Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 99

Chishti Sufi Order in the Indian Subcontinent and

Beyond

Raziuddin Aquil
Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

In continuation of a long-standing tradition, the Chishti Sufi order (silsila) attracts

a large number of devotees to its shrines (dargahs) spread all over the Indian sub-
continent. Cutting across the boundaries of institutionalized religions, the followers
have converted the tombs of some of the early Chishti saints into major centres of
pilgrimage. The seat (gaddi/sajjada) and the dwelling place (khanqah/
jama‘atkhana) of the living master (pir/shaykh/khawaja) also continue to draw
the faithful, despite vigorous campaigns by reformists of different hues. Gene-
rations of Muslim writers have played an important role in creating and sustaining
these sacred spaces by highlighting the careers of Chishti exemplars, mainly the
first five ‘great’ Sufis of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. There is an abun-
dance of devotional and scholarly writings on the tombs and full-length biographies
of the saints in several languages, including Persian, Urdu and English. Carl Ernst
and Bruce Lawrence, two leading American scholars of Sufism in South Asia,
have contributed to this biographical process even as they show some degree of
detachment from the subject. They have ‘consciously avoided the trap of the
hagiographers’ and thereby the Sufi tradition itself by advocating the need to pay
equal respect and attention to later Sufi masters, rather than blindly adhering to the
notion of decline. As the authors put it, the ‘golden age’ syndrome so favoured by
the ‘Orientalists’ accords a handful of the great ones, mostly from one early period,
a kind of ‘hagiographical reverence’ denied to all others (Ernst and Lawrence
2002: 13). It is suggested by the authors that the spell of hagiography, with its
powerful evocation of the virtuous and ideal life, was so strong that few writers
have been able to escape its influence altogether. In other words, ‘most of the
supposedly scholarly literature on eminent Sufis ends up adopting the same rhet-
orical style of presentation employed by devotees’ (Ibid.: 48).1
1
It is important to keep in mind here the distinction between a biography and a hagiography.
Biographies reveal the deployment of the canons of research with the writers showing certain
amount of objectivity in their collection and evaluation of the material. Hagiographies, on the
other hand, lack criticality, are celebratory, mix up facts with fiction and are utterly devotional.
Acknowledgements: This article is based on Ernst and Lawrence (2002). Thanks are due to Muzaffar
Alam, Rimi Chatterjee, Tilottama Mukherjee and Satish Saberwal for reading a thick, early
draft and suggesting the need to reduce ‘excess fat’.

Studies in History, 21, 1, n.s. (2005)

SAGE PUBLICATIONS New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London
DOI: 10.1177/025764300502100105
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
100 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

The authors claim that the Sufi Martyrs of Love differs from other works in that
it uses a range of texts produced by the Chishtis and their supporters that have been
previously ignored. According to them, the European-language materials ‘illustrate
the approach of an Orientalist scholarship that is focused largely on the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries, a period that—paradoxically—is almost entirely lacking
in contemporary documentation and is known only from later texts’ (Ernst and
Lawrence 2002). Ernst and Lawrence also note that the extant Persian and Urdu
sources for the later period are large enough ‘to suggest a picture almost the
reverse of the Western scholarly dossier (and this includes scholarship from South
Asia, which is mostly written according to Western scholarly methods)’ (Ibid.).
The authors have not identified the ‘Orientalists’ and their collaborators, but
contend that K.A. Nizami was the only modern scholar to tackle the vast literary
production of the later Chishtis, in Persian till the nineteenth century and Urdu till
today (Ibid.). The authors profess to repair what they call a ‘historiographical
disconnect’ caused by the complete asymmetry between Western scholarship and
the Chishti literary tradition (Ibid.: 2).
This is not an entirely accurate observation as a vast corpus of Sufi writings
from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is still extant. The authors have, in fact,
utilized some of them. They have elsewhere mentioned that the literary legacy of
the Chishtis from the Delhi Sultanate on music alone is ‘enormous, diverse, and
informative’ (Ibid.: 36). Moreover, K.A. Nizami, who is much venerated by the
authors, and his mentor Mohammad Habib, have contributed immensely to the
study of the ‘great’ Sufis of the Sultanate period. Indeed, Habib and Nizami,
more than any other set of scholars, have together brought the Chishtis of the Sul-
tanate period to the centre of Sufi studies.2 Nizami himself published biographies
of Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar (d. 1265) (Nizami 1955), Nizam-ud-Din Auliya
(d. 1325) (Nizami 1991a) and Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli (d. 1356) (Nizami
1991b). His magnum opus on religion and politics in the Delhi Sultanate focuses
on the thirteenth century (Nizami 1961), and his considerable influence on Ernst
and Lawrence in the formulations of key issues in the history of Chishti Sufism is
evident throughout the book. However, the authors have moved away from
Nizami’s position on the unsurpassable greatness of the Chishtis of the classical
period to question the three-fold model of classicism, decline and revival of the
Chishti order. They argue that in every age the lineage produced Sufi masters who
strove to conform to the normative model for a great shaykh and match the stand-
ards set by the great Chishtis of the Sultanate era (Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 129).
However, the authors’ approach towards the selection and treatment of the
sources is not very different from Nizami’s. They have rightly drawn attention to
the fact that the literature in Persian on the history of Sufism is overwhelming.
More Persian Sufi hagiographical literature was produced in India than in all of
Persia and Central Asia combined (Ibid.: 48). We may assume that Ernst and
Lawrence are referring to the sources pertaining to the period between the fifteenth

2
For examples of Habib’s writings, see Nizami (1974/1981).
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 101

and nineteenth centuries. I would like to point to those of the thirteenth and four-
teenth centuries as well.
The most commonly used sources in existing secondary literature on the Sufis
include records of conversations (malfuzat) of a great saint (like the Fawa’id-ul-
Fu’ad,3 pertaining to Nizam-ud-Din Auliya and Khayr-ul-Majalis,4 related to
Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli), which give the most accurate biographical material
for reconstructing the saint’s career. On the other hand, the tazkiras or hagio-
graphies that were compiled after the saint’s death (such as the Siyar-ul-Auliya of
Amir Khwurd5 and the Siyar-ul-‘Arifin of Shaykh Jamali),6‘reflect inflated mem-
ories, conscious recordings, or other distortions’ because their authors incorporate
into the saints’ biographies the expectations of their families, followers and above
all the custodians of the tombs (Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 77). For reasons unclear,
the authors would like to treat Siyar-ul-Auliya, a fundamental Chishti text compiled
in the middle of the fourteenth century, as the biography of only Shaykh Nizam-
ud-Din and not other Chishtis, who preceded and succeeded him (Ibid.: 73, 111).
Indeed, Ernst and Lawrence have sought to de-emphasize the value of Siyar-
ul-Auliya, which is not taken into account in the discussion on hagiographies in
Chapter three. Such a position needs to be reconsidered as the work is also useful
for its discussion on Sufi music (sama‘/qawwali), supposedly a distinct Chishti
practice. The material in Siyar-ul-Auliya could provide the Chishti perspective on
music assemblies in the face of opposition from some quarters to Nizam-ud-Din
Auliya’s practice of listening to music as part of meditation. This treatment of an
early Chishti biographical work is in keeping with the rather indifferent approach
towards the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century sources shown by the authors. Thus,
the earliest known biography of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, Qiwam-ul-‘Aqa’id,7 written
some twenty-five years after the death of the saint, is not used by the authors,
though listed in the bibliography under ‘Legal Texts’.
The bibliography also lists ‘retrospective’ malfuzat, which are condemned by
leading scholars of Sufism as wrongly attributed to leading saints like ‘Usman
Harwani (Anis-ul-Arwah),8 Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti (d. 1236) (Dalil-ul-‘Arifin),9
Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki (d. 1235) (Fawa’id-us-Salikin),10 Farid-ud-Din

3
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad, conversations of Shaikh Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, compiled by Amir Hasan
Sijzi, Persian text with an Urdu translation by Khwaja Hasan Sani Nizami, Delhi, 1990.
4
Khayr-ul-Majalis, conversations of Shaikh Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli, compiled by Hamid
Qalandar, edited by K.A. Nizami, Aligarh, 1959.
5
Siyar-ul-Auliya, Amir Khwurd, Delhi, 1885.
6
Siyar-ul-‘Arifin, Shaikh Jamali. Ms., IO Islamic 1313, OIOC, British Library, London.
7
Qiwam-ul-‘Aqa’id, Muhammad Jamal Qiwam, edited by Nisar Ahmad Faruqui, in Qand-i-
Parsi, VII (1994); Urdu translation, Nisar Ahmad Faruqui, Rampur, 1994.
8
Anis-ul-Arwah, collection of the malfuzat of ‘Usman Harwani, compilation attributed to Mu‘in-
ud-Din Sijzi, Urdu translation, Delhi, no data.
9
Dalil-ul-‘Arifin, collection of the malfuzat of Mu‘in-ud-Din Sijzi, compilation attributed to
Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki, Urdu translation, Delhi, no data.
10
Fawa’id-us-Salikin, collection of the malfuzat of Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki, compilation
attributed to Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, Urdu translation, Delhi, no data.
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
102 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

Ganj-i-Shakar (Asrar-ul-Auliya and Rahat-ul-Qulub)11 and Nizam-ud-Din Auliya

(Afzal-ul-Fawa’id and Rahat-ul-Muhibbin).12 Incidentally, Asrar-ul-Auliya is in-
accurately listed as the conversations of Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti compiled by Qutb-
ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki. The extant work actually pertains to the discourses of
Shaykh Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, compiled by the saint’s son-in-law and khalifa
(one of the spiritual successors), Badr-ud-Din Ishaq. Ernst and Lawrence do not
analyse these malfuzat, nor use them to understand popular or parallel narrative.
These sources were already in circulation in the Chishti circle in mid-fourteenth
century. Some of them were used and cited by ‘Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi
in his voluminous tazkira, Akhbar-ul-Akhyar,13 and continued to be utilized by
later Chishtis.
It would at least be a pertinent exercise to compare the material in these so-
called later concoctions with what are said to be ‘original’ malfuzat. For instance,
the motifs in miracle stories narrated by Shaykh Nizam-ud-Din and recorded in
the ‘authentic’ malfuz collection, Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad, could be compared with the
ones in the ‘spurious’ compilations to ascertain what kind of new tales, if any, were
introduced in the latter and why. Scholars, including Ernst and Lawrence, do not
undertake such an exercise, as it has already been assumed that Nizam-ud-Din
never indulged in ‘miracle-mongering’. The fact of the matter is that Fawa’id-ul-
Fu’ad is full of fantastic anecdotes of miracles attributed to the saints of the past.
The authors note that Nizam-ud-Din’s attitude toward miracles was ‘openly
ambivalent’ (Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 75). This suggestion is off the mark, as
Nizam-ud-Din clearly believed in miracles and classified them into four categories:
mu‘ajiza (miracles of the prophet), karamat (marvels of the saints), ma‘unat
(supernatural feats of saintly people) and istidraj (occasional tricks performed by
an obstinate sinner or magician). The shaykh also believed in the power of the
evil eye (nazr) and black magic (jadu/sehr). He criticized the rationalist mu‘tazila
for treating them merely as fanciful ideas and not reality.14 He was, however,
against the Sufis who advertised their own ability to perform miracles. For him, it
was obligatory for saints to hide their miracles and binding on prophets to display
them.15
Some rethinking is also required on why Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad should be considered
the earliest example of Chishti malfuzat. One wonders what has happened to the
discourses of Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki, Miftah-ut-Talibin, compiled by Khizr
11
Asrar-ul-Auliya, collection of the malfuzat of Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, compilation
attributed to Badr-ud-Din Ishaq, Urdu translation, Abdus Sami Ziya, Sahiwal, 1978. Rahat-ul-
Qulub, collection of the malfuzat of Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, compilation attributed to Nizam-
ud-Din Auliya, Urdu translation, Delhi, no data.
12
Afzal-ul-Fawa’id, collection of the malfuzat of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, compilation attributed
to Amir Khusrau, Delhi, 1305 A.H. Rahat-ul-Muhibbin, collection of the malfuzat of Nizam-ud-Din
Auliya, compilation attributed to Amir Khusrau, Urdu translation, Delhi, no data.
13
Akhbar-ul-Akhyar, Shaikh ‘Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dihlawi. Ms. IO Islamic 1450, OIOC, British
Library, London.
14
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad, Vol. 2, 23rd meeting.
15
Ibid., Vol. 4, 3rd meeting.
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 103

Mu‘in. Bruce Lawrence (1978: 96, note 14) had earlier reported that two copies
of the work were extant, one in the Aligarh Muslim University Library, the other
in the private collection of K.A. Nizami. Neither Nizami nor any of his colleagues
and students has utilized this work, perhaps in view of the primacy given to
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad.
Further, the authors refer to Shaykh Jamali as the ‘premier pre-Mughal exponent’
of the classical Persian hagiography of Sufis and Muslim holy men (Ernst and
Lawrence 2002: 50). This observation not only privileges Jamali’s Siyar-ul-‘Arifin
over Amir Khwurd’s Siyar-ul-Auliya, but is also incorrect as the former composed
his work during the reign of the Mughal emperor Humayun and dedicated it to
him. Moreover, Jamali belonged to the Suhrawardi lineage of Sufis, even though
strict demarcation between the Chishtis and Suhrawardis had ended by the middle
of the fourteenth century. Makhdum Jahaniyan Jahangasht, a leading Suhrawardi
saint, had become a disciple of Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli, spiritual successor
of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya. The authors have also mentioned the multiple initiations
of Ashraf Jahangir Simnani (d. 1425) and Shah Mina (d. 1465).
Returning to the sources, Makhdum Jahaniyan’s discourses, Siraj-ul-Hidaya and
Jami‘-ul-‘Ulum,16 are useful, but they too remain neglected. The vast corpus of
literary writings by ‘lay’ Chishtis like Amir Khusrau also need to be revisited.17
Contemporary court chronicles, though belonging to a different genre of sources,
are also important for Sufi interactions with the sultans and for contextualizing
some crucial events in the saints’ careers. Further, because of the emphasis on the
‘great ones’ from north India, the material pertaining to the ‘minor’ Sufis of the
regions is not utilized in our understanding of the history of Sufism in the sub-
continent. Regional Chisht masters of Sultanate period Bengal and Deccan king-
doms have left a large literary heritage, including the collections of their maktubats
(letters), malfuzat and biographical monographs. In particular, the malfuzat of
Shaykh Burhan-ud-Din Gharib and his successors provide rich information on
Sufism in fourteenth-century Deccan, which Carl Ernst (1992) has utilized
elsewhere. The voluminous writings of Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli’s successor,
Bandanawaz Gesudaraz, who chose to settle down in the Deccan, also need to be
examined. In eastern India a large number of manuscripts on Sufism in Bihar,
though mostly belonging to the Firdausi order, a branch of the Kubrawiyya, can
be a fruitful entry point for the study of regional variations in Sufi activities. We
may keep in mind here the fact that Sufi lineages were not mutually exclusive
categories and therefore literature belonging to another order is not without value
for the contemporary Chishtis. In this context, we may remember that apart from
Kashf-ul-Mahjub of ‘Ali Hujwiri,18 written in eleventh-century Ghaznawid Punjab,
the major and favourite mystical work in circulation in the Chishti circle of the
16
Siraj-ul-Hidaya, malfuzat of Makhdum Jahaniyan Jahangasht, edited by Qazi Sajjad Husain,
New Delhi, 1983. Jami‘-ul-‘Ulum, malfuzat of Makhdum Jahaniyan Jahangasht, edited by Qazi
Sajjad Husain, New Delhi, 1987.
17
For Amir Khusrau, see Mirza (1986), and Ansari and Sahar (1989).
18
Kashf-ul-Mahjub, ‘Ali Hujwiri, Lahore, 1874.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016

104 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

Sultanate period was the Suhrawardi treatise, ‘Awarif-ul-Ma‘arif.19 Another

Suhrawardi text rated highly in the Chishti fraternity was Adab-ul-Muridin. Several
commentaries on these and other standard mystical works were written by Chishti
Sufis of the Sultanate period. Further, a vast corpus of Sufi literature in a variety
of vernaculars remains untapped. Information in inscriptions on mosques and
shrines too needs to be exploited. Representations of Sufis and Muslims in general
may also be found in non-Muslim sources of the medieval period. Thus, a whole
lot of sources, including the hagiographical, mystical and literary works of the
Chishtis as also their contemporaries, require fresh examination. By implication,
major propositions on the Chishti ideals and practices should also be reconsidered.
Seeking to break free from the usual emphasis on the first five ‘great’ Chishtis
followed by a period of ‘decline’ and occasional attempts to ‘revive’ the order,
the authors offer a five-fold periodization of Chishti history: two early periods
outside India, then three in the subcontinent. The first or formative period (seventh
to tenth centuries) covers the age from Prophet Muhammad to Abu Ishaq Shami.
The latter was located at Chisht, now in Afghanistan, hence the order’s name. The
second, foundational period (tenth to twelfth centuries) takes us to ‘Usman
Harwani, the preceptor (pir) of Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti. The sources for the two periods
include fragmentary testimonies in the literature of the first two of the three cycles
of the Chishtis in India. The first cycle (twelfth to fourteenth centuries) incorporates
the careers of the first four ‘great’ Chishtis, from Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti to Nizam-
ud-Din Auliya. It is not clear why the conventional fifth saint, Nasir-ud-Din should
not be included in this cycle. According to the authors, sources for this period
mainly pertain to ‘oral tradition—recorded or imagined’. Again, the compilation
of Nasir-ud-Din’s conversation, Khayr-ul-Majalis, should be legitimately con-
sidered part of the literary heritage of the Chishtis of the ‘first cycle’. The second
cycle (fourteenth to eighteenth centuries) is characterized by dispersal of the order
from Delhi to various parts of the subcontinent, carried by numerous disciples of
Nizam-ud-Din Auliya. The period also witnessed a profusion of sub-lineages and
gave rise to an immense biographical literature that ‘frames the narrative of the
previous three periods’. Finally, the third cycle comprised ‘colonial and modern
Chishtis’ (eighteenth to twenty-first centuries). Though it may be kept in mind
that a 2002 publication cannot say much on the twenty-first century, the authors
note that Mughal decline, British ascendancy and Wahabi control of Arabia led to
tensions over the internal reform of Sufism during this latest phase. The Chishtis
debated internal reform at the same time that they redeployed their spiritual
traditions—in combination with other Sufi lineages—and through new forms of
expression. The biographical literature of this period privileges the masters of the
first cycle at the same time that it engages the legacy of multiple orders (Ernst and
Lawrence 2002: 14).
Elsewhere, the authors refer to the earliest phase of Indo-Muslim history,
covering the period 1206–1526 (Ibid.: 36). It may be noted here that 1526 can

19
‘Awarif-ul-Ma‘arif, Shahab-ud-Din Suhrawardi, Urdu translation, Shams Barelwi, Delhi, 1986.
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 105

hardly be considered a major break in Sufi history, unless we give primacy to

political power and explore the attitude of the Sufis of different orders towards
the fluctuating fortunes of Afghan and Mughal empire builders. The careers of
Sufi exemplars and writers of the period reveal that they generally resorted to a
wait-and-watch policy. While several influential Sufis, including Chishtis, threw
their lot in favour of the early Mughal rulers, Babur and Humayun, a number of
other Muslim mystics continued to bless the Afghans and supported the latter’s
resurgence under Sher Shah Sur (Aquil 2000: Chapter 5). Moreover, the
establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206 may have marked the beginning of a
new era in Hindustan or the Indo-Gangetic plain, but its impact on other parts of
the sub-continent was varied. Certainly, no major changes were brought about in
the field of religion and culture in the wake of the political transformation in
Punjab and Sindh from the period of the later Ghaznawid rule to that of the Ilbari
Turks. The significance of the Ghaznawid rule in Punjab in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries in shaping the political, cultural and intellectual history of Islam
in north India should not be ignored. Muslim communities in south India, mainly
in Malabar on the west coast and Ma‘bar in the east, supported by a flourishing
maritime trade, had a different trajectory altogether. While the Turkish conquest
of north India did not reach Malabar, its short-lived hold over the Coromandel
coast had to wait for a century. Even in the Deccan, Muslims took nearly a century
to be noticed as a serious threat to existing political and religious authorities.
When they finally came, Sufis came along with warriors and courtiers.
Some scholars have suggested that the Sufis, particularly the Chishtis, kept
themselves away from politics and government of their times, for they believed
that involvement in politics led to materialism and worldliness, which they wished
to avoid. Recent research, however, reveals that this formulation is not sustainable.
In theory, the Chishtis may have felt the need to keep their distance from the king
and his nobles, but in practice this was not always the case. We have examples
from the careers of leading Chishti saints of their proximity to political power
even as they resisted becoming veritable courtiers. This would often lead to conflict
between the Sufis and the sultans. Alternatively, examples of their collaboration
are also advanced. In view of the nature of the evidence, it is difficult to agree with
the suggestion that the ‘great’ early Chishtis kept themselves aloof from politics.
The relationship between Sufis and rulers was much more complex (Aquil 2003;
Digby 1986, 1990; Eaton 1978; Zilli 2003; for the later phase, see Alam 1996).
Ernst and Lawrence differ a bit from the notion, propounded by scholars like
M. Habib and K.A. Nizami, that Chishtis abhorred politics. The authors take into
account both the ‘ethical’ ideals and the ‘lapses’. Yet they maintain that despite its
inclusiveness, the Chishti order stands apart from other Sufis and other Muslims
in terms of the relations of the masters with institutional power (Ernst and Lawrence
2002: 4). According to them, from the time of Mu‘in-ud-Din through to the twen-
tieth century, the Chishti order had ambivalent links to political authorities. The
earliest Indian Chishti mystics recommended the need to avoid formal ties with
rulers through endowments, yet they accepted donations in cash or kind with the
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
106 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

stipulation that they be quickly spent for appropriate purposes, such as food,
clothing, living quarters and ritual necessities. They cite the example of Nizam-
ud-Din’s advice to a successor not to reject, ask or save donations coming from
the court. It is also noted that despite the Sufis’ desire to remain outside royal
control, the significant resources at the disposal of medieval rulers created a constant
pressure to accept patronage (Ernest and Lawrence 2002: 21). It would have been
useful if it were also mentioned that the differences over the question of power
and patronage in the wilayat, spiritual or political territory, led in some cases to
severe conflict between the Sufis and the monarchs. In later times, the authors
add, most royal support was directed at the shrines of deceased masters rather
than the circles of living teachers. This was probably because the rulers remained
at heart pragmatists, as they foresaw more benefits and fewer conflicts with dead
saints than with living exemplars (Ibid.). However, it may be useful to point out
here that Chishti tradition insisted that the saints never die.20
Moving away from the Sultanate period, the authors evaluate Chishti practi-
tioners under the Mughals. In particular, the focus is on Salim Chishti, whose
claim to fame turns on his reported intercession leading to the birth of Akbar’s
(ruled 1556–1605) son Jahangir (ruled 1605–27), initially called Salim in recog-
nition of the saint’s ‘miracle’. However, the authors have pointed out that it was
one of the seldom-noted ironies of Akbar’s reign that the decline of Chishti political
fortunes occurred in spite of Chishti family linkages to Akbar’s administration. It
is also suggested that Akbar’s construction of Shaykh Salim’s tomb within the
walled courtyard of the great mosque at Fatehpur Sikri did not promote the spiritual
agenda of the Chishti lineage that he represented. By his patronage of Salim’s
tomb, Akbar claimed a pan-Indian role for the Chishtis while asserting his own
authority as imperial patron (Ibid.: 100).
According to Ernst and Lawrence, after the momentous events of 1579, how-
ever, Akbar devalued the spiritual potency of the Chishti connection and did not
dignify any saint’s tomb with his presence. The Mughal political decline in the
eighteenth century made possible the establishment of independent institutions
of spiritual and religious instruction by Kalim Allah (1650–1729) and his suc-
cessors (Ibid.: 109–10). A powerful empire centred on a charismatic ruler had
little interest in fostering spiritual creativity on the part of others. Ernst and
Lawrence note that the institutional importance of Kalim Allah was such that the
third cycle of the Chishti order is seen to begin with him (Ibid.: 110). He is often
seen as the figure behind the revival of the Chishti order at a time when Muslim
society was in disorder. In the authors’ view, however, the political, moral and
religious decline in the eighteenth century on the one hand and spiritual light
shown by Kalim Allah on the other should not be so starkly drawn. This is not to
detract from Kalim Allah, but to highlight the peculiar sensitivity and nostalgia of
modern Indo-Muslim attitudes. It is also asserted that ‘it was only in modern

20
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad.
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 107

times that the trope of decline had become pervasive, which should be differentiated
as well as challenged’ (Ernest and Lawrence 2002: 109).
In a nutshell, Chishti tradition accepts the notion of decline, while the authors
disagree with it. It is, however, unfair to blame the so-called ‘Orientalists’ for
accepting the idea of degeneration in Sufi fraternities, which leading saints of
successive generations themselves perpetuated. Certainly, as the authors have
also noted elsewhere, the privileging of the first cycle of the Chishti Sufis of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is very much a part of the Chishti memory,
and not a hypothetical construction of the ‘Orientalists’. Then the authors may
argue that later writers have uncritically accepted the reports in the hagiography.
Yet the point is to understand the tradition and its self-representation rather than
impose later-day constructs on to it. In this connection, the fine distinction between
the formulations of a later hagiographer and utterances of a living exemplar may
also be kept in mind.
The second dimension of Chishti practice, according to the authors, which distin-
guished them from other Sufis such as the Suhrawardis, their major mystical rivals
in the Sultanate period, is to include versified song (sama‘) among the authorized
forms of remembrance (zikr). The authors note that continuities in meditative
practice of a particular Sufi brotherhood helped inform its structure, but they do
not constitute fixed boundaries (Ibid.: 34). According to them, the Chishti practice
of sama‘ served a valuable practical function: it separated the Chishtis from the
Suhrawardis, and also opposed them to the official ulama (religious scholars).
Thus, sama‘ became, if not the monopoly of the Chishtis, the preeminent symbol
crystallizing their position (Ibid.: 36). Though the differences between the Chishti
and Suhrawardi approaches to music, in theory, have been outlined, the Suhrawardi
attitude towards the practice of sama‘ needs to be explored. Several leading
Suhrawardis of the Sultanate period were fond of devotional music. Hamid-ud-
Din Nagauri, a Suhrawardi contemporary of Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki, was
one of them. Later, ‘Ilm-ud-Din Suhrawardi defended Nizam-ud-Din Auliya during
the mahzar (judicial inquest) in Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughluq’s court. Evidence
of sama‘ being held in the presence of Baha’-ud-Din Zakariyya, the leading
Suhrawardi saint of the thirteenth century, may also be found in authoritative
early tazkiras. Also, within the Chishti order there were differences over the use
of instruments and performance by female singers. While, the use of the drum
and tambourine in music assemblies was permitted by Fakhr-ud-Din Zarradi in
his Usul-us-Sama‘ (Ibid.: 37), his preceptor Nizam-ud-Din did not recommend
the instruments. Nizam-ud-Din was also against the participation of female qawwals,
but his disciples did employ both instruments and female singers in their music
assemblies. The ambivalence is also reflected in later reports, which attributed
the invention of several musical instruments to Nizam-ud-Din’s closest disciple
and courtier, Amir Khusrau (Madni 1986).
Music then as a neat marker of Chishti practice as against that of the Suhrawardis
will not hold. Similarly, the Shattaris, a branch of the Suhrawardis, were close to
the Chishtis in their preference for music as a spiritual exercise. Nor is the use of
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
108 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

Hindi verse typical of the Chishtis. The Rishi Sufis of Kashmir also used non-
Arabic vocal zikr formulae. The Shattaris were also open to the idea of adopting
spiritual practices belonging to non-Muslim mystical traditions. The yogic text
Amritkund was as popular in the Shattari circle as in that of the Chishtis. Further,
the authors note that whereas the Chishtis continued to emphasize the value of
vocal zikr as standard mystical exercise in the eighteenth century, the contemporary
Naqshbandis stuck to silent meditation. They have also noted that while the Chishtis
appropriated local idioms for remembering God, a Naqshbandi saint and reformer
like Shah Waliullah showed not the slightest interest in languages other than Arabic
(Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 33). This again is not an entirely accurate observation
as the Naqshbandis are well known for their translations of the Qur’an into Persian
and Urdu (Ansari 1978; Inayatullah 1960; Rizvi 1980).
The authors have noted that despite the borrowings from mystical traditions
and idioms of Indic origins, the Sufi masters remained peculiarly and distinctively
Islamic in three critical aspects: conjugal perseverance, adherence to Islamic ritual
observances and evidence of scholarly skills (Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 66). They
also write that the earliest Chishti masters of Hindustan exemplified the normative
qualities of the Sufi master in both their proximity to and distance from the lifestyle
of the gurus or Hindu holy men. In their upbringing, initiation and signs of spiritual
success, they functionally paralleled the gurus, though contextually the two groups
pursued divergent spiritual goals. Moreover, the Chishti saints retained Islamic
qualities that have no parallel in Hindu devotional life (Ibid.). Further, tombs of
Sufi saints are developments within the Islamic tradition that do not rely on any
Hindu example. In this connection, it will be interesting to see to what extent
criticism of Sufi practices, which were perceived as shrine worship and condemned
by reformist leaders like Sayyid Ahmad Shahid and the ‘Wahabis’/‘Deobandis’,
was inspired by colonialism and modernity. Sayyid Ahmad and his followers
were not only against the British, but also condemned as later innovations those
rituals and practices at Sufi shrines, which were appropriated from, or resembled,
non-Muslim religious traditions.21
It has traditionally been argued that the Chishti attitude towards the doctrine of
wahdat-ul-wujud (monism as a reality) propounded by Ibn Arabi was an important
marker of difference between the Chishtis and Suhrawardis in the Sultanate period,
and between Chishtis and Naqshbandis in the Mughal era (Mujeeb 1967: 297–98;
Rizvi 1965: 54–56). It is also suggested that the Chishti belief in the wujudi doctrine
brought them very close to various streams of non-Muslim mystical traditions.
Somehow Ernst and Lawrence have not addressed this issue. This also brings us
to questions concerning the Chishti attitude towards non-Muslims, conversion,
Islamization, claims of local Muslim communities converting to Islam and the
long-term cultural accretion around the shrines. There is a vast body of literature
on these issues, both in early Sufi writings and later secondary sources, which the
21
For the Deobandis who criticized practices at Sufis’ tombs resembling shirk or polytheism,
see Metcalf (1982). For the Barelwis who championed practices that honour the Prophet and the
Sufi saints, see Sanyal (1996).
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 109

authors bypass. Sufi literature clearly reveals how the Chishtis were not averse to
the idea of conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, either directly at the hands of a
leading pir or through a long process of Islamic acculturation in localities sacralized
by the shrines of medieval saints.22 The authors set aside all these to suggest that
‘colonial’ and ‘modern’ Chishtis were compelled by the challenges of the time to
seek converts to Chishti Sufism and, thereby, to Islam. They also note that later
Chishtis were drawn into complicated political relations with non-Muslims, as a
result of the dissolution of old imperial structures as British colonialism began to
take hold in India. Sulayman Taunsawi, for instance, urged his followers to partici-
pate in resistance against Sikh aggression in Punjab, and so, ‘apparently for the
first time in the annals of Chishti history, we have spiritual biographies drawn into
partisanship on behalf of one political group (Muslim) over another (non-Muslim)’
(Ernst and Lawrence 2002: 108). In saying so, the authors ignore the evidence of
Nizam-ud-Din Auliya sending his khalifas to participate in political campaigns.
Chishti claims of the role played by Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti in the Turkish conquest
also need to be noted. The letters written to rulers by leading Chishtis of subsequent
generations, like Nur Qutb-i-‘Alam and ‘Abdul Quddus Gangohi also reveal their
involvement in politics and their attitude towards non-Muslims who were con-
demned as infidels (kafirs).
It may also be mentioned here that despite claims to the contrary, the volume
remains focused on the careers of the great Chishtis, mostly of the medieval period.
The chapter on Sufi masters focuses on Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, Ashraf Jahangir
Simanani and a ‘modern saint’ Sayyid Zauqi Shah. The latter reappears in the chapter
on ‘colonial’ Chishtis. Also, the saints representing both the early period as well
as the modern era were located in north India. There is hardly any representation
from the south/Deccan or east/Bengal where the Chishti movement was quite
successful/popular. Even the chapter on major Chishti shrines is focused on north
India, with the tombs of Mu‘in-ud-Din at Ajmer and that of Shaykh Salim at
Fatehpur Sikri receiving a lot of attention. The Appendix containing translations
of extracts from Akhbar-ul-Akhyar covers the biographies of the first five great
Chishtis. The careers of three regional Sufis from the Sultanate period are also in-
cluded in the Appendix. Finally, whereas the discussion on themes drawing upon
medieval Persian Sufi literature is very thick, the last two chapters on colonial
and post-colonial periods—the importance of which has been repeatedly empha-
sized by the authors—are based on meagre evidence from primary sources. Thus,
the intentions of the authors—to challenge the notion of decline in Sufi fraternities
and give primacy to living exemplars over the shrines of the ‘dead ones’—are not
sustained. Contrary to the agenda, the great Chishtis of the Sultanate era have re-
tained the pride of place in this scholarly Chishti narrative. My attempt to discuss
the book in relation to the larger literature on Sufism is to emphsize the value of
the work, one of the primary aims of which was to pave new paths for future stud-
ies in the field.

22
For relevant references, Aquil (1997–98).
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
110 / RAZIUDDIN AQUIL

Of particular significance is the authors’ point on how ‘modern’ Chishtis have

responded to the challenges of colonialism and modernity by appropriating new
forms of communications, beginning with print, followed by sound recordings,
films, television programmes and more recently the Internet. The latest commu-
nication technology has been used to contest ideological challenges from
‘Orientalists’, Muslim fundamentalists and secular modernists (Ernst and Lawrence
2002: 130). Increased travel and better communication infrastructure have also
facilitated a new degree of geographical extension and networking (Ibid.: 112).
From this perspective, the notion of the ‘decline’ of Sufism as also the accusation
that the ‘Barelwi’ Muslims are indifferent towards the challenges of modern times
are indeed misleading. ‘Cybersufis’ have shifted the arena of combat with their
opponents from towns (qasbas), localities (muhallas), mosques and graveyards
(qabaristan) to the World Wide Web. Online Sufi healers are also luring the sick
and ‘spiritually hungry’ people across the globe. To return to the central argument
of the Sufi Martyrs of Love, then, the days of Chishti Sufism are far from over.

References

Alam, Muzaffar (1996), ‘Assimilation from a Distance: Confrontation and Sufi Accommodation in
Awadh Society’, in R. Champakalakshmi and S. Gopal, eds, Tradition, Dissent and Ideology,
Essays in Honour of Romila Thapar, Delhi, pp.164–91.
Ansari, A.S. Bazmi (1978), ‘Ismail Shahid’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. 4, Leiden,
pp. 196–97.
Ansari, Zoe and Abul Faiz Sahar, eds (1989), Khusro Shanasi (Urdu), Delhi.
Aquil, Raziuddin (1997–98), ‘Conversion in Chishti Sufi Literature (13th–14th Centuries)’, Indian
Historical Review, Vol. 24:1–2, pp. 70–94.
——— (2000), ‘Aspects of Religion and Politics under the Afghans in North India (c. 1450–1550)’,
Ph.D. thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.
——— (2003), ‘Miracles, Authority and Benevolence: Stories of Karamat in Sufi Literature of the
Delhi Sultanate’, in Anup Taneja, ed., Sufi Cults and the Evolution of Medieval Indian Culture,
Delhi, pp. 109–38.
Digby, Simon (1986), ‘The Sufi Shaykh as a Source of Authority in Medieval India’, Purushartha,
Vol. 9, pp. 55–77.
——— (1990), ‘The Sufi Shaikh and the Sultan: A Conflict of Claims to Authority in Medieval
India’, Iran, Vol. 28, pp. 71–81.
Eaton, Richard M. (1978), Sufis of Bijapur, 1300–1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval India,
Princeton.
Ernst, Carl W. (1992), Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Centre,
Albany.
Ernst, Carl W. and Bruce B. Lawrence (2002), Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South
Asia and Beyond, New York.
Inayatullah, Sh. (1960), ‘Abdul Qadir Dehlawi’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. 1,
Leiden, pp. 68–69.
Lawrence, Bruce B. (1978), Notes from a Distant Flute: Sufi Literature in Pre-Mughal India, Tehran.
Madni, Zahiruddin (1986), ‘Hindustani Sangit ko Khusro ki Den’, in Zoe Ansari and Abul Faiz
Sahar, eds, Khusro Shanasi, pp. 321–54.
Metcalf, Barbara D. (1982), Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900, Princeton.
Mirza, M. Wahid (1986), Amir Khusrau (Urdu), Delhi.
Mujeeb, M. (1967), Indian Muslims, Montreal.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016

 Chishti Sufi order in the Indian subcontinent and beyond / 111

Nizami, K.A. (1955), The Life and Times of Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj-i-Shakar, Aligarh.
——— (1961), Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India During the 13th Century, Aligarh.
——— ed. (1974/1981), Politics and Society During the Early Medieval Period, Collected Works
of Mohammad Habib (2 Vols), Delhi.
——— (1991a), The Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya, Delhi.
——— (1991b), The Life and Times of Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh, Delhi.
Rizvi, S.A.A. (1965), Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries, Agra.
——— (1980), Shah Waliullah and His Times, Canberra.
Sanyal, Usha (1996), Devotional Islam and Politics in British India, Ahmad Riza Khan, 1870–
1920, Delhi.
Zilli, Ishtiyaq Ahmad (2003), ‘Early Chishtis and the State’, in Anup Taneja, ed., Sufi Cults and the
Evolution of Medieval Indian Culture, Delhi, pp. 54–108.

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016