Hindu-Muslim Religious Encounters during the Delhi Sultanate Period
استكشاف التفاعلات الهندوسية والإسلامية: لقاءات دينية في عصر سلطنة دلهي
MUNAZZA
BATOOL
Assistant Professor, Department of Comparative Religion, Faculty of Usuluddin (Islamic Studies), International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. This article is a part of research completed by the author as a postdoctoral project at Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad in 2019-2020.
Abstract
This article is an analytical reconsideration of the nature of the theological and cultural relationship that existed between Muslims and the Hindus in the Delhi Sultanate. It further aims at an examination of the religious attitudes of both communities towards each other. Historical links between Islam and Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent are extended into the very ancient past. Both religions have shared a long history that goes back to the early days of Islam. Religious interaction between Islam and Hinduism is a complex and multidimensional theme. It has its significance in the present world and in fact, it not only involves religious and theological issues but also many current socio-political and anthropological themes like race, gender, nation, and majority-minority relations are linked with the shared past of both communities in the Indian subcontinent. In this article, I explore the nature of the religious or theological interactions between both communities i.e., how Hindus generally and Brahmans particularly perceived and interpreted Islam and Muslims as newcomers to their land and what were the Muslim theological and intellectual perspectives on Indian traditions generally and on Hindus particularly.
Keywords : Hindu-Muslim relations, India, Sufism, Delhi Sultanate.
Introduction
The study of Hindu-Muslim relations has been a common venture for almost all historians of Islam or Hinduism as these interactions are deeply rooted in history for a millennium. As far as the previous researches are concerned, there are inexhaustible studies that cover Hindu-Muslim interactions in fields of religion, politics, society, culture, arts, literature, economics, etc. Among the pioneering works that deal with the sociocultural aspects and highlight the influences and borrowings of both the communities in different fields of life is that of S. M. Jafar.1
There are detailed surveys of the religious
and mystical thought that developed in
the Indian subcontinent as a result of Hindu-Muslim interactions and mutual influences. Among
these, one finds the work of Tara Chand
dealing with the Muslim influence on Indian culture and civilization and showing that medieval
Hinduism absorbed various elements of
Islamic thought, particularly the Sufi concepts of monism, spiritual guru and egalitarianism. He has
tried to show that this absorption paved the way for a religious reform within
Hinduism, hence tracing the origin of
the Bhakti movement to Islam.2
K. A. Nizami has focused on the religious and socio-political history of the Sultanate period and has penned several works on the period under review. He highlighted various themes and aspects of religion and politics in India during the Delhi Sultanate.3 Aziz Ahmed, on the other hand, focused on Islamic thought in India and provided an overview of some syncretistic sects and folk beliefs among Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.4 Shaikh Muhammad Ikram’s work covers various aspects of the cultural, intellectual, and religious history of Indian Muslims.5 Likewise, Iqtidar Husain highlighted the impact of interactions between Hindu and Islamic cultures under the Arab and Ghaznavid rulers, from where it reached Sind and Punjab resulting in socio-political changes in the whole subcontinent.6
In the past few decades, the works of Richard
M. Eaton7 and Andre Wink8 have pioneered
a new vocabulary that depicts the base of Hindu Muslim commonality. As a
result, the phrases “Indic” and “Islamicate
India,” “al-Hind,” and the “Indo-Islamic world” are now common. Convergence between the Islamic and Hindu or
Indian worldviews emerges as a key theme
in the work of David Gilmartin and Bruce B.
Lawrence, dealing with the pre-modern history of South Asia.9 These phrases are used in the historiography of
Sufism, governance, society, trade,
architecture, and other cultural aspects that developed during Muslim rule in India in the works with a
focus on the convergence of both
worldviews.10 There are works that have focused particularly on the Sultanate or pre-Mughal period. Despite the
variety of themes and approaches to the
study of Hindu-Muslim relations and the periodical and regional analysis of various Sufi orders
and mystical movements, the mutual
religious perception of both the communities is a theme that needs to be explored further.
It is pertinent to mention that during the
past few decades, many scholars have
criticized the use of the term Hinduism on the grounds that the term Hinduism is a colonial
construct and that it did not exist
before the nineteenth century.11 These scholars are of the view
that there was nothing as a continuous
and homogeneous Hinduism prior to the
British or the colonial use of the term in the nineteenth century. Though Wilfred Cantwell Smith advocated
abandoning the term Hinduism as it is a
false conceptualization, his rejection of the term was perhaps based on his view that any statement
about religion was not valid unless it
was accepted by the adherents of that religion.12 However, this view also provides a base for the
contrary: the believers have not
challenged the usage of the term themselves.
It is argued that the use of the term Hinduism
as a religion emerged due to the
misunderstanding of the European scholars when they took over the term Hindu from the Persian sources
but failed to realize that the term Hindu
in Persian sources simply corresponded to the term Indian.13 It is further argued that the
concept of Hinduism as a single
religious community has damaged the peace, security, and unity of
the Indian political system; hence, the
use of the term should be abandoned.14
Recently, researchers have suggested the heterogeneity and fluidity of the term Hindu and it is
proposed that the recent construal of
the Hindu and Muslim identities as two binary communities, each representing a uniform pattern or reality
needs to be reconsidered.15
What follows is a reconsideration of the early
Hindu-Muslim religious encounters and
mutual perceptions. The research focuses on
the Delhi Sultanate period and aims to provide an estimate of the
nature of these early socio-religious
encounters.
Early
Hindu Perceptions of Islam and Muslims
The
study of early mutual perceptions of Hindus and Muslims can explain the nature of Hindu-Muslim relations
through the centuries of their contacts.
We have a variety of sources from which the Muslim narrative of the early period can be
ascertained. Likewise, there are some
Indian narratives that inform us about the indigenous perception of Islam and Muslims. The Muslim conquest of
the Indian lands was not only a change
of rule for Hindus, it also raised many cultural and theological issues regarding their
interaction with new foreigners,
particularly the issue that how the very power of their devis and
devatas was challenged. The destruction
of their idols and temples during the
war not only demanded an interpretation of these occurrences from Hindu scholars as to how their powerful gods
and goddesses failed to stop their own
destruction by outsiders and were demolished but also raised many questions related to their
interpretations of these images.
Considering them new outsiders, early Indian
sources referred to Muslims using
different ethnic or geographical terms. This otherness was essentially grounded on their religious
texts that divided the world into clean
and unclean abodes, “One should not approach a person, nor go to that region beyond the border lest one
imbibe that evil death.”16
According to the traditional Hindu worldview,
the places and people outside their own
territory were considered asura pradesh (the land of demons) and mleccha pradesh (the land of the
unclean). Thus, Manusmriti
differentiated the aryavarata17 from mleccha pradesh. According to
this traditional perspective, outsiders
were unclean. Though apparently, it
seems that this otherness was meant only from the geographical perspective, a close survey of indigenous
sources reveals that the Jains
classified mlecchas into those born in some other continent and those
born in Bharta, thus connoting cultural otherness as well.
Ethnic
and Geographical Otherness
An
analysis of some indigenous works compiled during the period of Muslim conquest and settlements makes it
clear that Hindus perceived Muslims as
aliens and foreigners. Therefore, they were considered unclean and a source of filth and touching
them required a lot of expiations and
ritual procedures. They interpreted Muslim forces and their progress as signs of Kali Yuga and
considered Muslims the agents of demons.
Some of the earliest Indian references to Muslims depict them as foreigners and unclean from a theological
or religious perspective. All the
various outsiders like Greeks, Scythians, and Kushans were associated with such taboos and Muslims were
no exception. Muslims were occasionally
identified with ethnic references such as Yavana (Greeks), Turuskas (Turks) or
Tajika (Tajiks), or with geographical terms
such as Parasika and Garjana.
The term Yavana was originally used for the
Greeks and later for those coming from
West Asia or the West, as the Sanskrit word yavana was used for referring to
the Ionian Greeks. Turks and Afghans were also
referred to as Yavana, as they came from the West, hence alien. In
Tamil literature, the term Yavanar was
also used to refer to foreigners coming
from the West. But later it was used to refer to Arabs who were
among the earliest traders visiting the
towns along the coast of South India. The
term Yavanar is most probably one of the earliest descriptions of a
man from the Arab world in Tamil
literature.18
Turuska, a variant of Turushka, was an ethnic
term used to connote the Turks as an
ethnic group but later it was transformed into a generic term and was used to refer to the Muslims as
a whole. A Sanskrit inscription dated
Saka 1127 (1206 CE) on a rock in Kamrup about two miles northeast of Gauhati city on the north
bank of the Brahmaputra river in Assam
commemorates the drowning in the river of invading Turkish troops under the command of Bakhtiyār
Khaljī (d. 1206 CE) on their return from
an abortive campaign in Tibet. The text runs as
follows: “In Saka 1127, on the thirteenth of the month of honey [i.e.,
the month of Chaitra] upon arriving in
Kamrupa, the turuskas (Turks)
perished.”19
Likewise, in a historical poetic chronicle
from Kashmir during the twelfth century
CE, the Rājataraṅgiṇi20 used the term to refer to the Turuskas and adds, ironically, that even
though they were Turuskas, their earlier
kings were given to piety. This indicates that the term Turuska bore a negative
connotation. The idea of a negative association with the term can further be attested when Kalhana
writes disapprovingly of the Kashmiri
king Harsadeva, ruling in the eleventh century CE, and his activities like demolishing and looting
temples to overcome the fiscal crisis.
Kalhana calls him a Turuska to criticize him for his policies. Likewise, the references in two
twelfth-century inscriptions to the
Turuskas as evil (dustat-turuska) and to a woman reinstalling an
image broken by the Turuskas,21 reveal
that it was a pejorative reference and
was generalized to include all Muslims; that the destruction of
temples and images by the Muslims caused
grievances in the local population; and
that their own Hindu rulers who committed atrocities were called Turuskas.
Muslims were essentially seen as outsiders who
belonged to other regions, thus the
terms Tajika, Parasika, and Garjana were references to the geographical places where Muslims lived
in the majority. The Rashtrakuta kings
of the ninth and tenth centuries appointed a Tajika as governor of Sanjan in the area of Thane
district on the west coast. His name is
rendered as Madhumati, thought to be the Sanskrit for the Arabic name Muḥammad.22 The earliest occurrence of
the term Tajika is in the Kavi plate from
the Barroach district in Gujarat. The plate records a grant to lord Asramadeva and refers to Arabs as
Tajikas in the context of Sindh.23
Likewise, both the terms Parasika and Garjana
were also generalized to include all
Muslims. Parasika was a geographical term referring to the Persians or the inhabitants of Faris or
Paris.24 As for the termGarjana, it
emerged in the context of the Ghaznavid conquest as a geographical reference to Ghazni. It was also later used
for Muslims in general.25
In all the above references to Muslims, one
can easily discern that the contemporary
Indian sources refer to Muslims using geographical and ethnic terms. Interestingly, these terms
are for all intents and purposes
uncomplimentary and sometimes derogatory.
Muslims
as Tabooed and Unclean
Besides
the geographical and ethnic references, the indigenous sources of the said period frequently referred to
Muslims using the terms like mleccha and
chandala. The term mleccha means foreigners who could not talk properly, outcasts with no place in
Indian society, and inferiors with no
respect for dharma.26 These two terms are also found in the Muslim sources of the said period.27 The term
mleccha was occasionally used in the
Sanskrit inscriptions during the early period to refer to Arab Muslims. Muslims were also called chandalas
which means outcast and untouchable.
According to Dharmasutra, the chandalas were considered extremely filthy and the meanest men on
earth. Contact with the air that touched
a chandala’s body was regarded as pollution; even the sight of a chandala caused evil.28
These terms no doubt suggest that the Muslims
were perceived by the early Indian
society as an “other” that was necessarily unclean, filthy, and tabooed. Hindus discriminated
against them as outcasts from their
caste-structured society and regarded their touch or breath and scent of their food as pollution. Muslims and
Hindus, therefore, lived in separate
territories and cities. If they happened to live in the same city, they adopted living in segregated areas.
Abū Rayḥān Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī pointed
to the same Hindu attitudes in a
picturesque manner when he informed that “in all manners and usages, they differ from us to
such a degree as to frighten their
children with us, with our dress, ways, and customs, and to declare us to be devil’s breed.”29 Thus, in this
early phase of Hindu-Muslim contacts,
the possibility of any kind of social integration did not exist. Hindus developed an insular attitude on the
social level to save their purity and
caste. There is no doubt that the Muslim rulers trusted them with political and administrative responsibilities,
and there was a noticeable
representation of the Hindu elite in Muslim courts. However, that could not remove the social barriers
between the two communities at
large.
Hindu
Religious Literature and Muslims
Besides
the terms which were used to refer to Muslims, there were some theological issues related to these newcomers
which would help to understand the
nature of the early Hindu-Muslim contacts. To interact and contact with those who were mleccha required
religious laws and regulations. There
emerged a variety of legal issues based on such
conditions i.e., interaction, sexual relations, and eating with and marriage to a mleccha. Contact with Muslims
emerged as an imperative theme in some
religious works of the period. We find a Sanskrit work produced in Arab Sindh sometime during the
tenth century CE known as Deval Smriti
which is still extant. Its main theme was the issue of contact with mlecchas and the various procedures of
re-purification for those who became
filthy due to their contacts with mlecchas, i.e., Muslims. The Deval Smriti opens with a question of how the
brahbmana and members of other castes
when carried off by mlecchas were to be purified and restored to their castes, thus attesting the
practice of religious taboos against
Muslims.30 According to Deval Smriti, “when a brahman is carried off by mlecches and he eats or drinks
forbidden food or drink or has sexual
intercourse with women he should not have approached, he becomes purified by doing the penance of
chandrayana and paraka, that a kashtriya
becomes pure by undergoing paraka and krcchrapada, a vaisya by half of paraka and a sudra by the penance of
paraka for five days.”31
As regard paraka, it was a fasting penance.
According to al-Bīrūnī, this fasting
continues for nine days. He says that in paraka one has to eat at noon for three days, at night for the next
three days, and refrain completely from
eating for the final three days,32 while in the penance of sudra it is mentioned for five days. The
paraka of five days described by Deval is
a specific one as it is particularly related to expiate for the direct contact with Muslims and is different from
the one indicated by al Bīrūnī, but the common thing is that it is a fasting
observance. Likewise, chandrayana is
defined as a series of fasting for one month. According to al-Bīrūnī, it starts with fasting on the day
of a full moon and one has to eat a
mouthful of food on the next day and has to increase one morsel every day till the day of amavasya, or the
day when the moon disappears totally. He
then has to decrease one morsel every day till he ends with all the morsels (fifteen).33
There was another understanding of the penance
or prayascitta, that is, after remaining
in contact with a Muslim for four years, death is the only purifier. However, in a later section
(53–55), Deval Smriti provides an
exemption to the general rule by allowing one to be re-purified even
if he remained in such conditions up to
twenty years by going through
chandrayana.34
Some specific rules related to the
re-purification of women were also
addressed by Deval Smriti. Women who come into direct contact with mlecchas or become pregnant as a result of
such contact could be purified by a
krchhra santapana penance and by cleansing their private parts with ghee (i.e., clarified butter). The penance
mentioned here is performed by
subsisting on five products of the cow.35 The child born of such union, according to Deval Smriti, must not be
retained. The fellow members of her
caste should reject such children so that they could not mix with the pure cast. According to Deval Smriti, the
mleccha fetus is treated as a mleccha
substance in the woman’s body. Once removed, the woman can be re-admitted to her caste after due
penances. The legal status of the child
is that of impure mixed caste.
Another important issue for Hindu theologians
was the destruction of the images of
their gods and the Tirthankaras of Jainism by Muslim armies. They sought different interpretations
for answers to these theological
questions. One of such theological texts is the Ekalinga mahatmya text, a part of the Vayupurana. The
text relates the history of the Ekalinga
Siva temple in Mewar. It also raises the question of the destruction of the temple and its images by
Muslim attackers. It is interesting to
note that the text tries to explain the Muslim conquest with the help of the concept of four
world-ages, in which the last world age
or Kali Yuga is an age of depravity, horror, and disaster, so the Muslims were seen as agents of Kali
Yuga.
Another interpretation is the idea of conflict
between good and evil or the gods and
the demons, in which the gods also suffer. The text also interprets the possibility of the Muslim
conquest of the Indian subcontinent as a
consequence of wicked rulers and their wrongful
policies. Another theological issue that is highlighted by the text
relates to the making of idols that
resulted in the destruction of images and
temples. It was suggested that expensive and costly images were to
be avoided. Instead, the appropriate
medium of wood or simple stone may be
used.
According to the Ekalinga mahatmya, the Muslim
conquest during the twelfth century CE
was seen as the will of the gods and Muslim armies were interpreted as agents of demons. The
text further explores the reality of
images and poses the question that if the images of gods are in fact gods themselves, how is that they could
be destroyed, burnt, or thrown to the
ground by Muslim armies? First, it says that the Yavanas are eager to destroy divine images in much
the same way as the demons took it into
their heads to harm the gods.36 Al-Bīrūnī also attested to the same attitude by reporting that the Muslims
were declared by the Hindus as the devil
breed.37
Therefore, from a Hindu perspective, Muslims were considered to be the incarnations of demons, while the Hindu kings who were fighting back were considered to be the incarnations of Hindu gods. This interpretation of Muslims as demons made it possible for Hindus to address the crucial issue of the destruction of the images of gods by Muslim armies.
Alongside Hindu records, Muslim historians
also have noted that Hindus were
concerned with the issue of ritual pollution caused by imprisonment at the hands of Muslims.
According to an early Muslim source on
the history of Sindh, Chachnāmah, the Arab Muslims were called chandalan, gaw-khawaran by Hindus of
Sindh.38 Likewise, from the Ghaznavid
period onwards, Muslim sources indicate such attitudes. Al Bīrūnī and
al-Maqdasī recorded that when any Hindu prisoner was released by Muslims or he escaped and reached
his homeland, Hindu society would not
accept him as he was considered defiled. They
observed that such a person was supposed to go through different processes of purification. To quote
al-Maqdasī here, “All the hairs of his
head and body are removed and then he has to eat dung, urine,
butter and milk of a cow for several
days. Afterwards, he is brought in front of a
cow and he prostates to it.”39
It is interesting to note that al-Bīrūnī also
shared such experiences which reflected
Hindu attitudes towards him and his co-religionists
All
their fanaticism is directed towards those who do not belong to them i.e., all foreigners. They call them mleccha,
i.e., impure and forbid having any
connection with them, be it intermarriage, or any other kind of relationship,
or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby they think, they will be polluted.40
He
further informs that “they consider impure anything which touches the fire and water of a foreigner, and no
household can exist without these two
elements.”41
The glimpse of the cultural and social
differences and prejudices provided by
al-Bīrūnī verify what is discussed above in Hindu religious texts. Al-Bīrūnī considered these Hindu
prejudices a cause of widening the gulf
between Hindus and Muslims. He continued to comment on such religious and social barriers from a Hindu
perspective
They
are not allowed to receive anybody who does not belong to them even if he wished it or was inclined to their
religion. This, too, renders any
connection with them quite impossible and constitutes the widest gulf between us and them.
Al-Bīrūnī
also informed about rites prescribed by Hindu religious authorities for those who happened to be in
contact with Muslims.
I
have repeatedly been told that when Hindu slaves (in Muslim countries) escape and flee to their country and
religion, the Hindus order that they
should fast by way of expiation, then they bury them in the dung,
stale, and milk of cows for a certain
number of days, till they get into a state of
fermentation. Then they drag them out of the dirt and give them
similar dirt to eat, and more of the
like.42
Al-Bīrūnī
further informed that when he asked the Brahmans about such details, they denied it and stated that there
was no possibility for individuals who
lost their caste of returning to their previous state. He considered their information true, pointing
to the fact that “if a Brahman eats in
the house of Sudra for certain days, he is expelled from his caste and can never regain it.”43
To conclude, early Hindu perceptions of Islam
and Muslims were extremely exclusivist,
not only on theological grounds but also on sociocultural grounds. Muslims were perceived
as “other,” “unclean” and “aliens” with
whom they were not allowed to interact socially. If they were to do so, they had to go through
penances to remove the filth caused by
such interaction. At the same time, Muslims were seen as agents of evil forces or demons and signs of
Kali Yuga.
Early
Muslim Perceptions of Indian Religious Traditions
While
Muslims were considered foreigners, unclean, and demons in the local Hindu narratives of the Delhi Sultanate
period, it is pertinent to see how
contemporary Muslim sources of the said period perceived and depicted the people who adhered to a variety
of religious beliefs and practices
branded today as “Hinduism” and what theological status they accorded to such beliefs and practices. To
find the answers to these and related
issues, one is bound to look into the contemporary political and administrative records, the futūḥ narratives,
historical accounts, and the works of
Muslim scholars on Indian religions.
In general, we find that Hindus were treated
as Ahl al-Dhimmah44 by Muslim rulers
from the very early period, as was the case in the context of Sindh.45 In practice, this meant that they
were allowed to pay jizyah (i.e., the tax for the protection of the non-Muslim
population) and practice their own
religion. It is pertinent to note the view of the Ḥanafī and the Mālikī schools in this regard. Mālik
b. Anas (d. 179/795) is reported to have
said that jizyah may be accepted from “faithless Turks and Indians”46 and that their legal status is
similar to that of Zoroastrians. Abū Ḥanīfah
(d. 150/767) is reported to have adopted the
same view.47 The inclusion of Hindus and other idolaters in the
category of Ahl al-Dhimmah sheds light
on the early Muslim theological concept of
Hinduism.
The later Muslim dynasties of Sindh, Mansura,
and Multan also adopted the same view,
and their non-Muslim population was treated as
Ahl al-Dhimmah.48 Later we find that the Ghaznavids adopted a
different approach towards Hindus. They
were treated as mushriks (polytheists) by
Maḥmūd Ghaznavī. A history of the Ghaznavid period, Tārīkh
al-Yamīnī, highlights motifs like “to
erase the signs of idols. . . .”49 and “all the
houses of idols were ordered to be broken.”50 Hindus were treated
as mushriks and had to choose between
Islam, death or expulsion, and slavery.
One reason behind this clear shift could be the difference of opinion among Muslim jurists in this regard,
as two schools of Islamic law were
agreed to accord such status to Hindus. It seems that the religious policies of Maḥmūd Ghaznavī were
based on Shāfi‘ī rulings in this regard,
as it is highlighted by a politician and historian of the Delhi sultanate, Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Baranī, who stated
that Maḥmūd adhered to the Shāfi‘ī
school, according to which accepting jizyah from Hindus was not lawful.51 From the Ghaznavid period onwards,
we find a dichotomy in Muslim attitudes
towards Hinduism. However, the successors of the Ghaznavids, both the Sultans and Mughals,
treated Hindus as Ahl al Dhimmah, a practice which was certainly based on the Ḥanafī perspective.
Muslim
Intellectual Views on Hinduism
There
is extensive Muslim literature that dates back to the period under review dealing with the culture, religious
ideas, and practices of the inhabitants
of the Indian subcontinent. Among these works, one finds travelogues compiled by early Muslim
travellers and merchants,52 historical works,53 and works on religions.
Likewise, Muslim geographers also
included information about the religions of India in their works.54
All
these worksdiscussed the Indian religions at length.
Early Muslims did not conceptualize religion
in India as a single homogeneous
tradition known as Hinduism; rather, they referred to the multiple religious sects or madhāhib of
India, some of which were considered
monotheistic but not prophetic while others were considered somehow prophetic but not monotheistic. The
categorization of the religious beliefs
of Hindus in early Muslim scholarship was essentially based on the Islamic principles of belief.
Since tawḥīd is the fundamental concept
of Islam, Muslim scholars analyzed the religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent relying on the principle
of tawḥīd. As tawḥīd cannot be
reconciled with any form of pagan idol worship or the polytheistic beliefs, Muslim scholars and theologians
categorically described common Hindus as
polytheists while appreciating the monotheistic
Brāhimah. Moreover, they considered Sumaniyyah or Buddhist tradition mu‘aṭṭilah (those who divest God of His
attributes).55 The monotheistic
tendencies among Hinduism were attributed to the Brāhimah who revered One God and were appreciated by
Muslim scholars as muwaḥḥids.56 Besides
al-Bīrūnī who was a direct observer and a field
researcher as regards Hindu beliefs, other Muslim scholars also referred
to monotheistic tendencies in the Hindu
religion. We even find Muslim scholars
who preferred the monotheistic Hindu Brahmans to the adherents of dualist religions and
Christians.57
The second important principle of Islamic
belief was the belief in prophecy. Here
we find that Muslim theologians described the Brāhimah as those who accept
reason and believed in one God but rejected
prophecy.58 They also compared Hindus to Sabians for their belief in stars and spiritual beings. The terms like
the Sumaniyyah, the Brāhimah, and the Ṣābi’ah59
were used to categorize Hindus and comprehend the difference of opinions and beliefs among
them. These terms were frequently used
by Muslim theologians and scholars in their discussions regarding the variety of religious beliefs of
Hindus.
In connection with the concept of God, a
variety of Hindu perceptions was noticed
by early Muslim scholars and observers of
Hinduism. According to them, Hindu beliefs of God were not homogeneous. Some considered idols representatives
or manifestations of God, while others
believed in one God who was beyond all likeness and unlikeness.60 Though the Hindu Brahmans were
commonly considered those who rejected prophecy and revelation through
human messengers, they were at once considered
a monotheistic group. Thus, we find that
expressions like muwaḥḥid were used freely for monotheistic Hindus.61
The view that there were monotheistic
believers among Hindus was stressed by
the Muslim scholars and writers from the very early period. However, they also highlighted the presence
of polytheistic approaches to the Divine
among them. While referring to a variety of religious beliefs in Hind, al-Maqdasī alluded to the
existence of some nine hundred major and
minor religious traditions, of which he stated that only ninety-nine were known to him. Some of
these were monotheistic, others were
polytheistic, and still others were atheistic according to his informants.62 Al-Shahrastānī also described
Hindu beliefs of and attitudes to God as varying from monotheism to polytheism.
There were even atheists among them.63
Al-Idrīsī remarks:
Indians
have forty-two sects; some believe in God and prophets; some believe in God and deny the prophets, while
there are those who deny both God and
the prophets. Some worship idols and consider them a source for the grace of God. They revere
these by anointing them with oil and
fats.64
Based
on the Qur’ānic perspective of the origin of divine guidance and its all-encompassing message to humanity,65
Muslim scholars used the Islamic concept
of deviation from monotheism as a basic analytical tool to understand the religious beliefs and
practices of Hindus. Thus, the
conclusion that the Hindus’ original theological concept was tawḥīd
remained the keynote in early Muslim interpretations of Hinduism. The monotheistic tendencies of Hindus,
highlighted by Muslim scholars, helped
to provide common ground between believers of the two religions. Muslims sought to explain through
the idea of deviation or inḥirāf the
Hindu beliefs that were contrary to tawḥīd. Thus, this idea of deviation was used as an inclusive principle,
assuming that there might have been true
revealed teachings that were ignored or forgotten by Hindus or that they might have deviated from
the original message with the passage of
time.
According to al-Bīrūnī, people started
venerating religious symbols, statues,
or temples after they forgot the original motive of a given symbol’s creation. An earlier community may
have built a sculpture to honour or
commemorate a specific person (e.g., the Buddha) and give him respect, but a later community
transformed that tradition into a
religious ritual.66 The idea of deviation from the truth echoes the
Islamic perspective that every nation
was given a true divine message. The
Muslim idea of deviation was a central theological attitude towards Hinduism, which also took for granted the
presence of divine revelation in Hind’s
religious traditions.
Anthropomorphism was another term or category
used for the analysis of Hindu religious
beliefs. Early Muslim discourse on Hinduism
not only highlighted anthropomorphic tendencies among Hindus but also went further to seek the reason for the
presence of such concepts. According to
al-Bīrūnī, the anthropomorphic belief in God may occur due to linguistic limitations. He explains it
through an example of the limits of
linguistic expression. He says that if an uneducated man hears that God encompasses the universe in such a
way that nothing is concealed from him,
he will start thinking about the eyesight of God. As a consequence, he will ascribe a thousand
eyes to God.67 Anthropomorphism was identified as the main reason for the
erection of idols, according to a report
contained in al-Fihrist. People venerated idols
as the images of God.68 Thus, Muslim intellectuals related the idols
and images to the idea of
anthropomorphism or tashbīh.
According to Islamic traditions, India was the
first country in which idolatry was
practised and the ancient Arabian idols were of Indian origin. The tradition says that Adam
descended on an Indian mountain after
his expulsion from Paradise. When he passed away, the sons of Seth began to worship his body. Following this, a
man from the sons of Cain offered to
carve idols for his people so that they would also have an object of worship. He was the first man to do
this. Later, in the time of Noah, the
waters of the deluge washed the idols away from the Indian mountain on which they were placed and swept
them from country to country until they
finally landed on the Arabian coast near Jeddah. The legendary founder of Arabian idolatry, ‘Amr
b. Luḥayy was directed by a jinn to the
place where they were located.69 ‘Amr b. Luḥayy found the idols and called upon Arabs to worship
them.70 According to another tradition,
reported by Firishtah, the Brahmans of India used to travel to Mecca in pre-Islamic times in order to pay
homage to the idols and considered the
Ka‘bah the best place of worship.71 Mu‘āwiyah is reported to have sent golden idols, captured in
Sicily, to India for sale, as these
would find a ready market in that country.72
These and many other traditions indicate that
early Muslim theologians and scholars
considered Hindus idolaters and polytheists.
Al-Bīrūnī, who conducted fieldwork in the Indian subcontinent, also considered that idolatry was a major and more
common mode of worship for Hindus. He
further elaborated that it was more popular
among the ‘āmmah or the commoners who needed symbolic and iconographic representations of the Highest
Being, various deities, and
angels.73
Likewise, al-Shahrastānī, after categorizing
different sects and traditions of
Hindus, reached the conclusion that all these different groups were idolaters in practice. The
difference, according to al Sharastānī, was in the way they perceived their
idols. Some considered them to be the
actual deity, while others just saw them as the
representation of the Higher Being.74
According to some Muslim sources, the majority
of Hindus were Ṣābi’ah or star
worshipers. The category of Ṣābi’ah was used as an analytical tool by Muslim theologians to
describe such beliefs and practices
which, according to them, were analogous to star worshipers. Thus, we find that in his account of Ārā’
al-Hind, al-Shahrastānī highlighted the
presence of star worshipers among Hindus whom he called ‘abadat al-kawākib.75 Likewise, the
author of Ṭabaqāt al-Umam divided Hindus into two main groups; Brāhimah and Ṣābi’ah.
According to him, the Brāhimah were in
the minority while the majority of Hindus
were Ṣābi’ah, who believed in the eternity of the world and
worshipped the stars and venerated them
by making different images in their
names.76
According to classical Muslim theologians, the
Brāhimah were a group of Hindus who
denied prophethood. Thus, we find that al-Ghazālī, al-Bāqillānī, al-Shahrastānī, and Ibn Ḥazm
discussed Brāhimah as those who denied
prophethood. The Brāhimah, according to al-Bāqillānī, denied prophethood totally or partially, and
those who had the partial faith believed
in the prophecy of Adam or Abraham. The impression that the Brāhimah were deniers of prophecy was
shared by all the scholars of kalām. For
instance, we find a whole chapter in Kitāb al-Tamhīd of al Bāqillānī under the
title “al-kalām ‘alā ’l Brāhimah” in which he refuted the opinions and arguments of those who
denied prophethood.77
Al-Ghazālī considered the Brāhimah among
Hindus who rejected prophethood
completely and altogether. He also rejected the probability of their being the followers of the Prophet
Abraham. He clarified that, among Hindus
who accepted the prophethood of Abraham, were the dualists.78 The account of al-Shahrastānī is
also identical to that of al
Ghazālī,
and he also declares that the Brāhimah were those who denied prophethood on the grounds that reason alone
could distinguish between right and
wrong, hence no need for the guidance of prophets in this regard.79
Al-Bīrūnī also pointed to the fact that Hindus
believed that the laws and norms of
religion were set by their sages known as rishis and not by prophets who were, according to them, narain,
or an incarnation of god in human form
who came to remove misery and hardships and had
nothing to do with the laws of religion. This is why Hindus think
that they do not need a prophet in the
spheres of religion and worship.80
In the Muslim accounts of Hinduism, tanāsukh
(transmigration) was considered a basic
feature. They were aware of the significance of this idea in the religious traditions of Ahl
al-Hind. Tanāsukh was considered the
core of Indian religious thought. Al-Bīrūnī rightly declares that the concept of tanāsukh is the main creed of Ahl
al-Hind81 and that all of their sects agree
upon it.
Sufi Attitudes towards and Interpretations of Hinduism 82
While the perceptions of Indian traditions in the eyes of Muslim jurists and theologians were focused on the understanding and analysis of the categories of their beliefs and practices, Sufi approaches towards them were informed by the analogous aspects of the Indian system of yoga. As a result, Sufi sources are replete with examples of interactions of early Sufis with Hindu mystics. Among the early Sufi accounts is the celebrated work of ‘Uthmān ‘Alī Hujwīrī’s Kashf al-Maḥjūb,83 written in Ghaznavid Lahore during the eleventh century CE. This early account of Sufi orders provides a lot of information about the development of different orders. The work also contains hints to some common practices between Sufis and Hindu mystics. The nature of these early Sufi attitudes towards Hinduism reveals that though the theological position of Muslim scholars and Sufis towards Hinduism was the same, the Sufi literature of the Indian subcontinent shows a tendency to accommodate Hindu mysticism while critically interpreting Hindu beliefs and practices.
Early Sufi literature reveals that Muslim
Sufis had social interactions with Hindu
mystics. In these accounts, one also finds ample evidence of Indian Sufis’ interest in studying and
understanding Hindu mystical ideas.
There are also examples of the adaptation of the practices of Hindu yogis. As far as the Sufi studies of
Hinduism are concerned, an interesting
example is a text on yoga and meditation that is generally attributed to the famous founder of the
Indian Chishtī Sufi order, Shaykh Mu‘īn
al-Dīn Chishtī (d. 1236 CE). Several versions of this treatise are found in manuscripts preserved in different
libraries, often with different titles,
but the content is almost the same. The attribution of the text to Mu‘īn al-Dīn Chishtī seems to be
false.84 However, the importance of this
text is that it indicates Sufis’ awareness of yoga and that was so important that it became a part of the
teaching of the greatest Sufi master in
the Chishtī tradition. The work is commonly called Risālah-i Wujūdiyyah or the treatise of existence, but
also known as Risālah-i Sarmāyah-i
Yōgī.85 The treatise provides a description of yogic physiology and cosmology and compares it with the
Islamic account of the nature of the
world.86 The treatise is the best example of Sufi studies of Hinduism. It discusses Islamic metaphysical and cosmological
concepts with a reference to yogic
themes.
Another example of such Sufi studies is an
anonymous Persian text on yoga called
Kamarupa (Seed Syllables), which draws eclectically upon Islamic references in order to comprehend and
present the occult yoga techniques
valuable for their practical results. It informs that Hindi mantras were transmitted by the prophets
Jonah, Abraham, and Khiḍr. This text
also identifies the Sanskrit seed mantra hrim, invariably represented in Arabic script as raḥīm with
the Arabic name of Allah Raḥīm, the
Merciful. The minor spiritual beings called indu-rekha in Hindi were rendered to the Persian term for angel
(firishtah). The text also provides an
estimate of the presence and adaptation of the yogic practices in the Indian Islamic society.
There were also references to Muslim
magicians and practices that may be performed either in a Muslim or a Hindu graveyard, or else in an empty
temple or mosque and occasionally one
is told to recite a Qur’ānic passage or to perform a certain action.87
These Sufi works also reveal the popularity of
the practices of Hindu mysticism among
Muslim circles. Interestingly, such texts contain comparisons between Islamic and Indian terms
and concepts and employ standard Arabic
terms for different yogic themes.88 The evidence of appraisal and assimilation of the spiritual
values of Hinduism is also found in the
biographies of Chishtī Sufi masters like Shaykh Farīd al-Dīn and Niẓām al-Dīn. The former had connections
with yogis who often visited his Jamā‘at
Khānah89 and discussed with him spiritual matters. The latter studied yogic practices and asked
his followers to follow the yogic
practice of holding their breath in order to concentrate.90 However, these
details should not lead one to presume that the Sufis approved of Hindu polytheistic ideas. We have
examples of Sufis who criticized
Hinduism and rejected idolatry. Shaykh Naṣīr al-Dīn Maḥmūd “Chirāgh-i Dihlī” (d. 1356 CE) was one of the
principal leaders of the Chishtī order
in Northern India. In his recorded conversations, known as Khair al-Majālis, Chirāgh-i Dihlī, through a
story of a Hindu idolater, clearly
conveyed his dissent against idolatrous practices of Hindus and that God did not approve of idolatry.
However, true repentance, even after
many years of idol worship, is accepted by Him.91
Conclusions
Hindu-Muslim
interactions and relations are multifaceted subjects, ranging from religion, politics, and culture
to architecture, painting, literature,
and language. In this article, I have focused on the early religious and theological perceptions of each
other by Muslims and Hindus during the
period of the Delhi Sultanate. After a thorough
analysis of the materials and literature from both communities, one may conclude that on the socio-religious level,
the early interaction between the two
communities left a deep impact on them. From the Hindu perspective, the impact was palpable in
theological and social issues like
interaction with foreigners (mleccha). The religious texts that were
given the status of smritis (or legal
texts of the period) clearly explained the
Hindu perception of Muslims. One of the key challenges for Hindu theologians of the period was to explain the
destruction of the temples and images of
their deities at the hands of Muslim armies. This was explained by referring to Muslims as the
harbingers of Kali Yuga and the
instruments of demons and sometimes referring to them as the
devil’s breed.
Coming to the Islamic perspective of Hindus,
many interesting insights can be
highlighted. An important point is the inclusive approach of Muslims to Hinduism. Almost all
historical, geographical, and legal
sources agree upon granting Hindus the status of Ahl al-Dhimmah. This was a symbol of the social openness of
Muslims and in sharp contrast to the
Hindu practice of stigmatizing Muslims.
Due to the narrative nature of early Islamic sources on Hinduism, early Muslim studies of Hinduism were overlooked or regarded as second-hand information on the subject.92 Yet, Muslims not only approached and studied the Indian religions but also used unique analytical terms and categories to portray them. These categories and terms, employed for interpreting and understanding a variety of Hindu beliefs and practices, also reflect the theological attitudes of early Muslim scholars towards Hinduism. In the light of the Muslim theological discourse on Hinduism, it is very clear that Muslims not only knew the diversity of Hindu concepts about God but also classified their beliefs and practices. Interpretations such as deviation from the true path, khawāṣṣ versus ‘āmmah,’ and Brāhimah versus Ṣābi’ah were used to explain such differences.
Another important fact that can be inferred
from the Muslim accounts of Indian
beliefs is their interest and expertise in the subject. Contrary to insular Hindu attitudes, Muslim
scholars, jurists, and Sufis took a deep
interest in studying, analyzing, and highlighting monotheistic Hindu tendencies. The Sufis went
even further to appreciate and
appropriate certain techniques and methods of Hindu mystics.
• • •
Foot Notes
1
S. M. Jaffar, Some Cultural Aspects of Muslim Rule in India (Peshawar: S.
Muhammad Sadiq Khan, 1939).
2
Tara Chand, Influence of Islam on Indian Culture (Lahore: Book Traders, 1946);
Yusuf Husain, Glimpses of Medieval Indian
Culture (London: Asian Publishing House, 1962).
3 Khaliq A. Nizami, Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth
Century (Bombay: Asia Publishing House,
1961); Nizami, Salāṭīn-i Dihlī kē Madhhabī Rujḥānāt (Delhi: Nadawat al Muṣannifīn,
1958); Nizami, Islāmī Fikr aur Tahdhīb kē Āthār Hindūstān par (Lucknow: Majlis-i Taḥqīqāt-o Nashriyāt-i Islām,
1982).
4
Aziz Ahmed, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1964).
5
Shaikh Muhammad Ikram, Muslim Civilization in India (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1969).
6
Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui, ed., Medieval India: Essays in Intellectual Thought
and Culture (New Delhi: Manohar, 2003).
7
Richard M. Eaton, India’s Islamic Traditions, 711–1750 (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003).
8
Andre Wink, Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic Worlds (Leiden: Brill,
2004). 9 David Gilmartin and Bruce B.
Lawrence, Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamic South Asia
(Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2000). 10 Ibid.
11
See Vasudha Dalmia, “The Only Real Religion of the Hindus: Vaisnava Self
representation in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Representing Hinduism:
The Construction of Religious Traditions
and National Identity, ed. Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 1995), 176–210; Robert Eric Frykenberg, “The Emergence of Modern ‘Hinduism’ as a
Concept and as an Institution: A Reappraisal
with Special Reference to South India,” in Hinduism Reconsidered, ed.
Günther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann
Kulke (Delhi: Manohar, 1989), 29–49; Christopher J. Fuller, The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and
Society in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); John Stratton Hawley, “Naming
Hinduism,” Wilson Quarterly 15, no. 3
(1991):
20–34. Also see Gerald Larson, India’s Agony over Religion (Albany: State
University Press, 1995); Harjot S.
Oberoi, The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1994), 16–17;
Heinrich von Stietencron, “Hinduism: On the Proper Use of a Deceptive
Term,” in Hinduism Reconsidered, ed.
Günther-Dietz Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke (Delhi: Manohar, 1989), 11–27; Stietencron,
“Religious Configurations in Pre-Muslim India and the Modern Concept of Hinduism,” in
Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity, ed. Vasudha
Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (New
Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 51–81.
12
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “Comparative Religion: Whither—and Why?” in The History
of Religions: Essays in Methodology, ed.
Mircea Eliade and Joseph M. Kitagawa (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1959), 42.
13
Stietencron, “Hinduism,” 11-27.
14
Frykenberg, “The Emergence of Modern ‘Hinduism,’” 29-49.
15
Andrey Truschke, Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court (New York,
NY: Columbia University Press, 2016).
Also see Finberr Berry Flood, Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval “Hindu-Muslim”
Encounter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2009).
16
Alen Goshen-Gottstein, The Religious Other: Hostility, Hospitality and Hope of
Human Flourishing (Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2018), 106.
17
Ibid.
18
Kamil Zvelebil, “The Yavanas in Old Tamil Literature,” in Charisteria
Orientalia: Praecipue ad Persiam
pertinentia, ed. Felix Tauer, Vẽra Kubičková, and Ivan Hrbek (Prague: Československé Akademie Věd, 1956),
401–09.
19
Quoted in Mohammad Yusuf Siddiq “An Epigraphical Journey to an Eastern
Islamic Land,” Muqarnas 7 (1990):
83–108.
20
Rājataraṅgiṇi is a long Sanskrit narrative poem of eight thousand metrical
verses divided into eight cantos. The
word Rājataraṅgiṇi means the river of kings. Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, trans., Kalhana’s Rājataraṅgiṇi:
The Saga of the Kings of Kaśmīr (New Delhi:
Sahitya Akademi, 1968).
21
Ram Shankar Avasthy and Amalananda Ghosh, “References to Muhammadans in Sanskrit Inscriptions in Northern India,”
Journal of Indian History 15 (1935): 161–84.
22 Sulaymān al-Tājir and Ḥasan b. Yazīd, Silslat al-Tawārīkh (Paris: Dār
al-Ṭibā‘ah al Sulṭāniyyah, 1811), 26; Buzurg b. Shahryār, ‘Ajā’ib al-Hind
(Leiden: Brill, 1908), 144; ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn
al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj al-Dhahab wa Ma‘ādin al-Jawāhir (Cairo: al-Maktabah al
Tawfīqiyyah, 2003), 2:85–86.
23
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, Studying Early India; Archaeology, Texts and
Historical Issues (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003), 203.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
John Keay, India: A History (New York: Grove Press, 2000), 187–88. 27 Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī mentioned the term
mleccha, the author of Chachnāmah mentioned the term chandala, but other Muslim
sources did not mention such terms. 28
Ramesh Chandra, Identity and Genesis of Caste System in India (Delhi: Mehra
Offset Press, n.d.), 62.
29
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind min Maqūlah Maqbūlah fī
’l-‘Aql aw Mardhūlah (Hyderabad: n.p.,
1958), 15.
30
For these verses of Devala Smirti, I have mainly relied on Pandurang Vaman
Kane, History of Dharmasastra (Pune:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1941), 389–91. 31 Ibid., 390.
32
Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 481–82.
33
Ibid., 481.
34
Kane, History of Dharmasastra, 391.
35
Ibid.
36
Phyllis Granoff, “Tales of Broken Limbs and Bleeding Wounds: Responses to
Muslim Iconoclasm in Medieval India,”
East and West 41, nos. 1-4 (1991): 189–203.
37 Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 15.
38
Muḥammad ‘Alī al-Kūfī, Chachnāmah, ed. Nabi Bakhsh Baloach, trans. Akhtar
Rizvi (Sindh: Sindhi Adabi Board, 1963),
195, 222–23.
39
Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir al-Maqdasī, Kitāb al-Bad’ wa ’l-Tārīkh (Cairo: Maktabat
al-Thaqāfah al-Dīniyyah, n.d.), 4:11–12.
40
Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 10.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid., 475.
43
Ibid.
44
Ahl al-Dhimmah are non-Muslim citizens living under Islamic sovereignty.
Dhimmah is an Arabic word which means
safety, security, and contract. Hence, they are called dhimmīs because they have agreed to a
contract by Allah, His Messenger, and the
Islamic community, which grants them security. Thus, a dhimmī is a
non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state
or a non-Muslim bearer of Islamic nationality. For a detailed discussion, see ‘Abd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad
b. Qudāmah, al-Mughnī (Cairo: Dār
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d.), 5:516 and ‘Abd al-Karīm Zaydān, Aḥkām
al-Dhimmiyyīn wa ’l Musta’minīn fī Dār al-Islām (Baghdad: Jāmi‘at Baghdād,
1963), 49–51.
45
Al-Kūfī, Chachnāmah, 290.
46
Zaydān, Aḥkām al-Dhimmiyyīn, 25–28; Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Ikhtilāf
al-Fuqahā’, trans. Joseph Schacht
(Leiden: Brill, 1933), 200.
47
Al-Ṭabarī, Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’, 200; Abū Yūsuf Ya‘qūb b. Ibrāhīm, Kitāb
al-Kharāj (Cairo: al-Maṭba‘ah
al-Salafiyyah, 1382 AH), 128–29; Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sarakhsī, Kitāb al Mabsūṭ
(Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 1978), 10:119.
48
For the treatment of Hindus under these rulers see, Aṭhar Mubārakpūrī,
Hindūstān maiṇ ‘Arabōṇ kī Ḥukūmataiṇ
(Sakkhar: Fikr-o Naẓar, 1987).
49
Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-‘Utbī, Ta’rīkh al-Yamīnī (Lahore: Maṭba‘-i Muḥammadī, 1882), 264.
50
Ibid., 308.
51
Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn Baranī, Fatāvā-i Jahān Dārī, ed. and trans. Afsar Saleem Khan
(Lahore: Research Society of Pakistan,
1972), 18.
52
See Sulaymān and Ḥasan, Silslat al-Tawārīkh and Buzurg, ‘Ajā’ib al-Hind. 53 See al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj al-Dhahab; Muḥammad
b. Isḥāq b. al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist (Beirut:
Dār al-Ma‘rifah, n.d.), and al-Maqdasī, Kitāb al Bad’ wa ’l-Tārīkh.
54
Among these geographers is Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Iṣṭakhrī (d. 346/957). His
work, Kitāb al-Masālik wa ’l-Mamālik
mentions many details about the Indian subcontinent. Muḥammad Abū ’l-Qāsim b. Ḥawqal (d. 368/978)
was an extensive traveller and
geographer. He spent thirty years travelling remote parts of Asia and
Africa. He also visited Sindh, made a
map of the country, and discussed the geography and culture of the area. His
work al-Masālik wa ’l-Mamālik wa ’l-Mafāwiz wa ’l-Mahālik also known as Ṣūrat al-Arḍ was edited by J. H. Kramers and
published by J. de Goeje as Bibliotheca
Geographorum Arabicorum, II (Leiden: Brill, 1873). Another important
work is ‘Ubayd Allāh b. ‘Abd Allāh b.
Khurdādhbih’s (d. 912 CE) al-Masālik wa ’l-Mamālik (Leiden: Brill, 1938). For his biography, see ‘Umar Riḍā Kaḥḥālah,
Mu‘jam al-Mu’allifīn (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’
al-Turāth, n.d.), 11:5.
55
al-Maqdasī, Kitāb al Bad’ wa ’l-Tārīkh, 4:10.
56
‘Abd al-Ḥayy b. Ḍaḥḥāk Gardīzī, Zain al-Akhbār, ed. ‘Abd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī
(Tehran: Intishārāt-i Farhang-i Īrān,
1348). An English translation of the chapter on India was published by V. Minorsky, “Gardīzī on India,”
Bulletin of School of the Oriental and African
Studies 12, nos. 3–4 (1948): 625–40.
57
Mohammad Wahid Mirza, ed., The Nuh Sipihr of Amir Khusrau: Persian Text
(with Introduction, Notes, Index, etc.)
(London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 164.
58 Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 10; ‘Alī b. Aḥmad b. Ḥazm, al-Faṣl
fī ’l-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa ’l-Niḥal
(Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1996), 5:137; Muḥammad b. al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī, al
Tamhīd (Beirut: al-Makatabh al-Sharqiyyah, 1957), 98–99.
59
Ṣā‘id b. Aḥmad al-Andalusī, Ṭabaqāt al-Umam (Beirut: Ṭibā‘ah Kāthūlīkiyyah,
1912), 15. 60 Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li
’l-Hind, 13.
61
Al-Maqdasī, Kitāb al-Bad’ wa ’l-Tārīkh, 4:10–11.
62
Ibid., 4:9–10.
63
Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-Milal wa ’l-Niḥal (Beirut:
Dār al Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah: 1992), 704–22.
64
Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Idrīsī, Nuzhat al-Mushtāq fī Ikhtirāq al-Āfāq
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah
al-Dīniyyah, n.d.), 1:65.
65
Qur’ān 35:24.
66
Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 55.
67
Ibid., 15.
68
Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist, 486–87.
69
Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa ’l-Mulūk, ed. De Goeje
(Leiden: Brill, 1964),1:121; Hishām b.
Muḥammad b. al-Sā’ib al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-Aṣnām, ed. Aḥmad Zakī Bāshā (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah,
1971), 39–41; ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. ‘Alī b. al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs (Cairo: al-Ṭibā‘ah
al-Munīriyyah, n.d.), 51–52.
70
Al-Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa ’l-Mulūk, 1:121; al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-Aṣnām,
31–33. According to another tradition,
‘Amr b. Luḥayy brought the idols from Syria where they were worshipped by the giants. See al-Shahrastānī,
Kitāb al-Milal wa ’l-Niḥal, 430–31. 71
For the tradition about Brahmans who worshipped in Mecca, see Muḥammad
Qāsim Firishtah, Tārīkh-i Firishtah,
trans. ‘Abd al-Ḥayy (Lahore: Sheikh Ghulam Ali and Sons, 1962), 2:885.
72
Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-Buldān (Cairo: Maṭba‘ al-Mawsū‘āt, 1901),
235; al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind,
96; Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, Kitāb al-Siyar al Kabīr (Cairo: Ṭab‘at
Jāmi‘at al-Qāhirah, 1960), 1051.
73
Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 56.
74
Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-Milal wa ’l-Niḥal, 443.
75
Ibid.
76
Al-Andalusī, Ṭabaqāt al-Umam, 12.
77
Al-Bāqillānī, al-Tamhīd, 104–31.
78
Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal al-Tafriqah bayn al-Kufr wa ’l-Zandaqah (Cairo: Muṣṭafā
al Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1941), 135.
79
Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-Milal wa ’l-Niḥal, 420.
80
Al-Bīrūnī, Taḥqīq Mā li ’l-Hind, 81.
81
Ibid.
82
For details, see Munazza Batool, “Sufis of Indian Subcontinent and Their Views
of Hinduism,” Quarterly Journal of the
Pakistan Historical Society (Historicus) 64, no. 2 (2016): 53-64.
83
Kashf al-Maḥjūb, written in Persian, is one of the earliest and most popular
treatises on Sufism in the Indian
subcontinent. It discusses major Sufi doctrines and orders of the period. ‘Uthmān ‘Alī Hujwīrī, Kashf al-Maḥjūb
(Islamabad: Markaz-i Taḥqīqāt-i Fārsī,
1978).
84
The tadhkirah and malfūẓāt literature do not mention any such book written by
him, which makes it highly probable that
this attribution is false.
85
There are several manuscripts of the text in Pakistan. Ahmed Munazvi mentions
ten of them. See Ahmed Munazvi,
Fihrist-i Mushtarik-i Nuskhahā-i Khaṭṭī-i Fārsī-i Pākistān (Islamabad: Ganj
Bakhsh, n.d.), 3:2101–03.
86
Carl. W. Ernest, “Two Versions of a Persian Text on Yoga and Cosmology,” Elixir
2 (2006): 69–76.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Amīr Ḥasan Sijzī Dihlavī, Favā’id al-Fu’ād (Lahore: Sirajuddin and Sons, 1966),
97, 144. 90 Ḥamīd Qalandar, Khair
al-Majālis (Karachi: Javed Press, n.d.), 51–53.
91 Ibid., 110.
92
Bruce B. Lawrence, “Shahrastānī on Indian Idol Worship,” Studia Islamica 38
(1973): 61–73.
Post a Comment