Sufi Dynastic Families in Pre-Mughal India

Sufi Dynastic Families in Pre-Mughal India Sushmita Banerjee, University of Delhi Miranda House https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.365 Published online: 23 February 2021 Summary In South Asia the proliferation of Muslim settlements between the 13th and the 15th centuries was accompanied by the expansion of sufi fraternities. Sufis were revered as venerable figures due to their status as the possessors of spiritual grace and intuitive knowledge. Many sufis cultivated a comportment that was endearing, avuncular, and charismatic. They also gained renown for their textual productions, some more than others. Conventional historiography classifies sufis according to their affiliation to sufi silsilahs (spiritual order): Chishti, Suhrawardi, Firdausi, Qadiri, and several others. The linear perception of a silsilah as a chain of transmission of authority from a sufi pīr (spiritual master) to his murīds (disciple) and k̲h̲alīfās (spiritual successor), and the fixed notions about precepts and praxis have conflated the heterogeneous spiritual paths of individual sufis. Most of the spiritual orders did not expand in a unilateral manner. The classification of sufi silsilahs by similitude and differences precludes the complex, multistranded evolution of sufi praxis. The perception of a homogeneous silsilah is premised on the textualization of the genealogy of sufis in the taz̠kirāt (biographical dictionary).The perception that a hegemonic spiritual order is based on a linear and exclusionary chain of transmission of authority as evident in the taz̠kirāt can be challenged by taking recourse to the discourses of individual Sufis in the malfūz̤āt (utterances). The malfūz̤āt represent the spiritual path of charismatic sufi preceptors who relied on select historical personages from an “omnipresent past” to define their praxis rather than on a linear history of sufi preceptors. By contextualizing sufi texts in their contexts, the negotiation and competition among the lineal and spiritual descendants can be traced. In the 14th century neo-eponymous sufis effortlessly transited from one sufi affiliation to another (Nizamiyya to Chishti, for instance), but in the 16th century sufi texts highlighted the simultaneous, multiple affiliations of sufis, thereby complicating the history of the sufi silsilahs. Keywords: sufi order, Chishti, Suhrawardi, silsilah, tarīqa, pīr, murīd, k̲h̲alīfā, sajjāda nishīn, malfūz̤āt, taz̠kirāt, tabarrukāt, Siyar al-Awliyā’, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, Nizam al-Din Awliya The Muslim Community in Pre-Mughal India: An Introduction In the 13th century North India witnessed military and administrative expansion under the Delhi Sultans. Politically, this marked the bestowal of power on slave commanders of Turkish ethnicity and the large-scale immigration of learned Muslims who received patronage from the state. By the 14th century, Muslim settlements and centers of Islamic learning expanded Page 1 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 to several regions in northern India as well as in the Deccan. The preceptors of the Muslim community were identified in the Persian textual sources by a range of terms such as buzurg (respected elder/guide), ‘ālim (scholar; pl. ulamā), murshid (spiritual mentor), and pīr (spiritual preceptor). Amongst them, the sufis were revered universally among the Muslim community on account of their spiritual prowess. Sufis were often identified through their descent groups, based on spiritual or familial lineages, which are eponymously named and hence distinguished, and it is these identifiers that accounted for their position among the vast constellation of piety-minded Muslims. In medieval South Asia, genealogy, whether lineal or spiritual, was a key social identifier. This article details the complex history of the Sufis and sufi fraternities from the 13th to the 15th centuries. Although the term “sufi” is commonly used to refer to individuals who are spiritually inclined, they did not constitute a monolithic body of people. Very often, the affiliation of sufis to a silsilah (spiritual order) has been the prime mode of classification of sufi norms and ideals. The silsilah is a spiritual genealogy in which spiritual authority is transmitted from the pīr/ murshid to the murīd (disciple) through the bai‘at (oath of allegiance), but scholars have often reduced this complex idea to a linear, almost institution-like, idea. The simple chain of pīr-murīd becomes more complicated by the presence of a vast number of murīds, k̲h̲alīfās (spiritual successor), and lineage descendants. Additionally, the sufis associated with a silsilah 1 followed a set of teachings and practices, which is referred to as their t̤arīqa (spiritual path). The linear history of sufis can become more complex if the formation process of the fraternities, especially the mode of textualization of sufi orders and the history of the sufi preceptors, are historicized. In effect, a wide range of questions can be framed: Is it possible to trace a uniform process of development of the sufi fraternities? How were the spiritual lineages created on the grounds of similitude and difference? What was the role of individual sufi pīrs, collateral lineages, large number of spiritual disciples in determining the praxis of the sufi silsilah? Was there any hegemonic notion of sufi praxis associated with a sufi order? Was it possible for individual sufis to have practices that were immensely diverse but were subsequently collated to form a uniform notion of a sufi fraternity and its norms? This article addresses some of these questions. The first section discusses the history of Sufis in the 13th century—a period that provides nascent indication of a pīr–murīd lineage. The second section underlines the role of textual sources in developing the hegemonic notion of a silsilah and the complexities of sufi fraternities in particular, especially the Chishti sufis from the 13th to the 14th centuries. The third section focuses on other sufi lineages, especially Suhrawardis and Firdausis. The Setting: Sufis and Piety-Minded Muslims in the Thirteenth Century The Muslim settlements of merchants and itinerant preachers in the Punjab and Sindh date back to several centuries prior to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. In the late 12th century, Mu‘izz al-Din Ghuri and subsequently his slave commanders established appanages in North India, which facilitated the formation of a new political order—the Delhi Sultanate. From the early 13th century the political chronicles of the Sultanate carry references to the presence of pious and learned Muslims who had recently migrated to the subcontinent, Page 2 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 fleeing from central Islamic lands following the invasions by Chinggis Khan. The Delhi Sultans patronized immigrant Muslims engaged them in various administrative roles, and the mosques and madrasas constructed by the state, facilitated the increasing engagement of 2 Muslim scholars. The texts contain references to pious Muslims as individual dervishes and itinerant preachers who blessed and shielded people from various miseries. The Persian chronicles detail anecdotes about faqīrs (dervish) who presciently identified random individuals as future Sultans. Qazi Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani, the author of T̤abaqāt-i Nāṣirī (completed in 1266), 3 recounted the bestowal of kingship to a young slave Iltutmish by a faqīr in Bukhara. In the same vein, 14th-century traveler Ibn Battuta reported a rumor that as a boy-slave, Balban, had 4 offered a copper coin to a faqīr, who then bestowed on him the realm of Hindustan. Besides the Persian chronicles, retrospective accounts of miraculous abilities of the sufis were narrated in the sufi sources. The 14th-century sufi texts recount specific details about individual sufis who blessed and shielded Sultans and common Muslims from unforeseen dangers. Amir Hasan Sijzi, the author of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād (completed in 1308–1322), reported that in the wake of Mongol attack, Qubacha approached Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki to seek protection. The sufi pīr handed him an arrow that he released in the direction of the Mongols, leading to their disappearance. On another occasion, the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād stated that with the death of Shaykh Farid al-Din, his wilāyat (spiritual territory) disappeared—that is, the protection he 5 provided vanished—leading the Mongols to ravage the Punjab region. In addition, instances of visitations of Sultans and/or their retinue to the dwellings of Sufi pīrs to seek blessings are also reported. In the modern historiography the establishment of sufi dynastic lineages in North India is traced to the early 13th century. The migration and settlement of sufi pīrs in several towns and qasbas, along with the establishment of hospices of prominent sufi lineages—Chishti, Suhrawardis, and the Firdausis—are regarded to be critical in understanding the spread of 6 sufi silsilahs. It is pertinent to note that the Persian sources produced in the 13th century do not discuss the existence of any sufi lineage. The references to the existence of charismatic sufi pīrs who settled in frontier regions are recounted in 14th-century sufi texts in a varied manner. Some of the sufi pīrs recurrently discussed in later sufi taz̠kirāt include: Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din in Ajmer, Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki in Delhi, Shaykh Baha’ al-Din Zakariya at Multan, Shaykh Hamid al-Din Suwali in Nagaur, Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri at Delhi, Shaykh Jalal al-Din Tabrizi at Bengal, Shaykh Badr al-Din Ghaznavi at Delhi, and Shaykh Farid al-Din (also known as Baba Farid) at Ajudhan. Conventionally, these sufis are identified through their affiliation to a single sufi order, even though their association with multiple sufi pīrs co-existed 7 simultaneously. Mu‘in al-Din Chishti (d. 1236) has been identified as the “founder” of the Chishti silsilah in latter-day taz̠kirāt. However, the early 14th-century sufi malfūz̤āt, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād contains a solitary tangential reference to his presence. He is not referred to as either Chishti or the founder of any silsilah, instead he is remembered in the context of one of his lineal descendants. The mid-14th-century sufi taz̠kirāt, Siyar al-Awliyā’ retrospectively recreates a linear history of the Chishti Sufis, carries details about Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din’s settlement in Ajmer and his welfare activities, and gives him the status of “founder” of the Chishti sufi Page 3 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 8 lineage. Jalal al-Din Tabrizi (d. 1244) initially settled in North India and later migrated to Bengal. He is praised in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād for his spiritual and intuitive genius as well as with his nonmaterialistic outlook. He is identified as a disciple of Shaykh Shihab al-Din 9 Suhrawardi. Baha’ al-Din Zakariya (d. 1262), another disciple of Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi, established a k̲h̲ānaqāh (hospice) in Multan. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād reports that he had amassed considerable amount of wealth due to regular visitors, followed rigorous prayer schedules, 10 and had stringent religious tenor. Baba Farid (d. 1265), a disciple of Bakhtiyar Kaki, established his k̲h̲ānaqāh in Ajudhan. His spiritual genius and acts of piety are discussed at 11 great length in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād. The visitors to his k̲h̲ānaqāh contributed large amounts of futūh (charity) which was dispensed to the needy on a regular basis. Over time, these hospices became important centers for transmitting mystical instructions to sufi novitiates as well as disciples who were groomed in the nuances of mysticism, conditioned by the intuitive 12 grace and instructions of the sufi pīrs. In several instances, the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād referred to Baba Farid in contrast to Baha’ al-Din Zakariya. Hamid al-Din Suwali (d. 1274), a sufi based in Nagaur led a modest life by practicing cultivation, engaged in intellectual discussions with 13 Baha’ al-Din Zakariya, and owed spiritual allegiance to Mu‘in al-Din. Hence, in the middle of the 13th century, select sufi pīrs settled in the eastern and western frontiers of the Sultanate with some organizational framework for teaching and establishing fraternities. This was in marked contrast to their presence in the centers of Sultanate authority. The 14th-century sufi sources also report the limited presence of sufi pīrs in Delhi, the capital of the Sultanate. Bakhtiyar Kaki (d. 1235) resided and later chose to get buried in Delhi. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād details his rigorous prayer schedule, intuitive knowledge, and deep engagement with samā‘ (invocatory singing). In addition, other sufis who were based in Delhi and are cited in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād include: Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri (d. 1244), a disciple of Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi who supported samā‘ and had friendly relations with Bakhtiyar Kaki and Baba Farid; and Shaykh Badr al-Din Ghaznawi (d. 1259), a disciple of Bakhtiyar Kaki, who some expected to succeed as spiritual heir although the nomination went in favor of Baba 14 Farid. However, the evidence is compelling; these mystics did not establish centers of 15 mystical instruction in Delhi. Therefore, by the early 14th century textual references to sufis were largely restricted to their spiritual accomplishments and their relationship with other sufi pīrs. The usual instances of sufi benevolence were challenged on occasion when the dervishes posed a threat to the political prowess of the state. Juzjani reported in the T̤abaqāt-i Nāṣirī that in the early 13th century Nur Turk, a dervish, led an attack on the Masjid-i Jami‘ (congregational mosque) of Delhi, thereby directly challenging the authority of the state. The state persecuted him, and chroniclers labeled him a mulāḥida (heretic) and qarāmiṭa (Shi‘i 16 Qaramatian). In the early 14th century in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, Nizam al-Din Awliya defended the allegations against Nur Turk; he disputed the claims of the chronicles and held 17 that Nur Turk was a pious person, not a heretic. Subsequently, in the 1290s, Sidi Muwallih, a dervish, came to Delhi and developed friendly associations with several people who had political ambitions. Ziya’ al-Din Barani, the author of the 14th-century chronicle Ta’rīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī, noted that Sidi Muwallih’s political aspirations startled Sultan Jalal al-Din Khalaji, 18 leading to the execution of the dervish. Despite these exceptions, 13th-century sufis seemed to play a marginal role in influencing courtly politics. The challenges posed by Nur Turk and Sidi Muwallih indicate the aspirations of sufi pīrs to emerge as alternate source of power, but sufis’ lack of organizational setup undercut their success. Page 4 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Influential historians such as Nizami and Rizvi writing in the 1960s and 1970s (and a later derivative historiography) traced a linear history of the origin of sufi orders in South Asia from Khurasan and Transoxiana, simultaneously with the “origin” of the Delhi Sultanate in the 19 13th century. However, this was not such a mechanical, ahistorical process. Instead the early 13th century sees the triumph of a sharī‘ati (textualized) Islam over the Karramiya, Alid 20 (Nur Turk), and other antinomian sufi groups. The hold of sharī‘at orthopraxis yields only slowly in the core. Since supervision was weak in the provinces during these years, the k̲h̲ānaqāhs became robust apparent centers of organization and teaching—as in the case of Baha’ al-Din Zakariya and Baba Farid. By the end of the 13th century new South Asian orientations were visible in the form of malfūz̤āt as a mode of teaching, citing the conduct of select sufi pīrs who lived in the 13th century. The Age of Nizamiyya Sufis: Construction of Sufi Linear History in the Fourteenth Century The dispersal of sufis to varied locales of the subcontinent was discernible in the 14th century. The establishment of sufi hospices and tomb shrines in the hitherto unchartered territories resonate the organizational skills of the sufi pīrs in the peripheral areas of the Sultanate. Through the latter half of the 13th century, the charismatic appeal of sufi pīrs along with their network of k̲h̲alīfās transformed the sacred geography of the subcontinent as several centers of sufism emerged in the 14th century. How did this huge enterprise function? Was there a unified notion of a sufi silsilah that transformed the manner in which sufism is understood in modern times? This section focuses on the process through which the notion of a silsilah was reconstructed in the textual sources. Fawā’id al-Fu’ād and Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya as a Teacher Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya (d. 1325) came to Delhi in the 1260s as a young student before 21 settling down in Ghiyaspur in the vicinity of the city. As a teacher and sufi he gained popularity among his disciples as well as common Muslims and regularly engaged in conversations in the assemblies held in his k̲h̲ānaqāh at Ghiyaspur. The 14th-century litterateurs Ziya’ al-Din Barani and Amir Khusrau, and several sufi disciples of Nizam al-Din 22 Awliya, attest to the immense popularity of the Shaykh in Delhi. The methodological difference in the orientation of the sufi texts—malfūz̤āt and taz̠kirāt—is critical to unpack the making and spread of sufi lineal history. In the early 14th century Amir Hasan Sijzi textualized the oral discourses of Shaykh Nizam alDin Awliya in the malfūz̤āt, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād. He noted that there were no precedents to this compilation, that this was an authentic record of the discourses of the Shaykh, and hence it 23 would be treasured by potential readers. Amir Hasan was the author-compiler of the text, but for the readers, the text contained the oral discourses of Nizam al-Din. The text was a blueprint of Shaykh’s pedagogy on sufism which was accentuated by the citation of episodes from the lives of historical personages. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād became well-known during the Shaykh’s lifetime, and its significance enhanced in the subsequent period as a compendium on the world of sufi pīrs. Page 5 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād was an accessible, engaging, and didactic text. Nizam al-Din’s discourses were filled with anecdotes pertaining to sufi virtues, episodes from the lives of sufis, and discussion of orthopraxis. He cited anecdotes about the Prophet, sufis, and common Muslims with strong moral overtones. He did not refer to them in any chronological order, but he was interested in their lives more selectively for what they taught about piety, morality, and conduct. Nizam al-Din chose his heroes and anecdotes as they were summation of virtues worth recalling and retelling for the later generations. The ideological affinity of Nizam al-Din with the past heroes of the Muslim community facilitated in raising his stature in the eyes of common people. Shaykh Nizam al-Din’s authorial voice is apparent in the didactic tone of many of the accounts narrated by him. The discourses comprised his dicta on benefits of reciting the Qur’ān, norms of reading the prayer, explanations of the hadīs̤, intuitive genius of sufis, miracles conducted by other sufi pīrs, renouncing worldliness, fasting and benefits accrued from the samā‘. The normative prescriptions of Nizam al-Din were spread across the text, reported in different contexts, seconded by sufis and piety-minded Muslims, thereby rendering cogency to his teachings. However, the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād offers an enunciation of the maxims of Nizam al-Din, without attempting to cohere the norms of a sufi silsilah. Although it seems temporally fragmented, Nizam al-Din ensured internal coherence in the normative precepts and in the reportage of themes and people. Among the people cited in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād most of the sufis lived in the 13th century. However, out of the host of people discussed in the text by the Shaykh, one person was referred most often: Baba Farid, the murshid of Nizam al-Din. He is referred in many contexts, for instance, the authority of the pīr and the ideal conduct of the disciple towards his master; the spiritual prowess and intuitive genius of Baba Farid; renouncing worldliness, powers of 24 supplication or samā‘. By citing some of Baba Farid’s perfect practices, Nizam al-Din was able to assign profundities to his teachings. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād provides an expansive account of Baba Farid’s intuitive and spiritual genius and otherworldly approach that are 25 often shown in contrast to Baha’ al-Din Zakariya. By citing specific examples where Baba Farid’s spiritual greatness was proven to be better than Zakariya’s, Nizam al-Din convinced his listeners that his pīr was a more competent sufi shaykh than his peers, particularly Zakariya. Therefore, if Muslims wished to lead a pious life, they should follow the sufi path prescribed by Baba Farid and Nizam al-Din Awliya. The hierarchical stature of select sufi pīrs within the myriad of pious Muslims was clearly visible in the narrative tone of Nizam al-Din’s discourses. Nizam al-Din did not discuss the norms of the Chishti silsilah in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād; in fact, there is no reference to the pīrs of Chisht in the text, even though he discussed both the familial and spiritual lineages of some sufis (see table 1): Table 1. Description of Lineal and Spiritual Descendants of Sufis in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād Pedigree or Lineage 1. Shaykh Najib al-Din Mutawakkil, brother of Shaykh Farid al-Din (I.14) 2. Khwaja ‘Ali, son of Khwaja Rukn al-Din (I.17) 3. Shaykh Nizam al-Din, son of Shaykh Ziya’ al-Din Panipati (I.21) Page 6 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 4. Khwaja Ahmad, son of Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din Sijzi (II.5) 5. Shaykh Sadr al-Din, son of Shaykh Baha’ al-Din Zakariya (III.11) 6. Kabir, grandson of Shaykh Farid al-Din (IV.8) 7. Muhammad, grandson of Shaykh Farid al-Din (IV.22) 8. Maulana Husam al-Din, grandson of Shams al-‘Arifin (IV.26) 9. Maulana Shihab al-Din, son of Shaykh Farid al-Din (I.25, IV.30) 10. Muhammad and Ahmad, sons of Shaykh Najib al-Din Mutawakkil (IV.35) 11. Maulana Nasih al-Din, grandson of Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri (IV.36) 12. Maulana Sharaf al-Din, grandson of Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri (IV.45) 13. Nizam al-Din, son of Shaykh Farid al-Din (V.3) 14. Burhan al-Din, son of Qazi Kamal al-Din Ja‘fri (V.12) 15. Khwaja Wahid al-Din, descendent of Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din Sanjari (V.15) Murshids and Murīds 1. Shaykh Baha’ al-Din Zakariya and Khwaja Hasan Afghan (I.8) 2. Burhan al-Din Gharib, grandson of Shaykh Jamal al-Din Hansawi, Shams al-Din and Amir Chahju were disciples of Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya (I.14) 3. Shaykh Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi and Shaykh Baha’ al-Din Zakariya (II.2) 4. Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki and Shaykh Badr al-Din Ghaznawi (II.25) 5. Shaykh Abu Sa‘id Tabrizi and Shaykh Jalal al-Din Tabrizi (III.7) 6. Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki and Ra’is (III.10) 7. Shaykh Farid al-Din and Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya (I.25) 8. Khwaja ‘Aziz and Shaykh Ziya’ al-Din (IV.36) 9. Shaykh Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi and Shaykh Jalal al-Din Tabrizi (IV.39) 10. Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki and Shaykh Farid al-Din (IV. 44) 11. Shaykh Farid al-Din and Khwaja Hamid (IV.54) 12. Khwaja Hamid al-Din Suwali and Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din Chishti (IV. 55) 13. Shaykh Farid al-Din and ‘Arif (IV.66) 14. Shaykh Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi and female singer Qamar (V. 11) 15. Shaykh Jalal al-Din Tabrizi and Burhan al-Din (V.12) 16. Shaykh Farid al-Din and Khwaja Wahid al-Din (V.15) Page 7 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 17. Shaykh Najm al-Din Kubra and Shaykh Sayf al-Din Bakharzi (V. 29) 18. Shaykh Najm al-Din Kubra and Shaykh Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi (V.29) 19. Shaykh ‘Abd Allah ibn Khafif and Shaykh Abu Ishaq Gazaruni (V. 30) Transfer of Tabarrukāt 1. Shaykh Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki’s instruction to transfer cloak, staff and shoes to Shaykh Farid al-Din (IV.44) Note: The numbers within brackets denote the fascicle number and the assembly number. As is evident from Table 1, Nizam al-Din identified the reputable lineage of select sufis: family members of Baba Farid, Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri, Baha’ al-Din Zakariya, and Mu‘in al-Din. The information provided regarding the lineal descendants was tangential to the larger focus of the discourse. No attempt was made to cohere the details for a linear history of sufi pīrs. Akin to this, disciples of a few Sufi pīrs were identified: the murīds of Baba Farid, Shihab alDin Suhrawardi, Bakhtiyar Kaki, Jalal al-Din Tabrizi, Najm al-Din Kubra, Nizam al-Din Awliya, Baha’ al-Din Zakariya, and Mu‘in al-Din. The details regarding pīrs and murīds enabled the readers to identify the spiritual affiliation of the sufis. Only one instance of transfer of tabarrukāt—important in designating an individual as a k̲h̲alīfā—was reported. This mode of transfer was critical in the transmission of leadership of a fraternity and organized sufis into coherent spiritual lineages. However, the larger narrative intent of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād subsumed the “dynastic” details of the sufis. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād showcases the charismatic appeal of Shaykh Nizam al-Din as a learned pedagogue of sufi precepts whose ideas were seconded by sufi masters from the past. Siyar al-Awliyā’ and Linear History of Sufis In the 1360s Amir Khwurd, a member of an influential mystically inclined family, produced a sufi taz̠kirāt, Siyar al-Awliyā’. The text comprised two sections: a linear, chronological, biographical account of sufi pīrs and their murīds; and a detailed elucidation of sufi precepts cast in the form of ishārāt (sufi instructional literature). Through the reportage of details around the lives of select sufi pīrs and their organizational ability in enlisting murīds and k̲h̲alīfās, the Siyar al-Awliyā’ created the notion of a Chishti silsilah. The biographical details of the sufis were organized in an unbroken chain of sufi masters who transmitted authority to their successors. Amir Khwurd traced the lineage of sufis to Khwajagan-i Chisht and followed it with comprehensive biographies of four sufi pīrs: Mu‘in al-Din, Bakhtiyar Kaki, Baba Farid, and Nizam al-Din Awliya. By recounting the associations of murīds, k̲h̲alīfās, dost-yār (friend), ustād (teacher), hum sabaq (class mate), and k̲h̲āndān (family) of the sufi pīrs, Amir Khwurd 26 narrated the spread of sufi fraternities. Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din Chishti was projected as the founder of the sufi lineage in the subcontinent, and hence the Chishti orientation of the Siyar al-Awliyā’ is palpable. Page 8 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Charts 1 to 7 provide the graphic representation of the murīds and k̲h̲alīfās of Chishti Sufis in 27 the Siyar al-Awliyā’. As apparent from the charts, the volume of information regarding Mu‘in al-Din and Bakhtiyar Kaki was remarkably different from that regarding Baba Farid and Nizam al-Din. The details pertaining to the lives and spiritual successors of the early shaykhs were relatively thin. Amir Khwurd reported that Shaykh Mu‘in al-Din settled in Ajmer during Prithvi Raj Chauhan’s reign, warned him about harassing his disciple, and prophesied the 28 eventual victory of Mu‘izz al-Din. Mu‘in al-Din’s account was followed by a biography of his k̲h̲alīfā, Bakhtiyar Kaki, a sufi who became extremely popular among the residents of Delhi. It described how he had miraculously shielded disciples from many types of dangers, was oblivious to worldly issues, and had miraculous ability to produce bread, and hence 29 endearingly carried the sobriquet “Kaki.” Biographies of only two k̲h̲alīfās of Mu‘in al-Din and Bakhtiyar Kaki were carried in the text, which reflects the limited spread of the sufi fraternity in the early 13th century (see Charts 1 and 2). Chart 1. K̲h̲alīfās of Mu‘in al-Din Chishti. Page 9 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 2. K̲h̲alīfās and Murīds of Qutb al-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki. Amir Khwurd’s approach towards organizing the information regarding Baba Farid and Nizam al-Din Awliya was remarkably different. He provided detailed accounts of Baba Farid’s genealogy, his miraculous ability to turn stone to sugar (hence the name “Ganj-i Shakar”), spiritual prowess to shield disciples, otherworldly approach, constant fasting, rigorous prayer schedule, and reliance on futūh (charity). In addition, the lineal descendants of Baba Farid merited separate biographical notices which enunciate their spiritual attainments and family 30 relations (see Chart 3). Baba Farid’s stature as a sufi teacher and his attempt to set up a sufi fraternity are visible in the account of his k̲h̲alīfās and murīds (see Charts 4 and 5). Compared with the early shaykhs, the disciples and spiritual successors of Baba Farid were fairly large in number. Many of them were scholars, teachers, and spiritual mentors who had earned a reputation on account of their individual merit. Take, for instance, the case of Badr al-Din Ishaq, an ‘ālim and maulānā (teacher) at Ajudhan, and k̲h̲ādim (servant), dāmād (son-in-law), and k̲h̲alīfā of Baba Farid. Although he was associated with his pīr for a long duration, Amir Khwurd projects that there was no conflict between Ishaq and the chief k̲h̲alīfā of Baba Farid—Nizam al-Din Awliya—as he handed over the tabarrukāt to him. However, his attempt to continue to serve as k̲h̲ādim at Ajudhan was met with resistance from Badr al-Din Sulayman, son and sajjāda nishīn of Baba Farid, and 31 hence Ishaq had to leave the k̲h̲ānaqāh. While Ishaq’s attempt to fashion himself as a selfdetermining sufi was limited, elsewhere Amir Khwurd reported the case of Jamal al-Din Hansawi. He was a k̲h̲at̤ib (preacher) and k̲h̲alīfā of Baba Farid in Hansi. Hansawi was given the authority (by Baba Farid) to review a sufi’s aptitude for receiving a k̲h̲ilāfatnāma (a document that allowed a sufi to teach independently and enroll disciples). Therefore, his stature among the disciples of Baba Farid was profound. He had approved Nizam al-Din Awliya’s k̲h̲ilāfatnāma and hence, according to Khwurd, posed no threat to Awliya’s authority. Amir Khwurd minimized the tensions among murīds and k̲h̲alīfās, as both Ishaq and Hansawi 32 became principal agents to recognize the piety and authority of Nizam al-Din Awliya. Page 10 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 3. Lineal descendants of Baba Farid. Chart 4. K̲h̲alīfās of Baba Farid. Page 11 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 5. Murīds of Baba Farid. The Siyar al-Awliyā’ treats Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya as the focal point of the Chishti fraternity, the axis mundi of his generation, and the chief sufi preceptor with whom every pious individual had connection. Amir Khwurd recounted anecdotes pertaining to his early life, educational training, spiritual training under Baba Farid, life in the k̲h̲ānaqāh, approach towards faqr, futūh, karāmat, prayer schedule, and his death. Shaykh Nizam al-Din’s superior organizational expertise as a sufi preceptor is discernible from the large number of ijāzatnāmas and k̲h̲ilāfatnāmas issued to disciples. There is significant amplification in the murīds and k̲h̲alīfās; hence Amir Khwurd sought to present the 14th century as an age of Nizamiyya sufis (see Charts 6 and 7). Amir Khwurd carried the biographical notices of ten k̲h̲alīfās and thirty-eight murīds and some episodic references to many other murīds (see Page 12 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 7). Many of these murīds and k̲h̲alīfās were men of distinction—Amir Khusrau (poet and courtier), Ziya’ al-Din Barani (courtier), Qutb al-Din Munawwar (Jamal al-Din Hansawi’s descendant and sufi), Fakhr al-Din Zarradi (sufi teacher), Amir Hasan Sijzi (courtier and poet) —but Amir Khwurd subsumed their social identities to showcase their complete immersion into the sufi fraternity. In the grander narrative about the sufi pīr, the prominence and 33 authority of the disciples were largely obscured. Hence, by providing a long genealogy of sufi preceptors and a semblance of history of sufi pīrs, Amir Khwurd transformed the history 34 of Nizamiyya t̤arīqa to the history of the Chishti t̤arīqa. Amir Khwurd creatively deployed the narratives from the malfūz̤āt to create a Chishti sufi praxis. Nizam al-Din’s discourses in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād were thematically refashioned to prescribe the ideal norms of the Chishti silsilah. The singular, extensive discourse on praxis and conduct sidelined the scope for heterogeneity among the sufi masters. However, it is interesting to note that the spiritual descendants of the Chishti sufis in the 15th century reinvented some of the practices to create their own understanding of the t̤arīqa. Thus, a careful study of Siyar al-Awliyā’ demonstrates the role of hagiographical literature in the retrospective recreation of a single t̤arīqa and its sufi masters. The hegemonic idea of a spiritual order conflated the tensions among the murīds and k̲h̲alīfās and ascribed fixed and 35 singular identities to individuals. Page 13 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 6. K̲h̲alīfās of Nizam al-Din Awliya. Page 14 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Chart 7. Murīds of Nizam al-Din Awliya. Page 15 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Tabarrukāt and Tensions in the Chishti Sufi Order Among the several k̲h̲alīfās of a sufi pīr, one person could be designated as the principal heir. This was determined by transmission of gifts of personal items (tabarrukāt) which were not multipliable. Simon Digby argues that the principal conflict regarding succession in the sufi orders existed between the kin of the shaykh and those who were considered spiritually 36 worthy to be designated to succeed the shaykh. Two conflicting system of inheritance were discernible at the death of the shaykh: one form of genealogical authority that was claimed by the family members of the shaykh who had control over the tomb shrine; and another form of conflict among senior disciples (k̲h̲alīfās, especially if there was no designated successor among them) was through claims over possession of articles of personal use bequeathed by the master as a sign of favor and spiritual preeminence. The k̲h̲ānaqāh where the shaykh lived would ideally be transmitted to his kin but at times an alternative system of transmission to a murīd also developed. A subsidiary conflict could ensue among the intimate disciples of the 37 shaykh, each of whom thought that they deserve to succeed. The hagiographical literature sought to project the smooth transmission of authority within a sufi order, but subtle details help in unpacking the tensions regarding the transmission of authority among the lineal and spiritual descendants. In the linear history of the Chishti order, Bakhtiyar Kaki is projected as the chief k̲h̲alīfā of Mu‘in al-Din though there is only retrospective evidence of such a transfer of authority, that is, transfer of tabarrukāt. The apocryphal malfūz̤āt, Fawā’id al-Sālikīn states that Bakhtiyar Kaki was absent at the time of Mu‘in al-din’s death, so khirqa (cloak) and sajjdāh (prayer carpet ) 38 were dispatched to him. Another apocryphal malfūz̤āt, Dalīl al-‘Ārifīn states that dastār (turban) and kulāh (cap) along with Chishti’s staff, Qur’ān, and sajjdāh were given to Bakhtiyar Kaki by Mu‘in al-Din under the instructions to go to Delhi. Twenty days after Bakhtiyar Kaki 39 left Ajmer, Mu‘in al-Din Chishti died. However, both stories appear apocryphal, and it is unlikely that tabarrukāt was directly transferred to Bakhtiyar Kaki as he predeceased his master; Mu‘in al-Din died in March 1236, while Bakhtiyar Kaki passed away in 1235. In the next line of succession, the inherent tension among the disciples of Bakhtiyar Kaki was palpable. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād reports that at the time of Bakhtiyar Kaki’s death, a senior disciple, Badr al-Din Ghaznavi was expected to receive the tabarrukāt, but the Shaykh declared that his cloak, staff, and shoes should be given to Baba Farid. As Baba Farid was in Hansi, the tabarrukāt was handed over to Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri. On reaching Delhi, 40 Baba Farid was handed over the cloak. The Siyar al-Awliyā’ reports the tension regarding succession in an altered fashion. Bakhtiyar Kaki had a premonition that Baba Farid would not be there at the time of his death, so he gave his muṣallā (prayer mat) and staff to him personally and predicted that the other items such as sajjāda, khirqa, and dastār would be given to Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri who would after five days hand these over to Baba 41 Farid. In spite of receiving the tabarrukāt, Baba Farid did not stay in Delhi, he returned to 42 Hansi where he could operate autonomously. Until Bakhtiyar Kaki, the evidence regarding the claim of the lineal descendants over tomb shrine and spiritual authority is nearly absent. The tension between Badr al-Ghaznavi and Baba Farid was partially resolved when Baba Farid moved back to Hansi. There is considerable variation in reportage of transmission of authority from Baba Farid to Nizam alDin in the textual sources. In the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, Nizam al-Din claimed that the staff of his Page 16 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 43 pīr was in his possession though he was not present at the time of his death. However, in the Siyar al-Awliyā’ the inherent tension between the lineal descendants of Baba Farid and spiritual successor is conspicuous. Amir Khwurd reports that in one of his last meetings, Baba Farid gave his staff, prayer mat, and jāma (garment) to Muhammad Kirmani with the instructions that these should be handed over to Nizam al-Din. Baba Farid’s sons tried to stop this meeting as they were anticipating succession to the sajjāda but on hearing about the transfer of tabarrukāt, they were upset as they held that spiritual succession was their prerogative. Later, Khwurd reports, Badr al-Din Ishaq (the son-in-law and senior disciple of Baba Farid) with Kirmani’s help handed over the tabarrukāt to Nizam al-Din (a junior disciple) after the shaykh’s death. Badr al-Din Ishaq had long association with Baba Farid, but he was marginalized by Baba Farid’s sons as they took custody of his tomb shrine. Amir Khwurd glossed over any tension among the disciples of Baba Farid to highlight the conflict between 44 lineal descendants and the designated spiritual successor. The transmission of authority from Nizam al-Din to his k̲h̲alīfās indicates the struggle to receive exclusive k̲h̲ilāfat. Since Nizam al-Din was unmarried, the k̲h̲ānaqāh remained in the possession of his k̲h̲ādims and his nephew’s family. The Siyar al-Awliyā’ states that several k̲h̲ilāfatnāmas were issued by Nizam al-Din to his k̲h̲alīfās but there is lack of concrete evidence regarding direct transfer of tabarrukāt to a single, [chief] k̲h̲alīfā. Apparently, Nizam al-Din’s khirqa and muṣallā were placed in his grave [according to the decision of the k̲h̲ādims] although there is lack of clarity regarding his ‘aṣā (staff). A long section in the Siyar al-Awliyā’ is dedicated to Nizam al-Din’s k̲h̲alīfā Nasir al-Din and states that: “nowadays the lofty position of Shaykh al-Mashaykh in the city of Delhi is occupied by Shaykh Nasir al-Din . . . among the k̲h̲alīfās of Nizam al-Din. In this work he has achieved complete distinction and 45 arrived at the stage of perfection.” In the Siyar al-Awliyā’ there is no indication of an exclusive bestowal of spiritual succession. Such claims were occasionally made in later retrospective texts—some texts mention that Nasir al-Din possessed Nizam al-Din’s staff while others mention that Burhan al-Din Gharib possessed the staff. It is clear that Nizam al-Din did not make any definitive nomination in favor of one successor; the authority was dispersed among several k̲h̲alīfās who had settled in different parts of the subcontinent. The case of Burhan al-Din Gharib is an interesting episode of transfer of k̲h̲ilāfat. Though a senior disciple, he did not receive k̲h̲ilāfat from Shaykh Nizam al-Din for a long time. The Siyar al-Awliyā’ states that at the time of Shaykh Nizam al-Din’s terminal illness, senior k̲h̲ādims dressed Burhan al-Din with his jāma and cap. The Shaykh did not speak, hence his silence was 46 interpreted as “a proof of satisfaction.” Burhan al-Din migrated to the Deccan after the Shaykh’s death and established a prosperous sufi center at Daulatabad. Burhan al-Din’s claim of receiving k̲h̲ilāfat from Shaykh Nizam al-Din brought credence to his spiritual prowess, and in the changing political scenario—shift of capital to Daulatabad—this was a pragmatic step to establish himself as an independent sufi. Shaykh Nasir al-Din established himself as a sufi pīr in Delhi but in matters of transmission of authority his approach resonates with that of his pīr. Apparently, during Nasir al-Din’s lifetime, his nephew’s family had established control over the k̲h̲ānaqāh, and it is likely that they attempted to merge succession to the hospice—sajjāda nishīn with spiritual succession. Their ambitions did not materialize. The author of Nasir al-Din’s malfūz̤āt, Hamid Qalandar, notes in the K̲h̲air al-Majālis that in his waṣīyat Nasir al-Din wished that his pīr’s staff and cloak should be buried with him together with his personal items—the wooden bowl, sandals, Page 17 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 and rosary. His wish was complied with and Sayyid Muhammad Gisudaraz, a k̲h̲alīfā of Shaykh Nasir al-Din, acquired a few pieces of cord that bound the Shaykh’s cot and regarded it as his 47 cloak. Sayyid Muhammad Gisudaraz had lived a large part of his life in Delhi but in the wake of Timur’s invasion (1398) he migrated from Delhi to the Deccan. In his new place of residence, he faced several challenges: he had to proclaim his spiritual prowess, engage with local populace to create his audience, and successfully withstand the spiritual claims of the collateral lineage established by Burhan al-Din Gharib in Daulatabad. Sayyid Muhammad produced a large number of texts, including a malfūz̤āt, Jawāmi‘ al-Kalim in which he proclaimed possession of tabarrukāt from his pīr, showcased his vast knowledge of orthopraxis and ecumenical Islam, and argued that he represented the best conduct of preceding sufi pīrs. Ultimately the tensions within spiritual and dynastic succession seem to have been provisionally resolved on his death—the position of sajjāda nishīn and k̲h̲alīfā were both 48 inherited by his son Sayyid Akbar. Most sufi preceptors experienced controversy at the time of succession. This was frequently glossed. The notion of a “fixed” Chishti t̤arīqa that all the sufi pīrs adhered to was, in part, a creation of the process of historicization of the t̤arīqa in the taz̠kirāt. However, each sufi pīr used innovative strategies to nuance their interpretation of faith and praxis in their malfūz̤āt, thereby rendering considerable heterogeneity to the t̤arīqa. At the end of the 14th century, Sayyid Muhammad Gisudaraz communicated this well. When facing new challenges after his recent migration to the Deccan, he innovatively wove a “Husaini” t̤arīqa. He underlined his Delhi connection, sought patronage from the Bahmani Sultan, argued that sultans could be both tyrants and ideal, underscored his Sayyid and spiritual lineage, declared his son as his 49 k̲h̲alīfā and sajjāda nishīn, and thus unfettered the singular notion of Chishti t̤arīqa. Beyond the Chishtis: Sufi Fraternities from the Early Fourteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries Although the archival domination of the Chishtis in sufi textual production is unmatched, several sufis outside the Chishti fraternity produced texts that outline their praxis and lineal history. The dispersal of sufis to regions in the late 14th century is often equated with breakdown of the sovereign political order in Delhi. However, a careful study of pīr-murīd relationship is critical to question the origin–apogee–decline paradigm of sufi orders. In the 13th century three disciples of Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi—Baha’ al-Din Zakariya at Multan, Jalal al-Din Tabrizi at Bengal and Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri at Delhi—had earned considerable renown among common Muslims. Although the spiritual affiliation of Sufis is largely traced to a single pīr and t̤arīqa, their spiritual associations were often not confined to a single pīr. The sufi text ‘Awārif al-Ma‘ārif, composed by Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi, was regularly used by sufi pīrs, Baba Farid and Nizam al-Din Awliya, in their discourses. Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri had deep ties of friendship with Bakhtiyar Kaki, hence Amir Khwurd stated that Qazi Hamid al-Din was Bakhtiyar Kaki’s murīd. He was entrusted with transferring Bakhtiyar Kaki’s tabarrukāt to Baba Farid and was buried in the same compound. Baha’ al-Din Zakariya’s son, Sadr al-Din, and subsequently his grandson, Rukn al-Din, became his k̲h̲alīfā. Shaykh Rukn al-Din (d. 1335) had friendly relations with Nizam al-Din Awliya. They exchanged Page 18 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 pleasantries, had discussions on matters relating to praxis and faith, and Nizam al-Din’s funeral prayers were read by him. He had also produced a malfūz̤āt,Majma‘ al-Ak̲h̲bār that contained his discourses on z̠ikr, Day of Judgment, reliance on god and other subjects. The references to other spiritual successors of Zakariya are few in the contemporary sources. The later taz̠kirāt provide limited information regarding Shaykh Jalal al-Din (a disciple of Baha’ alDin Zakariya) and his disciples. The limited textual production of the Suhrawardis precludes the possibility of reporting their detailed lineal history and core sufi practices. However, contemporary texts indicate that their proximity to political sovereigns helped them to secure state patronage in Multan and that restricting spiritual succession within their genealogical 50 descent led to the perpetuation of their spiritual power in northwestern regions. In sharp contrast to the Suhrawardi Sufis, the spiritual successors of Shaykh Najm al-Din Kubra (d. 1221), often referred to as Firdausis, had an uneasy relationship with Nizam al-Din Awliya in Delhi. Shaykh Rukn al-Din (d. 1323), the spiritual successor of Najm al-Din, decided to settle down in Kilokhri, very close to Nizam al-Din’s hospice. The Siyar al-Awliyā’ reports that the murīds and sons of Rukn al-Din would create a disturbance whenever their boat would sail near Nizam al-Din’s hospice. Due to the recurring disturbances, the Shaykh once said: “Now go away,” and soon after their boat capsized. The Manāqib-I Asfiyā’, the hagiographical account of the Firdausi composed in 1398, reports the same incident in altered fashion. The author argued that Nizam al-Din had an esteemed position in the city of Delhi but his murīds spoke ill about the Firdausis. They intended to harm Rukn al-Din and when any 51 accident occurred they argued this happened due to the pronouncement of the Shaykh. The Firdausis failed to carve out a strong base in the city of Delhi in the early 14th century but they established their support base in Bihar, under the spiritual mentorship of Shaykh Sharaf al-Din Maneri (d. 1381). Shaykh Sharaf al-Din Maneri, a disciple of Shaykh Najib al-Din Firdausi, was a prolific writer and sufi teacher in the 14th century. Among the extant texts, eight malfūz̤āt compilations and collections of several maktūbāt have been attributed to him. These detail his perspectives towards renunciation, inner purification, repentance, and inner and outer light of God. After his death, the spiritual succession was transmitted to Muzaffar Shams Balkhi and subsequently to Husayn Mu‘izz Balkhi. Their ishārāt style literary productions and maktūbāt showcase their literary genius and sustained their presence in Bihar in the 15th century. Like the Suhrawardis in the Punjab, the position of the sajjāda nishīn and k̲h̲alīfā were conjoined in 52 Maner (Bihar Sharif) in Yahya Maneri, Sharaf al-Din’s son. From the late 14th century the sufi diaspora across the regions was noticeable. Several sufi preceptors gained considerable renown in the emerging Muslim settlements in Khattu, Chanderi, Mandu, Awadh, Kara, Lakhnauti, and Hissar, as well as in several other places. Khwaja Gurg at Kara and Shaykh Ashraf Jahangir at Awadh were some of the prominent “regional” Sufis who gained in popularity among the local Muslim populace during their lifetime. Subsequently, the growing popularity of the tomb shrines and textual narratives memorialized the lives of charismatic sufi preceptors, thereby securing the loyalties of incipient Muslim communities to the sacred geography of the regions. In 15th-century Gujarat Shaykh Ahmad Khattu (d. 1445), Sayyid Burhan al-Din (d. 1453), and Sayyid Siraj al-Din (d. 1475) emerged as prominent sufi preceptors. Their disciples and descendants played an Page 19 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 enterprising role in documenting their lives, teachings, and travels in a wide range of texts— malfūz̤āt, taz̠kirāt, manāqib (eulogies)—drawing upon the regional contexts that led to their 53 immense popularity. The 15th-century texts provide limited information about contemporary sufis. However, in the late 16th century, ‘Abd al-Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi produced a comprehensive taz̠kirāt of sufis of Hindustan. Most of the sufi pīrs in the 15th century did not have a long sufi genealogy; while some chain of sufi preceptors lasted a few generations, others were limited to just pīr and his k̲h̲alīfā. Shaykh Piyare, a disciple of Sayyid Muhammad Gisudaraz, learned the ḥaqīqī path; his murīd, Shah Jalal Gujarati, had z̤āhiri and bāt̤ini (exoteric and esoteric) knowledge; his murīd, Shaykh Muhammad Mullawat, performed karāmat to save people from agrarian distress. The sufi diaspora expanded and as a result grave sites of sufis flourished in Lucknow, Kalpi, Gujarat, Mandu, Nagaur, Jaunpur, Kanauj, among other places. Unlike the 14th century, the dispersal of sufi authority did not disseminate from Delhi and through the k̲h̲alīfās of Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya and Shaykh Nasir al-Din Mahmud. The 15th century witnessed the substantial autonomy of sufi settlements and sufi centers which were fragmented across the subcontinent, with sufi pīrs becoming locally revered individuals, not affiliated to 54 prominent pīrs and spiritual orders. The dispersal of sufis across the subcontinent is critical to appreciate the spread of the Muslim community to different parts of northern and western India. In conventional historiography the social role of the sufi pīrs is discussed in relation to Islamic conversions. However, the critical role of the pīr-murīd dyads as teachers, scholars, and proselytizers in the 55 Deccan and the social role of local sufi pīrs in North India are quite evident. In the 15th century charismatic sufi preceptors with their organizational aptitude created localized pockets of sufi efflorescence. Although most of the 14th-century sufi fraternities were in disarray, sufi shrines retained popularity on account of the creative genius of the sajjāda nishīns. Sufis adapted local languages and customary practices to step into hitherto unknown quarters, gaining local prominence. While the history of empires is largely studied in a dynastic mode through the origin–apogee– decline mode, the history of sufis contradicts this trend. The sufi taz̠kirāt often narrate histories of homogenous sufi fraternities, but the social role of sufis was diverse even in the 13th and 14th century. As Shaykh al-Islam, teachers, scholars, traders, government officials, the sufis played diverse roles in the Muslim society; this alternative narrative of sufis is largely lost when one attempts to write sufi dynastic histories. Through a study of pīr-murīd dyads and history of prominent tomb shrines a new trend was noticeable: the gradual replacement of spiritual lineage with familial lineage by the servitors of the shrines. The late-16th-century taz̠kirāt, Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār creatively interwove the history of sufis within the pīr-murīd dyads to showcase essential continuity in popularity of sufis across historical 56 time, even in the absence of great sufi fraternities. In so doing, ‘Abd al-Haqq created an alternative history of the Muslim community that did not suffer decline on account of absence of political sovereigns. Page 20 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Discussion of the Literature In the modern historiography the conventional interpretation projects sufis as otherworldly mystics and liberal Muslims who had cast their impact on local societies due to their generous, egalitarian ideas. Mohammad Habib underlined the personality traits and praxis of Shaykh Nasir al-Din Mahmud and Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya to highlight their inclusive ideas. While describing the sufi sources for the Sultanate period, Habib labelled Chishti sufi 57 texts as “genuine” and “fabricated” on the grounds of historical accuracy, facts, and time. Marking 13 and 14th century mystical texts as inauthentic meant that Habib was applying methods of truth verification (germane for chronicles or administrative documents) to discount texts concerning faith, belief and morality. In a series of essays and a monograph K. A. Nizami traced the rise of sufi fraternities in the Indian subcontinent in the 13th century. He associated sufi silsilahs with the chief saints of the order who controlled networks of k̲h̲ānaqāhs by dispatching k̲h̲alīfās to provinces. Nizami classified sufi orders according to similitudes and differences, judged according to their adherence to key questions concerning relationship with the state and its agencies detailing their orthopraxis and precepts. For him, the Chishti sufis were uniformly otherworldly as they believed in pantheistic doctrines, were apolitical while the Suhrawardi sufis led lavish lives 58 and actively participated in the politics of their times. Nizami produced biographies of Baba Farid and Nizam al-Din Awliya and sifted the textual sources for authoritative “facts,” without giving adequate attention to contingent issues that textured their production. S. A. A. Rizvi produced voluminous monographs on sufi silsilahs in the subcontinent. The history of sufism was narrated through biographical accounts of sufis segregated according to 59 their affiliation; in effect, he adhered to the idea of a dynastic history of sufis. The linear history of the Chishtis, Suhrawardis, Firdausis, Qadris, and other sufi orders was largely studied within the paradigm of the great Chishtis and corruption, with the 13th and 14th centuries being characterized as periods of sufi efflorescence and the 15th century as a period of confusion in the absence of any dominant silsilah. Scholarship on sufism underwent a remarkable shift in the 1970s and 1980s due to Richard Eaton and Simon Digby’s scholarly interventions. Richard Eaton questioned the monolithic understanding of sufism by studying the sufis of the Deccan and Bengal. The sufis of Bijapur, according to Eaton, performed diverse roles—warriors, literati, as well as landed elites—as they reconstituted their relationship with the state. In addition, he underlined the role of sufi folk literature in the Islamization of the Deccan. Eaton’s study of sufis in Bengal underlined the “creative encounters” between the sufi preceptors, immigrant Muslim settlers, and 60 vernacular local societies. Simon Digby refrained from detailing the history of sufi silsilahs, focusing instead on the competition and coexistence among sufis. He was attentive to the politics that shaped the literary productions of sufis. Digby underlined the contingent circumstances—the organizational abilities, performance of miracles as well as the numerous literary productions —that made the sufi shaykh an authoritative figure. His research on sufi fraternities led him to question the unequivocal uniformity in the ideological orientation and linear succession in the silsilahs. He deconstructed the impression of smooth succession within the sufi fraternity by Page 21 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 showcasing the challenges posed by multiple contenders and the inherent conflicts among the 61 disciples of the shaykh and very often the lineal descendants. Through an in-depth study of literary sources, Digby questioned the simplistic understanding of an unchanging sufi order. In his wide-ranging research on sufism, Carl Ernst studied the literary productions of Deccani sufis and the expansion of Chishti sufi order in the subcontinent. He critically analyzed the different genres of sufi textual productions to unpack the rhetorical intent of the authors. He distinguished between the “initiatic” and the “retrospective” malfūz̤āt to detail the diverse 62 circumstances of their production and identify the intended audience. The initiatic texts showcase the teaching element of the sufi preceptor while the retrospective texts recount the charismatic appeal of the preceptor. Ernst’s methodological intervention in the study of sufi texts has enabled historians to question the standard perception of sufi orders in the taz̠kirāts. Sunil Kumar’s research on sufis spans a wide range of themes and extends the work of Eaton and Ernst. He explored the methodological problems in the usage of the Sultanate texts as “sources,” and through a critical analysis of narratives in the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, Kumar illustrated how the text can be used to explicate the challenges of Sultanate politics in the 13th century. Kumar underlined the role of narrative structures and authorial intent in malfūz̤āt and taz̠kirāt in determining the sense of time, mode of creation of Nizam al-Din Awliya’s authority and role of retrospection in the creation of a singular notion of Chishti sufi fraternity. While studying transitions in sufi–state relations in the Sultanate period, he delineated the rhetoric and narrative elements of sufi texts to underscore the multilayered, 63 complex portrayal of sufi preceptors and their dicta. Riazul Islam has drawn attention to the internal organisation of sufi taz̠kirāt and malfūz̤āt to highlight rhetorical elements present in these texts. He underlined the need to critically read the gaps and silences in these texts and treat anecdotes as parables while corelating sufi ethics, political economy and social history of sufis in South Asia. Jyoti Gulati Balachandran and Sushmita Banerjee have worked with Carl Ernst and Simon Digby’s insights and underlined the need for careful reading of Sultanate texts, especially the taz̠kirāt. The Siyar alAwliyā’ is usually studied to write a linear history of Chishti sufis, but Balachandran’s critical engagement with the text made her question the authorial intent to showcase the underlying history of Muslim social networks and Muslim community that was largely frozen due to the 64 overt emphasis on the Chishti pīrs and their lives. Banerjee’s prosopographical study of the Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār is useful in questioning the ahistorical compartmentalization of sufis into retrospectively conceptualized fraternities. The 16th-century taz̠kirāt,Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār is comprehensive in its orientation, yet it avoids the hypothetical division of sufis according to 65 silsilahs, thereby expanding the scope of understanding sufis in their individual contexts. Primary Sources Many Persian texts narrate the history of sufis in the Indian subcontinent. The manuscript copies of the Persian texts can be found in the India Office Collections at the British Library, Bodleian Library, Aligarh Muslim University, Khuda Bakhsh Library and other manuscript libraries across South Asia. Details regarding the manuscript copies at different libraries can be found in C. A. Storey’s Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey. Edited versions of many Persian texts have been published in India, Pakistan, and Iran. Page 22 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 The earliest source of information on sufis in the Delhi Sultanate is Amir Hasan Sijzi’s Fawā’id al-Fu’ād composed between 1308 and 1322. Complete manuscripts of this text are rare, which explains its absence in Storey’s otherwise useful bibliography. The first (and only) critical edition of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād was produced by Muhammad Latif Malik from Lahore in 1966. He collated five Persian lithographs with a single Urdu translation to create his Lahore edition. The editor noted that curious absence of a single complete manuscript of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād. Alternate readings of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād with regards to dating of assemblies can be found in Newal Kishore edition of 1908 and Mujtabai edition of 1906. The Delhi Persian edition with Urdu translation of Fawā’id al-Fu’ād by Khwaja Hasan Thani Nizami Dihlawi reproduces Malik’s Lahore edition exactly, including the pagination and critical commentary. There are two English translation of the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, the first by Z. H. Faruqi and the second by 66 Bruce Lawrence. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād is the malfūz̤āt of Shaykh Nizam al-Din Awliya. The discourses transcribed in diary format contain the dicta of Nizam al-Din through a report of past episodes from the lives of sufis and piety-minded Muslims. The Fawā’id al-Fu’ād does not discuss the history of sufis in a linear fashion; it does not give an impression of the existence of the Chishti silsilah. Several other malfūz̤āt of Shaykh Nizam al-Din were compiled which are no longer extant. The only extant malfūz̤āt is Ali Jandar’s Durar-i Nizami; the manuscript copies are available at the Buhar 67 Collection, Calcutta, and Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad. The K̲h̲air al-Majālis is the malfūz̤āt of Shaykh Nasir al-Din compiled by Hamid Qalandar in the 1350s. The manuscript copies of the text are rare to locate. The only complete manuscript is at the Asafiya Library, Hyderabad. 68 The Persian edition of the text was prepared by K.A. Nizami in 1959. The text carries the discourses of the Shaykh, detailing his approach towards praxis. Several other malfūz̤āt have been attributed to sufi pīrs—Rāḥat al-Qulūb, 69 Rāḥat al-Muḥibbin, and Afżal al- Fawā’id—though modern historiography often regards them as apocryphal. Amir Khwurd’s Siyar al-Awliyā’ is a taz̠kirāt of Chishti sufis produced in the 1360s. A manuscript copy was produced by Diwan Allah Jiwaya of Pakpattan; a lithographed edition of the text was published by Muhibb-i Hind Press in 1885, subsequently reprinted with new pagination in 1978, an Urdu translation published by Ijaz ul-Haqq Quddusi from Lahore and a useful English translation by Ishrat Hussain Ansari and Hamid Afaq Qureshi al-Taimi alSiddiqi in 2013. The text provides lineal biographical history of four Chishti sufis—Mu‘in al-Din, Bakhtiyar Kaki, Baba Farid, and Nizam al-Din Awliya—along with the biographies of their k̲h̲alīfās and murīds. Amir Khwurd recollected the preeminence of sufis in the 13th century, highlighted the superior position of the Chishti sufis in the subcontinent, and detailed the common praxis and precepts showcasing the expansive Chishti fraternity. A preliminary study of the contents of the text indicates that it was written to narrate the history of Chishti silsilah; however, a careful study of the contents indicates that Amir Khwurd carried a detailed narrative of emerging hierarchies and social networks 70 among urbane pious Muslims in North India. Several malfūz̤āt were compiled in the Deccan in the 14th century. The Nafā’is al-Anfās contains the discourses of Shaykh Burhan al-Din Gharib compiled by Rukn al-Din between 1331 and 1337. It is produced in a diary format detailing the social, ethical, and ritual practices of Burhan al-Din. Three other malfūz̤āt of Burhan al-Din were compiled: Hammad al-Din’s Aḥsan al-Aqwāl (1338) which is divided into chapters, each covering some sufi practice; Majd al-Din Kashani’s Gharā’ib al-Karāmat (1340) is formatted like a hagiography; Rukn al-Din’s 71 Shamā’il al-Atqiyā’ was a lengthy text completed after Burhan al-Din’s death. Jawāmi‘ al-Kalim is the voluminous malfūz̤āt of Sayyid Muhammad Gisudaraz compiled by Sayyid Akbar Hussaini in 1400. The Jawāmi‘ alKalim was crafted with the intent of elucidating the precepts of the “Husaini” t̤arīqa by highlighting the Chishti 72 connection, his Sayyid lineage, scholarly inclination, and the creation of a body of followers in the Deccan. Several other malfūz̤āt were produced by sufis even though the manuscripts are now rare. These include Surūr alṢudūr, the malfūz̤āt of Hamid al-Din Nagauri compiled by Shaykh ‘Aziz in the 13th century; Latā’if-i Quddūsī is the conversation of ‘Abd al-Quddus Gangohi compiled by Rukn al-Din in the early 16th century; Khwān-i Pur Page 23 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Ni‘mat is the malfūz̤āt of Sharaf al-Din Ahmad compiled by Zain Badr Arabi in 1348, detailing his views on Islam and 73 praxis. Additionally, maktūbāt of sufis provides important insight regarding their praxis. The Maktūbāt-i Ṣadī (The Hundred Letters [of Sharaf al-Din Ahmad]) has been translated in English by Paul Jackson. The hagiographical details relating to the Firdausi order is available in the late-14th-century taz̠kirāt, Manāqib al-As̤fiyā. In the 16th century two sufi taz̠kirāts were produced. Jamali’s Siyar al-‘Arifīn, completed in the middle of the 16th century, contains biographical details of thirteen sufis from the pre-Mughal period. The manuscript copies are present at the British Library and a lithographed edition was published in the 19th century. In the 1590s ‘Abd al-Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi produced a taz̠kirāt of 272 sufis entitled Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār. Several manuscript copies can be located at the British library and the Bodleian library, as well as a lithographed edition from Mujtaba-i Press in the 19th century. It is a comprehensive sufi taz̠kirāt which does not classify sufis as per their affiliation to sufi order. Instead, ‘Abd al-Haqq focused on pīr–murīd relationship to underline the spiritual genealogy and discussed biographies of sufis who were contemporaries without resorting to the hypothetical division of sufis according to silsilahs. This was a unique way of organizing information that was unprecedented. Subsequently, several taz̠kirāts produced in the 16th century through to the 18th century highlighted the linear history of the sufis, and the chain of transmission of authority to the disciples more particularly. Further Reading Alam, Muzaffar. The Languages of Political Islam in India, c. 1200–1800. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004. Auer, Blain. Symbols of Authority in Medieval Islam: History, Religion and Muslim Legitimacy in the Delhi Sultanate. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2012. Balachandran, Jyoti Gulati. Narrative Pasts: The Making of a Muslim Community in Gujarat c. 1400–1650. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2020. Banerjee, Sushmita. “Conceptualising the Past of the Muslim Community in the Sixteenth Century: A Prosopographical Study of the Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār.” Indian Economic and Social History Review 54, no. 4 (2017): 423–456. Currie, P. M. The Shrine and Cult of Mu‘in al-Din Chishti of Ajmer. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989. Digby, Simon. “The Sufi Shaikh as a Source of Authority in Medieval India.” In India’s Islamic Traditions. Edited by Richard M. Eaton, 1711–1750, 234–262. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Eaton, Richard M. ed. Sufis of Bijapur, 1300–1700. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2011. Ernst, Carl. The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. Boston: Shambhala South Asia, 2000. Ernst, Carl, and Bruce B. Lawrence. Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Green, Nile. Making Space: Sufis and Settlers in Early Modern India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012. Page 24 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 Habib, Mohammad. “Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh-i Dehli as a Great Historical Personality.” In Politics and Society During the Early Medieval Period: Collected Works of Professor Mohammad Habib. Edited by Khaliq A. Nizami, Vol. 1, 356–384. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1974. Hermansen, Marcia, and Bruce B. Lawrence. “Indo-Persian Tazkiras as Memorative Communications.” In Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia. Edited by David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, 149–175. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000. Islam, Riazul. Sufism in South Asia: Impact on Fourteenth Century Muslim Society. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kumar, Sunil. “La communauté musulmane et les relations hindous-musulmans dans l’Inde du e Nord au début du XIII siècle: Une réévaluation politique.” Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales 60, no. 2 (2005): 239–264. Kumar, Sunil. “Reflections on the Past and Present of Two Sufi Shrines of Delhi.” In The Present in Delhi’s Pasts, 103–138. Delhi: Three Essays, 2011. Lawrence, Bruce. “The Chishtiya of Sultanate India: A Case Study of Biographical Complexities in South Asian Islam.” Journal of American Academy of Religion Studies XLVIII, nos. 3 and 4 (1982): 47–87. Lawrence, Bruce. “The Early Chishtiya and Shaikh Nizam ud-Din Awliya.” In Delhi Through the Ages: Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society. Edited by R. E. Frykenberg, 104–128. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. Nizami, Khaliq A. The Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya. Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1991. Rizvi, Saiyid Athar Abbas. A History of Sufism in India. 2 vols. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978. Notes 1. See, for instance, the writings of K. A. Nizami, Some Aspects of Religion and Politics in India During the Thirteenth Century (Aligarh: Department of History, Muslim University, 1961). More recently, see the writings of Tanvir Anjum, Chishti Sufis in the Sultanate of Delhi, 1190–1400 (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2011). 2. Sunil Kumar, “Transitions in the Relationships Between Political Elites and the Sufis: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Delhi Sultanate,” in State Formation and Social Integration in Pre-Modern South and Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study of Asian Society, ed. Noboru Karashima and Masashi Hirosue (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 2017), 206–208. 3. Juzjani reported that as a young slave at Bukhara, Iltutmish was sent by his master to buy grapes but when he lost the money, he began to cry. A faqīr bought him grapes and told him: “When you attain rule and dominion, take care that you show respect to faqīrs and holy folk!” For details, see Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani, T̤abaqāt-i Nāṣirī, trans. H G. Raverty (Delhi: Oriental Books, 1970 reprint), 600. Also see Simon Digby, “The Sufi Shaykh and the Sultan: A Conflict of Claims to Authority in Medieval India,” Iran 28 (1990): 75. 4. Ibn Battuta, Rihala, p. 171 cited in Digby, “The Sufi Shaykh and the Sultan,” 76, passim. Page 25 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 5. Amir Hasan Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Khwaja Hasan Thani Nizami (Delhi: Urdu Academy, 1990), 185, 374; trans. Bruce B. Lawrence (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 205, 327. 6. See, for instance, the writings of Nizami, Some Aspects of Religion; also see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978). They have largely relied on 14th- to 16th-century sufi taz̠kirāts to document the linear history of sufi silsilahs. 7. For instance, Qazi Hamid al-Din Nagauri (a Suhrawardi sufi) was asked by Bakhtiyar Kaki (a Chishti sufi) to hand over the tabarrukāt to Baba Farid; his grave is in the same complex and fairly close to Bakhtiyar Kaki. Baha’ al-Din Zakariya, a Suhrawardi sufi exchanged letters regarding faith and faqr with Hamid al-Din Suwali, a Chishti sufi. See Simon Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession among the Great Chishti Shaykhs of the Dehli Sultanate,” in Delhi Through the Ages, ed. R. E. Frykenberg (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986), 63–103. 8. Amir Khwurd, Siyar al-Awliyā’, ed. Sayyid Mahdi Ghuri (Lahore: Markaz-i Tahqiqat-i Farsi Iran wa Pakistan, no. 23, Mu’assi-yi Intisharat-i Islami, 1978). 9. Among the many examples, see, for instance, Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 170–172, trans. Lawrence, 195– 196; ed. Nizami, 302–303, trans. Lawrence, 283–284. 10. Among the many examples, see, for instance, Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 391–392, trans. Lawrence, 338–340; ed. Nizami, 170–172, trans. Lawrence, 195–196; ed. Nizami, 71–72, trans. Lawrence, 129–130; ed. Nizami, 8–9, trans. Lawrence, 86; ed. Nizami, 356–358, trans. Lawrence, 317–319; ed. Nizami, 378–379, trans. Lawrence, 330–331. 11. See Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 170–171, trans. Lawrence, 195–196; ed. Nizami, 394–395, trans. Lawrence, 341; ed. Nizami, 106, trans. Lawrence, 153; ed. Nizami, 125, trans. Lawrence, 165–166; ed. Nizami, 43–44, trans. Lawrence, 108–110; ed. Nizami, 106–107, trans. Lawrence, 153; ed. Nizami, 260, trans. Lawrence, 256–257; ed. Nizami, 426–427, trans. Lawrence, 361. 12. Sunil Kumar, “Transitions in the Relationships Between Political Elites and the Sufis,” 210–211. 13. See Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 3, trans. Lawrence, 82; ed. Nizami, 346, trans. Lawrence, 311. 14. See Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 425, trans. Lawrence, 360–361; ed. Nizami, 185, trans. Lawrence, 205; ed. Nizami, 254–255, trans. Lawrence, 252–253; ed. Nizami, 407–409, trans. Lawrence, 348–349; ed. Nizami, 124–125, trans. Lawrence, 165; ed. Nizami, 315, trans. Lawrence, 291. 15. Sunil Kumar, “Politics, the Muslim Community and Hindu-Muslim Relations Reconsidered: North India in the Early Thirteenth Century,” in Rethinking a Millennium: Perspectives on Indian History from Eighth to Eighteenth Century, Essays for Harbans Mukhia, ed. Rajat Datta (Delhi: Aakar, 2008), 139–167. 16. Sunil Kumar, “Qutb and Modern Memory,” in The Partitions of Memory: The Afterlife of the Division of India, ed. Suvir Kaul (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001), 163. 17. For details see Kumar, “Qutb and Modern Memory,” 164. 18. Ziya’ al-Din Barani, Ta’rīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī, ed. Sayyid Ahmad Khan (Calcutta: Bibliotheca Indica, 1860–62), 210– 212; trans. I. A. Zilli (Delhi: Primus, 2015), 129–131. 19. See, among others, Nizami, Some Aspects of Religion; K. A. Nizami, “Early Indo-Muslim Mystics and their Attitude towards the State,” Islamic Culture 22 (1948): 387–398; 23 (1949): 13–21, 162–170, 312–321; 24 (1950): 60– 71; and Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1. 20. On Ghurid connection with the Karramiya sect, see Finbarr Barry Flood, “Ghurid Monuments and Muslim Identities: Epigraphy and Exegesis in Twelfth-century Afghanistan,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 42, no. 3 (2005): 263–294. On Nur Turk, see Kumar, “Qutb and Modern Memory,” 163–164. 21. Sunil Kumar, “The Tyranny of Meta Narratives: Re-Reading the History of Sultanate Delhi,” in Questioning Paradigms, Constructing Histories, ed. Kumkum Roy and Naina Dayal (Delhi: Aleph, 2019), 222–235. Page 26 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 22. Barani argued that under the influence of the Shaykh, both common and elite Muslims regularly read the namāz, as well as other books, especially the Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, and have oriented the course of their life towards achieving pious acts. See Barani, Ta’rīkh-i Fīrūz Shāhī, ed. Khan, 343–347; trans. Zilli, 210–213. Khusrau celebrated Nizam alDin Awliya’s spiritual paramountcy in a verse: “An emperor in an indigent’s cell, a refuge of the world for the heart of the world, a king of kings without throne or crown, with the kings in need of the dust of his feet.” For details see Sunil Kumar, “Assertions of Authority: A Study of the Discursive Statements of Two Sultans of Delhi,” in The Making of Indo-Persian Culture: Indian and French Studies, ed. Muzaffar Alam, François “Nalini” Delvoye, and Marc Gaborieau (Delhi: Manohar, 2000), 56–57. 23. Amir Hasan mentions in the text that some malfūz̤āt were already in circulation, but Nizam al-Din Awliya clarified that these were inauthentic as no such malfūz̤āt had been compiled with the acknowledgement of the pīr. 24. Out of 188 assemblies, Baba Farid is cited in more than 50. From among the many examples, see Sijzi, Fawā’id alFu’ād, ed. Nizami, 43–44, trans. Lawrence, 108–110; ed. Nizami, 106–107, trans. Lawrence, 153; ed. Nizami, 260, trans. Lawrence, 256–257; ed. Nizami, 426–427, trans. Lawrence, 361; ed. Nizami, 254–255, trans. Lawrence, 252–253; ed. Nizami, 358, trans. Lawrence, 318–319; ed. Nizami, 373–374, trans. Lawrence, 327. 25. Specifically in the case of fasting for the sake of God was considered as a pious act. Both Baba Farid and Nizam alDin practiced it, but Zakariya refrained from practicing it although he performed other acts of piety. Baba Farid expended his wealth and derived pleasure in not possessing anything in contrast; Zakariya did not expend his wealth completely and gave lavish gifts to his acquaintances. See Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād ed. Nizami, 309, trans. Lawrence, 288; ed. Nizami, 356–358, trans. Lawrence, 317–319; ed. Nizami, 378–379, trans. Lawrence, 330–331. 26. For details, see Jyoti Gulati, “Stature, Social Relations and the Piety Minded: Reading Amīr K̲h̲wurd’s Siyar alAwliyā’,” MPhil dissertation, Department of History, University of Delhi, 2005. 27. The data in these charts are based on two extremely useful charts in Gulati, “Stature, Social Relations and the Piety-Minded.” These are Chart 1 “Structure of Siyar al-Awliyā’: Amir Khwurd’s Making of the Chishti Silsilah” and Chart 2 “Beyond Khwurd’s Narrative: The Social Network of the Piety-Minded.” 28. Not much is reported about Mu‘in al-Din Chishti’s early life and family in the 14th-century taz̠kirāt, Siyar alAwliyā’; according to the 16th-century taz̠kirāt, Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār he married two women and his lineal descendants (sons) included Shaykh Fakhr al-Din, Shaykh Husam al-Din, and Shaykh Abu Said. The Ak̲h̲bār alAk̲h̲yār also carries details about Mu‘in al-Din Chishti’s grandsons: Shaykh Husam al-Din Sukhta, Khwaja Ahmad, and Khwaja Wahid, a murīd of Baba Farid. Khwaja Mu‘in al-Din Khwurd, great grandson of Mu‘in al-Din Chishti, was a disciple of Shaykh Nasir al-Din Mahmud and received Khirqa-i K̲h̲ilāfat. For details, see ‘Abd al-Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi, Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār, ed. Aleem Ashraf Khan (Tehran: Society for Appreciation of Cultural Works and Dignitaries, 2005), 96, 222–227; trans. Maulana Muhammad Fazil (Delhi: Adabi Duniya, 1994), 116, 244–248. Also see Rizvi, A History of Sufism, Vol. 1, 124. 29. The details pertaining to Bakhtiyar Kaki’s lineal descendants are virtually absent. He had two sons, one of them died in childhood, and regarding the other, Nizam al-Din Awliya stated that he “did not resemble the Shaykh nor did he display any of his spiritual aptitude.” Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 104, trans. Lawrence, 152. 30. The biographical notices of fourteen family members of Baba Farid were included in the Siyar al-Awliyā’. Among them Shaykh Nasir al-Din used to remain busy in prayer; Maulana Shihab al-Din was a friendly associate of Awliya; Shaykh Badr al-Din Sulayman did bai‘at to the Khwaja of Chisht and was his sajjāda nishīn ; Khwaja Nizam al-Din was a soldier and at the time of Baba Farid’s funeral he decided on the site of burial; and Khwaja Yaqub was known for generosity. Baba Farid’s grandsons were Khwaja Muhammad and Khwaja Aziz al-Din Sufi, both of them compiled the malfūz̤āt of Nizam al-Din Awliya. Other members were mentioned in passing. For further details, see Dehlawi, Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār, ed. Khan, 133–135, 185–186; trans. Fazil, 155–158, 208–209. 31. Jyoti Gulati Balachandran, “Exploring the Elite World in the Siyar al-Awliyā’: Urban Elites, Their Lineages and Social Networks,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 52, no. 3 (2015): 253–256. Page 27 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 32. It is interesting that the lineal descendants of both Badr al-Din Ishaq and Jamal al-Din Hansawi became murīds of Nizam al-Din Awliya. For instance, both Muhammad and Musa became murīds of Awliya, and Qutb al-Din Munawwar was a k̲h̲alīfā of Nizam al-Din. For details, see Balachandran, “Exploring the Elite World in the Siyar al-Awliyā’,” 258–260. 33. For the social history of the Muslim community that unwraps the social networks and genealogy of individuals who served as hum sabaq, ustād, and disciples of Nizam al-Din, see the extremely useful Chart “Beyond Khwurd’s Narrative: The Social Network of the Piety-Minded” in Gulati, “Stature, Social Relations and the Piety Minded.” 34. See Balachandran, “Exploring the Elite World in the Siyar al-Awliyā’,” 247. 35. Sunil Kumar, “Time and Its Didactic Possibilities: Sijzi’s Fawā’id al-Fu’ād and the Fourteenth Century Chishtiyya,” in Digbynama: Papers from Simon Digby Memorial Conference, ed. Francesca Orsini (Delhi: Oxford University Press, Forthcoming). 36. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 64. 37. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 64–66. 38. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 71. 39. Dehlawi, Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār, ed. Khan, 50; trans. Fazil, 62. 40. Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 315; trans. Lawrence, 291. 41. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 73. 42. The tensions between Baba Farid and other disciples of Bakhtiyar Kaki continued even after the transfer of tabarrukāt. Baba Farid stayed in Bakhtiyar Kaki’s house in Delhi after receiving the tabarrukāt but people were not allowed to meet him. Hence, he left Delhi arguing that his pīr’s barakat exists both in the city (Delhi) as well as in the wilderness (Hansi). The ease with which he could operate as an independent shaykh was obvious in Hansi. See Sijzi, Fawā’id al-Fu’ād, ed. Nizami, 316; trans. Lawrence, 292. 43. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 74. 44. For details regarding rhetorical elements in Amir Khwurd’s narrative and conflict within the collateral lineage, see Balachandran, “Exploring the Elite World in the Siyar al-Awliyā’,” 253–257. 45. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 79. 46. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 78. 47. Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 81–82. 48. For a careful study of this issue, see Pia Maria Malik, “Disentangling the Chishti Silsilah: The Husaini T̤arīqa and the Jawāmi‘ al-Kalim,” (MPhil Dissertation) (Department of History, University of Delhi, 2016). 49. Malik, “Disentangling the Chishti Silsilah,” 3–6, 94. In Ajudhan, Punjab, Baba Farid’s shrine was under the control of his lineal descendants since the mid-13th century. However, in the 14th century there were conflicts relating to succession; the Delhi Sultan, Muhammad Tughluq, intervened and appointed servitors of the shrine. The Chishtis were largely presented as uniformly otherworldly by Khaliq A. Nizami, but Richard Eaton has pointed out that in Baba Farid’s dargah in Punjab his lineal descendants adapted to regional circumstances by collaborating with Delhi Sultans to ensure that the shrine retained its cult status and popularity among the local Muslims. For details, see Richard M. Eaton, “The Political and Religious Authority of the Shrine of Baba Farid,” in India’s Islamic Traditions, ed. Richard M. Eaton (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 263–284. 50. The Suhrawardis could construct huge mausoleums for their pīrs on account of their material possessions and wealth. For details, see Rizvi, A History of Sufism, Vol. 1, 190–226. Page 28 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 51. Simon Digby, “The Sufi Shaikh as a Source of Authority in Medieval India,” in Essays on Islam and Indian History, ed. Richard Eaton (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), 245–247. 52. Bruce Lawrence, Notes from a Distant Flute: Sufi Literature in Pre-Mughal India (Teheran, Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1978), 72–78. Also see Pankaj Jha, “A Table Laden with Good Things: Reading a 14th Century Sufi Text,” in Moveable Type: Book History in India, ed. S. Chakravorty and A. Gupta (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2008), 3–25; and Paul Jackson, The Way of a Sufi: Sharafuddin Maneri (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1987). 53. Jyoti Gulati Balachandran, Texts, Tombs and Memory: The Migration, Settlement and Formation of a Learned Muslim Community in Fifteenth Century Gujarat (PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2012), 220, now published as Narrative Pasts: The Making of Muslim Community in Gujarat (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2020). 54. In the 16th century locally revered pīrs as well as collateral lineages of sufi orders gained prominence. For instance, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Quddus Gangohi, a disciple of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haqq of Rudawli, has been identified as a sufi affiliated to the Sabiri branch of Chishtis; Shaykh Budhan and Shaykh Baha’ al-Din have been identified as Shattari sufis. The sufi settlements further expanded in the regions. For details, see Sushmita Banerjee, “Conceptualising the Past of the Muslim Community in the Sixteenth Century: A Prosopographical Study of the Ak̲h̲bār al-Ak̲h̲yār,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review 54, no. 4 (2017): 445–447. 55. For a discussion of a range of issues relating to Islamic conversions, see Raziuddin Aquil ed., Sufism and Society in Medieval India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010). For a differential study of social role of sufis in the Deccan, see Richard Eaton, Sufis of Bijapur, 1300–1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978); on Khwaja Gurg and other provincial Sufis, see Simon Digby, “Before Timur Came: Provincialization of Delhi Sultanate Through the Fourteenth Century,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 47, no. 3 (2004): 298–356. 56. In the 15th and 16th centuries, ‘Abd al-Haqq notes that several sufis did bai‘at to multiple sufi pīrs. However, since Abd al-Haqq was not reporting history of sufis as per any spiritual fraternity, he could discuss multiple affiliation of sufis without any inhibition. 57. Mohammad Habib, “Chishti Mystic Records of the Sultanate period,” in Politics and Society during the Early Medieval Period: Collected Works of Professor Mohammad Habib, Vol. 1, ed. Khaliq A. Nizami, (New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1974), 385–433. 58. Nizami, “Early Indo-Muslim Mystics,” (1948): 387–398; (1949): 13–21, 162–170, 312–321; (1950): 60–71; and Nizami, Some Aspects of Religion, 75–84. 59. Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1. 60. Eaton, Sufis of Bijapur; Eaton, “The Political and Religious Authority,” 263–284; and Richard Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997 reprint). 61. Digby, “The Sufi Shaikh as a Source of Authority,” 57–77; Digby, “The Sufi Shaykh and Sultan,” 71–81; and Digby, “Tabarrukāt and Succession,” 63–103. 62. Carl Ernst, Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History, and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Center (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992). Also see Ernst, “The Textual Formation of Oral Teachings in Early Chishti Sufism,” in Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia, ed. Jeffery Timm (New York: State University of New York Press, 1992), 271–297. 63. Sunil Kumar, The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007), 362–377; Kumar, “Assertions of Authority,” 37–65; Kumar, “Transitions in the Relationship,” 203–238; and Kumar, “Time and Its Didactic Possibilities.” Page 29 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021 64. Balachandran, “Exploring the elite world in the Siyar al-Awliyā’,” 241–270. 65. Banerjee, “Conceptualising the Past,” 423–456. 66. Bruce Lawrence, Morals for the Heart (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 76–77. 67. Lawrence, Morals for the Heart, 46, fn. 197. 68. Hamid Qalandar, K̲h̲air al-Majālis, ed. Khaliq A. Nizami (Aligarh: Muslim University, 1959). A recent English translation by Ishrat Hussain Ansari and Hamid Afaq Siddiqui (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-I Dehli, 2010). 69. Ernst, “The Textual Formation of Oral Teachings,” 286–289. 70. For details see Balachandran, “Exploring the Elite World in the Siyar al-Awliyā’,” 242–245. 71. Ernst, “The Textual Formation of Oral Teachings,” 281–286. 72. Sayyid Akbar Husaini, Jawāmiʻ al-Kalim, ed. Muhammad Hamid Siddiqi (Kanpur: Intizami Press, 1937–1938). 73. For details, see Lawrence, Notes from a Distant Flute, 60–86. Related Articles The Emirate of Bukhara The Mughal Empire Buddhist and Muslim Interactions in Asian History Page 30 of 30 Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Asian History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 25 February 2021