan kingdom in northern Sindh, which had regained independence from Ghaznavid rule.
The Ismailis were always suspected of harboring Nizaris or similar types of millenarian,
terrorist movements. Then, in alliance with a local Hindu ruler, the Ghuri leader overthrew the
Ghaznavid Dynasty by conquering Lahore in 1186. Controlling the entire Punjab, he pressed
on, taking Delhi in 1193. The Ghurids then swept across the Gangetic Plain of northern India.
Muhammad himself conquered as far as Banaras in 1194. He despatched one of his captains,
Bakhtiyar Khalji, together with Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Muhammad, to attack further eastward.
The Ghurid campaign on the Indian subcontinent, then, was not, in fact, a holy war to convert
infidels, but basically a drive to conquer territory, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Although the original military objective against the Ismaili kingdom in Multan might have
been properly called a jihad and the Ghurids might have used the theme of a holy war to rally
their troops, the Muslim leaders' enthusiasm was more likely fanned by prospects of booty and
power, rather than converts.
The Conquest of Bihar and Bengal
The Pala Dynasty in Bihar and Bengal, under which most of the great Buddhist monastic
universities of northern India were built, had been overthrown piecemeal. First, the Karnata
Dynasty (1097 - 1324) broke away in Mithila, which covered the area of Bihar north of the
Ganges River and the Terai area of southern Nepal. Toward the end of the twelfth century, the
Senas established themselves in Bengal and Magadha, the portion of Bihar south of the
Ganges. Although the Mithila rulers were Shaivite Hindus, they continued the Pala patronage
of Buddhism and offered strong resistance against the Ghurids. They stopped, for example, an
attempted drive to take Tibet in 1206. The Senas were more singularly devoted to Hinduism
and weaker in strength.
The Ghurids skirted Mithila in their drive eastward, and concentrated their attacks on
Magadha and Bengal. The Sena king installed defensive garrisons at Odantapuri and
Vikramashila Monasteries, which were imposing walled citadels directly on the Ghurids' line
of advance. Taking them for military forts, the Ghurids totally razed them to the ground
between 1199 and 1200. In fact, since Odantapuri occupied such a strategic location, the
Ghurid military governors erected their administrative headquarters for the region on its
former site near modern-day Bihar Sharif.
The Occupation of Northern India
In 1206, Muhammad Ghori was assassinated, bringing to an end the Ghurid drive across
northern India. With no clear successor, his captains fought among themselves for control of
the provinces they had conquered. One of them eventually established himself above the
others as sultan in Lahore, but died shortly thereafter, in 1210. His freed slave, Iltutmish (r.
1210 - 1237), took over and moved the capital to Delhi, starting what has become known as
the Slave Dynasty Sultanate (1210 - 1325).
The Initial Military Drive across Northern India 89

The Ghurids had been able to conquer northern India due to not only their superior strength
and tactics, but also the continual rivalry and infighting among the numerous local Hindu
"Rajput" rulers. Although the latter had been unable to present a united front to prevent the
Ghurid takeover, they were strong enough to reestablish themselves from the jungles and hills
once the foreign troops had moved on. The Ghurids and their successors were later able to
maintain only minor administrative posts and these only in the major cities, from which their
main task was collecting taxes. Their rule, however, saw economic prosperity and thus
remained stable.
Evaluation of the Ghurid Damage to Buddhism
Although the Ghurids had totally looted and demolished Odantapuri and Vikramashila
Monasteries, they did not destroy every Buddhist institution in their realm. Nalanda Monastic
University, for example, the largest of its kind in northern India, although in Magadha, did not
lie on the Ghurids' path of advance. When the Tibetan translator, Chag Lotsawa
Dharmasvamin (Chag Lo-tsa-ba, 1197 - 1264), visited northern India in 1235, he found it
damaged, looted, and largely deserted, but still standing and functioning with seventy
students. For the Ghurids to destroy it completely would have required a separate expedition,
and this was apparently not their main objective.
The Tibetan also found the Sri Lankan Mahabodhi Monastery, not far from Nalanda at
Vajrasana (modern-day Bodh Gaya), still to contain three hundred Sri Lankan monks. It was
the site of Buddha's enlightenment and the holiest pilgrimage site in the Buddhist world.
Moreover, it is unclear if Somapura, the largest monastic university in Bengal, located in
modern-day northern Bangladesh, was abandoned at this time. However, the Tibetan
translator found Jagaddala in northern West Bengal still flourishing and full of monks.
The Ghurid destruction of Buddhist monasteries, then, was focused on those that lay on their
direct line of advance and which were fortified in the manner of defensive forts. Furthermore,
the Ghurids placed their military commanders as governors of the areas they conquered and,
giving them great autonomy, employed the Abbasid system of iqta' for remuneration. In other
words, the Ghurid sultan granted these military governors whatever revenues they could
collect in lieu of financial support from the central state. Thus, it would have been against the
personal interests of these military chiefs to have destroyed everything that would come under
their providence. They followed the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ghaznavid patterns of conquest,
namely looting and inflicting heavy damage on major religious edifices in the initial raids of
their takeover and then, once in power, granting protected subject status to their non-Muslim
subjects and collecting a poll tax from them.
Repercussions on the Development of Buddhism in Neighboring States
Despite the possibility of accepting protected subject status, many Buddhist monks fled Bihar
and parts of northern Bengal, seeking asylum in monastic universities and centers in
modern-day Orissa, southern Bangladesh, Arakan on the western coast of Burma, southern
Burma, and northern Thailand. The majority, however, together with numerous Buddhist lay
followers, went to the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, bringing with them many manuscripts
from the vast monastic libraries that had been destroyed.
Buddhism was in a strong position in Kathmandu at the time. The Hindu kings of the Thakuri
Dynasties (750 - 1200) had supported the Buddhist monasteries, and there were several
monastic universities. Since the end of the tenth century, numerous Tibetan translators had
The Occupation of Northern India 90

been visiting these centers on their way to India, and Nepalese masters from them had been
instrumental in the revival of Buddhism in central and western Tibet. The early Hindu rulers
of the Malla Period (1200 - 1768) continued the policies of their Thakuri predecessors.
Furthermore, Buddhism was spreading to other regions of modern-day Nepal. In the

mid-twelfth century, Nagadeva, a non-Tibetan tribal ruler of western Tibet, lost control of that
area and conquered western Nepal. There he established the Khasa Kingdom, also known as
the Western Malla, which followed the Tibetan form of Buddhism.
Analysis of the Decline of Buddhism on the Indian Subcontinent
Although Hinduism and Jainism were able to survive the Ghurid invasion of northern India,
Buddhism never fully recovered. It gradually began to disappear. Granted that this loss was a
complex phenomenon, let us examine a few of the factors that might explain it.
The Hindus and Jains had no universities or large monasteries. Their monks lived alone or in
small groups in remote regions, studying and meditating privately, with no community rituals
or ceremonies. Since they posed no threat, it was not worth the invaders' time or efforts to
destroy them. They damaged only the Hindu and Jain temples found in the major cities for
laypeople. The Buddhists, on the other hand, had large, imposing monastic universities,
surrounded by high walls and fortified by the local kings. Their razing clearly had military
significance.
The fact that only the Buddhist institutions suffered severe destruction, and mostly only those
on the major paths of the troops' advance, is further evidence that although the Ghurids called
their campaign a holy war, its actual aim was not converting infidels to Islam. Had it been,
they would have focused on the religious communities of the Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists
alike, regardless of their size or location.
For laypeople in India, Buddhism was primarily a religion of devotion focused around the
large monasteries. Although there was a forest tradition for intense meditation, those who
wished to study deeply became celibate monks or nuns. Householders offered food and
material support for the monastics. They came twice a month to the monasteries for a day of
keeping vows of ethical discipline and listening to sermons based on the scriptures. They did
not regard themselves, however, as a separate group from the Hindu majority. For ceremonies
marking rites of passage in their lives, such as birth, marriage, and death, they relied on Hindu
rituals.
When Hinduism identified Buddha as a manifestation of its supreme god Vishnu, the
Buddhists did not object. In fact, throughout northern India, Kashmir, and Nepal, Buddhism
was already mixed with many elements of devotional Hinduism. Therefore, when the major
monasteries were destroyed, most Buddhists were easily absorbed into Hinduism. They could
still focus their devotion on Buddha and be considered good Hindus. Hinduism and Jainism,
on the other hand, were more oriented to laypeople's practice in the home and did not require
monastic institutions. When Hindu theologians identified Jina Rshabha, one of the major Jain
figures, as an incarnation of Vishnu, the Jains protested.
Furthermore, Hindus and Jains were useful to the Muslim conquerors. The Hindus had a
warrior caste that could be conscripted into service, while the Jains were the major local
merchants and sources of tax. The Buddhists, on the other hand, did not have a distinguishing
occupation or service as a people as a whole. They no longer played a role in interregional
Repercussions on the Development of Buddhism in Neighboring States 91

trade as they had centuries earlier when Buddhist monasteries dotted the Silk Route.
Therefore, whatever efforts there were for conversion to Islam were directed primarily toward
them.
Further, many Buddhists were considered to be of the lower castes in Indian society and had
been receiving prejudiced treatment under Hindu rule. Many who accepted Islam were
undoubtedly attracted by the promise of equality and brotherhood to all who accepted this
faith. Hindu converts to Islam, on the other hand, were considered as outcastes by other
Hindus, regardless of their castes of origin. Since Buddhists were already treated as outcastes,
they did not suffer a change in social status within a predominantly Hindu community when
they converted.
Thus, although most of northern India remained Hindu, with pockets of Jains, Punjab and East
Bengal gradually had the most converts. The Buddhists in the former had the longest contact
with Islam, particularly enhanced with the flood of Islamic masters from Iran and the Middle
East that sought refuge there from the Mongol attacks that began in the early thirteenth
century. East Bengal, on the other hand, has always been a land with many impoverished
peasants who would be ripe for the appeal of equality with Islam.
Bibliography
[This bibliography contains materials for supplementing the manuscript with further parts on
the Mongol and Post-Mongol Periods.]
Aalto, Pentti. "On the Role of Central Asia in the Spread of Indian Cultural Influence" in
India's Contribution to World Thought and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras:
Vivekananda Rock Memorial Committee, 1970, 249-262.
Ahmad, Aziz. "Conversions to Islam in the Valley of Kashmir," Central Asiatic Journal, vol.
23 (1979), 5-10.
al-Beruni, Abu Raihan. Al Beruni's India, E. Sachau (transl.). Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 1964;
1st edition: London, 1888.
Allsen, Thomas T. "The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th Century" in
China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th - 14th Centuries, Morris
Rossabi (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983, 243-280.
Alptekin, Erkin. "The Uighurs," Common Voice: Journal of the Allied Committee of the
Peoples of Eastern Turkestan, Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet presently under China, vol. 2
(1992), 9-18.
Aris, Michael. Bhutan, The Early History of a Himalayan Kingdom. Ghaziabad: Vikas
Publishing House, 1980.
Asmussen, Jes Peter. Manichaean Literature: Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle
Persian and Parthian Writings. (Persian Heritage Series, no. 22). Delmar, New York:
Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1975.
_______. "The Sogdian and Uighur-Turkish Christian Literature in Central Asia before the
Real Rise of Islam" in Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W.
Analysis of the Decline of Buddhism on the Indian Subcontinent 92

de Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday, L. A. Hercus, et. al. (ed.). (Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica, no.
27). Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1982, 11-29.
_______. Xuastvanift: Studies in Manichaeism. (Acta Theologica Danica, no. 7).

Copenhagen: Prostant Afud Munksgaard, 1965.
Bailey, Harold Walter. The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan. (Columbia
Lectures on Iranian Studies, no. 1). Delmar, New York: Caravan Books, 1982.
_______. "The Word 'But' in Iranian," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
vol. 6, part 2 (1931), 279-283.
Barthold, W. (Vasilii Vladimirovic). "Der iranische Buddhismus und sein Verhältnis zum
Islam" in Oriental Studies in Honour of Curetji Erachji Pavry, Jal Dastur Curetji Pavry (ed.).
London: Oxford University Press, 1933, 29-31.
_______. Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittelasien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung.
Tübingen & Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901.
Bartol'd, Vasilii Vladimirovich. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasions, 1st ed., 1928; 4th
ed. (E. W. Gibb Memorial Series, n. s.). Philadelphia: Porcupine Press, 1975.
Barua, Dipak Kumar. Viharas in Ancient India: A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries. Calcutta:
Indian Publications, 1969.
Bausani, A. "Religion under the Mongols" in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5: The
Seljuk and Mongol Periods, J. A. Boyle (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958,
538-549.
Beal, Samuel (transl.). Si-yu-ki, Buddhist Records of the Western World, translated from the
Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981; 1st edition: London,
1884.
Beckwith, Christopher I. "The Revolt of 755 in Tibet," in Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös
Memorial Symposium, Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, Ernst
Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher (ed.). vol. 1. Wien: Arbeitkreis für Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1983, 1-16.
_______. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power
among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1987.
_______. "The Tibetan Empire in the West," in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh
Richardson, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Oxford 1979,
Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (ed.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1980, 30-38.
_______. "The Tibetans in the Ordos and North China: Consideration on the Role of the
Tibetan Empire in World History" in Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History,
Christopher I. Beckwith (ed.). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1987, 3-11.
Bibliography 93
Bell, W. "Two Aspects of Iranian Buddhism," Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi
University, Shiraz, vol. 1, nos. 1-4 (1976), 103-163.
Bellow, Henry Walter. "History of Kashgar" in Report on a Mission to Yarkand in 1873 under
Command of Sir T. D. Forsyth, with Historical and Geographic Information regarding the
Possessions of the Ameer of Yarkand, Thomas Douglas Forsyth. Calcutta, 1875, 106-213.
Bhattacarya, N. N. "India's Contribution to Islamic Thought and Culture" in India's

Contribution to World Thought and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras:
Vivekananda Rock Memorial Committee, 1970, 573-578.
Bongard-Levin, G. M. "India and Central Asia: Historical Cultural Contacts in Ancient

Times," in Central Asia, Movement of Peoples and Ideas from Times Prehistoric to Modern,
Amalendu Guha (ed.). Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations, 1970, 97-109.
Boyce, M. A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975.
_______. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practice. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1979.
Boyle, J. A. "Dynastic and Political History of the Il-Khans" in The Cambridge History of
Iran, vol. 5: The Seljuk and Mongol Periods, J. A. Boyle (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1958, 340-355.
Brough, John. "Comments on Third Century Shanshan and the History of Buddhism," Bulletin
of the School of African and Oriental Studies, vol. 28 (1965), 582-612.
_______. "Legends of Khotan and Nepal," Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental
Studies, vol. 12 (1948), 333-339.
Broughton, Jeffrey. "Early Ch'an Schools in Tibet" in Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen, R. M.
Gimello and P. N. Gregory (eds.). (Studies in East Asian Buddhism, no. 1). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1983, 1-68.
Buraev, D. I. "K Istorii Izucheniya Religii Bon" in Istochnikovedenie i Istoriografia Istorii

Buddizma: Stratny Tsentralnoi Azii, R. E. Pubaev (ed.). Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986, 45-58.
Butt, Masood. "Muslims of Tibet," Tibetan Bulletin, (January-February 1994), 8-9, 16.
Chaudhary, R. The University of Vikramasila. Patna: Bihar Research Society, 1975.
Chaudhury, Binayendra Nath. Buddhist Centres in Ancient India. (Calcutta Sanskrit College
Research Series, no. 70). Calcutta: Sanskrit College, 1982.
Ch'en, Kenneth K. S. "On Some Factors Responsible for the Anti-Buddhist Persecution under
the Pei-Ch'ao," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 17, nos. 1-2 (June 1954), 261-273.
Cleary, Thomas. "Buddhism and Islam," Transactions of the International Conference of

Orientalists in Japan, vol. 27 (1982), 31-38.
Bibliography 94
Cowell, Edward B. (ed.). The Jataka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births, Translated
from the Pali by Various Hands, 6 vols., vol. 3. New Delhi: Cosmo, 1979; 1st edition: 1901.
Cutler, Nathan S. "The Early Rulers of Tibet: Their Lineage and Burial Rites," Tibet Journal,
vol. 16, no. 3 (Autumn 1991), 28-51.
Czegledy, K. "The Foundation of the Turfan Uighur Kingdom" in Tibetan and Buddhist
Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma de Körös,
Louis Ligeti (ed.), vol. 1. (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, vol. 28). Budapest: Akademiai
Kiadö, 1984, 159-163.
Dargyay, Eva K. "Sangha and State in Imperial Tibet" in Tibetan History and Language:
Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on His Seventieth Birthday, Ernst Steinkellner (ed.). (Wiener
Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol. 26). Wien: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und
buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1991, 111-127.
Darian, Steven. "Buddhism in Bihar from the Eighth to the Twelfth Century with Special
Reference to Nalanda," Asiatische Studien, vol. 25 (1971), 335-352.
de Hartog, Leo. Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World. London: I. B. Tauris & Co., 1989.
Demiéville, Paul. Le concile de Lhasa, Une controverse sur la quiétisme entre bouddhistes de
l'Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe siècle de l'ère chrétienne. (Bibliotheque de l'Institut des Hautes
Études Chinoises, no. 7). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale de France, 1952.
_______. "Récents Travaux sur Touen-Houang," T'oung-pao, vol. 56, nos. 1-3 (1970), 1-95.
de Rachewiltz, Igor. "Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of

Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries" in China among Equals: The Middle
Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th - 14th Centuries, Morris Rossabi (ed.). Berekeley:
University of California Press, 1983, 281-310.
Dev, Arjun. "India in the Eyes of Early Muslim Scholars" in India's Contribution to World
Thought and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras: Vivekananda Rock Memorial
Committee, 1970, 589-596.
Dikshit, K. N. "Buddhist Centres in Afghanistan" in India's Contribution to World Thought

and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras: Vivekananda Rock Memorial Committee,
1970, 229-238.
Dollfus, Pascale. "The History of Muslim Ladakh." Tibet Journal, vol. 20, no. 3 (Autumn
1995), 35-58.
Dunnell, Ruth W. "Who Are the Tanguts? Remarks on Tangut Ethnogenesis and the
Ethnonym Tangut," Journal of Asian History, vol. 18, no. 2 (1984), 78-89.
Dutt, Nalinaksha. "Buddhism in Nepal." Bulletin of Tibetology, vol. 3, no. 2 (July 1966),
27-45.
_______. Gilgit Manuscripts, vol. 1. (Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica, no. 14). Delhi: Sri Satguru,
1984; 1st edition: Shrinagar, 1939.
Bibliography 95
Dutt, Sukumar. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries in India: Their History and Their
Contribution to Indian Culture. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1962.
Ecsedy, Ildiko. "A Contribution to the History of Karluks in the T'ang Period," Acta
Orientalia, vol. 34 (1980), 23-37.
_______. "Uigurs and Tibetans in Pei-t'ing (790 - 791 A.D.)," Acta Orientalia, vol. 17, part 1
(1964), 83-104.
Eimer, Helmut. "Eine frühe Quelle zur literarischen Tradition über die 'Debatte von bSam
yas'" in Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on His Seventieth
Birthday, Ernst Steinkellner (ed.). (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, vol.
26). Wien: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1991,
163-172.
Eimer, Helmut. "Die Gar log-Episode bei Padma dkar po und ihre Quellen," Orientalia
Suecana, vol. 23-24 (1974-1975), 182-199.
Eliot, Sir Charles. Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, vol. 3. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1921.
Enoki, K. "The Origins of the White Huns or Hephthalites," East and West, vol. 6, no. 3
(October 1955), 231-237.
Emmerick, R. E. "Buddhism in Central Asia" in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade

(ed.), vol. 2. New York: Macmillan, 1987, 400-404.
_______. "Buddhism among Iranian Peoples" in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.2: The
Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Ehsan Yarshater (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983, 949-964.
_______. A Guide to the Literature of Khotan. (Studia Philologica Buddhica Occasional

Paper Series, no. 3). Tokyo: The Reiyukai Library, 1979.
_______. The Khotanese Suragamasamadhisutra. (London Oriental Series, no. 23). London:
Oxford University Press, 1970.
_______. "Some Remarks on Translation Techniques of the Khotanese" in Sprachen des

Buddhismus in Zentralasien: Vorträge des Hamburger Symposiums von 2. Juli bis 5 Juli
1981, Klaus Röhrborn and Wolfgang Veenker (eds.). (Veröffentlichen der Societas
Uralo-Altaica, vol. 16). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassawitz, 1983, 17-26.
_______. "Tibetan Loanwords in Khotanese and Khotanese Loanwords in Tibetan" in

Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti, (ed.), vol. 1. (Serie
Orientale Roma, vol. 56, part 1). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,
1985, 301-317.
_______. Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan. (London Oriental Series, vol. 19). London:
Oxford University Press, 1967.
Bibliography 96
Fang, Jiangchang. "Research on the Huis and their Mosques in Tibet - and the Spread and
Influence of Islam in Tibet," Tibet Studies, vol. 2 (1989), 202-222.
Fletcher, Joseph F. "China and Central Asia, 1368-1884" in The Chinese World Order, John
F. Fairbank (ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968, 207-224.
_______. "Confrontation between Muslim Missionaries and Nomad Unbelievers in the Late
Sixteenth Century" in Tractata Altaica: Denis Sino sexagenario optime de rebus altaicus
merito dedicata, Walther Heissig et alia (eds.). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976, 167-174.
_______. "The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives," Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies, vol. 46, no. 1 (June 1986), 11-50.
Franke, Herbert. "Chinese Texts on the Jurchen: A Translation of the Jurchen Monograph in
the San-ch'ao Pei-meng Hui-pien," Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 9 (1975), 119-186.
_______. "The Forest Peoples of Manchuria: Kitans and Jurchens" in The Cambridge History
of Early Inner Asia, Denis Sinor (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990,
400-423.
_______. "Some Remarks on the Interpretation of Chinese Dynastic Histories," Oriens, vol. 3,
no. 1 (1950), 113-122.
Ganhar, J. N. and Ganhar, P. N. Buddhism in Kashmir and Ladakh. New Delhi: Shri Prem
Nath Ganhar, 1956.
Ghafur, Muhammad Abdul. "Two Lost Inscriptions Relating to the Arab Conquest of Kabul
and the North West Region of West Pakistan," Ancient Pakistan, vol. 2 (1965-1966), 4-12.
Gibb, H. A. R. The Arab Conquest Asia. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1923.
Gimaret, Daniel. "Bouddha et les bouddhists dans la tradition musulman," Journal Asiatique,
vol. 257, nos. 3 & 4 (1969), 273-316.
Gladney, Dru. Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the Peoples' Republic. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1991.
Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind. "Early Buddhism and the Brahmanas" in Studies in the History
of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International Conference on the History of Buddhism at
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA, August 19-21, 1976, A. K. Narain (ed.).
Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 67-80.
Golden, Peter. "The Karakhanids and Early Islam" in The Cambridge History of Early Inner
Asia, Denis Sinor (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 343-370.
Goryacheva, V. D. Gorod Zolotogo Verblyuda (Krasnorechenskoe Gorodishche). Frunze:

Akademiya Nauk Kirgizskoi SSR, Institut Istorii Izdatel'stvo Ilim, 1988.
Grist, Nicola. "Muslims of Western Ladakh," Tibet Journal, vol. 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1995),
59-70.
Bibliography 97
Haloun, W. and Henning, W. (transl.). "The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the
Teachings of Mani, the Buddha of Light," Asia Major, vol. 3 (1952), 184-212.
Hambli, Gavin et alia. Central Asia. (The Weidenfeld and Nicolson Universal History, no. 16).
London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969.
Hamilton, J. R. "Les regnes khotanais entre 851 et 1001" in Contributions aux études sur
Touen-houang, Michel Soymié (ed.). Genève-Paris: Droz, 1979, 49-54.
Hinüber, Oskar. "Sanskrit und Gandhari in Zentralasien" in Sprachen des Buddhismus in

Zentralasien: Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions von 2. Juli bis 5 Juli 1981, Klaus
Röhrborn and Wolfgang Veenker (eds.). (Veröffentlichen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 16).
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassawitz, 1983, 27-34.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism, from Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana. (Asian
Studies at Hawaii, no. 36). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.
Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World

Civilization, 3 vols. (vol 1: The Classical Age of Islam; vol. 2: The Expansion of Islam in the
Middle Periods). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern

Turkestan, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916.
Hoffmann, Helmut. "An Account of the Bon Religion in Gilgit," Central Asiatic Journal, vol.
13, no. 2 (1969), 137-145.
_______. "Kalacakra Studies I: Manichaeism, Christianity and Islam in the Kalacakra Tantra,"
Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 13, no. 1 (1969), 52-73. "Kalacakra Studies I: Addenda et
Corrigenda," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 15, no. 4 (1972), 298-301.
_______. "Manichaeism and Islam in the Buddhist Kalacakra System," in Proceedings of the
IXth International Congress of the History of Religions 1958. Tokyo: 1960, 96-99.
_______. "Die Qarluq in der tibetischen Literatur," Oriens, vol. 3 (1950), 190-208.
_______. "Tibetan Historiography and the Approach of the Tibetans to History," Journal of
Asian History, vol. 4, no. 2 (1970), 169-177.
Hookham, Hilda. Tamburlaine the Conqueror. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1962.
Horrie, Chris and Chippendale, Peter. What is Islam? London: Virgin Books, 1990.
Houston, Gary W. "An Overview of Nestorians in Inner Asia," Central Asiatic Journal, vol.
24, nos 1-2 (1980), 60-68.
_______. "The Bsam Yas Debate According to the Rgyal Rabs Gsal Ba'i Me Long," Central
Asiatic Journal, vol. 18, no. 4 (1974), 210-216.
_______. Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate. (Monumenta Tibetica Historica, Ab.
1, Bd. 2). Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980.
Bibliography 98
Isenbike, Togan-Aricanli. "Differences in Ideology and Practice: The Case of the Black and
White Mountain Factions" in The Legacy of Islam in China: An International Symposium in
Memory of Joseph F. Fletcher, April 14-16, 1989. Unpublished manuscript, John King
Fairbank Center, Harvard University, 642-672.
_______. "Islam in a Changing Society: The Khojas of Eastern Turkestan" in Muslims in

Central Asia, Jo-Ann Gross (ed.). Durham: Duke University Press, 1992, 134-148.
Ishaq Khan, Muhammad. Kashmir's Transition to Islam: The Role of the Muslim Rishis. New
Delhi: Manohar, 1994.
Israeli, Raphael. Islam in China: A Critical Bibliography. (Bibliographies and Indexes in

Religious Studies, no. 29). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.
I-tsing. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago,
A.D. 671-695, J. Takakusu (transl.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
Imaeda, Yoshiro. "Documents tibétain de Touen-Houang concernant le concile du Tibet,"

Journal Asiatique, vol. 263, parts 1-2 (1975), 125-146.
Jagchid, Sechin. "Buddhism in Mongolia after the Collapse of the Yüan Dynasty," Bulletin of
the Institute of China Border Area Studies, vol. 2 (July 1971), 44-60.
_______. "The Mongol Khans and Chinese Buddhism and Taoism," Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 (1979), 7-28.
_______. "Objectives of Warfare in Inner Asia," Bulletin of the Institute of China Border Area
Studies, vol. 4 (July 1973), 11-23.
_______. "Why the Mongolian Khans Adopted Tibetan Buddhism as Their Faith" in
Proceedings of the Third East Asian Altaistic Conference, August 17-24, 1969, Taipei, Ch'en
Chieh-hsien and Sechin Jagchid (ed.). Tainan: Department of History, Ch'engkung University,
1970, 108-128.
Jagchid, Sechin and Symons, Van Jay. Peace, War and Trade Along the Great Wall:
Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through Two Millennia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1989.
Jahn, K. "Kamalashri-Rasid-al-Din's 'Life and Teaching of Buddha', A Source for the

Buddhism of the Mongol Period," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 2, no. 2 (1956), 81-128.
Jaini, Padmanabh S. "The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study
in Contrast" in Studies in the History of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International
Conference on the History of Buddhism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA,
August 19-21, 1976, A. K. Narain (ed.). Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 81-91.
_______. "Jina Rsabha as an Avatara of Visnu," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, vol. 40, no. 2 (1977), 321-337.
Kara, György, "L'ancien ouigour dans le lexique mongol," Journal Asiatique, vol. 269 (1981),
317-324.
Bibliography 99
_______. "Sino-uigurische Worterklärungen" in Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien:

Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions von 2. Juli bis 5 Juli 1981, Klaus Röhrborn and
Wolfgang Veenker (eds.). (Veröffentlichen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 16). Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassawitz, 1983, 44-52.
_______. "Uighuro-Tibetica," in Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium,

Held at Matrafüred, Hungary, 1976, Louis Ligeti (ed.). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1978,
161-167.
Kara, György and Zieme, Peter. Fragmente tantrischer Werke in uighurischer Übersetzung.
(Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients Berliner Turfantexte, vol. 7). Berlin,
Akademie-Verlag, 1976.
Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. A General Introduction to the History and Doctrine of Bon.
(Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, no. 33). Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1975.
_______. "Gesar: The Epic Tradition of the Tibetan People," Bulletin of the Department of
Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, vol. 2, no. 3 (1992), 25-30.
_______. The Great Perfection (rDzogs-chen), A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching in

Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E .J. Brill, 1988.
_______. "An Open Letter by Zhi-ba-'od to the Buddhists of Tibet," Tibet Journal, vol. 5, no.
3 (Autumn 1980), 3-28.
_______. "The Ordinance of Lha Bla-ma Ye-shes-'od" in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh
Richardson, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Oxford 1979,
Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi (eds.). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1980, 150-162.
_______. "Political Aspects of the Snga-dar, the First Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet,"
Bulletin of the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, vol. 2, no. 3
(1992), 3-10.
Khoshelenko, G. "The Beginning of Buddhism in Margiana," Acta Antiqua, vol. 14, parts 1-2
(1966), 175-183.
Khosla, Sarla. History of Buddhism in Kashmir. New Delhi: Sagar Publications, 1972.
Kim, Ho-dong. "Nomads and Saints in 14th-16th Century Chinese Turkestan" in The Legacy
of Islam in China: An International Symposium in Memory of Joseph F. Fletcher, April 14-16,
1989. Unpublished manuscript, John King Fairbank Center, Harvard University, 673-732.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. "Buddhistische Übernahmen im iranischen und türkischen

Manichäismus" in Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens, Walther Heissig and
Hans-Joachim Klimkeit (eds.). (Studies in Oriental Religions, vol. 13). Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1987, 58-75.
_______. "Das manichäische Königtum in Zentralasien" in Documenta Barbarorum:

Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburtstag, Klaus Sagaster and Michael Weiers
(eds.). (Veröffentlichen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 18). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1983, 225-244.
Bibliography 100
_______. "Manichäische und buddhistische Berichtformeln aus Turfan," Zeitschrift für

Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, vol. 29, no. 3 (1977), 193-228.
_______. "Vairocana und das Lichtkreuz, Manichäische Elemente in der Kunst von Alchi
(West Tibet)," Zentralasiatische Studien, vol. 13 (1979), 357-399.
Kljatormyj, Sergej G. and Livic, Vladimir A. "The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised,"
Acta Orientalia, vol. 26, fasc. 1 (1972), 69-102.
Kulke, Hermann. "Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbild im hinduistischen Mittelalter,"

Saeculum, vol. 30 (1979), 100-112.
Kuwayama, Shoshin. "The Turki Sahis and Relevant Brahmanical Sculptures in Afghanistan,"
East and West, vol. 26, nos. 3-4 (September - December 1976), 375-408.
Kuznetsov, B.I. "The Highest Deities of the Tibetan Bon Religion," Tibet Journal, vol. 6, no.
2 (Summer 1981), 47-53.
_______. "Influence of the Pamirs on Tibetan Culture," Tibet Journal, vol. 3, no. 3 (Autumn
1978), 35-37.
Kuznetsov, B. I. and Zelinski, A. N. "O Nekotorikh Buddiyskikh Pamyatnikakh Kyrgiziy," in

Materialy po Istorii i Filologii Tsentralnoi Azii, no. 3. Ulan Ude: Nauka, 1968, 118-131.
Kvaerne, Per. "Aspects of the Origin of the Buddhist Tradition in Tibet," Numen, vol. 19
(1972), 22-40.
_______. "The Canon of the Tibetan Bonpos," Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 16 (1974), 18-56,
96-144.
_______. "Dualism in Tibetan Cosmogonic Myths and the Question of Iranian Influence" in
Silver on Lapis: Tibetan Literary Culture and History, Christopher I. Beckwith (ed.).
Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1987, 163-174.
_______. "Mongols and Khitans in a 14th-Century Tibetan Bonpo Text, Acta Orientalia, vol.
34, nos. 1-3 (1980), 85-104.
Kwanten, Luc. A History of Central Asia, 500-1500. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press, 1979.
_______. Tibetan-Mongol Relations during the Yüan Dynasty, 1207-1368. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1972.
Kycanov, Evgeniy I. "Buddhism and State in Hsi Hsia from Juridical Aspect," Acta
Orientalia, vol. 34, fasc. 1-3 (1980), 105-111.
Kychanov, Evgeniy I. "From the History of the Tangut Translation of the Buddhist Canon" in
Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of
Alexander Csoma de Körös, Louis Ligeti (ed.), vol. 1. (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, vol.
28). Budapest: Akademiai Kiadö, 1984, 377-387.
Bibliography 101
_______. Ocherk Istorii Tangutskogo Gosudarstva. Moscow: Nauka, 1968.
_______. "Tibetans and Tibetan Culture in the Tangut State Hsi Hsia (982-1227)," in
Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium, Held at Matrafüred, Hungary,
1976, Louis Ligeti (ed.). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1978, 205-212.
Kytschanow, Ewgenij I. "Der tangutische Staat Gross-Xia (982-1227)" in Die schwartze Stadt
an der Seidenstrasse: Buddhistische Kunst aus Khara Khoto (10.-13. Jahrhundert), Michael
Pjotrowskij (ed.). Milan: Electa, 1993, 49-59.
Lal, K.S. "The Advent of Islam in Sind" in Studies in Religion and Change, Madhu Sen (ed.).
New Delhi: Books & Books, 1983, 117-128.
Lamotte, Étienne. History of Indian Buddhism. (Publications de L'Institut Orientaliste de

Louvain no. 36). Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1988.
Laut, Jens Peter. Der frühe türkische Buddhismus und seine literarischen Denkmäler.
(Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 21). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1986.
Lee, Don Y. The History of Early Relations between China and Tibet: From Chiu T'ang-shu, a
Documentary Survey. Bloomington: Eastern Press, 1981.
Lieu, S. The Religion of Light: An Introduction to the History of Manichaeism in China. Hong
Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1979.
Litvinsky, B. A. "India and Soviet Central Asia" in India's Contribution to World Thought and
Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras: Vivekananda Rock Memorial Committee,
1970, 263-274.
Liu, Mau-tsai. Kutscha und seine Beziehungen zu China von 2. Jh. V. Bis zum 6. Jh.n. Chr., 2
vols. (Asiatische Forschungen, vol. 27). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969.
Lo Bue, Erberto. "The Princes of Gyantse and Their Role as Builders and Patrons of Arts" in
Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Narita 1989, Shoren Ihara and ZuihoYamaguchi (eds.), vol. 2. (Monograph Series of
the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, no. 2). Narita: Naritasan
Shinshoji, 1992, 559-573.
Macdonald, Alexander W. "Religion in Tibet at the time of Srong-btsan Sgam-po" in Tibetan

and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Alexander Csoma
de Körös, Louis Ligeti (ed.), vol. 2. (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, vol. 28). Budapest:
Akademiai Kiadö, 1984, 129-140.
Mackerras, Colin. The Uighur Empire, According to T'ang Dynastic Histories. Canberra:
Australian National University Press, 1972.
_______. "The Uighurs" in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Denis Sinor (ed.).
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 317-342.
Maclean, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.
Bibliography 102
Mair, Victor H. "Three Brief Essays Concerning Chinese Tocharistan, no. B: Early Iranian
Influences on Buddhism in Central Asia," Sino-Platonic Papers, no. 16 (March 1990),
131-134.
Majumdar, R. C. (ed.). The History and Culture of the Indian People, vol. 3: The Classical
Age. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1954.
Manz, Beatrice Forbes. "The Ulus Chagatay before and after Temür's Rise to Power: The
Transformation from Tribal Confederation to Army of Conquest," Central Asiatic Journal,
vol. 27, nos. 1-2 (1983), 79-100.
Marks, Thomas A. "History and Religion in the Ladakhi Kingdom," Tibet Journal, vol. 2, no.
2 (Summer 1977), 38-56.
Maue, D. and Röhrborn, K. "Ein 'buddhistischer Katechismus' in alttürkischer Sprache und

tibetischer Schrift," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 134, part 2
(1984), 286-313; vol. 135, part 1 (1985), 68-91.
Melikian-Chirvani, Assadullah Souren. "The Buddhist Ritual in the Literature of Early Islamic
Iran" in South Asian Archeology 1981, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of
South Asian Archeologists in Westen Europe: held in Cambridge University, 5-10 July 1981,
Bridget Allchin (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 272-279.
_______. "L'évocation litéraire du Bouddhisme dans l'Iran musulman," in Le Monde Iranien

et l'Islam: Sociétés et Cultures, vol. 2. (Hautes Études Isamique et Orientales d'Histoire
Comparée, vol. 6). Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1974, 1-72.
Menjani, Nikmet. "The Spread of Islam among the Kazakh People" in The Legacy of Islam in
China: An International Symposium in Memory of Joseph F. Fletcher, April 14-16, 1989.
Unpublished manuscript, John King Fairbank Center, Harvard University, 733-757.
Mitra, R.C. The Decline of Buddhism in India. (Visva-Bharati Studies, no. 20). Shantiniketan:
Visvabharati, 1954.
Moevus, Claude. "The Chinese Hui Muslims' Trade in Tibetan Areas," Tibet Journal, vol. 20,
no. 3 (Autumn 1995), 115-123.
Molé, Gabriella. The T'u-yü-hun from the Northern Wei to the Time of the Five Dynasties.
(Serie Orientale Roma, vol. 41). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,
1970.
Moses, Larry Williams. The Political Role of Mongol Buddhism. (Indiana University Ural
Altaic Series, vol. 133). Bloomington: Asian Studies Research Institute, 1977.
Mustafina, Raushan M. Predstavleniya, Kul'ty, Obryady u Kazakhov (v Kontekste Bytovogo

Islama v Yujnom Kazakhstane v Kontse xix - xx vv.). Almaty: Kazakh Universiteti, 1992.
Muti'i, Ibrahim. "The Islamic Madrassah in the Early Period of Uigur Conversion to Islam" in
The Legacy of Islam in China: An International Symposium in Memory of Joseph F. Fletcher,
April 14-16, 1989. Unpublished manuscript, John King Fairbank Center, Harvard University,
597-618.
Bibliography 103
Narain, A.K. "Indo-Europeans in Inner Asia" in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia,
Denis Sinor (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 151-176.
Naudou, Jean. Buddhists of Kashmir (transl. from the French). Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan,
1980.
Newman, John. "A Brief History of the Kalachakra," in The Wheel of Time, The Kalachakra in
Context, Geshe Lhundub Sopa (ed.). Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park Books, 1985, 51-84.
_______. "The Paramadibuddha (the Kalacakra Mulatantra) and Its Relation to the Early
Kalacakra Literature," Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 30 (1987), 93-102.
Norbu, Namkhai. The Necklace of Gzi. Dharamsala: Information Office of H. H. the Dalai
Lama, 1981.
Olbrecht, Peter. "Die Tanguten und ihre Geschichte bis zur Gründung von Si Hia," Central
Asiatic Journal, vol. 2, no. 2 (1956), 142-154.
Petech, Luciano. "The 'Bri-gung-pa Sect in Western Tibet and Ladakh" in Proceedings of the
Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium, Held at Matrafüred, Hungary, 1976, Louis Ligeti
(ed.). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1978, 313-325.
_______. The Kingdom of Ladakh c. 950-1842 A.D. (Serie Orientale Roma, vol. 51). Rome:
Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1977.
_______. Mediaeval History of Nepal (c. 750-1480). 2nd revised ed. (Serie Orientale Roma,
vol. 54). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1984.
_______. "The Tibetan-Ladakhi-Moghul War 1681-1683," Indian Historical Quarterly, vol.

23 (1947), 169-199.
_______. "Tibetan Relations with Sung China and with the Mongols" in China among
Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th - 14th Centuries, Morris Rossabi (ed.).
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983, 173-203.
_______. "Ya-ts'e, Gu-ge, Pu-ran: A New Study," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 24 (1980),
85-111.
Pinks, E. Die Uiguren von Kan-chou in der frühen Sung-Zeit (960-1028). (Asiatische
Forschungen, no. 24). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1968.
Pritsak, Omeljan. "Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden," Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 101, n. f. (1951), 270-300.
Przyluski, J. "La croyance au messie dans l'Inde et l'Iran," Revue de l'Histoire des Religions,
vol. 100 (1929), 1-12.
Ptchelina, E. G. and Stavisky, B. J. "Kara-Tepe - Remains of a Buddhist Monastery of the

Kushan Period in Old Termez" in Indo-Asian Studies, part 1, Raghu Vira (ed.). (Shata Pitaka
Series, Indo-Asian Literatures, vol. 31). Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1963, 193-202.
Bibliography 104
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-shan. (London Oriental

Series, no. 4). London: Oxford University Press, 1955.
_______. "A Sogdian Colony in Inner Mongolia," T'oung Pao, vol. 41, parts 4-5 (1952),
317-356.
Puri, B. N. Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.
_______. "Religion - A Challenging Force in Indian History between the 8th - 10th Century
A.D." in Studies in Religion and Change, Madhu Sen (ed.). New Delhi: Books & Books,
1983, 111-116.
Ram, Rajendra. A History of Buddhism in Nepal A.D. 704-1396. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1978.
Riccardi Jr., Theodore. "Buddhism in Ancient and Early Medieval Nepal" in Studies in the
History of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International Conference on the History of
Buddhism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA, August 19-21, 1976, A. K.
Narain (ed.). Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 265-281.
Richard, Jean. "La conversion de Berke et les débuts de l'Islamisation de la horde d'or," Revue
des Études Islamiques, vol. 35 (1967), 173-184.
Richardson, Hugh E. "The Cult of Vairocana in Early Tibet" in Indo-Tibetan Studies: Papers
in Honour of Professor D. L. Snellgrove, Tadeusz Skorupski (ed.). (Buddhica Britannica
Series Continua, vol. 2). Tring, U. K.: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990, 271-274.
_______. "'The Dharma that Came Down from Heaven': a Tun-huang Fragment" in Buddhist
Thought and Asian Civilization: Essays in Honor of Herbert V. Guenther on His Sixtieth
Birthday, Leslie S. Kawamura and Keith Scott (eds.). Emeryville, California: Dharma
Publishing, 1977, 219-229.
_______. "Ministers of the Tibetan Kingdom," Tibet Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 (Spring 1977),
10-27.
_______. "Political Aspects of the Snga-dar, the First Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet,"
Bulletin of the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, vol. 2, no. 3
(1992), 3-10.
_______. "Who Was Yum-brtan?" in Études tibétaines dédicées à memoire de Marcelle

Lalou. Paris: Librarie d'Amérique et d'Orient, 1971, 433-439.
Ries, Julien. "Bouddhisme et Manichéisme: Les étapes d'une recherche" in Indianisme et

Bouddhisme, Mélanges offerts à Mgr. Étienne Lamotte. (Publications de l'institut orientaliste
de Louvain, no. 23). Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1980, 281-295.
Rizvi, S. A. A. "Islam in Medieval India" in A Cultural History of India, A. L. Basham (ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975, 281-293.
_______. "The Muslim Ruling Dynasties," op. cit., 245-265.
Bibliography 105
Robinson, Richard H. and Johnson, Willard L. The Buddhist Religion, 3rd ed. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1982.
Roerich, George N. Biography of Dharmasvamin, Chag lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje-dpal, A Tibetan

Monk Pilgrim, with an historical and critical introduction by Dr. A. S. Altekar. Patna: K.P.
Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959. Reprinted in Roerich, George N. Izbrannie Trudi. Moscow:
Nauka, 1967, 453-571.
_______. The Blue Annals, 2 vols. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1949, 1953.
Róna-Tas, András. An Introduction to Turkology. Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem

Bölcsészettudományi Kar, 1991.
_______. "Materialien zur alten Religion der Türken" in Synkretismus in den Religionen
Zentralasiens, Walther Heissig and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit (eds.). (Studies in Oriental
Religions, vol. 13). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987, 33-45.
_______. "Some Notes on the Terminology of Mongolian Writing," Acta Orientalia, vol. 18,
fasc. 1-2 (1965), 119-147.
Rossabi, Morris. China and Inner Asia: From 1368 to the Present Day. London: Thames &
Hudson, 1975.
_______. "Ming China and Turfan, 1406-1517," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 16, no. 3
(1972), 206-225.
_______. "Muslims and Central Asian Revolts" in From Ming to Ch'ing: Conquest, Region
and Continuity in Seventeenth Century China, Jonathan D. Spence and John F. Wills, Jr.
(eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, 169-199.
_______. "The Muslims in the Early Yüan Dynasty" in China under Mongol Rule, John D.
Langlois, Jr. (ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981, 257-295.
Roux, J.P. "La religion des turcs de l'Orkhon des VIIe et VIIIe siècles," Revue de l'Histoire
des Religions, vol. 161, no. 1 (January-March 1962), 1-24; vol. 161, no. 2 (April-June 1962),
199-231.
Ruegg, David Seigfort. "On the Tibetan Historiography and Doxography of the 'Great Debate
of bSam yas,'" in Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International
Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989, Shoren Ihara and Zuiho Yamaguchi (eds.), vol.
1. (Monograph Series of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, no.
2). Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 1992, 237-244.
_______. "Problems in the Transmission of Vajrayana Buddhism in the Western Himalaya

about the Year 1000," Acta Indologica, vol. 6 (1984), 369-381.
Sagaster, Klaus. "Ein Dokument des Tschinggis-Khan-Kult in der Khalkha-Mongolei" in

Collectanae Mongolica, Festschrift für Professor Dr. Rintchen zum 60. Geburtstag, Walther
Heissig (ed.). (Asiatische Forschungen, vol. 17). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1966,
193-234.
Bibliography 106
_______. "Kesar, der islamische Antichrist" in Documenta Barbarorum: Festschrift für

Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburtstag, Klaus Sagaster and Michael Weiers (eds.).
(Veröffentlichen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 18). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983,
341-348.
_______. "Die Verehrung Cinggis Khan bei den Mongolen" in Deutscher Orientalistentag
vom 26. bis 30. September 1988 im Köln, Ausgewählte Vorträge. (Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement, no. 8). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990,
365-371.
Samolin, William. East Turkistan to the Twelfth Century: A Brief Political Survey. (Central
Asiatic Studies, no. 9). The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1964.
Samosyuk, Kira F. "Buddhistische Kunst im Reich der Tanguten" in Die schwartze Stadt an
der Seidenstrasse: Buddhistische Kunst aus Khara Khoto (10.-13. Jahrhundert), Michael
Pjotrowskij (ed.). Milan: Electa, 1993, 60-88.
Sankalia, H. The University of Nalanda, 2nd ed. Delhi: Oriental Publishers, 1972.
Schaeder, Hans Heinrich. "Der iranische Zeitgott und sein Mythos," Zeitschrift der Deutsche
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 95, part 2 (1941), 268-299.
Schafer, Edward H. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1963.
Scharlipp, Wolfgang. "Kurzer Überblick über die buddhistische Literatur der Türken,"
Materialia Turcica, vol. 6 (1980), 37-53.
Schwartz, Henry G. "The Khwajas of Eastern Turkestan," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 20
(1976), 266-296.
_______. The Minorities of Northern China: A Survey. (Studies on East Asia, vol. 17).
Bellingham, Washington: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University,
1984.
Schwartz, P. "Bemerkungen zu den arabischen Nachrichten über Balkh" in Oriental Studies in

Honour of Curetji Erachji Pavry, Jal Dastur Curetji Pavry (ed.). London: Oxford University
Press, 1933, 434-443.
Scott, David Alan. "Buddhism and Islam: Past to Present Encounters and Interfaith Lessons,"
Numen International Review for the History of Religions, vl. 42, no. 2 (May 1995), 141-155.
_______. "The Iranian Face of Buddhism," East and West, vol. 41, nos. 1-4 (December 1991),
43-78.
_______. "Manichaean Views of Buddhism," History of Religions, vol. 25, no. 2 (November
1985), 99-115.
Shakabpa, W. D. Tibet: A Political History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
Bibliography 107
Shakspo, Nawang Tsering. A History of Buddhism in Ladakh. Delhi: Ladakh Buddhist Vihara,
1988.
Sheikh, Abdul Ghani. "Tibetan Muslims," Tibet Journal, vol. 16, no. 4 (Winter 1991), 86-89.
Shi Jinbo. Xixia Fojiao Shilüe. Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin Chuban She, 1988.
Shushud, Hasan. Masters of Wisdom of Central Asia. Muhtar Holland, transl. Ellingstring, U.
K.: Coombe Springs Press, 1983.
Siddiqi, W. H. "India's Contribution to Arab Civilization" in India's Contribution to World

Thought and Culture, Lokesh Chandra, et al. (eds.). Madras: Vivekananda Rock Memorial
Committee, 1970, 579-588.
Siddiqui, Ataullah. "Muslims of Tibet," Tibet Journal, vol. 16, no. 4 (Winter 1991), 71-85.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. "Indian Elements in Parthian and Sogdian" in Sprachen des

Buddhismus in Zentralasien: Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions von 2. Juli bis 5 Juli 1981,
Klaus Röhrborn and Wolfgang Veenker (eds.). (Veröffentlichen der Societas Uralo-Altaica,
vol. 16). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassawitz, 1983, 132-141.
_______. "The Sogdian Sound-System and the Origins of the Uyghur Script," Journal
Asiatique, vol. 268 (1981), 347-360.
Singh, Mian Goverdhan. History of Himachal Pradesh. Delhi: Yugbodh Publishing, 1982.
Sinor, Denis. "The Establishment and Dissolution of the Türk Empire" in The Cambridge
History of Early Inner Asia, Denis Sinor (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990,
285-316.
_______. Inner Asia, History, Civilization, Languages - A Syllabus. (Ural and Altaic Series,
vol.
96). Bloomington: Indiana University Publications, 2nd ed., 1971.
Skorupski, Tadeusz. "Tibetan g-Yung-drung Bon Monastery in India," Tibet Journal, vol. 11,
no. 2 (Summer 1986), 36-49.
Snellgrove, David. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors, 2
vols. Boston: Shambhala Press, 1987.
Sofronov, M. V. "Tibetan Transcription of Tangut Script: The Problem of Prefixes" in Tibetan

Studies, Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Narita 1989, Shoren Ihara and Zuiho Yamaguchi (eds.), vol. 2. (Monograph Series of the
Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, no. 2). Narita: Naritasan
Shinshoji, 1992, 735-740.
Somlai, Gyorgy. "A Doha-Interpretation According to Jo-nan-pa Kun-dga' sñin-po," Acta

Orientalia, vol. 44, fasc. 1 (1990), 139-145.
Sperling, Eliot. "Hülegü and Tibet," Acta Orientalia, vol. 44, fasc. 1 (1990), 145-158.
Bibliography 108
_______. "'Lama to the King of Hsia,'"Journal of the Tibet Society, vol. 7 (1987), 31-50.
_______. "Rtsa-mi Lo-tsa-ba Sangs-rgyas grags-pa and the Tangut Background to Early
Mongol-Tibetan Relations" in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, Per Kvaerne (ed.), vol 2. Oslo:
The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1994, 801-824.
Spuler, Berthold. "Central Asia from the Sixteenth Century to the Russian Conquest" in The
Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1, P. M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and B. Lewis (eds.).
London: Cambridge University Press, 1970, 468-494.
_______. Iran in Früh-Islamischer Zeit: Politik, Verwaltung und öffentliches Leben zwischen
der arabischer und seldschukischen Eroberung 633 bis 1055. (Akademie der Wissenschaften
und der Liteatur, Veröffentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission, vol. 2). Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1952.
_______. Die Mongolen in Iran: Poltik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220-1350.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968.
_______. "'Buddha-Mazda' from Kara-tepe in Old Termez (Uzbekistan): A Preliminary

Communication," Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2
(1980), 89-94.
Stein, Sir Marc Aurel. Ancient Khotan: Detailed Report of Archaeological Explorations in
Chinese Turkestan, 3 vols. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1981; 1st edition: 1906.
_______. "A Contribution to the History of the Sahis of Kabul," East and West, vol. 23, no.
1-2 (March-June 1973), 13-20.
Stein, R.A. Une chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bzhed. (Publications de l'Institut des
Hautes Études Chinoises, Textes et Documents, vol. 1). Paris: Institut des Hautes Études
Chinoises, 1961.
_______. "Une mention de Manichéisme dans le choix de Bouddhisme comme religion d'état
par la roi tibétains Khri-sron lde-bcan" in Indianisme et Bouddhisme, Mélanges offerts à Mgr.
Étienne Lamotte. (Publications de l'institut orientaliste de Louvain, no. 23). Louvain: Institut
Orientaliste, 1980, 329-337.
_______. "Nouveaux documents tibétains sur le Mi-Ñag /Si-Hia" in Mélanges de Sinologie

offerts à Monsieur Paul Demiéville, vol. 1. (Bibliothèque de l'Institut des hautes études
chinoises, vol. 20.). Paris: Presses Universitée de France, 1966, 281-294.
_______. "Tibetica Antiqua V: La religion indigène et les bon-po dans les manuscrits de
TouenHouang," Bulletin de l'École Français d'Extreme Orient, vol. 77 (1988), 27-56.
Sushanlo, Fatima M. Buddizm v Istorii Naradov Srednevekovoi Kirgizii. Novosibirsk:

Buryatskii Institut Obshchestvennykh Nauk, 1983.
_______. Drevnyaya Kroraina (Kompleks Etnokul'turnykh Problem). Bishkek: Akademiya

Nauk Republiki Kyrgyzstan, Institut Politiko-Ekonomicheskogo Zarubejnogo Opyta Ilim,
1993.
Bibliography 109
Szerb, Janos. "A Note on the Tibetan-Uighur Treaty of 822/823 A.D.," in Proceedings of the
Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium, Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September
1981, Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher (ed.). vol. 1. Wien: Arbeitkreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1983, 375-387.
Takla, P. T. "The Origins of Relations between Tibet and Other Central Asian Countries,"
Common Voice: Journal of the Allied Committee of the Peoples of Eastern Turkestan,
Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet presently under China, vol. 2 (1992), 19-28.
Tao Jing-shen. The Jurchen in Twelfth Century China: A Study of Sinicization. (Publications
on Asia of the Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, no. 29) Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 1976.
_______. Two Sons of Heaven: Studies in Sung-Liao Relations. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press, 1988.
Tatz, Mark. "T'ang Dynasty Influences on the Early Spread of Buddhism in Tibet," Tibet
Journal, vol. 3, no. 2 (Summer 1978), 3-32.
Thomas, Frederick William. "Buddhism in Khotan: Its Decline according to Two Tibetan
Accounts" in Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume, vol. 3, part 3. Calcutta, 1927,
30-52.
_______. Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan, 4 vols.
(Oriental Translation Fund Series, new series, vols. 32, 37, 40, 41). London: Royal Asiatic
Society, 1935, 1951, 1953, 1963.
Thomas, Frederick William and Clauson, G. L. M. "A Chinese Buddhist Text in Tibetan
Characters," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (April 1927), 282-283.
_______. "A Second Chinese Buddhist Text in Tibetan Characters," Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (October 1927), 281-306.
Tibbati, Abu Bakr Amiru'd-Din, Tibbat aur Tibbati Musalman. Lucknow: Nadwatu'l-'ulama,
1979; English version: Tibet and Tibetan Muslims. Unpublished manuscript held at the
Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, Dharamsala, India.
Trimingham, John Spencer. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Tucci, Guiseppe. "Iran et Tibet," Acta Iranica, vol. 1 (1974), 299-306.
_______. "New Areas of Research for Archaeologists and Buddhologists," Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (1978), 71-74.
_______. "On Swat, the Dards and Connected Problems," East and West n. s., vol. 27 (1977),
9-104._______. Preliminary Report on Two Scientific Expeditions in Nepal. (Serie Orientale
Roma, vol. 10, no. 1). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1956.
_______. Rin-chen-bzang-po and the Renaissance of Buddhism in Tibet around the

Millenium. (Indo-Tibetica, vol. 2). Rome: Reale Accademia d'Italia, 1932.
Bibliography 110
_______. "The Secret Character of the Kings of Ancient Tibet," East and West, vol. 6, no. 3
(October 1955), 197-205.
_______. "The Validity of Tibetan Historical Tradition" in India Antiqua, a Volume of

Oriental Studies Presented by His Friends and Pupils to Jean Philippe Vogel. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1947, 309-322.
_______. "The Wives of Srong-btsan-sgam-po," Oriens Extremus, vol. 9 (1962), 121-126.
Turgunov, B.A. "Excavations of a Buddhist Temple at Dal'verzin-tepe," East and West, vol.
42, no. 1 (March 1992), 131-156.
Uebach, Helga. "dByar-mo-than and Gon-bu ma-ru. Tibetan Historiographical Tradition on

the Treaty of 821/823" in Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on
His Seventieth Birthday, Ernst Steinkellner (ed.). (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde, vol. 26). Wien: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien,
Universität Wien, 1991, 497-526.
Upasak, C.S. History of Buddhism in Afghanistan. (Miscellaneous Series, no. 2). Sarnath:
Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1990.
Uray, Géza. "Contribution to the Date of the Vyutpatti-Treatises," Acta Orientalia, vol. 43,
fasc. 1 (1989), 3-21.
_______. "L'emploi du tibétain dans les chancelleries des États du Kan-sou et de Khotan
postérieurs à la domination tibétaine," Journal Asiatique, vol. 269 (1981), 81-90.
_______. "New Contributions to Tibetan Documents from the post-Tibetan Tun-huang," in

Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan
Studies, Schloss Hohenkammer-Munich 1985, Helge Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung (ed.).
(Studia Tibetica, Bd. 2). München: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988, 515-529.
_______. "Tibet's Connections with Nestorianism and Manichaeism in the 8th - 10th
Centuries," in Proceedings of the Csoma de Körös Memorial Symposium, Held at
Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 September 1981, Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher (ed.).
vol. 1. Wien: Arbeitkreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1983,
399-429.
Utz, David A. A Survey of Buddhist Sogdian Studies. (Bibliographia Philologica Buddhica,

Series Minor, no. 3). Tokyo: The Reiyukai Library, 1978.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. "Jayananda. A Twelfth Century Guoshi from Kashmir among
the Tangut," Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 37 (1993).
_______. "Miscellanea to a Recent Contribution on/to the bSam-yas Debate," Kailash, vol.
11, nos. 3 & 4 (1984), 149-184.
von Gabain, Annemarie. Der Buddhismus in Zentralasien. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, series
1, vol. 8, no. 2). Leiden/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1961.
Bibliography 111
_______. "Buddhistische Türkenmissionen" in Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Waller zum 65

Geburtstag, J. Schubert (ed.). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1954, 161-173.
_______. "Die Frühgeschichte der Uiguren, 607-745," Nachrichten, Gesellschaft für Natur
und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, vol.. 72 (1952), 18-32.
_______. "Iranische Elemente in Zentral- und Ostasiatischen Volksglauben," Studia

Orientalia, vol. 47 (1974), 57-70.
_______. Das Leben im uigurischen Königreich von Qoco (850-1250). Textband.

(Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, vol. 6). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973.
_______. "Die Qoco-Uiguren und die nationalen Minderheiten" in Sprache, Geschichte und
Kultur der altaischen Völker, Protokollband der XII. Tagung der Permanent International
Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin, Peter Zeime (ed.). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1974,
241-249.
_______. "Steppe und Stadt im Leben der ältesten Türken," Der Islam, vol. 29, part 1 (1949),
30-62.
_______. Das uigurische Königreich von Chotscho (850-1250). (Sitzungsberichte der

Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst. Jhg 1961,
no. 5). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961.
von Tongerloo, Alois. "Notes on the Iranian Elements in the Old Uighur Manichaean Texts"
in Manichaean Studies: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism,
Peter Bryder (ed.). (Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions, no. 1). Lund, Sweden: Plus
Ultra, 1988, 213-219.
Vorob'ev, M. V. Kul'tura Chzhurchzhenei i Gosudarstva Tszin. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.
Warikov, Kulbhushan. "Ladakh's Trade Relations with Tibet under the Dogras" in Tibetan
Studies, Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Narita 1989, Shoren Ihara and Zuiho Yamaguchi (eds.), vol. 2. (Monograph Series of the
Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, Occasional Papers, no. 2). Narita: Naritasan
Shinshoji, 1992, 853-861.
Wayman, Alex. "Observations on the History and Influence of the Buddhist Tantra in Tibet
and India" in Studies in the History of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International
Conference on the History of Buddhism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA,
August 19-21, 1976, A. K. Narain (ed.). Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 359-363.
Webb, Russell. "The Early Spread and Influence of Buddhism in Western Asia," Buddhist
Studies Review, vol. 10, no. 1 (1993), 57-82.
Weiers, Michael. "Das Khanat Tschaghatai" in Die Mongolen, Michael Weiers (ed.).
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986, 290-299.
_______. "Die Mongolen in Iran," op. cit., 300-344.
Widengren, Geo. Mani and Manichaeism. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.
Bibliography 112
Wilson, Horace Hayman (transl.). The Vishnu Purana, 5 vols. New York: Garland Publishing,
1981; 1st edition: London: Trübner & Co., 1864
Wittfogel, Karl A. and Feng Chia-sheng. History of a Chinese Society: Liao (907-1125).
(Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. vol. 36, 1946). Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society, 1949.
Wylie, Turrell V. "Some Political Factors in the Early History of Tibetan Buddhism" in
Studies in the History of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International Conference on the
History of Buddhism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA, August 19-21,
1976, A. K. Narain (ed.). Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 365-372.
Yampolsky, Philip. "New Japanese Studies in Early Ch'an History," in Early Ch'an in China
and Tibet, Whalen Lai and Lewis Lancaster (eds.). (Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, no. 5).
Berkeley: University of California Buddhist Studies Group, 1983, 1-11.
Zaehner, R. C. Hindu and Muslim Mysticism. (School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, no. 5). London: University
of London Athlone Press, 1960.
_______. Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
Zarcone, Thierry. "Sufism from Central Asia among the Tibetans in the 16-17th Centuries,"
Tibet Journal, vol. 20, no. 3 (Autumn 1995), 96-114.
Zelinsky, A. N. and Kuznetsov, B. I. "Tibetan Inscriptions near the Issuk-Kul," Christopher I.

Beckwith (transl.), The Tibet Society Bulletin, vol. 6 (1973), 35-37.
Zieme, Peter. Religion und Gesellschaft im Uigurischen Königreich von Qoco: Kolophone
und Stifter des alttürkischen buddhistischen Schrifttums aus Zentralasien. (Abhandlungen der
Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 88). Opladen: Westdeutscher,
1992.
Zürcher, E. "Buddhism in a Pre-Modern Bureaucratic Empire: The Chinese Experience" in

Studies in the History of Buddhism, Papers Presented at the International Conference on the
History of Buddhism at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIS, USA, August 19-21,
1976, A. K. Narain (ed.). Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1980, 401-411.
_______. The Buddhist Conquest of China, The Spread and Adoption of Buddhism in Early
Medieval China. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959.
Links
{1} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / advanced / kalachakra /
relation_islam_hinduism / kalachakra_presentation_prophets /
kc_pres_prophets_islam_full.html
{2} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / images / en / map01.jpg
Links 113

{10} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / study / islam /
historical_interaction / detailed_histories / history_afghanistan_buddhism.html
relation_islam_hinduism / holy_wars_buddhism_islam /
holy_war_buddhism_islam_shambhala_long.html
relation_islam_hinduism / holy_wars_buddhism_islam /
relation_islam_hinduism / kalachakra_presentation_prophets /
kc_pres_prophets_islam_summ.html
{32} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / study / islam / kalachakra_islam
/ holy_wars_buddhism_islam_myth_shamb /
Links 114

Interaction of Bhuddhists With Islam

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Interaction of Bhuddhists With Islam

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

eraction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before th

Alexander Berzin, 1996

Introduction: Historiographical Bias

British missionaries especially encouraged this view, emphasizing Muslim intolerance in

Introduction: Historiographical Bias 2

Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE)

(1) Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir,

(2) the northern Pakistani mountain valleys such as Gilgit,

(5) northeastern Iran and southern Turkmenistan,

Part I: The Umayyad Caliphate (661 - 750 CE) 3

[View Map One: Modern Central Asia {2}.]

The historical names for these areas were:

1. Kashmir, with its capital at Srinagar,

[View Map Two: Traditional Central Asia {3}.]

West and East Turkistan

West and East Turkistan 5

The Eastern and Western Turk Empires

The Situation of Buddhism in West Turkistan at the Advent of the Western

In contrast to Sogdia, Xuanzang reported the flourishing of many Buddhist monasteries in

The Decline of the Western Turks

The Decline of the Western Turks 8

Kashmir and Nepal

2 Sogdia and Bactria on the Eve of the Umayyad Period

Zoroastrian Relations with Buddhism

White Hun Rule and Its Aftermath in Sogdia

3 The First Encounter of the Muslims and Buddhist Asia

The Pre-Islamic Presence of Buddhism in North Africa and West Asia

The Establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate

[View Map Five: Central Asia, Early Umayyad Period. {6}.]

The Pre-Islamic Presence of Buddhism in North Africa and West Asia 13

The Umayyad Attack on Bactria

Previous Umayyad Experience with Non-Muslims in Iran

The Umayyad Attack on Bactria 14

The Slow Advance of the Umayyids into Southern Sogdia

Previous Umayyad Experience with Non-Muslims in Iran 15

The Slow Advance of the Umayyids into Southern Sogdia 16

4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent

The Situation of the East-West Trade Routes

[View Map Seven: The Silk Route {8}.]

The Invasion of Sindh

4 The First Muslim Incursion into the Indian Subcontinent 17

The Occupation of Sindh

The Invasion of Sindh 18

The Expedition to Saurashtra

Evaluation of the Sindhi Campaign

The Umayyad Recapture of Bactria

The Expedition to Saurashtra 19

First Attempts to Spread Islam

5 Tibet on the Eve of the Arrival of the First Muslim Teacher

The Umayyad Recapture of Bactria 20

The Organized Bon Religion and the Native Tibetan Tradition

5 Tibet on the Eve of the Arrival of the First Muslim Teacher 21

[See: Historical Sketch of Buddhism and Islam in Afghanistan {10}.]

[View Map Nine: Early Tibet {11}.]

Songtsen-gampo's Relation with Zhang-zhung

Songtsen-gampo was the thirty-second ruler of Yarlung (Yar-klungs), a small kingdom in

The Introduction of Buddhism

The Organized Bon Religion and the Native Tibetan Tradition 22

Adaptation of the Khotanese Script

Songtsen-gampo purportedly used the new script for a translation he commissioned of a

The Introduction of Buddhism 23

The So-Called "Bon" Opposition Faction

The So-Called "Bon" Opposition Faction 24