SOUTH ASIA

R E S E A RCH
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/026272800702800102
Vol. 28(1): 23–48
Copyright © 2008
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles,
London,
New Delhi,
Singapore

HAZRAT-I-DEHLI: THE MAKING OF THE

CHISHTI SUFI CENTRE AND THE
STRONGHOLD OF ISLAM
Raziuddin Aquil
CENTRE FOR STUDIES IN SOCIAL SCIENCES, CALCUTTA, INDIA

ABSTRACT This article explores the significant linkages between

the rise of Delhi as the foremost Sufi centre and the bastion of
Islam as well as the seat of political power in the 13th and 14th
centuries. Three out of the first five leading Chishti saints of the
Sultanate period chose to live in Delhi, catapulting the city onto
the map of the sacred geography of South Asian Islam. The Chishti
Sufis also helped in shaping the cosmopolitan character of the
city, even as they ensured that the interests of Islam and Muslims
were safeguarded. Hence, though Delhi remained the centre of
Muslim power for close to six centuries and its landscape is dotted
with mosques, madrasas and dargahs of the Sufis, the exclusionist,
juridical interpretation of Islam was sidelined in favour of a more
inclusive approach to religion practised and propagated by the
Chishtis. The essay charts this process and its significance for the
early history of Islam in India.
KEYWORDS: Chishti Sufis, conversion, Delhi, Delhi Sultanate, Islam
in India, medieval Indian architecture, medieval Indian urban his-
tory, Sufism

Introduction
This article aims to explore the connections between the emergence of Delhi as a
major Sufi centre and sanctuary of Islam as well as the seat of political power.1 If
Ajmer was the Mecca of Islam in Hindustan, Delhi emerged in the 13th and 14th
centuries as its Medina. Three out of the first five ‘great’ Chishtis of the Sultanate
period chose to live in Delhi and their tombs have subsequently contributed to the
process of the sacralisation of the place, appropriating it as a Chishti wilayat or spiritual
territory and, indeed, providing it the respectable sobriquet of ‘Hazrat-i-Dehli’ or
the venerable Delhi. The city acquired the status of the foremost centre of Islam at
a time when the Mongol upsurge had led to the destruction of all the great Islamic
cities in Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, including Samarqand, Bukhara and
Baghdad.
24 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Indeed, Delhi served as a refuge to a host of displaced immigrant populations who

brought with them varieties of religious and intellectual traditions, leading to contesta-
tions amongst various claimants to power and authority. Yet, to start with, the liberal
and accommodative Chishtis endowed Delhi with a cosmopolitan character, pre-
venting it from taking a monolithic shape such as that assumed by Multan and even
Lahore, where difference was eventually eliminated to make them cities for Muslims
only. Even as institutionalised and orthodox (ba-sha‘ra) Chishtis distanced themselves
from, and even opposed, the extremist agenda of giving the option of Islam or death
to non-Muslims, they ensured that the interests of Islam and Muslims were safe-
guarded. Though the urban conglomerate of Delhi remained the bastion of Muslim
power for close to six centuries and its landscape is dotted with mosques, madrasas
(Islamic seminaries) and dargahs (shrines or tombs) of the Sufis, the exclusionist,
juridical interpretation of the shari‘a (Muslim laws) was set aside in favour of the
more inclusive approach to Islam practised and propagated by the Chishti Sufis.

Pre-Muslim Antecedents
The origin of the name of Delhi and its early history are shrouded in mystery.2 Ac-
cording to a popular tradition, Delhi derived its name from its founder, a certain
Raja Dillu (or Dhilu) who ruled in a period earlier than the beginning of the Christian
era. Dillu was said to be a ruler of uncommon bravery, benevolent towards the people,
and devoted to the service of God (Kaul, 1985: 21–2). Ptolemy (fl. AD 127 to 145),
the Alexandrine geographer, had marked ‘Daidala’ on his map of India close to
Indraprastha and midway between Mathura and Thaneshwar. A later tradition claimed
that the Tomars, one of the 36 clans of the Rajputs, who ruled over Haryana, founded
the city of Dhilli or Dhillika in AD 736. The present name Delhi is derived from
Dilli, a variant of Dhilli (as also Dehli of Persian records). Inscriptions dating from
AD 1170 onwards refer to the city of Dhilli as part of the country variously known as
Hariyanaka, Haritana and Hariyana. The Tomars are said to have settled first in the
Suraj Kund area, and later shifted 10 kilometres west, where they raised the citadel of
Lal Kot, thick stone-built ramparts, some of which still exist.
However, the proto-historic beginnings of urban settlements in Delhi are found
in the first millennium BC and even earlier, and this covers a much larger area than
the Suraj Kund–Lal Kot stretch. Memories preserved in literary sources as well as
archaeological excavation point to the continuous habitation of Delhi for at least
about three millennia. Indraprastha, capital of the Pandavas, is traditionally identified
with Delhi. Until the beginning of the 20th century, a village named Indarpat lay
inside the Purana Qila, the old fort in Delhi, built c. 1540 (Narain, 1986: 5). Ex-
cavations at the fort have yielded valuable archaeological material belonging to the
second century BC. It is suggested that there were settlements in the area from as
early as 1000 BC, and it was under continuous habitation, through the medieval
period, down to the present (Narain, 1986: 9).
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 25

The archaeological findings are supported, in a measure, by the literary data.

Yudhishthira’s occupation of Indraprastha is mentioned in the Mahabharata, a major
Sanskrit epic. Though the text reached its present form only in c. AD 400, some
scholars have suggested that the war, which is central to the narrative, had taken
place in 1302 BC.3 According to the epic, the settlement was founded after a dense
forest, along the bank of river Yamuna, was cleared by fire. Fortified with ramparts
and surrounded by a moat, it had gardens, ponds, public buildings and recreation
centres. The market towns and the suburbs in the neighbourhood were linked by
streets and roads. The city, alternatively known as Yoginipura and Khandavaprastha,
was connected by road with places like Varanasi as well as the four adjacent cities
of Baghpat, Tilpat, Sonepat and Panipat (Narain, 1986: 5, 8–9; compare Singh,
1999: 31–3).
Even as the city had subsequently lost its imperial glory, it was not abandoned al-
together. According to a tradition, the Pandavas ruled from Indraprastha for 36 years
only. It is related that when once Yudhishthira found a fly in his food, he considered
it a bad omen, portending calamity. He therefore moved away to Hastinapur, 60 miles
northeast of New Delhi (Singh, 1999: 38). Indraprastha then sank into oblivion.
The name Indraprastha survives in the later Puranas and Tantras (c. AD 400 to
c. 1000). However, they hardly add to our knowledge of the city, which might have
declined by then. Hsuan-tsang (AD 602 to 664), Buddhist monk and Chinese pil-
grim to India (c. AD 633 to 643), has not mentioned the city in his travel account.
Harshavardhana, also called Harsha, ruler of a large kingdom in northern India from
AD 607 to 647, chose to rule from Kannauj, now in Uttar Pradesh. Occasional refer-
ence to Indraprastha (also called Yoginipura) does occur in the texts from the early
medieval period. Indraprastha is mentioned as the name of a district (pratigana or
pargana) in a 14th-century inscription (Narain, 1986: 5). Around the same time, the
Chishti saint Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din Auliya (died AD 1325) refers, in a collection of
his discourses known as Fawa’ id-ul-Fu’ad, to a regular visitor to his hospice coming
in from Indarpat.
Delhi assumed a position of some importance with the emergence of the Rajputs
in early medieval India (c. 750 to 1200). One of the 36 clans of the Rajputs, the
Tomars had become established in the barren Aravali hills south of Delhi. They found
themselves protected from the onslaughts of other Rajput clans engaged in a no-
holds-barred campaign to eliminate each other. Popular tradition claims that the
Tomars had founded the city of Dhilli or Dhillika in AD 736. However, the name
occurs for the first time only in an inscription of AD 1170, recovered from Bijolia in
Udaipur district of Rajasthan (Singh, 1999: 89). Subsequent inscriptions from the
13th and 14th centuries mention the city of Dhilli as part of the country known as
Hariyanaka, Haritana or Hariyana (Narain, 1986: 3). Historians, therefore, are more
inclined to accept a later date for the foundation of Delhi. Indeed, the epic poem
Prithviraja-raso, by Chand Bardai of Lahore, refers to the 11th-century Tomar king
Anangpal as the founder of Delhi (Frykenberg, 1986: xxvi).

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

26 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

The Tomar Rajputs are believed to have first settled some 5 km from Tughlaqabad.
The founder of the dynasty, Surajpal, reportedly built the large reservoir of Suraj
Kund. The name may have derived from a temple dedicated to Surya, which existed
on its western bank. The Kund consists of a stepped stone embankment on a semi-
circular plan to impound rainwater from the hills. About 2 km to its south, close to
the village of Arangpur or Anangpur, is a dam attributed to Anangpal, made of local
quartzite stone. Some ruined pavilions and fortifications dotted across the neigh-
bouring hills affirm the belief that Anangpur was the site of the settlement founded
by Anangpal (Narain, 1986: 4; also see Singh, 1999: 94).
Frequent wars with the Chauhan (Chahamana) Rajputs and, probably, also the
persistent threat from the Ghaznawid Turks compelled Anangpal to raise the citadel
of Lal Kot, some 10 km west of Suraj Kund. Its thick stone ramparts with traces of a
moat around it can still be viewed (Narain, 1986: 4). Alexander Cunningham found
in 1862–65 that these massive ramparts had a general height of 60 feet above the
bottom of the ditch, which existed all round the fort, except on the south side, where
there was a deep and extensive hollow that was probably once filled with water (Kaul,
1985: 25). Ruins of several structures can be traced within the citadel, but the palaces
have not survived. Anangpal installed in Lal Kot an iron pillar, probably belonging
to the 4th century AD. The pillar was originally set up as the standard of an uniden-
tified Vishnu temple. The 7.20 metre tall pillar, of which 93 cm are buried under-
ground, is a metallurgical marvel.4
The Tomars, however, did not survive to see their flag flutter for long. They were
overthrown by King Vigraharaja IV (c. 1153–64), also known as Vishaldeva, of the
Chauhan dynasty of Sakhambari (modern Sambhar). Under Vishaldeva, the Chauhans
were successful in establishing a large kingdom. An inscription dating from 1163/
1164 refers to the king’s conquests from the Vindhyas to the Himalayas (Singh,
1999: 98). His capture of Delhi is mentioned in a Bijolia inscription. His grandson
Prithviraja III, referred to by medieval Muslim chroniclers as Rai Pithaura and
popularly known as Prithviraja Chauhan, is hailed in popular Hindu tradition as a
hero for his resistance against the advent of Islam as a political force.5
Prithviraja extended Lal Kot by throwing up massive rubble-built ramparts around
it. The circuit of Prithviraja’s fort was about three times as much as that of Lal Kot.
This enlarged city later came to be known as the Qila Rai Pithaura and constituted
the first of the so-called seven cities of Delhi. However, Cunningham found the de-
fences of the city inferior in every way to those of the citadel. The walls were of only
half the height and towers were placed at much longer intervals (Kaul, 1985: 27; also
see Singh, 1999: 99). No wonder, having inflicted a crushing defeat on Prithviraja in
the second battle of Tarain in 1192, the Turks did not struggle much in occupying
the Chauhan stronghold of Lal Kot and the bigger Qila Rai Pithaura (compare Kaul,
1985: 27). The cataclysmic events of the last decade of the 12th century heralded the
beginning of a new era in Delhi’s history.
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 27

Emergence of Islam
A wide variety of sources from the early 13th century onwards have documented the
arrival of Muslims and establishment of the Delhi Sultanate.6 Early Muslim historians
or chroniclers have focused on the activities of the sultans and their courts. These
accounts are lengthy panegyric on the achievements of the Turkish sultans.7 The Sufi
literature, by contrast, provides valuable material on the life and conditions of the
people. In particular, the malfuzat (conversation of a Sufi saint compiled by one of
his disciples in his lifetime and generally checked and edited by the Sufi himself ) and
tazkiras (biographical dictionaries of the Sufis) are useful for an assessment of the
religious and cultural milieu, and, as we shall see later, they are valuable for under-
standing the politics of the time as well.8 The compositions of poets supplement our
information.
The Turkish forces of Shahab-ud-Din Muhammad Ghuri, led by Qutb-ud-Din
Aybak, captured Delhi (c. 1193) without much resistance and set about eliminating
the symbols of Rajput power and prestige. Some temples were demolished in the
wake of the conquest. Their debris was utilised to construct a congregational mosque
(Jama Masjid) at Lal Kot (Singh, 1999: 101–4). It was later called Quwwatul Islam
or Qubbatul Islam mosque, highlighting the might or stronghold of Islam. Remark-
ably, there was no mutilation of the bodies of the dead in the battlefields, no general
massacre of the populace, and no major demographic dislocation. Much as the chron-
iclers like Minhaj-us-Siraj celebrated the conquest of new territories, the conquerors
themselves preferred minimum use of force. Though iconoclasm may have played a
role, places of worship were generally plundered for their wealth. Alternatively, their
destruction was aimed at hammering home the point that the old regime was over-
thrown. It could no longer protect the people and their religious places.
In general, contrary to popular notions, very few temples were actually demolished
in the whole of medieval India under Muslim rulers (Eaton, 2002). Temples were
attacked in the context of a violent campaign for political conquest and, as mentioned
earlier, as a statement of regime change, that is, non-Muslim rulers were no longer in
a position to patronise or maintain religious institutions in regions brought under
the direct control of a Muslim ruler. Subsequently, patronage to these places of worship
could come in the form of revenue-free land grants issued by Muslim rulers. In peaceful
contexts, even under a most Muslim-friendly rule like that of the Afghan sultan
Sikandar Lodi in the early 16th century or of the much-maligned Mughal emperor
Aurangzeb in the late 17th century, an old temple could not be demolished even if
attempts could be made to prevent the construction of new ones (as per a juristic
decree). However, the surviving historic temples in our time, often referred to as prāc n
(ancient), are not only an indication that so many places of worship of non-Muslims
were spared, but also that others were actually built during the medieval period.
In the event of the Turkish conquest of Delhi, people were supposed to know that
the Turks and their sultan had established a new, Islamic order. Indeed, the minaret

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

28 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

attached to Delhi’s congregational mosque, known as the Qutb Minar, was later per-
ceived as a victory tower (vijayasthambha). Whether the call of the muezzin (crier)
for prayer was heard by all the people or not, the 72.50 metre high Minar testified to
the visual enunciation of Muslim power. The adjoining structures of the Qutb com-
plex, including the mosque, the tombs of Sultan Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish and Imam
Zamin, and the additions by Sultan Ala-ud-Din Khalji (Alai Darwaza, Alai Madrasa
and Alai Minar), together constitute a rich source of the architecture of the emer-
ging Delhi Sultanate. The borrowings, adaptations and synthesis, which went into
the construction of these buildings—both in terms of material and design—paved
the way for the growth and development of a marvellous Indo-Muslim architecture
in the subsequent period.9
It will be interesting to explore the process of the construction of these buildings
at the Qutb complex, narrate stories and anecdotes connected to them—whether
oral or found in the written sources—take account of their renovation and upkeep
over time, and point to the danger to their very existence and contestations over their
identity in the wake of a threatening political ecology. Mention may be made here of
the possibility of the pre-Muslim existence of the minaret, though secularists will be
loath to discuss this, the site being on the hit-list of Hindu communalists, while
many Muslims might be ready to achieve martyrdom in support of their claim on it.
However, it will be unfair to ignore an important observation of Sir Syed Ahmad
Khan (2000 edn: 166–7) in his authoritative mid-19th-century text, Asar-us-Sanadid,
that not only the mosque was built on the site where the temple constructed by
Prithviraja Chauhan existed before the Muslim conquest, but the first story of the
Minar was also a part of it.10 In any case, the 7.20 metre iron pillar, reportedly installed
at Lal Kot by the Tomar king Anangpal, mentioned earlier, stood in the courtyard
(sehan) of the Qubbat-ul-Islam mosque, the erstwhile site of Lal Kot. Apart from
being an object of curiosity, the pillar, said to be a standard (dhwaja) of Vishnu from
the Gupta period, probably served as a reminder of the conquering power of Islam
under the Delhi sultans. The mutilated figures of Hindu deities on the walls and
pillars around the courtyard add to such an image. Beyond modern questions of
secularism and communalism, defacement of the deities and desecration of the places
of worship of the conquered point to manifestations of the visual culture of violence,
legitimising a new political order in the medieval period, even as the general population
was not ordered to follow the religion of the victors.
Indeed, in their misplaced understanding of the Sultanate as an Islamic state, the
ulama (Muslim religious scholars) wanted Sultan Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish (who ruled
1211–36) to confront the Hindus of the capital city (dar-ul-khilafa) of Delhi with
the alternative of death or conversion to Islam. In a measure which speaks of the
sultan’s attempts for rapprochement with non-Muslims, Iltutmish rejected the ulama’s
demand. The Turks had realised that it was difficult to rule a vast non-Muslim popu-
lation through strict adherence to a narrow interpretation of the shari‘at or Islamic
law as interpreted by jurists belonging to the Hanafi school. Instead, they evolved a
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 29

broad, almost secular state law (zawabit-i-mulki) with public protestation of respect
to Muslim divines and their institutions, later articulated in the Fatawa-i-Jahandari
by Ziya-ud-Din Barani, an influential noble and prominent disciple of the Chishti
saint Nizam-ud-Din Auliya (Fatawa-i-Jahandari, 1972 edn).
The Muslim population of the city was, however, already increasing rapidly in the
early decades of the 13th century. Significantly enough, the enthronement of Qutb-
ud-Din Aybak (who ruled 1206–10) coincided with the election of Genghis Khan as
the great leader of the Mongol hordes. The advent of the Mongols led to large-scale
devastation in Central and West Asia in the next 50 years. Major centres of Islam like
Bukhara and Baghdad were sacked. Delhi was the only place where Muslims could
escape the wrath of the Tartars. Islam prospered in Delhi with the name of the Caliph
still being mentioned in the Friday sermons (khutba) and on coins (sikka). A number
of Sufi saints also came to settle in Delhi. The Qutb complex and the fast expanding
Mehrauli area constituted a conspicuous intersection of political and sacred geography
of the city. No wonder, in course of time the capital acquired the venerable epithet of
‘Hazrat-i-Dehli’!
The institutions of the Sufis like the hospice (khanqah) and the shrine (dargah)
have indeed contributed a great deal to the making of Delhi’s harmonious culture
since the early decades of the 13th century. In particular, the arrival of the Sufis of the
Chishti order (silsila) ensured that force and violence were not used for converting
the general population to Islam. Much as the Islamic orthodoxy (identified here as a
rigid commitment to Hanafite Sunni Islam propounded by the ulama, or theologians)
strove for the total annihilation of the infidels (kafirs), the Sufis’ belief in tolerance
and universal brotherhood proved to be more appealing to the early Sultans. The
rulers themselves disliked the arrogance of the ulama and felt that the Sufis’ position
on such question as the treatment to be meted out to Hindus, and generally on mat-
ters related to shari‘at, was more appropriate. Delhi was, thus, going to have a multi-
cultural and multi-religious complexion. Controversial religious issues, which had
the potential to break the pluralistic fabric of the city, did come to the public arena
occasionally, but in the end sanity and a basic respect for pluralism prevailed.

Chishtis/Sultans
In a way it augured well for Delhi’s history that the earliest Muslim to have been born
in the city after the Turkish conquest went on to be a Chishti Sufi of considerable
reputation for syncretistic proclivities. Sheikh Hamid-ud-Din (died 1274) was a
disciple and spiritual successor (khalifa) of none other than the great Khwaja Gharib
Nawaz Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti Ajmeri (died 1236). Mu‘in-ud-Din, in turn, had been
directed by Prophet Muhammad in a dream while in Medina to go to Hindustan.
The Khwaja’s arrival coincided with the conquest by the Turks. The Sufi tradition
claims that Mu‘in-ud-Din had prophesied Shahab-ud-Din Ghuri’s victory in the
second battle of Tarain in 1192. The Chauhan ruler, Rai Pithaura or Prithviraja, was

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

30 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

said to be harassing the sheikh and his disciples at Ajmer.11 Later traditions also sug-
gest that the Sufi sheikh had to display his miraculous power to subdue the opponent.
The sheikh’s charisma won him a large following and converts, and his khalifas spread
in different directions. Hamid-ud-Din, referred to earlier, went to live in a village
near Nagaur. He cultivated a small plot of land, became a vegetarian, and led a life
conforming to a seemingly Hindu environment (Faruqi, 1963).
Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti chose a more sophisticated Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki
(died 1236) for the cosmopolitan spiritual territory (wilayat) of Delhi. Bakhtiyar
Kaki was born at Ush, located on the bank of the Jaxartes in Central Asia. He had
met Mu‘in-ud-Din for the first time while staying in Baghdad, and had become his
disciple. Amongst the noted Sufis in the Abbasid capital at that time were Sheikh
Abdul Qadir Jilani and Sheikh Abun Najib Suhrawardi. Bakhtiyar Kaki followed his
preceptor (pir) Mu‘in-ud-Din, also referred to in later Sufi sources as the ‘Sultan of
Hind’, and reached Delhi in the reign of Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish (ruled 1211–36).
The Sultan welcomed the sheikh and invited him to live in the city. Hesitant at first,
he agreed to the ruler’s request. Kaki, called so for his supposedly miraculous ability
to produce kak, or bread, to sustain his family, had to compete for space in the spir-
itual geography of the city. Not to talk of the ulama, quite a few eminent Sufi sheikhs
of various orders had come to settle there. Many of them had just arrived following
the Mongol invasions in Central Asia and Iran.
Bakhtiyar Kaki found the most powerful antagonist in Sheikhul Islam Najm-ud-
Din Sughra, a Sufi of his own order. Najm-ud-Din and Bakhtiyar Kaki’s pir Mu‘in-
ud-Din were disciples of the same sheikh, Khwaja Usman Harwani. Najm-ud-Din
was not taking kindly to the growing popularity of Kaki and his influence in political
circles. Iltutmish himself was a devotee and, according to a later tradition, had become
a khalifa or spiritual successor of the sheikh.
Seeking to prevent the tensions between Najm-ud-Din and Bakhtiyar Kaki from
escalating, Mu‘in-ud-Din, who was on a visit to Delhi, asked his disciple to leave the
place and accompany him to Ajmer (Siyar-ul-Auliya, 1978 edn: 64). The news of the
departure of the saints was perceived as a sign of calamity by the Sultan and the
people. They followed the sheikhs for miles, crying and wailing. Touched by the grief
of the ruler and the ruled alike, Mu‘in-ud-Din allowed Bakhtiyar Kaki to remain in
Delhi (Siyar-ul-Auliya, 1978 edn: 65). As a patron saint of the city, Kaki enjoyed
prestige and authority, and influenced the Sultan’s style of governance. It is related
that once the Prophet appeared in dreams of both the Sufi and the Sultan and indi-
cated a particular spot for building a tank (Hauz-i-Shamsi) to overcome Delhi’s water
shortage.
The site of Hauz-i-Shamsi, along with the adjacent Auliya Masjid, Jahaz Mahal
and the Jharna, a picturesque spring garden, was significant not only as a source of
water, but also became a rendezvous of the spiritual and intellectual elite of the city.
Much to the chagrin of the puritanical ulama, music assemblies (mahfil-i-sama,
qawwali) were frequently organised, the Chishti Sufi Bakhtiyar Kaki being the moving
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 31

spirit behind them.12 The sheikh died in an ecstatic state induced by Persian poetry,
listening to a particular couplet for over four days: kushtagan-i khanjar-i taslim ra,
har zaman as ghayb jan-i digar ast (‘To the victims of the dagger of submission, there
comes a new life from the unseen every moment’). His funeral prayer (namaz-i-
janaza) was to be led by the most pious person in the dominion. It was none other
than Sultan Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish, celebrated in Sufi tradition as a mystic in the
garb of a king. The saint was buried in Mehrauli at a lonely place he himself had
chosen. The burial of a number of Sufis and rulers in the vicinity led to the emergence
of a big necropolis over the centuries. The shrine complex and its neighbourhood
had become very crowded by the early 14th century as recorded in Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad
(1990 edn), the discourses (malfuzat) of Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din Auliya (died 1325).
Iltutmish survived the sheikh for only a few months, and was interned in an elegant
tomb of his own in the Qutb complex, not very far from the dargah of Bakhtiyar
Kaki. Knowingly or otherwise, the Sultan, whose authority as the head of the hierarchy
of theologians and jurists was undisputed, followed his contemporary Abbasid caliph
al-Nasir’s approach of using the prominent Sufi order as the official organisation of
popular Islam under the ruler, combining pietistic legality of the ulama with spiritual
adventures of the Chishti Sufis (for the caliph’s approach, see Arjomand, 2004). No
wonder, Sufi institutions like khanqahs and jama‘atkhanas flourished along with
mosques and madrasas.
The weakness of the rulers and the supremacy of the nobles were two important
features of the period following the death of Shams-ud-Din Iltutmish. Within a de-
cade of his death, the nobles put four of his descendants on the throne and removed
them at will. The next 20 years witnessed one of his slaves exterminating his dynasty
by executing all the male members of his family. One name that stands out in the
short-lived Shamsi dynasty for commanding respect and authority is that of Raziya
Sultan, the only woman ruler of Delhi with sovereign power.

Raziya Sultan
Iltutmish had nominated Raziya as his heir-apparent (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]:
I, 638). Disregarding her claim, the Turkish slave-officers had enthroned Rukn-ud-
Din Firuz Shah as the Sultan of Delhi. However, Rukn-ud-Din did not display much
interest in the matters of governance. Instead of the court, the reins of power got
transferred to the harem from where his mother Shah Turkan controlled the affairs of
the dominion. According to reports, unleashing a reign of terror, the queen mother
started persecuting her detractors. The nobles began to distrust the government,
leading to rebellion and disorder (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 630–2). Raziya
took advantage of the situation to forward her own claim to the throne. Putting on
red garments, usually worn by aggrieved persons seeking justice, she went to the
Jama Masjid, the Qubbat-ul-Islam mosque mentioned earlier, at the time of the con-
gregational prayer and complained to the people that Shah Turkan had planned to

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

32 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

kill her. Invoking the name of her father, she appealed for protection. In a rare example
of sensitivity shown by the people of Delhi, the palace was attacked, Shah Turkan
was seized and Raziya was placed on the throne. The nobles and the soldiers pledged
their allegiance to her. Soon Rukn-ud-Din was imprisoned and put to death (Tabaqat-
i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 635–6).
Several important features marked Raziya’s enthronement. The people of Delhi
had played a key role in her accession, and their continued support was crucial for
her survival. She is reported to have given her tenure as the Sultan the form of a con-
tract, with the people having the right to remove her if she failed in her duties. Fur-
ther, her enthronement not only vindicated Iltutmish’s choice, but also exposed the
limits of the power of Islamic orthodoxy. The elevation of a woman to royal authority
was seemingly contradictory to Islamic practice. The contemporary chronicler, Minhaj-
us-Siraj, himself a distinguished theologian, maintained an ambiguous position on
this issue (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 638–9). Later, Sheikh Abdul Haqq
Muhaddis Dehlavi expressed surprise at the attitude of the ulama and explained that
probably they were scared of the wrath of the Sultan. Indeed, the legends (sultan-i-
azam jalal-ud-duniya wa ud-din) inscribed on her coins highlighted the wrathful
aspects of Muslim sovereignty. She also sought to gain legitimacy by reminding people,
through her coins, that she was the daughter of Sultan Iltutmish. Raziya may also
have placated the ulama through patronage and endowments to the mosques and
madrasas in the capital.
Minhaj-us-Siraj, thus, recorded in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (1970 [1881]) that Raziya
was a great sovereign, sagacious, just, beneficent, the patron of the learned, a dispenser
of justice, and the cherisher of her subjects. He added that Raziya was endowed with
all the attributes and qualifications necessary for a Muslim Sultan. He, however, put
a question mark on her right to rule by pointing out that as she did not attain her
destiny, in her creation, of being computed among men, of what advantage were all
these excellent qualifications unto her (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 637–8)? It
may be pointed out that her sex may have been a great disadvantage in that context,
but that was not the main cause of her fall. With a view to assuming direct control of
affairs, Raziya had thrown off the veil. She used to wear a cloak (qaba) and cap
(kulah), and ride out in public (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 643). The Turks
disliked her assertive role in administration. The opposition against her was organised
mainly on racial grounds. She had attempted to curb the power of the Turks by ap-
pointing non-Turks to important positions. In particular, the favour shown to the
Abyssinian Jamal-ud-Din Yaqut proved to be her undoing. Condemnation of the
manner in which the Black slave Yaqut used to help Raziya in riding the horse or
elephant can be found in near-contemporary sources. The alleged romance did not
last for long, as the rebels killed Yaqut in a clash.
Though Raziya had suppressed her opponents early in her reign, the power-
ful provincial governors remained at large. They were, however, not in a position to
march to Delhi and capture it. An uprising of the Carmathians or Ismailis, who had
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 33

attacked the Jama Masjid of Delhi, was crushed soon after her enthronement (Tabaqat-
i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 646). Thus, even as Raziya’s dominion was shrinking, with
Rajputs also reasserting themselves, Delhi was secure. However, the rebellion of her
own loyal officers proved to be her nemesis. Her tactical marriage (nikah) with one of
the rebels did not help either. Defeated by an army of the rebels who had enthroned
Mu‘iz-ud-Din Bahram Shah as the new Sultan, Raziya was captured by the Hindus
near Kaithal. She died an ignominious death at their hands. If she had been a man,
medieval Persian authorities would not have hesitated to hail her as a martyr (shahid).

Continued Rule of the Chishtis

Returning to the Chishti narrative, before his death, Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki
had nominated Sheikh Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar as his spiritual successor. Also
known as Baba Farid and especially venerated in Sikh tradition (for his devotional
poetry incorporated in the Guru Granth Saheb), the sheikh, called a mad boy (diwana
bachcha) in younger days, had met Bakhtiyar Kaki at his native Multan and joined the
order as his disciple. He was at Hansi, in Hisar district (now in Haryana), at the time
of Kaki’s death and could only reach Delhi three days later. Soon the sheikh decided
to leave for Hansi, notwithstanding the reminder from the fellow mystics and followers
that Qutb-ud-Din had chosen him for the wilayat of Delhi. Farid defended his deci-
sion to leave the place, as on account of blessings received from his pir, he could no
longer differentiate a city from a desert. Farid may have been uncomfortable with
Delhi’s volatile political culture. Bakhtiyar Kaki’s problems with his fellow sheikhs in
Delhi may also have been at the back of his mind. Farid, thus, returned to Hansi be-
fore shifting permanently to Ajodhan, deferentially referred to as Pak Pattan (now in
Pakistani Punjab). It is at Ajodhan that Farid’s reputation as a charismatic spiritual
leader was built, which made him something of a living legend (see Aquil, 2003b;
Eaton, 2003; Nizami, 1955).
Significantly, as an all-powerful noble under Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud, Balban, then
known as Ulugh Khan, was a devotee of Sheikh Farid (Siyar-ul-Auliya, 1978 edn:
89–90).13 Ali Asghar, himself a descendant of the sheikh, recorded in his early 17th-
century text that the saint had married Ulugh Khan’s daughter Bibi Huzaira and
had six sons and three daughters from her (see Jawahir-i-Faridi, 1884 edn: 215–8;
also Khazinat-ul-Asfiya, n.d.: 301). Amir Khwurd also noted in his more reliable
14th-century account (Siyar-ul-Auliya, 1978 edn: 76, 195) that the sheikh had several
wives (harem basyar bud) and had five sons and three daughters. The saint’s favourite
son, Nizam-ud-Din (not to be confused with his spiritual successor Nizam-ud-Din
Auliya) had joined Ghiyas-ud-Din Balban’s army. He is said to have died fighting the
Mongol invaders in Punjab (Siyar-ul-Auliya, 1978 edn: 100, 200).
Ghiyas-ud-Din Balban ruled for over 40 years from about the middle of the
13th century, acting first as naib (deputy) of the puppet Shamsi Sultan Nasir-ud-Din
Mahmud (ruled 1246–66) and subsequently ascending the throne of Delhi as Sultan

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

34 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

(ruled 1266–87) in his own right. Balban had come to the throne at a time when the
Mongols had ravaged the major part of the Muslim world. Having sacked Punjab,
they were threatening to take Delhi by storm. As we shall see later, Balban’s aggressive-
defensive Mongol policy protected Delhi from the depredation of the Mongol hordes
(Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, n.d.: fols. 23b–24a).
Celebrating the destruction of the Abbasid seat of power at Baghdad, the Mongol
leader Halaku Khan had sent his envoys to Delhi in 1259–60. The naib, himself a
captive of the Tartars not long back, welcomed the guests in typical Mongol fashion.
The route that the visitors’ cavalcade took was ornamented with severed heads of the
rebels of the neighbourhood of Delhi. Their hide was stuffed with straw and was
displayed. Besides, 200,000 footmen and 50,000 horsemen were posted along the
way. The chronicler Minhaj-us-Siraj records in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (1970 [1881])
that nothing in particular occurred on the occasion. But exposed to the spectacle of
violence, both visual and suggestive, the envoys must have returned with a sufficient
idea of Delhi’s power and its aggressive postures.14
Further, Balban not only rebuilt and fortified the cities in Punjab and Sindh that
had suffered at the hands of the Tartars, but also constructed large forts on the route
to the north-west in order to block the Mongol advance into the Sultanate territories.
The Mongols, perceived as the ‘fire from hell’, were to be checked at the frontier it-
self. Huge forces were also garrisoned in the forts en route to Punjab, which prevented
the penetration of the invaders into Hindustan (Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, n.d.: fol. 28b).
Balban, thus, ensured that Delhi did not go the way of Baghdad, even as the Sultan
lost his favourite son, Muhammad, who was killed by the Mongols in an engagement
at the western frontier. Immigration from Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East
continued during his reign; and even erstwhile rulers and princes of those regions,
including two Abbasid princes, came to Delhi as refugees. Balban included them in
his nobility and established separate localities (muhallas) for their residence. In the
early 17th century, Farishta (Tarikh-i-Farishta, 1983 edn: I, 280) listed as many as
15 muhallas set up by Balban for his august immigrants.

The Meo Threat

Delhi was protected from the Mongol menace, but nearer home the Mewatis or
Meos were a constant source of headache. They were accused of indulging in all
kinds of crime in the city, including theft, robbery and molestation, after which they
disappeared in the neighbouring forest. Ziya-ud-Din Barani records in his mid-14th-
century text Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi (n.d.) that the Meos had plundered all the inns in
the vicinity and would frequently attack the city at night. Unable to check the problem,
a weak Delhi administration ordered the gates of the city to be closed before sunset.
No one had the courage to go out of the walled city (identified as the Qila Rai
Pithaura) after that time. Those wishing to visit the tombs of the saints or to enjoy
the pleasant atmosphere by the side of Hauz-i-Shamsi went at their own risk. The
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 35

Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi (n.d.) notes that the Meos robbed the water-carriers and molested
slave girls, who went to fetch water from the tank, even during the day. Balban took
a whole year to suppress the miscreants. The forests around Delhi were cut and an
estimated 100,000 Meos were put to death. Many military posts (thanas) were estab-
lished and assigned to the Afghan warlords and soldiers. The land allotted for the
maintenance of the thanas was made tax-free. The city was, thus, secured from the
Meo onslaught. This account of the Meo problem reflects of course the viewpoint of
the ‘ruling party’ or the Delhi administration of the time; Meo narrative will, indeed,
have a different story to tell.
The destruction of the rebels in the Ganga–Yamuna Doab and Katehr (Rohilkhand)
and the protection of trade routes, especially the road to Awadh, were other achieve-
ments of Balban, which brought great prestige to the throne of Delhi (Tarikh-i-Firuz
Shahi, n.d.: fols. 26a–28a, 38a–45a). He also checked the political upheavals in the
capital by providing a veneer of divinity to his rule. He called himself the shadow of
God on Earth (zillullah), and proclaimed that kingship was the vice-regency of God
(niyabat-i-khudai). Tracing his genealogy to the mythical Afrasiyab, the Sultan
emulated the customs and ways of life of the pre-Islamic Sassanid rulers of Persia.
Elaborate court rituals, including prostration (sijda) and kissing of feet (paibos) were
introduced. The nobles meekly submitted to his wishes. Those who refused to toe
the line were eliminated, either silently or with a ruthless display of his power in pub-
lic. Seen against the backdrop of the anarchy in the aftermath of the death of Iltutmish,
Balban’s measures restored the authority of the crown and provided peace and tran-
quility to the common people (Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, n.d.: fols. 13b–17b). His famed
Red Palace (Kushak-i-Lal), well known for its pomp and grandeur, is now in ruins.
His dilapidated tomb near Qutb Minar is noted for the use of the true arch for the
first time, marking an important technical advance in Indo-Islamic architecture.

Kilokhari
One of the notable omissions in accounts of the so-called seven cities of Delhi is
Kilokhari. Touted as the new city of Delhi (shahr-i-nau), it remained the most hap-
pening place for roughly the whole of the 13th century. Seeking to break free from
the normative model of a medieval Islamic city, Hazrat-i-Dehli’s fun-loving creatures
were increasingly moving out in search of a ‘decent’ place. Uncomfortable with the
arrogance of the ulama, who represented Islamic orthodoxy, even a number of Sufis
preferred to stay away from Old Delhi, corresponding to the present day Mehrauli
area of south Delhi. In any case, the old city was soon overpopulated with large num-
bers of emigrants from Central Asia and Iran, fleeing from major centres of Islamic
civilisation and culture destroyed by the Mongols, as noted earlier.
Located along the bank of an obviously then much cleaner Yamuna, Kilokhari at-
tracted the city’s elite, probably more than any other locality in the 13th century.
Right on the banks of the river, which subsequently moved away eastward, Kilokhari

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

36 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

and the adjacent Ghiyaspur were fast expanding. By the end of the century, the set-
tled area roughly stretched from the place where Humayun’s Tomb was later built to
the Okhla crossing on the Mathura Road. Sufis, princes, intellectuals, poets, singers
and other like-minded people either settled in the area or frequently visited it. Some
came in search of peace and tranquility, while others for their share of fun and frolic.
Whereas the city’s patron saint Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din Auliya brought it on the then
expanding map of the sacred geography of Islam, the bohemian Sultan Mu‘iz-ud-
Din Kaiqubad’s escapades brought it a high degree of infamy in conservative Muslim
circles. References to the music assemblies, both of the pietistic mystical nature and
those catering to more popular tastes, can be found in contemporary and near con-
temporary writings, for instance, Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi (n.d.: fols. 60b;
73b–77b).
Indeed, the princes and the rulers used the area as a resort. It was while relaxing
here that Sultan Rukn-ud-Din Firuz learnt of the coup by Raziya Sultan. He was
captured by Raziya’s forces from here and was imprisoned before his unceremonious
elimination (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, 1970 [1881]: I, 636). The place is particularly associated
with Sultan Kaiqubad, who decided to shift his capital from the congested old city,
for an unending party that saw his end. In the middle of the 14th century, historians
Ziya-ud-Din Barani and Izz-ud-Din Isami condemned the indulgence of the sovereign
and his companions, particularly castigating the king for his alleged weakness for
young girls.
It is, however, unfair to discard the monarch as a sex maniac, blind to the nicer
aspects of the society and culture that he ruled. Early sources refer to the construction
of his palace and gardens overlooking the Yamuna. He had also built a congregational
mosque where no less a personality than Nizam-ud-Din Auliya reportedly performed
his Friday prayers. Though the Sufi sheikh lived at Ghiyaspur at the far end of the
settlement, he had a house at Kilokhari as well. The sheikh may also have performed
the congregational ‘Id prayers at Kilokhari itself. While the mosque has been lost to
the vagaries of time, the very existence of the ‘Idgah, located on what is now Mathura
Road, near the Okhla fly-over, is threatened, too. A couple of other mosques located
in the neighbourhood are also fighting a lost battle (Qasimi, 1995). Muslims, in any
case, had deserted the area, partly due to its notoriety and partly for political reasons.
It was probably due to these two reasons that Sultan Jalal-ud-Din Firuz Khalji
(ruled 1290–96) returned to the old city in the second year of his accession to the
throne, though hectic building activities in the area by him are also recorded. The
nobility and influential businessmen, too, constructed palatial houses in the vicinity.
The king, however, decided to move to Old Delhi as soon as he obtained enough
support and legitimacy for his power and authority (Kaul, 1985: 28–30; Tarikh-i-
Firuz Shahi, n.d.: fols. 80b–82a). The decision might also have been influenced by
the need to nip in the bud any uprising from the politically volatile old city. The fate
of Kaiqubad and earlier Rukn-ud-Din Firuz were fresh enough to be a lesson for the
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 37

new ruler; particularly so in this case, as Jalal-ud-Din had founded a new dynasty of
Sultans in Delhi.
A new era in Delhi’s history begins with the emergence of the Khaljis, some scholars
even like to call it a revolution. Kilokhari was, however, left to its own device. Time has
taken its toll on this once picturesque capital city of Delhi. It is also an example of
how an important architectural heritage can just be wiped off the landscape. The
various localities (shahar and muhallat) of Delhi were established over the centuries
only to be left in ruin. Powerful rulers of force, grand palaces and lofty titles emerged
on the scene, but were soon relegated to the pages of history. Similar was the fate of
the courtiers, their glory lasting only for a short period.

Hazrat Khwaja Nizam-ud-Din Auliya

One personality who defies this pattern is Chishti Sufi saint Hazrat Khwaja Nizam-
ud-Din Auliya (died 1325). Also referred to as Sultan-ul-Mashaykh (Sultan of the
Sufis) and Mahbub-i-Ilahi (Beloved of God), the saint’s shrine (dargah) in central
Delhi has attracted a large number of devotees over the centuries. It is also an example
of transcending exclusionist religious boundaries even while fundamentalism and
obscurantism loom large in the public arena. What is the secret behind this continued
popularity of the saint and his tomb?
The charismatic Sheikh Nizam-ud-Din’s life is well documented. Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad
(1990 edn), a large collection of his discourses, was compiled in his lifetime, and
checked and corrected by the saint himself. It is supplemented by Khayr-ul-Majalis
(1959 edn), comprising conversations of his immediate successor (khalifa) Sheikh
Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli. Two early biographical dictionaries (tazkiras)—
Qiwam-ul-Aqa’id (1994 edn) and Siyar-ul-Auliya (1978 edn)—corroborate the
accounts. Besides, the voluminous writings of the saint’s two close disciples, Amir
Khusrau (Afzal-ul-Fawa’id, n.d.; Rahat-ul-Muhibbin, n.d.) and Ziya-ud-Din Barani
(Fatawa-i-Jahandari, 1972 edn), further supplement the information.
Later authorities have largely depended on these writings for their reconstruction
of the life of the saint. The most respected of these biographies remains the Akhbar-
ul-Akhyar (n.d.) of Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi, compiled in Persian
during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, with a recent Urdu translation (see
Akhbar-ul-Akhyar, 1990). The Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad (1990 edn) was also originally in
Persian and is available in two recent English translations (Faruqui, 1996; Lawrence,
1991). Utilising these sources, one can chart the life of the saint, even if one ignores
a vast set of popular Sufi writings such as Afzal-ul-Fawa’ id (n.d.), Rahat-ul-Muhibbin
(n.d.) and Rahat-ul-Qulub (n.d.), which were in circulation in the 14th century, but
tend to be dismissed by modern authorities as ‘apocryphal’ and therefore useless,
though it is difficult to agree with such a proposition.

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

38 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Sheikh Nizam-ud-Din was born and brought up in Badaun, now in western Uttar
Pradesh.15 Like many qualified young religious scholars (alims) of his age, Nizam-
ud-Din too moved to the dar-ul-khilafa (Delhi) in search of job opportunities. He
was also compelled to do so as the responsibility of maintaining the family, comprising
his widowed mother and sister, rested on his shoulders. The city, indeed, attracted
madrasa graduates to staff its administrative and religious institutions. They were
absorbed into various positions like imams and khatibs (prayer-leaders of the mosque),
qazis (judges) and muftis (jurisconsults). Nizam-ud-Din himself was known to be
trying for a qazi’s post, before Sheikh Najib-ud-Din Mutawwakil, younger brother
of the Chishti saint Baba Farid, drew him to the mystic path (tariqa).
Najib-ud-Din took him to Farid’s hospice at Ajodhan (Pak Pattan) in Punjab.
Impressed by the erudite young scholar, Farid immediately enrolled him as a disciple
and soon appointed him as his successor. Nizam-ud-Din, thus, joined the illustrious
list of saints of the Chishti order (silsila), comprising Khwaja Mu‘in-ud-Din Ajmeri,
Khwaja Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki and Khwaja Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar.
Nizam-ud-Din’s successor, Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli completes the chain of the
‘great’ Chishti tradition, which is known to have played a crucial role in shaping the
political and cultural outlook of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries.
They are particularly known for their religious tolerance and broad-mindedness. It is
their liberal attitude, coupled with their perceived ability to perform miracles and
the consequent popularity, which brought them in conflict with Islamic orthodoxy
and, in the case of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, with the rulers as well.
The saint’s encounter with two Delhi Sultans, Qutb-ud-Din Mubarakshah
Khalji (ruled 1316–20) and Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughluq (ruled 1320–25), is particularly
celebrated in Chishti memory (Aquil, 2003a). Even as Nizam-ud-Din was concerned
about the political instability of the period, the rulers were evidently angry over his
indifference towards the court (darbar) and its rituals. Seen from the point of view of
the saint, his visit to the court would have amounted to accepting the superiority of
the ruler over his own claim to authority in his wilayat or spiritual territory (Digby,
1986, 1990). Indeed, the Sufis’ claim to power and authority in society was a con-
tinuous source of tension for the kings and the ulama alike. In such a situation, the
Sufis had to defend their actions in the light of the shari‘at. Occasionally, they also
resorted to their so-called paranormal powers to defeat the opponents. The reports of
their victory in such cases contributed to their authoritative position in society.
This happened in the case of Nizam-ud-Din’s conflict with his antagonists as well.
He had to defend the legitimacy of his interest in music (sama or qawwali) in the
light of the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. The conservative ulama, however,
insisted that he must follow the Hanafite interpretation of Sunni Islam, according to
which listening to music was a forbidden act. In such a condition, the Sheikh was left
to curse his detractors. The saint’s righteousness was established with the Sultans and
their supporters being eliminated in quick succession. While a close confidante killed
Qutb-ud-Din Mubarakshah Khalji, Ghiyas-ud-Din’s death in an accident on the
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 39

outskirts of Delhi was suspected to be the handiwork of his own son, who enthroned
himself as Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq (ruled 1325–51). Ghiyas-ud-Din was
returning from a campaign in Bengal and had sent an imperial order (farmān) asking
Nizam-ud-Din to leave the city. The saint had, however, responded in his character-
istically humorous way: hunūz dill dūr ast, that is, ‘Delhi is yet far away’ (for the
ruler).16 Dill dūr ast remains a common refrain for those who cannot make it even
now. Incidentally, the king never did return to the city. According to the Chishti
tradition, the provocation of the saint’s jalāl, the wrathful aspect of his personality,
led to the Sultan’s elimination. By contrast, Nizam-ud-Din Auliya blessed Muhammad
Tughluq and announced the bestowal of kingship on him even before Ghiyas-ud-
Din had died (Qiwam-ul-Aqa’id, 1994 edn: 96). However, Nizam-ud-Din did not
live to see the rule of the eccentric Sultan Muhammad Tughluq. In his death in 1325,
Delhi had lost a messiah. His hospice at Ghiyaspur, near later Humayun’s Tomb, was
a continuous source of sustenance for people. His image of a benevolent miracle-
worker helping people in times of crisis, coupled with his charitable endeavours and
a broad worldview aimed at winning the heart of the people cutting across the barriers
of institutionalised religions, had added to the charisma. This role was subsequently
taken up by his dargah, which soon emerged as a major pilgrimage centre, located in
the heart of modern day Delhi.
Chishti relations with the Tughluqs deteriorated somewhat under Nizam-ud-Din’s
successor, Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli (Nizami, 1991b). The latter managed to
keep the Chishti tradition alive in Delhi at a time when Muhammad Tughluq was
reported to have turned hostile towards the Sheikh, even as he was generally insisting
on the cooperation of the Sufis and ulama in strengthening his hold in the Deccan.
Though the contemporary accounts concerning the shifting of the capital to Devgiri,
renamed Daulatabad, are extremely exaggerated, Sufi tradition celebrates the Chishti
Sheikh’s insistence on staying back in his wilayat. His house was said to be the only
one where the lamp kept burning in an otherwise deserted Delhi. This earned him
the title of Chiragh-i-Dehli or ‘the lamp of Delhi’ and speaks of the Sheikh’s confidence
and his sense of responsibility that he was actively involved in the enthronement of
Firuz Shah Tughluq (ruled 1351–88), after Muhammad Tughluq’s death while cam-
paigning in Uchch in Sindh.
With Chiragh-i-Dehli, the first cycle of the five ‘great’ Chishtis came to an end,
for he did not nominate any of his disciples as his chief successor in the Chishti order.
A large number of Chishti Sufis, mainly the disciples of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, had
spread all over Hindustan, Bengal and the Deccan, but their control over Delhi was
weakening.17 Politically, too, Delhi’s power was waning. Even as Timur or Tamerlane had
invaded and sacked Delhi (1398), the leading Chishti saint Bandanawaz Gesudaraz,
a disciple of Chiragh-i-Dehli, avoided being a victim of the calamity by leaving for a
safer bastion in the Deccan. The connections between the rise and decline of the
Delhi Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries, and the corresponding graph of the
Chishti masters in the period are too striking to be ignored.

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

40 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Important Features of Chishti Sufism in the Delhi Sultanate

The foregoing account is relevant for our understanding of a number of key themes
in the history of Chishti Sufism, which emerged as an important devotional movement
with its base in Delhi and Ajmer in the 13th and 14th centuries. This is also significant
as the Chishtis occupy an important position in the history of Sufism and are noted
for their crucial social and political roles in the Indian environment (see earlier gener-
ally Rahman, 1949; Rizvi, 1978 and now Aquil, 2007). The larger issues include (a)
miracle or karamat as a source of authority, (b) relations with the sultans and nobles,
(c) Sufi music, cultural appropriations and possibilities of defying the writ of ortho-
doxy, even while remaining within the fold of Islam, and (d) attitudes towards non-
Muslims and issues of conversion and Islamisation.
A recurring theme in the Sufi literature, both hagiographies and the compilations
of malfuzat, is the authoritative position of the Sufi Sheikhs in the society and politics
of the Delhi Sultanate. An important source of the Sheikh’s authority was his perceived
ability to perform miracles. The Sufi sources are replete with stories of incredible
feats of the saints. This is as true of Nizam-ud-Din’s authoritative ‘discourses’ as of
many other ‘popular’ Sufi writings from the 14th century. Indeed, the two main
Chishti texts, Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad (1990 edn) and Khayr-ul-Majalis (1959 edn) are full
of fantastic anecdotes of miracles attributed to the Sufis of the past. Nizam-ud-Din
Auliya himself believed in miracle as an integral part of Sufi discipline, but he was
against those who advertised their own ability to perform them. For him, it was ob-
ligatory for saints to hide their supernatural exploits and binding on prophets to display
them. The Sheikh classified miracles into four categories: mu‘ ajiza (miracles of the
prophet), karamat (marvels of the saints), ma‘unat (paranormal feats of saintly people,
including non-Muslim yogis and Brahmins) and istidraj (occasional tricks performed
by an obstinate sinner or magician). He also believed in the power of the evil eye
(nazr) and black-magic (jadu/sehr). He criticised the rationalist mu ‘ tazila for treating
them merely as fancy ideas and not a reality. A liberal, tolerant approach towards
other, often competing, religious traditions did not make the Chishtis rational. Chishti
tradition was a part of Sunni Islam and, in a measure, it followed Imam Ghazali in
attempting to wed theology with mysticism and in condemning the rationalists or
philosophers. For this purpose, the use of political power was not abhorred.
Some scholars have suggested that the Sufis, particularly the early Chishtis, such
as Baba Farid and Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, kept themselves away from politics and
government of their times, for they believed that involvement in politics led to materi-
alism and worldliness, which they wished to avoid (see for instance Rizvi, 1978). A
careful perusal of the sources, however, reveals that the above formulation concerning
the Chishti approach towards the government and politics of the time is not sus-
tainable. In theory, the Chishtis may have felt the need to keep their distance from
the king and his nobles, but in practice this was not always the case. We have examples
from the careers of leading Chishti saints of their proximity to political power in
Delhi, as in the case of Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiyar Kaki and his companions, even as
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 41

they resisted becoming veritable courtiers. Differences over the question of power
and patronage in the wilayat, spiritual or political territory, led in some cases to se-
vere conflict between the Sufis and the monarchs in the Sultanate capital. Nizam-ud-
Din Auliya’s troubles with Qutb-ud-Din Mubarak Shah Khalji and Ghiyas-ud-Din
Tughluq have been noted earlier. Alternatively, examples of their collaboration abound.
Sufi literature particularly highlights the cordial relations between Nizam-ud-Din
Auliya and Sultan Ala-ud-Din Khalji, after the initial suspicions of each other’s inten-
tions were set to rest. Thus, the relationship between Sufis and rulers was very complex,
and reveals that the mystics were not indifferent to the context in which they flourished.
The Sufi Sheikhs were not ascetics. They were supposed to live amongst the people
and help mitigate their sufferings. For Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, as recorded in his
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad (1990 edn), renunciation of the world (tark-i-duniya) did not mean
that one should wear a langota or loin-cloth and set off to live in the forest. Shun-
ning all the anxieties of attachment to this world, whether private and public, the
Sufis called for soul searching, remembrance of God beyond the ritual prayers of the
mosques, meditation in solitude and wandering around as dervishes to the Muslim
cities and non-Muslim or semi-Islamised hinterlands. At the end of it, they re-appeared
with claims of personally experiencing the truth of Islam, of the loving God and the
righteousness of the path of the Prophet (strengthening here the ulama’s position). As
religious exemplars, then, the Sufis were supposed to guide the Muslims, ignoring or
tolerating human weaknesses, and also to bring non-Muslims to the fold of Islam.
Their claims for religious and, at times, political authority could run them into trouble
with the ulama, who interrogated their religious practices and resorted to violence to
keep them in check. Music was one such contested practice.

The Chishti Tradition and Music

In the opinion of some scholars, interest in music, among the authorised forms of re-
membrance (zikr) in the Chishti tradition, distinguished it from other silsilas such as
the Suhrawardis, their major mystical rivals in the Sultanate period. It is suggested
that the Chishti practice of sama or qawwali served a valuable practical function: It
not only separated the Chishtis from the Suhrawardis, but also opposed them to the
official ulama. Thus, music became, if not the monopoly of the Chishtis, the pre-
eminent symbol crystallising their position (Ernst and Lawrence, 2002). Though the
difference between the Chishti and Suhrawardi approaches to music is generally
known, the Suhrawardi attitude towards musical assemblies has not been explored
properly. Several leading Suhrawardis of the Sultanate period were fond of devotional
music. Hamid-ud-Din Nagauri, a Suhrawardi contemporary of Qutb-ud-Din
Bakhtiyar Kaki, was one of them. Later, Ilm-ud-Din Suhrawardi defended Nizam-
ud-Din Auliya during the controversial mahzar (judicial inquest) in Sultan Ghiyas-
ud-Din Tughluq’s court in Delhi. Evidence of qawwali being held in the presence of

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

42 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Baha-ud-Din Zakariyya, the leading Suhrawardi saint of 13th-century Multan, may

also be found in authoritative early tazkiras. Also, within the Chishti order, there
were differences over the use of instruments and performance by female singers.
While Fakhr-ud-Din Zarradi permitted the use of the drum and tambourine in music
assemblies, his preceptor Nizam-ud-Din Auliya did not recommend the instruments.
Nizam-ud-Din was also against the participation of female qawwals, but his disciples
did employ both instruments and female singers in their music assemblies. The
ambivalence is also reflected in later reports, which attributed the invention of several
musical instruments to Nizam-ud-Din’s closest disciple and courtier, Amir Khusrau
(see Ansari and Sahar, 1989; Mirza, 1986).
Music, then, as a neat marker of Chishti practice as against Suhrawardis and other
Sufi orders will not hold. Similarly, the Shattaris, a branch of the Suhrawardis, were
close to the Chishtis in their preference for music as a spiritual exercise. Nor is the use
of Hindi verses typical of the Chishtis. The Rishi Sufis of Kashmir, too, used non-
Arabic vocal zikr formulae. Like the Chishtis, the Shattaris were also open to the idea
of adopting spiritual practices belonging to non-Muslim mystical traditions. It has
traditionally been argued that the Chishti attitude towards the doctrine of wahdat-
ul-wujud (monism as a reality) propounded by Ibn Arabi was an important marker
of difference between the Chishtis and Suhrawardis in the Sultanate period and be-
tween Chishtis and Naqshbandis in the Mughal era. It is also suggested that the
Chishti belief in the wujudi doctrine brought it very close to various streams of non-
Muslim mystical traditions, and, therefore, tolerant and accommodative.18

Chishti Attitudes to Non-Muslims

This brings us to questions concerning Chishti attitudes towards non-Muslims, con-
version, Islamisation, claims of local Muslim communities converting to Islam, and
the long-term cultural accretion around the shrines. There is a vast body of literature
on these issues, both in early Sufi writings and later secondary sources, which historians
have tended to ignore. Sufi literature clearly reveals how the Chishtis were not averse
to the idea of conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, either directly at the hands of a
leading pir, or through a long process of Islamic acculturation in localities made
sacred by the shrines of medieval saints. The sources also record a large number of
anecdotes of miraculous encounters between the Sufis and non-Muslim miracle-
workers or spiritual power-holders such as yogis, sannyasis, gurus and Brahmins (Aquil,
1997–98; 2003a).
Provoked by the competing claims to territorial authority, these stories narrated
by Nizam-ud-Din Auliya and his disciples are significant for a more informed under-
standing of the religious complex and the processes of diffusion of Islam. Even if the
accounts of miracles cannot be proved rationally, in recounting them, Sufi writers
and biographers were celebrating the image of the saints as propagators of Islam
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 43

wherever they settled down. Such reports appear in both the ‘authoritative’ texts such
as Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ad (1990 edn) and Khayr-ul-Majalis (1959 edn) and in the so-called
‘spurious’ compilations like Afzal-ul-Fawa’id (n.d.) and Rahat-ul-Muhibbin (n.d.);
they are important for understanding Sufi tradition on its own terms. Contrary to
the modern political ideals advanced by secularists and imposed on the past, Chishtis
have long celebrated the Islamising role of their preceptors led by Khwaja Mu’in-ud-
Din Chishti. A critical, dispassionate appreciation requires that even as exaggerated
accounts of conversion are questioned, the Sufis’ interest in conversion and the spread
of Islam should be recognised. This is not the case with much of modern histor-
ical writings.
In this context, mention may also be made of the court-poet and closest disciple
of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, Amir Khusrau, who is much admired in modern secularist
scholarship for his ‘patriotism’ and other such virtues, expected from a good Muslim.
However, his court-chronicles are full of hostile references to Hindus, condemning
them as kafirs or infidels (Friedmann, 2003 [1986]). Khusrau celebrated the Sultan
washing the earth clean with the blood of the impure idol-worshipping Hindus whom
he also referred to as the Pharaohs of infidelity. Ignoring Khusrau’s reports on the
countless infidels being sent to hell for the satisfaction of the Sultans, historians
highlight his patriotism (if not ‘nationalism’, though indications are to this effect
also), by quoting all the nice words expressed by him about the goodness of the land
of Hindustan, often confused with the whole of India, and achievements of its people
in various fields. However Khusrau’s glorification of Hindustan might have been
related to the Muslim supremacy and splendour of Islam (Ahmad, 2003 [1963]).
The poet appreciated the reports that the strong men of Hind were trodden under
the foot and were ready to pay tribute, and that Islam was triumphant and idolatry
subdued. Khusrau was convinced that religious truth was to be found in Islam alone,
and Friedmann (2003 [1986]) notes that in this respect he does not differ from the
consensus prevailing among the Muslims in his time and place. Many Chishtis, indeed,
believed in the superiority of Islam over other religious traditions and took considerable
pain to establish that.
Nizam-ud-Din Auliya’s other disciple and courtier, Ziya-ud-Din Barani, certainly
did not differ with Khusrau on this question, as recent studies on Barani’s provocative
views on the political ideals and the nature of polity in the Delhi Sultanate have
shown (Alam, 2004; Aquil, 2004). It is important to note, however, that Khusrau’s
approach towards Brahmins worshipping the sun, stones and some animals was dif-
ferent from that of Barani. For the latter, all these smacked of polytheism, while
Khusrau explained that these are not considered as similar to God, but only a part of
his creation. Khusrau would go to the extent of saying that as a religious group the
Hindus were better than many others, including Christians. Evidently, there is a
need to de-sanitise modern histories of Chishti tradition by taking into account all
the evidence, and not just one set of comments only.

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

44 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Conclusion: Cultivating Delhi’s Pluralism

Sufi interaction in the Indian environment was not always marked by conflict, however.
Interactions between diverse religio-intellectual traditions at various levels were distin-
guished by the concern to learn about and from each other, and to carve out a modus
vivendi. This is reflected in music, painting, architecture, growth and development
of vernacular literature, and evolution of ‘syncretistic’ communities that incorporated
beliefs and practices common to Islam and other religious currents. To start with,
this initiative came from the great tradition of the Chishti Sufis of the 13th and 14th
centuries: three out of five of them lived in Delhi and shaped the liberal character of
the city, ensuring—deliberately or otherwise—that it did not take the homogeneous
shape of a predominantly Muslim city, as was the case with Multan, controlled by
their more orthodox Suhrawardi rivals in the same period. No wonder, despite the
hostile sectarian and communal environment all around, Chishti dargahs have con-
tinued to flourish in Delhi, making it a sacred city, a prominent pilgrimage centre for
devotional Islam in the subcontinent.

Notes
1. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Cultural Studies Seminar at the Centre
for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, 14 December 2005, and at the Second Inter-
national Conference on Religions and Cultures in the Indic Civilisation, organised by the
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and Manushi, New Delhi, 17–20 December
2005. I am grateful to Partha Chatterjee, Anjan Ghosh, Narayani Gupta, Shail Mayaram
and Tilottama Mukherjee for appreciating the value of this work.
2. For an authoritative account of ancient Delhi, see Singh (1999), Kaul (1985), Sharma
(1990), Narain (1986) and more generally The Delhi Omnibus (2002) for an important
collection of classic studies on the history of Delhi through the ages.
3. Upinder Singh (1999: 30) has noted recently: ‘Many historians agree that the Mahabharata
epic may be based on certain historical events that might have happened some time
around 1000 BC’.
4. For an important discussion on the iron pillar, see Singh (1999: 76–81).
5. Singh (1982) constitutes an appreciative biography of Prithviraja Chauhan in Hindi.
6. For modern political histories, see Habib and Nizami (1992); Jackson (1999).
7. See, for instance, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (1970) of Minhaj-us-Siraj and Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi
(n.d.) of Ziya-ud-Din Barani.
8. See Afzal-ul-Fawa’ id (n.d.), Rahat-ul-Muhibbin (n.d.), Rahat-ul-Qulub (n.d.).
9. For relevant discussions see Mujeeb (1972) and Juneja (2001). Of limited value is Kumar
(2002).
10. For a different position, see earlier Beg (1982) and more recently Singh (1999: 98–9).
11. For details see Aquil (1997–98). On the Sheikh’s life and career, see Currie (1989).
12. On Sufis’ interest in music, see Lawrence (1983).
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 45

13. See also Siyar-ul-Arifin (n.d.), fols. 56b–57a; Jawahir-i-Faridi (1884 edn: 204, 214–5).
For Balban’s religiosity and his veneration of the Sufi saints generally, see Tarikh-i-Firuz
Shahi (n.d.), fols. 21b–22a.
14. For a detailed account, see Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (1970 edn: II, 854–9).
15. For a traditional narrative of the Sheikh’s life, see Nizami (1991a).
16. For an early 15th-century recorded version of the Sheikh’s remark: dehli az tu dur ast, see
Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi (1931 edn: 96–7). The use of tu, instead of the more respectable
shuma for ‘you’, that is, the Sultan, clearly shows the Sufi’s contempt for the latter.
17. For Sufism in Bengal, see Latif (1993) and Haqq (1975). On Deccani Sufism see Eaton
(1978) and Ernst (1992).
18. See for instance Rizvi (1978). For a different opinion, see Aquil (2007).

References
Afzal-ul-Fawa’ id (n.d.) Conversations of Shaykh Nizam-ud-Din Auliya. Compilation attributed
to Amir Khusrau, Urdu translation. Delhi: Maktaba Jam-i-Noor.
Ahmad, Aziz (2003 [1963]) ‘Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India’. In Richard M. Eaton
(ed.), India’s Islamic Traditions, 711–1750 (pp. 37–49). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Akhbar-ul-Akhyar (n.d.) of Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi. Manuscript, IO Islamic
1450, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London.
Akhbar-ul-Akhyar (1990) of Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhaddis Dehlawi. Urdu translation by
Subhan Mahmud and Muhammad Fazil. Delhi: Adabi Duniya.
Alam, Muzaffar (2004) The Languages of Political Islam in India, c. 1200–1800. Delhi: Per-
manent Black.
Ansari, Zoe and Sahar, Abul Faiz (eds.) (1989) Khusro Shanasi (in Urdu). Delhi: Taraqqi
Urdu Bureau.
Aquil, Raziuddin (1997–98) ‘Conversion in Chishti Sufi Literature (13th–14th Centuries)’.
Indian Historical Review, 24(1–2): 70–94.
Aquil, Raziuddin (2003a) ‘Miracles, Authority and Benevolence: Stories of Karamat in Chishti
Sufi Literature of the Delhi Sultanate’. In Anup Taneja (ed.), Sufi Cults and the Evolution
of Medieval Indian Culture (pp. 109–38). Delhi: ICHR and Northern Book Centre.
Aquil, Raziuddin (2003b) ‘Episodes from the Life of Shaikh Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar’.
International Journal of Punjab Studies, 10(1–2): 25–46.
Aquil, Raziuddin (2004) ‘On Islam and Kufr in the Delhi Sultanate: Towards a Re-
interpretation of Ziya’-ud-Din Barani’s Fatawa-i-Jahandari’. Paper presented at ‘Rethinking
a Millennium: Conference in Honour of Prof. Harbans Mukhia’, New Delhi.
Aquil, Raziuddin (2007) Sufism, Culture, and Politics: Afghans and Islam in Medieval North
India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Arjomand, Saïd Amir (2004) ‘Transformation of the Islamicate Civilization: A Turning-Point
in the Thirteenth Century?’. Medieval Encounters, 10(1–3): 213–45.
Beg, Mirza Sangin (1982) Sair-ul-Manazil, Persian text with Urdu translation by Sharif Husain
Qasimi. Delhi: Ghalib Institute.
Currie, P.M. (1989) The Shrine and Cult of Muin al-Din Chishti of Ajmer. Delhi: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

46 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

Digby, Simon (1986) ‘The Sufi Shaykh as a Source of Authority in Medieval India’.
Purushartha, 9: 55–77.
Digby, Simon (1990) ‘The Sufi Shaikh and the Sultan: A Conflict of Claims to Authority in
Medieval India’. Iran, 28: 71–81.
Eaton, Richard M. (1978) Sufis of Bijapur, 1300–1700. Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval India.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eaton, Richard M. (2002) ‘Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States’. In Richard M.
Eaton, Essays on Islam and Indian History (pp. 94–132). New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Eaton, Richard M. (2003) ‘The Political and Religious Authority of the Shrine of Baba Farid’.
In Richard M. Eaton (ed.), India’s Islamic Traditions, 711–1750 (pp. 263–84). Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Ernst, Carl W. (1992) Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History and Politics at a South Asian Sufi
Centre. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ernst, Carl W. and Lawrence, Bruce B. (2002) Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in
South Asia and Beyond. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Faruqi, Ihsanul Haq (1963) Sultan-ut-Tarikin. Karachi: Dairah Mu’inul Ma’arif.
Faruqi, Ziya-ul-Hasan (1996) Fawa’ id al-Fu’ ad: Spiritual and Literary Discourses of Shaikh
Nizamuddin Awliya/Originally Compiled by Amir Hasan ‘Ala’ Sijzi Dehlawi. English
translation with introduction and historical annotation. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
Fatawa-i-Jahandari (1972 edn) By Ziya-ud-Din Barani, ed. by Afsar Salim Khan. Lahore:
Research Society of Pakistan.
Fawa’ id-ul-Fu’ad (1990 edn) Conversations of Shaikh Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, compiled by
Amir Hasan Sijzi. Persian text with an Urdu translation by Khwaja Hasan Sani Nizami.
Delhi: Urdu Academy.
Friedmann, Yohanan (2003 [1986]) ‘Islamic Thought in Relation to the Indian Context’. In
Richard M. Eaton (ed.), India’s Islamic Traditions, 711–1750 (pp. 50–63). Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Frykenberg, R.E. (ed.) (1986) Delhi Through the Ages: Essays in Urban History, Culture and
Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Habib, Mohammad and Nizami, K.A. (1992 [1970]) (eds.) A Comprehensive History of India,
Vol. V, Part One. The Delhi Sultanate. Delhi: People’s Publishing House.
Haqq, M. Enamul (1975) A History of Sufism in Bengal. Dacca: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
Jackson, Peter (1999) The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Jawahir-i-Faridi (1884 edn) of Ali Asghar. Lahore: Victoria Press.
Juneja, Monica (ed.) (2001) Architecture in Medieval India: Forms, Contexts, Histories. Delhi:
Permanent Black.
Kaul, H.K. (ed.) (1985) Historic Delhi: An Anthology. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad (2000 edn) Asar-us-Sanadid (with an Introduction by Tanwir Ahmad
Alavi). Delhi: Urdu Academy.
Khayr-ul-Majalis (1959 edn) Conversations of Sheikh Nasir-ud-Din Chiragh-i-Dehli, compiled
by Hamid Qalandar, edited by K.A. Nizami. Aligarh: Muslim University.
Khazinat-ul-Asfiya (n.d.) of Maulwi Ghulam Sarwar, Vol. I. Kanpur: Newal Kishore.
Kumar, Sunil (2002) The Present in Delhi’s Pasts. Delhi: Three Essays.
Aquil: The Making of the Chishti Sufi Centre 47

Latif, Sk. Abdul (1993) The Muslim Mystic Movement in Bengal, 1301–1550. Calcutta: K.P.
Bagchi.
Lawrence, Bruce B. (1983) ‘The Early Chishti Approach to Sama’. In M. Israel and N.K.
Wagle (eds.), Islamic Society and Culture: Essays in Honour of Professor Aziz Ahmad
(pp. 69–93). Delhi: Manohar.
Lawrence, Bruce B. (1991) Nizam Ad-Din Awliya: Morals for the Heart. English translation of
Fawa’id-ul-Fu’ ad. New York: Paulist Press.
Mirza, M. Wahid (1986) Amir Khusrau (in Urdu). Delhi: National Amir Khusrau Society.
Mujeeb, M. (1972) ‘The Qutb Complex as a Social Document’. In M. Mujeeb, Islamic Influence
on Indian Society (pp. 111–24). Meerut: Meenakshi Prakashan.
Narain, A.K. (1986) ‘On the Proto-history of Delhi and its Environs’. In R.E. Frykenberg
(ed.), Delhi Through the Ages: Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society (pp. 3–17).
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Nizami, K.A. (1955) The Life and Times of Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj-i-Shakar. Aligarh: Muslim
University.
Nizami, K.A. (1991a) The Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya. Delhi: Idarah-i-
Adabiyat-i Delli.
Nizami, K.A. (1991b) The Life and Times of Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh. Delhi: Idarah-i-
Adabiyat-i Delli.
Qasimi, Ata-ur-Rahman (1995) Dilli ki Tarikhi Masajid (in Urdu). Delhi: Maulana Azad
Academy.
Qiwam-ul-Aqa’ id (1994 edn) Muhammad Jamal Qiwam, Urdu translation by Nisar Ahmad
Faruqui. Rampur: Idarah Nashar-o-Isha‘at.
Rahat-ul-Muhibbin (n.d.) Collection of the malfuzat of Nizam-ud-Din Auliya, compilation
attributed to Amir Khusrau, Urdu translation. Delhi: Maktaba Jam-i-Noor.
Rahat-ul-Qulub (n.d.) Collection of the malfuzat of Farid-ud-Din Ganj-i-Shakar, compilation
attributed to Nizam-ud-Din Auliya. Urdu translation. Delhi: Maktaba Jam-i-Noor.
Rahman, Sabahuddin Abdur (1949) Bazm-i-Sufiya (in Urdu). Azamgarh: Darul Musannefin.
Rizvi, S.A.A. (1978) A History of Sufism in India, Vol. I. Early Sufism and its History in India to
1600 AD. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Sharma, Y.D. (1990) Delhi and its Neighbourhood. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Singh, Paras Nath (1982) Prithviraj Chauhan aur unka kaal. Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhawan.
Singh, Upinder (1999) Ancient Delhi. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Siyar-ul-Arifin (n.d.) of Shaikh Jamali. Ms., IO Islamic 1313, OIOC, British Library, London.
Siyar-ul-Auliya (1978 edn) of Amir Khwurd. Islamabad: Markaz Tahqiqat-i-Farsi Iran
wa Pakistan.
Tabaqat-i-Nasiri (1970 edn [1881]) A General History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia,
Including Hindustan. By Maulana Minhaj-ud-din Abu-‘Umar-i-‘Usman [Minhaj-us-Siraj],
translated from original Persian manuscripts by Major H.G. Raverty, 2 Vols, Reprint.
Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.
Tarikh-i-Farishta (1983 edn) of Muhammad Qasim Farishta. Urdu translation by Abdul Hai
Khwaja, Vol. I. Deoband: Maktaba Millat.
Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi (n.d.) of Ziya-ud-Din Barani. British Museum Ms. 6376, OIOC, British
Library, London.
Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi (1931 edn) of Yahya bin Ahmad bin Abdullah Sarhindi, edited by
M. Hidayat Hosain. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.

South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

48 South Asia Research Vol. 28 (1): 23–48

The Delhi Omnibus (2002) Incorporating four classic works on the history of Delhi through
the ages. Delhi: A Historical Sketch and Twilight of the Mughuls: Studies in Late Mughal
Delhi by Percival Spear; Delhi between Two Empires 1803–1931 by Narayani Gupta; and
Delhi through the Ages: Selected Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society, edited by R.E.
Frykenberg. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Dr Raziuddin Aquil is a Fellow in History at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences,
Calcutta. His research interests include Sufism and the making of Islam in the Indian
subcontinent. He has extensively published on Sufism, Muslim culture, and politics
(most recently Aquil, 2007).
Address: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, R-1 Baishnabghata Patuli
Township, Kolkata 700 094, India. [email: [email protected]]