Ahmed Sirhandi and the Limits of Sufi Universalism
The popular
conception of Sufism as a system of Islamic mysticism provides many in the West
the opportunity to romanticize about the potential for a universalistic liberal
strain within the pantheon of Islam. The common aspiration is that instead of
the legalistic rigidity of Sunnis or the authoritative hierarchy of Shi’ism,
Sufism provides a personal and essentially mystical set of practice and
beliefs. Within this assumption is the thought that dogma and orthodoxy become
less important as the individual finds his own path to God. Indeed, much of the poetry of Rumi and Ibn
‘Arabi that has found such reception in the West deals not on themes of Shari’a
and the Sunna but rather the unfettered ascent towards unity with the divine.
These ideas can be easily accepted by non-Muslims because it does not require a
cultural and religious understanding in the peculiarities of Islamic
doctrine.
Our class itself
has attempted to look at the potential of Sufism to bring about peace through a
process of “embracing harmony perceived through the inward renewal and
transformation of human consciousness.[1]”
This is a dualistic state of peace, as was discussed by Rikhtehgaran “Political
peace is institutional, whereas spiritual peace is existential (pertaining to
the existentiality of human beings).[2]”
The Sufi sense of peace is obtained through an abandonment of the individual
and an enjoining with the infinite.
There is much to
be valued in the concept of Sufism as being a force for peace inasmuch as it
has tried to transform individuals and their relationships with one another.
Part of the strength of this approach is that it is said to transcend
sectarianism and bring individuals towards absolute concepts of existence. The
dictate that you cannot solve a problem without transforming the relationship
is particularly helpful if it indeed can be attributed to Sufi practices.
According to the
argument made in our class, it is through the central tenet of Tawhid that
one overcomes the illusory sense of separate and isolated existence of humans
in order to build a unifying harmony of existence. Rather than trying to
establish well-ordered associations and institutions in the Islamic community,
Sufism attempts to establish the roots of peace in the transcendence of these
very traditions. “Beyond the doctrinal and ideological planes where the oneness
of humanity is stressed, tawhid mediates the direct personal relation to
the Absolute, and the maintenance of harmony with the universe.[3]”
The differences between humans, posits Sufism, is illusory and through mystical
practice we can begin to see the greater unity.
But there arises a
conflict this process of transcendence. How far may one go beyond the bonds of
normal religious practice before leaving the realm of Islamic belief itself?
Many Sufis that have become popular in the West seem to hold the view that
their journey towards harmony is somehow larger than one religion alone. This
is a monistic approach to tolerance and universalism akin to such thinkers as
Ibn ‘Arabi and Inayat Khan. They typify the expansive view of Sufism as having
a character that predates and is not wholly limited to Islam. Ibn ‘Arabi states,
“There was a time when I used to
reject those who were not of my faith. My heart has grown
capable of taking on all forms. A pasture for a gazelles, a convent for Christians. A temple for idols, a Kabba for the pilgrim.
A table for the Torah, a book of
the Koran. My religion is love. Whatever
path the caravan of love shall take,
that path shall be the path of my faith.[4]”
For his part,
Inayat Khan stated,
“"But if the following of Islam
is understood to mean the obligatory adherence to a certain rite; if being a Muslim means conforming to certain
restrictions, how can the Sufi be placed in that category, seeing that the Sufi is beyond all limitations of this
kind?[5]"
This message is
particularly popular to modern progressives in the West because it seems to
posit a pluralist philosophy of Islam. In the light of increasing tensions
between Islam and the West, voices of tolerance and harmony in the Islamic
tradition are ardently sought after. This is, however, not the first time that
interest in Sufism has arisen as a response to sectarian and religious tensions
as we see now in the world. An intense movement towards monistic Sufism has at
various times in history been fashionable in settings of religious plurality
and the need for compromise and harmony. And accordingly, in each of these
circumstances, there has inevitably existed a tension that arises from the
contradiction between universalism and the retention of Islamic principles.
This has been
partly acknowledged by our reading “Sufis have attempted to embody the Qur’anic
injunction to be a “middle people”- inclusively universalist in outlook and
tolerant of the great diversity of humankind.[6]”
But if the thread of Sufi universalism is pulled too hard we may find the
entire fabric unraveled. If we abandon the specific Islamic character of our
religious understanding of Sufism, it ceases to be an Islamic peace paradigm
but rather a type of more general monism. We would like to expand on this
contradiction in order to have a better understanding of Sufi conceptions of
universalism and to look at a certain Sufi scholars particular attempt to
bridge this contradiction. The ideas of Ahmed Sirhindi, an Islamic Sufi scholar
from the Mughal Empire, will serve as our example of creative solutions to this
metaphysical conundrum.
This example in
particular is valuable because the society of the Mughal Empire, especially at
the time of Sirhindi, was increasingly pluralist as we will see. In addition,
Sufism in India played a more influential role in spiritual life than in many
other settings. As Hodgson says,“it was in the land of Indic heritage and in
Islamdom that mysticism became most pervasively popular[7]”
and so should prove to be a good case study of Sufism in climates of
pluralism. During the reign of Akbar the
Great we see a great toleration for religion and a burgeoning mysticism that
blurred the line between several of the religions of the region. I was
surprised to learn that it was a Sufi Islamic Scholar, Ahmed Sirhindi, who
called for a halting of the trend towards universalism in Sufi practice and for
a return to a solidly Islamic groundwork for religious practice.
He is a remarkable
figure in Sufi history as a figure who confronted the limits of Sufi
Universalism in a comprehensive way. Given the common perceptions of Sufism as
the most tolerant strand of Islam, it is surprising to see a Sufi as the voice
of hesitance during an increasingly tolerant period of Islamic practice. It
upsets the most general perceptions of Sufism to see one of its students
calling for a return to orthodoxy in the face of religious tolerance.
Remarkably, Sirhindi known to have given “to Indian Islam the rigid and
conservative stamp it bears today.[8]”
We would like to
analyze his writings as well as the historical circumstances in which he wrote
in order to have a better idea as to how one might find compromise in Sufism
between universalism and Islamic foundations. Hopefully Sirhindi, who wrote
extensively on the subject of Sufi ontology, Shari’a, and other topics, will
provide us with an already well formulated answer to our question. Through this
we hope to have a clearer understanding of the transformational power of Sufism
as still a wholly Islamic peace paradigm. We want to show that there is
a trend in Sufi thought that believes that the highest levels of Sufi spiritual
attainment are in full accordance with the Shari’a. In the pursuit of peace in
this particular Sufi school one does not leave Islam at the highest reaches of
awareness. There is no forging of a difference between ‘institutional peace’ and
‘spiritual peace’ in this path because the latter is predicated on the former.
Hopefully, we will show that spiritual harmony is not obtained by forsaking
institutional religion but through it. This is how Sirhindi proposes to
overcome the problem of universalism and therefore unify institution and
spiritual peace in one all-encompassing system.
The Mughal
Empire under the Reign of Akbar the Great
Akbar the great
came to power at his father’s death in 1556 and found himself in charge of an
incredibly diverse kingdom. He was a Muslim at head of an empire whose majority
was not Muslim. This made the Mughal Empire unlike the military patronage
systems of either Süleyman's or 'Abbas. Although these states had also been
heterogeneous, the Mughal Empire at the ascent of Akbar the Great was
unparalleled in terms of diversity. “Muslims and non-Muslims of every stripe
alternately coexisted and came into conflict—Jacobites (members of the
Monophysite Syrian church), Sufis, Isma'ili Shi'ites, Zoroastrians, Jains, Jesuits,
Jews, and Hindus.[9]” Because of this Akbar would have to juggle
issues of religious plurality to a much greater extent that his Ottoman
counterparts. Forced conversion would have been practically impossible and no
version of the Ottoman millet system would work because of the sheer
number of separate religious and ethnic communities.
His decision was
to allow for an extraordinary level of religious tolerance. He banned the tax
on non-Muslims, the jizya, and allowed the free exercise of religion. To quell
the hostility of the ‘Ulama he tied them closely to the financial system of his
empire. The effect this had on the religious life of his empire was equally
extraordinary. Intercommunalism grew as well as a blurring between the lines of
orthodoxy. Akbar himself contributed to this trend by establishing a religious salon
where issues concerning different faiths were discussed and debated. This forum
was helped in its creation by Akbar’s Sufi advisor and historian Abu al-Fazl[10].
The logical
conclusion of this enthusiastic interest and tolerance of religion on the part
of Akbar the great was the establishment of a syncretic religion which Akbar
designated Dīn-i Ilāhī (the religion of
God). This ‘religion’ was hardly followed and disappeared soon after the death
of Akbar[11] but
nonetheless provides testament to the zeitgeist of Mughal religious toleration
during the reign of Akbar.
In Sufi
communities in the Mughal empire, this trend towards universalism was felt
strongly among its own organizations. “The power of Sufi 
tariqahs like the influential
Chishtis, and of the Hindu mystical movement of Guru Nanak, were already
promoting intercommunal interaction and cross-fertilization.[12]”
Sufism had been popular with the mystical traditions in India for centuries and
had integrated with the Hindu traditions of the Indian subcontinent. For
example, “a section of Sufis under Chistiyya order was not against adjustment
with Hindu saints of Bhakti cult and used even Hindi language for Islamic
devotional songs.[13]” As well “some of the Sufis in India were
brought closer to 
Hindu
mysticism by an overemphasis on the idea of divine unity which became almost
monism—a religiophilosophic perspective according to which there is only one
basic reality, and the distinction between God and the world (and man) tends to
disappear.[14]” The
reign of Akbar only helped to advance this trend.
tariqahs like the influential
Chishtis, and of the Hindu mystical movement of Guru Nanak, were already
promoting intercommunal interaction and cross-fertilization.[12]”
Sufism had been popular with the mystical traditions in India for centuries and
had integrated with the Hindu traditions of the Indian subcontinent. For
example, “a section of Sufis under Chistiyya order was not against adjustment
with Hindu saints of Bhakti cult and used even Hindi language for Islamic
devotional songs.[13]” As well “some of the Sufis in India were
brought closer to Hindu
mysticism by an overemphasis on the idea of divine unity which became almost
monism—a religiophilosophic perspective according to which there is only one
basic reality, and the distinction between God and the world (and man) tends to
disappear.[14]” The
reign of Akbar only helped to advance this trend.
Al-Shaykh Ahmed
Sirhindi
This trend was not
universally praised however. The Sufi scholar Ahmed Sirhindi (b. 1564) once
called Akbar the great “anti-Islamic tyrant.[15]”
He was the “leading figure of the ‘Naqshbandi reaction’against Akbar’s
syncretistic trends[16]”
and wrote extensively in order to halt the trend towards complete assimilation
of Sufism with other religions.
Sirhindi
was not merely attacking Akbar in his work but rather the forces and ideas that
ran counter to his conception of a Sufism based firmly in Islamic
practice. For example, in popular mystic
practice, the Sufi would reach a level in which they perceived a unity of
themselves and God. For example the Sufi Mystic al-Hallaj, once declared
himself to be God “Ana al-Haq.[17]”
This is what is known in Sufi practice as the unity of existence (wahdat
al-wujud) and was a widely-held conception with many Sufi orders. Sirhindi,
displeased with this idea while trying to account for al-Hallaj’s behavior,
introduced the term unity of vision (wahdat al-shuhud) to describe the true
ontological nature of the world which is confused by Sufis when they claim to
be God. These controversial statements by Sufis, according to Sirhindi, comes
from their state of ecstasy which prevents them from seeing anything but God at
these times. This includes their own existence. Sirhindi says of al-Hallaj “He
does not see himself and therefore does not affirm [his own existence] it does
not mean that he sees himself and considers himself God[18]”
This
is an introduction into the work of Sirhindi. Faced with the problems faced by
Muslims with the seeming unrestricted growth of universalism in mysticism he
tried to ground such practice in Islamic foundations. He states, after all,
that on the day of judgement, Muslims will be asked about their adherence to
Shari’a and not about tasawwaf.[19]
Ahmed Sirhindi is widely believed to have embarked on the typical spiritual journey of a Sufi and to have at various times had more open ideas on Sufi universalism. In a typically Sufi fashion, he came to initially uphold visions of belief only the reject then as his ideas matured. He wrote to his teacher the following verses:
Ahmed Sirhindi is widely believed to have embarked on the typical spiritual journey of a Sufi and to have at various times had more open ideas on Sufi universalism. In a typically Sufi fashion, he came to initially uphold visions of belief only the reject then as his ideas matured. He wrote to his teacher the following verses:
“Alas!
The Shari’ah is the religion of the blind…unbelief and belief are the same in
our path.[20]”
These words
correspond to an admiration he held for Ibn ‘Arabi in the early days of his
thought. I would argue that this does not propose a contradiction to his later way
of thinking but rather the natural path that Sufism takes in its quest for
truth. In this way Sirhindi’s more ‘orthodox’ views that he would later espouse
were no less Sufi in character than his initial longing to transcend the bonds
of traditional faith. Indeed we are not trying to claim that Sufi has a
character always nearing universalism until reaching extremes. Rather we wish
merely to deepen our understanding of Sufism as an approach towards the
construction of peace which has organic reactions against its own
dissolution.
It
is said of Sirhindi that “his way parted with that of Ibn Arabi, and he came to
see the correctness of the views of the People of the Sunnah.[21]”
Sirhindi’s views would change as he came to join the Naqshbandi order of Sufis.
From then on he would work through his letters and books to enact a reverse in
the tide of mystical integration. This change in attitude is best catalogued in
a book entitled “Ithbat al-Nabuwah” that he wrote after speaking with Abu
al-Fazl himself over a period of many meetings in the royal court and soon
before joining the Naqshabandi order. It is the first sign that Sirhindi is not
only reacting against his own slip towards monism but against the trend
throughout all of India. In the beginning he discusses the deteriorating
situation of Islam in India “belief in prophecy is on the wane, and so is the
[people’s] compliance with the shari’a.[22]”
His
contention is that this deterioration comes from the distance of his
compatriots from the history of prophecy as well as the menacing influences of
science, philosophy, and the books of Indian sages.
These ideas,
specifically that of the connection of Sufism to Islamic foundations, came to
greater fruition when Sirhindi had joined the Naqshabandi. Just a survey of his
known sayings gives a general impression of that connection inside Sirhindi’s
thought. “Go study your lesson, because an ignorant Sufi is the fool of Satan[23].” “Any Sufi experience that is rejected by the
Shari’a is heresy.[24]”
Friedmann summarizes his thought this way: “He urges his disciples to read
books on fiqh and affirms that Sufi experience is inferior to the
Shari’a and not vice versa, because Shari’a is based on incontrovertible proof,
while Sufi experience is a result of fallible speculation only[25]”
Sirhindi shows an irritancy for those who think that Shari’a is superfluous to
the true quest for harmony with the divine.
Indeed, Sirhindi
considers Shari’a of tantamount importance to the spiritual practice of any
Sufi. In his book Maktubat, there is an epistle that tries to make the
argument to a high official in the Mughal court that adherence to the Shari’a
is not a complex and difficult practice but rather consists of easy mandates
which serve only to benefit the Muslim. He “concludes, saying that if anyone
finds the Shari’a onerous, despite all this, he doubtlessly suffers from an
affliction of the heart.[26]” We see here his insistence of a background in
Shari’a as both elementary and essential in the practice of a Sufi. We must
keep in mind that this harsh tone came after his admission into the
Naqshabandi order. This is to remind us that his point of view did not manifest
from orthodox notions he gained outside of Sufi thought, but rather emerged
organically from inside the Sufi philosophical system. From the style of his discourse, as he speaks
of the Shari’a as having both a manifest (zahir) and hidden (batin) character,
it is evident that his thinking is still very much Sufi.
It is in this
splitting of Shari’a into Sufi categories that we see the most direct attempt
on the part of Sirhindi towards enjoining the universalizing and Islamic
aspects of Sufism. He talks first about adhering to Shari’a without compromise
using the following Sufi analogy: “an ardent lover can brook no compromise with
his rivals.[27]” That
is to say, in looking for connection and intimacy with God, one can not allow
competing viewpoints and methods to get in the way. Only God’s law as
prescribed in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah are the faithful path towards God.
Any other path is letting the purity and faithfulness of practice be distorted.
This faithful path
to God is the Shari’a, which Sirhindi dissects into Sufi categories by means of
talking about the Sufi’s spiritual journey. He says that if one is to rise to
the level of the sphere of the possible (silsila-yi mumkinat), i.e. the higher
stages of ecstatic consciousness, one must first make the spiritual ascent
through the sphere of the necessary (maratib-i wujub). The ‘necessary’ for him
is the Usul al-din: the foundations of the Islamic religion. Only by ascending through the correct path of
Shari’a can a Sufi reach the water of life (ab-i hayat) which is a mystical
world separate from our own but free from sin (and so in accordance with the
Shari’a)[28].
The specific
purpose of this is to posit a process of Sufi spiritualism that may flourish to
the expansive extent that other forms of Sufi mysticism would without violating
Islamic principles. This is done by having established from the beginning a
thorough understanding of Islamic law and to adhere to it so that in higher
stages of spiritual progress there is no danger of violating faithful adherence
to the preferred path ordained by God (Islam). Sirhindi calls this state of
accordance with the Shari’a, even in transcendent states of consciousness, mahfuz.
This is not an easy state and Sirhindi is quick to point out that few ever
reach it. It is only “the perfect ones [who] are capable of maintaining the
Shari’a in its entirety at this stage.[29]” Again, to use Naqshbandi travel-imagery, the
best of those to follow the tariqa as prescribed by Sirhindi are those
who first ‘annihilate themselves’ in the Shari’a (al-fana’ fi al-shari’a)[30].
This is important
for Sirhindi partly because he believes that the majority of believers
(al-‘amoom) will never ascend to such levels of spiritual enlightenment, and
must not think that there is some other path other than the Shari’a in order to
harmonize with the divine. In his view, one cannot let people think there is an
alternative to Shari’a and so abandon the only true path to salvation.
Mysticism is to be only the practice of the spiritually elite but must not be
interpreted by the masses as some ‘shortcut’ or substitute for orthodox
practice and belief.
Beyond this
justification, Sirhindi considers this normal type of practice superior even to
Sufis. Sirhindi uses the controversy
over sainthood vs. prophecy to elucidate the superiority of prophecy and
therefore superiority of God’s law on Earth, the Shari’a, the the ‘Ulama who study
and profess it. In Sufi debates and discussion, many Sufi’s had preferred the
concept of Sainthood (waliya) to
Prophecy (nubuwah) because it was a
state in which the individual was closest to God rather than being involved
with the troubles of people and the World[31].
They idealized a state above the regular motions of the World in which their
faith was most acute and took the figure of the saint to represent this. But
according to Sirhindi, “the movement of God is, however, exactly opposite to
theirs, for He, far from remaining content with the spiritual realm, has cast
His shadow on this earthly realm…The reason is that it is this “earth” which
has the potential for transformation, and, when it is transformed, it far
outstrips the realm of the spirit.[32]”
Spiritual transformation has its greatest potential not in perfection but in
strife, according to Sirhindi.
This is another
reassertion of the superiority of Shari’a and its primacy in the spiritual
journey of a Sufi. The prophecy of Muhammad, who delivered the Shari’a, is so
highly valuable because it attempts to bring into harmony that which is in the
most disarray. The Shari’a is a symbol of the quest for transformation on this
Earth. It is far beyond the subjective experience of a single Sufi because it
“brings out the uniqueness of the prophetic experience (which, he insists, is
qualitatively different from the mystic experience) and the centrality of
Shari’a values.[33]”
This is a powerful
conclusion because it reasserts the foundations of Islam as being superior to
the subjective experience of any Sufi in the mystical realm. In his logic, the
best mystical experience one could have would be firmly rooted in the prior
work of the prophets who, in their involvement in the physical world, had a far
more transformative effect than someone merely seeking the perfection of
divinity.
Conclusion
Sirhindi was not
trying to disband Sufi practice but rather integrate and bring it into harmony
with Sunni thought. Neither was our goal in this paper to show how we can use
Sufism to get out of the tricky situation of Islamic orthodoxy (i.e. to trump
it with claims to direct divine connection). Instead we wish merely to show
that Sufi thinkers have tackled the question of Universalism in their own
right. One cannot dismiss the particular inconsistencies of the Shari’a with
other religions by mere claims to universalism, according to Sirhindi. The
Shari’a represents divine wisdom at its highest level and any attempt to
spiritually surmount it will bring you back to where you started. For us in the
West, if we want to imagine the possibilities for Sufism as a means for
tolerance and harmony, we must then understand and respect what it has
articulated as its religious/ontological limits.
In our own study
of Islamic peace paradigms all of this helps to not only judge the proper
limits of universalism in the Sufi system but at the same time praise efforts
to change real relationships in this world as the highest form of
transcendence. Ahmed Sirhindi represents a powerful argument for the Islamic
relationship to Sufi practice.
Firstly we
understand that any spiritual journey taken by a Sufi that claims to go beyond
the bounds of Islamic principles, like that of wahdat al-wujud, is not more
than subjectively true. If a Sufi claims to have transcended the distinction
between himself and God, for instance, he is in fact perceiving God in light of
the denial of his own existence. This can be summarized by saying that the idea
of Wahdat al-shuhud retains the
ultimately Islamic nature of the universe that could perhaps be challenged by
claims made in the vein of wahdat
al-wujud.
Secondly, Sirhindi
establishes a spiritual teleology for Sufis that is contingent on Shari’a. In
order for a Sufi to reach levels of personal annihilation he must first be
annihilated through the Shari’a and therefore obtain a condition of moral
protection (he will be Mahfuz) when
at higher levels of spiritual progress. Thirdly he establishes the primacy of
Shari’a to subjective Sufi experience (he justifies the necessity of Shari’a in
spiritual growth) by comparing the two to the relationship between Sainthood (waliya) and Prophecy (nubuwah).
This is all done
to establish an Islamic ontology of Sufism that stays at all points in
accordance with Islamic tenants. We can now understand how one could elevate
themselves to the highest reaches of mystical experience while still remaining
in a protected state of Islamic concordance. In a Sufi’s quest for spiritual
harmony, he is at all times functioning under the same principles as the less
spiritually inclined believers. His spiritual growth is an addition, not an
abrogation, of the Shari’a and Islamic practice in general.
Now when
considering Sufism as a path towards peace, we can value it not because it dissolves
the tenants of Islam and therefore is truly universal[34].
Instead, we value it because it sees the highest form of spiritual attainment
to be that of involvement with the real World. Rather than a withdrawal from
the World in order to seek abstraction and therefore a harmony with the divine,
Sirhindi posits a form of Sufism that begins with the substance of Islam and
returns at its highest level back to this very basis. When we hope to find an
ontology of unity in Sufism, we need look no further than the wisdom of the
Shari’a. We therefore disagree with Rikhtehgaran in his differentiation of
institutional peace and spiritual peace.
“Therefore
institutional peace pertains only to the social aspects of the human being. It
signifies the station in which one associates with people. Spiritual peace,
however, indicates the station in which the traveller on the spiritual path, as
he associates himself with people, keeps his heart aloof from them.”
In Sirhindi’s
view, it is only a Sufi who has not completed his spiritual potential who sees
aloofness from mankind as somehow being closer to God. The truest form of
spiritual peace is that of socialization with the Shari’a and therefore a
concord with the Islamic community on Earth. The highest spiritual accomplishment
comes from the making of peace between the community, by following in the
spirit of prophecy, rather than the asceticism and isolation of the saint. If
we were to expand this we may find the Sufi paradigm of peace to be the one
most concerned with social and communal justice while at the same time reaching
towards a clearer vision of the divine. This, I think, would serve only to
strengthen the power of Sufism as an instrument for peace.
WORKS CITED
Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian
Environment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.
Corbin, Henry.
“Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn `Arabi.” Journal of Religion and
Health. 1969.
Friedmann,
Yohanan. Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. An Outline of His Thought.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 1971.
"Islamic world." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 4 Dec. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26939
Makhan Lal Roy
Choudhury The Din-i-Ilahi or the
Religion of Akbar. Calcutta: Dasgupta & Co., 1952.
Markovitz, Claude,
ed. A History of Modern India. New York: Athen P, 2002.
Marshall Hodgson, The
Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Volume Two:
The Expanision of Islam in the Middle Periods. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
Massignon-Kraus, Akhbar
al-Hallaj. Paris, 1936.
Qureshi, Ishtiaq
Husein. The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent. The
Hague, 1962.
Rahman, Fazlur.
“Islamic Thought in the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent and the Middle East” Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1973.
|
Rikhtehgaran, Mohammad. "The Sufi Paradigm of Peace-Making." Culture
of Peace. 5 Dec. 2007
|
Rizvi, Saiyid
Athar Abbar. Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's
Reign: With Special Reference to Abu'l Fazl. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1975.
Said, Abdul Aziz,
Nathan Funk and Ayse Kadayifci. “Peace in the Sufi tradition: an Ecology of the
Spirit” Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam: Peace and Practice. New
York: University Press of America, 2001
Schimmel
Annemarie. “The Sufi Ideas of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi” Die Welt des Islams: 1973.
Sirhindi, Shaykh
Ahmad. Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani. Lucknow: Dehli AH: 1889.
Shelquist,
Richard. "The Spiritual Message Of." Hazrat Inayat Khan.
Wahiduddin's Web. 5 Dec. 2007 .
Witteveen, , H.J. Universal Sufism New York: Element Books Ltd , 1997
[1] Said, Abdul Aziz, Nathan Funk and
Ayse Kadayifci. Peace and Conflict
Resolution in Islam: Peace and Practice. New York: University Press of
America, 2001. p. 21
[3] Said, Abdul Aziz, Nathan Funk and
Ayse Kadayifci. “Peace in the Sufi tradition: an Ecology of the Spirit” Peace
and Conflict Resolution in Islam: Peace and Practice. New York: University
Press of America, 2001. p. 247
Corbin,
Henry. “Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn `Arabi.” Journal of Religion
and Health. 1969.
. p.
151
[5] Shelquist, Richard. "The
Spiritual Message Of." Hazrat Inayat Khan. Wahiduddin's Web. 5 Dec.
2007 .
[6] Said, Abdul Aziz p. 257
[7] Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of
Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Volume Two: The
Expanision of Islam in the Middle Periods. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1974. p. 201
[8] Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic
Culture in the Indian Environment, Oxford University Press, 1964, p.189
[9] "Islamic
world." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 4
Dec. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26939
[10] Rizvi, Saiyid Athar Abbar. Religious
and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign: With Special
Reference to Abu'l Fazl. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., 1975.
[11] Makhan Lal Roy Choudhury The Din-i-Ilahi or the Religion of Akbar.
Calcutta: Dasgupta & Co., 1952. p.45
[12] “Islamic World”
[13] Markovitz, Claude, ed. A History
of Modern India. New York: Athen P, 2002. p. 122
[14] “Islamic World”
[15] Schimmel Annemarie. “The Sufi Ideas
of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi” Die Welt des Islams: 1973. p. 201
[16] ibid 199.
[17] Massignon-Kraus, Akhbar al-Hallaj.
Paris, 1936. p. 66
[18] Sirhindi, Shaykh Ahmad. Maktubat-i
Imam-i Rabbani. Lucknow: Dehli AH: 1889. p.57
[19] Ibid .66.
[20] Qureshi, Ishtiaq Husein. The
Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent. The Hague, 1962. p. 151
[21] Ibid 412
[22] Friedmann, Yohanan. Shaykh Ahmad
Sirhindi. An Outline of His Thought. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1971.
[23] Sirhindi 66.
[24] Ibid 59.
[25] Friedmann 41.
[26] Sirhindi 189
[27] Sirhindi 168
[28] Friedmann 45
[29] Sirhindi 175
[30] ibid 100
[31] Friedmann 33.
[32] Rahman, Fazlur. “Islamic Thought in
the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent and the Middle East” Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 1973.
p. 197
[33] Ibid.
Comments