The rise of Khwāja Isḥāq, one of the most influential figures in the history of Central Asian Sufism, has often been explained by the patronage of particular royals. This “royal patron” model has, however, been based on a flawed reading of hagiographical sources by which crucial questions of genre are overlooked in the effort of mining these complex narratives for apparent historical facts. New evidence, presented here, allows us to question the “royal patron” model, along with the commonly-accepted chronology of Khwāja Isḥāq's life, and calls for a different approach to Sufi hagiography as a historical source.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeff Eden (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: