Sufi Orders in 18th-19th century South Asia

Sufi Orders in 18th–19th-Century South Asia Moin Ahmad Nizami, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.364 Published online: 23 February 2021 Summary For Muslims of South Asia the 18th–19th century was a period of consequential developments. With increasing colonial interventions and economic disruptions, it was also marked by movements of tajdīd (revival) in the socio-religious sphere that has influenced modernist understandings of Islam. These attempts to revive and restore a new vigor in Muslim communities were at once local and global—something that religious leaders in South Asia shared with their counterparts in other parts of the Muslim world. Among the overarching religious trends of this period may be included multiple affiliations within different Sufi orders, and a Sufi-ʿālim (Sufi-scholar) rapprochement. This enabled the coalescing of different Sufi orders and provided a religious leadership that could cater to both the educational and spiritual needs of the Muslim communities. Among the different Sufi orders of the period, the Naqshbandīs remained at the forefront of such revival efforts, with the lead provided in north India by Shāh Walīullāh (d. 1762). His attempts at an unprecedented tatbīq (reconciliation) provided the ideological underpinning for many later developments. The Naqshbandīs in Delhi produced some of the key religious thinkers and poets during the two centuries—Mīr Dard (d. 1785), Mirzā Maẓhar (d. 1781), Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī (d. 1825), and Shāh Abū Saʿīd Mujaddidī (d. 1835), among others. Their teachings and influence were not restricted to Delhi but spread quickly and made an impact in the Hijaz and elsewhere. Simultaneously, there was a revival of the two major branches of the Chishtī order—the Chishtī-Niẓāmī and the Chishtī-Ṣābrī—in different parts of the subcontinent. Over the 18th century, the revived Chishti order, with its distinctive approach toward tajdīd, spread across South Asia and contributed to the establishment of Islamic seminaries. The Chishtī-Niẓāmī branch moved from Delhi to Punjab and Deccan, while the Chishtī-Ṣābrī networks spread in the Gangetic basin and the Awadh region. Other Sufi lineages that remained popular, albeit to a lesser degree, were the Qādirī and the Shaṭṭārī, which were particularly active in the Deccan, Gujarat, and Sindh. With the Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia of Saiyid Aḥmad Rāe-Barelwī (d. 1830), developments in South Asia also mirrored the larger international picture of emerging activist Sufi movements of anticolonial nature (sometimes termed as “neoSufi”). Keywords: Sufis, Naqshbandī, Chishtī, Qādirī, Shaṭṭārī, Shāh Walīullāh, Islamic reform, Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia, waḥdat al-wujūd Page 1 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Sufism in the 18th Century: A Brief Overview Sufism emerged in the early 8th century in Kufa and Basra, and matured in the lands of 1 Khurasan and Transoxiana, where some of its key concepts and features were developed. From an informal teacher-student relationship gradually emerged more coherent masterdisciple (shaikh-murīd) associations that became institutionalized through the different Sufi orders in the 11th and 12th centuries. The Sufi orders, variously known as silsilah, ṭarīqa, maslak, sulūk, khānwāda, dāʾira, ṭāʾifa, or ḥalqa guaranteed the perpetuation of Sufi practices and litanies through a continuous process of initiatic transmission. With their peculiar set of rules of etiquette, litanies, forms of meditation, and so on, the Sufi orders reached South Asia in different periods of history. The precepts of the early Sufi masters and the social and cultural milieu of South Asia molded the attitudes of many of these orders toward society and 2 polity. Sufi lineages (shajras) can be looked at from two perspectives—the spiritual (rūḥānī) or bodily (jismānī). The former comprised those on whom rested the onus of expanding and perpetuating the silsilah, and they were deputed through the grant of khilāfat (successorship) to perform this task. A lot of thought and care was given before granting such permissions. Not all disciples or murīds attached to a shaikh would reach this stage, and only those who showed great commitment to the mystic discipline were chosen as khalīfahs (spiritual successors). Another form of Sufi lineage (jismānī) was not necessarily due to a grant of khilāfat but rather on account of being in the family of a particular shaikh. Such individuals would often become the caretakers (sajjāda-nashīn) of the shrine, and people would visit them to receive spiritual grace (baraka). At times, however, the two categories overlapped, and khilāfat could be granted within a particular family. For example, one can look at the Naqshbandī order in South Asia, where the Naqshbandī-Mujaddidī branch continued (though not exclusively) within the family of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindī (d. 1624). Among the different orders that flourished in the subcontinent, in terms of social popularity, the Chishtī order took the lead. Arriving in the early 13th century, it was the first organized silsilah to strike roots in South Asia. Its contemporary, the Suhrawardī order, arrived at roughly the same time but remained popular largely in Uch and Multan and had limited success in the Gangetic basin. By the 18th century, the Suhrawardī order had ceased to be a major Sufi order. Those who initiated into this order held primary affiliations in Chishtī, Qādirī or Naqshbandī orders. The Naqshbandīs arrived relatively late (in the 16th century) but remained popular throughout the Mughal period. Over the 18th century, they were the vanguard of the movements of iḥyāʾ and tajdīd (renewal and revival) in South Asia. Another late arrival in South Asia was the Qādirī order, which became popular during the 17th century. The Qādirīs along with the Shaṭṭārīs achieved great popularity in the Deccan and Gujarat, from where the Shaṭṭārīs spread into the Hijaz and Southeast Asia. Although an early arrival, the Firdausī order had limited success and remained largely confined to Bihar. The 18th century witnessed a further spread of these well-established orders, particularly the Chishtī and Naqshbandī, and the emergence of their smaller offshoots such as Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia. Page 2 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 The 18th century was marked by significant changes in the political, economic, and religious spheres of life for Muslims in South Asia. The slow military and political decline of the Mughal Empire and the simultaneous increase in the power of Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, and later the British acted as a catalyst in generating these changes. To the religious leadership of South Asian Muslims, this meant the removal of a temporal authority endorsing traditional values and Islamic principles, and also created a need to look for alternate sources of patronage. They judged the situation independently and came up with various solutions: some took the more dramatic path of military resistance to colonial encroachment; others emphasized the revival of Muslim community through a renewed emphasis on traditional modes of learning and established an extensive network of madrasahs (traditional colleges) and khānqāhs (Sufi lodge or hospice). And then there were those who produced a new genre of fatāwa literature (jurisprudential rulings) to provide answers to inquisitive religious minds. The uncertainties and confusion of the 18th century led to some important developments that determined the trajectories of South Asian Islam. Broadly viewed, Islam may be divided into its outward (ẓāhirī) and inward (bāṭinī) aspects, and these were historically nurtured and sustained by the ʿulamāʾ (scholars; sing. ʿālim) and the Sufis (Muslim mystics), respectively. The madrasahs run largely by the ʿulamāʾ catered to the ẓāhirī aspects of Islam, whereas the khānqāhs run by the Sufis looked after the moral and spiritual dimensions. While there were points on which the two traditions overlapped, they were differently oriented and produced exemplars with different roles in the community. However, in the 18th century, increasing attempts at harmonizing the ʿulamāʾ and Sufi traditions were made, and the perceived dichotomy between them was significantly reduced. Many ʿulamāʾ, unable to associate themselves with any strong temporal power, turned to mysticism, while the Sufis 3 acknowledged the superiority of ʿulamāʾ in matters relating to law. While searching for new means for rooting themselves among the people, the ʿulamāʾ began to share the role of popular religious guides alongside the Sufis. This intermingling of Sufi-ʿālim traditions came to be best represented by joint khānqāh-madrasahs where a person acting both as an ʿālim and a Sufi was housed and looked after both spiritual and intellectual needs of his community. This combination also resulted in changes to the madrasah curricula. In part this change was due to the growing connections with the Hijaz where hadith studies already had an upper hand and itinerant scholars from South Asia were becoming part of the wider intellectual networks that were being forged there. To be sure, while there was no fixed curricula for madrasahs in medieval South Asia and subjects and books studied usually depended on the expertise of scholars who taught them, one notices a growing emphasis on hadith and fiqh during this period. The two major curricula that prevailed in most of the madrasahs were the Dars-i Niẓāmī of Niẓām al-Dīn Sihālwī (d. 1748) and that of the Madrasah-i Rahīmiya of Shāh Walīullāh. While taṣawwuf and hadith dominated Walīullāhī curriculum, the Dars-i Nizāmī placed more emphasis on manṭiq (logic) and kalām (theology). Many madrasahs, while following one of these two, also introduced their own emphasis in different subjects that were 4 taught. Within the Sufi community, this period saw a growing tendency toward multiple affiliations. This meant that a person was permitted to join and benefit from teachers of different Sufi lineages at the same time, though his primary connection remained with one Sufi order. While one can find instances of multiple affiliations in preceding centuries as well, the trend gained momentum and became widespread during this period. Sufi manuals for training of disciples written during this period provide instructions for those affiliated to different Sufi orders. Page 3 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 However, due care was taken that this should not create confusion in the spiritual journey of the disciple. Overall, the trend seems to have imparted greater understanding among 5 different Sufi orders and also increased their membership in numerical terms. Two of the Sufi orders—the Naqshbandī and Chishtī—continued to play a significant role during this period and remained at the forefront of revivalist efforts. The Naqshbandī Order In the 18th century, the Naqshbandī order developed a dynamic and assertive outlook, and as in other parts of the Muslim world, took the lead in opposing the growing influence of colonial 6 powers. Two important branches of the Naqshbandīs operated in the subcontinent: that of Khwāja Khurd (d. 1663, son of Bāqī Billāh, the founder of the order in India), and that of Shaikh Aḥmad Sirhindī, called the Mujaddidī branch. During the 18th century, Delhi became the seat of Naqshbandī Sufis, foremost among them being Shāh Walīullāh (d. 1762). He claimed his connection with almost every mystic order and 7 was arguably the most influential Sufi-scholar of his time. His contribution and writings cover all branches of traditional Islamic learning, such as Qurʾānic exegesis (tafsīr), Prophetic Traditions (hadith), jurisprudence (fiqh), theology (kalām), debates (munāzara), Sufism 8 (taṣawwuf), biographies (tadhkirah), and so on. At the age of sixteen, Walīullāh headed the prestigious Madrasah-i Raḥīmia in Delhi, founded by his father. His brief stay in the Hijaz (1730–1732) proved to be a turning point—he met some of the leading scholars such as Abū 9 Ṭāhir al-Kurdī (d. 1732) and Tāj al-Dīn Qalaʿī (d. 1731) who had a lasting influence on him. Moreover, he availed of the opportunity to study hadith and Maliki texts with leading experts, and returned to Delhi with an aim to devote his life to their teaching. His greatest contribution remains the unprecedented taṭbīq (reconciliation) among the different Islamic sciences—whether it be hadith, Sufism, or fiqh. So far-reaching was his accommodative approach that nearly all revivalist attempts that began across north India over the 18th–19th centuries claimed a direct or indirect connection to him. His magnum opus, Ḥujjat allāh albāligha, stressed the need for a new ʿilm al-kalām (scholasticism) for a fresh interpretation of Islamic texts in the light of new situations. This, along with his other writings such as Izālat alkhifāʾ and Fuyūḍ al-Ḥaramain, remained a major inspiration for South Asian Muslims in the 19th century. The successors of Walīullāh played a big role in spreading his message of reform across north India, and particularly in the townships (qasbahs) that were centers of Muslim learning and culture in this period. His eldest son Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (d. 1824) provided an effective leadership to the Walīullāhī School and was assisted in this task by his learned brothers—Shāh Rafīʿ al-Dīn, Shāh ʿAbd al-Qādir, and Shāh ʿAbd al-Ghanī. Together they endeavored to create a community of scholars who would harmonize the rational, traditional, and mystical trends of thought. Their efforts over the 19th century encouraged the emergence of madrasahs in different towns across north India—Deoband, Khairabad, Saharanpur, Kandhla, Tonk, and Lahore, to name a few. Over the 19th century, the religious and educational mission of ʿAbd alʿAziz was led by his nephews Shāh Muḥammad Ismaʿīl (d. 1831) and Muḥammad Makhṣūṣullāh (d. 1856), and his sons-in-law, Muḥammad Isḥāq (d. 1846) and Muḥammad Yaʿqūb (d. 1866). Page 4 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Also drawing on Walīullāhī traditions was the activist movement of Saiyid Aḥmad of RaeBareilly (d. 1831) that aspired to religious reform and a struggle against the perceived social decline and an increasing colonial presence. Saiyid Aḥmad had been a student of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Shāh ʿAbd al-Qādir in Delhi. Around 1816, along with his closest disciples—Shāh Ismaʿīl (nephew of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) and Shāh ʿAbd al-Ḥayy (son-in-law of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz)—he toured the Gangetic basin, visiting and preaching in towns that have traditionally been hubs of Muslim culture and learning. These tours provided him connections, support, and funds that he needed for his preparations of jihad. Soon after his return from Hajj in 1823, he migrated to the north-west region, assumed the title of amīr al-muʾminīn, and launched a jihad against the Sikhs (and later the British). The jihad waxed and waned, but before it could reach its culmination Saiyid Aḥmad died fighting at Balakot in 1831. His movement, styled as the Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia (or Mujahidin), outlived him. After 1849, following the British annexation of Punjab, the Mujahidin came into direct struggle with the British. They remained active throughout 1850s, and it was only after a series of trials in the 1860s that the British 10 managed to cut off the flow of money and men to the frontier. However, jihad was only one aspect of this movement. The central theme, which is reiterated in Mujahidin literature such as Sirāt al-mustaqīm and Taqwiyat al-īmān, is of internal reform and eradication of religious abuses, particularly shirk (associating partners with God) and bidʿat (religious innovations). The reform efforts and tours of Saiyid Aḥmad led to a diffusion of Walīullāhī traditions into the countryside and produced a group of Muslim intellectuals inspired by such ideas and sharing the aspiration to rejuvenate the Muslim community. Besides the Walīullāhī School, the Mujaddidī branch was also well established in Delhi during the 18th century, from where it saw a rapid expansion to other regions. Muḥammad Nāṣir ʿAndalīb (d. 1759), a prominent figure in the cultural life of Delhi, was the khalīfah of Muḥammad Zubair (d. 1740, who was the last qayyūm [a high status in Sufi hierarchy] of the Mujaddidī branch). He was instructed in music and poetry by another Naqshbandī Sufi, Shāh Gulshan (d. 1728), and, writing with the pen-name of “ʿAndalīb,” his works reveal a wealth of musical knowledge. ʿAndalīb’s legacy was the Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia (not to be confused with its namesake initiated by Saiyid Aḥmad)—a reformist spiritual approach adumbrated in his chef d’oeuvre Nāla-i ʿAndalīb (a Persian allegory). The Ṭarīqa was later explained theoretically 11 by ʿAndalīb’s son and foremost disciple Mīr Dard (d. 1785) in his masterpiece ʿIlm al-kitāb. It appears that the Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia was not meant to function as a typical Sufi order, it remained entirely within the family, and the line soon ended with Dard’s grandson Muḥammad Nāṣir (d. 1845) and Yūsuf ʿAlī (d. unknown). According to the modern historian Hamid Algar, the presence of ʿAndalīb and Mīr Dard, along with other Naqshbandī poets of Delhi, made the 12 city resemble Timurid Herat of the times of Jāmī and Nawāʾī. Another leading spiritual master of the Mujaddidī branch in Delhi and also a famous Urdu poet was Mirzā Maẓhar “Jān-i Jānān” (d. 1781). Initiated into the Naqshbandī order by Nūr Muḥammad Budāyunī, he became the head of the Naqshbandī-Mujaddidī khānqāh at Delhi in 1747 and transformed the order into practically a new silsilah, henceforth called Shamsiyya Maẓhariya. Among Mirzā Maẓhar’s disciples, Thanāullāh Pānīpatī (d. 1810) made significant contributions to religious literature. His book on fiqh, Mā lā budd min, and his exegetical study of the Qurʾān, Tafsīr-i Maẓharī, came to be widely appreciated. His treatise Irshād alṭālibīn contains an exposition of the Naqshbandī mystic principles. Page 5 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Among the Sufi orders that flourished in South Asia during this period, the Mujaddidī branch had the greatest outreach outside the subcontinent. The person who gave the order its transnational reach was Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī (d. 1824), another khalīfah of Mirzā Maẓhar. During his time, the Mujaddidī establishment of Delhi attracted visitors and students from Syria, Baghdad, Egypt, China, Ethiopia, Turkistan, Yemen, Qandahar, and Ghazni. One such visitor was Khālid al-Baghdādī (d. 1826), the founder of the Khālidī branch of the Naqshbandī order. On his return from Delhi in 1811, he infused new strength into the order, and the Khālidīs spread in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and soon became the foremost order in Anatolia. From Mecca, the order spread to Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, Borneo, 13 and the Philippines. The Mujaddidī traditions set by Mirzā Maẓhar and Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī were continued by the latter’s successors, chief among them being Shāh Abū Saʿīd (d. 1835). He retained contacts with those regions where the Mujaddidī branch had spread during his predecessor’s time and 14 had correspondence with Khālid al-Baghdādī. He was warmly welcomed in Mecca and Medina while on Hajj in 1834 by the representatives of the Mujaddidī branch—Muḥammad Jān al-Bajurī (d. 1850) and Ismaʿīl Madanī, respectively. His eldest son and successor Shāh Aḥmad Saʿīd Mujaddidī (d. 1860) was able to sustain the transnational expansion of the Mujaddidī order, and the Delhi khānqāh continued to flourish under his supervision. After the disruptions caused by the 1857 Uprising, he along with family migrated to Medina. His younger brother, Shāh ʿAbd al-Ghanī Mujaddidī (d. 1880), succeeded him there as the head of the Mujaddidī order. A famous scholar of hadith, he possessed sanads (certificates) from leading hadith scholars of the Walīullāhī family including Muḥammad Isḥāq and Muḥammad Makhṣūṣullāh, from his own father Shāh Abū Saʿīd, and from Shaikh Ismaʿīl bin Idrīs of Medina. He had recited parts of Ṣaḥiḥ Bukhārī to the famous Medinan scholar Muḥammad ʿĀbid Anṣārī alSindhī. After his migration Shāh ʿAbd al-Ghanī remained a major point of contact for South Asian pilgrim scholars in the Hijaz. While migrating to the Hijaz, Aḥmad Saʿīd had handed over the responsibility of the Delhi khānqāh to his disciple Dost Muḥammad. But it was Aḥmad Saʿīd’s grandson Shāh Abū alKhair who deserves the credit for reviving the Mujaddidī khānqāh of Delhi. He along with his father Muḥammad ʿUmar had returned from the Hijaz to Rampur in 1880, and Shāh Abū alKhair moved to Delhi following his father’s death. He reorganized and reestablished the Delhi line of the Mujaddidī branch, which had been interrupted by the events of the 1857 15 Uprising. Other branches of Naqshbandī order also emerged independently in South Asia. The order spread to Bihar and eastern regions of the subcontinent through the efforts of Muḥammad Sulṭān (d. 1718), a khalīfah of Ādam Banūrī (d. 1643, successor of Shaikh Aḥmad Sirhindī). His foremost disciple, and also a member of the Qādirī order, Shāh Mujībullāh Qādirī (d. 1777) of Phulwari Sharif, founded the Khānwādā-i Mujībī in Bihar, which enabled the local spread of both the Naqshbandī and Qādirī orders. At Azimabad (Patna) and Bengal, the Naqshbandī order spread due to the efforts of Shāh Muḥammad Munʿim (d. 1775) and his successors. The Naqshbandīs gained some momentum in the Punjab under the leadership of Shāh Muḥammad Qāsim, who represented the Abū al-ʿAlāʾi branch of Naqshbandīs (named after Saiyid Abū alʿAlāʾ of Akbarabad/Agra). In Sindh, the famous mystic writer and poet Mīr ʿAlī Sher Qānī (d. 16 1789) and Makhdūm ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Girhorī (d. 1778) spread the silsilah. Page 6 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 The Chishtī Order The Chishtī order has been the oldest and the most widespread in South Asia. Arriving from Chisht (near Herat) in the early 13th century, it spread rapidly across South Asia and achieved great popularity among the people. By the time the Naqshbandīs entered the scene, the Chishtīs had well-established khānqāhs not only in the Gangetic plains but also in Gujarat, 17 Deccan, Bengal, and Malwa. Over the 16th–17th centuries, the Chishtī order retained its popularity in spite of having lost the centralized structure that it had developed during the first two centuries of its arrival. Individual Chishtī shaikhs continued to operate with success in their own areas of influence across South Asia. Two branches of the Chishtī order operated simultaneously—the Chishtī-Niẓāmī branch (named after Niẓām al-Dīn Auliyāʾ, d. 1325), and the Chishtī-Ṣābrī (named after ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī Ṣābir, d. 1291). The two branches were differentiated by initiatic links and not by any ideological differences. The Chishtīs from an early period devised revolutionary means of devotion to God (iṭāʿat) that identified religion with service to humanity. Their willingness to seek common grounds among religions and to rise above linguistic barriers ensured their wide popularity. Since the end of the 14th century, when the concept of waḥdat al-wujūd (developed by the Andalusian Sufi Ibn ʿArabī, d. 1240) became popular in the subcontinent, the Chishtīs, unlike the Naqshbandīs, remained in most cases its firm supporters. Waḥdat alwujūd summed up in the maxim hamā ūst (All is He) meant that God, while completely transcendent with respect to His creation, is not completely separated from it, but rather He is manifested in whatever exists in the universe. The broad concept of “unity” (tauḥīd) as entailed in wujūdī philosophy, enabled Chishtīs to strive to find a unity in heterogeneity and proved useful in creating social alignments. The Chishtīs were also strong advocates of various forms of Sufi meditational practices such as samāʿ (Sufi audition assemblies), dhikr (Remembrance of God), and so on. Chishtī-Niẓāmī Branch Credit goes to Shāh Kalīmullāh Jahānābādī (d. 1729) for reviving the Chishtī-Niẓāmī branch and converting Delhi once again into a major center for Chishtī activity. Shāh Kalīmullāh’s introduction to the Chishtī order came at the hands of Yaḥyā Madanī (d. 1689) in Medina. On his return to Delhi, he established his khānqāh and exercised an effective control over his disciples who had spread as far as the Deccan. Kalīmullāh was a prolific writer and wrote in order to synthesize various meditative and contemplative techniques. Among his major writings are Muraqqaʿ-i kalīmī (a work on daily prayers, meditational practices, and amulets), Kashkol-i kalīmī (a work on techniques of dhikr and murāqaba), and Sawāʾ al-sabīl (a work in defense of waḥdat al-wujūd). These works, besides his letters (Maktūbāt-i kalīmī), give detailed information on Chishtī practices during the early 18th century. Shāh Kalīmullāh’s chief successor Shāh Niẓām al-Dīn (d. 1729) was instructed to settle at Aurangabad. He revived the Chishtī order in the Deccan and was one of the major Chishtī figures to operate in the region since the time of Saiyid Gesūdarāz (d. 1422). However, his son and successor Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn (d. 1784) decided to return to Delhi to supervise the Chishtī khānqāh. After completing his education, he joined the army of Nāṣir Jung (r. 1748–1750), son of Niẓām al-Mulk Āṣaf Jāh (r. 1724–1748, founder of the state of Hyderabad). His contacts with Page 7 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 the nobility of Hyderabad remained strong, and the grandson of Niẓām al-Mulk, ʿImād al-Mulk Ghāzī al-Dīn Khān (d. 1800), built a lodge for him and also wrote his famous hagiography, Manāqib-i Fakhriyya. Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn has been considered as the “Mujaddid” (Reviver) of the Chishtī-Niẓāmī branch, for popularizing the order in different parts of the subcontinent. After him, the Delhi khānqāh, however, lost its glory. His son Quṭb al-Dīn (d. 1817) came to Delhi from Deccan on his father’s death and was held in respect by the Mughal Emperor Akbar II (r. 1806–1837). His successor Ghulām Nūr al-Dīn (Kāley Khān, d. 1846) was respected by the last Mughal Emperor Bahādur Shāh (r. 1837–1858). The Chishtī khānqāh in Delhi continued to survive until the 1857 Uprising, after which Kāley Khān’s property was confiscated, his family moved to Hyderabad, and the building was utilized for the Delhi College. While the Chishtī khānqāh in Delhi witnessed a period of relative decline over the 19th century, Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn’s disciples played an important role in the regional expansion of the order across northern parts of the subcontinent. Two of his disciples who zealously propagated the Chishtī order were Nūr Muḥammad Mahārvī (d. 1790) and Shāh Niyāz Aḥmad (d. 1834). The former was responsible for the Chishtī expansion in Punjab, Sindh, Bahawalpur, Dera Ghazi Khan, Chacharan, Siyal, Golrah, Makhad, and in parts of Awadh, while the latter’s 18 influence was felt in Rohilkhand and parts of Rajasthan. Nūr Muḥammad’s early education was in Lahore, from where he came to Delhi to study with Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn. Thereafter he was instructed to settle and establish a Chishtī khānqāh in Mahar, from where Chishtī influence would spread throughout Punjab and Sindh. Among his successors were Muḥammad ʿĀqil (d. 1814) in Dera Ghazi Khan, and Muḥammad Jamāl (d. 1811) in Multan. But the one who received massive popularity was Shāh Sulaimān of Taunsa (d. 1850). He was responsible for the rise of Chishtī khānqāhs in Khairabad, Delhi, Amroha, Sial, Shaikhawati (Rajasthan), 19 Golrah, and so on. Realizing the need to impart traditional religious education among Muslims, he established a madrasah in Taunsa and continued to work on popularizing the traditions of his silsilah in the region. Shāh Niyāz Aḥmad, another khalīfah of Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn, set up his khānqāh and madrasah in Bareilly and helped in spreading the silsilah at Shahjahanpur, Shahabad, Rudauli, Bachchraon, Akbarabad, and Lucknow. He wrote a number of treatises on Sufism but above all excelled in 20 composing Arabic, Persian, and Urdu verses dealing with spiritual love. Chishtī-Ṣābrī Branch While it has been difficult to reconstruct the early history of the Chishtī-Ṣābrī branch, owing to the paucity of historical materials, the order remained popular in the Awadh region during the Mughal period. It influenced and contributed to the rich cultural environment of the region through its interaction with the Bhakti saints. They remained, like their Niẓāmī counterparts, ardent supporters of waḥdat al-wujūd and samāʿ and were also given to strenuous meditational practices of dhikr. Around the late 17th century, the focus of ChishtīṢābrī activities shifted to the small townships around the qasbah of Amroha, when Shāh Muḥammadī Fayyāḍ (d. 1696, a khalīfah of Muḥibbullāh Ilāhābādī) came to reside there along with his brother Ḥāmid Hargāmi (d. 1706). From this time onward, the silsilah spread rapidly throughout the Upper Doab region, and its shaikhs entered into tightly knit scholarly networks with the Nasqshbandīs of Delhi. Over the 19th century, they were increasingly Page 8 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 drawn into the revivalist upsurge to the extent that Ḥājī Imdādullāh (d. 1899) became the spiritual forefather of many traditional seminaries including the Dār al-ʿulūm of Deoband. Over the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ṣābrī order largely operated in the countryside and gained popularity in smaller towns of Upper Doab but also spread to the Hijaz under Imdādullāh. At Amroha, two families led the Chishtī-Ṣābrī establishment: the family of ʿĪsāʾ Hargāmī and of Muḥammad Ḥāfiẓ. The most popular member of the first family was Shāh ʿAḍd al-dīn Jaʿfrī (d. 1758). His work Maqāṣid al-ʿārifīn became the chief text for the Chishtī-Ṣābrīs for understanding the subtleties of wujūdī philosophy and other devotional practices. Following the earlier traditions of the Chishtī-Ṣābrīs, he had much interest in Sanskrit and Vedantic philosophy and had traveled to Benaras and Ayodhya to study Hindu philosophy and its metaphysical doctrines. From the family of Muḥammad Ḥāfiẓ came Shāh ʿAbd al-Hādī (d. 1776), who established the Khānqāh-i Hādwiya at Amroha, giving the order a strong grounding in the region. Contemporary evidence suggests that he traveled widely around 21 Amroha and attained much popularity in the qasbahs and villages. What is significant is the fact that ʿAbd al-Hādī forged good relations with the Naqshbandīs—a step that was to bring far-reaching change in the outlook of the Chishtī-Ṣābrī order. He met Mirzā Maẓhar in Sambhal, and the latter is reported to have stayed with him in Amroha and Barahi. The trend was continued by ʿAbd al-Bārī (d. 1811, grandson and successor of ʿAbd al-Hādī), who established close connections with Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī in Delhi. While the Chishtī-Ṣābrī branch continued to flourish at Amroha, led by the family of ʿAbd alBārī, a sub-branch moved out into the Upper Doab region. This was headed by Shāh ʿAbd alRaḥīm Wilāyatī (d. 1830, a khalīfah of Shāh ʿAbd al-Bārī). ʿAbd al-Raḥīm joined the Naqshbandī-inspired Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia of Saiyid Aḥmad and fought along the Mujahidin. He died on a battlefield fighting the Sikhs in 1830 at Mayar. Influenced to a large extent by the views of reformist Walīullāhī ʿulamāʾ, his successors were the ʿulamāʾ-Sufis of Jhinjhana, Deoband, Thanabhawan, Gangoh, and Nanauta. His premier khalīfah Miānjī Nūr Muḥammad settled at Lohari (a village near Jhinjhana) and devoted himself to teaching children in a mosque. Nūr Muḥammad’s three khalīfahs—Ḥāfiẓ Ḍāmin Shahīd (d. 1857), Muḥammad Thānwī (d. 1878), and Ḥājī Imdādullāh (d. 1899)—led the Ṣābrī order during the 19th century. All three were based at the same khānqāh in Thanabhawan but had different expertise. Ḥāfiẓ Ḍāmin was a man of action who died fighting at Shamli during the Uprising of 1857; Muḥammad Thānwī was a respected scholar with a sanad in hadith from Muḥammad Isḥāq (grandson of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) and from Muḥammad Yaʿqūb (brother of Muḥammad Isḥāq); whereas Imdādullāh was a practicing Sufi with strong Chishtī and Naqshbandī ties. Among the three, Imdādullāh had the most pronounced influence on posterity. After heading the Thanabhawan khānqāh for more than a decade, he migrated to Mecca in 1858 and spent the remaining years of his life there. His major contribution lies in attracting the ʿulamāʾ to his mystic fold. He redefined Sufi practices in a way that made them acceptable to many, and his broad accommodating approach allowed him to overlook differences that divided the religious scholars of his time. From Mecca, he oversaw his dispersed disciple community in South Asia and exchanged letters frequently with them on issues that were personal, spiritual, intellectual, or mundane. Among the list of his khalīfahs are counted many of the firstgeneration scholars of Deoband, Nadwa, Mazahir al-ʿulūm, and other madrasahs. While at Page 9 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Mecca, he drew the South Asian scholars into a broader network of scholars from across the Islamic world. Along with Shāh ʿAbd al-Ghanī Mujaddidī in Medina, Imdādullāh became a point of contact for the pilgrims and scholars on the move from the subcontinent. The Qādirī Order The Qādirī order is the oldest Sufi order and traces its origin from ʿAbd al-Qādīr Jīlānī (d. 1166). Though it became very popular in parts of Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, and so on, it was only in the latter half of the 15th century that it reached South Asia. Shāh Niʿmatullāh Qādirī (d. 1430) was the first important Sufi to reach the Deccan and introduced the Niʿmatullāhī branch. Independent branches of the Qādirī order spread during the Mughal period in Punjab and Lahore with Uch, Multan, and Shergarh as main centers of their activity. Dāʾūd Kirmānī, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Muhaddith Dihlawī (d. 1642), Shāh Abū al-Maʿālī (d. 1615), Shāh 22 Miyān Mīr, and Mullā Shāh (d. 1661) were some of the prominent Qādirī Sufis of that period. During the 18th century, the Qādirīs spread across northern parts of India. The leading Sufi of this order was Shāh ʿAbd al-Razzāq Banswī (d. 1724) who popularized the order in the Gangetic basin. His disciple Mullā Niẓām al-Dīn (d. 1748) was a renowned scholar who is credited to have created the Dars-i-Niẓāmī—the most widely accepted curriculum in 18th– 23 19th-century madrasahs. Unlike the Naqshbandī and Chishtī orders, which had their focus in Delhi, from where they expanded into other areas, the Qādirīs operated largely through independent regional branches. At Benaras, Wārith Rasūl Numāʾ (d. 1753) popularized the Qamīsī branch of the Qādirī order. His order came to be known as the Qādirī-Wārthī order. Shāh Fatḥ Muḥammad Qādirī (d. 1718) was popular in Kairana, while Shāh Bulāqī, Shāh Shahbāz, Shāh Ghulām Aḥmad, Shāh Muḥammad Ḥusain, and Shāh Munīr gained a significant following in the region 24 of Rohilkhand. Shāh Mujībullāh Qādirī (d. 1777) founded the Khānwāda-i Mujībī in Phulwari Sharif in Bihar. In Punjab, the Qādirī order was propagated by the successors of Ḥājī Muḥammad Qādirī (d. 1692) with Naushera, Lahore, Wazirabad, and so on as its main centers. In Kashmir, Saiyid Quṭb al-Dīn Jīlānī, Saiyid Shādī Shāh, Saiyid Nāthan Shāh, and Shāh 25 Dargāhī played prominent parts in the expansion of the order. Firdausī and Shaṭṭārī Orders Among the less prominent orders in the 18th century were the Firdausī and Shaṭṭārī orders. The Firdausīs traced their spiritual lineage to Saif al-Dīn Bākharzī (d. 1260), an eminent disciple of Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 1221, founder of the Kubrāwiya order). The order was introduced in India by Badr al-Dīn Samarqandī, who settled permanently in Delhi towards the end of the 13th century. Its most influential figure was Sharaf al-Dīn Manerī (d. 1381), because of whom the order spread in Bihar and eastern parts of the subcontinent. Due to the mutual bickering of his descendants resulting from accumulation of wealth, its sway dwindled soon after the death of Manerī. In the 18th century, it had two centers in Bihar—Maner and Bihar Sharif. Maner was the ancestral home of Sharaf al-Dīn Manerī where the silsilah continued under Daulat ʿAlī alias Shāh Muḥammad Bunyād Firdausī (d. 1781). Other mystics included Shāh ʿAbdullāh Bhīlū (d. 1786), Shāh Makāiʾ Firdausī, and Shāh Mubārak Dhuman 26 Firdausī. The other center, Bihar Sharif, was troubled by property disputes and family Page 10 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 27 matters and did not gain lasting popularity. Shāh Mujībullāh Qādirī of Phulwari Sharif also represented the Firdausī-ʿImādī and Firdausī-Muʿizzī branches. While a number of Sufis would receive initiation in the Firdausi order, it ceased to be their chief identifying lineage during the 18th–19th centuries. The Shaṭṭārī order was introduced in South Asia during the 15th century by Shāh ʿAbdullāh Shaṭṭārī (d. 1485), who settled in Mandu after traveling widely in the country. His two eminent khalīfahs, Muḥammad ʿAlāʾ Qazīn (d. 1487) in Bengal and Ḥāfiẓ Jaunpūrī in Jaunpur, spread the silsilah in their respective regions. The Bengali branch was continued by Shaikh Abū alFatḥ Sarmast and the north Indian branch by Shaikh Buddhan (d. 1493). Muḥammad Ghauth of Gwalior (d. 1563), a khalīfah of Ẓahūr Ḥājī, was an influential Sufi of this order and he had close relations with the Mughal rulers. One of his successors, Wajīh al-Dīn ʿAlavī Gujarātī (d. 1589), was a well-known ʿālim who wrote rejoinders to defend the position of Muḥammad Ghauth, whose works were criticized by ʿulamāʾ for seemingly heretical views. In his khānqāh in Ahmadabad, teaching of tafsīr, kalām, fiqh, and hadith took place together with training in 28 Sufism. The Shaṭṭārī order proved short lasting; during the 18th century it had some presence in Bihar and Bengal, but the stage was dominated by the Naqshbandī and Chishtī orders. Well-known Sufi figures such as Bullhe Shāh (d. 1757), Wārith Shāh Qādirī, and Shāh Walīullāh had Shaṭṭārī connections, but it was not their primary affiliation. Discussion of the Literature Until the early 21st century, the 18th and 19th centuries were the neglected periods in the study of Sufism in South Asia. As compared to the amount of scholarship that exists on the “classical Sufis” of the medieval period, the 18th century in the subcontinent was seen as a period sandwiched between the glory of the Mughal Empire and the perceived decline of the colonial period. A major comprehensive work on Sufism in two volumes by Saiyid Athar Abbas 29 Rizvi, for instance, takes sparse notice of post-1700 developments. The so-called “decline theory” first put forward in the writings of Arthur John Arberry and John Spencer Trimingham suggested that Sufism was suited to “medieval” societies and remained at odds with the 30 temperaments of 18th-century Trimingham’s three-stage development of Sufism with “classicism” preceding “decline” and “fragmentation” failed to appreciate how “colonial Sufis” debated internal reform and reformulated spiritual traditions. What drew the attention of scholars to this century were the reform and revivalist trends that spread across the subcontinent and shared their connections, at least in some cases, with the wider Muslim world. But here again, scholarship has largely focused on the role of ʿulamāʾ as pioneers of tajdīd movements, while the contributions of Sufis have been sidelined. Some of the pioneering works by Barbara Metcalf, Francis Robinson, Avril Powell, and more recently Qasim Zaman have undoubtedly enriched the understanding of South Asian Islam, but aspects 31 of Sufism generally remain outside their purview. Perhaps the only Sufi order that, in terms of involvement in the revivalist upsurge, has attracted scholarly attention has been the Naqshbandīyya, often regarded as a more visible and influential strand in South Asia. Modern writings by Arthur Buehler, Warren Fusfeld, and Harlan Pearson among others have elaborated on the Naqshbandī programs of Islamic reform by looking into the Naqshbandī32 Mujaddidī branch and the Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia of Saiyid Aḥmad. Of course, Shāh Page 11 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Walīullāh, being the pioneer in such efforts, has been well studied, though there is still scope for a definitive study on him. The two major movements—Deobandī and Barelvī—have been well scrutinized as marking the two parameters of religious reform in South Asia. More recent works have demonstrated how both these schools drew heavily from Naqshbandī, Chishtī, and 33 Qādirī traditions. While the Naqshbandīs have remained in the limelight, few works have been done on understanding the varied responses of other Sufi orders to the reformist upsurge. Sufism has at times been presented as a highly syncretic institution and addressing the needs of populist religion. Indeed, the important writings of Ian Talbot, Sarah Ansari, Usha Sanyal, and Claudia Liebeskind emphasize that Sufi institutions had a more reactive outlook toward tajdīd 34 programs. They either showcase Sufism as a shrine-centered institution reactionary to reform efforts, or portray Sufi institutions as large landholders that exploited new conditions for their own benefit. By the 19th century, some of the major shrines had become massive landowners and intermediaries between the British Raj and the local population. The shrines that possessed large tracts of lands since the Mughal times tried to retain them by passively supporting British rule and were not divested of their holdings. In the late 1890s the shrine of Baba Farīd, looked after by his descendants at Pakpattan, had forty-three thousand acres of 35 land (one-tenth of the land in the district). Likewise in Multan, five thousand acres of land 36 remained attached to the shrine of Bahā al-Dīn Zakariya of the Suhrawardi order. However, there is a need of further study of the different ways in which Sufi orders responded to the tajdīd attempts that were widespread in these two centuries. For the Chishtī order, a major study in Urdu that brings their history down to the 19th century has been Khaliq Ahmad 37 Nizami’s Tarīkh-i Mashāʾikh-i Chisht. But an English work of the same scope remains to be done. Carl Ernst and Bruce Lawrence’s study of the Chishtīs, Sufi Martyrs of Love, is a 38 welcome addition in this direction. In order to fully appreciate the contributions of Chishtī and other spiritual orders, it is imperative to turn one’s attention away from the major cities such as Delhi and Lucknow toward smaller towns of the countryside (qasbahs), for it was here that a vibrant intellectual dialogue and literary production occurred in the 18th–19th centuries. Attention has been given to these repositories of Muslim culture in the writings of Christopher Alan Bayly and Mushirul Hasan, and in recent years valuable work has been produced to understand the qasbah societies as not insular little worlds but actively engaged in an intellectual exchange 39 with the rest of South Asia and, at times, even beyond. Connections, both local and global, play a significant role in understanding Sufism, and more so from the 18th century onward. If there was one phenomenon that played a significant role in forming these connections, it was the Hajj. The Hijaz becomes a key point in the international exchange of Islamic ideas and inspiration. It became a melting pot for traditions of learning that converged from Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Central Asia, and South and Southeast Asia. Scholars who went on Hajj became the recipients of these traditions and 40 became part of the broad networks of interregional ties. From the South Asian context, a good study of these networks and how they played into the larger Ottoman and British 41 aspirations has been Seema Alavi’s Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire. But one needs to be cautious when approaching these connections and to avoid broad generalizations as the proponents of “neo-Sufi” tendencies have at times made. Taking the lead from Fazlur Rahman’s seminal work Islam, some have tried to identify the common unifying grounds Page 12 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 among the Sufi orders that spread across the Muslim world and urged for the need of a 42 “reform.” This trend called “neo-Sufism” is applied to Sufi-based movements that are considered to have enough to justify a common label. However, one needs to be mindful that in many cases it was the regional and local elements that defined how a particular Sufi tradition manifested itself. Finally, for a holistic understanding of the Sufi experiences across South Asia, one needs more scholarship on Sufi establishments outside the Gangetic belt, for comparatively little is known about Sufi establishments during this period in the cities of the southern and eastern regions of the subcontinent. Some efforts have been made to correct this. Richard Eaton’s Sufis of Bijapur, Suleman Siddiqi’s Bahmani Sufis, and Carl Ernst’s Eternal Garden are some 43 pioneering works in this direction, although they deal with an earlier period. More recently, Nile Green has drawn attention towards this neglected region by focusing on the Deccan Sufis 44 who flourished under the late Mughals and the Niẓāms of Hyderabad. The area still remains an open field for researchers. Primary Sources The amount of primary texts for this period, in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu (besides regional languages), is extensive, and many are yet to be fully utilized. Sufi literature falls under different genres. With the widespread expansion of Sufi networks, it became imperative to maintain close connections between the teacher and disciple, and for this reason, maktūbāt (letters) abound for this period. They form an important source for understanding not only the intellectual heritage of a particular order but also reveal the multifarious roles that a Sufi master took on during this period. Equally important are the Sufi discourses or the malfūẓāt that reflect the modes of thought of the respective age. The biographical accounts or tadhkirahs reveal the worldviews of their compilers and help one to understand how the followers of a shaikh viewed his life and teachings, and the values they tried to inculcate among the readers. There are also several mystical treatises and devotional manuals dealing specifically with spiritual exercises that provide an insight into the spiritual world of the Sufi discipline. Also abounding for this period are jurisprudential rulings (fatāwā) that depict the concerns and issues in the Muslim minds. These together with other literary compositions in prose and poetry form the main corpus of literature for understanding the developments in Sufism in this period. Only some of the key works are discussed here. For the Naqshbandīs, the writings of Shāh Walīullāh are most copious. A useful and comprehensive list of his works may be seen in the bibliography of Marcia Hermansen’s Conclusive Argument from God, which also lists the 45 different editions that these have gone through. For Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, son and premier successor of Walīullāh, 46 Malfūẓāt Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and the Fatāwā-i ʿAzīzī are important sources. The twin texts of the Mujahidin movement—Sirāt al-mustaqīm and Taqwiyat al-īmān—are indispensable for understanding the reform program of Ṭarīqa-i Muḥammadia of Saiyid Aḥmad. 47 Nāla-i ʿAndalīb of Nāṣir ʿAndalīb and the writings of his successor, ʿIlm al-kitāb and Nāla-i Dard, provide a blueprint and the theoretical framework of the Ṭarīqa-i 48 Muḥammadia of ʿAndalīb and Mīr Dard. The Naqshbandīs were particularly known for writing letters expressing their mystical thought and for the guidance of their followers. For the 18th century, the major collections of Naqshbandī correspondence include letters of Mirzā Maẓhar titled Makātīb-i Mirzā Maẓhar and another set of letters translated into Urdu by Khaliq Anjum titled Mirzā Maẓhar Jān-i Jānān ke khuṭūṭ. 49 The two 50 hagiographies of Mirzā Maẓhar—Maqāmāt-i Maẓhariya and Bashārat-i Maẓhariya—are equally important. Also available are the letters of Ghulām ʿAlī titled Makātib-i sharīfa, which, when read together with his malfūẓāt, namely Durr al-maʿārif and Malfūẓāt-i sharīfa, give a detailed image of the Delhi Naqshbandī establishment Page 13 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 and its expansion during the early 19th century. 51 There is also a collection of letters of Shāh Walīullāh, Mirzā Maẓhar, Thanāullāh Pānīpatī, and others published under the title Kalīmāt-i ṭayyibāt, edited by Abū al-Khair 52 Muḥammad. Among the major texts that help in understanding the Chishtī spiritual practices during this period are the Kashkol-i Kalīmī and Muraqqaʿ-i Kalīmī of Shāh Kalīmullāh (early 18th century), Maqāṣid al-ʿārifīn of ʿAḍd al-Dīn Jaʿfrī (mid-18th century), and Ḍiyāʾ al-qulūb of Ḥājī Imdādullāh (mid-19th century). 53 The biographical accounts and discourses of Chishtīs are also large in number. Among them, major works include Majālis-i kalīmī (for Shāh Kalīmullāh), Aḥsan al-shamāʾil (for Niẓām al-Dīn Aurangābādī), Manāqib-i fakhriya and Fakhr alṭālibīn (for Shāh Fakhr al-Dīn Dihlawī), and Nāfiʿ al-Sālikīn and Khātim-i Sulaimānī (the discourses of Shāh 54 Sulaimān Taunswī). For the Chishtī-Niẓāmī order, a major collection of letters is the Maktubāt-i kalīmī consisting of 132 letters, of which 107 are addressed to Shāh Kalīmullāh’s famous successor Niẓām al-Dīn residing in Aurangabad. One particular letter (no. 96) is significant, since it contains the “rule of action” (dastūr al-ʿamal) of the 55 Chishtī-Niẓāmī order. Among the Chishtī-Ṣābrīs, a good collection of letters of Ḥājī Imdādullāh is available, written from Mecca to his ʿulamāʾ followers in north India (these include Nawādir-i imdādiya, Marqūmāt-i 56 imdādiya, Maktūbāt-i imdādiya, Maktūbāt-i hidāyat, and Tabarrukāt). For the famous Qādirī establishments, reference may be made to the accounts of Shāh Sulaimān Phulwārwī titled Khātim-i Sulaimānī, and those of Shāh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān titled Anwār al-Raḥmān. 57 The Malfūẓ-i Razzāqī together with Manāqib-i Razzāqī constitute important sources for ʿAbd al-Razzāq Bansawī, the founder of the 58 Qādirī center in Bansa near Lucknow. Though not in the category of primary material, some later biographical dictionaries are also useful in reconstructing history of the different Sufi orders including the Shaṭṭārī and the Qādirī. Among these the more famous ones include Khazīnat al-āṣfiya (written in 1873), and Maʿathir al-Kirām written by the Shaṭṭārī follower Ghulām ʿAlī Āzād Bilgrāmī in 1752, which contains helpful information for reconstructing the lives of Shaṭṭārī Sufis of the 18th century. 59 Further Reading Baljon, Johannes M. Simon. Religion and Thought of Shah Wali Allah Dihlawi, 1703–1762. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1986. Buehler, Arthur. Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating Sufi Shaykh. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Dallal, Ahmad. Islam without Europe: Traditions of Reform in Eighteenth Century Islamic Thought. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2018. Ernst, Carl W., and Bruce B. Lawrence. Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Fusfeld, Warren. “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership in Delhi: The Naqshbandiyya Mujaddidiya, 1750–1920.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1981. Gaborieau, Marc, Alexandre Popovic, and Thierry Zarcone, eds. Naqshbandis: Historical Development and Present Situation of a Muslim Mystical Order. Istanbul: Institut Francais d’Etudes Anatoliennes, 1990. Page 14 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 Green, Nile. Indian Sufism since the Seventeenth Century: Saints, Books and Empires in the Muslim Deccan. London: Routledge, 2006. Hermansen, Marcia. The Conclusive Argument from God. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1995. Ingram, Brannon. Revival from Below: The Deoband Movement and Global Islam. Oakland, CA: California University Press, 2018. Metcalf, Barbara. Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982. Nizami, Moin Ahmad. Reform and Renewal in South Asian Islam: The Chishti-Sabris in 18th– 19th Century North India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017. Pearson, Harlan. Islamic Reform and Revival in Nineteenth Century India: The Tariqah-i Muhammadiyah. Delhi: Yoda Press, 2008. Robinson, Francis. Islam, South Asia, and the West. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007. Sanyal, Usha. Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement, 1870–1920. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. Schimmel, Annemarie. Pain and Grace: A Study of Two Mystical Writers of Eighteenth Century Muslim India. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1976. Notes 1. For early history and development of Sufism, see Ahmet T. Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), and Alexander Knysh, Sufism: A New History of Islamic Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017). 2. Muzaffar Alam, The Languages of Political Islam, c. 1200–1800 (Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2004), chap. 3; Muzaffar Alam, “Assimilation from a Distance: Confrontation and Sufi Accommodation in Awadh Society,” in Tradition, Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of Romila Thapar, ed. Sarvepalli Gopal and Radha Champakalakshmi (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996); and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, “Early Indo Muslim Mystics and their Attitude towards the State,” Islamic Culture, 22, 23, 24 (1948–1950). 3. For more details on these trends, see Moin Ahmad Nizami, Reform and Renewal in South Asian Islam: The Chishti-Sabris in 18th–19th Century South Asia (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017), chap. 2. 4. For 18th-century curricula, see Mohammad Umar, Islam in Northern India during the Eighteenth Century (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1993), 284–287; and Francis Robinson, “Scholarship and Mysticism in Early 18th c. Awadh,” in Islam and Indian Regions, ed. Anna Dallipicola and Stephanie Zingel-Ave (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993). For subjects and books studied in medieval South Asia, see Ghulam Muhyi’d Din Sufi, al-Minhaj (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1977). Also, Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, “Development of the Muslim Educational System in Medieval India”, Islamic Culture, 70, no. 4 (1996): 27–52. 5. Nizami, Reform and Renewal, 84–86. Page 15 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 6. For the international influence of Naqshbandīs during this period, see Hamid Algar, “A Brief History of the Naqshbandi Order,” in Naqshbandis: Historical Development and Present Situation of a Muslim Mystical Order, ed. Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre Popovic, and Thierry Zarcone (Istanbul: Isis, 1990); and Itzchak Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi Tradition (London and New York: Routledge, 2007). 7. Shāh Walīullāh, Intibāh fī salāsil-i auliyā Allāh, in Rasāʾil Shāh Walīullāh Dihlawī, ed. Muhammad Faruq Qadiri (Lahore: Tasawwuf Foundation, 1999), 125–243. 8. For a list of his writings, see the bibliography in Marcia Hermansen, The Conclusive Argument from God (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1995); and Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shah Wali Allah and His Times (Canberra: Marifat Publishing, 1980), 221. 9. For Walīullāh’s account of his years spent in the Hijaz, see Shāh Walīullāh, Fuyūḍ al-ḥaramain (Delhi: Matba Ahmadi, ah 1308). 10. A good study of the movement is Harlan Pearson, Islamic Reform and Revival in NineteenthCentury India: The Tariqah-i Muhammadiyah (Delhi: Yoda Press, 2008); and also see Farhan Ahmad Nizami, “Madrasahs, Scholars and Saints: Muslim Response to the British Presence in Delhi and the Upper Doab, 1803– 1857” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 1983), chap. 6. 11. Nāsir ʿAndalīb, Nāla-i ʿAndalīb, 2 vols. (Bhopal: Matba Shahjahani, ah 1308); and Mīr Dard, ʿIlm al-kitāb (Delhi: Matba Ansari, ah 1308). For details on the mystic thought of Mīr Dard, see Annemarie Schimmel, Pain and Grace: A Study of Two Mystical Writers of Eighteenth Century Muslim India (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1976). 12. Algar, “A Brief History,” 25. 13. For details on this order, see Algar, “A Brief History”; and David Damrel, “The Spread of Naqshbandi Political Thought in the Islamic World,” in Naqshbandis: Historical Development and Present Situation of a Muslim Mystical Order, ed. Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre Popovic, and Thierry Zarcone. Also see Albert Hourani, “Shaikh Khalid and the Naqshbandi Order,” in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, ed. Samuel Miklos Stern, Albert Hourani, and Vivian Brown (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973). For visitors attending Ghulām ʿAlī, see Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Āthār al-sanādīd, ed. Khaliq Anjum, 3 vols.(Delhi: Urdu Academy, 1990), 2:15–21; Raʾūf Aḥmad, Durr al-Maʿārif (Bareilly: Matba Nadiri, ah 1304), 56, 107, 125; and Shāh ʿAbd al- Ghanī, Zamīma-i Maqāmāt-i Mazharī (Delhi: n.p., ah 1309), 3. 14. As cited in Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, “1857 se pehle ki dehli,” in Tārīkhī Maqālāt (Delhi: Nadwat al-musannifin, 1966), 220. 15. For the reorganization of the Mujaddidi khānqāh, see Warren Fusfeld, “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership in Delhi: The Naqshbandiyya Mujaddidiyya, 1750–1920” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1981), 242–273. 16. Fozail A. Qadri, “Muslim Mystic Trends in India during the Eighteenth Century” (PhD diss., Aligarh Muslim University, 1987), 50–51. 17. For the early expansion of the order, see Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Tārīkh-i Mashāʾikh-i Chisht, 2 vols. (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1:236–250. 18. Nizami, Tārīkh-i Mashāʾikh-i Chisht, 5: chaps. 4 and 5. 19. Nizami, “Madrasahs, Scholars and Saints,” 93–100. 20. Ghulam Sarwar, Khazīnat al-āṣfiya, 2 vols. (Lucknow: Matba Samar Hind, 1873), 1:512–513. 21. See his malfūẓāt; Nisār ʿAlī Bukhārī, Miftah al-khazāʾin, ed. Shabih Ahmad (Delhi: Matba Riyasat, 1927). Page 16 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 22. For early development of the Qādirī order, see Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism, vol. 2 (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978), chap. 2. 23. Ghulām ʿAlī Āzād Bilgrāmī, Māʾthir al-Kirām, 2 vols. (Agra: Matba Mufid-i Aam, 1910), 1:220; Faqīr Muḥammad Jhelamī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Ḥanafiya (Lucknow: Nawal Kishore, 1906), 445; Raḥmān ʿAlī, Tazkirah-i ʿUlamāʾ-i Hind (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1961), 241; Muḥammad Riḍāa Anṣārī, Bānī Dars-i Niẓāmī (Lucknow: Nami Press, 1973), 259–278; and for a detailed study see Francis Robinson, The Ulama of Farangi Mahall and Islamic Culture in South Asia (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001). 24. The Qādirī Qamīsī order was named after a 16th-century Sufi, Shāh Qamīs Qādirī. See Qadri, “Muslim Mystic Trends,” 63–64, 223–235. 25. Ghulām Sarwar, Khazīnat, 1:215–221. 26. Qadri, “Muslim Mystic Trends,” 70. 27. Moinuddin Dardai, Tārīkh-i Silsilah-i Firdausiyya (Patna: n.p., 1962), 353–370. 28. For early history of the Shaṭṭārī order, see Rizvi, A History of Sufism, chap. 3; and Moinuddin Ahmad, History of the Shattari Silsilah (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 2012). 29. Rizvi, A History of Sufism. 30. Arthur John Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 119–122; and John Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 103. 31. Barbara Metcalf, Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982); Francis Robinson, Islam and Muslim History in South Asia (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000); Robinson, The Ulama of Farangi Mahall; Avril Powell, Muslims and Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1993); and Qasim Zaman, The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: Custodians of Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universton Press, 2002). 32. Arthur Beuhler, Sufi Heirs of The Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of Mediating Shaykh (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998); Fusfeld, “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership”; and Pearson, Islamic Reform and Revival. 33. For Deoband, see Barbara Metcalf’s classic work Islamic Revival in British India; and Brannon Ingram, Revival from Below: The Deoband Movement and Global Islam (California: University of California Press, 2018). For the Barelvi School, one of the best studies still remains Usha Sanyal, Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and His Movement (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996); and Usha Sanyal, Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006). 34. Ian Talbot, Punjab and the Raj: 1849–1947 (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1988); Sarah Ansari, Sufi Saints and State Power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843–1947 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Sanyal, Devotional Islam; and Claudia Liebeskind, Piety on Its Knees: Three Sufi Traditions in South Asia in Modern Times (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998). 35. Ansari, Sufi Saints and State Power, 159. 36. Talbot, Punjab and the Raj, 24. 37. Nizami, Tārīkh-i Mashāʾikh-i Chisht, vol. 5. 38. Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence, Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishtī Order in South Asia and Beyond (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). Page 17 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 39. Christopher Alan Bayly, Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1700–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Mushirul Hasan, From Pluralism to Separatism: Qasbahs in Colonial Awadh (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004). A more recent study is Raisur Rahman, Locale, Everyday Islam and Modernity: Qasbah Towns and Muslim Life in Colonial India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2015). 40. For more on such scholars and the centrality of Hijaz during this period, see Azyumardi Azra, The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of Malay-Indonesian and Middle Eastern Ulama in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2004); and Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century, trans. J. H. Monahan (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2007). 41. Seema Alavi, Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015). 42. Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); John O. Voll, Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); and Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll, eds., Eighteenth Century Renewal and Reform in Islam (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987). For a critique of neo-Sufism, see Rex Sean O’Fahey and Bernd Radtke, “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered,” Der Islam 70, no. 1 (1993): 52–87; and Bernd Radtke, “Ijtihad and Neo Sufism,” Asiatische Studien Etudes Asiatiques 48, no. 3 (1994): 909–921. For a response, see John O. Voll, “Neo-Sufism: Reconsidered Again,” Canadian Journal of African Studies 42, nos. 2–3 (2008): 314-330. Also see Bruce B. Lawrence, “Sufism and Neo-Sufism,” in The New Cambridge History of Islam: Muslim and Modernity, ed. Robert Hefner, vol. 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 43. Richard Eaton, Sufis of Bijapur, 1300–1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval India (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1978); Suleman Siddiqi, The Bahmani Sufis (Delhi:Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1989); and Carl Ernst, Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History, and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Center (Albany:State University of New York Press, 1992). 44. Nile Green, Indian Sufism since the Seventeenth Century: Saints, Books and Empires in the Muslim Deccan (London:Routledge, 2006); and Nile Green, Making Space: Sufis and Settlers in Early Modern India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012). 45. See bibliography of Hermansen, Conclusive Argument. 46. Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Malfūẓāt-i Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, ed. Bashiruddin Ahmad (Meerut: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1314); and Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Fatāwā-i ʿAzīzī, (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1311). 47. Shāh Muḥammad Ismāʿīl, Sirāt al-mustaqīm, (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1322); and Shāh Muḥammad Ismāʿīl, Taqwiyat al-īmān (Karachi: Nur Muhammad Issah al-mataba, n.d.). 48. ʿAndalīb, Nāla-i ʿAndalīb; Dard, ʿIlm al-kitāb; and Mīr Dard, Nāla-i Dard (Bhopal: Matba Shahjahani, ah 1310). 49. Mirzā Maẓhar, Makātīb-i Mirzā Maẓhar, ed. Abd al-Razzaq Quraishi, trans. (Urdu) Mohammad Umar (Patna: Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, 1995); and Khaliq Anjum, ed., Mirzā Maẓhar Jān-i Jānan ke Khutūt (Delhi: Matba Burhan, 1962). 50. Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī, Maqāmāt-i Maẓharī, trans. (Urdu) Muhammad Iqbal Mujaddidi (Lahore: Urdu Sc. Board, 1983); and Naʿīmullāh Bahrāʾichī, Bashārat-i Maẓharī, rotograph, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, India. There is another important tazkirah on Mirzā Maẓhar titled Maʿmūlāt-i Maẓharī by Naʿīmullāh Bahrāʾichī (Kanpur: Matba Nizami, ah 1275). 51. Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī, Makātib-i Sharīfa, ed. Ḥakīm ʿAbd al-Majīd Aḥmad Saifī (Istanbul: Matba Aishiq, 1976); Raʾūf Aḥmad, Durr al-maʿārif; and Ghulām Muḥiy al-Dīn Qasūrī, Malfuẓāt-i Sharīfa, ed. Iqbal Mujaddidi, trans. (Urdu) Iqbal Ahmad Faruqi (Lahore: Matba Nabawiyah, 1978). Page 18 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021 52. Muḥammad Abū al-Khair, ed., Kalimāt-i Ṭayyibāt (Muradabad: Matba al-ulum, 1891). 53. Shāh Kalīmullāh, Kashkol-i kalīmī, (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1308); Shāh Kalīmullāh, Muraqqaʿ-i kalīmī (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1311); ʿAḍd al-Dīn Jaʿfrī, Maqāsid al-ʿārifīn, ed. Nisar Ahmad Faruqi (Tonk: Arabic and Persian Research Institute, 1984); and Imdādullāh, Ḍiāʾ al-qulūb (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1284). 54. Kāmgār Ḥusainī, Majālis-i kalīmī (Hyderabad: Matba Burhaniya, ah 1328); Kāmgār Khān, Aḥsan al- shamāʾil, manuscript, Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh; Ghāzī al-Dīn Niẓām Khān, Manāqib-i fakhriya (Delhi: n.p., ah 1315); Nūr al-Dīn Ḥusainī Fakhrī, Fakhr al-ṭālibīn (Delhi: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1315); Imām al-Dīn, Nāfiʿ al- sālikīn (Lahore: Matba Hope Press, ah 1285); and Shāh Ghulām Ḥasnain, Khātim-i Sulaimānī (Bankipur: Qaumi Press, 1936). 55. Shāh Kalīmullāh, Maktūbāt-i Kalīmī (Delhi: Matba Yusufi, ah 1301). 56. Ḥājī Imdādullāh, Nawādir-i imdādiyah, ed. Nisar Ahmad Faruqi (Gulbarga:Hazrat Saiyid Muhammad Gesu Daraz Tehqiqi Academy, 1996); Nisar Ahmad Faruqi, ed., Marqūmāt-i imdādiyah (Delhi: Maktaba Burhan, 1979); Zahur al-Hasan, ed., Maktūbāt-i imdādiyah (Thanabhawan: Maktaba Talifat-i Ashrafiya, n. d.); Nasim Ahmad Alavi, ed., Maktūbāt-i hidāyat (Jhinjhana: Idarah Maktubat Madrasah Arabiyah Nur Muhammadiya, 1978); and Nur alHasan Rashid, ed., Tabarrukāt (Kandhla: Ilahi Bakhsh Academy, 1976). 57. Hasnain, Khātim-i Sulaimānī; and Nūrullāh Bachrāyunī, Anwār al-Raḥmān (Kalpi: Matba Faiz Buniyad, ah 1287). 58. Nawāb Muḥammad Khān Shāhjahānpūrī, Malfūẓ-i Razzāqī, ed., Ghulam Jilani Razzaqi (Lucknow:Matba Mujtabai, ah 1313); and Niẓām al-Dīn Sihālwī, Manāqib-i Razzāqī, ed., Ghulam Jilani Razzaqi (Lucknow: Matba Mujtabai, ah 1313). 59. Ghulām Sarwar, Khazīnat, 2 vols.; and Bilgrāmī, Maʾāthir al-kirām, 2 vols (Lahore, 1913). Related Articles Islam in Southeast Asia to c. 1800 Buddhist and Muslim Interactions in Asian History Social and Religious Reform in 19th-Century India Page 19 of 19 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: Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford; date: 25 February 2021