Tariqah Muammadiyyah As Tariqah Jami A

Islamic Studies 51:4 (2012) pp.
367–402 367
ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah as ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah:

Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard’s Experience Beyond Jam┐l
and Jal┐l*
SORAYA KHODAMORADI
Abstract
In the context of the recent debates over the reformism which occurred in Sufism in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this article seeks to articulate a reformist
system of the Muhammadan Way ( ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah) which was formulated
by Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard of Delhi (d. 1785) in the frame of a Comprehensive Way
( ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah). This way aims to transcend the two types of ecstatic-unitive and
orthodox-oriented Sufism known in the Islamic tradition respectively as the mysticism
of “intoxication” (sukr) and that of “sobriety” ( a w), offers a solution to resolve the
rift between these two types, and goes beyond major Sufi binary concepts such as
jam┐l–jal┐l (“beauty”–“majesty”) and wa dat al-wuj┴d–wa dat al-shuh┴d (“unity of
being”–“unity of witnessing”). In particular, the article analyses a major cornerstone
of M┘r Dard’s Comprehensive Way, namely the theory of “Divine Muhammadan
Knowledge,” which comprehends all elements of reason, tradition and intuition,
similar to the synthetic attempts of the Iranian philosopher Mull┐ adr┐ (d. 1640) in
his Transcendental Theosophy, and paves the way for his path of intra-religious
synthesis.
ι%π
The Muhammadan Way or the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah is a particular

Shar┘‘ah-based trend inside Islamic mysticism (Sufism), which primarily
concentrates on the Prophet Mu ammad and his tradition (Sunnah), as well as
his incorporeal presence and guidance, and the achievement of union with his
ontological reality as the goal of mystical perfection. This trend has
*
This paper is based on Soraya Khodamoradi, “Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India: Case
Study of Khwajah Mir Dard of Delhi (1721–1785)” (PhD diss., University of Erfurt, 2014). The
author ows special gratitude to Jamal Malik and Stephan Reichmuch for their beneficial
supervision as well as the Interdisziplinär Forum Religion at the University of Erfurt for its
financial support.
368 SORAYA KHODAMORADI
constructed the theoretical basis for the most influential currents of Sufi
reformism from the eighteenth century onwards, which advanced to various
movements that arose throughout India, North Africa and the Hijaz in the
form of influential, mobile reformist Sufi orders, such as the Tij┐niyyah,
Khalwatiyyah, Idr┘siyyah and San┴siyyah.1 One of the significant personalities
who advocated this trend and elaborated on its principles and characteristics
was the Indian Sufi and theoretician of mysticism, Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard of
Delhi (1721–1785), 2 who explained and systematized the doctrine of the
ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah in relation to, and within the framework of, the
concept he calls ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah (“Comprehensive Way”). He grounded his
specific formulation on the principles that his father and spiritual master,
Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b (d. 1758), illustrated in the form of stories and
parables in his voluminous masterpiece N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b.3
1
The Muhammadan Way is a broad theory that traverses beyond Sufism and constructs the
doctrinal foundation of not only several Sufi currents but also anti-Sufi trends which refer to the
principles of this theory from different perspectives. For a general survey of the notion of
Muhammadan Mysticism, see Mark Sedgwick, Saints and Sons: The Making and Remaking of the
Rashidi Ahmadi Sufi Order, 1799–2000 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 27–49; Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 2nd
ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1979), 193–212; and Zachary Valentine Wright, On
the Path of the Prophet: Shaykh Ahmad Tijani and the Tariqa Muhammadiyya (Atlanta: African
American Islamic Institute, 2005), 1–12 and 39–44.
2
More information regarding the life and works of M┘r Dard and his father can be found in
Annemarie Schimmel, Pain and Grace: A Study of Two Mystical Writers of Eighteenth-Century
Muslim India (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 31–102; Homayra Ziad, “Quest of the Nightingale: The
Religious Thought of Khwajah Mir Dard (1720–1785)” (PhD diss., Yale University, 2008), 28–
106; Mu ammad ┘dd┘q Shibl┘, “Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard Dihlav┘,” Ath┐rv┘╞ ad┘ ‘├sv┘ mai╞ Barr-i
agh┘r mai╞ Isl┐m┘ Fikr k Rahnum┐, ed. Mu ammad Kh┐lid Mas‘┴d (Islamabad: Id┐ra-i
Ta q┘q┐t-i Isl┐m┘, 2008), 275–301; ┐hir A mad idd┘q┘, Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard (New Delhi:
Taraqqi Urdu Bureau, 1983), 7–29; Jam┘l J┐lib┘, “Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard,” in Khaw┐jah M┘r Dard:
Tanq┘d┘-o Ta q┘q┘ Mu ┐la‘ah, ed. Th┐qib idd┘q┘ and An┘s A mad (New Delhi: Taraqqi Urdu
Bureau, 1989), 247–65; and Rash┘d A mad, foreword of ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, by ‘Abd al-La ┘f, trans.
(Lahore: Id┐rah-i Thaq┐fat-i Isl┐miyyah, 1997).
3
N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b is a mixture of theological, legal and philosophical discourses in the
framework of an allegorical story, which incorporates several shorter stories. Its narratives are
interspersed with detailed theological discussions about, among others, Sufism, different schools
of Islamic law, and Shi‘ite Imamology. M┘r Dard heard N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b word by word from his
father, and declared that “it is only from the abundant grace of the book N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b that
the door of all realities and the subtleties was opened for my ignorant heart.” Juxtaposing the
book with authoritative classics of Sufism in his time, i.e., ‘Aw┐rif al-Ma‘┐rif of Ab┴ af ‘Umar
al-Suhraward┘ (d. 1234) and al-Fut┴ ┐t al-Makkiyyah and Fu ┴ al- ikam of Ibn al-‘Arab┘, M┘r
Dard asserts that “I have read neither the ‘Aw┐rif nor the Fut┴ ┐t or Fu ┴ ; the N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b
became my special litany” (M┘r Dard, Ris┐lah-i Dard-i Dil, in Chah┐r Ris┐lah (Bhopal: Ma ba‘-i
Sh┐h Jah┐n┘, 1892), 188, dard no. 216). For an account of M┘r Dard and ‘Andal┘b, see Schimmel,
Pain and Grace, 31–147; and Muhammad Umar, Islam in Northern India During the Eighteenth
Century (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publication, 1993), 48–50 and 91–101.
║AR├QAH MU╓AMMADIYYAH AS ║AR├QAH J└MI‘AH
369
The term J┐mi‘ah, an adjective from the Arabic root j-m-‘, meaning,
“comprehensive” and “inclusive”, indicates, in the works of M┘r Dard, an
experience that transcends two distinct varieties of Sufism, often referred to as
“intoxicated” mysticism (sukr) and “sober” mysticism ( a w).4 These two types
are connected, as we shall see below, with a set of binary concepts which have
played an important role in the history of Islamic mysticism. The first type is
represented in the history of Sufism by such figures as B┐yaz┘d al-Bis ┐m┘
(d.c. 875), al- all┐j (d. 922), R┴m┘ (d. 1273), and—at least as far as his reception
in India is concerned—Ibn al-‘Arab┘ (d. 1240), while the second type is
represented by Sufis such as ┐rith al-Mu ┐sib┘ (d. 837), al-Junayd (d. 910),
and al-Ghaz┐l┘ (d. 1111).5 Within the Indian context, the Sufi reformism which
commenced in the late sixteenth century under the influence of the Islamic
scholar and Naqshband┘ Sufi A mad Sirhind┘ (d. 1624) manifested itself as a
trend characterized by a revival of sober, orthodox-oriented Sufism vis-à-vis
the unitive, ecstatic-oriented one. M┘r Dard made his contribution to this
process of Sufi reform with a different approach, striving to go beyond both of
these types of Sufism and the twin concepts related to them, i.e., beyond both
intoxication and sobriety, or in his words, Sirhind┘ and Ibn al-‘Arab┘.6 He does
so through his theory of intra-religious synthesis, ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah, which is the
efflorescence of balance (i‘tid┐l) between ecstatic-unitive Sufism, on the one
side, and sober Sufism, on the other.
M┘r Dard’s transcendental mysticism, which he formulated as the ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah J┐mi‘ah, consists of a multi-dimensional mystical
Muhammadan system, which deserves to be considered as representative of a
highly developed stage in the formative process of the idea of the
Muhammadan Way. The very concept of the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah in the
context of Sufism was surely formed, and already associated with a variety of
4
For a typology of sukr and a w in Sufism, see Jawid A. Mojaddedi, “Getting Drunk with Abu
Yazid or Staying Sober with Junayd: The Creation of Popular Typology of Sufism,” Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 66 (2003), 1–13. Mojaddedi aids in accessing the
different approaches of early Sufi scholars such as al-Qushayr┘, al-Makk┘ and al-Kal┐badh┘
concerning these two notions.
5
Similar to other Islamic esoteric (b┐ in┘) trends like Ism┐‘┘liyyah, Ikhw┐n al- af┐ and
ur┴fiyyah, Sufism has generally been considered as the representative of tashb┘h, compared to
other orthodox-oriented religiosities inside Islam like that of philosophers, ‘ulam┐’ and
theologians, who have often been regarded as the representatives of tanz┘h. Nevertheless, there
has always been a tension between those Sufis who were close to Shar┘‘ah and those who felt
more freedom in crossing the strict boundaries of Islamic orthodoxy. For an account of this
tension and also the contribution of Sufis in making Sufism and Shar┘‘ah compatible, see
Frederick De Jong and Bernd Radtke, eds., Islamic Mysticism Contested: Thirteen Centuries of
Controversies and Polemics (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
6
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b (Delhi: Ma ba‘ al-An ┐r┘, 1890), 612–3.
different meanings, long before Mir Dard and his father. 7 It was developed
from the earlier thought of such Sufis as A mad ‘Im┐d al-D┘n al-W┐si ┘
(d. 1311), a Sh┐dhil┘ Sufi and student of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328), evolving
into later, innovative mystical systems such as ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah in question
which has its roots in the reformism of the Naqshbandiyyah and, more
specifically, Mujaddidiyyah trends. Al-W┐si ┘, who was called by Ibn
Taymiyyah “the Junayd of his age,” 8 resigned his own affiliation with the
Sh┐dhil┘ ar┘qah in preference for the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah. 9 He
understood the latter as a mystical path based on attaching oneself to the
r┴ ┐niyyah (“incorporeal presence”) of the Prophet Mu ammad instead of
attachment to a shaykh.10 Such attachment meant eliminating the need for the
mediumship of a Sufi master along the path toward mystical perfection, and
instead relying on creating a direct relationship with the Prophet in order to
attain mystical perfection. Another personality who employed the concept of
the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah in the sense of the school of the Muhammadan
Sunnah (madhhab al-sunnah al-Mu ammadiyyah) was the Sh┐dhil┘-Jaz┴l┘ Ab┴
Mu ammad al-Ghazw┐n┘ (d. 1529). He propounded a system that combined
the idea of the shaykh’s annihilation in the Muhammadan essence (dh┐t) with
his active involvement in society.11 This idea of annihilation in the Prophet
was disseminated among Muslims, in part, through the works of ‘Abd al-
Kar┘m al-J┘l┘, especially his famous al-Ins┐n al-K┐mil (“the perfect man”) which
was itself influenced by the idea of aq┘qah Mu ammadiyyah (“Muhammadan
7
For the historical development of the concept of ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah, I have benefited
from Wright, On the Path of the Prophet, 1–12 and 39–44; and Sedgwick, Saints and Sons, 27–49.
8
Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Wasiti, Key to the Saintly Path, trans. Surkheel Sharif (London: The
Jawziyyah Institute, 2006), 1. The translation here is based upon the Beirut print of Mift┐ ar┘q
al-Awliy┐’, ed. Mu ammad b. N┐ ir al-‘Ajm┘ (Beirut: D┐r al-Bash┐’ir al-Isl┐miyyah, 1999). In his
Key to the Saintly Path, al-W┐si ┘ refers also to other important elements of ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah such as ta liyah [to pray “May God bless and grant Mu ammad peace”] and the
presence of the Prophet: “You must have . . . a litany of benedictions ( al┐h) that you send upon
the Prophet, peace be upon him—doing so as if you were in his presence seeing him, loving him
and honouring his sanctity. Through this, I hope the Prophet’s blessings (barakah) penetrates
your heart and that you be granted his love and the love of being comforted by it. This being a
lamp to all goodness, God willing!” 3.
9
Eric Geoffroy, “Le traité de soufisme d’un disciple d’Ibn Taymiyya: Ahmad ‘Imad al-din al-
Wasiti (m. 711/1311),” Studia Islamica 82 (1995) 92–5. See also Wright, On the Path of the
Prophet, 39–44.
10
Sedgwick, Saints and Sons, 30–31.
11
See Vincent J. Cornell, “The ‘Sovereignty of the Imamate’ (Siy┐dat al-Im┐ma) of the Jaz┴liyya-
Ghazw┐niyya: A Sufi Alternative to Sharifism?” Al-Qan ara 17 (1996), 438; and Cornell,
“Mystical Doctrine and Political Action in Moroccan Sufism: The Role of the Exemplar in the
ar┘qa al-Jaz┴liyya,” Al-Qan ara 13 (1992), 203–207.
371
reality”) as set forth by Ibn al-‘Arab┘.12 The Mu ammadiyyah trend, in fact,

employed the idea of Muhammadan reality and the centrality of union with it
as a variation of the idea of unity with God, letting it become the pillar of
mystical Mu ammadiyyah religiosity. It was on this shift that Sufi wayfaring
(sul┴k) based its change in emphasis and approach from preparation for union
with God to union with the Prophet instead.13
Aside from the notion of absorption in the Prophet’s reality, the concept
of the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah incorporated other aspects and elements in
itself through the course of time. The Ottoman scholar and prominent
opponent of the Khalwatiyyah Sufi order, Mu ammad b. ‘Al┘ al-Birgaw┘
(d. 1573), for instance, argued that the Muhammadan Way was the only
legitimate ar┘qah and that the entirety of the Muslim community should
belong to it. He dedicated a book entitled al- ar┘qah al-Mu ammadiyyah wa ’l-
S┘rah al-A madiyyah to explain such necessity and reject what he viewed as a
prevalence of excesses plaguing the Sufism of his time.14 This doctrine was later
echoed by several other Sufis including M┘r Dard who used the term ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐timah (“the Final Muhammadan Way”) and regarded all
denominations inside Islam as being merely branches of his own
Comprehensive Way.15 Additionally, the concept of the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah
12
For the Prophetology of al-J┘l┘, see ‘Abd al-Kar┘m al-J┘l┘, al-Ins┐n al-K┐mil f┘ Ma‘rifat al-
Aw┐khir wa ’l-Aw┐’il (Cairo: n.p., 1970); and his “Q┐ba Qawsayn wa Multaq┐ ’l-N┐m┴sayn,”
reproduced by Nabh┐n┘ in Jaw┐hir al-Bi ┐r (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998), 4: 261–264.
For Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s standpoint regarding the Prophet, see chapter 27 of his Fu ┴ al- ikam, ed.
A. ‘Af┘f┘ (Beirut: D┐r al-Kutub al-‘Arab┘, 1946), “The Seal of the Unique Wisdom in the Word
of Muhammad,” and his al-Fut┴ ┐t al-Makkiyyah, ed. Uthm┐n Ya y┐ (Cairo: al-Hay’at al-
Mi riyyah al-‘└mmah li ’l-Kit┐b, 1972), 2: 88 and 107 and 3: 141–143.
13
Of Ibn al-‘Arab┘ theories, both “unity of being” and the “perfect man,” the former having
been spread by followers such as adr al-D┘n al-Qunaw┘ and the latter having been disseminated
mainly by ‘Abd al-Kar┘m al-J┘l┘, have prevailed simultaneously in Islamic society since the
thirteenth century. Despite their frequent interaction, each has had its own particular influence.
The Mu ammadiyyah trend—like some other trends such as Mahdawiyyah—based its theory on
what was first theorized by al-J┘l┘ as the “perfect man” according to his visions of the Prophet.
The innovative additions made by al-J┘l┘ to Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s idea of Muhammadan Reality
influenced practical Sufism, and his version of the “perfect man” was a starting point for
reformists who put forth the discourse of Prophetocentrism in Sufism from the sixteenth
century onwards, but most notably in the eighteenth century. This subject has been further
elaborated upon in the author’s doctoral dissertation.
14
Wright, On the Path of the Prophet, 39–44; Sedgwick, Saints and Sons, 33.
15
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 161. In M┘r Dard’s explanation, even the Shi‘ite denomination
receives a special positive place in the Comprehensive Way (ibid., 255–8). M┘r Dard wrote, “I
tried to deal with the subject of ahl-i bayt [“People of the House,” who include, in the Shi‘ite
context, the Shi‘ite Im┐ms] to make the Sunnites also respect them and love them. . . . The
Sunnites have not written about the ranks (maq┐m┐t) of ahl-i bayt as they deserve. . . . I speak
about ahl-i bayt to make the Sunnites also benefit from the grace of proximity to the Imamate
further developed in the late seventeenth century in relation to the

performance of ijtih┐d, that is, the endeavour of Muslim scholars to derive
rules of divine law from the Qur’┐n and ad┘th. This began to be based,
however, on having received a vision of the Prophet. In this way, union with
the essence of the Prophet in a waking vision was credited with the function of
endowing upon the recipient of such a vision the authority to perform ijtih┐d.
‘Abd al-‘Az┘z al-Dabb┐gh (d. 1719), an important originator of ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah, emphasized in the same century that a saint who attains
direct contact with the Prophet’s essence in a waking vision16 has the authority
to interpret Shar┘‘ah and perform ijtih┐d in all schools of jurisprudence.17 His
renowned book on Mu ammadiyyah teachings, al-Ibr┘z, included his ideas on
mystical-based ijtih┐d and became an important text for several Sufi orders
such as the Sh┐dhiliyyah, Khalwatiyyah, Naqshbandiyyah, Uwaysiyyah and
Tij┐niyyah orders and has frequently been considered the third most crucial
Sufi text by most contemporary Moroccan, Egyptian and Syrian Sufis, after
the ikam of Ibn ‘A ┐’ All┐h al-Sakandar┘ (d. 1294) and I y┐’ ‘Ul┴m al-D┘n of
al-Ghaz┐l┘. Again, M┘r Dard later claimed the authority to perform ijtih┐d and
issue fatw┐, as in the case regarding sam┐‘ in which he asserted that he did not
use his authority to issue any fatw┐ and preferred to remain silent regarding
that ritual.18
Although the concept of the Muhammadan Way took on various
elements and dimensions over the course of several centuries, it was in the
eighteenth century, the period of its popularization in India, that this concept
was elevated to a comprehensive system. Eighteenth century India witnessed
(qurb-i im┐mah). . . . My aim in this action is to quell the fire of prejudice among both Shi‘ites
and Sunnites and invite them to the path of balance (i‘itid┐l)” (ibid., 256).
16
The idea and practice of experiencing a waking vision of the Prophet in general is an
important element of ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah. To see the Prophet is the outcome of trying to
follow him in words and deeds and to utter the ta liyah and repeat it at every moment in public
and in private so that the ta liyah overwhelms the heart of man. Then, according to
Muhammadan Sufis, vision of the Prophet takes hold of the heart and the wayfarer sees the
Prophet’s form before his/her inner eye. The wayfarer becomes able to see visions of the
Prophet in their dreams, then while dozing off, and finally while he or she is awake (see A mad
b. al-Mub┐rak al-Lama ┘, al-Ibr┘z min Kal┐m Sayyid┘ ‘Abd al-‘Az┘z, ed. Mu ammad ‘Adn┐n al-
Shamm┐‘ (Damascus: al-Ma ba‘ah al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1984), 1: 280).
17
According to al-Dabb┐gh in al-Ibr┘z, certitude (yaq┘n) and illumination occur only if the
mystic is bestowed with the vision of the Prophet while in waking state (ibid., 1: 400; al-Lama ┘,
al-Ibr┘z (Damascus: al-Ma ba‘ah al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1986), 2: 277). After this mystical state, he becomes
omniscient and is permanently protected from error (ma‘ ┴m) (ibid., 1: 110; 2: 301). His
knowledge is far superior to that of all others, especially to that of the fuqah┐’, and he is the
infallible resource for interpreting Shar┘‘ah (ibid., 2: 97).
18
M┘r Dard, Ris┐lah-i N┐lah-i Dard in Chah┐r Ris┐lah (Bhopal: Ma ba‘-i Sh┐h Jah┐n┘, 1892), 7,
n┐lah no. 37.
373
the disintegration of the Mughal Empire into smaller entities, the struggles of
Marathas, Jats and Sikhs with Muslims, and the occasional invasions of the
Afghans and the Persians.19 In response to such social-political circumstances,
the religious leaders of the imperial capital of Delhi, generally affiliated with
or influenced by the Naqshbandiyyah Sufi order, tried to set a synthetic and
unified standard of religious belief and practice. Such efforts were in fact an
urgent response to the lack of stability in the heartland of the empire, though
a degree of stability had been created in some of the new regional systems of
that time. In this context, Sufis such as M┘r Dard and his contemporaries
Ma har J┐n-i J┐n┐ (d. 1781) and Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h of Delhi (d. 1762) blamed
moral and religious decadence as having been the basis for the social and
political degeneration of their time. 20 With a new Muhammadan approach,
they therefore endeavoured to give desperate Muslims a strong impetus to turn
back to the “golden age” of the Prophet. Their reformist movement was
replete with longing for the early Islamic utopia in which the Prophet created
the best nation (khayr ummah), a nation which, despite its former glory and
power, was almost unable to counteract the invasions waged against Muslims
by local rival groups and later by European powers. The ideal of Indian
Muslims in that time was the time when Mu ammad led Muslims from
victory to victory, hence they attempted to look back to him in the hope that
their community might flourish again.21
In the time when Delhi was struck with unceasing attacks, famines, and
political instability, M┘r Dard believed that the only possible way for saving
the people was through his and his father’s Muhammadan Path. This path
encompassed almost all of the previous elements of ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah
while adapting to the social climate of the time, and formed a discourse which
19
For more detail on the desperate situation of Muslims in eighteenth century India and
especially Delhi, see in particular: P. J. Marshall, The Eighteenth Century in Indian History:
Evolution or Revolution? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 193–
212; John Obert Voll, Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World (Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1994), 56–68; and Barbara Daly Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India:
Deoband, 1860–1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 23–29.
20
Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 28–29. Metcalf discusses the situation of eighteenth
century India in the first chapter and analyzes various responses of Indian Muslims to the
political instability of their time. One of such responses, according to her, comes from the
religious leaders of Delhi, who, due to lacking local bases like that of the wealthy shrines,
endeavoured to reassert the old balanced relationship between themselves and the political
leaders. Above all, the religious leaders wanted to guard the intellectual heritage of the faith,
even without the protection of the court. This impulse was obvious in the synthetic works of
Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h (ibid., 24–29).
21
Annemarie Schimmel, And Muhammad is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in
Islamic Piety (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 225.
exerted considerable transformation in Sufism. Nevertheless, neither

Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b, nor his son, M┘r Dard, ever acknowledged, in any
of their works, the influence of previous Muhammadan Sufis on the
development of their thought, the former having claimed to have received the
principles of his way from a vision of the Prophet’s grandson, asan b. ‘Al┘.22
According to M┘r Dard, his father’s ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah is a unique path
that not only all preceding Sufi orders but also the plethora of different
schools of earlier Islamic thought had played a preparatory role for the
appearance of it.23 He asserts that the position of all denominations of Islam in
relation to the Muhammadan Way is similar to that of the pre-Islamic
Abrahamic religions whose adherents are called, the People of the Book (ahl
al-kit┐b) in relation to Islam, as their religions led up to the revelation of the
final religion of Islam. 24 The multiplicity of the dimensions of the
Muhammadan Way in M┘r Dard is shown by several meaningful adjectives
attributed to the term ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah in his oeuvre. These include,
among others, the previously mentioned two adjectives of j┐mi‘ah and
kh┐timah, as well as kh┐li ah (“pure”), kh┐ ah (“particular”), wath┘qah
(“trustworthy”), k┐milah (“perfect”) and ‘┐liyah (“high and transcendental”),
each of which highlights a specific aspect of his version of the Muhammadan
Way.25
The growth and expansion of the idea of the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah
throughout the Islamic world in general and the Indian Subcontinent from the
sixteenth century onwards in particular was primarily the result of the
22
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 85. M┘r Dard tells that his father had a mystical vision of Im┐m
asan, the grandson of the Prophet. In this vision, ‘Andal┘b “remained silent for seven days and
nights, turning away from the world of humanity, neglecting basic human needs such as eating
and drinking and the like, and remained isolated in his cell.” When ‘Andal┘b returned to a
normal state, M┘r Dard asked him about his experiences and he answered that, “all of us are
children, lost in the sea of identity and drowned in one ocean. Our name is the name of
Mu ammad, and our sign is the sign of Mu ammad, our love is the love of Mu ammad, and
our claim is the claim of Mu ammad. . . . It is exactly the path of Mu ammad, and we have not
added anything to it. Our conduct is the conduct of the Prophet, and our way, the
Muhammadan Way” (ibid.).
23
Ibid., 116.
24
The term ahl al-kit┐b is used to designate non-Muslim adherents to faiths which have a
revealed scripture. According to the Qur’┐nic text, “Today I have perfected your religion for
you, and I have completed My blessing upon you, and I have approved Islam for your religion”
(Qur’┐n 5: 3), Muslims believe that God finally sent Mu ammad, the seal of the Prophets, to
convey the divine message to the whole world, summarizing and finalizing the divine
revelation.
25
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 63–8, 83–8, and 161. Though all of these descriptions for the ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah are important for M┘r Dard and ‘Andal┘b, their way has generally been called
Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐li ah by scholars of eighteenth century Indian Sufism.
375
confrontation and interaction between the two trends of ecstatic-unitive versus

sober Sufism. Such a confrontation within Sufism was the result of, among
other factors, the severe criticism leveled on Sufism from outside by Islamic
orthodoxy, originating in the doctrines of such orthodox figures as Ibn
Taymiyyah. 26 This polarization is connected to a group of significant
interdependent binary concepts including the notions of jam┐l–jal┐l
(“beauty”–“majesty”), tashb┘h–tanz┘h (“immanence”–“transcendence”), sukr–
a w (“intoxication”–“sobriety”), fan┐’–baq┐’ (“annihilation”–“subsistence”),
and wa dat al-wuj┴d–wa dat al-shuh┴d (“unity of being”–“unity of
witnessing”), whose first and second parts represent ecstatic-unitive Sufism and
sober Sufism respectively. The first elements of these pairs have caused much
conflict and controversy between Sufis and the representatives of orthodox
Islam, while the second elements were more compatible with the orthodox
views of the ‘ulam┐’, or religious scholars specializing in Islamic law (Shari‘ah).
The first elements refer to man’s nearness to God, their mutual relationship
based on love, and humankind’s annihilation in God, all of which are closer,
according to Sufis, to the esoteric meaning of the Qur’┐n and ad┘th. Quite
differently, the second concepts place emphasis on the inaccessibility of God’s
essence, his distance from creatures including man, and the relationship
between humankind and God in the sense of servant (‘abd) and Lord (Rabb),
which are more harmonious with the literal understanding of the Islamic holy
scriptures. In the encounter between these two trends and their spiritual ideals
in the frame of twin concepts, Sufi reformers and scholars made an endeavour
to re-think and re-formulate the theories and practices of the dominant Sufism
of their time, which were viewed as having overemphasized the ecstatic-
unitive aspect of Sufism, thereby putting forward their own suggestions for
change in the form of the mystical Muhammadan trend. Establishing its pillar
based on the idea of the “perfect man” being identical with the Prophet
Muhammad the Muhammadan trend took the shape of an extreme reform to
such an extent that later reformists such as M┘r Dard disdained the epithet of
Sufi and would have never called themselves Sufis or their path the path of
Sufism (ta awwuf). Instead, he used Mu ammad┘ for Sufi and Mu ammadiyyah
26
The role of Ibn Taymiyyah in the early formation of the idea of ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah is
quite important, and the interaction between the ideas of Ibn al-‘Arab┘ and Ibn Taymiyyah
constructed the background for the formation of the Muhammadan Way. Ibn Taymiyyah
believed that the only authoritative mediator between God and humankind is the Qur’┐n and
Sunnah, as interpreted by the ‘ulam┐’ as “the heirs of the Prophet.” Sufism was both criticized
and influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah and his ideas and critiques caused Sufi self-criticism. Fazlur
Rahman regards Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 1350) as the first
“neo-Sufis” (Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 195).
for ta awwuf. 27 In order to explain M┘r Dard’s ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah

J┐mi‘ah in relation to the interaction of these two poles and analyze his
viewpoint in this regard, it seems helpful to briefly survey the confrontation
of these conceptions in Islamic tradition.
Among the above twin concepts, an important pair that originated
directly from the Qur’┐n and ad┘th is that of the divine names of beauty
(jam┐l) and majesty (jal┐l). God’s name of beauty evokes attractive, motherly,
warm, embracing, intimate, and gentle divine attributes and is connected to
such divine names/attributes as the Merciful (Ra m┐n/Ra ┘m), the
Compassionate ( ann┐n), the Loving (Mu ibb/Wad┴d), the Forgiving
(Ghaf┴r), and the Near (Qar┘b). Just as beauty is one of the foremost qualities
in a beloved human, God the Beautiful is worthy of being approached with
love and not merely with awe and sober formality.28 It is this quality of jam┐l
with which ecstatic-unitive Sufis have been inspired, especially in lyric poetry
which employs such symbols as the “face” (rukh) in referring to the revelation
of divine jam┐l. Ecstatic-unitive Sufis have argued that one who is beautiful
can only be aware of that beauty if the beauty is known and appreciated by
someone else. God’s beauty needs a mirror to be reflected in, and the whole of
creation, particularly humankind, is that mirror through which God becomes
aware of his foremost essence and beauty.29 The jam┐l┘ names and attributes
also refer to God’s nearness to his creatures and the point that he never leaves
them on their own. The natural human response to a god who is conceived in
these terms is to feel close to him and to love him.
The divine name of jal┐l, on the contrary, indicates God’s power,
superiority and distance. It includes such names/attributes as the Withholder
(M┐ni‘), the Seizer (Q┐bi ), the Omnipotent (Qahh┐r), the Death-giver
(Mum┘t), and the Avenger (Muntaqim), the Highest (‘┐l┘), the Transcendent
(Muta‘┐l┘/Munazzah), and the Distant (Ba‘┘d). God is portrayed in these
attributes as a powerful deity who is completely distinct from and far above
27
M┘r Dard never calls himself Sufi or his path Sufism, and throughout his works the
expressions of Mu ammad┘ and Mu ammadiyyah are used self-referentially for himself, his
followers and his path. In Ris┐lah-i N┐lah-i Dard, he calls himself one of the most humble of
pure Muhammadans and his father chief and prince of the Muhammadans (M┘r Dard, Ris┐lah-i
N┐lah-i Dard, 2, 4). In his oeuvres, whether poetry or prose, ┴f┘ and ta awwuf have a negative
connotation (for example, in M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 3–5).
28
Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York: Paragon House,
1994), 68.
29
Similar to several other Sufis, M┘r Dard employs the illustrative metaphor of a mirror for the
perfect man, who reflects both jam┐l┘ and jal┐l┘ attributes at the same time (for example, see M┘r
Dard, Ris┐lah-i N┐lah-i Dard, 10, n┐lah no. 59; M┘r Dard, Ris┐lah-i └h-i Sard, in Chah┐r Ris┐lah
(Bhopal: Ma ba‘-i Sh┐h Jah┐n┘, 1892), 83, ┐h no. 68; Ris┐lah-i Sham‘-i Ma fil (Bhopal: Ma ba‘-i
Sh┐h Jah┐n┘, 1892), 228, n┴r no. 4; and Ris┐lah-i Dard-i Dil, 168, dard no. 133).
377
his creation. In the Persian and Urdu literature, one of the symbols employed
to refer to these names is the tress (zulf), the black veil that conceals the face
(divine Reality) from others and makes it inaccessible for them. This group of
names presents the proper relationship between humankind and God as one of
awe and formality born out of respect, an image which is emphasized by
Islamic orthodoxy outside Sufism as well. Sober Sufis inspired by jal┐l┘ names
and attributes try to traverse the mystical states in which the border between
God and man is seemingly removed in order to achieve other states in which
the Sufi becomes conscious of his distinction from Deity. Instead of
developing innovative methods for achieving spiritual states and stages similar
to those sought by ecstatic-unitive Sufis, sober Sufis referring to these names
attempt to remain inside the bounds of Islamic orthodoxy, invoking
quotations from the Qur’┐n and ad┘th, whose outward interpretation is closer
to their viewpoint.
Another important set of twin concepts connected to God’s essence and
attributes and His relationship with man is that of divine immanence (tashb┘h)
and transcendence (tanz┘h). The concept of tashb┘h, which means affirming
similarity, indicating the assertion that God is analogous and comparable with
His creation. It is associated with the divine name of jam┐l and is more
harmonious with, and is emphasized by, ecstatic-unitive Sufism. 30 Tashb┘h
highlights that both God’s manifestation within the cosmos along with
scriptural references derived from the Qur’┐n itself reveal certain divine
attributes such as knowledge, desire, mercy, generosity, and providence,
attributes which are also found in creatures. In a more mystical version, this
perspective places emphasis not only on God’s similarity but also on his unity,
the highest degree of similarity with creation, and maintains that God’s
oneness is such that his one Reality embraces all creatures. Hence, the world,
as viewed from this angle, is merely illusion and is not inherently real, being
nothing but the one Real manifesting himself.31 Contrary to this perspective,
orthodox-oriented Sufis, who articulate their creeds in the frame of a
30
One of the major issues discussed in Islamic theology (kal┐m) is the question of divine
attributes. The debate has mainly been upon anthropomorphic attributes of God and the
different methods of interpreting them. Contrary to Mu‘tazilites who believe in the
metaphorical sense of the anthropomorphic Qur’┐nic references such as God's “face” and
“hands,” traditionalists such as Ash‘arites affirm a literal sense for them and state that the exact
nature of them could not be known. For the debate on tashb┘h and tanz┘h in Islamic theology in
general, see M. Abdel Haleem, “Early Kal┐m,” in History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. S. H. Nasr
and O. Leaman (London: Routledge, 1996), 71–88.
31
For tashb┘h and tanz┘h in Sufi context, see Toshihiko Izutsu, A Comparative Study of the Key
Philosophical Concepts in Sufism and Taoism (Tokyo: Keio Inst. of Cultural and Linguistic
Studies, 1966), 39–60; and William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-‘Arabi’s
Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 79–81.
transcendence associated with the name of jal┐l, evoke the notion of tanz┘h to
affirm that God is pure and free of all the defects and imperfections of creation
and, that “Like Him there is naught.”32 Imperfections in this context include
all qualities that resemble man’s features, even in the slightest degree.
Therefore, tanz┘h is an assertion of God’s essential and absolute
incomparability with any created thing and his being above all creaturely
attributes, and that the Absolute per se is an unknowable thing which rejects
all human effort to approach it and frustrates all human understanding in any
form whatsoever.33 The perspective of tanz┘h was accepted in Islamic history as
the orthodox viewpoint concerning the relationship between God and
creation and highlighted the duality between, and the incomparability of, man
with the Divine. Such transcendence means that, for advocates of tanz┘h, even
the most perfect mystics cannot attain pure unity with God.
Another pair of concepts in the frame of which two main trends of

orthodox-oriented and ecstatic-unitive Sufism have articulated their different
approaches is that of sukr and a w. In Ab┴ Na r al-Sarr┐j’s (d. 988) Kit┐b al-
Luma‘, the earliest of extant Sufi manuals, these terms have been pointed out
as similar to the states of “absence” (ghaybah) and “presence” ( u ┴r).34 The
overpowering sense of the beloved in the state of sukr affects the mystic to
such an extent that he no longer recognizes, and goes beyond, such
dichotomies as right and wrong or pain and pleasure.35 The well-known Sufi
writer ‘Abd al-Kar┘m al-Qushayr┘ (d. 1072) expounds that while the sober one
protects himself by his own independent actions, the drunk is protected by
means other than his own deliberate efforts, i.e., by God. 36 Al-Kal┐b┐dh┘
directed his efforts, about half a century earlier than al-Qushayr┘, to
demonstrate that the sobriety which follows drunkenness is a superior and
loftier state than the drunkenness which involves a greater degree of proximity
to God. Al-Qushayr┘, however, concentrates more on drunkenness, to
reassure that it is a perfectly legitimate and safe experience for Sufis. The
ecstatic-unitive Sufis like the abovementioned al-Bis ┐m┘ believed in the
superiority of sukr over a w and maintained that sobriety involves the fixity
32
Qur’┐n 42: 11.
33
Izutsu, A Comparative Study, 41.
34
Ab┴ Na r ‘Abd All┐h b. ‘Al┘ al-Sarr┐j al- ┴s┘, The Kit┐b al-Luma‘ fi ’l-Ta awwuf, ed. Reynold
A. Nicholson (London: Luzac and Co. LTD., 1963), 340.
35
Mu ammad b. Is ┐q al-Kal┐b┐dh┘, Kit┐b al-Ta‘arruf li Madhhab Ahl al-Ta awwuf, ed. M. J.
Shari‘at (Tehran: As┐ ┘r, 1992), 116.
36
‘Abd al-Kar┘m al-Qushayr┘, al-Ris┐lah al-Qushayriyyah, ed. A. H. Ma m┴d and M. al-Shar┘f
(Tehran: Intish┐r┐t-i ‘Ilm┘-o Farhang┘, 1995, reprint), 145.
379
of human attributes and is, hence, the greatest veil between Allah and man.37
On the contrary, the concept of a w, which is associated with the divine
name of jal┐l and is advocated by sober Sufis, expresses the return of the
mystic to a normal state after being overpowered by the rapture of love for
God. Sober Sufis like al-Junayd believe that intoxication should be passed over
because it involves the disturbance of one’s normal state and loss of one’s self-
control. 38 For al-Kal┐b┐dh┘ sobriety consists of one’s ability to discriminate
(tamy┘z) between pleasant and painful things.39 He distinguishes between two
types of sobriety and emphasizes that to him, only that type of sobriety which
follows the state of drunkenness is superior to sukr.40
The binary concepts of annihilation or extinction (fan┐’) and subsistence
(baq┐’) are other significant notions in the confrontation between ecstatic-
unitive and sober Sufism. In the formative period of Sufism, especially from
the ninth century onward, a group of Sufis following the ecstatic-unitive
mysticism of such figures as al-Bis ┐m┘ and al- all┐j began describing the goal
of the mystical quest as being the passing away and annihilation of the
mystic’s self. 41 They associated the concept of fan┐’ with such notions as
congregation (jam‘) and affirmation (ithb┐t), which confronted separation
(tafr┘q) and negation (nafy).42 From that time onward, considering annihilation
the method and zenith of mystical perfection became one of the pillars of the
ecstatic-unitive trend in Sufism, presented especially in Sufi poetry. For the
adherents of this type of Sufism, fan┐’ is the annihilation of everything
37
‘Al┘ b. ‘Uthm┐n al-Hujw┘r┘, Kashf al-Ma j┴b, ed. V. A. Zhukovski (Tehran: Am┘r Kab┘r,
1957), 230.
38
Ibid., 231. The author’s discussion of sukr and a w is provided in a chapter of the book on
the alleged twelve “Sufi Groups” of his time, ten of which he considered acceptable. He
associated drunkenness and sobriety with two groups of ayf┴riyyah (followers of al-Bis ┐m┘)
and Junaydiyyah (followers of al-Junayd) respectively, and in this way, characterized these two
groups by expounding the central doctrine which he attributed to them.
39
Al-Kal┐b┐dh┘, Kit┐b al-Ta‘arruf, 117.
40
In contrast to al-Kal┐b┐dh┘, his predecessor al-Sarr┐j concentrated more on discussing
drunkenness rather than sobriety, and his aim was to argue the superiority of sukr. Similarly, al-
Hujw┘r┘ (d. 1077), the author of the first Sufi manual in Persian, advocated a reconciliation
between two sides of sukr and a w, though mentioning that his teacher was a follower of al-
Junayd who regarded mystical drunkenness as the playground of children (al-Hujw┘r┘, Kashf al-
Ma j┴b , 233).
41
Alexander Knysh, Islamic Mysticism: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 309.
42
The notions of jam‘ and tafr┘q belong to the discourse of unity among early Sufism. They
refer to the idea that things have their origin in God and they must finally return, after their
dispersion (tafr┘q), to live again in Him (jam‘). The concepts of nafy and ithb┐t, negation and
affirmation, refer to the structure of Muslim’s basic profession of faith (shah┐dah), “There is no
god but God,” in which the first half (“there is no god”) is a negation and the second half (“but
God”) is an affirmation. Hence, negation refers to tanz┘h and affirmation to tashb┘h.
dependent in nature, whether in the form of attribute, action, or essence, into

the divine essence.43 In addition to fan┐’ f┘ All┐h (“annihilation in God”), other
forms of fan┐’ have also been mentioned by Sufis, like fan┐’ f┘ ’l-shaykh
(“annihilation in the shaykh”) and fan┐’ f┘ ’l-ras┴l (“annihilation in the
Prophet”), the latter of which has been significantly addressed by
Muhammadan Sufis. Many non-sober Sufis like T┐j al-D┘n Ushnuv┘
(d. ca. 1213) pronounced that the state of fan┐’ “is the farthest stage along the
sul┴k, and the ultimate desideratum of the seekers ( ┐lib┐n), for beyond this
station there is no wayfaring.”44
Conversely, orthodox-oriented Sufis emphasize that fan┐’ is a state of
unconsciousness, from which man should return and regain his consciousness
with a new divine identity in the state of baq┐’, as it appears in the Qur’┐n,
“All that dwells upon the earth is perishing, yet still abides the Face of thy
Lord, majestic, splendid.”45 By introducing the concept of baq┐’, proponents of
baq┐’ try to show that the ecstatic identification of the human self with God is
merely a transient state that passes away, contrary to baq┐’ which is a more
advanced experience permitting the simultaneous experience of God and the
world. Sufi theorists since al-Junayd have described baq┐’ as man’s continual
existence in God, after acquiring divine attributes, an existence which, in turn,
is portrayed as the mystic’s renewed consciousness of the plurality of the
created world that coexists with his perception of unity. In the state of baq┐’,
the mystic shares his new experience with other Muslims and it is often
presented as being similar, or even equivalent to, prophetic consciousness.
According to orthodox-oriented Sufism, the ordinary ecstatic mystic is
tempted to remain entranced by the unitive vision and rapture that
characterize the experience of fan┐’ and thus to abandon any effort to change
this world, whereas the Prophet, as a paradigmatic mystic, lived with both
God and the world, seeking to reform the world by preaching divinely
inspired moral truth.46 As in the case of fan┐’, different types and degrees have
43
Several Sufis have distinguished between three degrees or levels of acts, attributes and essence
regarding both notions of fan┐’ and baq┐’. According to Ibn al-‘Arab┘, in the first level, the
action of the Sufi is united with the divine action (fan┐’ in act) and acquires its order, harmony
and durability (baq┐’ of act). In the second level, unity and permanency is situated at the level of
qualities and attributes, and human virtues are raised to the level of the divine attributes and
acquire their perfection, dignity and durability. In the third level, the most perfect form of Sufi
fan┐’ and baq┐’, the essence of the human is raised to the height of the divine essence in its unity,
sublimity and universality, and man is totally absorbed by the divine. See Ibn al-‘Arab┘, al-
Fut┴ ┐t al-Makkiyyah, 1: 118.
44
T┐j al-D┘n Ushnuv┘, Majm┴‘ah-i └th┐r-i F┐rs┘, ed. Naj┘b Mayil Harav┘ (Tehran: Intish┐r┐t-i
ah┴r┘, 1989), 93.
45
Qur’┐n 55: 26–27.
46
Knysh, Islamic Mysticism, 309–311.
381
been mentioned for baq┐’, like baq┐’ bi All┐h (“subsistence with Allah”), baq┐’
bi ’l-ras┴l (“subsistence with the Prophet”) and baq┐’ bi ’l-shaykh (“subsistence
with the shaykh”), the last of which is an innovation of M┘r Dard.47
The last pair of concepts to be discussed that pertain to the confrontation
between the two forms of Sufism in question here, is the dichotomy of “unity
of being” versus “unity of witnessing.” Although Ibn al-‘Arab┘, the founder of
the doctrine of wa dat al-wuj┴d,48 paid attention and spoke about both parts of
all of the aforementioned twin concepts, 49 the idea of wa dat al-wuj┴d was
interpreted by many later Sufis in terms of the first sides of each of these pairs,
those being jam┐l, tashb┘h, sukr and fan┐’. In the Indian Subcontinent,
especially due to the presence of non-Islamic pantheistic traditions and the
great potentiality for the development of sukr┘ and unitive Sufism, 50 this
doctrine was used as the major theoretical foundation of the prevalent ecstatic-
unitive Sufi currents mainly in the sense of hamah ┴st (“all is He”), so that
those currents have been frequently considered to be, “wuj┴d┘” Sufism by their
opponents who used the appellation as a polemic device.51 In wuj┴d┘ Sufism,
the fundamental Islamic creed “There is no god but God” is interpreted as
“There is no existence except Allah,” hence everything is considered to be of
47
Among different kinds and degrees of baq┐’, non-Muhammadan Sufis speak about the degree
of baq┐’ bi Allah, while Sufis belonging to the Muhammadan trend highlight baq┐’ bi al-ras┴l. In
general, baq┐’ is a key concept for the Mu ammadiyyah way, and some scholars believe that the
starting point for the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah was Sirhindi’s conclusion that the return to
reality (baq┐’) after having been lost in God (fan┐’) should be the mystics’ ultimate goal (see
Gerdien Jonker, “The Evolution of the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi Sulaymançis in Germany,” in
Sufism in the West, ed. Jamal Malik and John Hinnells (London/New York: Routledge, 2006),
83).
48
Although Ibn al-‘Arab┘ is correctly considered to have been the founder of the theory of unity
of being, the term wa dat al-wuj┴d is not mentioned in his own writings. The only case of
employing the term by Ibn al-‘Arab┘ is in his Awr┐d al-Usb┴‘: “I ask of You, by the mystery
with which You unite the complementary contraries, that You bring together for me all that is
disunited of my being, in such a union that I may contemplate and witness the Oneness of Your
Being” (Ibn al-‘Arabi, The Seven Days of the Heart: Prayers for the Nights and Days of the Week,
trans. Pablo Beneito and Stephen Hirtenstein (Oxford: Anqa Publishing, 2008), 57).
49
Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, 23–6.
50
In India, sukr┘ Sufism developed into a synthesis between Islamic mysticism and Hindu
traditions such as Vedanta. D┐r┐ Shik┤h (d. 1659), the son of the Mogul emperor Sh┐h Jah┐n,
was one of those who sought to reconcile Sufism with Vedanta philosophy in his Majma‘ al-
Ba rayn. For synthetic efforts between Sufism and Indian religions, see Aziz Ahmad, Studies in
Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), chapter IV
entitled “Sufism and Hindu Mysticism.”
51
In a paper presented to the 32nd Deutscher Orientalistentag (Münster, Sep. 2013) entitled
“Sufi Reform: A Reaction to the Shared Tradition Based on Hama Ust,” I argued that it was
principally the idea of hamah ┴st and not wa dat al-wuj┴d that was criticized by Indian Sufi
reformists of the sixteenth century onwards.
the same essence. To believe in this ontological unity was not only theoretical,
rather from a practical standpoint, it required the establishment of a mystical
path designed to lead the aspirant to a consciousness of such unity. In reaction
to this doctrine employed by ecstatic-unitive Sufis, the theory of wa dat al-
shuh┴d was proposed by A mad Sirhind┘, a prominent representative of sober
Sufism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. This theory had
actually been propounded before Sirhind┘ by ‘Al┐’ al-Dawlah al-Simn┐n┘
(d. 1336), who criticized Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s idea of wa dat al-wuj┴d and postulated
his own doctrine of wa dat al-shuh┴d.52 Yet it was Sirhind┘ who advanced the
theory in a systematic way, propagating and teaching it among Muslims as the
basis for a mystical way. According to him, all Muslims, including Sufis, must
realize that “Everything is from Him” rather than “Everything is He,” and that
God and his creation are entirely separate entities. He emphasized that the
unitive experiences of the mystic do not necessarily reflect the real state of
affairs in the universe and that a strict distinction must be recognized between
God and creation. 53 Encompassing and stressing the second elements of the
abovementioned pairs related to divine name of jal┐l, the concept of wa dat al-
shuh┴d forms the foundation on which orthodox-oriented Sufism has
explained its creeds since the sixteenth century.
With regard to the history of Sufism, the first generations of Sufis in the
seventh and the first half of the eighth century experienced God principally in
His jal┐l┘ names. In this period, the relationship between God and man in Sufi
life was based on the orthodox imagery of religiosity, i.e., to maintain
respectful distance between the forceful Lord and his humble servant. The
puritan Sufis of this period were mostly experiencing fear (khawf) and awe
(haybah) in their relationship with God, the result of which was a prevalence
of pure asceticism and self-mortification. 54 Such an inclination toward
asceticism and isolation took hold during the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750),
partly in reaction to the Umayyad’s luxurious lifestyle which was, to many
Muslims, not in accordance with Mu ammad’s simple lifestyle. In Iraq, the
center of anti-Umayyad movements of that time, along with such groups as
52
Al-Simn┐n┘’s criticism of wa dat al-wuj┴d is elaborated in his correspondence with ‘Abd al-
Razz┐q al-K┐sh┐n┘, one of the most famous proponents of Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s thought. For details
about this correspondence, see H. Landolt, “Die Briefwechsel Zwischen Kashani and Simnani
über Wa dat al-wug┴d,” Der Islam 50 (1973), 29–81.
53
A mad Sirhind┘, Makt┴b┐t-i Im┐m-i Rabb┐n┘, ed. N┴r Mu ammad (Lahore: N┴r Mu ammad,
1964), 1: 54.
54
For the attitude and life of early Sufis, see, for instance, Farid al-Din ‘Attar, Muslim Saints and
Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat al-Auliya’ (“Memorial of the Saints”), trans. A. J. Arberry
(London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1966); and A mad b. ‘Abd All┐h al-I fah┐n┘, ilyat al-Awliy┐’
(Beirut: D┐r al-Kit┐b al-‘Arabiyyah, 1967).
383
Shi‘ites, Khaw┐rij, Maw┐l┘ and Shu‘┴b┘s, 55 Sufis like asan al-Ba r┘ (d. 728)
showed their protest through ascetic isolation in response to the institution of
the Caliphate.56 These Sufis assumed an outer appearance that set them apart
from the average person, wearing woolen clothes and living a life of extreme,
self-imposed poverty. Many of them completely renounced worldly affairs,
spending their daily lives entirely engaged in prayer and ascetic practices, and
even living in total solitude in deserts or mountains. These individuals and
pious men and women were commonly referred to as nuss┐k (“devout men”),
zuhh┐d (“world renouncers”/“ascetics”) and ‘ubb┐d (“worshippers”). This trend
spread from Ba rah and K┴fah to all parts of the Islamic world, notably to
Khur┐s┐n in northeast Persia, which had once been a flourishing center of
Buddhism.
From the middle of the eighth century onward, however, new voices
were heard from these ascetic circles. One observes the emergence of concepts
like divine immanence to creatures, man’s unity with God, and a relationship
of love between man and God. The notion of love was highlighted and
developed, in particular, by R┐bi‘ah al-‘Adawiyyah from Ba rah (d. 801), who
presented herself as a genuine mystic inspired by a passionate love of God and
conscious of experiencing a unitive life with God. 57 Her emphasis on love
55
Khaw┐rij is a general term describing Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority
of the fourth Islamic caliph ‘Al┘ b. Ab┘ ┐lib, later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in
the late seventh century and developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both
mainstream Sunni and Shi‘ite Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly notable for adopting a
radical approach to excommunication (takf┘r). Maw┐l┘ is a term used to address non-Arab
Muslims which gained prominence during the Umayyad Caliphate, as many non-Arabs such as
Persians, Turks and Kurds converted to Islam. Shu‘┴biyyah is also a cultural and political
movement which began in the eighth century among the non-Arab people in the Arabian
Caliphate. The movement rejected the Arabs claims to dominance in the cultural and sometimes
political life of Islamic territories. For more details on these groups, see W. Montgomery Watt,
Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962), 1–27.
56
Ab┴ Nu‘aym al-I fah┐n┘’s record about asan al-Ba r┘ shows his piety and severe renunciation
of worldly pleasures and fame. I fah┐n┘ also relates an account on the authority of al- akam b.
ajal, an associate of the famous traditionist and jurist from Ba rah, Mu ammad b. S┘r┘n. Al-
akam claims to have seen and spoken with Ibn S┘r┘n in a dream: “I saw him [resting] in a
palace;. . . I asked him: ‘O my brother, I see you in a situation that delights me. But what
happened to al- asan?’ Ibn S┘r┘n replied: ‘He was raised ninety levels above me.’ I asked: ‘why
was that?’ He replied, ‘Because of his life-long sorrow’” (al-I fah┐n┘, ilyat al-Awliy┐’, 2: 132.
The translation is of Suleiman Ali Mourad, Early Islam between Myth and History: Al- asan al-
Ba r┘ (d. 110 H/728 CE) and the Formation of His Legacy in Classical Islamic Scholarship (Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 108).
57
For the life and teachings of R┐bi‘ah al-‘Adawiyyah, see Margaret Smith’s monograph Rabi-a
the Mystic and Her Fellow-Saints in Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), which
makes her distinguished from contemporary ascetics and quietists who were
preoccupied with abstinence from earthly delights, fear of God, and
meticulous observance of religious duties. Such figures as R┐bi‘ah and her
Khur┐s┐n┘ contemporary, Shaq┘q al-Balkh┘ (d. 810), who regarded ascetic
virtues as inferior to mystical experiences such as love,58 gradually affected the
character of ascetic Sufism and transformed it from asceticism into a mysticism
of love for and unity with God with new mystical practices related to this new
outlook.
The ninth century was a significant period in the history of Sufism in
which the two standpoints of sobriety and ecstasy-union inside Sufism can be
clearly distinguished. Both of these trends, as two different ways of achieving
the ideals of mystical life, were emerging and interacting during this era, and
their communication resulted in the formation of the discourses of sukr– a w
and fan┐’–baq┐’. On the one hand, following the already established idea and
practice of asceticism and the fearing of God,59 notions of a w and baq┐’ were
focused by strata of Sufis like the famous Baghdadi Sufi, al-Junayd. On the
other hand, the recently flourishing ideas of ecstasy and union were
emphasized by other Sufis such as al-Bis ┐m┘. 60 While the early asceticism
based on jal┐l┘ names of God and his tanz┘h had a joyless and negative attitude
towards the world, the new ecstatic-unitive Sufism, which was based on divine
jam┐l┘ names and God’s tashb┘h, was born in its lap as an “ardent fervor
rejoicing in hardship and delighting in ecstatic experience”.61 This later led to
movements such as the Mal┐matiyyah62 which was criticized by many sober
still remains a main source on R┐bi‘ah. See also Michael A. Sells, Early Islamic Mysticism (New
York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1996), 151–70.
58
For Shaq┘q’s emphasis on mystical experience, see al-Sulami, abaq┐t al- ┴fiyyah, ed. N┴r al-
D┘n Sharibah (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kh┐nj┘, 1969), 66.
59
The virtue of zuhd was applauded by A mad b. anbal (d. 855), the most orthodox of
Muslim theologians and founder of the strictest of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, who
himself wrote a book entitled Kit┐b al-Zuhd.
60
For the attitude of al-Bis ┐m┘ and al-Junayd, see ‘Attar, Muslim Saints and Mystics, 100–124 and
199–213.
61
A. J. Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 45.
62
The Mal┐matiyyah were a group of mystics who received fame in Khur┐s┐n from the ninth
century onwards, and due to serious differences in their mystical principles with Baghd┐d┘
Sufism they have often been juxtaposed with Sufis. According to them, the mystical wayfarer
(s┐lik) should neither consider his/her religious practices important nor pay attention to what
other people think about him/her, so that he/she can avoid any kind of hypocrisy. They
practiced reproaching the self and attracting the blame of others, openly expressing their own
evils in front of others. For an historical overview of this group in different Muslim territories,
see F. de. Jong, Hamid Algar, and C. H. Imber, “Mal┐matiyya,” in C.E. Bosworth et al., eds.,
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 6: 223–8.
385
Sufis such as al-Qushayr┘.63 Both orthodox-oriented and ecstatic-unitive Sufism

entered into the stage of discipline and theosophy in the ninth century. This
development especially took place at Baghdad and the intellectual circles
connected to it, which in that time was an important center of Sufism as it had
also become the central hub for literature, theology, law and philosophy. An
example from the sober side is the Sufi, jurist and theologian ┐rith al-
Mu ┐sib┘, whose books, especially his masterpiece al-Ri‘┐yah li uq┴q All┐h,
later influenced al-Ghaz┐l┘, who shared his speculation in forming Islamic
mystical theosophy. Also, the abovementioned al-Junayd, who was portrayed
later in Sufi tradition as the greatest exponent of sober Sufism, was himself,
well-qualified to issue legal opinions on various judicial issues, and established
his mystical school based on the Qur’┐nic principles of divine uniqueness and
absolute transcendence. He was careful not to present the relationships
between man and God in terms of a union of two essences (itti ┐d),64 and his
expositions on al-Bis ┐m┘’s ecstatic utterances (sha a ┐t) clearly show his
preference for the state of sobriety over mystical intoxication.65
On the other side, ecstatic-unitive Sufis also shared their contributions
through the Islamic mystical theosophy of the ninth century. An example
here is al-Mu ┐sib┘’s contemporary, Dh┴ ’l-N┴n the Egyptian (d. 861), who is
generally credited with having introduced the idea of gnosis (ma‘rifah) into
Sufism. Dh┴ ’l-N┴n is considered as one of those Sufis who introduced Neo-
Platonism to Sufism, his works, particularly his poems and prayers, being
marked by distinctly pantheistic tendencies.66 In his poetry, Dh┴ ’l-N┴n uses
the passionate language of the devoted lover, as R┐bi‘ah of Ba rah had done
before him, and so helped to establish a tradition that was thereafter
characteristic of ecstatic-unitive Sufi literature. 67 Another example of the
63
In a brief preface to his Ris┐lah, al-Qushayr┘ emphasized the requirement to rescue Sufism
from the bad reputation caused by the excessive antinomianism of the Mal┐matiyyah. He
asserted that Sufi doctrine in no way conflicts with orthodox theology. Also al-Sulam┘ wrote a
short treatise about the Mal┐matiyyah, and criticized them because they justified not only total
neglect of the religious prescriptions of Islam, but also the commission of the most outrageous
sins as testified to by their disregard for human opinion and judgment (see Mu ammad b. al-
usayn al-Sulam┘, Ris┐lat al-Mal┐matiyyah (Paris: Arlea, 1991)).
64
Marijan Mole, Les mystiques musulmans (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965), 67.
65
Al- ┴s┘, The Kit┐b al-Luma‘, 370–373.
66
For instance, Dh┴ ’l-N┴n prays, “O God, I do not listen to the voices of the animals or trees
rustling in the wind, to the splashing of waters or the bird’s song, to the wind’s whistling or the
rumble of thunder, but I sense in all of them an evidence to your Unity (wa d┐niyyah)”
(Arberry, Sufism, 52–4).
67
On Dh┴’l-N┴n and literature about him, see ‘Attar, Muslim Saints and Mystics, 87–99; and
Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1975), 42–6.
ecstatic-unitive Sufis of that time having pantheistic ideas is al-Bis ┐m┘, who
was the first of the intoxicated Sufis with high mystical fervor who spoke of
finding God within his own soul. His ecstatic utterances such as his well-
known saying “Glory to me! How great is my majesty!” were again and again
criticized by representatives of Islamic orthodoxy.68 He was also the first to
take the Prophet’s Ascension (mi‘r┐j) as a theme for expressing his own
mystical experience, an attitude later followed by others.69 Though this period
witnessed the apparent distinction between orthodox-oriented and ecstatic-
unitive trends in Sufism, there were also certain Sufis in this era who
endeavoured to reconcile these two sides, such as A mad b. ‘├s┐ al-Kharr┐z
(d.c. 899).
From the tenth to twelfth century both trends of sobriety and ecstasy-
union continued their contributions to Sufism and influenced Muslims
through their doctrines and practices. In Persia, Ab┴ Is ┐q K┐zir┴n┘ (d. 1033),
the famous Sufi of his time whose biography has been written in Firdaws al-
Murshidiyyah was very devoted to following Shar┘‘ah while practicing Sufism
and was also in conflict with the Zoroastrians of Persia.70 In his emphasis on
Shar┘‘ah, he preceded one of the most influential representatives of sober
Sufism, al-Ghaz┐l┘, who completed the task of the earlier orthodox-oriented
Sufis. In his numerous works especially I y┐’ ‘Ul┴m al-D┘n (Revival of the
Religious Sciences), he effectively attempted to reconcile and assimilate Sufism
with orthodox Sunni theology and Islamic law. On the side of ecstatic-unitive
Sufism, the younger brother of al-Ghaz┐l┘, A mad al-Ghaz┐l┘ (d.c. 1126) was
not as strict as his brother regarding Shar┘‘ah, and based his Sufism more on
the cornerstone of love and developed a love-based mystical metaphysic. The
mystical doctrines of A mad al-Ghaz┐l┘ were followed especially by his
prominent disciple ‘Ayn al-Qu ┐h al-Hamad┐n┘ (d. 1131), who was
imprisoned and ultimately executed due to his alleged heretical ideas, another
figure who reaffirmed the continuity of the conflict between ecstatic-unitive
Sufism and orthodox Islam. Also, another Khur┐s┐n┘ Sufi ‘Abd All┐h An ┐r┘
68
For bold sayings of al-Bis ┐m┘ and reaction of ‘ulam┐’ to them, see al- ┴s┘, The Kit┐b al-Luma‘,
380–95.
69
In explaining his experience of mi‘r┐j, al-Bis ┐m┘ says, “Once God raised me up, seated me
before Him, and said to me, ‘O Ab┴ Yaz┘d, My creation loves to see you.’ I said, ‘Adorn me in
Your unity, dress me in your selfhood, and raise me up to your Oneness, so that when your
creation looks at me they will say, “We have seen You” and Thou will be That, and I will not
be there’” (ibid., 382).
70
See Bruce B. Lawrence, “Ab┴ Es ┐q K┐zar┴n┘,” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, last
modified: July 19, 2011; and John L. Esposito, ed., The Oxford History of Islam (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), 359.
387
of Herat (d. 1088), 71 with his senior contemporary Ab┴ Sa‘┘d Ab┴ ’l-Khayr
(d. 1049), created the pattern of thought and expression which afterwards
became famous in the works of such Sufi-poets as San┐’┘ Ghaznav┘ (d. c. 1131)
and ‘A ┐r (d. c. 1220). 72 These and innumerable other greater or lesser Sufi
poets were highly influential in spreading the trend of ecstasy-union Sufism
among Muslims. In the thirteenth century, the continuation of the chain of
ecstatic Sufi-poets in the figure of the distinguished Sufi, Jal┐l al-D┘n R┴m┘ and
also the rise of the “greatest master” (al-shaykh al-akbar) Ibn al-‘Arab┘ brought
about another step forward for ecstatic-unitive Sufism and increased its
hegemony over the orthodox-oriented Sufi trend. In particular, the doctrine of
unity of being as elaborated by Ibn al-‘Arab┘ was employed as a strong
theoretical ground for the mysticism of unity and ecstasy. Due to the warm
reception of this doctrine by Sufis and many other Muslims and the immense
influence of his ideas on Islamic intellectual circles, ecstatic-unitive Sufism
spread more and more among Muslims and it became the dominant trend in
Sufism in the subsequent centuries. This trend of Sufism popularized more
than before such practices as listening to sacred music and dancing (sam┐‘),73
performing miracle-like acts such as kar┐mah and crediting them with the
same value as a miracle performed by the Prophet, 74 venerating saints and
considering sainthood (wil┐yah) as superior to prophethood (nubuwwah), and
advocating religious tolerance and inclusivism, none of which were easily
acceptable to Islamic orthodoxy.
In the context of India, the first strong presence of Sufism in the
Subcontinent occurred in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, and
several Sufi orders were introduced to the Subcontinent from the thirteenth to
fifteenth centuries, the most important among them being the Chishtiyyah,
Suhrawardiyyah, Firdawsiyyah, Q┐diriyyah and Sha ┐riyyah. However, the
only order which would spread out almost all over India during those
71
An ┐r┘ composed his mun┐j┐ts or orisons in Persian in a mixture of rhyming prose and verse,
which is often considered as the prototype of later devotional literature in Persian Sufism.
Interestingly, while being a strict sober Sufi, his mun┐j┐ts influenced many Persian Sufi-poets
belonging to the ecstatic-unitive trend.
72
Arberry, Sufism, 73.
73
Sam┐‘ is one of the critical topics in Sufi reform, which has been discussed by Muhammadan
Sufi reformists in their own way and approach. M┘r Dard, contrary to his Mujaddid┘
contemporaries and predecessors and according to his Comprehensive Way, did not oppose
sam┐‘ or condemn its practice, and he even wrote with reverence toward music in his treatise,
urmat-i Ghin┐.
74
Kar┐mah is a term referring to extraordinary deeds performed by Sufi saints, whom Sufis
regard as the inheritors of the Prophets. These wonders are done with the intervention of divine
power and through knowledge of the unseen (ghayb), the characteristics similar to the features
of prophetic miracle (mu‘jizah).
centuries was the Chishtiyyah, which was first introduced to India by Mu‘┘n
al-D┘n Chisht┘ (d. 1236).75 This order, together with the Sha ┐riyyah whose
founder ‘Abd All┐h of Sha ┐r (d. 1406) is often compared with al- all┐j,
belonged to the ecstatic-unitive Sufism and were influential actors in
popularizing this trend of Sufism in India. The Chishtiyyah played a pivotal
role in opening the doors for Muslim interaction with non-Muslims and the
establishment of a shared tradition based on the ideology of hamah ┴st,
resulted in domination of ecstasy-oriented Sufism and the elements of jam┐l,
tashb┘h, sukr, fan┐’ and wa dat al-wuj┴d. Speaking the language of the common
people, Chisht┘ saints gave impetus to linguistic and cultural assimilation. In
particular, their non-dogmatic attitude towards Islamic rituals and ceremonies
as well as their propounding of new interpretations to these rituals paved the
way for such assimilation. They considered the highest degree of prayer
equivalent to the removal of distress among those living in hardship, an
attitude that allowed diverse types of people from varied religious
backgrounds and beliefs to visit their hospices. The Chisht┘s not only showed
tolerance towards followers of religions other than Islam, but they themselves,
also began exploring and interacting with the non-Islamic teachings of native
Indians. Among the most important leaders of the Chishtiyyah, Na ┘r al-D┘n
Chir┐gh (d. 1356) followed the special breathing techniques of the Hindus,
while Ni ┐m al-D┘n Awliy┐’ (d. 1325) adopted yogic practices, and Far┘d al-
D┘n Ganjshakar (d.c. 1266) practiced austerity like a Sany┐s┘. Other important
figures of this Sufi order such as am┘d al-D┘n N┐g┤r┘ (d. 1276) and Qu b al-
D┘n Bahktiy┐r K┐k┘ (d. 1235) also further contributed in fortifying a Muslim-
Hindu shared tradition.76 This resulted in the Subcontinent being the scene of
a powerful domination of ecstatic-unitive Sufism over an orthodox-oriented
one throughout those centuries. In the sixteenth century, however, the signs
of a resurgence of sober, Shar┘‘ah-based Sufism became evident, especially after
Khaw┐jah B┐q┘ bi All┐h (d. 1603), in the same century, introduced to the
region the Naqshbandiyyah ar┘qah, an order which would eventually spread
across the entire Subcontinent. In reaction to the prevalence of a Sufism of
ecstasy and unity, in the late sixteenth century, the sober reformists
endeavoured to purify Sufism, bringing it closer to orthodox Islam, and
liberating Indian society from what they viewed as its negative ethical and
social consequences. This started in the form of reemphasizing the role of
Mu ammad in Sufism and a return to Muhammadan orthodoxy. The first
75
See K. A. Nizami, “ ar┘ a,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. J. Bearman et al., 2nd ed. (Leiden:
Brill, 2000), 10: 255–7.
76
Soraya Khodamoradi, “Sufi Reform and the Mystical Ideology of Divine Unity,” Peshawar
Islamicus 3:2 (2012), 8–9.
389
stage of such reform in Sufism was initiated by the Naqshband┘ Sufi, A mad
Sirhind┘, who represented the apex of intra-Sufi reaction to ecstatic-unitive
Sufism in the sixteenth century. As the most significant representative of the
sober trend of Sufism after al-Ghazal┘, he targeted the theoretical base of the
prevalent Sufism of his time, that being Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s doctrine of wa dat al-
wuj┴d. He tried to establish a different kind of Sufism, in the line of his
orthodox Sufi predecessors, through proposing an alternative doctrine for Ibn
al-‘Arab┘’s unity of being, i.e., the theory of wa dat al-shuh┴d. His attempt
formed the first stage of Sufi reform causing a deep rift within Sufism from the
sixteenth century onwards which divided Sufism into the two trends of wuj┴d┘
and shuh┴d┘. This division depicted the confrontation of two trends of
orthodox-oriented and ecstatic-unitive Sufism much more clearly than its
depiction during the earlier history of Sufism, and it became more and more
visible in the following centuries.77
In the eighteenth century, both of these trends inside Sufism were
significantly represented in India. On one side, ecstatic-unitive Sufism
continued its presence and influence through its channels, especially the
Chishtiyyah Sufi order. 78 Despite the centuries-long activities of the
representatives of orthodox-oriented Sufism, the doctrine of wa dat al-wuj┴d
in the sense of hamah ┴st and ecstatic practices such as sam┐‘ had retained
popularity, and Sufism with a preference for jam┐l┘ divine names, tashb┘h, sukr
and fan┐’ was still active and vibrant. A number of customs connected with
77
Besides the notion of wa dah, controversy over sam┐‘ was one of the main manifestations of
divergence among Muslims in eighteenth-century India. According to Jamal Malik, “The rivalry
usually focused on the question of listening to music (sam┐‘). Thus sam┐‘ became an issue of
Muslim identity which split society apart, as can be traced in the compendiums of mystics and
scholars alike” (Jamal Malik, Islam in South Asia: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 105).
78
See Umar, Islam in Northern India, 2. The Chishtiyyah Sufi order has always kept its strong
emphasis on ecstasy-oriented Sufism with methods like sam┐‘, which is one of the most
significant practices of this type of Sufism in India. Due to engagement with Chisht┘ Sufis in
sam┐‘, Indian Muslims did not experience a total rejection of sam┐‘, either theoretically or
practically, and in reaction to the challenge of the Mujaddidiyyah, their emphasis on sam┐‘ and
its importance found new advocates (Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence, Sufi Martyrs of Love:
The Chishti Sufism in South Asia and Beyond (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 45).
However, there have been voices promoting a revival of the Chishtiyyah, calling for adaptations
in response to reformist approaches of the eighteenth century. Sh┐h Kal┘m All┐h Jah┐n┐b┐d┘
(d. 1729) and his significant disciple Ni ┐m al-D┘n Awrang┐b┐d┘ (d. 1730), for example, have
been considered the leaders of a Chisht┘ “renaissance” that reconstructed the ethical principles of
the early Chisht┘s (ibid., 28). Even Sh┐h Kal┘m All┐h incited Aurang┐b┐d┘ to perform
mur┐qabah (contemplation assemblies), a popular Naqshband┘ practice, and cautioned him
against indulgence in sam┐‘ (see Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India, 26–27; Saiyid Athar
Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India: From Sixteenth Century to Modern Century (New
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1992), 69).
the non-sober trend of Sufism such as visiting the graves (darg┐hs) of mystic-
saints, excessive veneration of saints, having faith in amulets and charms, and
in some cases even the use of drugs were practiced in the Subcontinent, and
their consequences influenced the Muslim community in that century.79 In his
‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, M┘r Dard described a group of Shaykhs and Sufis of his time
with these words:
Some Sufis claim to be real (a l), but adopt a posture similar to the heretics and
unbelievers. They wear a girdle (zunn┐r)80 on their necks and bear sectarian mark
on their foreheads, they shave their beards, moustaches and eye-brows and call it
cleanliness ( af┐’). They tie rosaries on their legs and wander naked. They
consider such acts to be the climax of freedom (┐z┐d┘) and liberation from
restraints (b qaydi). They are not reluctant to utter words of blasphemy….
Despite such foolish and useless actions, they view themselves as unfettered
unitarians…. Owing to their idle and silly talk, they affect people most of whom
are ignorant.81
On the other side, reforming orthodox-oriented Sufism had already been

strengthened in the eighteenth century by the endeavours of Sirhind┘’s
successors, called Mujaddid┘s due to Sirhind┘’s moniker of mujaddid-i alf-i th┐n┘
(“reviver of the second (Islamic) millennium”), who continued to preach and
propagate sober Sufism. Like several other eminent saints and founders of
important ar┘qahs, Sirhind┘ had deputed his distinguished disciples such as
Bad┘‘ al-D┘n Sah┐ranp┴r┘ and ┐hir Badakhsh┘ to serve as missionaries not
only in different provinces and towns such as Agra, Jaunpur, Patna, Bengal,
Bahlolpur and Lahore but also further afield to Qandahar, Kabul and
Transoxania in order to preach his message and reform the Muslims’ way of
life which had been influenced by ecstatic-unitive Sufism.82 The movement he
established resulted in a considerable and long-lasting influence on Indian
Muslims, and it gave, as Aziz Ahmad states, “to Indian Islam the rigid and
conservative stamp it bears today.”83 In the eighteenth century, Ma har J┐n-i
79
Umar, Islam in Northern India, 48.
80
In Islamic context, the term zunn┐r refers to a thread that the Christians were required to
wear in order to be distinguished from Muslims.
81
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 411–2.
82
For the mission of Sirhind┘ and his successors, see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim
Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1995), 271–81; and Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India,
200–10.
83
Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment, 189. Most of Naqshband┘
suborders today, such as the Mujaddid┘, Khalid┘, Saif┘, ┐hir┘, Q┐sim┘ and aqq┐n┘ branches,
trace their spiritual lineage back to Sirhind┘.
391
J┐n┐ , who was killed by a Shi‘ite zealot, continued this mission from within
the framework of his sub-order, the Shamsiyyah Mujaddidiyyah in Delhi.
Despite significant differences between his and Sirhind┘’s approaches regarding
religious pluralism and what the Muslim attitudes should be toward other
religions such as Hinduism, Ma har continued to represent the reformist sober
Sufism of the Mujaddidiyyah based on strict adherence to Shar┘‘ah and the
Sunnah of the Prophet. His disciple, Sh┐h Ghul┐m ‘Al┘ (d. 1824) imparted
religious education to his disciples in a different style, giving lessons on the
Qur’┐n, the canonic collection of Prophetic ad┘th entitled a ┘ al-Bukh┐r┘,
and Sirhind┘’s collected letters Makt┴b┐t-i Im┐m-i Rabb┐n┘. In addition, the
significant ad┘th scholar and Sufi of the eighteenth century, Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h
of Delhi, who attempted to unite the different trends inside Islam, remained
an orthodox Sufi whose preference for jal┐l┘ divine names, tanz┘h, a w and
baq┐’ over the other parts of the aforementioned binary concepts is obvious in
his oeuvre. Famous Mujaddid┘’s such as Ma har and Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h, despite
their individual particularities, shared in propounding solutions for the
problematic dichotomy of wuj┴d┘-ecstatic and shuh┴d┘-sober Sufism, 84 as did
M┘r Dard. Nevertheless, the Mujaddid┘s’ efforts in general resulted in
propagation of Sunni fanaticism against Shi‘ites,85 reproaching representatives
of non-sober Sufi traditions and showing an intolerant treatment of Hindus.86
84
Ashraf Jah┐ng┘r Simn┐n┘ is seemingly the first Sufi who tried to demonstrate that the conflict
between the two seemingly opposite doctrines of wa dat al-wuj┴d of Ibn al-‘Arab┘ and wa dat
al-shuh┴d of Simn┐n┘ and its proponents in India such as Sirhind┘ and Gais┴ Dar┐z was somehow
merely a verbal controversy. Later on, Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h also attempted to reconcile the two
doctrines. In his books like Lama ┐t and Sa a‘┐t he calls the differences between the two
theories, “verbal controversies,” which have come about because of the ambiguity of language,
and emphasizes that wa dat al-wuj┴d is merely a less-advanced stage in spiritual wayfaring (see
Shah Waliullah, Sufism and the Islamic Tradition: The Lamahat and Sata‘at of Shah Waliullah,
trans. G. N. Jalbani (London: Octagon, 1980)).
85
Umar, Islam in Northern India, 16. Dabist┐n-i Madh┐hib, an anonymous book authored in the
seventeenth century which describes the life under Mughal rule in India and existing religious
communities there, devotes one section to the arguments and counter-arguments between
Sunnites and Shi‘ites at Akbar’s court (Mu sin F┐n┘, Dabist┐n-i Madh┐hib (Lucknow: Munshi
Newal Kishore, 1877), 312–29). Sirhind┘ had many bitter comments to offer concerning the
Shi‘ites, and he advised others like Shaykh Far┘d Mur a ┐ Kh┐n Bukh┐r┘ not to allow Shi‘ites in
his company (see Sirhind┘, Makt┴b┐t-i Im┐m-i Rabb┐n┘, 1: 71–2 (no. 54)). In addition to writing a
tract entitled Radd-i Raw┐fi in which he repudiated the beliefs of the Shi‘ites, in his letters he
berated them with harsh language (see, for instance, ibid., 1: 28–9 (no. 15); 1: 71–2 (no. 54); 1:
102 (no. 80); and 1: 310–37 (no. 267)).
86
One of the influences of orthodox-oriented Sufism in India was rethinking the juristic
approach to the status of Hindus in Islamic law. They dealt with such questions as: Whether
Hindus are to be regarded as dhimm┘ (protected non-Muslim) or k┐fir (infidel), whether the
Muslim law—with its uneven applications together with certain clear protections in relation to
dhimm┘s—could be practically applied in a country with a large and stable non-Muslim
Their Sufi exclusivism articulated itself in specific socio-political situations

even in much more severe anti-Hindu and anti-Shi‘ite attitudes.
It was in the context of this split between the two types of ecstatic-unitive
and orthodox-oriented Sufism that M┘r Dard constructed his ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah J┐mi‘ah in the form of an intra-religious and intra-Sufism
synthesis. It was a solution to resolve the rift between the two trends within
Sufism through proposing a way of balance and comprehensiveness that
incorporates elements from both sides of the dual concepts mentioned above,
especially those of wuj┴d and shuh┴d.87 The synthetic attempts of M┘r Dard
and his father could, therefore, be considered the second phase, after its first
phase was opened by Sirhind┘, of Sufi reform in the frame of the ar┘qah
Mu ammadiyyah which shifted the approach from rejecting ecstatic-unitive
Sufism (as seen in the first phase) to its reconciliation with an orthodox-
oriented one. M┘r Dard and Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b were, in fact, aware of
the disadvantages of the first attempts of Muhammadan reformists such as
ignoring, and even in some cases rejecting, certain pillars of Sufism like the
theory and experience of unity with God and practices like sam┐‘, and strove
to discover a balance between the Sufism of sobriety and that of ecstasy and
union. According to M┘r Dard’s elaboration, in the historical period ending
with Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s time, the concept of “God’s being distinct from creation”
(ghayriyyat-i aqq) was so firmly entrenched in the hearts of people that there
remained less space for the association and direct relationship between God
and man. Then, Ibn al-‘Arab┘ sought to broach the problem of separation by
emphasizing the unity of all creatures and human beings with God. However,
through the course of time his efforts resulted in the development of heretical
ideas and practices, so much so, that even unitive Sufis succumbed to
megalomania, thinking of themselves as if they were the Creator. By the time
of Sirhind┘ the followers of wa dat al-wuj┴d became simply prisoners of
imitation (taql┘d) and idle talk (q┐l). This demanded a fresh remedy, which was
nothing other than Sirhind┘’s proposal of wa dat al-shuh┴d. M┘r Dard
population, and, how one can fit Hindus into the Muslim jurist’s understanding of a religious
community.
87
Similar to M┘r Dard, Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h tried to resolve the controversy between wa dat al-
wuj┴d and wa dat al-shuh┴d in several works. His arguments in acknowledging the legitimacy of
the wuj┴d┘ position while confirming the shuh┴d┘ position, shared also by Ma har J┐n-i J┐n┐ ,
altered the previously dominant view of their Sufi order. According to him, the whole universe
is pervaded by an existence that is both immanent and transcendent, yet the original existence of
God is beyond both aspects of immanence and transcendence (Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British
India, 40). For the discussion about the doctrine of taw ┘d (unity) in Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h’s thought,
see Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h, The Conclusive Argument from God: Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h of Delh┘’s ujjat All┐h
al-B┐ligha, trans. Marcia K. Hermansen (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 173–210.
393
continues that during the days of Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b the ideas of

wa dat al-wuj┴d and wa dat al-shuh┴d were widely propagated and penetrated
the life and faith of the common people of the Muslim community, so that
“the followers of each of the doctrines interpreted these notions respectively
from their own perspectives and so fell further and further apart, dividing, in
turn, the entire community. It was under these circumstances that God sent
Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b with the mission to invite the people to the
ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah.” 88 As ‘Andal┘b himself emphasized earlier, this
ar┘qah “is particular (kh┐ ah) due to its comprehensiveness, and, in fact, its
central quality lies in its comprehensiveness.” 89 For M┘r Dard, granting
preference to each side of the above binary concepts is characteristic of a
specific era in Islamic history on account of the special conditions and
contexts. But “in his time”, he asserted, “another reality has manifested itself,
that of the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐li ah” which is, in M┘r Dard’s point of
view, the most perfect (akmal) manifestation of what was revealed to the
Prophet as “absolute unity” beyond the dichotomy of wuj┴d┘ and shuh┴d┘
perspectives.90
One of the cornerstones on which M┘r Dard constructed and formulated
his Comprehensive Way was the theory of “Divine Muhammadan
Knowledge” (al-‘ilm al-il┐h┘ ’l-Mu ammad┘), the knowledge that transcends
beyond ecstatic-unitive and orthodox-oriented Sufism through going beyond
not only the Sufism of both sides but also Islamic philosophy and theology.
Combining these elements and their methods, M┘r Dard puts forth Divine
Muhammadan Knowledge as a knowledge comprehending all elements of
reason (ma‘q┴l), tradition (manq┴l) and intuition (kashf),91 which is similar to
the synthetic attempts of the great philosopher of Safavid Iran, Mull┐ adr┐
(d. 1640) in his Transcendental Theosophy (al- ikmah al-Muta‘┐liyah). 92 For
M┘r Dard, though orthodox-shuh┴d┘ and ecstatic-unitive wuj┴d┘ trends of
88
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 613.
89
See ibid., 85–6.
90
Ibid., 613.
91
Ibid., 7, 8 and 410.
92
adr al-D┘n Mu ammad Sh┘r┐z┘, known as Mull┐ adr┐, was an Iranian Shi‘ite Islamic
philosopher, theologian and scholar, who endeavoured to synthesize philosophy, mysticism and
the Qur’┐n in his transcendental theosophy. He combined Avicenna’s thought with Shih┐b al-
D┘n al-Suhraward┘’s illuminationist philosophy, Ibn al-‘Arab┘’s Sufi metaphysics, the theological
principles of the Ash‘ar┘ school and Shi‘ism. He was a member of the philosophical school of
Sh┘r┐z and Isfahan, which was transported to India in the sixteenth century through significant
figures such as M┘r Fat All┐h Sh┘r┐z┘ (d. 1589), and M┘r Ghiy┐th al-D┘n Man ┴r Dashtak┘
(d. 1542), an emigrant to the court of Akbar (see Sajjad Rizvi, “Mir Damad in India: Islamic
Philosophical Traditions and the Problem of Creation,” Journal of the American Oriental Society
131 (2011), 9–11).
Sufism have their own deficiencies, both are required components of the
mystical experience and religious life of a Muhammadan wayfarer, and, along
with elements of reason and tradition, they constitute Divine Muhammadan
Knowledge.
In defining the status of Divine Muhammadan Knowledge among other

types of Islamic sciences up to his time, M┘r Dard analyzed different forms of
Islamic thought, criticizing each of them in turn. Similar to al-Ghaz┐l┘, he
criticized philosophers ( ukam┐’) for constantly being engaged in suspicion,
standing merely on their reason (‘aql), and having no faith in the spiritual
affairs (mu‘┐mal┐t) of Prophets and Saints, which are beyond the perception of
both the senses and reason. Yet contrary to al-Ghaz┐l┘, M┘r Dard is not as
harsh with philosophers and their methodology and specific type of
knowledge. He welcomes philosophy ( ikmah)—in the sense of the knowledge
of the reality of things as they are and as much as human potential possesses
the capacity to comprehend—and regards it as a component of Muhammadan
perfections (kam┐l┐t-i Mu ammadiyyah) and an element of Divine
Muhammadan Knowledge, in the event that it is accompanied by the light of
faith and the Prophetic Sunnah. He calls the owners of ikmah the gleaners of
the harvest of Muhammadan knowledge. 93 In juxtaposing al-‘ilm al-il┐h┘ ’l-
Mu ammad┘ with the knowledge of apologetic theologians, M┘r Dard asserts
that the former differs from the latter due to the existence of the possibility of
error in the latter. Believing in the saying that the “mujtahid [one who
performs ijtih┐d] makes mistakes and hits,” 94 he states that the theologians
define their knowledge as the knowledge of proving religious beliefs through
arguments, be those beliefs right or wrong, in order to remove doubt from the
minds of their listeners. However, what this group does is to invent unknown
problems (mas┐’il-i majh┴lah) thereby creating many unnecessary arguments.
M┘r Dard also criticizes Islamic scholars, or ‘ulam┐’, whom he describes as
those who only consider the superficial and exterior things and never apply
their intellect, and those whose light of the exterior eye (chashm-i ┐hir) has
darkened their rationality. 95 Accordingly, he maintains that the ‘ulam┐’ are
enslaved in words (alf┐ ), while philosophers and theologians are enslaved in
meanings (ma‘┐n┘). Yet both words and meanings are types of relative
93
94
According to Sunni schools of law, Allah rewards a mujtahid twice, in case his jurisprudential
opinion is right, and rewards him once, if his jurisprudential opinion is wrong. For a Prophetic
ad┘th supporting this law, see Mu ammad b. Ism┐‘┘l al-Bukh┐r┘, a ┘ , Kit┐b al-I‘ti ┐m bi ’l-
Kit┐b wa ’l-Sunnah, B┐b Ajr al- ┐kim idh┐ Ijtahada fa A ┐ba aw Akh a’.
95
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 7, 8 and 411. See also M┘r Dard, Ris┐lah-i └h-i Sard, 90, ┐h no. 110.
395
knowledge (i‘tib┐r┐t), and that reality and truth are both beyond, while
simultaneously comprehending them.96
The Divine Muhammadan Knowledge of M┘r Dard not only goes beyond
the knowledge of philosophers, theologians and ‘ulam┐’ in an inclusive way,
but also transcends, and simultaneously embraces, both trends of ecstatic-
unitive as well as sober Sufism. M┘r Dard asserted that this knowledge is
distinguished from the alleged knowledge of Sufis prevailing in his time as
ta awwuf, which he regarded as mere infidelity (il ┐d) and an absurd
phenomena to which nonsense idle talk (turrah┐t-i muhmalah) had been added.
Criticizing wa dat al-wuj┴d in its pantheistic version of hamah ┴st, he
maintained that it is an expression in a drunken state by those who are in the
state of being overwhelmed (maghl┴b- ┐l┐n) at the beginning of their mystical
path. This expression is uttered due to a deficiency of knowledge, and results
in damaging many lay people.97 M┘r Dard, nevertheless, views faithful people
among the Sufis positively, calling them muta awwif┘n and the people of
certitude (┘q┐n) and divides these into two groups. The first group of these
muta awwif┘n includes those who experience mystical states and raptures
(maw┐j┘d), perform Sufi practices and meditation, and connect themselves
with Sufi orders, but have nothing to do with the knowledge and
“actualization of truth in the self” (ta q┘q). M┘r Dard does not reject this group
and considers them to be those who can be included inside the boundaries of
Mu ammadiyyah. However, since they have no true knowledge, they do not
possess any rank in the Divine Muhammadan Knowledge. In contrast to this
sort of wuj┴d┘ Sufi who possesses insufficient knowledge, M┘r Dard points to
the followers of wa dat al-shuh┴d as those who enjoy a kind of knowledge to
which lay people and majority of wayfarers have no access. He defines wa dat
al-shuh┴d as the state of abundance of yearning (kathrat-i shawq) and being
overwhelmed by rapture (jadhbah) without understanding or attaining the
knowledge that is beneficial for the majority of wayfarers. The knowledge
proffered by shuh┴d┘ Sufis is a kind of exalted knowledge which is only
accessible to special elite (khaw┐ ). Thus, in his thought, wa dat al-wuj┴d has
the capacity to benefit lay people and wa dat al-shuh┴d is more suitable for the
spiritually elite but the proposal of Divine Muhammadan Knowledge is useful
for all people, be they elite or lay. In another place, while categorizing the
different types of divine knowledge (‘ilm-i ladunn┘), he considers both wa dat
al-wuj┴d and wa dat al-shuh┴d to be parts of the knowledge of sainthood
(wil┐yah), which is achieved through the books and treatises of Sufis without
aspiration or intuition and merely through imitation. M┘r Dard defines the
96
97
Ibid., 6–7.
knowledge of wil┐yah in the form of wa dat al-shuh┴d as a knowledge which

maintains an opinion as to the separation between the degrees of Divinity
(ul┴hiyyah) and servanthood (‘ub┴diyyah), while defining it in the form of
wa dat al-wuj┴d as a knowledge that maintains an opinion to the unity of
Divinity and servanthood that sometimes results in an antinomian
abandonment of the rules of Shar┘‘ah eventually developing into atheism
(zandaqah wa il ┐d). 98 This knowledge of sainthood, which comprises both
wuj┴d┘—except what leads to atheism—and shuh┴d┘ knowledge, is itself a part
of Divine Muhammadan Knowledge.99
The second group among muta awwif┘n are those who in fact own truth
and subtlety (ahl-i tadq┘q), are nearer to the core of truth than philosophers
and theologians, and whose achievements are higher than theirs. The way of
these people is, in M┘r Dard’s viewpoint, the way of illuminationists
(ishr┐qiyy┴n)100 and most of their affairs are in accordance with that school.
Among this group are some representatives of wuj┴d┘ and ecstatic-unitive
Sufism while others are representatives of the shuh┴d┘ and orthodox-oriented
trend. Even the knowledge of this group, M┘r Dard argues, is not the real one
because it is also an additional knowledge (‘ilm-i i ┐f┘) in which Sufis prescribe
their own expressions and put everything into the mold of their special way of
thinking and interpretation based on specific rules.101 Asserting that the truth
has been lost due to the extensive array of different forms of expression and
languages of a variety of groups including Sufis, he described Divine
Muhammadan Knowledge as the knowledge whose language is derived from
the Qur’┐n and ad┘th and which expresses things and subjects as they really
are. Such Muhammadan knowledge is a substitute for all other forms of Sufi
98
Ibid., 82. In the treatise Sham‘-i Ma fil, M┘r Dard stated that the meaning which is erroneously
given to the word taw ┘d by some people leads to heresy and fruitless controversy (see M┘r
Dard, Ris┐lah-i Sham‘-i Ma fil, 283, n┴r no. 206).
99
N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b invited Muslims to assemble under the umbrella of Taw ┘d-i Mu ammad┘ and
declared that the doctrines of wa dat al-wuj┴d and wa dat al-shuh┴d are not two opposite
doctrines (see M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 613; and ‘Andal┘b, N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b, 898).
100
Here, M┘r Dard was likely referring to the school of mystical philosophy in Islam which was
founded in the twelfth century by Shih┐b al-D┘n al-Suhraward┘. The basic premise of al-
Suhraward┘’s teachings was that knowledge is available to man not through logical reasoning
alone but also, and above all, through illumination resulting from the purification of one’s inner
being. The doctrine of ishr┐q is not based on the refutation of logic, but advocates transcending
its categories through an illuminationist knowledge based on immediacy and presence.
Suhraward┘ refers to the latter as the “knowledge by presence” (al-‘ilm al- u ┴r┘) in contrast to
conceptual knowledge (al-‘ilm al- u ┴l┘) (see M. Ha’iri Yazdi, The Principles of Epistemology in
Islamic Philosophy: Knowledge by Presence (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
1992); and W. M. Thackston, trans., The Mystical and Visionary Treatises of Suhrawardi (London,
Octagon: 1982)).
101
397
knowledge and converses only by means of employing the words assigned by

the Prophet (alf┐ -i mau ┴‘ah-i mu afav┘). Nevertheless, if the Muhammadans
use different languages such as that of conventional Sufis, their intention
remains, both exteriorly and interiorly, to follow the Prophet and merely to
reveal the secrets of the Prophetic tradition, which has been ignored by veiled
people who pay attention only to external things. Thus, in expressing al-‘ilm
al-il┐h┘ ’l-Mu ammad┘, the Muhammadan wayfarer may employ the methods
of philosophers as well as the language and expressions of Sufis, which are
inferior to the language and expressions of the Prophet. M┘r Dard considers,
therefore, the Prophetic language to be the basic language of the ar┘qah
J┐mi‘ah, which is the only language to declare the real intention of the Qur’┐n
and ad┘th through mystical intuition, and throughout this process the
Prophet is always the witness and guide to Muhammadan wayfarers.102
The true Muhammadans are, in M┘r Dard’s viewpoint, the perfect saints
of intuition in whom the truth has become actualized (‘uraf┐’-i mu aqqiq┘n)
and their sayings can be proved by both reason and the Prophetic tradition.
Thus, their philosophy is divine, their knowledge is infinite, and both
tradition and reason has surrendered to their knowledge. 103 Divine
Muhammadan Knowledge is the end of mystical wayfaring that is attainable
by those who are at the same time the owners of perfect intellect (‘uq┴l-i
k┐milah) and high souls (nuf┴s-i ‘┐liyah), the most faithful believers and the
most perfect mystics (awliy┐’-i t┐mm al-‘irf┐n). Therefore, in the knowledge of
these people there is no contradiction or inconsistency between mysticism,
philosophy and tradition. Nevertheless, being aware of the deficiencies of the
variety of Islamic sciences, the Muhammadans, who externally and internally
follow no one save for the Prophet, imitate neither philosophers nor
theologians, neither the ‘ulam┐’ nor Sufis in acquiring their knowledge, and
they acquire their all-inclusive knowledge directly from Mu ammad. M┘r
Dard calls them Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐li ah since their Muhammadan Way is
pure from any kind of deficiency: “their truth is free from imitation, their
knowledge includes no suspicions (ma n┴n) contrary to that of the
philosophers, their objects of intuition include no illusion (mawh┴m) as
102
Ibid., 3 and 6. For M┘r Dard’s usage of the language of Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐li ah, see ibid.,
56, 107–9 and 333. M┘r Dard believes that most of the Sufis who cherished faith in the doctrine
of wa dat al-wuj┴d relied on both their own intuitional and intellectual faculties, and followed
the Prophet in a weak manner. They selected and interpreted verses from the Qur’┐n and ad┘th
according to their own inclinations and leanings, while they were not interested in the Shar┘‘ah,
and adherence to it was not essentially a part of their faith. Consequently, M┘r Dard continued,
they considered as lawful whatever they felt and thought to be reasonable (ibid., 609).
103
Ibid., 8.
opposed to that of the Sufis, and the reality they obtain is pure of any
falseness.”104
In this manner, M┘r Dard formulated Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b’s
ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah in the frame of ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah in an attempt to
settle the tension within Sufism between jam┐l┘ and jal┐l┘ approaches, in order
to encompass both ecstatic-unitive and orthodox-oriented Sufism in a unique
transcendental path. His synthetic intra-Sufism endeavour aimed to reconcile
the adherents of both sides—be they elite or laypersons—after a long debate
and deep rift between them, especially after the beginning of the Mujaddid┘
reformist movement in the late sixteenth century. His methodology sought to
retain the advantages of both sides while rejecting their disadvantages and
deficiencies. On the one hand, as a Muhammadan reformist, he criticized those
aspects of ecstatic-unitive Sufism which, according to him, would lead to
harmful consequences in Muslim society, such as overemphasis on the
authority of shaykhs and violating Shar┘‘ah principles. Simultaneously, he
criticized orthodox-oriented Sufism for having defects such as antagonism
against other Islamic denominations and other religions as well as disregarding
or rejecting certain important and beneficial aspects of the Sufi tradition. On
the other hand, M┘r Dard accepted elements from both wuj┴d┘ and shuh┴d┘
mystical trends, considering them two branches of his Comprehensive Way,
and regarding their knowledge as part of his Divine Muhammadan
Knowledge. Additionally, in his intra-Islamic synthetic endeavour, he
attempted to embrace, in an all-inclusive fashion, the advantages of all Islamic
sciences while denouncing their imperfections. He tried to introduce a way of
comprehensiveness, balance and transcendence, which goes beyond and
surpasses all dichotomies and binaries which bring about diversity, separation
and imperfection. These features as summarized in the concept of ar┘qah
J┐mi‘ah can be considered the major characteristics of his Muhammadan Way,
and hence, should be taken into account in understanding his mystical system.
This absolute comprehensiveness (jam‘iyyat-i t┐mmah) is the manifestation of the

divine and the mirror of Muhammadan comprehensiveness. The owner of
104
Ibid., 6–7. M┘r Dard juxtaposed Mu ammadiyyah Kh┐li ah with Mu ammadiyyah Mumtazijah
(“impure Muhammadan”), which includes not only philosophers, Sufis and theologians but also
the followers of all alleged seventy-two denominations of Islam, according to the famous ad┘th
indicating the division of the Islamic Ummah into seventy-three sects (among several variants of
this Prophetic saying, see, for instance, Ab┴ D┐w┴d Sulaym┐n b. al-Ash‘ath al-Sajist┐n┘, Sunan,
Kit┐b al-Sunnah, B┐b Shar al-Sunnah). M┘r Dard believed that various confessions in Islam
have obtained Mu ammadiyyah rank and, therefore, are to be considered faithful. However,
they have mixed the copper of egoism (an┐niyyah) with the pure gold of Mu ammadiyyah and
changed their direction from the pure Muhammadan Way.
399
jam‘iyyat-i t┐mmah encompasses all dual stages and states of jam┐l–jal┐l, sukr–
a w, fan┐’–baq┐’, tashb┘h–tanz┘h, aq┘qah–shar┘‘ah [truth–Shar┘‘ah], farq–jam‘
[separation–congregation], ‘ilm–‘amal [knowledge–practice], kashf–burh┐n
[intuition–reason], ‘aql-i ma‘┐sh–‘aql-i ma‘┐d [worldly reason–otherworldly
reason], uns–wa shah [intimacy–fear], u bah–‘uzlah [companionship-seclusion]….
The interior of such a person is completely full of the light of the presence of
perfect union ( a rat-i jam‘ al-jam‘), while his exterior is gallantly adorned with
the state of separation following union (farq-i ba‘d al-jam‘).105
Similar to his famous Naqshband┘ contemporary Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h, M┘r

Dard contributed to the process of Sufi reform in the eighteenth century, and
several of his own statements as well as accounts about him in tadhkirah
literature imply that he gained some popularity in his time. However, M┘r
Dard’s proposed Muhammadan Way had seemingly been the subject of doubt
and rejection among different strata of the Muslim community in his time,
and he himself attested to having had an unsteady reputation among the
Naqshband┘s. Several passages in his works refer to this situation, for example
when he compares his age to that of the Prophet Noah, when, according to
the Qur’┐n, Noah beseeched his people night and day but his supplications
were left unanswered.106 M┘r Dard laments in ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b,
It has hardly been 1100 years since the Prophet’s migration to Medina, and
already there is little acquaintance with the pure Muhammadi way in the hearts
of the community. Upon hearing the name, people are doubtful and ask ‘What
kind of path is this?’ as if pure Muhammadis have created a new path out of thin
air.107
In his laying out the categories of doubters and deniers of his message, he
includes the representatives of the ubiquitous “mullahs of the husk” (mull┐-i
qishr), Mujaddidis, and even some of his own disciples. Objections against him
appear to be centered on, aside from his conception of the master, the idea of
his ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah superseding and abrogating all other paths.
Numerous statements in both the introduction and throughout his
masterpiece show that he may have fielded accusations of cultish behaviour
and of elevating the spiritual guide (‘Andal┘b and himself) to a quasi-divine
status.108 These objections and accusations can partly explain why M┘r Dard’s
105
106
Qur’┐n 71: 5.
107
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 89. The translation is of Ziad, “Quest of the Nightingale,” 132–33.
108
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 94, 162–63. See also Ziad, “Quest of the Nightingale,” 128–29, 132
and 134.
legacy has been predominantly preserved by poets and seen mainly as poetic
works, with his name having only rarely been included in the biographical
dictionaries of the Naqshband┘s or Muslim scholars of India.
Notwithstanding considering his way as an abrogative ar┘qah and
criticizing all other Sufi and non-Sufi schools as deficient, M┘r Dard
emphasizes that he never excommunicates (takf┘r) those turning their face to
the ka‘bah for prayer, even should they be, in most of their affairs, vain
innovators (ahl al-bid‘ah). To him all manners of Islamic denominations were
accepted, yet they were impure and mixed trends that suffered from
deficiencies originating in their deviation from the true way of the Prophet.
This true way was for him nothing other than his Muhammadan Way, which
he regarded as the restoration of Islam and Mu ammad more than a
millennium after the Prophet’s death. Yet, he asserted that since the death of
the Prophet there had always been true saints and denominations deserving of
being called pure Muhammadan. 109 Such endeavouring, by M┘r Dard, to
incorporate into his way some saints and ar┘qahs that came before both him
and his father, must have been at least partly due to the criticism against
rejecting imitation found in his way. Indian Muslims must have considered
advocates of ‘Andal┘b’s way as being among those that refused to imitate old
Sufi masters including their own forefathers like Bah┐’ al-D┘n Naqshband and
Sirhind┘. M┘r Dard’s own assertions show that while he regarded following the
Sufi forefathers as being analogous to following the Prophet Ibr┐h┘m and his
nation for Muslims, even his Naqshband┘ and Mujaddid┘ associates were
highly doubtful of his Muhammadan Way and assumed that he saw their
masters as the subject of hidden shirk.110 Besides Naqshbandiyyah, M┘r Dard’s
abrogative ar┘qah did not exclude Shi‘ism, to the extent that the Shi‘ite
principle of the Imamate became one of the pillars of his ideology. Such
openness to Shi‘ism must also be another reason for the cold reception of M┘r
Dard among not only Sunni Naqshband┘s and Mujaddidis but also other
groups within the Sunni community, which constituted the majority of Indian
Muslims. Mir Dard’s attempt at the absorption of Shi‘ites and their ideas
coincided with the ignition of sectarian strife between Shi‘ites and Sunnis in
India. He considered his ar┘qah neither Sunni nor Shi‘ite but a comprehensive
way encompassing both, as it encompasses all other types of Muslim groups.
He invited Shi‘ites to join his way, while they were rejected by Mujaddid┘s,
and he reanalyzed the relationship between Im┐ms and the Prophet’s
Companions in order to join the two major Islamic denominations together.
M┘r Dard considered both Im┐ms and the Prophet’s Companions as branches
109
M┘r Dard, ‘Ilm al-Kit┐b, 88, 75 and 259.
110
Ibid., 88–89 and 110.
401
of the same tree of the Prophet, no matter whether transplanted

(Companions) or the real offspring (Im┐ms), and appreciated resorting to both
as resorting to the way of the Prophet. He asked Muslims to be concerned
only with the good fruits and results as well as pleasant shadows and beauty
that both types of branches supplied for Muslims rather than concentrating on
their differences.111
Besides the idea of abrogation in M┘r Dard’s Muhammadan Way and its
openness towards Shi‘ism, another significant factor in the lack of extensive
popularity for his way was the presence of prominent Naqshband┘ figures in
North India in his time and his reluctance toward the institutional expansion
of his ar┘qah. Two renowned figures, viz. the multifaceted Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h
and the popular Naqshband┘ saint Ma har J┐n-i J┐n┐ were living in the
eighteenth century in the same territory where M┘r Dard was teaching his
ideology,112 and it cast a shadow on M┘r Dard’s influence not only in his own
time but also in the subsequent centuries. In the absence of due historical
information it is difficult to determine whether M┘r Dard sent any delegates
out to proselytize, and thereby propagate his thought, similar to what Ma har
successfully did. The writings of both M┘r Dard and ‘Andal┘b show that they
were more theoreticians of Sufism rather than masters focusing on practical
mysticism in the frame of a particular Sufi order. There is no evidence
whether ‘Andal┘b had established a kh┐nq┐h and he does not seem to have
done much in the way of forming a silsilah, although M┘r Dard mentions his
initiation to the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah by his father, and both father and
son seemingly initiated both men and women as disciples. It appears that M┘r
Dard’s way remained confined to the very limited circles of his disciples, most
of whom being his family members and relatives. After M┘r Dard’s death, his
younger brother Khaw┐jah Mu ammad M┘r Athar, who must have been born
after 1740, continued to propagate the principles of the Muhammadan Way
through his literary works. Yet after a chain of three successors after Mir
Athar, the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah found almost no role to play as a quasi-
silsilah and M┘r Dard’s Comprehensive Way, which advocated an experience
111
Ibid., 83, 84 and 255–57. In the introduction to his masterwork, ‘Andal┘b mentions the
reasons which led him to create the book, including the high level of curiosity among the
younger generation over the truth concerning the different sects of Shi‘ite and Sunnite Islam
(‘Andal┘b, N┐lah-i ‘Andal┘b, 1: 3).
112
For more information about Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h and J┐n-i J┐n┐ and their role in the religious
dynamic of eighteenth century India, see the introduction of Marcia K. Hermansen to Sh┐h
Wal┘ All┐h, The Conclusive Argument From God, xxvi–xxxvii; and Tomas Dahnhardt, Change
and Continuity in Indian Sufism: A Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi Branch in the Hindu Environment
(New Delhi: D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., 2002), 14–40.
beyond Jam┐l and Jal┐l, remained without any significant propagating

representative.113
∗∗∗
See N┐ ir Nadh┘r Fir┐q, Maikh┐nah-i Dard (Delhi: n.p., 1925), 32 and 118; and Umar, Islam in
113
Northern India, 92–101.

Tariqah Muammadiyyah As Tariqah Jami A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tariqah Muammadiyyah As Tariqah Jami A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tariqah Muammadiyyah As Tariqah Jami A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the Muhammadan Way?

What is the Muhammadan Way?

What is the Comprehensive Way?

What is the Comprehensive Way?

Islamic Studies 51:4 (2012) pp.

ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah as ar┘qah J┐mi‘ah:

The Muhammadan Way or the ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah is a particular

reality”) as set forth by Ibn al-‘Arab┘.12 The Mu ammadiyyah trend, in fact,

further developed in the late seventeenth century in relation to the

exerted considerable transformation in Sufism. Nevertheless, neither

confrontation and interaction between the two trends of ecstatic-unitive versus

for ta awwuf. 27 In order to explain M┘r Dard’s ar┘qah Mu ammadiyyah

Another pair of concepts in the frame of which two main trends of

dependent in nature, whether in the form of attribute, action, or essence, into

Sufis such as al-Qushayr┘.63 Both orthodox-oriented and ecstatic-unitive Sufism

On the other side, reforming orthodox-oriented Sufism had already been

Their Sufi exclusivism articulated itself in specific socio-political situations

continues that during the days of Mu ammad N┐ ir ‘Andal┘b the ideas of

In defining the status of Divine Muhammadan Knowledge among other

knowledge of wil┐yah in the form of wa dat al-shuh┴d as a knowledge which

knowledge and converses only by means of employing the words assigned by

This absolute comprehensiveness (jam‘iyyat-i t┐mmah) is the manifestation of the

Similar to his famous Naqshband┘ contemporary Sh┐h Wal┘ All┐h, M┘r

of the same tree of the Prophet, no matter whether transplanted

beyond Jam┐l and Jal┐l, remained without any significant propagating

Northern India, 92–101.

You might also like