See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325458630

The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India

Article in Studies in People’s History · June 2017

DOI: 10.1177/2348448917693738

CITATIONS READS
3 2,745

1 author:

Nadeem Rezavi
Aligarh Muslim University
20 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nadeem Rezavi on 22 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The state, Shia‘s and
Shi‘ism in medieval India

Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Professor of History, Aligarh Muslim University

The major schism in the history of Islam in India, as in some other countries with Muslim popu-
lations, has been between Sunnism and Shi‘ism. Since Shias have formed a minority in India,
it is of some interest to trace how they were treated by the Sunni majority (and the state) and
follow the progress of theological controversies that ensued between the two sects. The present
paper reconstructs the story of the co-existence and disputation between the two sects in India
from about the thirteenth century to the early nineteenth century, when the onset of colonialism
created an entirely changed political and cultural atmosphere.

Keywords: Shi‘ism, Sunnis, Akhbårðs, Us[ølðs, Nørullåh Shøshtarð, Shåh Walðullåh, Awadh

Since its very early days schism has existed in Islam, and the two major sects,
the Sunni and the Shi‘a*, have had their contestations over beliefs and practices.
Further, since the beginning, the possession of political power or the lack of it, has
exercised a major influence on the playing out of these differences. The majoritarian
Sunni Islam has flourished under the patronage of various regimes like those of the
‘Ummayids, ‘Abbåsids and the Ottomans. The Shi‘a sects, notably the is]nå‘asharð
(the Twelvers) and the Ismå‘ilðs, flourished when political support was provided
to them under the Fåt]imids and the S[afavids. Developments elsewhere also show
that political changes have kept on influencing the religious scene.
Indeed, one finds that the Shi‘a response to the challenges thrown by Sunni ortho-
doxy used to be quite muted at moments when they lacked political patronage. On
the other hand, during the periods when they were free from political pressure, or had
the active support of the government, their response tended to be quite bold and vehe-
ment. We also see that Shi‘a activism became quite strong at points when a spirit of
tolerance prevailed in Mughal India, and Shi‘aism received even official patronage
in some principalities of the time. On the other hand, there has been practically no
Sunni voice raised in Iran ever since the onset of the Shi‘ite S[afavid dynasty—a
period of 400.
After the Arabs conquered Sind and Multan (712–14), Shi‘ite influence first
manifested itself under the designation of Qaråmit]a (Carmathians), who owed
*Shð‘a means ‘party, faction’, so, properly speaking, the designation should be Shð‘ð,‘people of the
party or faction’. But usage has made Shð‘a the common appellation at least in India for members of
the sect.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

SAGE Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/2348448917693738
 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 33

allegiance to the Fat]imids of Egypt (909–1171). In the tenth century, under their
leader Jalam ibn Shaibån, they seized Multan where they destroyed the famous
Sun-temple, killing its priests, and closed down the town’s old mosque, as a foun-
dation of the hated Umayyids. Their rule was put an end to by Ma°mød of Ghazni
(999–1030), with his usual cruelties, which included lying waste the Qarmat]ian
mosque1
We cease to hear of any Shi‘ite sects until we come to the account of the murder
of Sultan Mu‘izzuddðn of Ghor in 1206 on his way to Ghazni from India in 1206
at the ‘hands of a fidåð (devotee) of the heretics (mulåh[ida)’, a reference obvi-
ously to an Ismå‘ilð agent.2 A curious incident occurred at Delhi during the reign
of Sultan Raziyya (1236–40), when, according to a contemporary account, a
crowd of ‘Carmathians and heretics’, to the number of a thousand gathered under
a ‘pretended scholar Nør Turk’, on 5 March 1237, to attack the Madrasa-i Mu‘izzð
at Delhi, attacking the conventional Sunnðs as Nås[ibðs/(enemies of ‘Ali) and
murjðs (unfaithful). They were duly suppressed.3 The curious fact is that Nør Turk
is mentioned with much respect in Shaikh Niz]åmuddðn’s conversations early in
the next century, and he seems to have retired peaceably to Mecca.4
It is possible that by now the ‘twelver’ Shiå‘s had also made their appearance,
first, amongst the Iranian and Central Asia immigrants who flocked to Delhi. Ibn
Battøta, who visited Delhi in the reign of Mu°mamad Tughluq (1324–51) reports
that Sharðf Abø Ghurra of Najaf coming to India spent eight years in Daulatabåd,
with a royal grant of two villages, and then went to Delhi where he received a large
amount from the Sultan. He dying within a short while of receiving this gift, the
amount was distributed ‘in alms to a community of Shi‘ites from the Hijåz and
al-Iråq living in Delhi’.5 There was similarly a settlement of Rafiz[ðs (pejorative
for Shi‘as) at Quilon in Kerala, where they ‘proclaim’ their affiliation openly’.6
The apparently peaceable existence of Shias must have been greatly disturbed at
least in the Delhi Sultanate by the measures of persecution adopted by Sultan Fðroz
Shåh (1351–88). His edict reportedly inscribed on the Firozshah Kotla Mosque,
recites that ‘men of the Shð‘ð faith (Shð‘ð-mazhabån), who are called Råfðzðs used
to invite people to join the Rðfz[ and Shð‘ð faith, had written tracts and books on this
faith, and engaged in the profession of teaching and instructing (people) in the faith’.
He accused them of reviling ‘Åyisha, wife of the Prophet, and the entire body of

1
  Shams al-Dðn Maqdðsð, A°san al-Taqåsðm fð Ma‘årifat al - ‘Aqålðm, 2nd ed., Lieden, 1967, pp. 281,
485; Edward C. Sachau, tr., Alberuni’s India, London, 1910, Vol. I, pp. 116–17.
2
  Minhåj Siråj, T]abaqåt-i Nås[irð, ed. Nassau Lees, Calcutta, 1864, Vol. I, p. 403.
3
  Ibid., Vol. I, p. 461.
4
  Amðr ¡asan Sijzð, Fawå’idu’l Fawåd, ed. Muhammad Latif Malik, Lahore, 1966, pp. 334–35:
conversation, 9 October 1318. Niz]amuddðn here specifically denied the allegations made of Shi‘ite
heresy agsinst Nør Turk in the T]abaqåt-i Nasðrð, and claimed that nås[ibð meant råfiz[ð or Shi‘a, an epithet
which Nør Turk himself used against the conventional theologians.
5
  H.A.R. Gibb, tr., Travels of Ibn Battuta, Indian reprint, New Delhi, 1993, Vol. I, p. 263.
6
  C.F. Beckingham, tr., The Travels of Ibn Battuta, London, 1994, Vol. IV, p. 817.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

34 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

søfðs, and calling the Qurån ‘Us]mån’s additions (mul°iqåt-i ‘Us]månð). He claimed
that he had seized all such Shð‘a preachers, executed the rabid ones (ghålðån), and
chastised the others, while burning their books—‘so that by the grace of God, the
mischief of this sect was entirely suppressed’.7 The anonymous Sðrat-i Fðrozshåhð
(completed, 1370–71) goes on to refer to one Imåm Abø Shakør Sålamð and repro-
duces his list of the beliefs of the Shi‘a sect (Farq-i Råfðziya), each of which in his
opinion amounted to kufr (infidelity). The long list may deserve scrutiny from the
point of view of what the critic’s sources were. Superficially, it shows the usual
polemicist’s desire to attribute extreme view to the opponent, for example, that
‘Alð was an emanation of God, or couple two divergent positions together, for
example, practice of temporary marriage (mut‘a) with rejection of instant divorce,
even if pronounced thrice by the husband.8 A polemical text Siråjiyya against
the Shi‘as attributed to Jalål Makhdøm-i Jahånðån (1308–84) is preserved in the
Riza Library, Rampur.9
After the establishment of Mughal rule, there was initially little change as far
as the official attitude to Shi‘a theology was concerned. The tradition went that
Humåyøn dismissed the im[åm who had led prayers at the court for two years, when
he heard a person say that he had seen the im[åm in company with Shi‘as (ahl-i rifz[)
one day. Not only that, he held the two years’ prayers to stand cancelled, having
to be offered again!10 On the other hand, no act of persecution of Shi‘as by Båbur
(1526–30) or Humåyøn in the first phase of his reign (1526–40) is reported.
On Humåyøn’s return, from Iran, he brought with him a number of Iranian
soldiers and officers (then mostly Shi‘a).11 In the more open atmosphere that this
situation created, Saiyid Råjø bin Saiyid ¡åmid al-¡usaini al-Bukhårð proposed a
departure from the practice of taqðya (dissimulation) that Shi‘as had so far appar-
ently followed and exhorted them to openly declare their faith and busy themselves
in the pursuit of the mazhab-i °aq (the true path).12
During this period, a major churning in the Shi‘i exegesis was taking place. It
is true that this had actually started when the Buwaihids had ruled western Iran
and Iraq from the middle of the eleventh to the middle of the twelfth century. But
it got a new life with the establishment of Safavid rule in Iran during the sixteenth

7
  Firuzshåh Tughluq, Futū°āt-i Fīrūzshāhi, ed. Abdur Rashid, Aligarh, 1954, p. 6. The text of the
edict is partly summarised in the Sðrat-i Fðrozshåhð, facsimile ed. of Patna MS, 1999, pp. 117–22, so
that since the latter was compiled in 1370–71, the edict must have been issued at an earlier date.
8
  Sðrat-i Fðrozshåhð, pp. 122–35. Its claim that the Shia sect was totally destroyed through Sultan
Firoz’s measures (p. 140) is, of course, likely to be an exaggeration.
9
  On the author, see Muhammad Ghaus]ð Shattårð, Gulzår-i Abrår, ed. M. Zaki, Patna, 1994,
pp. 101–02, where, however, no work against the Shi‘as is attributed to him.
10
  Rizqullah Mushtaqi, Wåqi’at-i Mushtåqi, ed. I.H. Siddiqui and W.H. Siddiqui, Rampur, 2002, p. 113.
11
  See ‘Abdu’l Qådir Badåønð, Muntakhabu’tawārīkh, ed. Ahmad and Lees, Calcutta, 1864–1869,
Vol. I, p. 468, where a protest at this by a theologian before Humayan at Kabul is related.
12
  Qåzð Nørullåh Shøshtarð, Majālisu’l Møminīn, Teheran, 1882, pp. 52, 230.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 35

century. From the period of the Occultation of the Twelfth Im[åm in AD 873,13 up to
the establishment of Safavid rule in 1501, the majority of Shi‘a ‘ulamå had held that
the state-related functions could not be performed in the absence of the Imām. Only
the Imām could collect and distribute religious taxes, lead Friday congregational
prayers and order jihåd.14 Such literalist interpreters under the Buwaihids had
come to be known as akhbārī. This school of thought was further strengthened by
the beginning of the seventeenth century by Muhammad Amðn al-Astaråbådð (d.
1626–27) through his book al-Fawā’id al-Madaniyya.15 Another group of ‘ulamā,
led by Nøru’ddðn ‘Alð ibn ¡usain al-Karakð (d. 1534) and Mīr Dåmåd (d. 1631–32),
developed the us[ūlī fiqh. Al-Karakð’s theology was a response to the needs of Safavid
rulers to establish the Shi‘a faith on firm foundation. He emphasised the role of the
‘ālim as guardian of the Sharð’a and as successor of the Imām and gave authority
to the competent ‘ulamå to practise ijtihād (‘elaboration’). Al-Karakð claimed
that the mujtahid (jurisconsult) was the deputy (nā’ib) of the Hidden Imām.16
The us[ūlīs partially trusted human intellect, and applied Greek philosophical tools to
discover the will of the Hidden Imām. Since they insisted that laymen must follow
their rulings, they gradually assumed the position of a clergy. The akhbārīs, on the
other hand, forbade the use of rationalist tools both in kalām (study of the Divine
Word) and fiqh (jurisprudence) and depended only on the literal interpretation
of oral reports (akhbār) transmitted to them from the Imāms. The us[ūlīs con-
sidered the consensus of jurisconsults—ijmå‘—as a source of legal judgement and
divided the believers into two categories: the jurisconsults (mujtahid) and the laymen.
The latter were to follow the mujtahid in matters of law.17 In fact, under the Safavids,
al-Karaki in the very first year of the reign of Shåh Tahmåsp, had ordered the
appointment of a prayer leader in every town and village.18 Thus in Safavid Iran
the influence of the us[ūlī fiqh went on growing during this period.

13
  The Shi‘a concept of occultation is extensively dealt with in Abdulazizv Sachedina, Islamic
Messianism, The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi’ism, Albany, 1980.
14
  Norman Calder, ‘The Structure of Authority in Imami Shi‘i Jurisprudence,’ PhD Disserta-
tion, SOAS, London, 1980, devotes his entire dissertation to this theme; Hamid Mavani, Religious
Authority and Political Thought in Twelver Shi’ism From Ali to Post-Khomeini, New York, 2013,
p. 130; also J.R.I. Cole, Roots of North Indian Shi’ism in Iran and Iraq: Religion and State in Awadh,
1722-1856, Delhi, 1989, p. 5.
15
  Hossein Modarressi, ‘Rationalism and Traditionalism in Shi‘i Jurisprudence: A Preliminary Survey’,
Studia Islamica (59) (1984), pp. 141–58.
16
  Albert Hourani, ‘From Jabal to Persia’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
49(1), In Honour of Ann K.S. Lambton (1986), pp. 133–40.
17
  See Hossein Modarressi, ‘Rationalism and Traditionalism’, op. cit., pp.141–50; Andrew J.
Newman, ‘The Nature of Akhbari/Usuli Dispute in Late Safawid Iran. Part I: ‘Abdullåh al-Samāhiji’s
Munyal al-Mumārisðn’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(1) (1992), pp. 22–51;
idem, ‘The Nature of Akhbari/Usuli Dispute in Late Safawid Iran. Part 2: The Conflict Reassessed’,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(2) (1992), pp. 250–61.
18
  Said Amir Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam: Religion, Political Order, and
Societal Change in Shi’ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890, Chicago, 1984, pp. 133–34.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

36 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

The Mughal Empire too could not remain untouched by what was happening in
Iran. Since the establishment of the Mughal rule, there had been friendly relations
between them and the Safavids. We know that Humåyøn could get back his lost
throne only with the help of the Persians, and thus with his return, there began a
steady influx of the Iranians into India. Large number of Iranian Shi‘a emigrants
came to India during Akbar’s reign as well. Amongst these were scholars, many
of them rationalists, like the famous scientist Fat°ullåh Shðråzð, ¡akðm ‘Abø’l
Fat° Gðlånð, ¡akim Humåm, ¡akðm Lut]fullah and ¡akðm ‘Alð, the last becoming
Akbar’s favourite physician.
In the initial stages, however, even Akbar’s reign saw a few possible instances
of bigotry and possibly persecution. In 1566–67 in an incident decried even by
Badåønð, no friend of Shi‘as, the body of Mir Murtuz[å Shðråzð, a native of Iran
who had recently died, was transferred to a different place from his original grave
near that of Amðr Khusrau, on the allegation that he was a Shi‘a.19 In 1569–70, an
official of Shi‘a beliefs, Mir Muqðm, was executed on Akbar’s orders, but on the
basis of a complex case in which he had got three or four Sunni muftðs murdered
in Kashmir.20 Shaikh ‘Addu’n Nabð, the Chief S[adr of Akbar, was accused, around
1578, by Makhdømu’l Mulk, of having unjustly imprisoned and executed Mðr
¡absh on the charge of being a Shia (ba-tuhmat-i rifz[[).21
This period also witnessed the production of a large number of Sunni polemi-
cal works. For example, Makhdømu’l Mulk ‘Abdullåh Sultånpørð himself wrote
Minhāj al-dīn wa Mi’rāj al-Muslimīn. In 1579–80 Mirzå Makhdøm Sharðfð wrote
al-Nawāqiz fi’l radd ‘alā’l rawāfiz in Baghdad which was soon brought and cir-
culated in India. The al-Sawāiq al-Muhriqafi’l radd ‘alāl rafz wa’l zandaqa of Ibn
Hajar al-Haithamð (d. 1566–67) was also in circulation. Another such work which
was becoming quite popular amongst the Sunnis was that of Fazlullåh Ruzbihan,
who in his Ibt]āl-i nahj al-bāt]il wa ih[māl kashf al-‘āt]il (1503) sought to prove that
the Shi‘a were almost infidels.
A shift seems to have occurred with the initiation of the ‘ibādatkhāna debates
in 1575,22 in which owing to their mutual jealousies, the Emperor began to lose his
confidence in the orthodox theologians. In such a situation among other critics of
the orthodox, Mullå Yazdð a recent arrival from Iran, is said to have begun openly
to revile the first three Caliphs, and denounce as infidels the great men of the faith
and their progeny, while he strove to bring into contempt the Sunnðs (ahl-i sunnat
o jamå‘at) and prove every belief other than that of the Shi‘a faith (mazhab) to be

19
  Badåønð, Muntakhabu’t Tawårðkh, Vol. III, p. 99.
20
  Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 124–25.
21
  Ibid., Vol. II, p. 255.
22
  S.A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar’s Reign, With Special
Reference to Abu’l Fazl (1556-1605), New Delhi, 1975, pp. 125–28; For the concept and purpose of the
‘ibādat khāna see S Ali Nadeem Rezavi, ‘Religious Disputations and Imperial Ideology: The Purpose
and Location of Akbar’s Ibadat khana’, Studies in History 24(2) (2008), pp. 195–209.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 37

a deviation and an error.23 It is, however, to be borne in mind that there is no proof
that Akbar was drawn towards Shi‘ism, and Mullå Yazdð himself was to lose his life
in 1581 when he supported the rebel cause against Akbar. In 1579, the leading Sunnð
theologians themselves issued a ma°z[ar or declaration entitling Akbar to interpret
the Muslim law with certain limitations.24 This was not a sufficient concession to
Akbar’s quest for authority, but if he turned away from the theologians, it was not
to enter the Shi‘a camp, but to strike a new path under the umbrella of Pantheism.25
From 1581 Akbar initiated the policy based on the principle of Sul°-i kul (abso-
lute peace): a policy which tried to maintain equidistance between various religions
and tolerance of all.26 The author of Dabistān-i Mazāhib insightfully remarks that
this policy of religious tolerance reveals a high degree of political ‘foresight’ and
was aimed at accommodating diverse religious groups.27 Fr. Monserrate, a Jesuit
priest who visited the court of Akbar between 1580 and 1582, and also took part
in the disputations with Muslim scholars in the presence of Akbar, had a very
insightful remark to make:

He [Akbar] cared little that in allowing everyone to follow his own religion he
was in reality violating all religions.28

What is often not fully taken into account is the possibility that Akbar in his
espousal of S[ul°-i Kul was also influenced by what was happening in Iran. In
Safavid Iran in its first century under Shah Ismå‘il (1501–24), Tahmåsp (1524–76)
and ‘Abbås I (1587–1629) not only was there a suppression of Sunnism (all mosques
were called upon to include execration of the first three Caliphs in prayers), but there
was also a forcible suppression of sufic schools as well as of pre-Safavid sects that
had accepted the Shi‘ite fold, with executions of their leaders. The Iranian scholars
who flocked to Akbar’s court—a few of whom we have just mentioned—partly
came because of expectation of generous patronage, but partly also because of the
increasing intolerance in Iran. A letter survives that Akbar wrote in 1589 to the
leader of the Nuqtavi sect in Iran, S[afðuddðn A°mad Kåshð inviting him to come to
India, saying how he had already received one disciple of his and was expecting to

23
  Badåønð, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 259.
24
  The text with names of signatories is given in Niz]åmuddðn Ahmad, T]abaqat-i Akbarð, ed. B. De,
Calcutta, 1927, Vol. II, pp. 344–46.
25
  Cf. Shireen Moosvi, ‘The Road to Sulh-i Kul: Akbar’s Alienation from Theological Islam’, in
Religion in Indian History, ed. Irfan Habib, New Delhi, 2007, pp. 167–76.
26
  M. Athar Ali, ‘Sulh-i Kul and the Religious Ideas of Akbar’, in Mughal India: Studies in Polity,
Ideas, Society and Culture, New Delhi, 2006, pp. 158–72.
27
  Kaikhusrau Isfandyån, Dabistān-iMazāhib, ed. Ra°ðmzåda Malik, Tehran, AH 1362 (solar),
Vol. I, p. 314.
28
  Fr. Monserrate, Commentary of Father Monserrate S.J. on His Journey to the Court of Akbar, tr.
J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S. N. Banerjee, Cuttack, 1922, p. 142.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

38 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

welcome yet another.29 This divine, however, remained in Iran and was executed
by ‘Abbås I, in the slaughter of Nuqtavðs that he carried out in instalments.30 How
much Akbar was affected by this is shown by a long passage in the letter he sent to
Abbås I in November 1594. After discoursing on political matters, Akbar refers to
the disturbing news of persecution that kept arriving through emigrants from Iran.
The result had been that ‘in the land of Iran there has been a great reduction in the
number of experienced and farsighted wise men’. He points to the large numbers
of killings having taken place there and calls upon ‘Abbås to follow the principle of
S[ul°-i Kul. He advances two reasons for it: first, God sets the example by favour-
ing all people of whatever religion through his natural bounties. And, secondly, if
it is thought that some people hold wrong religious views which will affect them
adversely in afterlife, they are to be pitied, rather than to be persecuted!31
It could be argued that behind the slogan of Sul°-i Kul Akbar and Abø’l Faz[l
were furthering the patronage of rational sciences at the expense of orthodox
Muslim theology.32 We have the testimony (though admittedly late) of Åzåd
Bilgråmð that it was Fat°ullåh Shðråzð at Akbar’s court, who introduced the works
of Iranian rationalist thinkers like Muh[aqqiq Dawwånð, Mðr S[adruddðn, Mðr
Ghiyås]uddðn Mans[ør and Mirzå Jån in India.33 Abu’l Faz[l tells us that under
Akbar the rational sciences like mathematics, agriculture, household manage-
ment, rules of governance, medicine, etc., were added to the educational curricu-
lum.34 There was a stress on ‘aql (reason) which was to be given precedence over
traditionalism (taqlīd).35
If space was thus opened for reason, it also became open for Shi‘ism. A scholar
at the court, Mullå Ahmad Tattavð, ‘unlike the generality of Shi‘a mujtahids did not
observe taqiya (dissimulation)’. In 1587–88 hot words ensued between him and a
Sunnð, Mirzå Faulåd, at the house of ¡akðm Abu’l Fat° at Lahore, and the Mirza
then killed him, for which offence the murderer was publicly paraded and executed.36

29
  This letter has been published in Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Akbar and Religion, Delhi, 1989,
pp. 379–80. The date is given as 8 Āzur 94: the figure of the Ilåhð year 94 must be a mistake for 34,
and the date should then correspond to 30 November 1589.
30
  Cf. S.A. Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, Chicago, 1984, pp. 198–99. Also
Kaikhusrau Isfandyår, Dabistan-i Mazåhib, op. cit., pp. 276–77.
31
  The text of this letter is reproduced in Abu’l Fazl, Akbarnåma, Calcutta, 1864–69, Vol. III,
pp. 659–60 (for the passage of it discussed by us). H. Beveridege’s, tr., Akbar Nåma, Bib. Ind., Calcutta,
1897–1921, Vol. III, pp. 1011–13, misses important nuances in the passage.
32
  See Irfan Habib, ‘Two Indian Theorists of the State’, in Mind Over Matter: Essays on Mentalities
in Medieval India, ed. D.N. Jha and Eugenia Vanina, New Delhi, 2009, pp. 37–38.
33
  Mðr Ghulåm ‘Alð Åzåd Bilgråmð, Ma’ās]ir al-Kirām, Agra, 1910, pp. 236–37. The famous S[adraddðn
(Mullå S[adrå) (1571–1640) could have hardly been known to Fathullåh Shðråzð.
34
  Abø’l Faz[l, Ᾱ’īn-i Akbarð, ed. H. Blochmann, Calcutta, 1872, Vol. I, pp. 201–02.
35
  Ibid., Vol. II, p. 229. See also Badåønð, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 306 on subjects favoured at the court.
36
  Mu‘tamid Khån, Iqbålnåma-i Jahångðrð, Nawal Kishor, Lucknow, 1870, Vol. II, pp. 407–08, for
the most detailed account. See also Badåønð, Muntakhabu’t Tawårðkh, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 364–65.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 39

Qåz[ð Nørullåh Shushtarð, a Shi‘a scholar of some repute and a scion of a family
of theologians of Iran arrived in India, reaching Fathpur Sikri in or before 1585.
On arrival, he was introduced to Akbar by ¡akðm Abøl Fat° Gðlånð.37 Having been
a student of Maulånå ‘Abd al-Wå°id at Mashhad, who had taught him °adðs][, fiqh
and us[ūl-i fiqh, Qåz[ð Nørullåh appears to have been exposed to the us[ūlī doctrine
which had gained ground under the Safavids. It is fortunate that Badåønð has left to
us, perhaps, the earliest notice we have of him. It begins with the words, ‘although
he is of the Shð‘ð dispensation (maz]hab)’, showing that Nørullåh did not hide his
religious affiliation. These words are followed by a series of adjectives in praise of
his character. We are further told that when Akbar shifted his capital to Lahore in
1585, he appointed Nørullåh as qåzð of that city, in which office he showed great
probity, stamping out corruption among his underlings as well.38 Clearly, Qåzð
Nørullåh’s open Shi‘ite beliefs were no bar to his appointment to a post which was
of a quasi-religious character.
Badåønð also praises Nørullåh’s writings, especially his critique of Faiz[ð’s com-
mentary (tafsðr) on the Qurån. Perhaps by then his principal Shi‘ite works had not
seen the light: his major work Majålisu’l Mø’minðn (in Persian) was completed
only in 1602.39
Obviously taking advantage of the political atmosphere and the tolerant attitude
of the state, Qåz[ð Nørullåh seems to have assigned two tasks to himself. Firstly, he
came out openly against the observation of taqiya (dissimulation),40 and, secondly,
he took up the task of writing replies to the anti-Shi‘a polemical literature then
current in India.
Qåz[ð Nørullåh argued that taqiya was hampering the growth and propagation
of the Shia faith in India.41 His open stand was opposed by the Indian Akhbārīs,
who appear to have been then in a majority in India among the Shi‘as. Mðr Yøsuf
‘Ali Astaråbådð, an akhbārī of Agra, warned the Qåz[ð against such an approach.
The Qåz[ð’s reply gave not only arguments in his defence, but also provided

Badåønð adds that some time later, despite his grave being guarded, Ahmad Tattavi’s body was disin-
terred and burnt by Sunnis.
37
  Badåønð, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 137. For a biography of Nørullåh Shustari see Saiyyid Sibtul Hasan,
Tazkira-i Majīd (Urdu) 5th ed, Karachi, 1984, S.A.A. Rizvi, A Socio-Intellectual History of Isna ‘Ashari
Shi’is in India (2 vols), Delhi, 1986, Vol. I, pp. 346–47, also Wayn Rollen Husted, ‘Shahðd-i S]ålis]
Qåzð Nørullåh Shushtari: A Historical Figure in Shi‘ite Piety’, PhD thesis submitted at University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1992 (mimeographed)
38
  Badåønð, op. cit., Vol. III, pp. 137–38. Niz]åmuddðn Ahmad, T]abaqåt-i Akbarð, op. cit., Vol. II,
p. 468, praises Nørullåh’s ‘honesty and probity and learning and capacity in dispensing justice’ as the
qåz[ð of Lahore.
39
  Cf. C.A. Storey, Persian Literature: A Biobibliographical Survey, I (Part 2), London, 1953, p. 1129.
40
  Hiding of one’s actual faith in the face of danger to life and property was deemed permissible
amongst the Shias.
41
  Qåzð Nørullåh Shøshtarð, Majālis al-Mø’minīn, op.cit., pp. 2–3; Cf. Bakhtåwar Khan, Mirātu’l‘ālam,
ed. Sajida Alvi, Lahore, 1979, Vol. II, p. 439. See also Saiyyid Sibtul Hasan, op. cit.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

40 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

an indication of the akhbārī-us[ūlī schism which had now become established.

He wrote

Perhaps it is better for you to search the Shi’i houses in Agra and take away
any books on the Shi‘i faith and burn them…I believe that there is a just ruler
in India, and there is no justification for performing taqiya. In any case it is
not imperative for men like me who believe that death glorifies the faith of the
martyr. The shari‘a has indeed forbidden such persons to perform taqiya. Only
those who are not steadfast in their faith and do not care to strengthen it, should
have recourse to it.42

In yet another letter, this time sent to Mullå Qausi Shushtarð, the Qåz[ð wrote in a
qasīda:

Blessed be the Emperor whose patronage in Hind

Has not made my faith dependent on taqiya!43

In another of his letters which survives he gives his views on ijtihād and mujtahid:

The Shi’i mujtahidīn (jurisconsults), who draw upon the knowledge of Prophet
Muhammad and Im[åm ‘Alð, are inspired by their Imāms when forming ijmå‘
and can differ only in their respective understanding of the Imåms’ rulings.44

Hinting towards his second task while performing his first, Qåz[ð Nørullåh in yet
another letter writes:

I came to the conclusion that in India, taqðya was a great calamity: It would
expel our children from the Imāmiyya faith and make them embrace the false
Ash‘arð or Maturidi faiths. Reinforced by the kindness and bounty of the
Sultan, I threw away the scarf of taqðya from my shoulders and, taking with me
an army of arguments, I plunged myself into jihåd against the scholars (‘ulamå)
of this country.45

In 1587 Qåz[ð Nørullåh wrote his Mas[ā’ib un Nawās[ib which was a reply to Mirzå
Makhdøm Sharðf’s al-Nawāqiz. From the Qåz[ð’s letters it is clear that this defence
was undertaken in view of Mullå Mu°ammad Amðn’s interventions on the Sunni

42
  Qåzð Nørullåh Shushtarð, al-Sawārim al-Mu°riqa, Buhar MS. 12, National Library, Kolkata,
Introduction.
43
  Nawab ‘Inåyat Khån ‘Råsikh’, Bayāz[ Ms., Habibganj Collection, Maulana Azad Library, AMU,
Aligarh, f. 92(b). The volume contains a number of letters written by Qåzð Nørullåh Shushtarð.
44
  Qåzð Nørullåh Shøshtarð, Majālis al-Mø’minīn, op.cit., pp. 230–31. Reproduced in Urdu translation
in Saiyyid Sibtul Hasan, Tazkira-i Majīd, op. cit., pp. 127–40.
45
  Letter to Bahåuddðn Åmulð, Bayāz[, op. cit., ff. 95(a)–96(a).

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 41

side in Shi‘a-Sunni polemics raging in Kashmir during this period.46 The Mas[ā’ibu’n
Nawās[ib was the first major Shi‘a rejoinder in India to Sunni indictments.
Soon afterwards the Qåz[ð wrote al-Sawārim al-Mu°riqa which was a reply to
the Sawāiq al-Mu°riqa of Ibn Hajar al-Haithamð, and which, in his own words,
‘reduced the Sawāiq, which claimed to be lightning, to ashes’.47
All this would not have endeared him to the society in which he was function-
ing. Things were probably complicated further by the task he was entrusted with
in 1596, of carrying enquiries into tax-free grants in Agra province.48 In 1602
after the death of Abu’l Fazl, who appeared to have given him constant support,
one finds the Qåz[ð a dis-illussioned man. In one of his letters he describes the
country as ‘Hind’, the wife of Abø Sufyån who is said to have eaten the liver of
the Prophet’s uncle Hamza.49 At another place he compared it with a ‘doomed and
accursed old woman’.50
He, however, wrote I°qåqul ¡aq (in Arabic) in August 1605 (two months prior to
Akbar’s death) which was a comprehensive refutation of Ibt]āl-i Bāt]il of Faz[lu’llåh
Ruzbihan. This work is a compendium of the Shi‘a-Sunni controversies over the
Ash‘arite theories of Godhood, prophethood and imāmat. It also deals with the
problems of Quranic exegesis, °adðs] and fiqh.
During the same year (1587) that Qåz[ð Nørullåh wrote his Masā’ib un Nawāsib,
the theologian (later Naqshbandð) Shaikh A°mad Sirhindð, wrote a short anti-Shi‘ð
treatise, Radd-i Rawāfiz, in Persian.51
As far as the Shi‘as were concerned, Jahångðr’s accession in 1605 should have
meant no change in their situation. In his early years as emperor his closest adviser
seems to have been Amðru’l Umarå Sharðf, an Iranian. In his memoirs in its very
early pages Jahångðr praises his father Akbar’s policy of tolerance under which
‘Sunnis and Shias prayed in one mosque’.52 It is, then, an enigma why Qåz[ð Nørullåh
should have been executed by him in 1610. Jahångir is himself the first to mention
the incident—in a newly discovered record of his conversations. He denies in as
early a conversation as of 8 July 1610 that the punishment given to Qåz[ð Nørul-
låh had been out of any religious motive, though ‘the people now think of me as
an intolerant and rabid Sunnð’. He went on to assert that he was least interested
in converting any Shia to the Sunni sect.53 And yet the precise reason why Qåz[ð
Nørullåh was awarded capital punishment is neither given here by Jahångðr nor

46
  For details, see S.A.A. Rizvi, History of Isna ‘asharis in India, op. cit., Vol. I. pp. 350–51.
47
  Letter to Bahuddðn Åmuli, Bayāz[, op. cit., f. 96 (a).
48
  Abu’l Fazl, Akbarnåma, op.cit., Vol. III, p. 713.
49
  Bayāz, op.cit., f. 97 (b).
50
  Ih[qāq-ul H[aq, Ms.Maulana Azad Central Library, AMU, Aligarh, ff. 4–5.
51
  This has been usually published as an appendix to Sirhindi’s collection of letters, the Maktøbāt-i
Imām Rabbāni, Nawal Kishore, Lucknow, n.d.
52
  Jahångðrnåma or Tuzuk-i Jahangðrð, ed. Saiyid Ahamd, Aligarh, 1864, p. 16.
53
  ‘Abdu’s Sattår (recorder), Majålis-i Jahångðrð, eds Asif Naushåhð and Muðn Niz]åmð, Tehran, 2006,
p. 78. Jahångðr went on to exclaim: ‘May God preserve all His servants from the disease of intolerance’!

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

42 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

by the author of Zakhðratu’l Khawånðn, which provides the next mention, chrono-
logically, of the incident.54 It is natural that Qåz[ð Nørullåh should have come to be
revered as a great Shia martyr.
It is possible, whatever the real nature of the tragedy, that the action against Qåz[ð
Nørullåh did not herald the onset of any official campaign against Shias, as Jahångðr
himself speaking so soon after the event made clear in such plain words. One might
even say that action spoke louder than words, when the rabid critic of Shi‘ism, the
author of Radd-i Rawåfiz, was put in prison in 1619 for over a year, within a short
while of his inflammatory (first) volume of letters being set into circulation by him
in 1617. He was put into prison and then released but kept at the court to ensure his
good conduct.55 Irfan Habib notes that Vol. III of Ahmad Sirhindi’s letters written
during and after his imprisonment indicate that he had now had to adopt ‘a more
temperate language, and the Hindus and Shias are not abused’.56
A positive evidence of the public displays of Shi‘ite fervour, far from the
practice of taqiya, as far as the common people were concerned, is provided by
the eye-witness account of Ma°mød Balkhð, who arrived at Lahore on the first of
Mu°arram 1035ah (3 October 1625). The whole city was observing Mu°arram,
with tåzias taken out on the 10th, the shops closed and so much action and frenzy
that 50 Shi‘as and 25 Hindus lost their lives in the tumult.57
From a chapter on the Is]nå ‘Ashriya or Twelver Shi‘ism that the author of the
remarkable work on religions, the Dabistån-i Mazåhib (1653), provides, it would
seem that the Shi‘as in India yet belonged mainly to the Akhbårð tradition, since it
is with that school that the author was familiar with.58 It also does well to remind us
that Shi‘ism had found patronage in some of the Deccan courts: it holds the major
authority of the akhbårð school ‘during these times’ to be Mullå Mu°ammad Amðr
Astaråbådð, author of Fawa’id-i Madanð and the Dånishnåma-i Qut]bshåhð, written
during the reign of Mu°ammad Qulð Qut]bshåh (1611–25).59
Another interesting feature of the treatment of the Shia–Sunni question in the
Dabistån-i Maz[åhib is the record of disputation which allegedly took place between
the Sunnis and Shias before Akbar on a series of topics such as the question of
precedence between ‘Alð and Abø Bakr and ‘Umar; the cursing of the Prophet’s
companions; the tradition of ‘Umar denying the ailing Prophet’s wish for pen and

54
  ‘Qåzð Nørullåh, qåzð of the army, was a great champion of the imåmiya (Shi‘a) dispensation
(mazhab). For some cause, he was executed owing to the wrath of Jahångðr’ (Farid Bhakkarð, Zikhðratul
Khawånðn, ed. S. Moinul Haq, Karachi, 1970, Vol. II, p. 373).
55
  Jahångðrnåma, op.cit., pp. 272–73, 308, 370.
56
  Irfan Habib, ‘The Political Role of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah’, Proceedings of
Indian History Congress, 23rd session (Aligarh, 1960), Part I, pp. 209–23, quote on p. 215.
57
  Ma°mød Balkhð, Ba°ru’l Asrår, ed. Riazul Islam, Karachi, 1980, pp. 7–10.
58
  The chapter on Is]nå‘ashriya occupies in Dabistan-i Mazåhib, ed. Ra°ðm Razåzada Malik, op.
cit., Vol. I, pp. 244–53, of which the major part (pp. 247–54) is devoted to the Akhbårð school and its
rejection of ijtihåd.
59
  Ibid., Vol. I, p. 227.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 43

paper; the many marriages of ‘Alð, the question of fidak and the role of Abø Bakr
and ‘Umar in that issue; the judiciousness of ‘Alð, etc. What is interesting in these
confrontations and arguments is that the narrator (the author) appears to be neutral:
at times he depicts both the rival sides as becoming speechless or exasperated.60
Aurangzeb during his long reign (1659–1707) altered the religious policy of
his predecessors, and this affected Shi‘as as well. But, on the whole, his aversion
to Shi‘ism was confined to a play with titles and names. In 1688 when Faz[l ‘Alð,
son of Murshid Qulð Khån petitioned that ‘Fazl ‘Alð Khån’ be given to him as a
title, Aurangzeb amended it to Faz[l Qulð Khån, deleting ‘Alð. The historian who
records this recollected an incident where an ‘Indian person’ brought two of his
sons before the Emperor after they had memorised the Qurån. Their names turned
out to be ¡asan ‘Alð and H[usain ‘Alð. The Emperor exclaimed, ‘I and my mother
and father have been dedicated to ‘Alð (qurbån-i ‘Alð). But for Hindustanis where
is the appropriateness of such names—for purpose that they should fall into the
evil company of Shias (råfiz[[a), and so, leaving the right path, go astray’?61
On the other hand, Aurangzeb’s son Bahådur Shah (1707–12) became so inclined
towards Shi‘ism that in 1711 he ordered the title Was[ð (heir) to be added to the epi-
thets for ‘Alð in sermons in mosques, a measure that almost ignited riots provoked
by Sunni theologians at Lahore and other places, and had therefore to be modified.62
Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries the main text of refutation of the Shi‘i
positions appears to have been Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi’s Radd-i Rawāfiz[. During
the eighteenth century, when the Mughal empire entered its period of decline Shåh
Waliøllah Muh[addis Dehlavi translated this treatise (1731–32) into Arabic and
added his own preface to it. In his other writings as well he took up polemical issues
and tried to prove the superiority of Abø Bakr and ‘Umar over Us]mån and ‘Alð.63
He also argued that the true period of khilāfat-i khās[s[a was during the tenure of
only Abø Bakr and ‘Umar.64 He identified Islam with Sunnism and stated that the
Shi‘ite doctrine of the impeccability of Imāms (Imām-i ma’s[ūm) amounted to the
denial of the doctrine of the Prophet Muhammad as the seal of the prophets (khatm
al-mursalīn), and therefore made the Shias’ faith bātil (false).65
Further light on this issue is thrown by the contents of a letter written by Shah
Waliullah to the king, wazīr and nobles which has been reproduced by Rizvi in his book:

Strict orders should be issued in all Islamic towns (shahr-i Islåm) forbidding
religious ceremonies publicly practiced by Hindus (rusūm-i kufr) such as the

60
  Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 288–91.
61
  Såqð Musta‘idd Khån, Ma’as]ir-i ‘Alamgðrð, ed. Agha Ahmad Ali, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1873, p. 313.
62
  This incident is fully described with references in W. Irvine, The Later Mughals, Indian reprint,
Delhi, 1995, Vol. I, pp. 130–31, with a long n., pp. 131–32.
63
  S.A.A. Rizvi, Shah Waliullah and His Times, Canberra, 1980, op. cit., pp. 251, 256.
64
  Ibid., p. 252.
65
  Ibid., p. 229.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

44 / Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

performance of Holi and ritual bathing in the Ganges (raftan-i Ganga). On the
tenth of Mu°arram, the Shias (rawāfiz) should not be allowed to go beyond
the bounds of moderation, neither should they be rude nor repeat stupid things
[i.e., recite tabarra, or condemn the first three successors of the Prophet] in the
streets or bazars.66

This was followed by the writing of Tu°fa-i Is]nå ‘Ashariyya which was com-
pleted by Shah ‘Abdu’l ‘Azðz in 1789–90.67 Divided into 12 chapters—the same
number as the Shi‘i Imāms, the work aims at a comprehensive rebuttal of Shi‘a
beliefs and practices. In addition to the origin of the Shi‘a movement, and con-
cepts of divinity, prophethood and fiqh, it takes up themes of the kind set out in
the Dabistān-i Mazāhib.
In certain respects these were voices in the wilderness. The Mughal empire
had collapsed, and the Marathas, who were in control of Delhi, when the Tuh[fa
was completed, were hardly likely to be keen to take sides in the controversy.
The Shi‘a reply came in a similarly politically constructed sphere: the Awadh state,
whose rulers were Shias.
In 1775 Nawab Ās[af ud Daulah shifted his capital from Faizabad to Lucknow
and commenced the building of a number of Shi‘a religious structures like the
Ās[afð Imåmbåæa and the Jami’ Masjid there. He also invited a large number of
Shi’i‘ulamā to the Awadh court. Many distinguished Iranian-trained ‘ulamā were
employed and a number of seminaries were opened.68 It was during this time in
1781 that Sayyid Dildår ‘Alð (d. 1856), later known as Ghufrān Ma’āb, joined state
service, obtaining the title mujtahid al-‘as[r. As the chief theologian he crowned
Nawab Ghåziuddðn ¡aidar as the first ‘king’ of Awadh in 1819.69 Having studied
in the seminaries in Iraq and Iran, he was responsible for introducing Usūlð fiqh in
India on a permanent basis. (His very title showed his us[ølð affiliation.) His work
Asås-ul us[ūl heavily criticised Akhbārī traditions.70
An initial Shia response to Tu°fa-i Is[n[a ‘ashariyya of Shåh ‘Abdul ‘Azðz was
attempted by Mirzå Mu°ammad Akhbårð (d. 1816–17), but the most comprehensive
rebuttal came again from Dildår ‘Alð who wrote more than two dozen books, the
most important of which was ‘Imād al-Islām. He and his students wrote a series of
treatises in response to the Tu°fa, each of which was devoted to some individual
chapter of that book. Thus, we have Sawārim-i Ilāhiyāt (a refutation of the 6th

66
  Ibid., p. 227.
67
  S.A.A. Rizvi, Shah Abd al-Aziz: Puritanism, Sectarian Polemics and Jihad, Canberra, 1982.
68
  J.R.I. Cole, Roots of North Indian Shi’ism in Iran and Iraq, op. cit., pp. 59–60. See also Madhu
Trivedi, The Making of Awadh Culture, Delhi, 2015, pp. 180–87.
69
  Michael Fisher, A Clash of Cultures: Awadh, the British and the Mughals, New Delhi, 1988,
pp. 136–38; Sajjad Rizvi, ‘Faith Deployed for a New Shi’i Polity in India: The Theology of Sayyid
Dildar Ali Nasirabadi’, in The Shia in Modern South Asia: Religion, History and Politics, ed. Justin
Jones and Ali Usman Qasmi, Delhi, 2015, pp. 12–35.
70
  Sajjad Rizvi, ‘Faith Deployed for a New Shi’i Polity in India,’ op. cit., pp. 12–35.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

 The state, Shia‘s and Shi‘ism in medieval India / 45

chapter of the Tu°fa); ¡usām al-Islām (a rebuttal of the 5th chapter); Khātima-i
Sawārim (against 7th chapter); Ih[yā al-Sunna (defence against 8th chapter) and
Risāla-i Zu’l fiqār (response to the 12th chapter).71
Whether Shåh ‘Abdu’l ‘Azðz’s critique really deserved the turning out of so much
heavy armour may well puzzle one. But apparently this was not still considered
enough: Sayyid ¡amid ¡usain (1830–88), a student of Dildar Ali, turned out 18
volumes under the title Abaqåt al-Anwår fð Imåmat Aimat al-At ]hår, rebutting not
only ‘Abdu’l ‘Aziz but also other Sunni criticisms of Shi‘ite positions. With this
visibly weighty work the story of the medieval debate may be taken to have closed.

71
  S.A.A. Rizvi, Shah Abd al-Aziz, op.cit., p. 358; Sajjad Rizvi, ‘Faith Deployed for a New Shi’i
Polity in India,’ op.cit., p. 33.

Studies in People’s History, 4, 1 (2017): 32–45

View publication stats