Sharī‛at and ‛ulamā in Amad Sirhindī’s Collected Letters

Arthur F. Buehler, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

Introduction
The overarching inquiry for the subject of this article involves the dynamics of the
transregional development of the Naqshbandī lineage. Originally, a Central Asian ūfī lineage
named after its founder-figure, Bahā’uddīn Naqshband (d. 1389 in Bukhara),1 the
Naqshbandiyya subsequently became transformed by Amad Sirhindī (d. 1624 in Sirhind, India),
the founder-figure of the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya lineage,2 and Khālid al-Kurdī/al-
Baghdādī (d. 1827 in Damascus), the founder-figure of the Naqshbandiyya-Khālidiyya lineage.
The working hypothesis here is that the frequently close relationship between the Mujaddidiyya
and the Sublime Porte, involved Ottoman ‛ulamā networks.3 Mujaddidīs among these ‛ulamā’
then utilized the textual authority of Sirhindī’s explicitly Sunnī Collected Letters (Maktūbāt),
which bolstered their own individual authority, as the text itself reinforced Ottoman Sunnī
identity and authority.4 Sirhindī’s letters were translated from the Persian into Ottoman Turkish
during the 18th century.5 Using such ideological resources, among others, the Ottoman
Mujaddidiyya, originally an Indian lineage, supplanted the original Naqshbandiyya of Istanbul.
This article is a preliminary foray exploring Sirhindī’s ideas concerning sharī‛a (Per. sharī‛at),

1
This article has been revised from its original oral presentation at the panel organized by Professor Abu-Manneh of
Haifa University at the World Organization for Middle Eastern Studies Conference, 9 September 2002. The final
revision benefited considerably from Stefan Reichmuth’s feedback. All dates in this paper are those of the Common
Era (C.E.).
2
Mujaddidī comes from Sirhindī’s followers proclaiming him “mujaddid-i alf-i thānī,” that is, the “Renewer of the
second Islamic millennium.”
3
See the article by Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, “‛Abd al-Ghanī an-Nābulusī and his Turkish disciples,” in Abdeljelil
Temimi (ed.), Les actes du IIIe Symposium International de Études Ottomanes: La vie intellectuelle dans les
provinces arabes à l’époque ottomane, Tome 3 (Zaghouan, 1990), pp. 107-112. Professor Stefan Reichmuth kindly
brought this article to my attention. A noteworthy study on ‛ulamā networks and the Naqshbandiyya-Khālidiyya in
Damascus is Itzchak Weismann, Taste of Modernity: Sufism, Salafiyya, & Arabism in Late Ottoman Damascus
(Leiden: Brill, 2001).
4
Many secondary sources point to Naqshbandī (including Mujaddidī and Khālidī) political involvement. For
example, see Hamid Algar, “Political Aspects of Naqshbandī History” in Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre Popovic, and
Thierry Zarcone, eds., Naqshbandīs (Istanbul/Paris: Éditions Isis), pp. 123-152, especially pp. 129-130; 140-142.
The documented use of the Maktūbāt has yet to be researched.
5
Maktūbāt tarjaması, trans., Sulaymān Sa‛d al-Dīn b. Muammad Mustaqīmzāda (Istanbul, n.p. 1860) The Maktūbāt
was subsequently translated into Arabic in the nineteenth century by Muammad Murād al-Manzāwī/al-Qazānī,
Maktūbāt: al-durar al-maknūnāt al-nafīsa, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Maktabat al-Mamūdiyya, n.d.).
 2

its relationship to sufism, and the ‛ulamā.6 In this endeavor, I seek to explore the juridical
perspectives of Amad Sirhindī’s worldview, i.e., aspects of his thinking that would likely
enhance patronage of Mujaddidīs in an Ottoman context.7
A. The Primacy of Prophethood (nubūwat) over Closeness to God (walāyat)8
There is a basic structural relationship in Sirhindī’s worldview in which the sphere of
prophethood is ontologically superior to that of walāyat, closeness to God. The goal is to be like
the Companions or better yet, prophet-like through following the sunnat and sharī‛at. If we look
at the parts rather than the whole then, as Sirhindī says, the path to Reality (ariqat) and Reality
(aqīqat) are the servants of the sharī‛at.9 Intimacy with God (walāyat) , intoxication, annihilation
in God (fanā’), and existential unity (wadat al-wujūd) are associated with the arīqat and
aqīqat. Prophethood, sobriety, remaining in God (baqā’), and testimonial unity (wadat al-
shuhūd) are associated with sharī‛at. The vast majority of ūfīs, according to Sirhindī, have been
those associated with walāyat and, according to him, this is only the preliminary yet important

6
Since the Maktūbāt were overwhelmingly written in Persian and much of this article is taken from the Maktūbāt, I
use the Persian versions of Arabic words, e.g., sharī‛at rather than sharī‛a. To aid in this task of researching
transregional textual transmission, there is a recently published set of eight indexes keyed to the Nūr Amad edition
of the Maktūbāt, Arthur F. Buehler, Fihāris-i talīlī-yi hashtgāna-yi maktūbāt-i Amad Sirhindī (Lahore: Iqbal
Academy, 2000). I am also working on a partial translation of Sirhindī’s Maktūbāt dealing with the relationship
between sufism and sharī‛at to be published in the Classics of Western Spirituality Series of Paulist Press. The
translations of the Maktūbāt in this article come from that project.
7
From Sirhindī’s perspective, the ūfī /religious scholar issue is a false dichotomy. I am not contesting the Western
scholarly consensus [Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Amad Sirhindī: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His
Image (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000) and J.G.T. ter Haar, Follower and Heir of the Prophet: Shaykh
Amad Sirhindī (1564-1624) as Mystic (Leiden: Het Oosters Instituut, 1992)] that Sirhindī was first and foremost a
ūfī. Indeed, Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh (d. 1824 Delhi), a major Mujaddidī shaykh (the spiritual director of Khālid Baghdādī
whose lineage supplanted the Mujaddidiyya in Istanbul), has explicitly said the same. See Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh,
Shar-i durr al-ma‛ārif: minhāj al-rāghibayn ilā maktūbāt imām al-muttaqīn imām rabbānī mujaddid-i alf-i thānī,
ed. Ayyūb Ganjī, (Sanandaj, Iran: Intishārāt-i Kurdistān, 1997), p. 127. This easy-to-use text has the conversations
of Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh (malfūāt), Durr al-ma‛ārif, in printed form with short commentaries by the editor. I am
indebted to Dr. Necdet Tosun of Marmara University for making a copy of this book available.
8
Muhammad Abdul Haq Ansari, Sufism and Sharī‛ah: A Study of Shaykh Amad Sirhindī’s Effort to Reform Sufism
(Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation, 1986) discusses these issues in a section entitled, “The Saintly Way and the
Prophetic Way” on pp. 63-70. Ansari’s pioneering work on Sirhindī’s Maktūbāt is useful to those who cannot read
the original. My general experience is that his reading of Sirhindī is not nuanced. Perhaps this is because his use of
English vocabulary does not match the preciseness of Sirhindī’s writing. Examples of this tendency include his
discussion of walāyat on the bottom of ibid. p. 63 that do not specify which walāyat (cf. fn 26 below). His black and
white discussion of “abolishing or not abolishing dualism” (the former designating the path of the walī and the latter
portraying that of the prophet) fails to recognize that the prophetic path involves both unity and dualism, a qualified
non-dualism, ibid. p. 64. Where his valuable work comparatively supplements the topics of this paper they are cited.
9
Amad Sirhindī, Maktūbāt-i Imām-i Rabbānī, ed., Nūr Amad, 3 vols. (Karachi: Educational Press, 1972),1.36:98
(volume number. letter number: page number). Cf. Ansari, Sufism, 221-222.
 3

part of the journey.10 Such an ontological hierarchy puts an emphasis on Qur’ān, Hadith, and
jurisprudence while privileging ‛ulamā.
Let’s explore the primacy of the sharī‛at for Sirhindī. There are the well-known four
sources for the sharī‛at: Qur’ān, Hadith, analogy, and consensus. Sirhindī posits four sources for
sufism: inspiration [ilhām], illuminations [sing. kashf], states (awāl sing. āl) and ecstasy [wajd].11
These latter sources for sufism are not even half as trustworthy as the sharī‛at sources according
to Sirhindī.12 “The fruits of the reality of sharī‛at are the perfections of prophethood; sharī‛at
comes from the level of prophethood.”13
If we look at Sirhindī’s view holistically, we find that there is only one domain: the
sharī‛at. He defines sharī‛at as being equal to the sum of islām, īmān, and isān -- analogous to
dīn in Gabriel’s hadith.14 The sharī‛at is the locus or organizing principle for all of Islamic life.
Nothing really is outside of the sharī‛at.15 “Until these three dimensions of the sharī‛at are
experienced then one cannot say that the sharī‛at is confirmed. When it is, one reaches
satisfaction of God. Perfection of the sharī‛at is isān. ūfīs who have visions and traverse the
stages and end in the station of satisfaction are shut off from the perspective of the sharī‛at.”16
“aqīqat and ariqat are the path and reality of sharī‛at; sharī‛at is not distinct from aqiqat and
arīqat or vice versa – that is apostasy and infidelity,” says Sirhindī.17 “Can one reach a station
such that one steps out of the circle of sharī‛at? This is not a question based on experience but
one formulated in the imagination. What is the meaning to be stepping out of the absolute or
essence of the sharī‛at [there is no place to step out to unless it is apostasy]. The essence of the
sharī‛at is not beyond the soul (rū) or heart (qalb) subtle centers (sing. laīfa, laā’if) [i.e., in the
arcane (khafī) and super arcane (akhfā) subtle centers].”18

10
This is the third degree (of seven degrees) of imitating the Prophet; see below.
11
Note Ansari’s discussion in this regard. Sufism, pp. 71-72; 77-80, and a partial translation of one of Sirhindī’s
letters, pp. 208-210.
12
Maktūbāt 1.217:125
13
Ibid. 2.50:137.
14
Note Ansari’s discussion and translation of another letter in this regard. Sufism, p. 71.
15
Maktūbāt. 1.40:104.
16
Ibid. 1.36:98. Note that the sharī‛at is on the path of nubūwat, not on the path of walāyat.
17
Ibid. 1.57:30. Here is the tension between intoxication of annihilation in God, privileging an ascent beyond
consensus reality (fanā’ fi’llāh) - and the sobriety of remaining in God (baqā’ bi’llāh) a descent from the intoxicated
heights, firmly rooted in everyday life.
18
Ibid. 1.172.59
 4

He asks, “What do people know of the perfections of the sharī‛at? They parrot the
dualistic clichés of kernel and shell [i.e., the sharī‛at being the shell and the aqīqat being the
kernel] and are proud of intoxicated ūfīs and fascinated with states and stations.”19 “They deny
all the experience of the sharī‛at that comes from the essence of the sharī‛at.”20
It is almost as if he is addressing some new-age versions of sufism. We can see that
Sirhindī’s notion is a very human-centered notion of reality where there is no separate arīqat,
aqīqat, or sharī‛at – only hierarchical dimensions of the one reality. Sirhindī turns common ideas
of sufism upside-down. For example, what is usually thought of as inferior can actually be
superior, e.g., the element earth. As one goes through the various levels of ascent, “the element
of earth is the most privileged element. In the stations of descent it becomes the lowest of all. So
why is it that the element of earth becomes privileged at all when its natural place is to be the
lowest element? In its fall to the lowest of low, calling people to God becomes perfected.”21 Here
Sirhindī is overturning common notions of sufism since ascent to God, i.e., becoming close to
God, the exalted and sublime goal for other ūfīs, is for beginners on the Mujaddidī path. The
material world is cosmologically the farthest from God and earth is the coarsest element of all
(cf. Iblīs refusing to bow to a being of clay). Returning transformed to this apparently “inferior”
world is the goal for Sirhindī. Human perfection is manifested in the material world.22
Sirhindī says, “Thinking about the second part of the holy attestation (that Muammad is
the Messenger of God), I find an immense ocean that makes the first part appear like a drop.
Yes! The perfections of closeness are insignificant compared to the perfections of prophethood --
like an atom and the sun. Some, in their distorted vision, give preference to closeness with God
over prophethood and relegate the sharī‛at, the quintessence, to a position of secondary
importance. What are they doing? Their tunnel vision is focused on the form of the sharī‛at as
they seize a part of the outer shell from the essence.”23
It is a union of form and formless, spirit and matter. One could say that the transcendent
and the immanent flavor each other in Sirhindī’s notion of the sharī‛at. Here are obvious parallels

19
Ibid. 1.40:104.
20
Ibid. 2.18:46. There is no specification in this passage as to what this essence is.
21
Ibid. 1.260: 81. Here the discussion is about the element earth, not the world (dunyā).
22
See Arthur F. Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating
Shaykh (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 100. Ansari, Sufism, pp. 239-242 underlines how
serving God by serving humanity (the prophetic path) is preferable to just experiencing being at one with God.
23
Ibid. 2.46: 127.
 5

of the bodhsattva ideal to return to help humanity. More to the point, one is immediately
reminded of the Zen ox-herding sequence of ten pictures beginning with ordinary dualistic
earthly reality peaking in an extraordinary “transcendental escape” into a unitary consciousness
and ending with the same picture of earthly reality, but with an entirely changed consciousness –
a nondual awareness in ordinary life. In Islamic terms, a person begins with a pagan immersion
in the world, and then realizes that ultimate reality, God, is beyond the visible. Then, going to the
other extreme of equating God with the feeling of oneness beyond earthly reality corresponding
to fanā’ fi’llāh and what I have called transcendental escape. Finally, the person integrates
earthly and extraordinary reality by returning to ordinary life, remaining in God (baqā’) –
Sirhindī’s goal. This is the prophetic path, to return and bring other people to God. In this
ordinary and quite human life, sharī‛at is the organizing principle.
The issue of whether there is a spiritual realization beyond the sharī‛at is addressed by
Sirhindī in his Maktūbāt. “Question: From this knowledge it necessarily follows that a person of
inner knowledge (‛ārif), at some levels of attainment, will abandon the sharī‛at and ascend
toward God outside of the sharī‛at. Answer: The sharī‛at consists of outward actions connected
in this world to a person’s inner being. Outer behavior is always occupied with the sharī‛at, but
the inner person also engages this matter. When the material world is the sphere of action, the
inner person is of great assistance in outer deeds. The development of the inner person is tied to
compliance with the sharī‛at, which in turn is connected to outward behavior. In the material
world there is no way the inner and outer person can get around the sharī‛at. Outer action is done
in accordance with the sharī‛at while the inner benefits result from adherence to the sharī‛at. The
sharī‛at is the cause of all perfections and the basis of all the stations one passes through. The
fruits of the sharī‛at are not limited to this world. The perfections of the next world and its
eternal enjoyments result from the sharī‛at.”24
Writing roughly two centuries after Sirhindī, Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh (d. 1824 in Delhi)
comments on the distinctions of Amad Sirhindī’s sufism. These include: 1) his revealing the
secrets of the heart (qalb) subtle center, 2) the secrets associated with the training the ego (nafs),
3) the three stages of perfection (prophethood, messengerhood, and great prophets), 4) the three
degrees of closeness to God – (walāyat-i sughrā, walāyat-i kubrā, walāyat-i ‛ulyā), and

24
Ibid. 2.46: 129. Ansari, Sufism, pp. 80-83, discusses sharī‛at and sufism briefly.
 6

5) realizing new stations and realities associated with the subtle centers.25 It appears that Ghulām
‛Alī has ignored Sirhindī’s emphasis on the primacy of the sharī‛at because of his (Ghulām
‛Alī’s) use of ūfī vocabulary. Yet on can easily notice that all five of these points use ūfī
vocabulary to underline the ontological superiority of prophethood over intimacy with God.26
B. The Role of ‛ulamā from Sirhindī’s Perspective
The role of ‛ulamā is primary. Both Friedmann and ter Haar have outlined how Sirhindī
criticizes the weak and bad ‛ulamā of the world,27 but it appears as if most ūfīs come after the
majority of people calling themselves ‛ulamā in Sirhindī’s scheme of things. “Even though the
‛ulamā of the ahl-i sunnat wa-jamā‛at have deficient behavior, the beauty of their creed
concerning the Divine essence and attributes illuminates them such that their deficiencies can be
overlooked. So-called ūfīs doing all kinds of spiritual exercises do not have the correct beliefs
concerning the Divine essence and attributes. They lack this beauty.”28 Throughout the Maktūbāt,
Sirhindī expresses much love for the ‛ulamā and their students.
Lest anyone doubt the primacy of ‛ulamā for Sirhindī, “A friend of God is always under
the control of a prophet. In disagreements between ūfīs and ‛ulamā, the ‛ulamā always end up
being in the right because the views of ulama are by means of following the prophets and they
acquire the perfections of prophethood and that knowledge. The ūfī view is blocked by the
perfections of intimacy with God (cf. sources of sufism mentioned above).”29 By definition, the
knowledge from the lamp of prophethood is truer and more real than the level of intimacy with
God (walāyat). One presumes here that Sirhindī is referring to the worthy ‛ulamā – the ‛ulamā’-i
rāsikhīn -- who are firmly grounded in both intellectual and experiential knowledge of other
supra-rational realms, often termed outer and inner knowledge. Sirhindī’s realization is clearly
wedded to the everyday material world.30

25
Ghulām ‛Alī, Shar-i durr al-ma‛ārif, p. 233. One example of a “secret of the heart” is, “Love and attraction to
God [interpreted as such in the station of the heart] are also like the experience of the most glorious Truth [in the
station of the heart]. The difference, however, is that love and attraction to God are related to realizing annihilation
in God (fanā’ fi’llāh), which happens after the end of wayfaring to God (sayr ilā Allāh).” Maktūbāt, 1.287: 56. The
Naqshbandī intricacies of subtle centers and types of closeness to God are explained in Sufi Heirs.
26
The principle here is a set of hierarchies in which closeness to God (walāyat) is valid but hierarchically inferior to
prophethood. For example, the closeness of intoxicated ūfīs, walāyat-i sughrā is inferior to that of walāyat-i kubrā,
and walāyat-i ‛ulyā, which Sirhindī designates as levels of closeness for who have gone beyond annihilation in God
to return to assist humanity. This latter activity follows in the footsteps of the prophets.
27
Friedmann, Shaykh Amad Sirhindī, pp. 47-48; ter Haar, Follower and Heir of the Prophet, pp. 50-51
28
Sirhindī, Maktūbāt, 1.8:16.
29
Ibid. 1.266:123.
 7

The worthy ‛ulamā have the knowledge of both the appearance and essence of the
sharī‛at with a totally tamed ego (nafs).31 “Like the prophets they have achieved annihilation in
God (fanā’) and remaining in God (baqā’) without attraction to God or following the ūfī path
(sulūk). These ‛ulamā have verified the reality of the sharī‛at, which is the reality of imitating the
prophets.”32 According to Sirhindī, Bahā’uddīn Naqshband (d. 1389) did not say there was any
special knowledge beyond that of sharī‛at. “From inspirations (kashf and ilhām) one can learn
about the sharī‛at, like the prophets did with revelations. In truth the opinions of ‛ulamā are more
praiseworthy than the gibberish expounded by intoxicated ūfīs. The ‛ulamā of those who know
Reality (ahl-i aqq) know the ineffability of God and do not confuse what they are experiencing
in their imaginations with the Reality of God in the first manifestation. Therefore, ‛ulamā are in a
higher stage overall than ūfīs.”33
The question here is a practical one, namely what exactly is the “right stuff” for a
religious scholar to be considered “worthy”? Let’s see how he ranks the first four of seven levels
of following the sunnat.34
“The first degree is that of the common Muslims (`awāmm-i ahl-i islām) and involves the
injunctions of God’s law, the sharī‛at. It is a stage of following the lofty Prophetic example, the
sunnat, after one attests in one’s heart that there is no god but God and Muammad is His
messenger. This is prior to calming the ego (nafs), which is related to a degree of closeness with
God. Superficial scholars who only have an intellectual understanding (‛ulamā-yi āhir), pious
individuals, and ascetics, whose goal involves taming the ego, participate and benefit equally in
outwardly imitating (ūrat-i muāba‛at) the Prophetic example. . . .”35
“The second degree of imitating the Prophet involves acting in accordance with his
sayings and actions -- may blessings and peace be upon him and his family – so that one’s inner
self (bāin) is involved. This level corresponds to those on the ūfī path (arīqat) that includes
refinement of character and avoiding disagreeable traits while eliminating inner deficiencies
through their essential causes. An exemplary shaykh leads them through the valleys and deserts

30
Ansari, Sufism, pp. 225-228, discusses the relationship between the appearance and reality of the sharī‛at and the
place of both the superficial scholars and their wise counterparts.
31
Ibid. 2.18:46.
32
Ibid. 2.54:7.
33
Ibid. 1.130:82.
34
The letter explicating these seven levels has been partially translated by ter Haar, Follower and Heir, p. 56.
35
Sirhindī, Maktūbāt, 2.54:5-6
 8

of the path as they proceed to God. The third degree involves imitating the states, mystical
experiences, and ecstasies of those whose station is connected to special closeness to God. . . .
From this point, all one’s endeavors to imitate the Prophet will be real imitation (aqīqat-i
muāba‛at), whether through prayer, fasting, alms, or any other injunctions of the sharī‛at.”36
“The fourth degree of imitation is real imitation instead of the outer appearance of
imitation of the first degree of imitation. This fourth degree pertains especially to the well-
grounded [lit. firmly established in the inner and outer religious sciences, ‛ulamā- yi rāsikhīn]
religious scholars – may God Almighty thank them for their endeavors – who after calming their
carnal souls are distinguished by their good fortune of real imitation of the Prophet. The friends
of God – may God Almighty bless their secrets – have partially subdued their egos after
achieving stability in their hearts. However, complete calming of the carnal soul is only achieved
when one has acquired the perfections of prophethood. The wise scholars (‛ulamā- yi rāsikhīn)
have inherited these perfections and, through complete subjugation of their egos, have acquired
the reality of God’s law, i.e., the reality of imitation of the Prophet. Others than the wise
religious scholars do not have these perfections, whether they have only achieved the form
(ūrat) of the sharī‛at or whether they have reached the reality (aqīqat) of the sharī‛at.37 I will
clarify this point about the wise scholars so that a scholar only intellectually understanding the
superficialities of things (‛ulamā-yi āhir) will not claim to be wise (rasūkh) or imagine his
rebellious soul to be at peace. . . .”38
“Achieving this degree of imitation of the Prophet is connected to calming of the carnal
soul and arriving at the reality of imitating the Friend (āib) of the sharī‛at – may blessings and
peace be upon him and his family. It does not require the mediation of annihilation (fanā’) and
remaining (baqā’), wayfaring (sulūk) and attraction to God (jadhba), or any intermediary of
states, ecstasies, or manifestations. However, one can arrive at this good fortune more
expediently by following the noble sunnat – may there be blessings, peace, and salutations on
Muammad -- than by following paths leading one to intimacy with God. This poor one [Amad
Sirhindī] asserts the efficacy of following the sunnat while avoiding any trace of innovation.”39

36
Ibid. 2.54:6
37
How one goes about attaining such wisdom is not exactly clear (to me at least) in Sirhindī’s letters. It involves a
combination of following the sunnat, annihilating one’s ego in God and continuing to remain in God while serving
humanity. Ansari, Sufism, pp. 222-226, mentions the necessity of attaining real sincerity (ikhlā).
38
Maktūbāt, 2.54:7
39
Ibid. 2.54:7-8
 9

There are three levels of following the sunnat after the fourth level, all dependent upon God’s
grace.
The major concern here is how one verifies the religious scholar of the fourth or higher
degree from an ordinary one? Necessarily, there would be extremely few of the kind of ‛ulamā
Sirhindī is exalting but many who would assume the role – especially when there is an
authoritative text – Sirhindī’s Collected Letters – as a proof text to establish their authority with
rulers and other influential people.
C. The Status of Sirhindī’s Maktūbāt in the Larger Naqshbandī Tradition
Tradition in Mujaddidī teaching means following in the path of the Companions, who in
turn followed the Prophetic sunna. However, soon after Amad Sirhindī’s death, his Letters
became, for practical purposes, the tradition, the distillation of what was important for Muslim
behavior legally, politically, doctrinally, ethically, and spiritually. The Letters served as the
practical scripture of normative Sunni behavior in much the same way as Brannon Wheeler’s
work on the Hanafi school of jurisprudence has shown how later anafī jurists perpetuated the
tradition, not from the primary sources of Qur’ān and Hadith but from the anafī manuals written
long after these sources were consolidated.40
Such a “scripture” was utilized for political advantage in the Sunnī world. For example,
an envoy from Kokand (near Tashkent in present-day Uzbekistan) arrived in 1833 at the palace
of Sultan Mahmut II in Istanbul. He presented the Sultan three books: a Qur’ān, Amad Sirhindī’s
Maktūbāt, and the Maktūbāt of Sirhindī’s son and formal successor, Muammad
Ma‛ūm (d. 1668), along with other presents of clothes and shawls from Central Asia.41 Turkish
Naqshbandīs accord Sirhindī’s Letters a status alongside the Koran and Jalāluddīn Rūmī’s
Mathnavī.
The role that Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh gives to Sirhindī’s letters is noteworthy. The language
used for the Qur’ān and scripture is applied to the Letters – e.g., Maktūbāt-i qudsī āyāt.42 Ghulām
‛Alī receives divine effulgence from them, like a disciple would receive from his or her spiritual
guide. Referring to the Maktūbāt, he says, “Glory to God who revealed such holy and ineffable
[words] of His Truth – his words are beyond human comprehension. In truth the Maktūbāt are
40
Brannon Wheeler, Applying the canon in Islam: The authorization and maintenance of interpretive reasoning in
Hanafi scholarship (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).
41
Ahmet Lütfī, Tarih-i devlet-i ‛aliye-i ‛osmānīye (Istanbul: Dār al-Tabā‛a al- ‛Āmire, 1873-1912), 8 vols., 4:77. I
am indebted to Professor Abu-Manneh of the University of Haifa for this reference.
42
Ghulām ‛Alī, Shar-i durr al-ma‛ārif, pp., 135, 181.
 10

equal to divine inspirations [ilhām not way]. . . . What can I say to describe this lofty gentleman.
He is not a messenger but he has a book.”43 Not to exaggerate the importance of the Maktūbāt, it
should be noted that Ghulām ‛Alī also states at another time that the three great books are the
Qur’ān, Bukhārī’s hadith collection, and the Mathnavī of Maulānā Rūmī.44
As Friedmann has noted, “Sirhindī’s peculiar approach to the question of sharī‛ah is
evident.”45 Mujaddidīs have said that Sirhindī’s ideas on sharī‛at parallel those of ‛Abdulqādir
Jīlānī, but that is not obvious.46 The Maktūbāt and its Ottoman and Arabic (and later Urdu and
Bengali) translations must have played a significant role in the transregional transmission of
Sirhindī’s perspectives. My preliminary conclusion, based upon Indian materials, is that both
ūfīs and ‛ulamā used Sirhindī’s ideas to undergird their activities – particularly the ‛ulamā. It
appears, however, that very few achieved Sirhindī’s ideal of integrating the form and formless.
Apparently this was not a necessary condition for a Naqshbandī shaykh to be awarded a stipend
at the Sultan’s court in Istanbul – a story I intend to unravel in the future.

43
Ibid. p. 135.
44
Ibid. p. 184.
45
Friedmann, Shaykh Amad Sirhindī, p. 46.
46
‛Abdulqādir Jīlānī allegedly told Ghulām ‛Alī Shāh that Amad Sirhindī is his (‛Abdulqādir Jīlānī’s) foremost
deputy and before Amad Sirhindī no one reached intimacy with God without ‛Abdulqādir Jīlānī’s mediation. Now in
the second millennium, the mediation of both Amad Sirhindī and ‛Abdulqādir Jīlānī is necessary. Ghulām ‛Alī,
Shar-i durr al-ma‛ārif, pp. 245 and 224 (cf. Ibid. 226 for Amad Sirhindī as the deputy of ‛Abdulqādir Jīlānī).