Nur al-Din al-Raniri

Nur al-Din al-Raniri — Malay/Arabic Nūruddīn ar-Rānīrī, also written Noer Oed-Din AR-RĀNĪRI in the older Dutch orthography — was a Gujarati-born Muslim scholar of Hadrami sayyid descent who arrived in Aceh in 1637 and served as the principal religious authority at the court of Sultan Iskandar Thani in the late 1630s and early 1640s, composing at the sultan’s command the Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm (begun 1634, completed 1644) and the Bustān as-Salāṭīn (1638) — the principal Malay-language works of fiqh and of the “mirror for princes” genre produced at the Acehnese court. He is the most celebrated of the Indian-Arab scholars who, during Aceh’s golden age, made the capital a centre of Islamic learning for the entire Indian Archipelago, and — as Snouck Hurgronje’s “pandit Raniri” — supplied one of the few firm chronological anchor-points in the early history of the Acehnese Sultanate by testifying to the year 1636 as the date of the death of Meukuta Alam (Iskandar Muda). He is equally the agent of the orthodox reaction that closed Aceh’s golden age of mystical poetry, and the author whose polemical works preserve — even in their refutation — the names, doctrines, and very words of the writers whose books were burned at his instigation. Kreemer’s Atjèh (Tweede Deel, 1923) records the same orthodox victory and the same patronage under the widow and successor Tadj al-alam QafTat ad-dïn, and is also the source of an alternative identification of Ranïr with Raner in Bikaner state, Rajputana — a reading that contradicts the Gujarati identification established by Voorhoeve and Drewes.

Origin and Identification

The full form of Raniri’s name, as given by Voorhoeve on the authority of the colophon of the *Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq*, was Nūruddīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḥasanji b. Muḥammad Ḥamīd ar-Rānīrī al-Kurashī ash-Shāfiʿī — a nisba indicating Arab (Qurayshī) descent and Shāfiʿite legal school, attached to the town of Ranir near Surat in Gujarat (Gudjarāt). Voorhoeve notes that the identification of Ranir with the town near Surat — once contested — has been placed beyond doubt by the researches of Drewes: “er kan thans geen twijfel meer aan bestaan, dat zijn vaderstad Rānīr bij Sūrat in Gudjarāt was.” His family was part of the network of Indian Arabs of mixed blood who maintained contact with the motherland by correspondence and study journeys, and who in turn maintained relations with Indonesia — that is, in this period, especially with Aceh.

Neither Raniri’s year of birth nor that of his death has been preserved. Voorhoeve fixes, however, the firm chronological pegs of his career:

• He arrived in Aceh in 1637, the first year of the reign of Iskandar Thani.
• In 1641 he is found, together with a number of high functionaries of the Acehnese court, taking part in the ceremony of erecting the tombstone for Sultan Iskandar II.
• The dates of his Malay works, so far as they are reliably attested, fall between 1634 and 1644.
• In 1644 he returned to Ranir.
• He must have died before 1666.

This chronology was established by Djajadiningrat in TBG 69 (pp. 109–111), a study which Voorhoeve candidly confesses he had overlooked when composing his earlier notes in BKI 107 (p. 353 ff.). Among the corrections imposed by Djajadiningrat’s research is the redating of the *Ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm*: although begun in 1634 (that is, before Raniri’s arrival in Aceh), the work was — as Djajadiningrat showed — only completed in 1644. The knowledge of Malay letters displayed in it need not, therefore, have been acquired before 1637.

The Gujarati Milieu and Family Connections

The coastal towns of Gujarat in this period had a very international population. Ships regularly sailed thence to the Strait of Malaka, and among the mercenary troops of the sixteenth century were “Javanese” — that is, in this context, Indonesians. The Malay language was certainly not unfamiliar in the harbour towns; and the family of Raniri had, even before his own time, maintained relations with Aceh. Between 1580 and 1583 his uncle Muhammad Djailani Hamid arrived in Aceh. He wished to teach logic, rhetoric, dogmatics, and the doctrine of duties (plichtenleer, “handbook of religious duties”), but found little interest. There was a great influx only for teachers of mysticism. So the scholar sailed on to Mecca. Some years later he returned, provided with the venia docendi as a teacher of mystical theology, and then had great success. Raniri learned from his uncle’s experiences: when he himself left for Aceh he was thoroughly prepared. He knew the Bahasa Djawi, the Malay that was the language of the court in Aceh, and had already written two works in it, while a third was in progress.

His Gujarati-Indian origin is central to his literary output: the Bustān as-Salāṭīn, in Hooykaas’s reading, is “door een Voor-Indier geschreven” (written by an Indian) and “ontleent zijn stof van talrijke anecdoten aan dezelfde en soortgelijke Moslimse verzamelwerken in de Perzische taal uit Voor-Indië” (derives his material, of numerous anecdotes, from the same and similar Muslim compilations in the Persian language from India). The same Persian-language Muslim compilations also supplied the earlier Tādj us-Salāṭīn of 1607 — a fact that, in Hooykaas’s reading, points to the common Persian-language source tradition on which both Acehnese “mirrors for princes” drew.

Sufi Initiation: the Rifāʿiyya and the Bā Shaybān Silsila

Raniri had also penetrated into mysticism. He was initiated into the Rifāʿiyya order, founded by the saint Ahmad Rifa’i, whose tomb at Mocha is reverenced. His shaikh, of Hadrami descent but born in India, was Sayyid Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar b. ʿAbdallāh Bā Shaybān (Sajjid Abu Hafs Umar Ba Sjaiban). Bā Shaybān had studied in Arabia but later settled again in India, where he was received into the order by Muḥammad al-ʿAddārs at Surat. He lived chiefly at Bījāpūr, where he enjoyed the protection of the ruler Muḥammad ʿĀdilshāh; he died in 1656 at Bilgrām. The celebrated Shaikh Yūsuf al-Makassar (Yusuf Makasar), who in 1644 left Celebes for Mecca, studied with the same Sayyid ʿUmar Bā Shaybān; he also numbers Raniri among his teachers.

The teacher of Bā Shaybān — and Raniri’s spiritual grandfather — was Muḥammad al-ʿAddārs, born in 1561 at Tarim in South Arabia. He came to Gujarat at the age of nineteen, where he succeeded his famous grandfather as religious teacher, first in the capital Ahmadābād and later at Surat. He died at Surat in 1620. Better known as an author is his uncle, ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Aydārūs (Abd al-Qadir al-Aidaros), who died in 1628 at Ahmadabad. Many of his writings are preserved, including correspondence exchanged with a scholar at Mocha. ʿAbd al-Qādir’s father — Muḥammad’s grandfather — had come from South Arabia in 1551; ʿAbd al-Qādir’s mother was an Indian. This, Voorhoeve concludes, was the milieu from which Raniri sprang: “Indische Arabieren van gemengden bloede, die door correspondentie en studiereizen het contact met het moederland onderhielden, en die anderzijds in verkeer stonden met Indonesië, dat wil in deze tijd in het bijzonder zeggen: Atjèh.”

The Religious Climate in Aceh and Raniri’s Polemical Mission

In Aceh, Raniri as an orthodox mystic had during the reign of Iskandar Muda (1607–1636) nothing to expect. The “heterodox mystic” Shamsuddin of Pasai dominated the spiritual life of the court, and even after his death in 1630 his disciples remained in honour with the sultan. But after Iskandar Muda died in 1636 the spiritual climate in Aceh changed. Shortly after the accession of Iskandar II, Raniri arrived in the country; in the presence of the sultan he refuted the adherents of the extreme Wujūdiyyah mysticism in a public debate. From that time forth he enjoyed royal favour, both from Iskandar II and from his successor Ṣalīyatu’d-Dīn (Taj al-Ālam). This public disputation — the confrontation at the Acehnese court — is the dramatic hinge of Raniri’s Acehnese career.

The new Sultan is said to have put the disciples of the heretical mystic to death and to have ordered his books burned — an episode of religious persecution in the generation after Iskandar Muda’s reign in which Raniri’s puritanical influence is commonly reckoned to have played a decisive part. Snouck Hurgronje’s reference to Raniri occurs in a passage distinguishing the strangers who wrote works of theology and law under the wealthy sultans in Banda Acheh from the native-born ulamas of later times. The pandit belongs emphatically to the former category: an immigrant man of letters patronised at the Acehnese court, whose influence “outside Acheh was at least as noticeable as within it.”

Compositions at the Acehnese Court

At the command of Sultan Iskandar II — and in the same year, 1638 — Raniri composed three works that together constitute the literary apparatus of his orthodox reform in Aceh:

• The Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm (March 1638) — the Malay handbook of religious duties (fiqh) of the Shāfiʿite school, the composition of which was begun in 1634 and completed only in 1644. It is repeatedly attested in Hooykaas’s survey of Malay literature as a key vehicle for the diffusion of the fiqh of the Shāfiʿite school into the Malay-Indonesian world.
• The Bustān as-Salāṭīn (1638) — the Malay “mirror for princes”, of which the historical chapter (II.m) on the sultans of Aceh and the religious scholars of the 16th and 17th centuries is, in Hooykaas’s judgement, “wel eens de voorkeur blijken te verdienen boven de voorstelling van de SM” (sometimes proves to deserve the preference over the representation of the Sadjarah Malajoe).
• The Bad’ khalq as-samawat wal-arwah (1638) — a Malay work on the creation of the heavens and the spirits.

The composition of these three works in the second year of Iskandar Thani’s reign — at the very moment of Raniri’s public disputation against the Wujudiyyah mystics — marks the beginning of Raniri’s project of orthodox reform: to provide the Acehnese faithful with the literary apparatus of a Shāfiʿite sultanate.

Comparison with the Earlier Tādj

Hooykaas contrasts Raniri’s Bustān with the earlier Tādj us-Salāṭīn of 1607: “terwijl BOCHARI’s Tādj meer eenvoudig stichtelijk gehouden is, is daarentegen RANĪRI’s Boestān meer het werk van een geleerde, die zich niet ontziet zijn lezers te vergasten op een hoofdstuk dat belangrijk moge zijn voor een theoloog (I) of een geschiedvorser (II), maar het lezend publiek wel eens zwaar gevallen zal zijn” (while Bochari’s Tādj is more simply edifying, Raniri’s Bustān is more the work of a scholar, who does not refrain from treating his readers to a chapter that may be important for a theologian (I) or a historical researcher (II), but may have been heavy going for the reading public).

Raniri’s Malay Writings before his Arrival in Aceh

An unresolved question is where Raniri composed the two Malay works which he had completed before his arrival in Aceh in 1637: a work on the articles of faith (the *Tibjān fī maʿrifat al-adyān*) and a collection of sacred traditions in Arabic with Malay translation. Voorhoeve had once supposed, on the strength of a passage in the Sajarah Banten, that Raniri sojourned in Mecca before his departure for Aceh, and that he might be the scholar referred to as “Ibn ʿAlī” or “Ibn ʿAlam” who refused to return with the Banten envoys to their country. On further reflection Voorhoeve withdrew this hypothesis: it seems much more probable that the “Ibn ʿAlam” of the Sajarah Banten is in fact Ibn ʿAlān — that is, Muḥammad ʿAlī Ibn ʿAlān as-Siddīqī (d. 1057 H / 1648), of whom we know for certain that he was repeatedly consulted from Banten: by Sultan Abū ‘l-Mafāḥir ʿAbd al-Qādir on the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk of al-Ghazālī (on which Ibn ʿAlān had written a commentary), and by Abū ‘l-Maʿālī Aḥmad on the Tuḥfa al-mursala of Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh. Among the Arabic sources used by Raniri, Voorhoeve found not only famous and widely diffused books but works of Indian authors and literature current in India, and not a single writing by older contemporaries in Mecca. To learn Malay, Raniri had no need of distant travel: there were Malays enough in Gujarat, and his uncle will have spoken that language too. Whether he wrote his first Malay books there nonetheless remains an open question.

Works Composed in Aceh — the Anti-Wujūdiyyah Polemics

Of the works Raniri composed in Aceh, most are directed against the Wujudiyyah. This side of Raniri’s activity has been treated at length by C. A. O. van Nieuwenhuijze in his Leiden dissertation Sjamsu’l-Dīn van Pasai (1945) and in a special study in BKI 104. In those studies two short texts and a portion of Raniri’s “book of sects” — the *Tibjān fī maʿrifat al-adyān* — were already edited. Voorhoeve’s 1955 edition gives the complete Tibjān in facsimile from the Leiden manuscript Cod. Or. 3291, together with the shorter *Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq li-dafʿ az-zindīq* — itself directed entirely against the Wujūdiyyah — reproduced from the manuscript in the Maxwell collection of the Royal Asiatic Society in London. The Tibjān enumerates the pre-Islamic religions and the sects within Islam, with the aim of warning the faithful against all these aberrations and in particular against the doctrine of the heretical Wujūdiyyah.

In addition to the works already named, Raniri’s writings include the *Ḥall aẓ-ẓill*, the *Jawāhir al-ʿulūm* (which survives in a London manuscript and which cites al-Jīlī’s *al-Insān al-kāmil* repeatedly, as does the Ḥall aẓ-ẓill), the lost *Laṭāʾif al-asrār* (already cited in the Tibjān as a source for the refutation of the Wujūdiyyah), and the Badʾ khalq as-samāwāt wal-arwāḥ.

Sources of the Tibjān

Voorhoeve’s examination of Raniri’s sources is itself a substantial contribution to Malay religious philology. The principal source of the Tibjān is the at-Tamhīd fī bayān at-tawḥīd of Abū Shakūr as-Sālimī, a Persian Shāfiʿite of the second half of the fifth century H. More than a quarter of the text of the Tibjān is translated literally from the Tamhid, especially its last chapter on orthodoxy and the rejection of innovation (bidʿa). The Leiden manuscript Cod. Or. 5664 — a Banten copy sent to Leiden by Snouck Hurgronje in 1906 — preserves a text practically identical to Raniri’s own exemplar, including shared errors such as “Kubtiyah” (Copts) for “al-Muʿattila” and a lacuna that caused Raniri to announce four groups of the Tanāsuḥiyyah while treating only three.

A second source was the *al-Insān al-kāmil* of ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlī, from which Raniri drew his account of the Barāhima. The schematic overview of the seventy-two sects — six groups of twelve — comes from the widely diffused popular tract known as the Maʿrifat al-madhāhib, sometimes attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa, of which an Arabic exemplar in Leiden (Cod. Or. 1255) shows a strikingly close correspondence with the Tibjān, even in peculiar variants. The section on the quasi-Sufi sects is drawn from the small tract Kitāb fī bayān madhāhib al-mutaṣawwifa of Najm ad-Dīn an-Nasafī.

Raniri’s Polemical Method in the Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq

The Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq li-dafʿ az-zindīq — “the argument of the pious one for the refutation of the heretic” — sets out, in Voorhoeve’s analysis, four positions on the relation of God’s being to the world: (1) that of the dialectical theologians (mutakallimūn), who distinguish two beings, the necessary being of God and the contingent being of the created world; (2) that of the Sufis, who accept the theologians’ doctrine but employ a different terminology in which “being” (wujūd) signifies only the divine essence, while the world is mere manifestation (maẓhar) and shadow (ẓill); (3) that of the philosophers (falāsifa), who hold God’s being and the world to be co-eternal; and (4) that of the heretical Wujūdiyyah, who teach that being is one and identical with God, who is “enclosed in all that is created” — so that “the world = God, God = the world.” Raniri’s method is to distinguish sharply the orthodox Sufi position from the heretical Wujūdiyyah by arguing that the latter, in saying “God and world are one,” contradicts both revelation and reason; he cites in support authorities including Ibn ʿArabī (in the Futūḥāt Makkīya), ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Mahāʾimī (in the Ithbād an-naṣīḥa and Irāʾat ad-daqāʾiq), Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh (in the Tuḥfa al-mursala), and the lost Laṭāʾif al-iʿlām. He argues, finally, that ecstatic utterances (shathīyāt — shathihiyat) such as anā al-ḥaqq (“I am the Truth”) of al-Hallaj are to be regarded as latah-like trance states, not blasphemous self-deification, when uttered by entranced mystics; but that the same utterances, when pronounced by one in his senses, deserve death and eternal punishment.

The Diffusion of the Sirat al-mustaqim

Hooykaas records one of the key episodes in the early diffusion of Raniri’s Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm: when the king of Kedah converted to Islam under the influence of Sjaich ‘Abdoellāh Jamani and was given the throne-name Sultan Moezaffar Sjah, “Toen men dit in Atjéh vernam, liet de Moslim geworden vorst aldaar Sjaich Noeroddin diens boek Sirāṭ al-moestakīm naar Kēdah brengen ter onderrichting in de Wet” (When this was heard in Aceh, the Muslim ruler there had Sjaich Noeroddin’s book Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm brought to Kedah for instruction in the Law). The episode — which casts Raniri as the Sjaich Noeroddin of the Kedah chronicle — illustrates the role of Raniri’s Acehnese compositions as the principal vehicle by which the fiqh of the Shāfiʿite school was transmitted from Aceh to the Malay Peninsula in the early seventeenth century.

The Testimony to the Death of Iskandar Muda

Raniri’s treatise — printed at Mecca in 1281 Hegira on the margin of another edition — supplies one of the few firm chronological anchor-points in the early history of the Acehnese Sultanate. He states that he came to Aceh in 1637 while Iskandar Thani was king. Since Iskandar Thani succeeded Meukuta Alam, this testimony fixes the death of the great Sultan at 1636, a date that “is confirmed as the correct date” against the uncertainties of native chronicle and tradition. Raniri’s arrival thus falls in the very first year of the new reign, and his presence in Aceh places him at the centre of the learned and religious life of the capital under the wealthy sultans of the seventeenth century.

Kreemer’s account (Deel II, 1923)

Kreemer’s Atjèh (Tweede Deel, 1923) gives a compact account of Noer-ad-dïn b. Ali b. Hasandjï b. Moehammad Hamïd ar-Ranïrï that, while sharing the broad outlines of the Voorhoeve–Hooykaas–Snouck Hurgronje consensus, preserves a number of distinctive details — and one outright disagreement — that deserve separate record. Kreemer writes as the archivist of the Atjèh Instituut at the close of the colonial period, drawing on the same Snouck Hurgronje corpus but supplementing it with the Atjèhnese tradition of his own day.

Ranïr as Rajputana — the Bikaner identification

Kreemer gives the nisba “ar-Ranïrï” a different localisation from the Gujarati one established by Voorhoeve and Drewes. In his account, Ranïr is identified with Raner in Bikaner state, Rajputana — that is, in the desert country of northern India, not in the Surat-Gujarat coastal region. This identification runs directly counter to the Voorhoeve–Drewes view that “er kan thans geen twijfel meer aan bestaan, dat zijn vaderstad Rānīr bij Sūrat in Gudjarāt was” (“there can no longer be any doubt that his father-city was Rānīr near Sūrat in Gujarat”). The Bikaner reading appears to reflect a separate colonial-era tradition of identification — whether Kreemer’s own or one he records without further attribution — that has not survived into the modern scholarly consensus; the Gujarati identification is now accepted as authoritative.

Arrival and the orthodox victory

Kreemer records that ar-Ranïrï returned to Atjèh in 1637 and found the court under Sultan Iskandar Thanï dominated by the heterodox mystic Sjamsoeddin van Pasè (Sjamsoeddïn as-Samatranï), who had been favoured by Iskandar Moeda. Ar-Ranïrï’s conflict with Sjamsoeddin led to the orthodox victory: Sjamsoeddin was executed by Iskandar Thanï, and the works of the heterodox mystics — including those of the famous poet Hamzah Pansoeri (Hamzah FanQoerï) “of Baros” — were burned before the great mosque Beit ar-rahman. Kreemer’s account is thus the most explicit of the colonial sources in recording both the execution of Sjamsoeddin and the burning of the heterodox books at the great mosque — details that the Voorhoeve–Hooykaas tradition records more cautiously as the sultan’s “ordering the books burned.”

Major works

Kreemer catalogues ar-Ranïrï’s principal works as:

1. Boestan as-salatïn (“Garden of Kings”) — begun in 1638 at Sultan Iskandar Thanï’s order; a major historical-encyclopaedic work. Kreemer’s dating of the work’s commencement to 1638 at the sultan’s order agrees with the Voorhoeve chronology; the completion date is not separately given in Kreemer’s summary.
2. Cirat al-moestaqïm — which Kreemer also names the Kitab Sirat, and which he identifies as one of the three main Malay kitab’s studied in Atjèhnese higher Islamic education, treating the “pillars” of Islam. The Kitab Sirat remains, in Kreemer’s account, one of the foundational texts of Atjèhnese Islamic education; he discusses it in Vol. I, pp. 7 and 201 of his work.

Patronage under Tadj al-alam

Kreemer records that ar-Ranïrï was favoured by Sultan Iskandar Thanï and by his widow and successor Tadj al-alam QafTat ad-dïn (reigned mid-17th century), who continued the orthodox patronage after Iskandar Thanï’s death. This patronage ensured, in Kreemer’s reading, the triumph of orthodox Islam over the heterodox mysticism that had flourished under Iskandar Moeda — and is the political complement to the literary programme of the Boestan and the Cirat al-moestaqïm. Kreemer’s testimony thus confirms, from the Atjèh-Instituut perspective, the Voorhoeve–Hooykaas account of the patronage chain Iskandar Thanï → Tadj al-alam that made Ranïrï’s orthodox reform possible.

Significance

Raniri occupies a singular position in the religious history of Aceh: he is at once the agent of the orthodox reaction that closed Aceh’s “golden age” of mystical poetry, and the author whose works preserve, even in their polemic, the names, doctrines, and very words of the writers whose books were burned at his instigation. Without the Tibjān and the Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq our knowledge of Hamzah Pansuri’s *Asrār al-ʿārifīn* and *Kitāb al-Muntahī* and of Shamsuddin of Pasai’s *Mirʾāt al-muḥaqqiqīn* would be far scantier than it is. The Voorhoeve edition of 1955 gave scholars, for the first time, a complete facsimile of the Tibjān and of the Ḥujjat aṣ-ṣiddīq — placing Raniri’s Malay polemics, and the lost literature they alone preserve, at the centre of any future history of Acehnese religious thought.

His three compositions of 1638 — the Sirāṭ al-mustaqīm, the Bustān as-Salāṭīn, and the Bad’ khalq as-samawat wal-arwah — together constitute the literary apparatus of his orthodox reform of the Acehnese court, and the Bustān’s historical chapter on the sultans of Aceh is, in Hooykaas’s judgement, occasionally more reliable than the Sadjarah Malajoe. His diffusion of the Sirāṭ to Kedah is the principal evidence for the role of the Acehnese court as the centre of Shāfiʿite fiqh diffusion to the Malay Peninsula in the early seventeenth century. Kreemer’s distinctive testimony — the Bikaner identification of Ranïr, the explicit record of Sjamsoeddin’s execution, and the continued Atjèhnese veneration of the Kitab Sirat as one of the three foundational Malay kitab’s of higher Islamic education — adds the Atjèh-Instituut perspective to the Voorhoeve–Hooykaas–Snouck Hurgronje consensus.

Sources

Twee Maleise geschriften van Nūruddīn ar-Rānīrī, by P. Voorhoeve, in facsimile with notes (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955), Publications de la Fondation De Goeje No. 16, pp. 5–7.

See Also

• Abd al-Karim al-Jili
• Abd al-Qadir al-Aidaros
• Abu Hanifa
• Abu Syakur as-Salimi
• Ahmad al-Mahaimi
• Ahmad Rifa’i
• Acheh
• Aceh
• Banda Acheh
• Bad’ khalq as-samawat wal-arwah
• Bahasa Djawi
• Bustanu’s-Salatin
• Bustan al-Salatin
• C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze
• C. Hooykaas
• Djawahir al-‘ulum
• G. W. J. Drewes
• H. Djajadiningrat
• Hall al-zill
• Hamzah Pansuri
• Hudjdjat as-siddiq li-daf az-zindiq
• Ibn Arabi
• Iskandar Thani
• Sultan Iskandar II
• Sultan Iskandar Muda
• Lata’if al-asrar
• Mecca
• Muhammad al-Addars
• Muhammad Djailani Hamid
• Najm ad-Din an-Nasafi
• P. Voorhoeve
• Ph. S. van Ronkel
• Ranir
• Rifa’iyah order
• Raniri’s arrival in Acheh (1637)
• Raniri’s public debate against the Wujudiyyah in Acheh
• Sajarah Banten
• Sajjid Abu Hafs Umar Ba Sjaiban
• Shaikh Shamsuddin of Sumatra
• Sirat al-mustaqim
• Sultan Tajul-alam
• Surat
• Tādj oes-Salatina
• Tibjan fi ma’rifat al-adyan
• Yusuf Makasar
• Wujudiyyah
• Meuseugit Raya
• Over Maleise Literatuur (1947)
• J. Kreemer
• 1580
• 1583
• 1607
• 1634
• 1636
• 1637
• 1638
• 1641
• 1644
• 1648
• 1656
• 1666
• 1945
• 1955
• Hudjdjat as-siddik li-daf az-zindik
• Wujudiyyah in Aceh
• Syamsuddin of Pasai
• Hamzah Fansuri
• Safiatuddin Tajul Alam
• Muhammad Jilani Hamid
• Sirat al-Mustakim

Source

Over Maleise Literatuur, by Dr. C. Hooykaas, Hoogleraarte Batavia; Tweede Druk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1947), chapter 19 (“Twee Moslimse exemplo-boeken als vorstenspiegel”), pp. 173–175; chapter 11 (“Geschiedschrijving in het Maleis”), p. 94 (the Kedah episode).

The Achehnese, Vol. I, by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, translated by A.W.S. O’Sullivan, indexed by R.J. Wilkinson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1906.

The Achehnese, Vol. II, by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, translated by A.W.S. O’Sullivan, indexed by R.J. Wilkinson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1906.

Twee Maleise geschriften van Nūruddīn ar-Rānīrī: in facsimile uitgegeven met aantekeningen door P. Voorhoeve. Uitgaven van de Stichting De Goeje, No. 16. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955. Inleiding, pp. 5–55.

Atjèh. Algemeen samenvattend overzicht van land en volk van Atjèh en onderhoorigheden, door J. Kreemer, Archivaris van het Atjèh Instituut. Tweede Deel. Leiden: N.V. Boekhandel en Drukkerij voorheen E.J. Brill, 1923. Identifier: Delpher MMKB02B:000001798; PPN 395084288. Koninklijke Bibliotheek.