Journal of the History of Sufism 5 (2006): pp. 65-79.

Arthur BUEHLER

MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ

Mawlânâ Khâlid found favour here by virtue of his states of being

and spiritual power. His capacity was way beyond the rest of the
aspirants – that such a precious jewel may be in our midst! It is
certain that he has blessed his homeland and has benefitted those
who have been in his presence. Before meeting him I had not met
anyone who had received such divine blessings. It is incumbent that
every one benefit from his help, sincerity, and love. Ahmad Sirhindî
[d. 1624] was the most blessed companion of Bâqî Billâh [d. 1603]
and Ahmad Sirhindî had the good luck to have Âdam Banûrî [d.
1644] as his foremost disciple. 1 It was my good fortune that
Mawlânâ Khâlid was among my companions. There has never been
a person manifesting so much spiritual power (fayd) in spiritual
companionship among the notables [like that of Mawlânâ Khâlid].
Praise God and then praise God again – who will drive away the
enmity of those who are jealous of Mawlânâ Khâlid’s service.2
Such is the high regard Mawlânâ Khâlid’s shaykh, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî (d. 1824
in Delhi) had for his foremost disciple. The story of this auspicious relationship
begins in 1806 when Diyâ’uddîn Khâlid al-Shahrizûrî, commonly known as
Mawlânâ Khâlid (d. 1827 in Damascus) met a dervish while on pilgrimage.
Mawlânâ Khâlid asked if he could be his disciple but the dervish informed him that
his guide awaited him in India. Roughly four years later in Sulaymaniyya, Iraq (the
main town in Shahrizur), Mawlânâ Khâlid met Mirzâ Rahîm Allâh Beg, one of
Shah Ghulâm ‘Alî’s disciples commonly known as Muhammad Darwîsh al-

1
Note that Âdam Banûrî is said to have achieved annihilation of the heart in the same hour he got
initiated. Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i Durr al-Ma‘ârif: minhâj al-râghibayn illâ makûbât imâm al-
muttaqîn imâm rabbânî mujaddid-i alf-i thânî, ed. Ayyûb Ganjî, (Sanandaj, Iran: Intishârât-i Kurdistân,
1997), p. 138.
2
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, ed. Muhammad Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî (Istanbul:
İhlâs Vakfı, 1989), p. 227. Cf. a parallel passage in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Malfûzât-i sharîfa, ed.
Ghulâm Muhyîuddîn Qusûrî, Urdu trans. Iqbâl Ahmad Fârûqî (Lahore: Maktaba-yi Nabawiyya, 1978),
p. 113.
66 Arthur BUEHLER

‘Azîmâbâdî. 3 According to another source, 4 Shah Ghulâm ‘Alî sent Mirzâ

‘Abdurrahîm to Iran and Iraq to bring three people back to Delhi. The first was
Mullâ Nudshâhî who did not know what to do, so he consulted Hâfiz’s Dîwân.
With the ensuing inauspicious message, Mirzâ ‘Abdurrahîm left alone the next day
for Sayyid ‘Abdullâh Nâhirî’s village. However, the Sayyid was too old to travel
so Mirzâ ‘Abdurrahîm set out toward Mawlânâ Khâlid’s abode. In both accounts,
Mawlânâ Khâlid immediately left for Delhi after meeting Mirzâ ‘Abdurrahîm.
After about a year he arrived in Delhi, meeting Qâdî Thanâ’ullâh Pânîpatî (d.
1810) between Lahore and Delhi right before the Qâdî passed away.5 Mawlânâ
Khâlid first denied the ideas of Ahmad Sirhindî, but after receiving divine
effulgence from the Mujaddidî lineage, Mawlânâ Khâlid eagerly acquired a copy
of Sirhindî’s Maktûbât translated into Arabic.6 In his total of nine or ten months of
discipleship in Delhi with Shah Ghulâm ‘Alî,7 he reached “lesser intimacy with
God” (walâyat-i sughrâ) after five months.8 When he attained “greater intimacy
with God” (walâyat-i kubrâ), Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî gave him unconditional
permission to guide disciples in the Naqshbandî, Qâdirî, Chishtî, Suhrawardî, and
Kubrawî lineages.9 One source claims that a permission came (in addition?) after
Mawlânâ Khâlid had returned to Iraq when Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî received a spiritual
indication from the Naqshbandî shaykhs to bestow complete and unconditional
permission to teach the aforementioned five lineages in addition to permission to
transmit Hadith, Qur’an exegesis, Sufism, and litanies (ahzâb wa-awrâd).10 While
Mawlânâ Khâlid was in Delhi, it seems as if Shâh Walîullâh’s son, Shâh
‘Abdulazîz Muhaddith (d. 1823 in Delhi) was the only other religious figure with
whom he studied. Mawlânâ Khâlid received permission from him to recite the
Hadiths from the six canonical Sunni Hadith collections.11 The following is the
teaching certificate given to Mawlânâ Khâlid by his shaykh:

3
‘Abdulmajîd Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Khânî, al-Hadâ’iq al-wardiyya fî ajillâ’al-sâdat al-
naqshbandiyya, (Damascus: Dâr al-Bayrûtî, 1997), p. 658.
4
Related to me by Shaykh Ma‘sûm Naqshbandî from Mahabba, Iran, in Arizona, USA 30 December
2004.
5
Ibid., p. 660. The text has Mawlawî Thanâ’ullâh al-Naqshbandî.
6
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 88. Which translation he used is uncertain. One
manuscript in Arabic translation used to be in the Awqâf Library in Baghdad, Ta‘rîb al-maktûbât al-
sûfiyya, trans. Yûnus Naqshbandî. There is another translation by Muhammad Murâd Shâmî (d. 1132).
See Iqbâl Mujaddidî, in the foreword to Muhammad Sa‘îd Ahmad Mujaddidî, Al-bayyinât: sharh-i
maktûbât, vol. 1 (Gujranwala, Pakistan: Tazîm al-Islâm Publications, 2002), pp. 58-61. The Maktûbât
was completely translated into Arabic in the latter part of the nineteenth century (ca. 1898 in Mecca) by
Muhammad Murâd al-Manzâwî al-Qazânî, Maktûbât: al-durar al-maknûnât al-nafîsa, 2 vols. (Istanbul:
Maktabat al-Mahmûdiyya, n.d.).
7
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî,” Urdu trans., Muhammad Iqbâl
Mujaddidî, Appendix One in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Maqâmât-i Mazharî, Urdu trans., Muhammad Iqbâl
Mujaddidî (Lahore: Urdu Science Board, 1983), p. 615, has him staying nine months and in Ghulâm
‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 88, Ghulâm ‘Alî says that he stayed ten months.
8
Ibrâhîm Fasîh al-Baghdâdî, Al-majd al-tâlid fî manâqib Shaykh Khâlid, on page 7 in a section after
page 248 in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa. Literally it says he reached “maqâm al-hudûr
wa’l-mushâhida.”
9
Ibid. and Muhammad Amîn al-Kurdî, Al-mawâhib al-saniyya fî ajillâ’al-sâdat al-naqshbandiyya
(Damascus: Dâr al-hirâ’, 1996), pp. 229-232.
10
Ibrâhîm Fasîh al-Baghdâdî, Al-majd al-tâlid, pp. 7-8 and al-Khânî, al-Hadâ’iq al-wardiyya, pp. 665-
667.
11
Ibid.
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 67

After thanking God and blessing the Prophet, this poor one,
‘Abdullâh Naqshbandî Mujaddidî, may he be forgiven, needs to
explain that one of the perfected ulama and a gem of those searching
for the truth of certainty, Master Khâlid, (may God Almighty bless
him) has completed the Naqshbandî path. Having come to this poor
one from Kurdistan, he spent ten months in seclusion (khalwat).
Renouncing the water of death, he completed the exercises perfectly
after exerting great effort. Thank God, Blessed and Almighty, that
through Divine favour and the mediation of notable shaykhs (may
God Almighty bless them all), he progressed step by step along the
path. He attained presence of heart (hudûr), mindfulness of God (yâd
dasht), purifying the subtle centres of the world of command,
annihilation in God and remaining in His presence (fanâ’ wa-baqâ’),
and experiences beyond the limitations of the ego (bîkhûdîhâ). He
realized the lights of wayfaring in the subtle centres of the material
world [the nafs and qalb] in addition to the states and qualities
experienced when all the subtle centres are consolidated when
wayfaring on the path of the Presence of the Renewer [Ahmad
Sirhindî] – may God bless him. His inner self has been enlightened
and has transformed from being perfect in the path to being
perfection bestowing. I have given him teaching permission to
educate seekers. I also allow him to convey the teachings of the
Qâdirî, Chishtî, Suhrawardî, and Kubrawî lineages – may God bless
them – because this is customary in this path [the Naqshbandiyya-
Mujaddidiyya]. His hand is my hand. He is the sincere deputy and
descendant of my shaykhs. His agreement is my agreement and
whoever opposes him opposes me.12 May he continuously recollect
God (dhikr), affirm the unity of God, be attentive to the higher
worlds (murâqabât), follow the Prophetic sunnat, avoid innovations,
and be patient while trusting in God to provide by being satisfied in
resigning himself to His will. May he also be involved in teaching all
seekers, including beginners, the disciplines of Qur’an exegesis,
Hadith, and Sufism using the means provided by God Almighty.
May you have enduring success!13
Mawlânâ Khâlid left India in 1811, returning to Sulaymaniyya before
establishing a Sufi lodge in Baghdad. More than a year later (in 1813) one hundred

12
The text is missing a couple of words (ridâ-yi îshân) that reflect obvious parallels.
13
Hasan Shukri, Menâkib-i shems el-shumûs (Istanbul: n.p., 1302), pp. 141-144. The translation
between the Persian original and the Ottoman translation takes certain liberties. For example, bi-sar
amad ‘ulamâ’ in the second line above, roughly translated into English as “the perfected one of the
ulama,” is translated as “the Pole of the circle of guidance” (qutb-i dâ’irat el-irshâd), giving Mawlânâ
Khâlid the technical status of the “Pole of Guidance.” Note that the word “râbita” has been added as a
spiritual method in the Ottoman translation but does not occur in the original. The translator has added
it between the words “dhikr” and “murâqabât”. Professor Abu Manneh graciously provided me with a
photocopy of this reference.
68 Arthur BUEHLER

notable ulama received permission to teach.14 In the ensuing years he ended up

initiating five hundred ulama out of one hundred thousand initiates.15 “Hundreds of
thousands have calmed their hearts and subtle centres from the spiritual energy of
Mawlana Khalid. Al-Qazâqî related that they had resolved the past innovations
such that thousands have benefited from [Mawlânâ Khâlid’s] presence of heart and
attraction to God.” 16 Mawlânâ Khâlid sent two people, Sayyid Ahmad, a
descendant of ‘Abdulqâdir al-Jîlânî, and Sayyid Ismâ‘îl Madanî, to Shâh Ghulâm
‘Alî .17 Overall, the consensus, both of Mawlânâ Khâlid’s shaykh, Shâh Ghulâm
‘Alî, and modern scholars, is that the newly organized lineage, the Khâlidiyya,
expanded very rapidly while Mawlânâ Khâlid was alive. Butrus Abu-Manneh
mentions how Mawlânâ Khâlid consciously expanded the lineage by pioneering
forty-day retreats and enforcing a concentration on his image (râbita). These were
both effective and intensive training measures because he could not count on
keeping aspirants for a long time given his political and economic uncertainties.18
By the time Mawlânâ Khâlid died in 1827, five years after immigrating to
Damascus, the Khâlidiyya had become a thriving lineage quite different from its
Mujaddidî counterpart in Ghulâm ‘Alî’s Sufi lodge in Delhi.
The rest of this article will detail Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, his Sufi perspectives, and
the milieu where Mawlânâ Khâlid received his teachings. Although the uniqueness
of the Khâlidiyya is beyond the scope of this article, my goal in writing this article
is for the reader to better appreciate various transformations and continuities
between the Indian Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya and the Ottoman
Naqshbandiyya-Khâlidiyya.

SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ: A BIOGRAPHY

Ghulâm ‘Alî’s father, Shâh ‘Abdullatîf, was a descendant of ‘Alî b. Abî Tâlib
and a disciple of Shâh Nâsiruddîn Qâdirî Dihlawî who initiated him into the
Qâdirî, Chishtî, and Shattârî lineages. The family lived in Batala, Panjab, near
Delhi and also had an affiliation with Shâh Fâdluddîn Qâdirî Batâlawî.19 Ghulâm
‘Alî was born in Batala in 1156/1743.20 His father wanted to call him ‘Alî; his
mother wanted to name him ‘Abdulqâdir, and his uncle wanted to call him
‘Abdullâh.21 In his own writings Shah Ghulâm ‘Alî often wrote “Faqîr ‘Abdullâh
known as Ghulâm ‘Alî.” Generally in the Indian Subcontinent he is known as Shâh
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî. When he was 18 his father wanted him to get initiated by his
own guide, Shâh Nâsiruddîn Qâdirî Dihlawî but when Ghulâm ‘Alî arrived in

14
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 152
15
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 50.
16
Ibid., p. 228.
17
Ibid., p. 25.
18
Butrus Abu-Manneh, “Khalwa and Râbita in the Khâlidî Suborder” in Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre
Popovic, and Thierry Zarcone, eds., in Naqshbandis: cheminements et situation actuelle d'un ordre
mystique musulman (Istanbul/Paris: Éditions Isis, 1990), pp. 291-293.
19
Muhammad Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya (Urdu trans.) (Lahore: Nawal
Kashûr Kîn Printing Works, 1914), pp. 139-140.
20
See Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Maqâmât-i Mazharî, p. 217, fn 564, where Iqbâl Mujaddidî discusses the
conflicting birthdates given for Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh. Fusfeld concurs in his “The Shaping of Sufi
Leadership in Delhi: The Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya, 1750-1920,” Ph.D dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania, 1981, p. 193 fn 2.
21
Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya, p. 140.
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 69

Delhi, he discovered that on that exact day Nâsiruddîn had died.22

From the ages of eighteen to twenty-two he was involved in formal religious
studies. Some of his teachers were: Diyâ’ullâh and ‘Abdul‘adil, successors to the
great-great grandson of Muhammad Ma‘sûm, Muhammad Zubayr Sirhindî
Mujaddidî (d. 1740 in Sirhind), Mîr Dard (d. 1785), Fakhruddîn Chishtî (d. 1784),
Shah Nânû Majdhûb, and Ghulâm Sâdât Chishtî.23 After studying Sahîh al-Bukhârî
with Shâh Walî Allâh’s son, ‘Abdul‘azîz, 24 Mirzâ Jân-i Jânân (assas. 1781)
initiated Ghulâm ‘Alî at the age of twenty two. He continued studying Hadith and
Qur’an exegesis for the next sixteen years with his Sufi guide.25 This was an
atypical initiation in that Mirzâ Jân-i Jânân initiated Ghulâm ‘Alî into the
Qâdiriyya but gave his new disciple the exercises of the Naqshbandiyya-
Mujaddidiyya.26 Later, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî explained that his shaykh had done this
because most of his (Ghulâm ‘Alî’s) ancestors were connected with the Qâdiriyya
and one can be initiated into any Sufi lineage and still use Mujaddidî methods.27
After fifteen years Ghulâm ‘Alî received unconditional permission to teach (ijâzat-
i mutlaq). The next year his mentor died and Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî became his chief
successor (sajjâda nishîn). Na‘îmullâh Barâ’ichî (d. 1803) contested this
succession to some extent by requesting Qâdî Thanâ’ullâh Pânîpatî to succeed
Mirzâ Jân-i Jânân.28
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî built the Sufi lodge at the site of his pir’s tomb in the area
still known as Chitli Qabr. The tomb of Mirzâ Jân-i Jânân provided a basis for his
authority and Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was quite aware of this situation.29 There were
about two hundred permanent residents in the Sufi lodge and on Fridays and
special occasions perhaps there would be twice this many.30 The sources portray

22
Ibid.
23
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, p. 571.
24
‘Abdulhayy al-Husnâ, Nuzhat al-khawâtir, vol. 7, p. 365.
25
Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya, p. 141.
26
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, p. 572.
27
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 126. In Ghulâm ‘Alî’s words, “Four rivers flow in
the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya. Two flow from the Naqshbandiyya, one from Qâdiriyya, and one
half each from the Chishtiyya and Suhrawardiyya,” ibid., p. 236. In his letters, (Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî,
Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 91) Ghulâm ‘Alî notes how he had a special love for the Chishtiyya. Note also that
Mujaddidî methods have been successfully used to instruct Hindus. See R.K. Gupta, Yogis in Silence:
The Great Sufi Masters (Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2001) and Thomas Dahnhardt, Change
and Continuity in Indian Sufism: A Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi Branch in the Hindu Environment (Delhi:
D.K. Printworld, 2002). One Hindu lineage began with Mahâtmâ Srî Saksenâ Mahârâj (d. 1931
Fatehgarh), the disciple of Fadl Ahmad Khân Râ’îpûrî (d. 1907 Raipur). Irina Tweedie [author of
Daughter of Fire (Rockport, MA : Element Books, 1993)] studied with Srî Radha Mohan Lal Jî (d.
1966 Kanpur), the disciple of ‘Abdulghanî Khân (1867-1953) whose shaykh was Fadl Ahmad Khân
Râ’îpûrî.
28
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Maqâmât-i Mazharî, p. 159. There is a document in the late Khalîq Ahmad
Nizâmî’s library that alludes to animosities between Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh and Na‘îmullâh mentioned by
Fusfeld, “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership in Delhi,” p. 153.
29
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 91 where Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh reminds travelers
visiting Chitli Qabr from Samarqand that he is not worthy of such attention and that they really are
coming to experience the presence of Mirzâ Jân-i Janân.
30
In ‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, p. 573, it is noted that there were two
hundred living permanently in the Sufi lodge. This number is confirmed in Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat
Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya, p. 141. Ahmad Khân stated that there were five hundred disciples who
permanently lived there and Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh looked after their needs. Ahmad Khan, Âthâr al-
70 Arthur BUEHLER

Shah Ghulâm ‘Alî as a particularly pious Muslim. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khân, a
frequent visitor at the lodge, notes,31
It is a fact that there was no other shaikh having so much love of
God… He did not deviate a hair’s breadth from the laws of the
shari‘at. . . He avoided to take [sic] doubtful things as gifts. He
became extremely angry on one [sic] who did not strictly adhere to
the shar‘ and sunna and did not allow him to come to him.32
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî probably was chosen over Na‘îmullâh because of his ability
to support the hundreds of people living and passing through the Sufi lodge. This
was done in a very different manner than simply “fund raising.” The sources note
the scrupulous manner in which Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî accepted donations for the
support of the Sufi lodge. Contributions had to be irregular (eliminating the
possibility of waqf funds), unsolicited, and from individuals who had acquired their
wealth or goods in a lawful manner.33 Each time money was presented, he would
first calculate the amount to give to the poor (zakât) and then divide the rest among
the residents of the Sufi lodge, including himself.34
Evidently, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was in the habit of praying the supererogatory
prayers at night (tahajjud) after which he engaged in meditation and Qu’ran
recitation. After the morning prayer he directed the group’s contemplative practice
(murâqabât) until the ishrâq prayer (a supererogatory prayer performed after the
sun rises).35 Until lunch he met with disciples in smaller groups and then gave
tafsîr (Qur’an exegesis) and Hadith lessons to a larger audience. He would eat
lunch and take a siesta, after which he would study Jâmî’s Nafahât al-Uns or Abû
Najîb Suhrawardî’s Âdab al-Murîdîn and teach tafsîr and Hadith again. After the
afternoon prayer he would teach from Sufi “classics” such as Ahmad Sirhindî’s
Maktûbât, Shihâbuddîn Suhrawardî’s ‘Awârif al-Ma‘ârif, or al-Qushayrî’s al-
Risâla al-Qushayriyya.36 Then he led the khatim-i khwâjagân litany in a large
circle until the sunset prayer, after which he met with special disciples.37 Shâh
Ghulâm ‘Alî requested before his death that for his funeral he wanted the relics of
the Prophet housed in the Grand Mosque of Delhi brought to him. His funeral

sanâdîd, p. 465, cited in Muhammad Umar, Islam in Northern India During the Eighteenth Century
(Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993), p. 87. Five hundred is probably an exaggeration.
31
This paragraph is based upon ‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, pp. 573-
575.
32
Ahmad Khan, Âthâr al-sanâdîd, p. 467, translated and cited in Muhammad Umar, Islam in Northern
India, p. 148 fn 361.
33
Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya, pp. 144-146. He recounts the event which
triggered the flow of unsolicited donations (futûh) in ibid., pp. 141-142. If a person of questionable
character donated food, it would be distributed among the poor in the neighborhood.
34
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Malfûzât-i sharîfa, pp. 161-162.
35
The Mujaddidî contemplations are discussed in Arthur Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian
Naqshbandiyya and the Rise of the Mediating Shaykh (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press, 1998).
36
Other sufi books mentioned in his discourses and letters are: Ghazzalî’s Ihyâ’ ‘ulûm al-dîn and Abû
Bakr Muhammad al-Kalâbâdhî’s Ta‘arruf li-madhhab ahl al-tasawwuf; see Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî,
Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 22, 26. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh emphasized the discipline of formal Sufi knowledge,
second in importance only to tafsîr and hadith. Ibid., p. 99.
37
Fritz Meier discusses this litany in his Zwei Abhandlungen über die Naqshbandiyya (Istanbul: Franz
Steiner, 1994).
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 71

prayer was said in the mosque while the relics were passed over his corpse.38
Abû Sa‘îd (d. 1835), a descendant of Ahmad Sirhindî, succeeded Shâh Ghulâm
‘Alî as sajjâda nishîn at Chitli Qabr.39 There was no ambiguity as there had been a
generation earlier. Abû Sa‘îd was in Lucknow when an urgent letter arrived from
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî urging him to leave his affairs there to his son, Ahmad Sa‘îd,
and return to Chitli Qabr as soon as possible. The letter states that the spirit of
Ahmad Sirhindî had advised him (Ghulâm ‘Alî) in this matter.
Abû Sa‘îd was to oversee an established institution and the success of this
enterprise was dependent upon a consensus of religious notables, including
disciples of Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî: Ahmad Yâr, Ibrâhîm Beg, Mîr Khurd, Mawlawî
‘Azîm, Mawlawî Sher Muhammad and the notable Hadith teacher and son of Shâh
Walî’ullâh, ‘Abdul‘azîz. 40

SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ AND THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN DELHI

During the late eighteenth century, political turmoil in the Delhi area – a series
of violent struggles to control the weak Mughal emperor – ended in 1803 when the
British took military control over the region after defeating the Marathas. For the
next twenty-five years the British attempted to administer and control Delhi in the
name of the Mughal emperor. This was an experiment for the British to govern an
area using traditional and Islamic law instead of enforcing the ordinances of the
East India Company applied in the rest of British-controlled India. In 1807 the
British resident, Seton, met with Shâh ‘Abdul‘azîz, a major religious leader in
Delhi, son of Shâh Walî’ullâh and Hadith teacher of both Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî and
Mawlânâ Khâlid, and attempted to use his political position to assist ‘Abdul‘azîz.41
In this new political milieu, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was still a spiritual leader for
Rohilkhand Pathans, but they no longer had any potential for political clout as they
once had as an influential faction in the Mughal political structure. Even though
Sufi shaykhs like Mirzâ Jân-i Jânân and Ghulâm ‘Alî avoided the company of the
wealthy and powerful, it was precisely this independence that gave them the
opportunity to improve the Muslim community by giving advice to the rulers.
Although the British closed this avenue to Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî in 1803, he managed
to continue leading his community and teaching those who came to him.
As Shâh ‘Âlam II, the nominal Mughal ruler, came under the “protection” of
the British in 1803, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was quite hostile to the British – disagreeing
with Shâh ‘Abdul‘azîz’s fatwa permitting Muslims to enter the service of the
British. Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî severely disagreed with Shâh ‘Abdul‘azîz over the

38
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî,” p. 597.
39
Before arriving at Chitli Qabr in 1810 he was a frustrated sajjâda nishîn at Shâh Dargâhî’s Sufi
lodge. He received his unconditional permission to teach in 1815. Mawlânâ Khâlid benefited from his
tawajjuh before he receiving this permission. Abû Sa‘îd, Hidâyat al-tâlibîn, ed. and Urdu trans.,
Ghulâm Mustafâ Khân (Karachi: Educational Press, 1965), pp. 74, 132-134.
40
Ibid., pp. 126-130.
41
Although ‘Abdul‘azîz replied that he had few wants, Seton found ways to assist his family indirectly.
See Fusfeld, “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership in Delhi,” pp. 27-28. The population of Delhi was
approximately 35% to 40% Muslim at that time. Ibid., p. 35 fn 1.
72 Arthur BUEHLER

permissibility of ‘Abdul‘azîz’s nephew, Mawlawî ‘Abdulhayy, working for the

British as a mufti. Ghulâm ‘Alî thought that he should live a life of poverty,
teaching students for the sake of God, and engage in meditation.42
Another time, sometime between 1811 and 1819, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was
invited to recite the Fâtiha at a celebration for Nawwâb Nizâmuddîn, a Delhi police
chief (kôtwâl). When Charles Metcalfe, the Resident of Delhi, arrived everyone
stood up to honour him except Ghulâm ‘Alî. The apocryphal account has Metcalfe
trying to kiss Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî’s feet [!], Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî supposedly became
angry and drove him away because of the smell of liquor on his breath. When
Metcalfe returned home, he remarked to one of his servants that there was only one
Muslim in all of India – Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî. 43 As Fusfeld aptly remarks,
“Metcalfe’s identity as a Christian and as a representative of the British
government is in no way raised as an issue. The treatment that he received was no
different from that which would be directed toward any corrupt member of the
ruling elite.”44
In another anecdote involving the British, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was not feeling
well and requested some cold water. A glass was produced but someone remarked
that it was not very cold. A person who worked for the English remarked that there
were ice machines in England. Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî was not impressed, saying that
one could make water ice cold by directing the last part of nafi wa-ithbât, i.e., illâ
Allâh, two hundred times onto the water. Hasan Chishtî Mawdûdî then made
Ghulâm ‘Alî’s water ice cold in this fashion.45
There were occasions when Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî apparently took direct action. In
a letter to the ruler of Delhi, Muhammad Akbar Shâh Thânî, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî
explained that he had sent a Sayyid visiting from Medina to look at the relics
housed in the Great Mosque of Delhi only to be embarrassed when this Sayyid
returned complaining about pictures of holy persons put among the relics of the
Prophet. Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî informed the ruler about this – and they were
removed.46
Sometimes he counseled those in power. In a letter to a judge, Shamshîr Khân,
using a pun on his name (shamshîr means sword), Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî counsels him:
“ I have often seen that the blade makes two from one. The sword of love brings
two people together. The sword of God cuts the ego with the sword of love so that
unity results.”47 When Shamshîr Khân Bahâdur, the Nawwâb of Bundilkand, came
into Ghulâm ‘Alî’s presence wearing an English hat, Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh angrily
reproached him. The Nawwâb left in a huff but later returned to become a disciple

42
Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Shâh ‘Abd al-‘Azîz: Puritanism, Sectarian Polemics and Jihad (Lucknow:
Prem Printing Press, 1982), p. 239.
43
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Malfûzât-i sharîfa, pp. 83-84; 127-128.
44
Fusfeld, “The Shaping of Sufi Leadership in Delhi,” p. 166. Fusfeld confuses the famous Chishtî
Nizâmuddîn Awliyâ’ (d. 1325) in his account with the kôtwâl Nizâmuddîn, who was held in high
esteem by the Shâh ‘Alâm II and who had been appointed governor of Delhi in 1789 by the Maratha
chief Sindhia.
45
Ibid., p. 111.
46
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 66.
47
Ibid., pp. 57-58.
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 73

of his.48
As the preceding examples indicate, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî maintained connections
with the wealthy and powerful while scrupulously maintaining independence from
them. He was often placed in a delicate situation because certain worldly
individuals, with whom he would not ordinarily associate, were descendants of
spiritually great people and therefore worthy of respect on that basis. So when
Nawwâb Muhammad Mîr Khân, the descendant of ‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî and the
grandson of Bâqîbillâh, came into his presence, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî offered him
some sweets and then gave him permission to leave. However, the Nawwâb did not
go. Ghulâm ‘Alî then summoned a servant to get the deeds to the house and give
them to the Nawwâb so Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî himself could politely leave. The
Nawwâb promptly left.49 Such behavior of a Sufi shaykh underlined the importance
of continually providing an example to others – an example based on the sunna of
the Prophet. In terms of leadership a Sufi shaykh could exert his influence on the
basis of his moral superiority.

SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ: SUFI PERSPECTIVES AND CONTEMPLATIVE

METHODS
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî clearly taught within the framework of Sirhindî’s Mujaddidî
practices which begin by repeating “Allâh” in each subtle centre in sequence
(dhikr-i ism-i dhât), then practicing the breath-retention exercise of nafî wa-ithbât,
and finally practicing the twenty-six contemplations (murâqabât).50 In Îdâh al-
tarîqa these are treated as two of three different paths to realizing sound
servanthood (sihhat-i ‘ubûdiyat). The first path begins with achieving continual
recollection of God (dhikr) in the seven subtle centres, starting with the heart
(qalb) and ending with the physical body. Then one can begin with the
manipulation of lâ ilâh illâ Allâh (There is no god but God) while observing six
conditions, including holding of the breath and counting how many times one
repeats this phrase. The second path, that of contemplations (murâqabât), involves
an extraordinary focusing on God. In the contemplations one is attracted to God in
the closest manner; it is the fruit of a diligent practice of dhikr and nafî wa-ithbât.
The third path is supposedly the easiest – it involves bonding of the heart with the
shaykh in sincerity and love (râbita). More people arrive at the goal with this
method than the previous two. 51 Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî describes this practice as
concentrating on the shaykh when he is physically visible during spiritual
conversation (suhbat). In the shaykh’s absence, the aspirant is to preserve a picture
of him in one’s heart.52 The spiritual energy focused on an aspirant in this process
can greatly accelerate his progress. Instead of taking ten years to traverse the

48
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî,” p. 576. Also note a letter
written to the Nawwâb in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 216.
49
‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, pp. 572-573. Nawwâb Muhammad Mîr
Khân was the son of the kôtwâl, Nizâmuddîn, mentioned above.
50
These are discussed in Buehler, Sufi Heirs, pp. 98-146. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh conceives of the same path
in fifteen circles in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 206-209 or sixteen circles in Ghulâm
‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, pp. 64-70. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s redefinition of the Mujaddidî
contemplations, discussed in Sufi Heirs, p. 247, will be further discussed below.
51
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Îdâh al-tarîqa, ed. Ghulâm Rasûl Azhar (Doncaster, England: S. M. Chaudry,
1983), pp. 26-30. This is a bilingual edition (Persian original and Urdu translation) and is letter ninety in
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 134-163.
52
Ibid., p. 191.
74 Arthur BUEHLER

stations, the tawajjuh of his shaykh enabled Ghulâm ‘Alî to do it in ten days.53
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî contextualizes the Naqshbandî-Mujaddidî path by
comparing it with those of other lineages. Chishtîs have a proclivity for warming
up the heart while Qâdirîs develop the connection to belovedness (mahbûbiyat).
Naqshbandîs emphasize presence of the heart, attractions to God, tranquility, and
attainments of the soul (subtle centre of the nafs). In another context Ghulâm ‘Alî
says the Naqshbandî path consists of four principles: 1) absence of stray thoughts,54
2) continual presence of heart, 3) being attracted to God, and 4) receiving
spontaneous thoughts/realizations from God (wâridât). 55 Mujaddidîs, after
developing a connection to the heart, have to be able to attain similar connections
with the other subtle centres in the world of command, i.e., spirit, mystery, arcane,
and super-arcane, and the subtle centres of the material world, i.e., soul and
physical frame.56
It clearly appears from the extant discourses and letters of Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî
that he was an active shaykh directing his disciples according to established
Naqshbandî-Mujaddidî methods.57 Part of his educational role was to translate
earlier Sufi concepts, e.g., ihsân, wilâyat/walâyat, and ‘ilm-i yaqîn/‘ayn-i
yaqîn/haqq-i yaqîn into a contemporary Naqshbandî understanding.58 Shâh Ghulâm
‘Alî also clearly outlined the hierarchical differences in spiritual realization. For
example, conditional permission to teach (ijâzat-i muqayyad) involves presence of
heart and presence of the nafs subtle centre (the soul, not the ego), 59 while
annihilation of the nafs subtle centre was necessary to achieve greater intimacy
with God (walâyat-i kubrâ) and receive unconditional permission to teach (ijâzat-i
mutlaqa). 60 Many other qualifications are involved in addition to these. Shâh

53
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 234.
54
This intense concentration on God is called wuqûf-i qalbî and involves holding the breath, asking
forgiveness one hundred times, repeating the fâtiha one hundred times, and then holding the picture of
the guide in front of the heart. Then one can do dhikr. Ibid., p. 31.
55
Ra’ûf Ahmad Râfat Mujaddidî, Jawâhir-i ‘Alawiyya, p. 149. See the following footnote concerning
presence of heart.
56
Ibid, pp. 33 and 84. Note that presence of the heart (hudûr) is of two kinds: hudûr-i dhikr where the
subtle centers are active (path one) and hudûr ma‘ Allâh where the remembrance of God is integrated
with an attraction and intimate awareness of God and awareness (path two). See Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî,
Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 46.
57
The methodological presuppositions and examples for such a statement are outlined in Buehler, Sufi
Heirs, pp. xviii-xix and 224-230.
58
Thus, ihsân is defined as a station of being continually attracted to God and having presence of heart
(see fn. 38 above) in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 12. Wilâyat is the expression of the
shaykh exhibiting spiritual power (tawajjuh) as walâyat indicates closeness to or intimacy with God in
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 75. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh goes into a detailed, technical
discussion of tawajjuh in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 25. A discussion of ‘ilm-i
yaqîn/‘ayn-i yaqîn/haqq-i yaqîn is found in ibid., p. 67.
59
Ibid., p. 218. Although the Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s ijâzat nâmâ to Muhyîuddîn Qusûrî (d. 1854) does not
say it specifically in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Malfûzât-i sharîfa, pp. 52-53, when compared to Mawlânâ
Khâlid’s permission to teach and Abû Sa‘îd’s two permissions to teach in Abû Sa‘îd, Hidâyat al-
tayyibîn, pp. 80-84; 132-134, Qusûrî’s permission would clearly be more conditional (even more
conditional than Abû Sa‘îd’s first teaching permission).
60
Ibid., p. 143. It is unlikely that Mawlânâ Khâlid was Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s only student who received
unconditional permission to teach. The designation given by Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh to Mawlânâ Khâlid,
“khalîfa tâmmah mutlaqa” – a successor who has completely unconditional permission to teach – most
likely honors Mawlânâ Khâlid in a special way than others with unconditional teaching permission. Cf.
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 75

Ghulâm ‘Alî remarks how a shaykh must consider his disciples’ continual presence
of God in the heart, tranquillity, experiences of many states, good deeds, and
awareness of their effects before giving him permission to teach.61
For Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî the ontological divide, whether between conditional and
unconditional teaching permission or between existential unity (wahdat al-wujûd)
and testimonial unity (wahdat al-shuhûd), is between development of the heart’s
subtle centre (and the other subtle centres of the world of command, i.e., ruh, sirr,
khafî, akfâ) and the nafs subtle centre (and the other subtle centre of the material
world, the qalb). As he explains it, the concept of existential unity did not exist at
the time of the Companions. There was no concept of Sufism before the second
century of Islam either. Then came the idea of “greater striving” (jihâd-i akbar)
involving recollection exercises, obedience to the shaykh, purification of the subtle
centres of the heart and the nafs, and overpowering love. This latter development,
according to Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, was entirely associated with the heart’s subtle
centre. The other subtle centres in the world of command have their own separate
experiences. Spirit (rûh), for example, is the experience of negating the attributes
of self; wayfaring in the mystery (sirr) is the annihilation of one’s personal essence
in God’s essence; wayfaring in the arcane (khafî) is differentiating God from all
other manifestations; and wayfaring in the super-arcane (akfâ) is differentiating the
creation from the Creator. It is only when wayfaring in the soul that one
experiences testimonial unity (tawhîd-i shuhûdî). For Ghulâm ‘Alî, this is
wayfaring in the world of creation – real servanthood where the servant is the
servant and Reality is Reality. 62 This latter wayfaring goes beyond “esoteric
interpretations based on imagination” (an obvious reference to Ibn al-‘Arabî).
Instead it follows the outward dictates of the religious texts like Muslims living in
the first century of Islam.63 Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî unambiguously states that Shâh
Walîullâh (d. 1762) was mistaken in trying to reconcile existential unity and
testimonial unity on the basis of semantic difference. Like Ahmad Sirhindî and
other Mujaddidîs before him, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî clearly perceives the experience
of existential unity to be a lesser stage of attainment than the experience of
testimonial unity.64

SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ AND AHMAD SIRHINDÎ

According to Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî, for any person intimate with God in the
second millennium, i.e., one thousand lunar years after 622 C.E., the way is not
open without the intercession of Ahmad Sirhindî.65 In another passage, ‘Abdulqâdir
Jîlânî tells Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî that Ahmad Sirhindî is ‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî’s foremost
deputy and before Ahmad Sirhindî no one had reached intimacy with God without

Butrus Abu-Manneh, Studies on Islam and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century (1826-1876)
(Istanbul: Isis Press, 2001), p. 16. See also the above discussion of Abû Sa‘îd, who was honored in
other ways.
61
Ibid., p. 71.
62
Ibid., pp. 76-77, cf. pp. 37, 79, 144.
63
Ibid., pp. 46-47, 68.
64
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 221.
65
Ibid. Two other prominent intercessors that Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh mentions are ‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî and
Bahâ’uddîn Naqshband. Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 171. Cf. ibid., p. 23.
76 Arthur BUEHLER

‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî’s mediation. Now in the second millennium, the mediation of

both Ahmad Sirhindî and ‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî is necessary.66 Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî
declares that Ahmad Sirhindî’s spirit comes to his Sufi lodge and everyone feels
it.67 Indeed, he receives such blessings and spiritual energy from the grave of
Ahmad Sirhindî that he cannot explain the experiences in words.68 Ahmad Sirhindî
is the “vice-regent of God and deputy of the Prophet” for Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî.69
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî constantly refers to Ahmad Sirhindî, who pioneered a new
kind of Sufism with a set of distinctive discoveries. These include: 1) his revealing
the secrets of the heart`s (qalb) subtle centre, 2) the secrets associated with training
the ego (nafs), 3) the three stages of perfection (those of prophethood,
messengerhood, and the great prophets), 4) the three degrees of closeness to God
(walâyat-i sughrâ, walâyat-i kubrâ, walâyat-i ‘ulyâ), and 5) realizing new stations
and realities associated with the subtle centres.70 In Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî’s estimation,
Sirhindî has initiated a major renewal of Sufism – giving humanity an effective
methodology that enables thousands of ulama and others to reach the goal.71
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî regularly taught from Sirhindî’s Maktûbât and received
divine effulgence from them, like a disciple would receive from his or her spiritual
guide. He refers to passages in the Maktûbât as one would refer to Qur’anic verses
(“Maktûbât-i qudsî âyât”),72 stating,
Glory to God who revealed such holy and ineffable [words] of His
Truth – His words are beyond human comprehension. In truth the
Maktûbât are equal to divine inspirations [here there is ilhâm not
wahy]… What can I say? The description of this lofty gentleman [is
difficult to express]. He is not a messenger but he has a book.73
Perhaps Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî made such a point of supporting Ahmad Sirhindî
and of according him such a high status because of the apparently intense amount
of criticism directed toward Ahmad Sirhindî’s ideas.
Mawlânâ Khâlid, Mawlawî Hirâtî, and Mawlawî Qamaruddîn
Peshâwarî initially denied the teachings of Ahmad Sirhindî until they

66
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 245. Cf. ibid., pp. 224, 226.
67
Ibid., p.141. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh also relates a vision in which he was with both his father and Ahmad
Sirhindî. Ibid., p. 162.
68
Ibid., p. 91.
69
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 90.
70
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, 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 (fanâ’ fi’llâh), which happens after the end
of wayfaring to God (sayr iâ Allâh).” Ahmad Sirhindî, Maktûbât-i Imâm-i Rabbânî, ed., Nûr Ahmad, 3
vols. (Karachi: Educational Press, 1972), 1.287:56 (volume number. letter number: page number).
71
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 12-13, 83. Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-
ma‘ârif, p. 141. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh states straightforwardly that the ulama like the Naqshbandi path
more than any other. Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Malfûzât-i sharîfa, p. 102.
72
Ibid., pp. 135, 181.
73
Ibid., p. 135.
 MAWLÂNÂ KHÂLID AND SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ 77

came, sat in front of me, and received the divine effulgence (fayd) of
the Mujaddidiyya lineage. Then they became initiated in the
Mujaddidiyya. This effulgence can be obtained through books and
living shaykhs but not through deceased shaykhs.74
It appears as if the criticisms of ‘Abdulhaqq Muhaddith Dihlawî (d. 1642)
toward certain passages in Sirhindî’s letters were still very prevalent two hundred
years later in Delhi. As a result, Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî felt obligated in his letters to
defend Ahmad Sirhindî against ‘Abdulhaqq.75 Already in Sirhindî’s time there was
a controversy of the divine realities being closer to God than the prophetic realities
in the sequence of contemplations. In terms of the literature it appears that Shâh
Ghulâm ‘Alî was the first to exercise a “Sufi ijtihâd,” placing the prophetic
realities higher than divine realities.76

THE LEGACY OF SHÂH GHULÂM ‘ALÎ: HIS SUCCESSORS

Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî received an inspiration that he should send his successors
out into the world just as Nizâmuddîn Awliyâ had sent out his successors.77 In
1815 Ra’ûf Ahmad found people from Samarqand, Bukhara (successor Shâh Gul
Muhammad), Ghazni (successor Mullâ Gul Muhammad), Turkistan (successors,
Mullâ Khudâbûrdî and Mullâ ‘Abdulkarîm), Tashkent, Qandahar (successor,
Mawlawî Nûr Muhammad), Kabul, Peshawar (successor Mullâ ‘Alâ’uddîn),
Multan, Kashmir, Lahore, Sirhind, Bhopal, Sanbhal, Bareilly, Rampur, Lucknow
(successor, Miyân Muhammad Asghar), Bengal, Hyderabad (successor, Shâh

74
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 228. The dismissal of deceased shaykhs in this way
contradicts Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s own experience (above) and the crucial role deceased shaykhs have
played in the Naqshbandî lineage. It appears that the open nature of this letter (to the scholars, notables,
and leaders of Rûm) and his addressing issues of Ahmad Sirhindî’s Medinan opponent, Muhammad
‘Abdurrasûl Barzanjî (d. 1692) both provide a context for this unusual dismissal. Barzanjî’s anti-
Sirhindî stance is discussed in Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindî: An Outline of His Thought
and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 7-8; 97-
101. Note the reputation Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh had for a powerful projection of spiritual power (tawajjuh),
which he often reminded people. See Fusfeld, “Sufi Leadership,” p. 188.
75
These criticisms include allegations of Sirhindî saying that ‘Abdulqâdir Jîlânî ascended higher than
any other friend of God but his descent into the everyday world (nuzûl) was deficient, that Ahmad
Sirhindî was equal or greater than Muhammad or Abu Bakr, and that Ahmad Sirhindî declared himself
a renewer of Islam. Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 13, 74, 87, and the most
comprehensive treatment, pp. 122-132.
76
The specifics of this controversy and the sources thereof are detailed in Buehler, Sufi Heirs, pp. 246-
247. It is difficult to know Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s stance or actual practice on this matter since he has both
configurations outlined in his letters. Sirhindî’s original order of the contemplations is found in Ghulâm
‘Alî Dihlawî, Makâtîb-i sharîfa, pp. 207-208 and in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, “Risâla-yi sulûk,” in
Majmû‘a-yi rasâ’il-i sulûk-i tarîqa-yi naqshbandiyya (Hyderabad, Deccan: Matba‘ Mufîd, n. d.), pp.
59-68, especially pp. 64-65. Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s new order is outlined in Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i
durr al-ma‘ârif, pp. 67-72, and Makâtîb-i sharîfa, p. 176. Perhaps Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh used both
configurations of contemplations with different students. Note that Mawlânâ Khâlid in “Risalat fî tibyân
al-murâqaba” in ‘Abdulkarîm Mudarris, Yâd-i mardân: Mawlânâ Khâlid Naqshbandî, vol. 1 (Baghdad:
Châpkhâna-yi Kûrî Zânyârî Kûrd, 1979), pp. 458-459, uses Sirhindi’s order of the contemplations.
Literary descriptions of spiritual methods, without evidence of disciple-teacher interactions, do not
mean that the authors actually used these methods. Indeed, in Mawlânâ Khâlid’s case, he used a special
kind of râbita rather than the more time-consuming methods of Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh involving
contemplations. See Butrus Abu Manneh, “Khalwa and Râbita in the Khalidi Suborder.”
77
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Sharh-i durr al-ma‘ârif, p. 142.
78 Arthur BUEHLER

Sa‘dullâh), Patna (successor, Muhammad Darvîsh), Zabid, Yemen (successor,

Mawlawî ‘Abdulghaffâr), and Mecca (successor, Mawlânâ Muhammad Jân) in
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî’s circle.78
Even though Muslims in Delhi soon discovered that their political authority had
ceased unless it fit the plans of the British, the institution that Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî
had founded continued to flourish. Although the days of a Sufi shaykh being able
to exert his moral authority on government officials had ended, and there were
times the shaykhs at Chitli Qabr had to take refuge elsewhere (e.g., after the 1857
rebellion), the institution adapted to the times. One way of adapting was for Sufis
to focus on assisting individuals attain greater inner peace in an increasingly
changing modern world. Abû’l-khayr and Abû’l-hasan Zayd Fârûqî, two influential
shaykhs at Chitli Qabr, were both prolific writers and continued the traditions at
the Sufi lodge Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî had established. One important legacy, therefore,
was Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî founding an institution in Chitli Qabr that has successfully
adapted to unexpected changes. Naqshbandî Sufism continues there under the
supervision of Shaykh Abû Nasr Ânis Fârûqî Sâhib.79
Shâh Ghulâm ‘Alî’s most influential legacy in the larger Islamic world is the
Khâlidiyya lineage begun by his most favored disciple, Mawlânâ Khâlid who
disseminated Naqshbandî teachings in an entirely different physical, cultural, and
political milieu than that of his shaykh.

Arthur BUEHLER

78
Ghulâm ‘Alî Dihlawî, Maqâmât-i Mazharî, 164. For information concerning Ghulâm ‘Alî Shâh’s
successors (included in parentheses above), see ‘Abdulghanî Mujaddidî, “Halât-i Hadrat Shâh Ghulâm
‘Alî Dihlawî,” pp. 599-623.
79
I would like to thank Shaykh Abû Nasr Ânis Fârûqî Sâhib, who has graciously assisted me whenever
I have visited Chitli Qabr.