Introduction: rethinking the Khoja past
Khojas are believed to have originated in the fourteenth century when Muslim pīrs introduced Islamic teachings to communities in Sindh, Kutch, and Kathiawar, adapting these teachings to existing Hindu devotional and social contexts. This syncretic approach gave rise to what became known as the Satpanth tradition along with a corpus of devotional texts known as Gināns.Footnote 1 At the outset, it is important to clarify that the Khojas were not a single, homogeneous community; rather, they comprised a diverse array of castes that adopted this tradition and were given the title ‘Khoja’ by these very pīrs.Footnote 2 Similarly, the Satpanth tradition was not a singular or uniform doctrine but rather a layered synthesis of teachings developed over centuries by multiple pīrs and embraced by sundry communities, including, inter alia, the Khojas.Footnote 3 Likewise, Gināns were not a single static text but an evolving body of devotional literature that developed over time.
By the seventeenth century, the Khojas had emerged as a distinct caste with a well-defined institutional structure. A key feature of their communal organisation was the jamātkhānā (house of the community), which was neither a mosque nor a temple, both in structure and function. It served as a communal space where the jamāt (community) gathered not only for worship but also to discuss community affairs. The jamātkhānā was administered by designated officials, including a head or chief, a secretariat, and an accountant. The Khojas were not unique in establishing jamātkhānās—similar structures existed among other communities such as the Bohras and Memons.Footnote 4 However, the role, function, and governance of the Khoja jamātkhānā were as much organisational and institutional as they were religious. Jim Masselos has provided significant insights into the Khoja jamātkhānā in Bombay and its role in maintaining communal identity and cohesion.Footnote 5
While the precise origins of the pīrs who laid the foundations of the Satpanth tradition remain obscure, their role in shaping and consolidating Khoja religious identity was undeniably significant. Although the exact nature of this identity remains elusive, it is evident that the Khojas were neither strictly Hindu—if Hinduism is defined by exclusive devotion to a deity or set of deities—nor did they initially exhibit characteristics explicitly associated with either Sunni Islam (such as following the predominant Ḥanafī fiqh in the Indian subcontinent), Ismaili Shiʿism (such as explicit allegiance to the Nizārī imamate), or Twelver Shiʿism (such as committing to the doctrine of the Twelve Imams).Footnote 6 Besides the uncertainty surrounding the origins of these pīrs, their potential interconnections and affiliations with the Ismaili imams also remain unclear.Footnote 7 There is no definitive evidence confirming that they were direct emissaries of the imams, as is often claimed, who resided in Persia. While community historical records indicate that Khojas travelled to Persia in the eighteenth century, it remains unclear whether these journeys were undertaken explicitly as acts of allegiance to the Nizārī imamate or as visits to revered pīrs.Footnote 8 These ambiguities emerged as central points of contention among the Khojas as they increasingly encountered and engaged with other religious traditions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The nineteenth century was a period of considerable upheaval and contestation in defining the religious identity of the Khojas. During this time, the Khojas of Bombay became divided into three distinct factions: Sunni Khojas, Aga Khani Khojas, and Isna Ashari Khojas.Footnote 9 However, the prevailing historical narrative often presents this transformation as a linear process of religious conversion—a perspective that this study seeks to challenge. Competing claims regarding the Khojas’ historical religious orientation further complicate the discourse. The Aga Khanis maintained that the Khojas were originally Ismaili Shiʿas, whereas the Isna Asharis contended that the Khojas had been Twelver Shiʿas from the outset.Footnote 10 This article critically examines the limitations of the conversion paradigm and proposes an alternative framework for understanding the evolution of Khoja religious identity.
Three key developments contributed to these claims and disputes. First, migration to Bombay in the early eighteenth century exposed Khojas to religious traditions that adhered to more rigid, non-syncretic frameworks, challenging their historically fluid religious identity. Second, the arrival of Aga Khan I in British India in 1843 introduced new leadership structures that redefined intra-community authority.Footnote 11 Third, legal disputes over family inheritance necessitated the formal classification of Khojas as either Hindu or Muslim under colonial legal frameworks that disrupted their historical fluidity.Footnote 12 Parallel to these developments, disputes emerged over the governance and ownership of communal assets, ultimately leading to two major schisms that reshaped the community’s religious and social structure.
The first major schism within the Khojas emerged in the early nineteenth century, marking a pivotal moment in their socio-religious evolution. This division was not merely a doctrinal rupture but was rooted in broader debates on leadership, communal governance, and the reconfiguration of Khoja self-identification. The movement for reform was led by certain shethias (elite merchants), who became known as the Barbhai (twelve brethren). They sought to challenge existing power structures when the Aga Khan, still in Iran, demanded regular financial contributions—payments that some Khojas appear to have previously made on an ad hoc basis, regarding him as a revered pīr. His demands provoked resistance from the Barbhai, who saw the growing institutionalisation of his authority as a threat to communal autonomy, prompting efforts to redefine Khoja religious identity. Though often labelled as dissidents, these reformers were not a homogeneous bloc but a coalition with diverse ideological orientations, ranging from theological opposition to pragmatic efforts to preserve the community’s self-governance.Footnote 13 Their opposition materialised most forcefully through legal challenges, particularly in cases concerning inheritance and communal governance.Footnote 14 The landmark 1866 Aga Khan Case provided the definitive legal resolution to these disputes, formally declaring the Khojas as ‘Shiʿa Imami Ismailis’ and consolidating the Aga Khan’s leadership under British colonial jurisprudence.Footnote 15 In response, the Barbhai and their associates distanced themselves from this newly codified religious framework and aligned with the broader Sunni tradition, cementing a rupture that had been decades in the making.
The second major schism within the Khojas, which forms the central focus of this study, occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century in the aftermath of the Aga Khan Case. Unlike the first division, this rupture was predominantly religious, leading to the emergence of Isna Ashari Khojas. While shethias played a role, the movement was largely driven by Twelver preachers (mullās) and religious scholars (ʿulamāʾ) from Karbala, Najaf, and parts of northern and southern India, who steered and guided the Khojas through a shifting religious landscape. This schism not only redefined religious allegiances but also reshaped communal affiliations. Though Isna Ashari Khojas departed from the then mainstream Khojas, they retained the Khoja name, distinguishing themselves from Aga Khani Khojas, who integrated into the broader Nizārī Ismaili community and self-identified as South Asian Nizārī Ismailis, and from Sunni Khojas, who gradually dissolved into the wider Sunni Muslim community, eventually identifying simply as Sunnis without maintaining a distinct Khoja identity. Their continued emphasis on communal heritage is reflected in the self-identification of ‘Khoja Shiʿa Isna Asharis’, signifying both their Khoja origins and adherence to Twelver Shiʿism.Footnote 16
This study argues that the history of the Khojas is far more intricate than commonly assumed. Religious transformations unfold over extended periods, shaped by multiple actors with diverse motivations. There was never a singular, monolithic understanding of Khoja identity; rather, it evolved in response to a range of socio-political, economic, and theological influences. While Masselos has discussed the Khojas of Bombay in the first half of the nineteenth century, his study does not extend to the latter half or the emergence of Isna Ashari Khojas. Michel Boivin, by contrast, has examined the division between Aga Khani and Isna Ashari Khojas but with a primary focus on Karachi. The present study addresses these gaps by analysing critical developments in Bombay during the second half of the nineteenth century, not only in terms of internal socio-religious dynamics but also through the influence of external actors, including ʿulamāʾ and clerical networks of Iraq, Iran, and the Indian Twelver scholarly community.
Sources and methodology
Scholars studying the history of mercantile communities, such as the Khojas, have often lamented the scarcity of sources, with most studies relying heavily on colonial records.Footnote 17 However, an equally significant challenge lies in their limited engagement with vernacular sources, which, though available, remain largely under-utilised. Produced within these communities, vernacular sources are frequently dismissed on various grounds—whether for their perceived lack of intellectual rigour, their internal biases and polemical nature, or their failure to align with modern historiographical standards. While these concerns hold validity to varying degrees, the greater risk is the wholesale neglect of the perspectives from which these texts were written.
Rather than discarding these sources, their study demands the adoption of alternative methodologies that account for their epistemological and historiographical frameworks. Engaging with them through a critical yet historically sympathetic lens enables scholars to reconstruct past narratives in a more nuanced manner. This approach does not entail an uncritical acceptance of their claims but rather requires an acknowledgement of the socio-political contexts that shaped their production. Without such an effort, the histories of these communities risk being told exclusively through external frameworks, further marginalising their voices and historical agency.
It should be noted, however, that the issue is not always one of dismissal; in many cases, mercantile communities, such as the Khojas, simply did not produce their own historical records.Footnote 18 This challenge of a lack of documented history is further exacerbated when studying minorities within the Khojas, such as the Isna Ashari Khojas, for whom historical sources are particularly scarce. While the Aga Khani Khojas have received some scholarly attention, the history of the Isna Ashari Khojas remains largely under-explored.Footnote 19 The turbulent period of the Aga Khani–Isna Ashari divide, marked by internal conflicts, excommunications, assassinations, and sectarian violence, may have contributed to a culture of discretion, where documenting such histories was seen as politically and socially precarious.Footnote 20 This absence of formal historiography necessitates reliance on limited but critical sources, such as Hidayat Prakash of Mullā Qādar Ḥusayn b. Naḥīf (circa 1844–circa 1902, henceforth Mulla Qadar), one of the few surviving texts that provides insights into the Aga Khani–Isna Ashari divide, which this article examines.
The full title of the book is Hidayat Prakash yane Mulla Qadar Husayn Saheb Karbalai nu Jivan Charitra (The Light of Guidance: The Biography of Mulla Qadar Husayn Saheb Karbalai). Originally composed in Urdu under the title Ziyā-e Hidāyat (The Light of Guidance), the work was later translated into Gujarati as Hidayat Prakash by Edalji Dhanji Kaba (d. circa 1925). Due to concerns over potential repercussions, Kaba refrained from publishing the translation under his own name and instead entrusted the manuscript to Fazal Janmahmad who secured exclusive rights to the translation.Footnote 21 The text was ultimately published on 15 December 1909 in Zanzibar under Janmahmad’s publishing house.Footnote 22 An English translation was released in 1972 in Karachi by Peermahomed Ebrahim Trust.Footnote 23
Hidayat Prakash is an autobiographical account of Mulla Qadar which documents his preaching activities and engagements among the Khojas in Bombay between 1862 and 1899. The text appears to have been intended for a general audience rather than as a rigorous historical account, as it incorporates elements of hagiography and sectarian polemics. Mulla Qadar’s narrative presents both valuable contributions and significant limitations. It remains the only detailed historical source on Isna Ashari Khojas from this period, making it a crucial point of reference for examining the religious, social, and communal challenges they encountered. The text provides insights not only into the Isna Asharis but also into Khojas more broadly, offering a window into their religious practices, internal divisions, and social struggles. In addition, it offers a rich account of the broader Shiʿi milieu in Bombay, including the formative role of the Moghal Masjid (founded between 1858 and 1860), and traces the transregional religious networks linking the Khojas to Shiʿi centres of learning in Najaf and Karbala. It also underscores the fluid nature of Isna Ashari identity during this transitional period, suggesting that boundaries between Aga Khani and Isna Ashari affiliations were not yet rigidly defined. As a rare first-hand account, Hidayat Prakash serves as a valuable source for reconstructing the evolving religious and social dynamics of the Khojas in the late nineteenth century.
Nevertheless, Hidayat Prakash is marked by notable limitations. A substantial portion of the text is devoted to Mulla Qadar’s personal grievances regarding his treatment by the Isna Ashari Khojas, which detracts from a broader historical analysis. As someone who was not himself a Khoja, his understanding of intra-community dynamics may have been limited, a factor that likely shaped his narrative choices. Moreover, the text overlooks the contributions of other prominent Twelver ʿulamāʾ in Bombay, such as Shaykh Abū al-Qāsim Najafī (d. 1931), who arrived from Najaf around 1889–1890 and was instrumental in shaping the religious discourse of the period. The absence of the original Urdu manuscript further complicates scholarly assessment, as it leaves open the possibility of editorial modifications in later translation. These issues must be taken into account when evaluating the historical reliability and interpretive scope of Hidayat Prakash.
The study of the Isna Ashari Khojas and their intricate networks spanning Bombay, Zanzibar, Najaf, and Karbala present a significant yet often overlooked dimension of their evolving religious identity. While existing literature has examined governance, institutional structures, and reformist movements, the vital contributions of Twelver ʿulamāʾ of Karbala and Najaf, shethias, and mullās to their emergence and development remain insufficiently explored. Masselos’s study on the Khojas of Bombay offers valuable insights into governance and institutional structures but only briefly touches upon the Isna Ashari Khojas.Footnote 24 Boivin’s study on the divide between Aga Khani and Isna Ashari Khojas is a valuable contribution, in which he argues that religious identity functioned as a façade for their deeper social and economic power struggles.Footnote 25 While Boivin’s argument appears well-grounded in the context of the Khojas of Karachi, its applicability to the Khojas of Bombay warrants further consideration. If religious identity were merely a façade, one might question why the Isna Ashari Khojas in Bombay did not align with the Sunni Khojas much earlier, despite experiencing similar socio-economic tensions. This article addresses this gap by examining the specific socio-religious environment of Bombay in the second half of the nineteenth century. It argues that, unlike Karachi, where the Isna Ashari presence emerged from within the Aga Khani fold alone, Bombay saw the development of an Isna Ashari identity within both Sunni and Aga Khani affiliations. In this context, religious differentiation—rather than socio-economic conflict—was primary, and it was driven by the intervention of Twelver ʿulamāʾ and local mullās. By foregrounding these dynamics, the article offers a different framework for understanding the divergent trajectories of Khoja communities in Bombay and Karachi.
Similarly, Shireen Mirza’s work on the Twelver Khoja diaspora and print culture provides an important perspective on modernist engagements but does not fully integrate the historical links between Bombay, East Africa, and the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala.Footnote 26 Likewise, studies by S. S. A. Rizvi and Noel King, Hatim Amiji, and Zulfikar Hirji acknowledge the presence of Isna Ashari Khojas in Zanzibar but do not weave them into the larger historical and geographical context connecting them with Bombay and the shrine cities of Iraq.Footnote 27 Even Nile Green’s Bombay Islam, a foundational work on the city’s religious landscape, overlooks the Isna Ashari Khojas and their contributions. The most nuanced treatment of the relationship between the shethias and religious authority within the Khoja jamāt—as well as within the Bohra and Memon jamāts—is offered by Michael O’Sullivan.Footnote 28 Drawing on a wide range of sources, he argues that mercantile wealth and religious power ‘did not always work in tandem’ within these institutions.Footnote 29 Rather, they often functioned as arenas of negotiation—and at times of tension—over doctrine, ritual, and communal leadership. O’Sullivan demonstrates how local conflicts could reverberate across the broader network of jamāts, shaping what he terms ‘corporate Islam’, a nexus of capital, discourse, and institutional control.Footnote 30 Yet, while his analysis is compelling, it falls short of fully engaging with the wider historical and transregional contexts that shaped these dynamics—particularly the external religious, political, and intellectual forces to which the Khojas and other Gujarati Muslim groups were increasingly exposed.
To sum up, the gaps in current scholarship are twofold. First, existing literature has largely ignored significant community histories, particularly those documented in non-European languages. Second, a critical void persists in the examination of the interconnected networks of ʿulamāʾ, shethias, and mullās who were instrumental in shaping the Isna Ashari Khoja identity. This study seeks to address these gaps by demonstrating how such networks not only facilitated the emergence of the Isna Ashari Khojas as a distinct religious and social group but also positioned them as a crucial force within the broader Twelver Shiʿi world.
Khojas post-1866: Aga Khan or Ayatullah?
The 1866 Aga Khan Case was a watershed event in the history of the Khojas. Amrita Shodhan argues that it transformed the Khojas’ identity from a ‘caste’ to a ‘sect’.Footnote 31 The verdict was instrumental in delineating the boundaries between Sunnism and Shiʿism, yet it also sparked a broader debate: which interpretation of Shiʿism was the ‘correct’ one? While the ruling of Justice Arnould designated the Khojas as ‘Shia Imami Ismailis’, intra-Shiʿi debates that emerged after 1866 indicate that sectarian affiliations remained fluid and subject to contestation. The implications were critical: Could a Khoja who revered the Aga Khan as a pīr but did not commit to his imamate still be part of the jamāt? Contemporary accounts from Bombay and Zanzibar indicate that even after 1866, the boundaries of Khoja identity—and whether their Shiʿi identity aligned with Ismailism or Isna Asharism—remained contested.Footnote 32 It was as if the Aga Khan Case primarily served to classify the Khojas in a manner that distinguished them from Sunni affiliation.
While the majority of Khojas embraced an Ismaili designation, others were not fully convinced. The reluctance of the secessionist Khojas, soon to become Isna Ashari Khojas, was understandable for several reasons.Footnote 33 First, they lacked a clear understanding of the theological distinctions and legal implications of aligning with Ismailism. Second, their devotional practices aligned more closely with those practised in Twelver Shiʿism. Practices such as majlis (commemorative gatherings) for Imam Husayn, the rituals of Shab-e Qadr (eves of 19th, 21st, and 23rd of Ramadan), and pilgrimages to Najaf, Karbala, and Kazamayn (Kadhimiya) are just a few examples.Footnote 34 Third, Ismailism—or what Green calls neo-Ismailism—had no established precedent in Bombay, making it an unfamiliar sect for the secessionist Khojas to associate with.Footnote 35 Bombay, however, provided a unique platform for navigating these uncertainties. As Green describes, Bombay was ‘a marketplace in which various versions of faith, community, and leadership were on offer’.Footnote 36 In Bombay, Khojas were already exposed to Twelver faith which became the catalyst for secessionist Khojas to embrace it.
It would be a significant omission to begin the history of the Isna Ashari Khojas only after 1866. Prior to this period, Khoja religious practices reflected a complex synthesis of various traditions, incorporating elements from Hinduism, Twelver Shiʿism, and Sunni Islam. The recitation of the Das Avatar in the jamātkhānās demonstrated Hindu influences, while the majlis gatherings and participation in pilgrimages (particularly to Kazamayn where the seventh and ninth Twelver imams are buried) aligned with Twelver Shiʿa practices. Sunni influence was also present, as Sunni kazis (registrars in South Asian context, qāḍīs in Arabic) officiated Khoja marriages.Footnote 37 Notably, however, there was no identifiable set of practices that could be classified as distinctly Ismaili.Footnote 38
The absence of Ismaili religious practices suggests that Ismailism was not regarded as a viable religious trajectory for the Khojas prior to the Aga Khan Case, rendering the latter a significant intervention rather than an organic development. This is particularly evident when examining Khoja communities beyond cosmopolitan Bombay, such as those in Kutch, Kathiawar, and Sindh. The Mahuva Commission Report, for instance, provides substantial evidence that Khojas in rural areas, such as Mahuva, engaged in practices that could be interpreted as more closely aligned with Twelver Shiʿism since the early 1850s.Footnote 39 However, to assert that Khojas in the mid nineteenth century were unequivocally Isna Asharis would be as erroneous as claiming they were Ismailis at that time.
Khojas in Karbala
Mulla Qadar, a Twelver Shiʿa native of Madras, arrived in Bombay around 1862, presumably to earn money so he could finance his travel to Karbala for higher religious education. During his sojourn in Bombay, he established a madrasa that attracted students from various communities, including the Khojas. This engagement laid the foundation for his long-term association with a few Khojas, some of whom would later become Isna Asharis.Footnote 40
Seeking further religious knowledge, Mulla Qadar eventually left Bombay for Karbala around 1864. In Iraq, he encountered secessionist Khojas who had travelled to Karbala, particularly for the Arbaʿīn pilgrimage. During one such visit, he reconnected with a former student, Habib Abji Jetha Chand. He also met Nur Mohamed Meghji, a Khoja pilgrim from Zanzibar, who expressed concerns about what he perceived as doctrinal corruption among the Khojas. Subsequent encounters with other influential Khoja figures, such as Hasham Dosa in Kazamayn and Dewji Jamal, further deepened his engagement with the secessionist Khojas.Footnote 41
Recognising the need for structured religious instruction, Mulla Qadar began teaching Khojas in Karbala, even extending educational opportunities to women by appointing a female preacher. Bakshi Shujaʿat Ali Baig, a fellow Indian and senior colleague of Mulla Qadar, advised the Khojas to appoint a mullā to accompany them and provide religious guidance. Following multiple appeals from Baig and consultations with Āyatullāh Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn al-Māzandarānī (1809–1892), the marjaʿ (supreme religious authority, lit. ‘source of emulation’) of his time, Mulla Qadar reluctantly agreed to accompany the Khojas. To formalise his role, al-Māzandarānī issued a decree and licence (ḥukm-nāmeh) authorising him to lead congregational prayers, solemnise marriages, oversee legal arbitration (ṣulh), collect religious dues (khums), and eventually return the funds to Karbala.Footnote 42
Two considerations emerge in assessing this historical episode. First, the Khojas were already familiar with the Twelver Shiʿi tradition before engaging with Mulla Qadar, likely through existing Twelver Shiʿas in Bombay and other regions. Their pilgrimage and interactions in Karbala suggest that many Khojas had prior exposure to Twelver teachings rather than experiencing a sudden doctrinal shift due to Mulla Qadar’s preaching activities. Second, it was Twelver ʿulamāʾ, not the Khojas themselves, who initiated and advised the appointment of a mullā as a religious guide. This reading challenges the dominant Isna Ashari community accounts, which tend to emphasise Khoja initiative in seeking religious guidance and requesting the formal appointment of a religious authority. Instead, it foregrounds the active role of Twelver scholarly networks in shaping the community’s religious trajectory.Footnote 43
The encounters of Khojas in Karbala during the nineteenth century illustrate the broader exchanges between secessionist Khojas and Twelver Shiʿism and underscore the strategic role of scholarly networks in facilitating religious integration. Rather than emerging as a self-driven initiative, the incorporation of Twelver Shiʿism into the community was shaped and institutionalised through the interventions of established Twelver ʿulamāʾ.
Mulla Qadar’s return to Bombay
Mulla Qadar arrived in Bombay for the second time in 1873 and remained there until 1899. At this stage, he was 29 years old and no longer merely an ordinary Qur’an teacher. Having pursued advanced studies in Karbala, he had established connections with the Twelver ʿulamāʾ network. His stay in Bombay was intended as a brief stopover, as he had originally been invited to guide the secessionist Khojas in Zanzibar. Moreover, Bombay would have been too challenging a place to establish a new jamāt, given the ongoing turmoil within the city’s Khoja community. While in Bombay, Mulla Qadar took the opportunity to study the Khoja tradition in greater depth, documenting his observations in some detail.Footnote 44 His account was likely influenced by oral sources, often originating from secessionist voices critical of the mainstream Khoja beliefs and practices. During his early days in Bombay, Mulla Qadar actively propagated the Twelver faith. He initiated congregational prayers, drawing around 15–20 participants in the early phase. Over time, this number doubled, and his majlis gatherings began drawing more than 100 attendees.Footnote 45
Perils of Mulla Qadar in Bombay
As his influence grew, Mulla Qadar faced increasing resistance from the Aga Khani Khojas. Pressure was exerted on Mohammad Rawji, in whose house Mulla Qadar was residing on the recommendation of Dewji Jamal. Both Dewji Jamal and Mohammad Rawji faced social and economic pressure from Aga Khanis. Although Dewji Jamal publicly distanced himself from Mulla Qadar, he privately arranged alternative accommodations for him. Despite this, the opposition intensified. The Aga Khani leadership issued a directive, warning that any individual who attended Mulla Qadar’s gatherings would face excommunication.Footnote 46
The growing hostility left Mulla Qadar increasingly isolated. Many Khojas who had initially shown interest in committing to Twelver Shiʿism gradually withdrew.Footnote 47 However, in response to this waning support, influential shethias such as Khalfan Ratansi and Dewji Jamal intervened, offering assistance and mobilising those interested in the Twelver cause. As a result of their efforts, attendance at Mulla Qadar’s religious gatherings surged, with as many as 400 individuals participating, leading to a noticeable decline in jamātkhānā congregations.Footnote 48 In reaction, the Aga Khani Khojas, Mulla Qadar narrates, dispatched three agents to assess the composition of these gatherings. Their findings revealed that among the attendees were 70 shethia members, which indicated that the movement had gained traction beyond the lower social strata. As a result of this heightened scrutiny and the fear of excommunication, along with its social and economic repercussions, Dewji Jamal, Khalfan Ratansi, Harji Jamal, and Jerajbhai eventually distanced themselves entirely from Mulla Qadar’s association. All this happened in the very first year of Mulla Qadar’s arrival in Bombay. According to his own account, his salary was stopped and no accommodation was arranged for him, as every effort was made to compel him to leave voluntarily. However, al-Māzandarānī, he writes, ordered him to remain in Bombay.Footnote 49
There was a brief turning point when Ratansi’s daughter passed away and the Aga Khanis refused to allow her burial in the Khoja cemetery complex on the grounds that he had been excommunicated. This episode led to the regrouping of Mulla Qadar’s followers, strengthening their determination as he continued his mission through such bitter and distressing moments for another two years. But when the news of Lalan Alidina’s attempted assassination in Karachi reached Bombay, fear spread among the Khojas, making it even more difficult for Mulla Qadar to secure accommodation among the Khoja quarters of Bombay.Footnote 50 Repeated requests were made for him to leave the city, with appeals even sent to al-Māzandarānī urging him to formally recall Mulla Qadar back to Karbala. Isolated and discouraged, Mulla Qadar was advised to refrain from participating in Khoja burial and marriage ceremonies, further deepening his marginalisation.Footnote 51
Mulla Qadar’s account is, at its core, a lamentation that reflects his personal struggles and hardships in Bombay. Of the 67 pages, more than 50 are dedicated to detailing his perils—persistent pressure from the Aga Khanis, the defection of his own followers, an assassination attempt, refusal of salary and accommodation, social isolation, and even Dewji Jamal urging him to leave.Footnote 52 His narrative provides a rare and valuable perspective on the complex socio-religious dynamics between the Isna Asharis and the Aga Khanis, particularly how these tensions intersected with familial and socio-economic ties.
Despite the significance of his experiences, Mulla Qadar himself was young and relatively inexperienced, and his tenure was ultimately short-lived. He was soon replaced by senior ʿulamāʾ who were better equipped to navigate the challenges he faced. However, his greatest enduring contribution was his role in training a new generation of Isna Ashari Khoja mullās and integrating them into the broader Shiʿi ʿulamāʾ network. This intellectual legacy, rather than any immediate success in Bombay, remains his most lasting achievement.
Khojas’ exposure to Shaykhi ideology
During their gradual integration into Twelver Shiʿism, the secessionist Khojas encountered the Shaykhi thought in Bombay. Shaykhism, an esoteric and theosophical school within Twelver Shiʿism, emerged in the early nineteenth century in Iran and Iraq, inspired by the teachings of Shaykh Aḥmad al-Aḥsāʾī (d. 1826).Footnote 53 The movement developed during a period of significant transformation within the Shiʿi intellectual landscape, as Akhbārism declined and Uṣūlism became dominant. While Shaykhis resembled the Akhbāris in their emphasis on the reports of the imams, they diverged in their focus; rather than engaging in law (fiqh) and legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), they concentrated on theology, particularly on the supernatural status of the imams. Given their nascent engagement with Twelver Shiʿism and limited familiarity with its intellectual tradition, the secessionist Khojas were largely unaware of the doctrinal nuances that distinguished mainstream Twelver beliefs from Shaykhi ideology. However, in their exploration of new religious alliances and pursuit of broader religious connections, they encountered Shaykhism in Bombay.
Much of the available information about the presence of Shaykhism in Bombay is derived from the account of Mulla Qadar, who references an individual associated with the Shaykhi school, Sayyid Muḥammad.Footnote 54 Sayyid Muḥammad was the pesh-imām (individual who leads the congregational prayer) of the Moghal Masjid, which was built by an Iranian merchant associated with the Qajars named Ḥāj Muḥammad Ḥusayn Shīrāzī, hence also known as the Iranian Mosque.Footnote 55 The mosque served Iranian traders, Niʿmatullāhi Sufis and other Twelver Shiʿi residents of Bombay.Footnote 56 As the only significant Shiʿi religious centre in the city at the time, it naturally attracted Khojas seeking religious guidance and communal association.Footnote 57
Sayyid Muḥammad, as described by Mulla Qadar, was an intriguing figure. Initially, Mulla Qadar assumed that Sayyid Muḥammad shared the same Twelver theology as himself, but he later discovered that Sayyid Muḥammad was a Shaykhi follower, particularly influenced by the teachings of Sarkār Karīm Khān (d. 1871).Footnote 58 Mulla Qadar recounts that in 1877, Sayyid Muḥammad sought to recruit him to his faith, recognising that his conversion could potentially influence the Khojas.Footnote 59 In one notable gathering, Sayyid Muḥammad introduced a treatise entitled Ḥayāt al-nafs [fī ḥaḍrat al-quds] by Shaykh Aḥmad al-Aḥsāʾī, further revealing his theological leanings.Footnote 60 It should be noted that other contemporaneous accounts suggest that Sayyid Muḥammad was a recent convert to the Bahaʾi faith. Siyyid Mustafa Roumie (d. 1945), a Bahaʾi follower and a close associate of Mirza Jamal Effendi (d. 1898), recounts the latter’s sojourn in Bombay and his efforts to propagate the tenets of Bahaism. Roumie states that Effendi succeeded in converting Sayyid Muḥammad (referred to as Meer Sayed Muhammad) to the Bahaʾi faith, describing him as ‘one of the most confirmed and devout believers’.Footnote 61 This account indicates that Sayyid Muḥammad was a Bahaʾi rather than a Shaykhī. However, it is reasonable to assume that the boundaries between Shaykhī, Bābī, Kashfī, Ruknī, and Bahaʾi identities were somewhat fluid during that period. It could also be argued that these attributions of doctrinal affiliations were influenced by sectarian perspectives or simply a lack of awareness regarding the distinctions between these groups.Footnote 62
Mulla Qadar’s understanding of Shaykhism appears to have been shaped by his religious training in Karbala, a centre of Shaykhi debates, and the teachings of his senior teachers in India.Footnote 63 He references prominent mujtahids from Lucknow, particularly Sayyid Ḥusayn Ṣāḥib’s Ḥadīqat Sulṭāniyya, to substantiate his critique of what he regarded as Shaykh Aḥmad al-Aḥsāʾī’s doctrinal deviations.Footnote 64 Mulla Qadar lists several works by al-Aḥsāʾī and al-Kirmānī, including Sharḥ ziyārat [al-jāmiʿa al-kabīra], Dalīl al-mutaḥayyirīn and Sharḥ khuṭba [Tuṭanjiyya], and Irshād al-ʿawāmm.Footnote 65 Among the contested doctrines in these works, he highlights the rejection of the bodily isrāʾ (ascension of the Prophet), the belief that God possesses both apparent and hidden entities, and hermeneutical approaches to religious texts that diverged significantly from mainstream Twelver Shiʿism. One example of these theological reinterpretations is the understanding of the Qurʾanic phrase iyyāka naʿbudu (You alone do we worship), which was construed as a reference to the Prophet and the imams rather than to God directly. Additionally, the concept of imamate, traditionally confined to the lineage of Banū Hāshim, was expanded within Shaykhi thought to include scholars deemed spiritually worthy. In another significant doctrinal departure, Shaykhis posited that the imams held a status analogous to the Prophet’s wives, with Imam ʿAlī being likened to Umm al-muʾminīn (Mother of the Believers).Footnote 66
Mulla Qadar sought to expose what he viewed as Sayyid Muḥammad’s theological corruption, but his relatively lower scholarly standing limited his ability to mount significant opposition. Nevertheless, he remained deeply concerned about the potential spread of Shaykhism among the secessionist Khojas, whom he had personally instructed in Twelver Shiʿism. The Khojas’ attraction to the Moghal Masjid and, by extension, to Sayyid Muḥammad, can be attributed to four reasons. First, it was the only established Twelver Shiʿi centre in Bombay which made it a natural focal point for their religious explorations. Second, Sayyid Muḥammad, as a sayyid and an elite Iranian figure, commanded significant respect, reinforcing his authority and influence over the Khojas. Third, he took a lenient approach to religious obligations such as marriage celebrations and financial practices like business on credit and interest. He offered pragmatic compromises that stood in contrast to the stricter interpretations of Mulla Qadar and made his approach more appealing. For instance, when Dewji Jamal returned to Bombay to arrange marriages for his son and daughter, he sought guidance from Sayyid Muḥammad rather than Mulla Qadar. In one notable case, Alarakhia Wali, whose son was marrying Dewji Jamal’s daughter, wished to include music in the wedding festivities, but Mulla Qadar refused to grant permission on the grounds of its impermissibility in Islamic law. But Alarakhia Wali secured approval from Sayyid Muḥammad, which underscored the latter’s more accommodating approach. Similarly, some prominent Khojas continued engaging in interest-based transactions (wyāj) with Sayyid Muḥammad’s tacit approval, despite Mulla Qadar’s firm opposition, again on the grounds of their unlawfulness in Islamic law.Footnote 67 Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, strategic considerations played a role—secessionist Khojas sought alliances with the Iranian Twelver traders and merchants in Bombay, a connection facilitated by their association with Moghal Masjid and Sayyid Muḥammad, which allowed them to strengthen their position within the broader Shiʿi network. For instance, influential Khoja leaders such as Harji Jamal, Jafar Kalyan, and Alarakhia Wali opposed Mulla Qadar’s rigidity, arguing that maintaining ties with Sayyid Muḥammad was crucial for securing Iranian support.Footnote 68
The portrayal of Sayyid Muḥammad in Mulla Qadar’s account suggests that he was a figure who was both strategic and doctrinally ambiguous. Mulla Qadar actively sought to educate the Khojas on the internal diversity within Twelver Shiʿism, warning them against what he perceived as doctrinal misguidance. He likened their transition into Twelver Shiʿism to escaping the perils of the sea, only to risk falling into a well—a metaphor for their vulnerability to theological deviations.Footnote 69 There was a clear division between the strategically pragmatic and more lenient shethias and the religiously conservative, socially marginalised followers of Mulla Qadar, including Ibrahim Jan Muhammad, Manjibhai Khatau, Rehmatulla Alibhai, and Hasham Dosa. This ideological and socio-economic tension represented a critical juncture in the evolution of the Isna Ashari Khojas. Mulla Qadar’s faction, embodying the disenfranchised secessionist Khojas, remained resolute in their adherence to doctrinal and legal orthodoxy without any form of compromise. Ultimately, their perseverance led to their ascendancy and cemented the trajectory of Isna Ashari Shiʿism within the secessionist Khojas.
Rippling effects or a coalition of common goals: Karachi, Mahuva, and Zanzibar
The Khojas were not native to Bombay, and it is safe to assume that they retained strong ties to their ancestral homelands in Kutch and Kathiawar. Consequently, the socio-religious upheavals in Bombay had broader ramifications, influencing developments in these regions and precipitating similar disruptions. Reports of unrest and resistance in Karachi, Mahuva, and Zanzibar suggest that Khojas in Bombay were not alone in challenging the evolving religious orientation under the Aga Khan(s). Boivin argues that the instances of dissent arose independently rather than as mere imitations of or reactions to the opposition in Bombay.Footnote 70 However, over time, these movements became increasingly interconnected, united by a shared objective: contesting the Aga Khani narrative of Khoja religious identity.
Mulla Qadar’s stop in Karachi to lead prayers and recite majlis among the secessionist Khojas en route to Bombay in 1873, along with the correspondence between the two communities in these port cities regarding communal tensions—particularly in response to the assassination attempt on Lalan Alidina—highlights their ongoing ties and shared concerns.Footnote 71 However, their challenges differed. In Karachi, Khojas predominantly emerged as secessionists in response to the reforms introduced in 1876 by Aqa Ali Shah (Aga Khan II), in his capacity as heir to Aga Khan I. According to the secessionists in Karachi, Aqa Ali Shah implemented policies that curtailed Muharram observances, discouraged Qurʾanic learning, and restricted the performance of Islamic practices, thereby fuelling discontent among sections of the Khojas.Footnote 72 Unlike in Bombay, where Aga Khan I was personally present, in Karachi, his son took a more assertive approach that aimed to standardise religious practices and establish a more uniform religious identity.
Similarly, Mahuva experienced rising tensions in the aftermath of the events in Bombay.Footnote 73 However, Mahuva had long been acquainted with Twelver teachings, as evidenced by the existence of a madrasa run by figures such as Majanmiya, who had been on a formal salary since at least 1909 VS/1852–1853. In 1920 VS/1863–1864, a Twelver mullā named Sayyid ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn from Madras is reported to have resided among the Khojas of Mahuva for a year and a half, providing religious guidance.Footnote 74 This presence of Twelver mullās in Mahuva suggests that, while some tensions escalated in response to the broader communal shifts in Bombay, the Khojas of Mahuva were already familiar with the Twelver creed.
Zanzibar, with its well-established Khoja presence dating back to 1820, also experienced the reverberations of Bombay’s religious contestations.Footnote 75 The economic ties between the two ports facilitated the movement of people and ideas, enabling the secessionist movement to gain traction in Zanzibar. Amiji suggests that the five Khoja families in Zanzibar who refused to pledge allegiance to Aga Khan I in 1861 may have had close business ties with the ‘anti-Aga Khan party’ in Bombay.Footnote 76 The Khoja Isna Ashari community records claim that several prominent secessionist Khojas, including Dewji Jamal and Alarakhia Wali, were excommunicated in Bombay in 1877.Footnote 77 Dewji Jamal, whose commercial networks in East Africa played a pivotal role in mobilising the secessionist movement, likely consolidated his position through connections with Twelver Shiʿas of Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq who had already established a presence in Zanzibar under Shaykh Saʿid’s rule. This transition was further reinforced by the arrival of the Twelver Shiʿa cleric Sayyid ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Marʿashī al-Shūshtarī (d. 1905), who is recorded to have reached Zanzibar before 1885 and played a crucial role in the religious transformation of the Khojas.Footnote 78 Note that Mulla Qadar was initially expected to travel to Zanzibar for preaching; however, this journey never materialised. Although Dewji Jamal had pledged to facilitate his travel, he ultimately did not fulfil this commitment.Footnote 79 This may have been due to Mulla Qadar’s limited success or the tensions he had already generated in Bombay.
The dispatch of mullās and ʿulamāʾ from Karbala and Najaf to Bombay and Zanzibar by al-Māzandarānī underscores his deep awareness of the internal tensions, sensitivities, and evolving needs of the nascent Isna Ashari Khojas. More broadly, this reflects the crucial role of transregional scholarly networks in facilitating the integration of secessionist Khojas into the Twelver fold. Their engagement underscores the broader process through which Khoja religious realignments were shaped by intellectual and clerical exchanges spanning India, Zanzibar, Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq.
Despite being geographically distant and occasionally disconnected in orchestrating their opposition, Khojas from Bombay, Karachi, Mahuva, and Zanzibar ultimately found themselves aligned in their challenge to the Aga Khan’s authority. They were not united in their Isna Ashari leanings as much as they were in their collective resistance against the Aga Khani narrative of Khoja religious identity. The persistence of this opposition across multiple regions in independent ways, bolstered by the opposition in metropolitan Bombay, reflects a broader socio-religious movement rather than a localised struggle. This, in turn, would eventually contribute to their convergence and the formation of Khoja Isna Ashari jamāts and institutions.
Mōṭī (larger) jamāt vs nānī (smaller) jamāt
The formation of a distinct Isna Ashari Khoja identity did not occur at a precise or clearly defined moment. Instead, it gradually emerged as a coalition of diverse groups who shared a common interest: opposing the Aga Khan’s authority, resisting the complete takeover of their communal institutions, and committing to the Isna Ashari creed, which they believed was the true faith. The creation of a separate jamāt, however, required establishing distinct community structures such as a constitution, dedicated worship space, independent leadership, and a distinct social framework—elements that were not fully actualised initially.
Despite ideological differences between Aga Khani and Isna Ashari Khojas, practical interactions remained harmonious for an extended period. Until the end of the nineteenth century, members of both the communities shared communal spaces such as jamātkhānās and cemeteries.Footnote 80 Moreover, Isna Asharis continued to seek the legal privileges associated with family and inheritance laws granted to Khojas as a broader category to which they belonged.
An attempt was made to redefine the religio-legal identity of the Khojas in what Boivin views as a tactical move by Aga Khan I, potentially designed to deliberately exclude Sunnis and Isna Asharis.Footnote 81 Carissa Hickling, however, argues that this attempt was primarily aimed at British judges due to the ‘confusing nature of Hindu law’, with the potential for structuring Khoja succession laws along the lines of the Parsi Intestate Succession Act, which was passed in 1865.Footnote 82 Traditionally, Khojas followed Hindu inheritance law rather than Anglo-Mohammedan law.Footnote 83 As a result, the Khoja Commission was appointed in 1879 to codify community succession laws. Chaired by Justice Maxwell Melvill, the commission included the soon-to-be Aga Khan II and members of the Aga Khani and Sunni Khojas. After extensive deliberations, the commission introduced the Khoja Succession Bill to the Council of the Governor-General of India in 1884.Footnote 84 However, the bill faced objections from Sunnis and was never enacted.
According to Mulla Qadar’s accounts, the Isna Ashari Khojas were not consulted in the Khoja Commission, which suggests that their social recognition, compared to Sunni Khojas, was still limited at that time.Footnote 85 The Isna Ashari shethias must have been aware of these developments but refrained from intervention, likely because their interests were closely aligned with those of the Aga Khanis. This alignment, however, led to internal conflicts among the Isna Asharis, most notably between the shethias and the disciples of Mulla Qadar. These disciples explicitly advocated informing the colonial authorities that they identified openly as Isna Ashari Khojas and were seeking official implementation of Islamic law. These internal tensions intensified, drawing in Sayyid Muḥammad, who, expectedly, supported the interests of the shethias.Footnote 86
Nonetheless, the Khoja Commission failed, highlighting that meaningful delineation could only emerge from internal pressures. These pressures came from two distinct sides: Mulla Qadar and his disciples sought a separation based explicitly on religious grounds, while Aga Khan aimed to disenfranchise the Isna Asharis for strategic reasons. It can be argued that the formation of separate Isna Ashari jamāts was significantly driven by disenfranchisement resulting from firmans (decrees and directives issued by the Aga Khan) and administrative interventions by Aga Khans II and III. Aga Khan III’s decisive action in 1901 through a firman formalised this separation. This directive explicitly banned Shiʿa majlis and namaz in Ismaili jamātkhānās, effectively barring Isna Asharis from participating in communal Khoja events or accessing shared social and economic platforms and networks. This policy led to substantial defections, most notably in Zanzibar, where nearly one-third of Khojas transitioned to Isna Ashari institutions.Footnote 87
Experiencing a growing sense of isolation from the Aga Khani Khojas, Isna Ashari Khojas organised themselves independently. They formed coalitions of jamāts across interconnected regions, notably Kathiawar and Kutch, linking urban and rural communities in India with those in East Africa. They were mobilised primarily by mullās and shethias, whose influential roles were instrumental in propagating the movement and facilitating its spread across various towns and villages. Nevertheless, underlying tensions between Aga Khanis and Isna Asharis persisted, exemplified notably by incidents like the Jafar Fadu Badnakshi case in Karachi.Footnote 88 On the other hand, Aga Khanis began implementing stricter communal policies addressing specific social interactions with Isna Asharis, including questions about intermarriage, consulting mullās, participating in each other’s functions, and gift exchanges.Footnote 89 These developments underscored the institutionalisation of religious and social distinctions between the Isna Ashari and Aga Khani Khojas that reinforced communal boundaries persisting to this day.
While Sunni Khojas were often labelled as reformers, Barbhai, and dissenters, Isna Ashari Khojas were more commonly identified through Islamic markers. Terms such as Masīdīyā or Masītīyā (mosque attendees) versus Aga Party,Footnote 90 Subhaniya (presumably linked to dhikr recitations) versus Bhagat (devotees of traditional Hindu deities),Footnote 91 and Isna Asharis versus Aga KhanisFootnote 92 emerged to signify theological and ritual distinctions. However, these labels did not always reflect actual beliefs or social realities. Within the community, the terms mōṭī jamāt (larger community) and nānī jamāt (smaller community) emerged organically, signifying demographic and structural distinctions, with Isna Asharis representing the smaller group. Ultimately, the formation of distinctly structured jamāts solidified the Isna Ashari Khoja identity that aligned neatly with the traditional Khoja model of communal organisation.
Twelver Shiʿi networks and Khojas
The case of the Isna Ashari Khojas serves as a compelling example of the effective institutionalisation of Twelver Shiʿism, a process that gained momentum following the Akhbārī–Uṣūlī dispute in Najaf and Karbala. This institutional framework, reinforced by Uṣūlī scholarly networks and the marjaʿiyya (supreme juristic authority), provided a structured and authoritative religious system that played a crucial role in shaping the Khoja transition.Footnote 93 When secessionist Khojas sought alternative religious affiliations during the politically and socially turbulent period in Bombay, they gravitated towards Twelver Shiʿi scholarly networks. Their integration into Twelver Shiʿism was facilitated by two key factors: first, their prior familiarity with Twelver rituals, which eased the transition; and second, the well-established institutional and scholarly framework of the Uṣūlī tradition, which was already fully operational and capable of absorbing new adherents. This combination of historical continuity and institutional accessibility underscores the significance of transregional Shiʿi scholarly networks in shaping religious transformations within diasporic communities.
This scholarly network operated—and still operates today—on three clearly delineated tiers. At the apex stands the marjaʿ, the most senior religious authority responsible for advancing scholarship and issuing legal edicts (fatwas). Below the marjaʿ, the second tier comprises senior ʿulamāʾ who mediate between the marjaʿ and the mullās, disseminating advanced scholarly guidance and teachings. The third tier consists of junior ʿulamāʾ and mullās who maintain direct, daily contact with the congregations. In the Khoja context, al-Māzandarānī belonged to the first tier, Baig to the second, and Mulla Qadar to the third. While laypeople maintained close connections primarily with third-tier figures, elites, merchants, and donors interacted closely with first-tier scholars, often mediated through the second tier. This structure also facilitated the financial sustainability of the scholarly network.
The secessionist Khojas’ engagement with this scholarly network was shaped by institutional rather than personal connections. Because of this structured framework, religious authority and leadership transitioned seamlessly across generations. Figures such as al-Māzandarānī were succeeded by prominent marjaʿs like Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥakīm (d. 1970), Āyatullāh Khoie (d. 1992), and Āyatullāh Sistani (b. 1930); Baig was followed by ʿulamāʾ such as Sayyid ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Marʿashī al-Shūshtarī in Zanzibar and Shaykh Abū al-Qāsim Najafī in Bombay; and Mulla Qadar by key Isna Ashari Khoja preachers—not from outside but from within the community itself—including Haji Naji, Aladin Gulam Husayn, and Abdullah Saleh Sachedina, among others, all of whom were his close disciples and had been groomed under his direct mentorship. This continuity underscored not only the resilience of the Isna Ashari Khoja institutional structures but, more broadly, the strength of the Twelver Shiʿi transregional scholarly networks that enabled the sustained transmission of religious authority beyond the influence of any single figure or actor.
Mulla Qadar himself exemplified the crucial role played by third-tier mullās. He introduced and safeguarded the Twelver Shiʿi faith among the Isna Ashari Khojas, trained numerous preachers, and consolidated the community’s religious identity over three decades of sustained effort. Despite facing persistent challenges, he succeeded in founding an official madrasa for the Isna Ashari Khojas in 1892 and took pride in the creation of multiple maḥfils (congregation halls for majlis gatherings) across different quarters of Dongri and Bhiwandi in Bombay. His legacy can be summarised in three main contributions: his writings, notably Chirāgh-e Hidāyat, which circulated widely, reaching Zanzibar, China, Muscat, Bhavnagar, Mahuva, Kutch, Mauritius, and London;Footnote 94 his dedicated training of a generation of Isna Ashari Khoja mullās;Footnote 95 and his establishment of madrasas and other religious institutions.Footnote 96 The firm institutional foundations laid by Mulla Qadar and supported by the hierarchical Twelver scholarly network facilitated the enduring growth and cohesion of the Isna Ashari Khoja community.
Conclusion
This article has critically re-examined the transformation of Khoja religious identity in the nineteenth century and challenged the prevailing conversion theory. Rather than a simple shift from Ismailism to Twelver Shiʿism, the evidence suggests that all three major Khoja factions departed from a syncretic Hindu–Muslim or Muslim–Hindu identity commonly known as the Satpanth tradition. This transition was shaped by several factors: exposure to structured religious identities in urban settings, the colonial administration’s classification of religion in Khoja disputes over inheritance, and the Aga Khan’s increasing assertion of religious authority. The Satpanth tradition, among the Khojas, was the real loser in this process, initially fragmenting along Hindu–Muslim lines, then bifurcating into Sunni and Shiʿi affiliations, and eventually dividing into Aga Khani Ismaili and Twelver Shiʿism—ultimately fading as a distinct tradition.Footnote 97
Significantly, this study has shown that the shift towards Twelver Shiʿism among the secessionist Khojas constituted a theological rupture, though not one arising from a deliberate or systematic quest for doctrinal reform. Rather, it emerged through a combination of circumstantial and historical contingencies. While the Khojas’ immediate motive was to distance themselves from the Aga Khanis, the process was simultaneously shaped by the expanding influence of scholarly networks in Iraq and Iran that sought to propagate Twelver teachings. Moreover, this article has demonstrated that Mulla Qadar was not the sole architect of Khoja Twelver identity. His contributions must be seen within a broader scholarly network—comprising figures who preceded and succeeded him—who collectively shaped this identity while contending not only with the Aga Khani Khojas but also with apprehensive shethias wary of the growing influence of clerical authority. In this struggle, he was supported by a group of socially marginalised zealot disciples whose uncompromising commitment to Twelver Shiʿism lent the movement both internal momentum and a degree of ideological orthodoxy.
This article has also identified significant gaps in existing scholarship. The first concerns the neglect of community histories preserved in non-European languages, which are essential for reconstructing a more nuanced historical narrative. The second is the lack of attention to the interconnected networks of ʿulamāʾ, shethias, and mullās who played a decisive role in shaping Isna Ashari Khoja religious identity. A more comprehensive engagement with these sources and actors is necessary to deepen our understanding of Khoja history.
Finally, the Iraqi–Iranian Shiʿi connection and the Uṣūlī dominance over Shaykhism played a crucial role in structuring Khoja Twelver identity. The organisational framework of the institution of marjaʿiyya was instrumental in this process, as evidenced by junior mullās in Bombay seeking guidance from senior ʿulamāʾ in Lucknow, who in turn remained connected to marjaʿs in the shrine cities of Karbala and Najaf. This hierarchical structure not only shaped the religious allegiance of the Isna Ashari Khojas but also ensured their long-term commitment to the institution of marjaʿiyya, making them some of its most ardent supporters in the East African and Western diaspora.
The choice between Aga Khan and Ayatullah for the Khojas was, at its core, a question of religious legitimacy. Subaltern communities have often been drawn to religious figures based in Iran and Iraq, attracted by their sacred lineage, the charisma of their language, the sanctity of shrine-linked geographies, and the broader prestige associated with these centres of learning and devotion. Both offices—the imamate of the Aga Khan and the marjaʿiyya of the Ayatullah—carried deep Iranian connections that reflected the enduring influence of Iranian religious actors in the Indian subcontinent. This influence extended beyond Shiʿism and was evident in the spread of Bābī and Bahaʾi thought as well.
Ultimately, this article highlighted that faith is not static but evolves in response to shifting historical, geographical, and political contexts. The Khoja case demonstrated that religious identity is not merely inherited but continually reshaped through institutional structures, transregional networks, and prevailing socio-political contexts.
Acknowledgements
This article was written as part of my British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship, whose support I gratefully acknowledge. An earlier draft was presented at the conference Global Shiʿism: Migrants, Diasporas and the Islamic Revival in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (University of Oxford), and I thank John-Paul Ghobrial and Christopher Cooper-Davies for their invitation and feedback on that presentation. I am also deeply grateful to Justin Jones for his valuable comments, to Michel Boivin for suggesting sources, drawing my attention to oversights, and offering insightful suggestions, and to Philipp Brukmayer for his thoughtful insights and remarks. Last but not least, I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers, without whose constructive feedback my arguments would not have attained their present form.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Open access
