During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the central authority of the Indian Mughal Empire was gradually replaced by multiple centres of power and culture, the long-standing debates between the different denominations such as the SunnÄ«s and the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s over their contested Islamic traditions thrived again. ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« rulers of the newly emerging centres patronised their religious scholars (Ê¿ulamÄʾ) and seminaries and helped disseminating ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« practices and rituals. In response to this development, SunnÄ«s began to reconsider their relationship with ShÄ«Ê¿ism and produced a considerable number of polemical texts. SunnÄ« religious revivalists in South Asia even made the discussions about ShÄ«Ê¿ism part of their reform agendas. Outstanding reformers such as ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄh (d. 1762), Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn (d. 1780), Muḥammad NÄá¹£ir Ê¿AndalÄ«b (d. 1758), KhwÄja MÄ«r Dard (d. 1785), and ShÄh Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z (d. 1824) engaged with the issue in different ways and for various aims, which ranged from uniting the main Islamic denominations to rebutting the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« position altogether.
Among these revivalists, the Sufi reformer MÄ«r Dard, the theoretician of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a (âPure Muḥammadan Pathâ) founded by his father, Ê¿AndalÄ«b, paid specific attention to denominational polemics. He propounded the notion of á¹arÄ«qa wÄthiqa (âtrustworthy pathâ) as a framework for the reconstruction and reinvigoration of the doctrines of siyÄda (âblood affiliation with the Prophetâ) and of the imamate. This was presented by him as a solution for the sectarian and theological conflicts between the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s and the SunnÄ«s. It was also supposed to support his and his fatherâs authority as descendants of the Prophet and as inheritors of the knowledge transmitted by his cousin and son-in-law Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄlib.
This attempt came at a time when the decline of the imperial power created a dispute over moral and religious authority among different Islamic groups. Focusing on Dardâs texts and employing both conceptual-semantic and contextual-historical methods of analysis, this chapter explores the role of siyÄda and imÄma (leadership) in Dardâs philosophy of ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya. It searches for the reason behind his insistence to be recognised as a member of the Prophetic family and his preference for the titles sayyid and imam instead of other honorifics such as walÄ«, shaykh, Sufi, or Ê¿Älim. Moreover, it deals with Dardâs prioritising of the principles of siyÄda and imamate over companionship (á¹£uḥba) and caliphate (khilÄfa), since this seems counter-intuitive to his own SunnÄ« background and MujaddidÄ« affiliation. Contextualising Dardâs discussions of siyÄda and imamate within the framework of his á¹arÄ«qa wÄthiqa, it brings out why his position must be regarded as a considerable change in the SunnÄ« discourse for the sake of a reconciliation with the ShÄ«Ê¿a in early modern India.
5.1 Shīʿī Social and Political Dynamics
With its doctrinal focus on the household of the Prophet and his offspring, and its belief in their infallibility and merit and their right to both worldly leadership and spiritual guidance of the Muslim community (umma), the ShÄ«Ê¿a gained considerable influence in India during the eighteenth century. In the early 1700s, the emperor BahÄdurshÄhâs (r. 1707â12) decision to introduce ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« practices into his court at Delhi signalled a turn of fortunes for the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« community.1 As the central authority of the Mughal Empire weakened, ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« notables founded and ruled significant successor states and new centres of power. Bengal was almost independently ruled by ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« governors (known as nawwÄbs), who were appointed by the Mughals from 1701 until the British takeover of 1757. The state of Awadh, whose rulers themselves belonged to a sayyid (pl. sÄdÄt) family originating from Nishapur, the ancient capital of Khorasan in Iran, made the greatest impact on the development of ShÄ«Ê¿ism in the subcontinent.2 Hyderabad, the largest princely state in south India, although hardly comparable in this respect with Bengal and Awadh, also had its fair share of Persian and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« sayyid nobles, courtiers, scribes, and poets who were active on the political and cultural scene and at the court alike.
In these new centres of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« power and culture, sectarian antagonism between the different Islamic currents gained a renewed momentum. This included opposition between SunnÄ« and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« communities but also between the traditionalist akhbÄrÄ« and rationalist uṣūlÄ« schools among the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s themselves.3 ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« rulers promoted their understanding of Islam to legitimise their authority and patronised both the culture and scholarship of the ShÄ«Ê¿a learned classes. They encouraged Ê¿ulamÄʾ to challenge their SunnÄ« counterparts, founded seminaries, and helped to disseminate rituals such as Ê¿ÄshÅ«rÄʾ (commemorating the death of Ḥusayn b. Ê¿AlÄ«).4 Even under the Äsaf JÄhÄ«s (r. 1724â1948), the SunnÄ« successors to the Quá¹b ShÄhÄ«s (r. 1591â1687 in Hyderabad), ministers of the state gave public support to the great ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« shrines and patronised Muḥarram religious festivals.5
The sÄdÄt rulers of Awadh (1722â1856) were devout ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who spent huge sums for the construction of mosques and imÄmbÄrgÄs, the latter being congregation halls for the commemoration ceremonies especially during Muḥarram. They were also great patrons of an Ê¿ulamÄʾ class following the rationalist school of jurisprudence and insisting on holding Friday congregational prayers in Lucknow and Faizabad, which spread from there to other towns. Moreover, Iranian merchants in Awadh and their descendants in towns like Murshidabad designated endowments for the promotion of Ê¿azÄdÄrÄ« (mourning and lamentation). These measures also attracted many ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« scholars and literati from both India and Iran to these regions. In 1775, Nawab Asaf al-Daula (d. 1797), who initiated the construction of a number of religious buildings like the AsafÄ« ImÄmbÄra and the JÄmiÊ¿ Masjid in Lucknow, invited a large number of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Ê¿ulamÄʾ to the Awadh court.6 Against this backdrop, the leading ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Ê¿ulamÄʾ of Lucknow grew immensely wealthy as a result of official salaries and the collection and redistribution of khums (the religious obligation of paying one-fifth of the wealth acquired from certain sources) and zakÄt (annual payment according to Islamic law on certain kinds of property). They reached the peak of their influence with the establishment of a ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« judiciary and a large ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« seminary later under Amjad Ê¿AlÄ« ShÄh (r. 1842â74).7
5.2 SunnÄ«âShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Conflicts and Polemics
The domination of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Ê¿ulamÄʾ, landholders, and state officials in cities such as Awadh coincided with a decline of the fortunes of the SunnÄ« noble class and religious institutions. SunnÄ« religious leaders saw the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« ascendancy, among other factors, as a manifestation of Islamâs decline, and hence their demand for Islamic revival and reform included the refutation of ShÄ«Ê¿ism.8 Disputes and conflicts between SunnÄ« and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« factions at the court and in society at large became a recurrent feature of Indiaâs Muslim society during this period.9 BahÄdur ShÄhâs demonstration of pro-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« tendencies, for instance, led to sectarian conflicts in Lahore. In 1711, his order to add the title waṣī (âheir, legatee, or the executor of the will of Muḥammadâ) to the epithets for Imam Ê¿AlÄ« during mosque sermons ignited riots provoked by SunnÄ« theologians.10 These riots multiplied in Delhi and other north Indian towns throughout the eighteenth century and tensions further intensified following the invasions of NÄdir ShÄh AfshÄr (1739â40) and Aḥmad ShÄh DurrÄnÄ« (six times between 1748 and 1762). Similar tensions had already arisen in India since the sixteenth century. Before BahÄdur ShÄh, his father, Aurangzeb (r. 1658â1707), had held strict orthodox SunnÄ« views and fought against ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« religious practices. Although he heavily relied on the services of Iranians and other ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s for military campaigns as well as official and administrative duties, during his reign, Muḥarram processions had been banned and the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« kingdoms in the Deccan subjugated. The compendium of ḤanafÄ« Islamic law prepared by SunnÄ« Ê¿ulamÄʾ on his orders, the FatÄwÄ-yi Ê¿ÄlamgÄ«riyya (Alamgirâs fatwas), even proclaimed those ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who cursed the first two caliphs as heretics.11
With the resurgence of ShÄ«Ê¿ism, and with the rise of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« sayyids of BÄrha, who had become kingmakers during the first phase of Mughal decline, strong anti-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« polemics emerged in northern India.12 The major controversial issues between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, such as the true successorship of the Prophet, were actively debated among both communities with SunnÄ« religious leaders condemning ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« practices such as Muḥarram processions as excessive. An outstanding example is ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄh, the erudite NaqshbandÄ« Sufi and scholar, who attempted to develop his own reformulation of Sufism in the context of a broader reform agenda that involved Islamic jurisprudence, QurʾÄnic exegesis, ḥadÄ«th studies, and theology.13
WalÄ« AllÄhâs preoccupation with the theory of the caliphate, one of the most striking eighteenth-century discussions that challenged the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« concept of the imamate under the Prophetâs progeny, clearly reflects the level of anti-ShÄ«Ê¿a polemics among NaqshbandÄ«s at that time. WalÄ« AllÄh divides the historical caliphates into three categories: (a) the âspecialâ caliphate (khilÄfa khÄṣṣa), which included the rule of the rightly guided caliphs (632â61), with the addition of the eighth Umayyad caliph Ê¿Umar b. Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z (d. 720) as an ideal ruler; (b) the âgeneralâ caliphate (Ê¿Ämma), in which WalÄ« AllÄh follows the classical theory of the ShÄfiÊ¿Ä« reforming jurist AbÅ« l-Ḥasan al-MÄwardÄ« (d. 1058) and regards MuÊ¿Äwiya, the first Umayyad caliph, as rightful; and (c) the âtyrannicalâ caliphate (jÄbira), which cannot be accepted as rightful at all. WalÄ« AllÄh believed that the first form of caliphate collapsed because of fitna (strife, sedition), which led to the division of the Muslim community under the fourth caliph, Ê¿AlÄ« (d. 660), and to the cessation of jihÄd after the murder of the third caliph, Ê¿UthmÄn (d. 656). According to him, the murder of Ê¿UthmÄn was the dividing line between the ideal age and the age of anarchy that followed.14 He declares that ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imams cannot be regarded as special caliphs because they did not perform hijra (the migration of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina) and were not among the first companions to accept Islam. Furthermore, they did not have actual power and authority over the Muslim community as the four caliphs did.15
WalÄ« AllÄhâs attempts to reconcile the divergent positions among Muslims barely took the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« doctrine into account. He was steadfast in his defence of the SunnÄ« positions and his repudiation of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« views of caliphal succession. In a letter to the king and nobles of his time, he stresses that
strict orders should be issued in all Islamic towns forbidding religious ceremonies publicly practiced by infidels ⦠On the tenth of Muharram, the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s should not be allowed to go beyond the bounds of moderation, neither should they be rude nor repeat stupid things [i.e., reciting tabarrÄ].16
TabarrÄ often means the shouting of curses on Satan, but in the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« context, it refers to the widespread ritualised practice of condemning the first three successors of the Prophet and other figures such as his wife Ê¿Äʾisha and the first Umayyad caliph, MuÊ¿Äwiya. Aiming at the dissociation from the enemies of the ahl-i bayt (household of the Prophet), this ritual is sometimes followed by the public burning of those figuresâ effigies in the streets and the bazaar. It is highly resented by many SunnÄ«s and has time and again provoked sectarian riots and spontaneous violence between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s in South Asia.17
The NaqshbandÄ« reformist Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn, the head of the central NaqshbandÄ« convent (khÄnaqÄh) in Delhi from 1747 until his death and the founder of the Shamsiyya-Mazhariyya branch of this order, sought to reduce conflict both among the SunnÄ« legal schools (madhÄhib) and between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s. Born into a noble family of Afghan origin which served in the Mughal administration, Maáºhar had attended several masters of different brotherhoods but was mostly attracted to the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya. He considered the respect for the companions of the Prophet not as an essential part of faith, and advocated the inclusion of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s within the fold of Islam due to their confession (shahÄda) of the unity of God.18 However, with the renewed prominence of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s in the court in 1781, Maáºhar, too, allegedly made some derogatory remarks against the public mourning ceremonies for the death of Ḥusayn b. Ê¿AlÄ« and was apparently assassinated by ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« zealots.19
Another MujaddidÄ« Sufi thinker and fighter, Sayyid Aḥmad of Rae Bareli (d. 1831), who also called his way ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya, pursued a more radical reformist agenda and is best known for his jihÄd against the Sikhs and his advocacy of a version of Islam which was purged of Hindu influence. He also criticised ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« practices, along with the Sufisâ belief in the intercession of their masters (pÄ«rs). He identified false Sufism, ShÄ«Ê¿ism, and errant popular customs as the sources of religious corruption and hence declining Muslim power. According to him the refutation of ShÄ«Ê¿ism was a necessary part of the revival of Islamic power in India and it was required for the reform campaign designed to restore Muslim belief and practice to their originally intended condition.20 It should be mentioned that in this time, besides India, other parts of the Islamic world also witnessed the emergence of anti-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« reformist tendencies. The movement of Muḥammad b. Ê¿Abd al-WahhÄb (d. 1792) condemned ShÄ«Ê¿ism as part of its efforts to revive and reform Islam. In 1802, WahhÄbÄ«s, who considered the veneration of shrines as a form of polytheism and viewed Muslims engaged in these acts as heretics, attacked Karbala and destroyed and plundered the shrine of Ḥusayn b. Ê¿AlÄ«.21
5.3 Polemical Literature
In the course of these political and religious tensions, polemical literature was produced in the forms of learned theological treatises, popular polemical tracts, poetic invectives, and satire by both ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« and SunnÄ« scholars and poets. In the latter part of his life, WalÄ« AllÄh wrote two works, IzÄlat al-khafÄʾ Ê¿an khilÄfat al-khulafÄʾ (Removing secrecy from the issues concerning the caliphate) and Qurrat al-Ê¿aynayn fÄ« tafá¸Ä«l al-shaykhayn (Delight of the eyes on the superiority of the first two caliphs), which addressed ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« claims concerning the nature of the caliphate and the superiority of Ê¿AlÄ«. Although in his works WalÄ« AllÄh refrains from using the word kÄfir (infidel) in referring to ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, he claims that the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« madhhab was bÄá¹il (false, void). According to his main argument, the belief in the Ê¿iá¹£ma (infallibility) of the Twelve Imams is incompatible with the finality of prophethood, even though in his TafhÄ«mÄt al-ilÄhiyya (Divine instructions) he himself attributes a kind of Ê¿iá¹£ma â along with the three other qualities of ḥikma (wisdom), wajÄha (prestige, excellence), and quá¹biyyat-i bÄá¹iniyya (the position of a hidden spiritual pivot) â to the Imams.22 In 1731â32, WalÄ« AllÄh translated Aḥmad SirhindÄ«âs (d. 1624) Radd al-rawÄfiḠ(Refutation of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s) into Arabic and added his own foreword to it; it was apparently the main text refuting ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« positions in the late sixteenth and throughout the seventeenth centuries. Similar polemical issues can also be found in his other writings.23
WalÄ« AllÄhâs discussions of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« ideas and practices were followed by Tuḥfa-i ithnÄ Ê¿ashariyya (The gift to the Twelver ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s), which was written by his son, Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z, in 1789â90. Divided into twelve chapters, representing the number of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imams, the work aims to comprehensively refute ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« beliefs and practices. Aside from the origin of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« denomination and its concepts of divinity, prophethood, and jurisprudence, it deals with themes such as the precedence of Ê¿AlÄ« or of the first two caliphs, the cursing of the Prophetâs companions, the tradition of Ê¿Umarâs denying the Prophetâs wish for pen and paper, and Ê¿AlÄ«âs several marriages and his judiciousness.24 In his Sayf AllÄh al-maslÅ«l Ê¿alÄ mukharribÄ« dÄ«n al-rasÅ«l (The drawn sword of God against those who destroy the religion of the Prophet), MÄ«rzÄ Muḥammad AkhbÄrÄ« (d. 1816), the jurist, ḥadÄ«th scholar, poet, and pillar of the AkhbÄrÄ« movement in India, was among the first ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who attempted to respond to the Tuḥfa. Then, Sayyid DildÄr Ê¿AlÄ« (1753â1820), the chief mujtahid of the state of Awadh, together with his students wrote a series of treatises in response to it, each of which was devoted to an individual chapter of the Tuḥfa; al-á¹¢awÄrim al-ilÄhiyya (Divine thunderbolts) was thus written in response to its sixth chapter; ḤusÄm al-IslÄm (The sword of Islam) was a rebuttal of the fifth chapter; and KhÄtimat al-á¹£awÄrim (The end of thunderbolts) a refutation of the seventh. Sayyid ḤÄmid Ḥusayn (1830â88), a student of DildÄr Ê¿AlÄ«, also published eighteen volumes under the title Ê¿AbaqÄt al-anwÄr fi imÄmat aʾimmat al-aá¹hÄr (Fragrant blossoms on the imamate of the pure imams), taking a stance against not only Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z but also other SunnÄ« critics of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« positions.25
ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«âSunnÄ« polemical texts started to be produced in India centuries before Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z and DildÄr Ê¿AlÄ«. SirhindÄ« wrote his anti-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« treatise Radd al-rawÄfiḠin 1008/1599â1600. In 1587, QÄá¸Ä« NÅ«r AllÄhâs Maá¹£Äʾib al-nawÄá¹£ib (Calamities of the SunnÄ«s) was a reply to MirzÄ MakhdÅ«m SharÄ«fâs (d. 1587) al-NawÄqiḠfÄ« l-radd Ê¿alÄ l-rawÄfiḠ(Nullifiers on the refutation of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s) in Baghdad, which was soon brought to India and circulated there. QÄá¸Ä« NÅ«r AllÄh also wrote al-á¹¢awÄrim al-muḥriqa (Burning swords) in reply to the á¹¢awÄÊ¿iq al-muḥriqa fÄ« l-radd Ê¿alÄ ahl al-rafḠwa-l-á¸alÄl wa-l-zandaqa (The burning thunderbolts in refutation of the people of refusal, error, and heresy) of Ibn Ḥajar al-HaytamÄ« (d. 1566â67) and IḥqÄq al-ḥaqq (Realisation of the truth) in 1605 in refutation of FatḥullÄh RuzbihÄnâs Ibá¹Äl al-nahj al-bÄá¹il (Invalidation of the false path) (1503).
5.4 Dard and ʿAndalīb
It is within the above-explained Indian context of SunnÄ«âShÄ«Ê¿Ä« relations â that is, the competition over power during the establishment of new ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« principalities, the renewed patronage of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« rituals and seminaries by certain rulers, and the ensuing sectarian conflict and polemics â that the prominent eighteenth-century mystic of Delhi KhwÄja MÄ«r Dard conceived a doctrine which was to lead, in his view, beyond the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« and SunnÄ« frameworks, a path encompassing both creeds, called in his parlance á¹arÄ«qa jÄmiÊ¿a (âcomprehensive wayâ).26
Both MÄ«r Dard and his father, Ê¿AndalÄ«b, were prominent Sufi theologians, poets, and musicians in Delhi, which was still the centre of the Mughal Empire.27 Moreover, they belonged to the reformist NaqshbandÄ«-MujaddidÄ« circles. Dard had studied Islamic sciences such as law and ḥadÄ«th, though explicitly separating himself and his approach from the traditional Ê¿ulamÄʾ and their viewpoints.28 He was the theoretician and exponent of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a initiated by his father, Ê¿AndalÄ«b, who himself was a disciple of one of SirhindÄ«âs immediate descendants, PÄ«r Muḥammad Zubayr (d. 1740). Ê¿AndalÄ«b was the first Indian to call his Sufi path ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya, a designation which, as we have seen, was later used by Sayyid Aḥmad of Rae Bareli.29 In Dardâs view, his father was among the saints of the Muslim community who had appeared to renew (tajdÄ«d) and revive (iḥyÄʾ) the pure religion of God, after it had become contaminated by innovations and the Muslimsâ deviation from the Prophetâs original tradition. For him, Ê¿AndalÄ«b had been sent by God ultimately to proclaim the only way of salvation and the most perfect manifestation of the truth.30
Dardâs major contribution, among other works, is his Ê¿Ilm al-kitÄb (The knowledge of the book). Besides reflecting on a variety of religious and cultural themes and theological, legal, and philosophical debates of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the book contains some idiosyncrasies (such as those related to ShÄ«Ê¿ism) which distinguish it from the reform-oriented texts of his contemporaries. Among the latter were works like ḤujjatullÄh al-bÄligha (The conclusive argument of God) by WalÄ« AllÄh and the MaqÄmÄt-i MaáºharÄ« (Exempla of Maáºhar) of MÄ«rzÄ Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn31 that was compiled by ShÄh GhulÄm Ê¿AlÄ« (d. 1824), who at the age of thirteen had associated with Dard in Delhi.32
As an extensive commentary on 111 wÄridÄt written in quatrains,33 Ê¿Ilm al-kitÄb is a highly technical theosophical-theological text that highlights several problems of its time. These include discussions over the interpretation of holy scripture (taʾwÄ«l) and the distortion of its meaning (taḥrÄ«f); debates on the authoritative sources of knowledge and faith; and the search for a comprehensive Islamic knowledge. The book also tackles social challenges such as the issue of religious authority, which Dard bases on blood affiliation with the Prophet (siyÄda), in combination with a spiritual union with him. It also deals with the sectarian conflicts between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, to which the author dedicates a significant part of his theological discussions, reconstructing the theoretical bases of such denominational differences.
In Ê¿Ilm al-kitÄb, Dard not only reconsiders some of his forefatherâs influential teachings, such as SirhindÄ«âs devaluation of the doctrine of the âunity of beingâ (waḥdat al-wujÅ«d) and his advocating the notion of the âunity of witnessingâ (waḥdat al-shuhÅ«d),34 but also makes radical amendments to the MujaddidÄ« Sufi scholarsâ mostly hostile approach to ShÄ«Ê¿ism. In his reconsideration of ShÄ«Ê¿ism, he follows the goals prescribed by his father in the latterâs introduction to NÄla-yi Ê¿AndalÄ«b. NÄla is a voluminous book of approximately 2,000 folios written in Persian and containing an interpretation of a story that was originally narrated by Ê¿AndalÄ«b in Hindi over a period of three nights in memory of PÄ«r Muḥammad Zubayr, who had just died. Ê¿AndalÄ«b expanded upon this story, adding a number of subplots into the framework of the main narrative, and used the now extensive tale as a way to explain his Muḥammadan Path.35 He also inserted Hindi dohas (a genre of Hindi explanatory poetry generally used in epics) into the story and referred to Hindu philosophy and customs.36 In NÄla, Ê¿AndalÄ«b explains the aim of his book as being to propose a path free from all of the uncertainties and problems found in various sects of Islam. He refers to the high curiosity among the younger generation about the truth within the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« and SunnÄ« branches of Islam: âBrothers of the path would ask me about issues of the path that came to mind ⦠Young men would often ask me about the realities of the SunnÄ« and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« schools.â37 Ê¿AndalÄ«b tries to establish a plausible framework, that is, the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya, for all religious and societal strata and for every aspect of life, as a way applicable for SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, men and women, the elite and folk, with worldly and otherworldly benefits alike.38
5.5 SiyÄda and Imamate: Solutions for the Conflict and Polemics
Following his father, Dardâs addressees are all types of Muslims, be they traditionalist or rationalist, Sufi or scholar, ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« or SunnÄ«.39 In contrast to the approach of WalÄ« AllÄh, his synthetic attempt does not exclude the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« doctrine. To include ShÄ«Ê¿ism in his own way, Dard utilises, among other subjects, the significant concept of siyÄda which is associated with that of the imamate. SiyÄda is one of the two main pillars â the second being direct mystical connection with and annihilation in the Prophet (fanÄʾ fÄ« l-rasÅ«l) â on the basis of which Dard constructs his ultra-SunnÄ«-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« way of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya WÄthiqa. It is in reference to the fundaments of siyÄda and the imamate that Dard called himself a sayyid, a member of the Prophetic family and an offspring of the Prophetâs daughter FÄá¹ima,40 rather than a saint or shaykh or Sufi (see already above). The first parts of his name, KhwÄja and MÄ«r, refer to this sayyid origin from both maternal and paternal sides.41 In his pure Muḥammadan Path, siyÄda retains its function as one of the crucial sources of religious authority.
Dard reconsidered the challenging subject matters between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s circulating around the importance of blood affiliation with the Prophet. In his approach to the long-term dispute over the exalted status of the family of the Prophet (ahl-i bayt) in ShÄ«Ê¿ism and on that of Muḥammadâs companions (á¹£aḥÄba) in SunnÄ« tradition, Dard, despite his SunnÄ« background, places the progeny of the Prophet at a higher rank than his companions. Using a simile, he likens the Prophet to a tree whose main branches are his progeny, due to their blood relationship with him, whereas the companions are branches cut from other trees and transplanted onto the Prophetic one.42 Elaborating on the rank of the ahl-i bayt, Dard adds that members of the Prophetâs household are joined to Muḥammad both by virtue of being his companions and by being his offspring, therefore encompassing all exterior and interior perfections and virtues.43
Dard also considers his father and himself as belonging to the main branches of the Prophetic tree due to their being najÄ«b al-á¹arafayn (highborn through blood affiliation with the Prophet via both parents), thus possessing both exterior and interior perfections. He calls his father âthe veritable sayyid and most righteous imam, who is the helper of the nation and the religionâ.44 Having emphasised the superiority of Muḥammadâs progeny over his companions, Dard warns his audience not to consider him as an advocate of afá¸aliyya (âprecedencyâ), a ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« concept referring to the preference of the accomplished and learned for leadership over the unaccomplished and unlearned. Afá¸aliyya is related to the polemical issue of the leaderâs required characteristics in Islamic theology. According to ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« theologians, an imam has to surpass other Muslims in two aspects in order to obtain the requirements of leadership: (a) his proximity to God and in the level of divine rewards that he enjoys; and (b) the characteristics which relate to human perfection such as bravery and knowledgeability. Thus, according to this point of view, prioritising less learned Muslims over those who are more learned is impossible.45 This argument is used in polemics over the caliphate by ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, who argue that Ê¿AlÄ« was more knowledgeable than the first SunnÄ« caliphs and therefore the true successor of the Prophet. SunnÄ« scholars, in turn, consider the ḥadÄ«th references that form the basis for the theory of afá¸aliyya as weak or categorise them as fabrications.46
Dard argues that, despite his emphasis on the originality of the Prophetâs progeny â and consequently the Imams â as the main branches of the tree, they are equal to the companions in terms of their function. To him, both groups, like both types of branches, provide fruit as well as pleasant shade and beauty for the Muslims, and Muslims should only be concerned with these benefits and nothing else. Emphasising that both descendants and companions, whether natural or transplanted, are after all branches of the same tree, he accentuates that the resort (tawassul) to each companion and Imam becomes a resort to the Prophet himself.47 In this way, Dard stood firm on the comprehensiveness of the pure Muḥammadan Path, without being diverted from his SunnÄ« position regarding the value and status of the companions. This was his approach to build a bridge between the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« and SunnÄ« denominations, which his father had already started to construct in his NÄla.
Dard introduces himself as the heir of the ahl-i bayt and of the continuous chain of the imamate. He even attributes to himself the revolutionary title of a âmissionary imamâ (imÄm-i dÄÊ¿Ä«), who invites people to the comprehensive pure Muḥammadan Path,48 and announces the authority of his way as a hereditary power (dawlat-i mawrÅ«thÄ«).49 Dard considers the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya as the continuity of the imamate and the receptor of the knowledge that has disappeared after the eleventh Imam, al-Ḥasan al-Ê¿Askari (d. 874). This marks its differentiation from the other MujaddidÄ« currents such as the Maáºhariyya and the followers of WalÄ« AllÄh, whose genealogy goes back to AbÅ« Bakr and who concentrates on the caliphate rather than the imamate in his discussion of Muslim leadership. Arguing for the inclusion of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s in his broad project of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya, Dard interprets and elaborates on a variety of ḥadÄ«ths such as the ḥadÄ«th al-thaqalayn (âḥadÄ«th of the two weighty thingsâ), ḥadÄ«th al-ghadÄ«r (âḥadÄ«th of the pondâ), and those Prophetic sayings that refer to Ê¿AlÄ« as the most authentic source of knowledge,50 ḥadÄ«ths that had formed the theological foundations of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« theology for centuries. Considering Ê¿AlÄ«âs knowledge as of the highest order, Dard does not explicitly speak about his role as a source of Islamic law and regulations. However, his frequent uses of the set of the QurʾÄn, ḥadÄ«ths, and the imamate gives the impression that, besides his effort to establish the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya based on the spiritual knowledge of the imamate, he also intended to give some impulses towards a reconsideration of the SunnÄ« sources of Islamic law. The above-mentioned ḥadÄ«ths, narrated frequently in ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« sources and also often mentioned in SunnÄ« collections (though with some textual variations),51 had played a crucial role in SunnÄ«âShÄ«Ê¿Ä« disputes for centuries. Several scholars of both communities had continued to reconsider and reinterpret them, while continuously arguing for and against their authenticity.52
One category of ḥadÄ«ths described by Dard is related to the friendship (mawadda) and love (maḥabba) of the household of the Prophet,53 for instance: âWhoever does not love Ê¿AlÄ« is a hypocrite and whoever does not hate him is faithful. And whoever is far from this threshold is far from the city.â54 The veneration and love of the ahl-i bayt has always been a part of SunnÄ« tradition, too, even though it never reached the centrality as in ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« religiosity. In ShÄ«Ê¿ism, by contrast, the intense love for the Imams and the household of the Prophet permeates the worldview of believers and influences the structure of their religiosity. Expressing oneâs love for his descendants through devotion to them, following them, and assisting and protecting them from any harm and distress are among the criteria used to determine the integrity and soundness of oneâs faith and actions. In other words, it has become a way in which one is able to attain salvation. Numerous ḥadÄ«ths in early ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« writings highlight this love and list it as a criterion for the validity of oneâs faith whereas enmity towards the Imams is regarded as a sign of unbelief.55 However, there is also a certain consensus among both SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s that love and respect for Muḥammad and his progeny are mandated by the QurʾÄn and the Prophetic tradition, and several SunnÄ« ḥadÄ«th scholars have narrated ḥadÄ«ths to that effect.56 Emphasising this consensus, Dard, in line with ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s, considers the love of Ê¿AlÄ« as the criterion of faith (maḥakk-i Ä«mÄn), and deviation from it as the sign of hypocrisy and failure.57 Ê¿AlÄ« is described by him as the owner of faqr-i MuḥammadÄ« (âMuḥammadan povertyâ), and a person who is united with the Prophet (lahÅ« nisbat al-Ê¿ayniyya bi-l-rasÅ«l) and his flesh and blood is the flesh and blood of the Prophet.58 Referring to the ḥadÄ«th âFÄá¹ima is a part of me: whoever harms her, harms meâ, Dard likens the relationship of the ahl-i bayt and sÄdÄt with the Prophet to the relationship between an individualâs limbs and his self. He concludes that the love of the ahl-i bayt and the Imams is the love of the Prophet himself, because to love the limbs or individual parts of a person is nothing but to love that person, and to hate them is to hate that person.59 He even affirms a kind of Ê¿iá¹£ma (infallibility) for the ahl-i bayt and declares that they are sublime essences (dhawÄt Ê¿aliyyÄt) with a pure and sacred nature. They are absolutely pure in the exterior as God purified (Ê¿aá¹£ama) them from all sins, and also in the interior, as He protected them from all temptations and unbidden thoughts (wasÄwis wa-hawÄjis).60
It was, most probably, this unusual attempt by Dard to strongly underline the role of the ahl-i bayt and the Imams in his ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya doctrine that earned him criticism from the SunnÄ« Muslims of his time. Even some of his own followers accused him of an unlawful innovation with his foundation of a new way (á¹arÄ«qa muḥdatha).61 They had apparently criticised him for his ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« tendencies and for his sole focus on the degrees and features of the ahl-i bayt. In reaction, Dard admits that they are correct and sound, stating that he deals primarily with the ahl-i bayt and their excellence but does not dwell upon the virtues and greatness of the companions. He explains, however, that the excellence of AbÅ« Bakr and Ê¿Umar are clearer than the sun, that their bliss (fuyÅ«á¸Ät) which exudes from them has covered the whole world, and that there is thus no need to explain it. Moreover, he continues, most of the SunnÄ« scholars had stated the greatness and perfection of the companions but had not dealt with the biography of the ahl-i bayt to the extent that they deserve:62
I tried to deal with the subject of the ahl-i bayt in order to make the SunnÄ«s respect them and love them, too ⦠The SunnÄ«s have not written about their ranks (maqÄmÄt) as much as they deserveâ¦. I speak about the Prophetâs progeny to help SunnÄ«s also to benefit from the grace of proximity to the imamate (qurb-i imÄma) ⦠My aim is to quell the fire of prejudice among both ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s and SunnÄ«s and invite them to join the path of balance (iÊ¿itidÄl).
Dard continues that his aim is not to prefer one party over the other, as those ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who believe in precedence (tafá¸Ä«liyÄn) or prejudiced SunnÄ«s do.63 Although Dard incorporates an important element of ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« belief in his ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya doctrine, he strongly maintains his SunnÄ« and ḤanafÄ« foundations, and his definition of the ahl-i bayt also includes the Prophetâs wives such as Ê¿Äʾisha, a challenging personality to the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« worldview. However, he emphasises the importance of FÄá¹ima, Ê¿AlÄ«, Ḥasan, and Ḥusayn as the main members of the Prophetic progeny and the possessors of the highest rank among the ahl-i bayt, by stressing ḥadÄ«ths such as âÊ¿AlÄ« and I are from one lightâ and âthe dearest among my people to me is FÄá¹ima and the dearest among my ahl-i bayt are Ḥasan and Ḥusaynâ.64
Trying to establish a balance between ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« tendencies and SunnÄ« faith, Dard asserts in his works that there is a differentiation between his own loving attachment to the Prophetâs household and that of those ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s whom he calls rawÄfiḠ(ârejectorsâ, or heretics). The latter is a derogatory term oftentimes used by SunnÄ«s for ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who curse the first three caliphs, AbÅ« Bakr, Ê¿Umar, and Ê¿UthmÄn, in order to express their rejection of them as the legitimate successors of Muḥammad.65 The rawÄfiá¸âs affection, according to Dardâs viewpoint, reflects the âignorant loveâ of common people that damages guidance.
It is unlikely that he refers with this derogatory term to ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s in general. In contrast to his NaqshbandÄ« contemporaries WalÄ« AllÄh and his son, Ê¿Abdul Ê¿AzÄ«z, Dard rarely criticises common ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s and neither denounces nor mentions ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« rituals such as the commemorations of Muḥarram or the taÊ¿ziya. Thus, his use of the humiliating term rawÄfiḠmost probably singles out only those ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s who do not fit into the framework of his ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya that considers both Imams and companions of the Prophet as branches of the same tree of prophethood. His use of this term may also just be a kind of concomitance with the prevailing anti-ShÄ«Ê¿a sentiment among SunnÄ«s of his time. It furthermore points to his invitation of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s to adopt his model of the Muḥammadan individual, who has stepped beyond SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s. That is why he explicitly calls on ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s to join the Muḥammadan Path, with siyÄda and imamate as central pillars.
It is not only the narrative of love for the ahl-i bayt that was underlined by Dard. He also concentrates on the concept of the imamate while remaining in his SunnÄ«-ḤanafÄ«-MujaddidÄ« framework of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya. He did so exactly at the time when WalÄ« AllÄh was constructing a theory of khilÄfa (viceregency of the Prophet) in which the era of the first ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imam, Ê¿AlÄ«, was denounced as the age of fitna (rebellion). To this end, Dard focuses on other ḥadÄ«ths which were significant for the question of the imamate as the highest source of knowledge directly revealed from God (Ê¿ilm-i ladunni), after the knowledge of prophethood (nubuwwa). He mentions, for instance, the ḥadÄ«th: âI am the city of knowledge and Ê¿AlÄ« is its threshold.â66 With regard to this ḥadÄ«th, Dard stresses the role of Ê¿AlÄ« as the transmitter of knowledge within the lineage of the imamate via FÄá¹imaâs offspring, notably Ḥasan and Ḥusayn, and not via other sons of Ê¿AlÄ« born from his other wives.67 In this way, he differentiates between the sÄdÄt of BanÄ« FÄá¹ima and other Ê¿AlawÄ« sÄdÄt who descended from Ê¿AlÄ« through his three sons, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya from Khawla bt. JaÊ¿far al-Ḥanafiyya, Ê¿AbbÄs from Umm al-BanÄ«n, and Ê¿Umar from á¹¢ahbÄʾ al-Taghlibiyya.
Focusing on the connection between siyÄda and the imamate, Dard states that the chain of the imamate did not stop with the death of the eleventh Imam but continued via the siyÄda of the Prophetic offspring which included Dardâs father and himself.68 Dard even attributes to himself the title of âson of the Imamâ when he stresses his own countless titles and beautiful names, such as the knower (Ê¿Älim), the light (nÅ«r), the hearer (samÄ«Ê¿), the one (waḥīd), and the patron (walÄ«).69
Dardâs reference to himself as âson of the Imamâ is partly due to his fatherâs title, who was considered by Dard and most probably also by his other disciples as âImam of the gnosticsâ (ImÄm al-Ê¿ÄrifÄ«n). For him, Ê¿AndalÄ«b was the heir of Ê¿AlÄ«âs knowledge (wÄrith-i Ê¿ilm-i murtaá¸awÄ«) and manifested the lights and bounty of the imamate due to his descendance from the Prophet.70 Dard emphasises that the imamate continues until the Day of Judgement through those carrying the blood of the Prophet and his progeny.71 According to him, each era witnesses somebody who is endowed with the grace of the imamate and honoured with the hereditary bliss72 that makes Muḥammad reappear through his progeny, until his final reappearance in the MahdÄ« (the last manifestation and representative of Muḥammad).73 Because of this reappearance, the way in which people treat the sÄdÄt of the Muḥammadan Path is considered as their treatment of Muḥammad himself, since the Prophetâs progeny are empty of their own identity and carry the real existence of Muḥammad: âTheir soul is the soul of Muḥammad; their faith is the faith of Muḥammad; their flesh and skin is the flesh and skin of Muḥammad; their home is the home of Muḥammad; and their time is the time of Muḥammad.â74
For Dard, God made the sÄdÄt the owners of time and gave them his command to call Muslims to the Ṭariqa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a.75 They enjoy the specific knowledge of the imamate,76 the âdivine Muḥammadan knowledgeâ (Ê¿ilm-i ilÄhÄ«-i muḥammadÄ«), and the status of the most intimate proximity (qurb-i akhaṣṣ al-khÄṣṣ) granted by God.77 Elaborating on what he means by such knowledge, Dard here points to the above-mentioned ḥadÄ«th that declares Ê¿AlÄ« to be the gate or threshold leading to the âcity of knowledgeâ and in this way presents him as a mediator without whom the knowledge of God cannot be achieved.78 This ḥadÄ«th has been considered by many SunnÄ« scholars, including Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855), BukhÄrÄ« (d. 870), TirmidhÄ« (d. 892), Ibn Hibban al-BustÄ« (d. 965), DhahabÄ« (d. 1348), and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), to be either weak or fabricated both in transmission and wording.79 Dard, however, largely bases his concept of the Muḥammadan knowledge on it, without discussing its diverging status in SunnÄ« and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« theological traditions.
Dard divides knowledge (Ê¿ilm) into two categories: (i) intellectual (Ê¿aqlÄ«) knowledge, which encompasses the sub-branches of theology, mathematics, and natural sciences; and (ii) divine knowledge, through revelation and inspiration (ladunnÄ« or wahbÄ«), which is itself divided into the following types: (a) prophecy and (divine) message (nubuwwa wa-risÄla), both of which are mediated by the angel Gabriel (Jibraʾīl) and cause divine proximity (taqarrub). This knowledge is related to the reform of life in this world and in the hereafter (umÅ«r-i muá¹£liḥ-i maÊ¿Äsh wa-maÊ¿Äd) and was completed and finalised by the Prophet Muḥammad; (b) knowledge of the caliphate (khilÄfa) that was achieved through inspiration (ilhÄm), along with the rightful demand to receive allegiance (akhdh-i bayÊ¿a), in the first thirty years after the time of the Prophet. It is also related to the affairs that reform life in both worlds; (c) the knowledge of the perfections of prophethood (kamÄlÄt-i nubuwwa), which was again achieved through inspiration by Muslims other than the Prophetâs offspring and began thirty years after the Prophetâs death. It includes issues that reform both lives, as well; (d) the knowledge of the imamate (imÄma), which was achieved through inspiration but only by the offspring of the Prophet, along with the right of allegiance, after thirty years had passed since the death of the Prophet and also in later times. This, too, conveys the affairs that reform life in both material and spiritual spheres; (d) the knowledge of sainthood (wilÄya) and its sub-branches of the âunity of beingâ and the âunity of witnessingâ (waḥdat al-wujÅ«d wa-waḥdat al-shuhÅ«d); (e) Sufism (taá¹£awwuf); and (f) religion (dÄ«n).80
Among these categories, the knowledge which lies in the imamate (Ê¿ilm-i imÄmat)81 stands out as a particular wisdom that differs from and is higher than all the others after the knowledge of prophethood. Similar to the knowledge of prophethood, of the caliphate, and of the perfections of prophethood, Ê¿ilm-i imÄmat pertains to matters that reform life in this world and in the hereafter and culminates in the proximity to the Divine. It shares common elements with the aforementioned types of knowledge such as inspiration and right of allegiance but differs from them through its particularity of being the prerogative of the Prophetâs offspring. It also went along with their rightful demand for allegiance, which set in thirty years after the death of the Prophet with the caliphate of his grandson Ḥasan, to whom many Muslims swore the oath of allegiance after the death of his father, the fourth caliph, Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄlib. According to Dard, allegiance to Ḥasan was the starting point for the leadership of the Muslim community by the offspring of the Prophet, that is, the Imams and descendants of FÄá¹ima. Rejecting the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« narrative of fitna (sedition) that considers the first three caliphs as usurpers, he explicitly accepts the caliphates of AbÅ« Bakr, Ê¿Umar, and Ê¿UthmÄn. Only for the period after the four rightly guided caliphs Dard reserves both worldly and spiritual leadership, and the position as valid sources of knowledge, to the Imams and descendants of FÄá¹ima. The Muslimsâ allegiance to Ḥasan as the fifth caliph plays a key role in his definition of the knowledge of the imamate. Thus, in Dardâs view, the blood of the Prophet and the knowledge of Ê¿AlÄ« provide the framework of leadership of the Muslim community with both of them now existing in their purest form in the founders of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a.
Ê¿Ilm-i imÄmat is a knowledge that connects the finality of the prophethood with the continuity of the imamate. According to Dard, the Prophet Muḥammad is a person who has traversed all degrees of perfection to the end, and it is only the Prophetâs bliss and the manifestation of his perfections that have been continuing â and will continue â through his offspring,82 who, on their part, encompass all types of perfections and virtue, both exterior and interior.83 Dard insists that his Muḥammadan Path is different from the MujaddidÄ«s whom he sees in analogy to the Prophetâs friends and companions. The MuḥammadÄ«s, by contrast, represent the very limbs, hands, and feet of Muḥammad. He even asserts that the âsÄdÄt of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya enjoy the âtotal unityâ (Ê¿ayniyyat-i tÄmm) and âthe total annihilationâ (fanÄʾ-i atamm) in Muḥammadnessâ, which is why they are considered special (khÄṣṣ).84 The title ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄṣṣa, which Dard uses in reference to his way, illustrates the particularity which makes the mystical experience and rank of the âpure MuḥammadÄ«â (Muḥammadi-i khÄliá¹£) the highest experience related to the Prophet Muḥammad. It differs for him from that of the âperfections of prophethoodâ (kamÄlÄt-i nubuwwa), a significant mystical experience and rank in the Mujaddidiyya that is equal to general prophethood (nubuwwat-i Ê¿Ämma).
According to Dard, this rank of the âpure MuḥammadÄ«â belongs to the family of the Prophet in particular, whose members are sublime essences coming into existence through the rays of Muḥammadan light and have the potentiality of Prophetic mission. But he believes that pure Muḥammadness will continue forever and that all Muslims can achieve this stage and enter this á¹arÄ«qa. It exists as a potential in each and every Muslim, though its most powerful point will only be achieved in the time of the MahdÄ«, when the whole world will be enlightened with a unique light of pure Muḥammadness.85
Dard declared that knowledge connected with the imamate went into hiding after al-Ḥasan al-Ê¿AskarÄ« (the eleventh ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imam who died around 874) and was rediscovered in the eighteenth century by his father, Ê¿AndalÄ«b, who passed its secrets to Dard. Dard himself continued Ê¿AndalÄ«bâs call for the revitalisation of the religion by descendants of the ahl-i bayt.86 His emphasis on the continuity of the Prophetic mission through the imamate, rather than the continuity of wilÄya (sanctity and spiritual leadership) through Sufi masters, makes Dardâs approach towards the knowledge and genealogy of the Ṭariqa Muḥammadiyya significantly different from that of established Sufism.
5.6 Conclusion
In the sociopolitical conflict and the polemical controversies between SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s that were ignited in eighteenth-century India, Dard called for a unity of the two major Muslim denominations on the basis of a theosophical-mystical framework that centred on the principles of the imamate and siyÄda. He offered a comprehensive doctrine to absorb both SunnÄ«s and ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s into his way of the Muḥammadiyya WÄthiqa and KhÄtima, âthe trustworthy and final Muḥammadnessâ. Dard strengthened his comprehensive way by considering both ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imams and Muḥammadâs companions as branches of the same Prophetic tree, no matter whether they had been âtransplantedâ onto it or were his real offspring. He then called upon the Muslims only to be concerned about the fruits and benefits which the tree as a whole provided for them. In his interpretation of the ahl-i bayt and the imamate which went against his MujaddidÄ«-ḤanafÄ« background, Dard attempted to use the widespread appreciation for descent from the Prophet (siyÄda), a point of agreement between ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s and SunnÄ«s, as an axis on which both denominations could construct a common Muslim identity and revise their old controversies with a fresh perspective.
Reconsidering siyÄda and imamate, Dard affirms the right of the Imams and sÄdÄt of BanÄ« FÄá¹ima to lead the Muslim community and their role as the true source of knowledge that was transmitted through the imamate after the rightly guided caliphs. He considers the allegiance of Muslims to Ḥasanâs caliphate as the starting point of this leadership. For him the blood of the Prophet and the knowledge of Ê¿AlÄ« as transmitted to the founders of the Ṭariqa Muḥammadiyya besides the centrality of the Prophet Muhammad construct the main structure and pivotal elements of this path. His declaration of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya as a hereditary power (dawlat-i mawrÅ«thÄ«) expresses its authenticity, right, and capacity for the leadership of the umma via siyÄda. Furthermore, Dardâs affirming of a kind of infallibility of the ahl-i bayt, his stress on love for them as the criterion of faith (maḥakk-i imÄn), and his focus on the knowledge of Ê¿AlÄ« embeds key elements of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« narrative of the imamate into his doctrine.
Although veneration and respect of the ahl-i bayt has always been a part not only of Sufi but also of SunnÄ« tradition in general, Dardâs adaptation of the theory of the imamate is a step further in that respect. He considers himself an Imam, gives priority to the knowledge connected with the imamate, accentuates the figure of Ê¿AlÄ« as the source of such knowledge, and affirms the right of the Imams for the leadership of the Muslim umma. He certainly did not have the opportunity to round his concepts and to explain more clearly and in detail how his ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a could accommodate the theory of the imamate as the highest source of knowledge. But he was courageous enough to propound such an adaptation at a time when most SunnÄ« reformists were engaged in anti-ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« polemics and controversies,87 vis-à -vis an increasing prominence of the ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s and a decline of SunnÄ« power in the waning Mughal Empire. Dardâs approach clearly stands in opposition to the SunnÄ« â and particularly NaqshbandÄ«-MujaddidÄ« â revivalism of his age. This might have been one reason for his isolation, and also for the fact that he was not mentioned in the works of influential contemporaries such as ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄh and Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z, Sh. Tuḥfa ithnÄ Ê¿ashariyya, ed. Ḥ. Gh. ḤalÄ«m, Lucknow, Munshi Newal Kishore, n.d.
ÄlemÄ«, Kh. âMulÅ«k-i bahmanÄ« wa jÄygÄh-i tashayyuÊ¿ dar Dakanâ, ShÄ«Ê¿e shenÄsÄ« 10/39 (1391), 101â130.
Ê¿AndalÄ«b, M. N. NÄla-yi Ê¿AndalÄ«b, 2 vols, Bhopal, MatbaÊ¿at Shahjahani, 1795.
Bin Arḥama, Kh. TakhrÄ«j ḥadÄ«th: Ana madÄ«nat al-Ê¿ilm wa-Ê¿AlÄ« bÄbuhÄ, Riyadh, DÄr al-Qabas, 2010.
BukhÄrÄ«, M. b. I. al-JÄmiÊ¿ al-á¹£aḥīḥ: á¹¢aḥīḥ al-BukhÄrÄ«, 7 vols, trans. Ê¿A. Ê¿A. N. AhrÄrÄ«, Turbat Jam, Intisharat-i Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad-i Jam, 2007.
Dard, Kh. M. Ê¿Ilm al-kitÄb, Delhi, Maá¹baÊ¿at al-Aná¹£ÄrÄ«, 1890.
Dard, Kh. M. ChahÄr risÄla: Dard-i Dil, Bhopal, MatbaÊ¿-i Shah Jahani, 1892.
Dard, Kh. M. DÄ«wÄn-i fÄrsÄ«, Delhi, 1892.
Dard, Kh. M. UrdÅ« dÄ«wÄn, Lahore, Majlis-i Taraqqi-i AdÄb, 1962.
ḤillÄ«, J. b. Ḥ. KitÄb al-maslak fÄ« uṣūl al-dÄ«n, ed. R. Ustadi, Mashhad, ÄstÄnat al-Raá¸awiyya al-Muqaddasa, 1994.
Ibn al-MaghÄzilÄ«, Ê¿A. b. M. ManÄqib amÄ«r al-muʾminÄ«n Ê¿AlÄ« b. AbÄ« ṬÄlib, Beirut, DÄr al-Aá¸wÄʾ, 2003.
Ibn Taymiyya, A. b. Ê¿A. Ḥ. MinhÄj al-sunna al-nabawiyya fÄ« naqḠkalÄm al-shÄ«Ê¿a al-qadariyya, 9 vols, ed. M. R. Salim, Riyadh, JÄmiÊ¿at al-ImÄm Muḥammad bin SaÊ¿Å«d al-IslÄmiyya, 1986.
KulaynÄ«, M. b. Y. al-Uṣūl min al-kÄfÄ«, 2 vols, Tehran, DÄr al-Kutub al-IslÄmiyya, 1990.
MÄ«r ḤÄmid, Ḥ. B. M. Ê¿AbaqÄt al-anwÄr fÄ« imÄmat al-aʾimma al-aá¹hÄr, 18 vols, Qum, Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-IslÄmÄ«, n.d.
RÄzÄ«, F. D. M. b. Ê¿U. IÊ¿tiqÄdÄt firaq al-muslimÄ«n wa-l-mushrikÄ«n, Beirut, DÄr al-Kutub al-Ê¿ArabÄ«, 1987.
RÄzÄ«, S. D. Ḥ. al-Munqidh min al-taqlÄ«d, 2 vols, Qum, Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-IslÄmÄ«, 1994.
Sharif, M. M., trans. á¹¢aḥīḥ Muslim: The Authentic Hadiths of Muslim, 4 vols, Beirut, DÄr al-Kutub al-Ê¿Ilmiyya, 2005.
ṬabÄá¹abÄʾī, S. Ê¿A. Ê¿A. âMawqif al-shÄ«Ê¿a min hajamÄt al-khuṣūm wa-khulÄá¹£a Ê¿an kitÄb Ê¿abaqÄt al-anwÄrâ, TurÄthunÄ 6/1 (1987), 32â61.
WalÄ« AllÄh, Sh. al-TafhÄ«mÄt al-ilÄhiyya, 2 vols, Dabhil [India], Majlis-Ê¿ilmÄ«, 1936.
WalÄ« AllÄh, Sh. IzÄlat al-khafÄʾ Ê¿an khilÄfat al-khulafÄʾ, trans. T. D. NadwÄ«, vol. 1, Damascus, DÄr al-Qalam, 2013.
Secondary Literature
Ahmad, A. âAn Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Caliphateâ, Studia Islamica 28 (1968), 135â144.
Ahmad, M. Saiyid Ahmad Shahid: His Life and Mission, Lucknow, Academy of Islamic Research and Publication, 1975.
Baljon, J. M. S. Religion and Thought of ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄh DihlawÄ« 1703â1762, Leiden, Brill, 1986.
Böwering, G. âIntroductionâ, in G. Bowering, ed., Islamic Political Thought: An Introduction, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2015, 1â23.
Cole, J. R. I. Roots of North Indian ShÄ«âism in Iran and Iraq: Religion and State in Awadh, 1722â1856, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1989.
Dahnhardt, T. Change and Continuity in Indian Sufism: A Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi Branch in the Hindu Environment, New Delhi, D. K. Printworld, 2002.
Dallal, A. âThe Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750â1850â, Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (1993), 343â349.
Friedmann, Y. âMedieval Muslim Views of Indian Religionsâ, Journal of the American Oriental Society 95/2 (1975), 214â221.
Gaborieau, M. Le Mahdi incompris: Sayyid Ahmad Barelwî (1786â1831) et le millénarisme en Inde, Paris, CNRS, 2010.
Gleave, R. Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the AkhbÄrÄ« ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« School, Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Hermansen, M. K., trans. The Conclusive Argument from God: ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄh of Delhiâs Ḥujjat AllÄh al-BÄligha, Leiden, Brill, 1995.
Hyder, S. A. Reliving Karbala: Martyrdom in South Asian Memory, New York, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Irvine, W. Later Mughals, 2 vols, New Delhi, Rawat Publications, 1995.
JaÊ¿fariyÄn, R. âMukÄtibat-i MÄ«r YÅ«sif Ê¿AlÄ« AstarÄbÄdÄ« bÄ QÄá¸Ä« NÅ«r AllÄh ShÅ«shtarÄ«â, Äyeneye pajÅ«hesh 20/1 (1388/2009), 2â15.
Khodamoradi, S. âṬarÄ«qah Muḥammadiyyah as ṬarÄ«qah JÄmiÊ¿ah: Khwajah Mir Dardâs Experience Beyond JamÄl and JalÄlâ, Islamic Studies 51/4 (2012), 367â402.
Khodamoradi, S. Sufi Reform in Eighteenth Century India: Khwaja Mir Dard of Delhi (1721â1785), Berlin, EB-Verlag, 2019.
Madelung, W. The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Mavani, H. Religious Authority and Political Thought in Twelver Shiʿism from Ali to Post-Khomeini, Abingdon, Routledge, 2013.
Nasr, V. The Shiʿa Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future, New York, Norton, 2006.
Newman, A. J. âThe Nature of AkhbÄrÄ«/UṣūlÄ« Dispute in late á¹¢afawid Iran, Part 1: Ê¿AbdallÄh al-SamÄhijÄ«âs Munyal al-MumÄrisÄ«nâ, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55/1 (1992), 22â51.
Newman, A. J. âThe Nature of AkhbÄrÄ«/UṣūlÄ« Dispute in late á¹¢afawid Iran, Part 2: The Conflict Reassessedâ, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55/2 (1992), 250â261.
Pinault, D. The Shiʿites: Ritual and Popular Piety in a Muslim Community, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 1992.
Rezavi, S. A. N. âThe State, ShiÊ¿as and ShiÊ¿ism in Medieval Indiaâ, Studies in Peopleâs History 4/1 (2017), 32â45.
Rieck, A. T. The Shias of Pakistan: An Assertive and Beleaguered Minority, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015.
Rizvi, S. âFaith Deployed for a New ShiÊ¿i Polity in India: The Theology of Sayyid Dildar Ê¿Ali Nasirabadiâ, in J. Jones and A. U. Qasmi, eds, The ShiÊ¿a in Modern South Asia: Religion, History and Politics, Delhi, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 12â35.
Rizvi, S. A. A. Shah Wali-Allah and His Times: A Study of Eighteenth-Century IslÄm, Politics and Society in India, Canberra, Maârifat Publishing House, 1980.
Rizvi, S. A. A. Shah Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿Aziz: Puritanism, Sectarianism, Polemics and Jihad, Canberra, Maârifat Publishing House, 1982.
Rizvi, S. A. A. âBÄrha Sayyidsâ, in P. Bearman et al., eds, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (online). Accessed 18 February 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_8403.
Saghaeearaj, N. âMuḥammad NÄá¹£ir Ê¿AndalÄ«bâs Sufi Path Based on His Lament of the Nightingale: Revisiting Mystical Islam in Eighteenth-Century Indiaâ, PhD diss., University of Erfurt, 2018.
Schimmel, A. Pain and Grace: A Study of Two Mystical Writers of Eighteenth-Century Muslim India, Leiden, Brill, 1976.
Storey, C. A. Persian Literature: A Bio-bibliographical Survey, vol. 1, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 2002.
Umar, M. âMirza Mazhar Jan-i Janan: A Religious Reformer of the Eighteenth Centuryâ, Studies in Islam 6 (1969), 118â154.
Umar, M. Islam in Northern India during the Eighteenth Century, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993.
Voll, J. O. Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1994.
Weismann, I. The Naqshbandiyya: Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Sufi Tradition, London, Routledge, 2007.
Wynbrandt, J. A Brief History of Saudi Arabia, New York, Checkmark Books, 2004.
Ziad, H. âI Transcend Myself like a Melody, KhwÄjah MÄ«r Dard and Music in Eighteenth-Century Delhiâ, The Muslim World 97 (2007), 548â570.
Ziad, H. âQuest of the Nightingale: The Religious Thought of KhvÄjah MÄ«r Dard (1720â1785)â, PhD diss., Yale University, 2008.
Nasr, The Shiʿa Revival, 98.
Rieck, The Shias of Pakistan, 1â3. See also Cole, Roots of North Indian ShÄ«âism, 36â42. Before the eighteenth century, India witnessed ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«-led principalities such as the Bahmanids in Deccan (r. 1347â1526), the Adilshahis in Bijapur until 1686, the Nizamshahis of Ahmadnagar (r. 1490â1633), and Qutbshahis (r. 1512â1687) (ÄlemÄ«, âMulÅ«k-i bahmanÄ«â).
The correspondence between the AkhbÄrÄ« scholar MÄ«r YÅ«suf Ê¿AlÄ« AstarÄbÄdÄ« (d. seventeenth century) and the uṣūlÄ« QÄzÄ« NÅ«r AllÄh ShÅ«shtarÄ« (d. 1610) is regarded as an indication of the AkhbÄrÄ«âuṣūlÄ« schism in the Indian context. For the correspondence, see JaÊ¿fariyÄn, âMukÄtibatâ, 2â15. For details on AkhbÄrÄ«âuṣūlÄ« thought and historical development, see Newman, âThe Nature of AkhbÄrÄ«/UṣūlÄ« Dispute, Part 1â; Newman, âThe Nature of AkhbÄrÄ«/UṣūlÄ« Dispute, Part 2â; Böwering, âIntroductionâ, 14; Mavani, Religious Authority, 12â13, 130; Gleave, Scripturalist Islam, 177â90.
Rizvi, âFaith Deployedâ, 12â14; Nasr, The ShiÊ¿a Revival, 99.
Pinault, The Shiʿites, 78.
Rezavi, âThe State, ShiÊ¿as and ShiÊ¿ismâ, 44.
Rieck, The Shias of Pakistan, 3.
Nasr, The Shiʿa Revival, 99.
Rizvi, âFaith Deployedâ, 13.
Irvine, Later Mughals, 130â2.
Rieck, The Shias of Pakistan, 2â6.
The name of BÄrha applied, from Akbarâs reign onwards, to a community of sayyids in possession of a particular group of twelve villages in the DÅʾÄb (Muáºaffarnagar district, UP) (see Rizvi, âBÄrha Sayyidsâ).
Hermansen, trans., The Conclusive Argument, xxix; Voll, Islam, 58â61; For ShÄh WalÄ« AllÄhâs religious and reformist thought, see Baljon, Religion and Thought; Rizvi, Shah Wali-Allah; Dallal, âThe Origins and Objectivesâ.
Ahmad, âAn Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Caliphateâ, 135â40.
The requirements of the special caliphate and the description of the fitna are elaborated in detail in WalÄ« AllÄh, IzÄlat al-khafÄʾ, 85â234, 487â586.
Quoted in Rizvi, Shah Wali-Allah, 294.
Hyder, Reliving Karbala, 82.
Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya, 65â66; Friedmann, âMedieval Muslim Viewsâ.
See Dahnhardt, Change and Continuity, 14â41; Umar, âMirza Mazhar Jan-i Jananâ.
Nasr, The ShiÊ¿a Revival, 99â100. For Sayyid Aḥmadâs reformist thought and practice, see also Rizvi, Shah Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿Aziz; Gaborieau, Le Mahdi incompris.
Wynbrandt, A Brief History, 135.
WalÄ« AllÄh, al-TafhÄ«mÄt, 14.
Umar, Islam in Northern India, 254.
See Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z, Tuḥfa, 416â537; for the polemic thought of ShÄh Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿AzÄ«z, see also Rizvi, Shah Ê¿Abd al-Ê¿Aziz.
ṬabÄá¹abÄʾī, âMawqif al-shÄ«Ê¿aâ, 41, 52.
For details on the á¹arÄ«qa jÄmiÊ¿a, see Khodamoradi, âṬarÄ«qah Muḥammadiyyahâ; Khodamoradi, Sufi Reform, 127â62.
On Dard as a poet, see Dard, UrdÅ« dÄ«wÄn; Dard, DÄ«wÄn-i fÄrsÄ«; Schimmel, Pain and Grace, 31, 49; Ziad, âI Transcend Myselfâ.
Dard, ChahÄr risÄla, 219.
Schimmel, Pain and Grace, 33. See also Ahmad, Saiyid Ahmad Shahid; Gaborieau, Le Mahdi incompris.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 587.
The latter work consists of the letters and Sufi discourses (malfÅ«áºÄt) of MÄ«rzÄ Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn.
Storey, Persian Literature, 1034.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 91â96, 473; Dard, ChahÄr risÄla, 6.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 3â5.
Saghaeearaj, âMuḥammad NÄá¹£ir Ê¿AndalÄ«bâ.
Ê¿AndalÄ«b, NÄla, 1:789, 813, 882, 2:712, 900.
Ê¿AndalÄ«b, NÄla, 1:3.
Ê¿AndalÄ«b, NÄla, 1:4. Ê¿AndalÄ«b deals with ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« imamology in his NÄla, 2:583.
Khodamoradi, Sufi Reform, 106â9.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 83, 257â58.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 84.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 83.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257â58.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 648.
See RÄzÄ«, al-Munqidh, 2:286; al-ḤillÄ«, KitÄb al-maslak.
Ibn Taymiyya, MinhÄj, 7:515.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 83, 84, 255â57.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257â58.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 85.
The ḥadÄ«th al-thaqalayn reads thus: âI [Muḥammad] leave among you two things, and if you strictly adhere to them, you shall never go astray: The Book of Allah and the people of my house (ahl-i bayt). I have told you that you will reach me in heaven at the pool [of al-kawthar] and I will ask you about how you behaved with those two valuable relicsâ (KulaynÄ«, al-Uṣūl, 1:294). In the ḥadÄ«th al-ghadÄ«r, Muḥammad states: âTo whomever I am master [âfriendâ in SunnÄ« interpretation], Ê¿AlÄ« also is his master.â In volume 7 of Ê¿AbaqÄt al-anwÄr, the author discusses this ḥadÄ«th and its various narrations by SunnÄ« scholars. See MÄ«r ḤÄmid, Ê¿AbaqÄt, vol. 7.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
Among the ḥadÄ«ths narrated by Dard which are also mentioned by SunnÄ« ḥadÄ«th scholars are (a) âFÄá¹ima is a part of me, whoever harms her harms meâ (BukhÄrÄ«, al-JÄmiÊ¿ al-á¹£aḥīḥ, 4:292â94) and (b) âÊ¿AlÄ« and I are from one lightâ (Ibn al-MaghÄzilÄ«, ManÄqib, 17).
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259, 260.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
Mavani, Religious Authority, 40â1; Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, 13.
For example, see Sharif, trans., Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1:126.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 83.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 262.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 256.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 256.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
RÄzÄ«, IÊ¿tiqÄdÄt, 59.
ShÄ«Ê¿Ä«s believe that Ê¿AlÄ« is the most knowledgeable person after the Prophet. Among SunnÄ« scholars, Ibn Taymiyya clearly states that nobody from the ahl al-sunna agrees with this idea and there is a strong consensus among SunnÄ« theologians that AbÅ« Bakr and Ê¿Umar are the most knowledgeable people after the Prophet (Ibn Taymiyya, MinhÄj, 4:5, see also 7:500â28).
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259ff.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259ff.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 62.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 137.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259â60, 264, 611, 613.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257, 260.
About the finality of the ṬarÄ«qa Muḥammadiyya KhÄliá¹£a in the time of the MahdÄ«, see Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 85.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259.
Besides reinforcing blood kinship through propounding siyÄda and the imamate, the Ṭariqa Muḥammadiyya claims its validity through Ê¿AndalÄ«bâs mystical vision of the second ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« imam, Imam al-Ḥasan (Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 85).
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257, 260.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 610. For divine Muḥammadan knowledge, see Khodamoradi, Sufi Reform, 153â60.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 255.
For the list of SunnÄ« scholars challenging the authenticity of this ḥadÄ«th, see Bin Arḥama, TakhrÄ«j, 7â8.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 82.
On the imamate, see Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 259.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257, 263â64.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 257.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 88.
Dard, Ê¿Ilm, 88, 113â14; Khodamoradi, Sufi Reform, 145â47.
Ziad, âQuest of the Nightingaleâ, 242.
As exceptions to this, one can find some positive approaches to ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« belief in general by Maáºhar JÄn-i JÄnÄn and the partial, inconspicuous compromises made by WalÄ« AllÄh in affirming Ê¿iá¹£ma for ShÄ«Ê¿Ä« Imams (WalÄ« AllÄh, al-TafhÄ«mÄt, 14). For Maáºharâs approach, see Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya, 65â66; Friedmann, âMedieval Muslim Viewsâ.