Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India

Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India
Case Study of Khwaja Mir Dard of Delhi (1721–1785)
Doctoral Thesis to Fulfil the Requirements of a
Doctor of Philosophy (Dr. Phil.)
from the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Erfurt
Supervisor:
Prof. Jamal Malik
(University of Erfurt)
Co-supervisor:
Prof. Stefan Reichmuth
(Ruhr University Bochum)
Soraya Khodamoradi
Erfurt, February 2014

Abstract
The present study investigates the subject of Sufi reform in eighteenth century India
based on the original oeuvre of the theoretician of the Ṭarīqa Muḥammadiyya, Khwaja
Mir Dard of Delhi (1721–1785). In the background of the recent academic controversies
regarding the concept of Sufi reform or “neo-Sufism” in modern Sufism (i.e., Sufism of
the seventeenth century onward), it attempts to answer the question whether Mir Dard’s
Sufism supports the idea of occurring a transformation in modern Sufism, and if yes, how
such alteration is presented in his thought. In order to answer this query, through
employing a hybrid of conceptual-semantic and contextual-historical analytical
methodologies, this study examines four main characteristics generally attributed to
modern Sufi reformist movements by advocators of occurring such reform. These include
(a) criticizing Ibn al-‘Arabi’s doctrine of the Unity of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd); (b)
Prophetocenterism; (c) Shari‘atizing Sufism; and (d) incorporating worldly approach.
The examination of these features is carried out in two general and particular levels. The
first level (Part One) tackles the task of a conceptual analysis of the above characteristics
in relation to their status in the early and medieval Sufism and endeavors to find out
whether they are qualified enough to indicate a change in modern Indian Sufism. It pays
due attention to both semantics of these features and the change in the emphasis laid on
them by Sufi reformers, the latter being a significant factor in explanation of Sufism in
the modern era. In addition, this level investigates the religio-cultural context of Indian
Sufism, which led to the rethinking activities of figures such as Ahmad Sirhindi (d.
1624), Shah Waliullah (d. 1762) and Mir Dard himself, particularly the prolonged Hindu-
Muslim shared tradition. The second level attempts particularly to examine Mir Dard’s
ideas, itself divided into two steps. First (Part Two), it formulates his Muhammadan Way
based on its dominant quality of “comprehensiveness” (jāmi‘iyya) and explains his
mystical experience, theory and practice, which aim transcending two different types of
ecstasy-oriented and orthodox-oriented Sufism. In the context of split between these two
types of Sufism, it surveys Mir Dard’s contribution to the process of Sufi reform through
his theory of intra-religious synthesis, or the Ṭariqa Jāmi‘a. Second (Part Three),
referring to the already propounded roots and background of Sufi reform, it analyzes the
reconsidered characteristics of Sufi reform in the mold of the discourses constituting the

cornerstones of Mir Dard’s thought. It tries to show that in his Comprehensive Way,
those characteristics are formed upon, and explained by, specific mystical-theological
discourses, which can explicate the foundation of a transformation in his thought.
The analysis of the above four characteristics of Sufi reform based on the underlying
discourses of Mir Dard’s way exhibits an alteration in his Sufi thought in comparison
with pre-modern Sufism. Regarding the first characteristic, Mir Dard represents a unique
doctrine of unity, which, though retaining the element of mystical unity with the divine,
lays emphasis on otherness vis-à-vis identity and recognizes the significance of all levels
of existence including that of creaturely image. His theory highlights the ontological
plane of shadowlike existence (wujūd-i ẓillī) and differentiates between realms of
existence and existent, each of which should be treated according to its own conditions.
Concerning the second feature, Mir Dard’s Prophetology displays a change in the
function of Muhammad compared to earlier Sufism. The Prophet who had been exalted
into the deepest layers of the interior takes the journey of return, in Mir Dard’s Sufism,
from that exaltation to the lower world of witness, creatures and humankind, through the
process of affirmation and subsistence. With respect to the third characteristic, Mir Dard
understands Shari‘a as an ethical system and a prescription for moral illnesses related to
the natural need of human being to divine laws. His effort to shift from the language of
Sufism to that of the Quran and hadith in order to make Sufism comprehensible for
majority of Muslims is also based on a change in orientation from interior to exterior.
Finally, regarding the fourth feature, Mir Dard shows a strong positive approach toward
the world through accentuation on concepts such as “good worldly life” (ḥusn-i ma‘āsh)
and the “rectification of bodies” (iṣlāḥ-i ajsād). He emphasizes the human’s active role in
this life especially based on the value of human policy (tadbīr) and observation of
external causes. Consequently, this study argues that Mir Dard’s Sufism incorporates a
shift of emphasis and reorientation in all these characteristics from interior to exterior,
intoxication to awareness, fatalism to free will, and ascent to descent. His formulation of
the Ṭarīqa Muḥammadiyya, therefore, justifiably advocates the idea of transformation in
modern Indian Sufism.

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
PART ONE – SUFI REFORM: ITS CHARACTERISTICS AND ORIGIN .....................20
Chapter 1. Waḥdat al-wujūd: Background and Role in Sufi Transformation .......... 21
I. Ibn al-‘Arabi’s waḥdat al-wujūd and Its Traces in Indian Sufism ... 22
II. Response of Indian Sufis to waḥdat al-wujūd ................................. 29
III. Sufi Contribution to Establishment of the Shared Tradition ......... 33
IV. Reaction of Sufi Reformists to the Idea of hama ūst ..................... 35
Chapter 2. Prophetocenterism: A Change in Emphasis and Orientation ................. 40
I- Theocentrism in Pre-modern Sufism ................................................ 43
II- Prophetocenterism in Practical Mysticism ...................................... 45
III- Prophetocenterism in Theoretical Mysticism ................................ 48
IV- Prophetocenterism in Social Context of Sufism ............................ 52
Chapter 3. Shari‘atizing Sufism and Worldly Approach ......................................... 56
I- Shari‘atizing Sufism ......................................................................... 56
II- Worldly Approach .......................................................................... 60
PART TWO – KHWAJA MIR DARD’S MYSTICISM OF THE ṬARĪQA
MUḤAMMADIYYA JĀMI‘A .......................................................................................63
Chapter 4. Terminology and Philosophical Background ......................................... 64
Chapter 5. Binary Concepts Representing Ecstatic-unitive and Sober Sufism ........ 72
I. Beauty versus Majesty (jamāl vs. jalāl) ........................................... 72
II. Immanence versus Transcendence (tashbīh vs. tanzīh) .................. 74
III. Intoxication versus Sobriety (sukr vs. ṣaḥw) ................................. 75
IV. Annihilation versus Subsistence (fanā’ vs. baqā’) ........................ 77
V. Unity of Being versus Unity of Witnessing (waḥdat al-wujūd vs.
waḥdat al-shuhūd) ............................................................................... 80
Chapter 6. History of Sufism Regarding the Binary Concepts ................................ 82
I. General Overview of Historical Phases ............................................ 82
II. The Indian Context .......................................................................... 88

Chapter 7. Khwaja Mir Dard’s Comprehensive Way ............................................. 93
I. Transcendental and Synthetic Ṭarīqa Jāmi‘a ................................... 93
II. Divine Muhammadan Knowledge .................................................. 94
III. Exclusivism vis-à-vis Inclusivism ................................................ 101
PART THREE – KHWAJA MIR DARD AND SUFI REFORM......................................111
Chapter 8. Mystical-theological Discourses in Khwaja Mir Dard’s Thought ..... 112
I. Shift of Emphasis from Interior to Exterior .................................... 112
II. Shift of Emphasis from Intoxication to Awareness ...................... 120
III. Shift of Emphasis from Fatalism to Free Will ............................. 123
IV. Shift of Emphasis from Ascent to Descent .................................. 126
Chapter 9. Characteristics of Reform in Khwaja Mir Dard’s Sufism .................. 131
I. Criticizing Mystical Unity .............................................................. 131
II. Prophetocenterism and Significance of Individuum ...................... 141
III. Shari‘atizing Sufi Teachings and Practices .................................. 158
IV. Worldly Approach and Importance of ma‘āsh ............................ 161
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................170
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................175
EHRENWÖRTLICHE ERKLÄRUNG ..............................................................................

Sufi Heritage”),5
and the second volume of Baḥs̱ dar Ās̱ ār va Afkār va Aḥvāl-i Ḥāfiẓ
(“Discussion on Works, Ideas, and States of Hafiz”) by Qasim Ghani.6
In these works, the era
of Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240) and Rumi (d. 1273), the most significant Sufis of the thirteenth
century, is considered as Sufi “golden age,” after which Sufism only witnessed the continuity
of this magnificent epoch, if not degeneration. They give the impression that Sufism does not
deserve to be focused on and examined seriously after this age. In such scholarly
environment, which is not merely peculiar to Iran in the Islamic world, one can rarely
encounter topics dealing with modern Sufism, viz. Sufism of seventeenth century onward,
either in courses and seminars or in conferences and academic discussions on Islamic
mysticism.
The question of continuity or transformation in modern Sufism guided me to read other
literature in the field, a significant of which was Jamal Malik’s “Muslim Culture and Reform
in 18th Century South Asia.”7
The article puts the question of continuity and decay versus
change in modern Sufism in the framework of the controversies over Sufi reform, connecting
it with the debates on Islamic eighteenth century and Islamic enlightenment. Being linked to
these discussions, the question became more stable for me, and it founded its roots in a proper
5
Tehran: Arya, 1965. This monograph includes themes such as the origin of Sufism, asceticism, Sufi elements
such as intuition and mystical stages/states, establishment of Sufi institute of khānaqah, Sufi theosophy, poetry
and literature. However, the book tackles Iranian modern Sufi orders such as Dhahabiyya very shortly only in its
third chapter, and points out to the decay of Sufism in modern time in its sixth chapter, while explaining the
critics against Sufis and the relationship of Sufism and Shari‘a. The author yet deals with modern Sufism in his
Dunbāla-i Justujū dar Taṣavvuf-i Īrān, and progresses his discussion to Mulla Sadra (d. 1640), Fayyaz-i Lahiji
(d. c.1661) and Fayz-i Kashani (d. 1680). There he emphasizes the continuity of Sufism in the modern Islam and
expresses the idea of decay in several aspects of Sufism of that time (pp. 246–66).
6
Tehran: Zawwar, 1983. This book consists of the history of Sufism until the time of Hafiz (d. 1390).
7
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 13 (2003): 227–43. Here, Malik points to the phenomenon of dichotomy
between Europe and Asia that arose in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. According to him, in the wake
of a change of paradigm into modernity, a sense of intellectual superiority arose in European self-consciousness
which caused Europeans dissociated themselves from the “orient” and “Islam” in order to define their own
identity. This dissociation was simultaneous with the idea that the eighteenth century in the orient was an era of
political and societal decay and intellectual stagnation. Malik attempts in this article to rethink this dichotomy
and brings forth the question whether a kind of change in paradigms started even before colonial penetration in
the eighteenth century south Asian culture. He discusses the theme of Sufi transformation as an important factor
in analyzing such indigenous change in this culture (p. 231).

background and wider discourse of Sufi reform. More investigations led me tracing the
important scholars who have been involved in the discussion around transformation or
continuity in modern Sufism. Fazlur Rahman, for instance, propounds the disputable notion
of “Neo-Sufism,”8
which has widely been discussed by two poles of advocators and
opponents of Sufi reform. John O. Voll deals with change in Sufism as an organization, and
discusses the centrality of Haramayn, Mecca and Medina, in spreading Islamic revivalism
including elements of Sufi orders in the eighteenth century.9
Reinhardt Schulze supports the
idea of transformation in Sufism in support of his theory of “Islamic enlightenment,”10
which
was severely criticized by a group of scholars denying the existence of any enlightened
tendencies in the worldview of the Islamic eighteenth century.11
Such debates show that the
question of continuity or transformation in modern Sufism can be a proper basis for
examination and discussion in the field of Islamic mysticism in particular and the history of
Islam and Muslim’s culture in more general sense. As far as the field of Islamic mysticism is
concerned, the idea of degeneration of Sufism after its golden era is not limited only to
Iranian or Muslim scholarship. Not only the early Western historians of Sufism like A. J.
Arberry, the author of the first concise history of Sufism entitled Sufism: An Account of the
Mystics of Islam, advocate radically and explicitly the degeneration of Sufism after the
8
Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1979), 195. For details regarding “Neo-Sufism,”
see the chapter “Pre-Modernist Reform Movements” in this book and Fazlur Rahman’s “Revival and Reform in
Islam,” in The Cambridge History of Islam, ed. P. M. Holt et. al., vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970,) 632–59.
9
John Obert Voll, Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,
1994), 51. Voll considers Mecca and Medina as major centers for Islamic studies in the eighteenth century,
during which the teachers of Haramayn had great importance for the whole world of Islam. According to him,
an interregional network of hadith scholars and teachers involved in the reorientation of Sufi tradition, who
carried their experiences from Mecca and Medina to their homeland, was formed in these centers. Twelve of the
most prominent teachers of this core group were major figures from different backgrounds, all of whom were
involved in hadith scholarship and had ṭarīqa affiliations with orders that were involved in the development of
Neo-Sufism. for more information about eighteenth century reform, see John Obert Voll, “Foundations for
Renewal and Reform, Islamic Movement in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in The Oxford History of
Islam, ed. John L. Esposito (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 509–47.
10
Reinhard Schulze, “ Was ist die islamische Aufklärung,” Die Welt des Islams 36 (1996): 276–325.
11
Below some of the critics of Schulze’s idea are addressed.

fifteenth century,12
but also the recent Western works dealing with the history of Sufism such
as Alexander Knysh’s Islamic Mysticism a Short History follow the same path. In his
“general” history of Sufism, Knysh mostly concentrates on its early and medieval period,
dedicating only one chapter under the title “Sufi Institutions in Regional Contexts Over the
Last Six Centuries,” which briefly tackles the entire issue of the development and activities of
Sufi orders from thirteenth century to the present time.13
The examination of the modern
Sufism is required, hence, to compensate the lack of due studies in Sufism and Sufi figures of
modern era, and it exposes this era at the access and focus of further academic investigation.
Regarding the field of the history of Islam and Muslim’s culture in general, the debates
over reform in Islamic eighteenth century nurtures recent disputed topics such as
transformation in Muslims’ beliefs and attitudes in modern era, indigenous Muslim
modernity, and Islamic enlightenment in the eighteenth century. Sufi transformation is a
crucial element that may make analysis of these topics in the context of Islamic culture more
feasible. In this way, the question has been discussed by a spectrum of scholars from the
professionals in Islamic mysticism to the scholars of history of Islam and historians with
sociological approach to Muslim culture. Among the latter scholars, the abovementioned
Reinhard Schulze is among the scholars who advocated a major historical transformation and
radical change that distinguished “Islamic eighteenth century” from the previous periods of
12
A. J. Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 119–33. Arberry
asserts that though the history of the decline varies from country to country according to circumstances, its
general pattern is fairly consistent throughout the Islamic world: “It was inevitable, as soon as legends of
miracles became attached to the names of the great mystics, that the credulous masses should applaud imposture
more than true devotion; the cult of saints, against which orthodox Islam ineffectually protested, promoted
ignorance and superstition, and confounded charlatanry with lofty speculation. To live scandalously, to act
impudently, to speak unintelligibly–this was the easy highroad to fame wealth and power” (p. 119).
13
Alexander D. Knysh, Islamic Mysticism: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2000). The author brings forth a
historical overview of the evolution of Sufism according to which he considers Sufism of the eighteenth century
as continuity of medieval Sufism and another stage in developments of ṭarīqa institution of the twelfth century.
He propounds a process of Sufi development from primitive ascetic communities of seventh and eighth
centuries, who were the first Muslim devotees and “moral athletes,” to a series of highly sophisticated doctrines
that circulated within a hierarchical institutional framework known as ṭarīqa in twelfth century, which became a
dominant feature of the Muslim social order and flourished from the fourteenth to nineteenth century. These
orders, to his point of view, suffered a profound spiritual and institutional decline at the beginning of the
twentieth century and, more recently, are experiencing an incipient revival.

Islamic history. During the 1990s, Schulze brought forth a controversial debate on the
possibility of considering an experience similar to the European enlightenment in eighteenth
century Muslim culture, calling for the examination of the traces of autochthonous processes
of Islamic Enlightenment in that period. He particularly emphasized the necessity of research
in eighteenth century mystical and poetic texts of Muslims.14
Being an advocator of Schulze’s
theory, Malik categorizes the history of Sufism in different historical phases and discusses
transformation in Sufism as a phenomenon belonging to its fifth phase. The phase includes an
era of political, social and cultural reform spanning roughly from 1700 to 1900, in an area
stretching from South East Asia to North Africa. This phase, according to him, exhibits a
powerful wave of Sufi rethinking, whose important feature is an ethical concept related to the
immediate access to the Prophet, making direct initiation in Sufism increasingly possible.15
Long before such categorization of history of Sufism and before Schulze’s aforesaid
debate, in 1953 H. A. R. Gibb drew attention to nineteenth century revivalism in Sufism, in
territories such as India and Central Asia. He noted to the developments that involved the
formation of reformist missionary congregations on a strict orthodox basis, which were
organized on the lines of the Sufi ṭarīqas in the early decades of that century.16
After Gibb,
14
Reinhard Schulze, “ Was ist die islamische Aufklärung,” 296. See also idem, “Das islamische achtzehnte
Jahrhundert: Versuch einer historiographischen Kritik,” Die Welt des Islams 30/1–4 (1990): 140–59; and
Albrecht Hofheinz, “Illumination and Enlightenment Revisited, or Pietism and the Roots of Islamic Modernity,”
http://folk.uio.no/albrech/Hofheinz_IllumEnlightenment.pdf (last visited 16. Jan. 2014). Schulze’s postulating a
worldwide process of eighteenth century enlightenment encompassing all cultures particularly in the lands of
Islamic civilization was confronted with several critics. In addition to Radtke’s criticism addressed below, see
Rudolf Peters, “Reinhard Schulze’s Quest for an Islamic Enlightenment” Die Welt des Islams 30(1990): 160–62;
Tilman Nagel, “Autochthone Wurzeln des islamischen Modernismus: Bemerkungen zum Werk des
Damaszeners Ibn ‘Abidin (1784–1836)” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 146/1(1996):
92–111; and Gottfried Hagen and Tilman Seidensticker, “Reinhard Schulzes Hypothese einer islamischen
Aufklaerung. Kritik einer historiographischen Kritik,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen
Gesellschaft 148 (1998): 83–110. A balanced view is also taken by scholars such as Ulrich Haarmann, “‘Ein
Mißgrief des Geschicks’. Muslimische und westliche Standpunkte zur Geschichte der islamischen Welt,” in
Geschichtsdiskurs, ed. Wolfgang Kuettler et. al., vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1994), 184–201.
15
Jamal Malik, “Introduction,” in Sufism in the West, ed. Jamal Malik and John Hinnells (London and New
York, Routledge, 2006), 8–9. Malik categorizes the history of Sufism into seven phases, from the development
of individual mysticism around the year 700 until the contemporary phase of Sufism in diaspora.
16
H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammadanism. A Historical Survey (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 130–31.

Spencer Trimingham pointed to the appearance of ṭarīqa-based movements of renewal and
reform in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,17
preceded by the coinage of the term
“Neo-Sufism” by Fazlur Rahman in 1966, which referred to a transformation in modern
Sufism into a type of orthodox and activist trend. Rahman attempted to substantiate his claim
through reference to the change in doctrinal and practical aspects of Sufism as well as the
appearance of new orders with novel orientations, which were strictly orthodox in spirit such
as Indian’s Muḥammadiyya trends. In his formulation, Neo-Sufism describes Sufi movements
largely stripped of their ecstatic and metaphysical character, while being adorned by the
features of orthodox religion.18
Following Rahman, Nehemia Levtzion and John O. Voll
continued the discussion over Sufi revival in their works.19
Voll considered movements of
Islamic revival and reform associated with Sufi ṭarīqas as an important part of Islamic
history, which played crucial role in the histories of states and societies across the Muslim
world. He tried to demonstrate the importance of scholarly networks, most notably in the
context of hadith studies and Sufism, in the spread of Islamic revivalism in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries.20
In this way, the discourse of Sufi reform formed, and continued to be
used as, a theme that in general describes a set of Islamic movements in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries with new features in doctrine and practice considerably
differed from several features of medieval Sufism.
Among the critics of the idea of Sufi reform in the eighteenth century, Bernd Radtke is a
17
For Trimingham’s analysis in this regard, see chapter “Nineteenth-Century Revival Movements” in his The
Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).
18
Fazlur Rahman, Islam, 194–95 and 206.
19
Levtzion and Voll organized an international colloquium on “Eighteenth Century Renewal and Reform in
Islam” in June 1985, where vigorous debates were performed about the nature of Neo-Sufism and whether or
not there was a group of phenomena to which the label could be applied. The result of the colloquium was a
1987 volume of Eighteenth-Century Revival and Reform in Islam, published by Syracuse University Press. One
can also mention Levtzion’s “Eighteenth Century Sufi Brotherhoods,” in Islam: Essays on Scripture, Thought
and Society, ed. Peter Ridell and Tony Street (Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1997), 148–60; and Voll’s
Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World.
20
John Obert Voll, “Neo-Sufism: Reconsidered Again,” Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue
Canadienne des Études Africaines 42/2–3(2008): 315; and idem, “Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama
Group in the 18th Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World,” Journal of Asian and African
Studies XV/3–4 (1980): 264–72.

major figure. He has attempted, since the 1990s, to argue on behalf of the conceptual
continuity of medieval Sufism in modern era through analyzing the oeuvres of modern Sufis
themselves.21
In an article coauthored with R. S. O’Fahey entitled “Neo-Sufism
reconsidered,”22
they reject any substantial transformation in modern Sufism and criticize the
characteristics23
ascribed to modern Sufism by the advocators of Sufi reform such as
Rahman, Voll and Trimingham. They object terminological meaning of “Neo-Sufism” and
try to show that the “new” features discussed in the works of advocators of reform had
already existed in pre-modern Sufi literature, or in some cases they cannot be applied to
modern Sufi currents such as Idrisi trend.24
According to them, the writings of modern Sufis
such as Ibn Idris (d. 1837) and Tijani (d. 1815), the founder of the Tijaniyya Sufi order, have
almost entirely been ignored in the studies of the movements they created or inspired. This
21
See Radtke’s several works including Autochthone Islamische Aufklärung im 18. Jahrhundert (Utrecht: M.Th.
Houtsma Stichting), 2000; “Erleuchtung und Aufklärung,” Die Welt des Islams 34/1 (1994): 48–66; and
“Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal,” Die Welt des Islams 36 (1996): 326–64.
22
The debate over the term “Neo-Sufism” was initiated by O’Fahey in 1990, in the foreword to his Enigmatic
Saint. It was continued in Radtke’s “Between Projection and Suppression, Some Considerations Concerning the
Study of Sufism” in 1992 (in Shi‘a Islam, Sects and Sufism, ed. Frederick de Jong), and then once again by
O’Fahey and Radtke in “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered” Der Islam 70 (1993): 52–87.
23
Among features these scholars generally refer to, significant are: 1– placing emphasis on union with the spirit
of the Prophet Muhammad and communing with him by means of mystical techniques; 2– denouncing popular
ecstatic Sufi practices like mystical dance, remembrance of God through vocalized recitation (dhikr-i jalī), saint
worship, and the visitation of saints’ tombs; 3– accentuating the importance of a moral life and social
responsibilities; and 4– criticizing the mystical principles of the influential medieval Sufi Ibn al-‘Arabi
particularly his doctrine of the Unity of Being. Among several scholars who have discussed these features,
O’Fahey and Radtke have attempted to make a catalog of nine main characteristics of “neo-Sufi consensus” in
their article, “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered” (p. 57).
24
O’ Fahey and Radtke emphasize that “In the present article we want to lay out what seems to be the neo-Sufi
consensus and to measure it against the activities and teachings of a group of Sufis whom the same consensus
regards as indubitably neo-Sufis. Our main emphasis will be on the Moroccan mystic, Ahmad b. Idris, and his
principal students, Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Sanusi, Muhammad ‘Uthman al-Mirghani and Ibrahim al-Rashid (d.
1874). Some attention will be given to another neo-Sufi, Ahmad al-Tijani. Our purpose is to show to what
degree these figures fulfilled the criteria prescribed by the neo-Sufi consensus” (“Neo-Sufism Reconsidered,”
53). Idrisi Sufi tradition belongs to Ibn Idris, the Moroccan mystic and a significant figures of nineteenth century
Islam, whose preaching, prayers and litanies have been disseminated and have influenced Muslims from North
Africa to Malaysia and Indonesia, and from southern Yugoslavia and Istanbul to the East African coast.

ignorance, in their point of view, has resulted in unsubstantiated generalizations about the
teachings of these Sufis, their reformism, activism or revivalism, and led to postulation of
innovative discontinuities of medieval Sufism. These discontinuities include, among others,
the rejection of the mystical theosophy of Ibn al-‘Arabi, the refutation of initiatory path and
the chains of spiritual authority,25
and the consideration of mystical union with the spirit of
the Prophet as the goal of mystical life, substituting for the union with God.26
Advocating
these critiques, other specialists of Sufism such as Hamid Algar argued on the continuity of
Ibn al-‘Arabi’s doctrines in Naqshbandi ṭarīqa, one of the most significant Sufi orders
considered as reformist.27
Similarly, concentrating on Ibn al-‘Arabi and ‘Abd al-Karim al-Jili,
Vallery Hoffmann and Claude Addas thoroughly criticized the issue of union with the spirit
of the Prophet as a specific quality of Sufi reform, regarding it insufficient for defending the
newness of modern Sufism since, according to them, it is deeply rooted in medieval Sufism.28
In response to the critiques of the deniers of Sufi reform, Voll published another article
entitled “Neo-Sufism: Reconsidered Again” in 2008. There, he asserts that, though much
important work had been done about Sufi reform and scholars such as Albrecht Hofheinz and
Mark Sedgwick had studied specific topics related to it, there has been no broad interpretative
summary of the particular issues raised by O’Fahey and Radtke. He tries then to revisit some
of the discussions of the early 1990s and intensely defends the newness of modern Sufism in
25
O’Fahey and Radtke, “Neo-Sufism Reconsidered,” 54–55.
26
The idea was propounded first by Gibb in Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey. These critiques were
based on Fazlur Rahman’s assertion that the Idrisi tradition rejected the idea of union with God and postulated
instead a union with the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad as the only possible and legitimate goal for the Sufi
(Islam, 206–207); Trimingham’s highlighting the stress of the two Ahmads [i.e., Ibn Idris and al-Tijani] on
union with the spirit of the Prophet as the purpose of dhikr instead of union with God and his considering this
fact as a change that affected the basis of the mystical life (The Sufi Orders in Islam, 106); and John O. Voll’s
assertion that North African Sufis concentrated more intensely on the Prophet rather than a metaphysical union
with a pantheistically defined God (Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World, 48–49).
27
Hamid Algar, “Reflections of Ibn ‘Arabi in Early Naqshbandî Tradition,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi
Society X (1991): 45–66.
28
Valerie J. Hoffman, “Annihilation in the Messenger of God: The Development of a Sufi Practice,”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 31/3 (1999): 351–69. See also Claude Addas, “At the Distance of
Two Bow’s Length or Even Closer: The Figure of the Prophet in the Work of ‘Abd al-Karim al-Jili,” Journal of
the Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society (Part One: vol. 45 (2009): 65–88; Part Two: vol. 46 (2010): 1–26).

parables in ‘Andalib’s voluminous masterpiece Nāla-i ‘Andalīb,32
the very concept based on
which, among other factors, the advocators of Sufi reform have formed their argumentation
about transformation in Sufism.
32
Nāla-i ‘Andalīb (“Lamentation of Nightingale”) is a mixture of theological, legal and philosophical discourses
in the framework of an allegorical story, which incorporates several shorter stories. Its narratives are
interspersed with detailed theological discussions about, among others, Sufism, different schools of Islamic law,
and Shi‘ite Imamology. Mir Dard heard Nāla-i ‘Andalīb word by word from his father, and declared that “It is
only from the abundant grace of the book Nāla-i ‘Andalīb that the door of all realities and the subtleties was
opened for my ignorant heart.” Juxtaposing the book with authoritative classics of Sufism in his time, i.e.,
‘Awārif al-Ma‘ārif of Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Suhrawardi (d. 1234) and Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya and Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam
of Ibn al-‘Arabi, Mir Dard asserts that: “I have read neither the ‘Awārif nor the Futūḥāt or Fuṣūṣ, the Nāla-i
‘Andalīb became my special litany” (Chahār Risāla (Bhopal: Matba‘-i Shah Jahani Bhopal, 1892), Risāla-i
Dard-i Dil, 188 (Dard 216)). For an account of Mir Dard and ‘Andalib, see Schimmel, Pain and Grace, 31–
147; and Muhammad Umar, Islam in Northern India During the Eighteenth Century (New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publication, 1993), 48–50 and 91–101.

Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India

Similar to Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India (20)

Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India