7/27/2019 Role of Sufis in Converting Hindus

1/3

Raziuddin Aquil, ed. Sufism and Society in Medieval India. Debates in Indian History and Society Series. New Delhi:Oxford University Press, 2010. xxiv + 184 pp. $45.50 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-806444-2.

Reviewed by Usha Sanyal (eens University of Charloe)Published on H-Asia (November, 2011)Commissioned by Sumit Guha

e Role of Medieval Sufis in Converting Hindus

is is an interesting collection of essayson aspects ofSufism during the twelh through eighteenth centuries

by well-known scholars in the field, such as K. A. Nizami,J. M. S. Baljon, and Simon Digby, among others. Allnine essays have been published previously. ey arebrought together here, along with an introductory essayby Raziuddin Aquil, the editor, as part of Oxford Univer-sity Presss Debates in Indian History and Society series.ematically, many of the essays are concerned with therole of Sufis in the subcontinent in Islamization and con-version of Hindus to Islam, with the authors taking dif-ferent stands on the issue. Subsidiary sets of issues relateto Sufis and their relation to the state and to possessionof wealth and property, as well as relations between dif-ferent Sufi orders and between Sufis and scholars of Is-

lamic law (the ulama), language, and social class. One es-say, by Richard M. Eaton, deals with the role of womenssongs in transmiing Sufi ideas to illiterate villagers inthe seventeenth-century Deccan.

Aquil frames the primary concern of the book,namely, the roles that medieval Sufis played in the con-version of Hindus to Islam, in historiographic terms byfocusing on the perspectives of the essay writers them-selves. Broadly, Aquil sees three distinct scholarly posi-tions: those whose writings emphasize the plural-istic character of Indian society and the commendablerole of Sufis in providing a practical framework for com-

munal harmony (essays by Nizami, S. A. A. Rizvi, andCarl W. Ernst, in Aquils view, belong in this group);those who adopt a more empirically sustainable ap-proach even while remaining commied to the idea ofsecularism and such other virtues expected from histo-rians in Indian academia (in this group, he places thecontributions by Eaton, Digby, and Muzaffar Alam); andthose who take a Muslim separatist position (the onlyexample in the volume is the piece by Aziz Ahmad) (p.x). On the one hand, Aquil expresses strong disagree-

ment with Ahmad, writing that he offers a somewhatcynical interpretation marred by his separatist outlook,

which, in turn, was influenced by the post-Partition Mus-lim predicament in the Indian subcontinent (p. xv). Onthe other hand, Aquil feels that Nizami, for example,is prone to making broad generalizations, characteriz-ing the ulama as conservative and reactionary theolo-gians, [leaving] the Sufis to rise to the occasion, releas-ing syncretic forces which liquidated social, ideological,and linguistic barriers between Hindus and Muslims forbuilding a common cultural outlook. In contrast, Aquilclearly esteems the work of those he terms empiricist,describing the essay by Alam, for example, as a balancedand empirically dense argument on the question of com-munity relations (p. xvi). Seen in this light, the essays

not only offer different perspectives on the roles of Sufisin medieval India, but also illustrate different academicapproaches, over the past fiy years, to that history.

Four essays (by Nizami, Eaton, Ernst, and Digby) dealwith Sufis of the Chishti order. Two others (by Ahmadand Rizvi) also do so, though more generally as part ofan overview of Sufism in the medieval period. Whywere the Chishtis so important? As Digby explains, theChishtis rose to prominence during the Delhi Sultanate(1192-1398) in large part because they possessed the his-torical advantage of ascendancy at a particular mo-ment in the development of the capital city [Delhi] of a

great kingdom when the ideologues and the writersnamely, Amir Khusrau, Amir Hasan, and the historianZiya al-Din Baraniexpressed their allegiance to Nizamal-Din (d. 1325), and wrote about him in works that werewidely disseminated and became very popular over time(p. 136). Without these panegyrists, Digby argues, theChishtis would never have occupied center stage in Sul-tanate Delhi.

In this context, geography was key, given that Nizamal-Dins Sufi hospice (khanqah) was located in Delhi, the

1

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198064446http://www.h-net.org/reviews/

7/27/2019 Role of Sufis in Converting Hindus

2/3

H-Net Reviews

capital city. Each Sufi shaikh claimed wilayaor spiritualauthority over a specific territory. Claims to such author-ity, Digby writes, were vigorously and actively pursued

by shaikhs in Khurasan in the eleventh and twelh cen-turies. In the Delhi Sultanate this notion of the territo-rial wilayat of a Shaikh led, at the beginning of the four-teenth century, to the common identification of ShaikhNizam-al-Din of the Chishti silsila [Sufi order] with thewell-being and fortunes of the capital city of Delhi andthe realm over which it held sway (p. 126). Althoughthese spiritual claims were contested by other Sufi orders,the ulama, and the sultans themselves, over time Nizamal-Dins tomb-shrine in Delhi permanently affectedthe historical consciousness of Muslims in the subcon-tinent and furthered the notion of a special positionof the Chishti silsilain the establishment of the enduring

Muslim presence in India (p. 127). e status and signif-icance of the other great Chishti mastersparticularlythat of Muin al-Din (d. 1230) of Ajmer, the founder ofthe order, but others as wellwere magnified in order tosupport the legend of Nizam al-Din. Here again, geogra-phy was significant, for Ajmer was an outpost, a frontier,which, once associated with the Chishti founder, becamecentral to the story of Indias Islamization.

As Aquil points out, many of the authors disagreeabout the Sufis role in converting the local population toIslam. Nizami argues that the Chishti sheikhs aractedlow-caste Hindu converts in rural India, away from the

centers of political power, by the force of their spiritu-ality and egalitarianism. Focusing on the Chishti idealsof social service, nonpossession of material goods, paci-fism and nonviolence, disassociation from the state, andrefusal to accept grants of land, Nizami argues that theearly Chishti saints of India did not form a part of theDelhi Empire. ey formed a world of their own. econtamination of court life could not touch their spiri-tual serenity and classless atmosphere (p. 24).

Ahmad posits a series of transformations in the dif-ferent orders aitudes toward Hinduism, which beginswith hostility, passes through a phase of co-existenceand culminates in tolerance and understanding (p. 47).However, the essay itself does not do a good job of illus-trating this series of phases. While Ahmad does discussdifferences between the aitudes of early Chishti Sufisand those who came aer Nizam al-Din, his discussionof the Naqshbandi, Shaari, and Qadiri orders is ratherstatic.

Rizvis essay is a brief overview of different histori-cal epochs. Peaceful proselytization by Arab traders inGujarat and Malabar, who married Hindu women and

brought up their children as Muslims, was followed bypolitical conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim in the eighthcentury and further conquests by subsequent sultanates.

In general, the sultans concentrated on the tribal chief-tains and Brahmins, hoping that converting them wouldlead to large-scale conversions at the local level. How-ever, in Rizvis view, this policy was not very successfulbecause most of [the] converts apostatized (p. 57). Onlywar captives, who had no choice in the maer, converted.

Rizvi includes an interesting discussion of Ismaili re-sistance to the raids and killings by Mahmud of Ghazni.He disagrees with historian Muhammad Habib that therewas a landslide in favour of the new faith during Nizamal-Dins era (p. 59). He also disagrees with Sir omasArnold that Sufis were responsible for the wholesaleconversion of Hindus, though Muin al-Din converted alarge number of Hindus, presumably low-caste ones (pp.59-60). But he continues: e Chishti interest in the bet-terment of Hindus and of the untouchables among themas is claimed by modern Muslims, is a figment of theirimagination (p. 62). Indeed, apart from the mother ofFarid al-Din (d. 1265) and Gisu Daraz (d. 1422), who en-gaged in conversion, Rizvi believes, none of the ChishtiSufis was interested in doing so. e state policy of con-version was terminated by Akbar in the sixteenth cen-tury.

Eatons essay maintains that part of the problem with

understanding how conversion occurred in medieval In-dia arises from the fact that historians have been look-ing at elite, esoteric forms of Sufi discourse, which werenever meant to be widely disseminated in society at large.What sense could ordinary village folk, such as cooncarders and barbers, possibly make of an abstract sys-tem of mystical stages and states requiring an immensedegree of intellectual and spiritual discipline (p. 70)?-To understand how knowledge of Islamic precepts spreadbeyond the limited circle of Sufi initiates, Eaton looksat folk literature in the medieval Deccan. Short poemssung by women while doing household choresspinningthread, grinding food grains, rocking a child to sleeptouch on elements of Sufi doctrine in simple terms, inthe vernacular Dakkani spoken by everyone. Devotionto God and respect for ones pir [spiritual guide] areconstant themes of this literature (p. 73). Eaton alsoshows how the process of Islamization was furthered bywomens visits to dargahs(Sufi tomb complexes) and bytheir concern with childbirth and fertility more generally.

Ernst deals with the question of conversion with ref-

2

7/27/2019 Role of Sufis in Converting Hindus

3/3

H-Net Reviews

erence to the Chishtis of Khuldabad, in Maharashtra (notfar from Aurangabad). Like Eaton, he too emphasizes theelite nature of Sufi discourse in malfuzat [anecdote col-

lection] texts, among others. He notes that apart from theoccasional mention of yogis, these texts make no mentionof Hindus whatsoever. Hindus are only mentioned in apolitical context, which had no religious significance asfar as Sufis were concerned. Ernst therefore concludesthat although the medieval Sufis of Khuldabad lived inan Indian environment and adopted certain features ofIndian culture, such as Indian poetry and the practiceof eating pan, they lived in a world apart, one that wasclosed to most of the people around them. is argumentis reminiscent of Nizami when he writes that the Sufislived in a world of their own, though Ernsts discussionis historically grounded in a way not found in Nizami (p.

24).ree essays address other Sufi orders and periods:

Yohannan Friedmanns is excerpted from his larger studyof Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624), and argues thatSirhindi seldom talked about Hindus in his correspon-dence, indicating that he was indifferent to them. How-ever, he was hostile to their participation in the Mughalgovernment, and expressed these views forcefully in let-tershe wrote to Mughal officials. Baljons essay discussesShah Wali Allahs (d. 1762) views on the visitation of Sufitomb-shrines, showing how these views changed overtime. Because Shah Wali Allah had been brought up ina home where such visitation was common practice, hesaw no objection to it initially. But in his middle yearsinfluenced, Baljon writes, by the writings of Ibn Taimiyya(d. 1328)he became more critical of the practice, and bythe end of his life, he was sharply critical of it and of be-lief in the miraculous powers of dead Sufipirs. But unlikeIbn Taimiyya, he never condemned the practice of visit-ing the Prophets grave in Medina.

Alams essay, the last in the book, deals with the com-plex relations between Muslims and Hindus in Awadh inthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, exploring the

economic and political relations between Rajputs, localzamindars, and Muslim gentry in the countryside. Hehighlights the importance of the Sufi concept of wah-dat al-wujud (unity of being) in Awadh, particularly asseen through the life of a Qadiri soldier-Sufi, Sayyid ShahAbd al-Razzaq Bansawi, who founded a Qadiri hospice inBansa, near Lucknow, in the eighteenth century. Ban-sawi had cordial relations with Hindus and malamatis(Sufis who flouted the sharia), among others, thoughhe himself, Alam believes, adhered strictly to the limitsof the sharia. In my view, the essay would have beenstronger if the author had included direct source mate-rial to illustrate his many-sided arguments, and refrained

from the use of such labels as liberal, reconciliatory,syncretism, and resilient Islam (pp. 163, 171). esecharacterizations oen marred for me an otherwise fas-cinating topic.

Although this slim volume does a good job of illumi-nating academic discussion of the role of Indian Sufis inconversion during the twelh through eighteenth cen-turies and particularly illustrates the importance of theChishti order during the Sultanate period, I would cri-tique the title Sufism and Society in Medieval India. ebooks overarching concern is to explore Hindu-Muslimrelations, in particular efforts at the conversion of Hindusby Sufis aer the Muslim conquest of India in the twelhcentury. is is a much narrower lens than is implied bySufism and Society, and one grounded in the contem-porary, post-Partition politics of India and Pakistan. Ina sense, then, it engages in the very dynamics that Aquilsees animating the work of some of the historians pre-sented in the book.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the list discussion logs at:hp://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl.

Citation: Usha Sanyal. Review of Aquil, Raziuddin, ed., Sufism and Society in Medieval India. H-Asia, H-Net Reviews.

November, 2011.URL: hp://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32240

is work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

3

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=32240http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl