Malfuzat : An Analysis of the criticism on Anees-ul-Arwah

Malfuzat is generally defined as discourses, conversations and sermons delivered by Sufi in the assemblies of the learned persons and recorded by their disciples. Malfuzat-writing is one of the most important branch of Sufi literature as it contains the teachings of the leading Sufi figures of their time delivered in gatherings of their disciples and visitors. It contains the explanations of verses of the Holy Quran and Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad, the anecdotes and sayings of early Sufis.

The word “Malfuzat” is the plural of “Malfuz” which is derived from the word “Lafz” (word). In his book, ‘Ain-e-Malfuzat’, Allama Akhlaq Hussain Dehlvi beautifully defines it as “a collection of those conversations which Sufis made in the gatherings of their disciples and devotees for the persuasion of extremely praiseworthy morals and pious deeds. It concerns the perception of the audience and the cure of the spiritual diseases. It even carries the remembrance of the highly revered Sufis which amplifies its effectiveness”. Malfuzat is also known as the indications (Isharat), sayings (Aqwal), and morals (Fawaid).

Sheikh Fariduddin Attar remarks in his book’ Tazkirat ul Aulia’ that, after the Holy Quran and Hadis he found the best thing is the sayings of the Sufis and he found all the saying of Sufis according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. So he indulges himself in practicing even if he could not imitate them. At the minimum, he must be attributed with the honor to resemble them. Even Amir Hasan ala Sijzi says that “he heard from the Shaykh many times that the novice (Mureed) must consult a book of Sufi master and their guidelines for spiritual progress”. This quote substantially conveys that to the enrichment of the progressive Sufi journey it is essential to consult the books of the great Sufis.

Malfuzat also fill up the gaps of medieval history because most of the Indian historians were obsessed with the Iranian concept of historiography. This is so because the historical accounts that were recorded in this period are useful only in getting details of the events which were taking place in the royal courts, battles, and campaigns. They completely ignored the portrayal of the social life of the populace and their problems. However, to some extent, the Malfuzat relieve the difficulty of these historical events.

In his ‘on sources and source material’, Prof K.A. Nizami observes that the Malfuz-writing is one of the greatest literary achievement of medieval Hind-o-Pak. Through these records of conversations, we get a glimpse of the medieval society in all its fullness; if not, in all of its perfection- the moods and tension of the common men, the inner yearnings of their souls, the religious thoughts at its higher and lower levels, the popular customs, above all, it encompasses all the problems of the people”

Malfuzat also shed light on the building of exoteric (Zahir) and escortic (Batin) journeys of the disciples. This is the modus operandi of the Sufis; they initiated the process according to the level of the intellect of their disciples and reformed the society into a better one. Sufism in India was initiated by Chishti order in an organised manner so the credit of Malfuz writing goes to Chishti saints in the Indian context.

It has been asserted by the modern scholars that the Malfuzat should be arranged chronologically:

These scholars have set ‘Fawaid-ul-Fuwad’ of Amir Hasan Ala Sijzi as the model of Malfuzat writing, as its compiler used a different style of writing in his work. However, there were other disciples who collected the Malfuzat of Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia was Sheikh Qiwamuddin entitled ‘Qiwan-ul-Aqaid’. Another Malfuzat collection is ‘Durar-e-Nizami’, compiled by Maulana Ali bin Mahmood Jandar, both the compilers didn’t use dates before writing the conversation.

In fact, we can say that Amir Hasan ala Sijzi who gave the new literary style of Malfuzat-writing, but this is not the conventional pattern of Malfuzat writing. If we look at the Malfuzat of predecessors for instance, the Malfuzat of Sufi Hamiduddin Nagori, entitled as ‘Suroor-us-Sudur’ collected by his grandson Sheikh Saeed, the son of Sheikh Fariduddin Chak Parra, he didn’t mention the dates of conversation, before writing the conversation.

Regarding the authenticity of Malfuzat, it is not necessary to mention dates or arrange them chronologically. Take the example of the Hadith of the Holy Prophet, noted by some of of his Companions (Sahabah) for preserve them. Afterwards the Hadith collectors like Imam Bukhari and Iman Muslim didn’t include dates or chronological pattern while chalking out the rules for Hadith collection. The compiler arranged the Hadith thematically and not chronologically. In the same manner, while compiling the Malfuzat of the Sufis, it is not necessary that it should be chronologically arranged. In general, mostly the Malfuzat is arranged in a thematic way.

‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ is the collection of the conversation of Khwaja Usman Harvani compiled by his eminent disciple Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. It contains 28 Majalis (assemblies) on different topics, mostly on morality (Akhlaqiyat).

Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti became a devoted disciple of the Sheikh after completing his education from Bukhara and Samarqand. He went to Baghdad and took the Bai’ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of the Shaykh and remained in his company for a period of 20 years. In this space of time, he compiled the conversation, utterances, and discourses of his spiritual master under the name of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’. literally, ‘Anees’ means companion or friend and ‘Arwah’ mean souls which is a plural of ‘Rooh’

In the beginning of the book Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti has writte an introduction to a sermon (Khutba), then his spiritual experience and travels. The pattern of the book is that every Majlis (Assembly) begins with a theme and ended with the following lines “Khwaja finished his discourse, he got busy invoking Allah and this well-wisher (Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti) returned to his place”.

Some modern scholars and historians, particularly Late Prof Md Habib, professor of History at Aligarh Muslim University; raised objections on some Malfuzat in his article, “Chishti Mystics records of the Sultanate period”. He was the first person who raised the question in the Malfuzat literature. In his article, he categorised the text of the Sufi literature into two categories, the one as genuine text and the other as fabricated one. He examined and classified ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ as fabricated and apocryphal based on the following points:

Firstly, he quoted the text of ‘Khair-ul-Majalis’, Majlis No. 11

(Point 1) “A friend represented after this: “there is a difficulty in the Malfuz (conversation) of Khwaja Usman Harooni. It is this. He says, ‘he who kills two cows, commits one murder, and he who kills four cows, commits two murders (Khun). He who kills four goats commits one murder and he who kills twenty goats, commits two murders”.

In ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’, Majlis No. 11 the narration for killing animals is like this

“Anyone who injured 40 cows, one major sin would be recorded in his deeds and one who killed an animal, for his carnal desires would be a person who helped in ruining the Khana-e-Kabah; it was fair only where situation permitted”.

This is the narration of Khwaja Usman Harvani ; but the person who was asking and inquiring for this statement he says, “He who kills two cows” while in ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ it has been recorded as injuring 40 cows. So, on the basis of statement of Khwaja Usman Harvani in ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’, it has proved that the inquiry of that person was incorrect, i.e Naseeruddin Charagh-e-Dehli confirmed like this “these Malfuz are not his. I have come across the manuscript.” It has also proved that Naseeruddin Charagh-e-Dehli have the manuscript or a copy of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ as well. On the basis of that manuscript or his reading, he said the statement is wrong, which was narrated by the person in the assembly as mentioned is in ‘Khair-ul-Majalis’.

(Point 2) Prof. Muhammad Habib quoted that it is stated in ‘Fawaid-ul-Fawad’ that someone came to Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya and said that he had heard a man declaring that he had seen a book written by the great Sheikh and that the Sheikh replied “ I have written no book and my masters (also) have written no book”.

This statement given in ‘Khair-ul-Majalis’ is also considered to be misleading because Sufi Hameeduddin Nagauri the author of ‘Mirat-ul-Asrar’5 has mentioned the names of the books of him, viz Usool ut Tariqat,6 Risala-e-Ishqia etc. Furthermore, it should be understood that writing a book and compiling Mulfuzat are two different things.

(Point 3) Prof. Habib quoted “I asked again. These manuscripts that appeared in these days – the Malfuzat of Sheikh Qutubuddin and the Malfuzat of Sheikh Usman Harooni- Did they exist at the time of Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya?

3.1-Regarding the manuscript of the Malfuzat of Khwaja Usman Harvani it seems that Naseeruddin Charagh-e-Dehli (disciples and successor of Nizamuddin Auliya) have a copy of the manuscript of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’. The reason is simple because on the basis of his reading he confirmed that “these Malfuzat are not his”

3.2-Even Sheykh Sharfuddin Ahmad Yahya Maneri had referred to Anees-ul-Arwah because one disciple of Yahya Maneri asked about for the inquiry of the narration of Khwaja Usman Harvani.in his assembly which is discussed in ‘Khwan-e-Pur-Nimat’.7

Both the above points (3.1) and (3.2) demonstrated that the manuscript was present at the time of Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya because both Sufis were the contemporaries of him.

Many Hagiological accounts contain the quotations of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ as follows:-

a. The author of ‘Mirat-ul-Asrar’ referred ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’8 in many places he quoted the text of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’. In one place he quoted the third assembly of the ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’9.

b. The author of ‘Akhbar-ul-Jamal’ referred and quoted the text of Anees-ul-Arwah in the chapter of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti for compiling his accounts. 10

(Point 4) Prof. Muhammad Habib observes that the narration of Naseeruddin and argues that

4.1– “it is a fake, fabrication, a forgery, no such books were ever written”

I have discussed above about this statement refer point 3 of this article.

4.2- its teachings are not those this Silsilah and many things are attributed to Sheikh Usman Harvani which, as a Chishti Sufi, he would not have said. It repr esents, in other words, mysticism of a lower grade.

To this point, it is proved that the narration of the Malfuz of Sheikh Usman which was inquired from Naseeruddin Charagh-e-Dehli was a false statement, i.e. Naseeruddin only gave confirmation on the false statement and rejected it. It doesn’t imply that the Malfuzat of Khwaja Usman Harvani was not present. Prof Muhammad Habib makes this narration as the base of the fabrication of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ and other Malfuzat of other Chishti saints. It has been proved that the narration is wrong as well as Prof. Habib’s consideration of the ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ as fabricated, and he further asserts that the teachings of Khwaja Usman Harvani was not in accordance with the teachings of the Chishti order.

(Point 5) Prof. Habib quoted “Sheikh Moinuddin is made to describe his enrollment as a disciple” the passage deals with how Khwaja Usman Harvani made Khwaja Moinuddin as a Kamil Sufi and further Prof Habib quoted that “well might Naseeruddin protest against this sort of wild talk about “the sight of divine throne and the curtain of the highest”

Through the whole passage of ‘Khair-ul-Majalis’, Naseeruddin did not say that the sight of the divine throne and the curtain of highest is wild talk. For this type of narration, we can quote the narrations from ‘Siyarr-ul-Auliya’ which Prof Muhammad Habib considered as authentic in his own way.

5.1- When Khwaja Maudood Chishti granted the Wilayat (supernatural domain) of Nishapur to Sheikh Usman, this sight got changed. It is a narration of his household that whenever Khwaja Maudood Chishti had an overpowering fondness of viewing Khana-e-Kabah, the angels were ordered to bring the Khana-e-Kabah before him. He would make circumambulation and would offer Namaz in consonance with its position and then they used to take away the Khana-e-Kabah.

5.2- I (Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti) circumambulated Khana-e-Kabah for a certain period, but now the Khana-e-Kabah circumambulates me.

5.3- it is narrated from a dear one.” I departed for viewing the Shaykh from my town. I passed through the town of Bundi; it emerged in my heart that there was a mendicant here who is called Shaykh Mohan; why should I not meet him. I went to him. He said. “Where are you going?” I replied, “in the presence of the Sultan-ul-Mashaikh, convey my Salaam to him and say that there would be meeting in the Khana-e-Kabah on Friday. When I reached to the abode of Sultan- ul- Masheikh. I conveyed the greetings of the mendicant who was in the town of Bundi; he replied, that the dervish is dear to me but he has no control over his tongue”

(Point 6) Prof. Habib quoted that “finally we reached the Kabah. Sheikh Usman took my hand and assigned me to god and prayed for me under the aqueduct (Nawdan) of the sacred building. “We have accepted Moinuddin Hasan Sijzi”, a heavenly voice replied. From Mecca, we proceeded to Madina. At the grave of the prophet, Shaikh Usman said to me ‘offer your Salaam, I obeyed. ‘Salaam to thee, oh Qutub (axis) of the sheikh! A voice from the grave replied ‘go thou hast attained perfection’

In the above passage, Prof. Habib quoted that “Amir Khurd reported on good authority that none of the Chishti Sheikhs performed the Hajj pilgrimage. Sheikh Moinuddin’s pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina is a creation of the anonymous writer’s imagination”

If we read carefully the narration of ‘Siyar-ul-Auliya’ which Prof. Habib has quoted proves that he misquoted the narration for the passage of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’. There is a difference between Hajj and simple visitation (Ziyarat/Umrah) and Hajj is performed in a specific month and time, i.e. on 9th Zil Qadah in the premises of Arafat. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti went for a simple visit with his spiritual master in Kabah (Kabah is a specific place in Mecca. For Hajj, it is necessary to be present within the boundaries of the premises of Arafat on 9th Zil Qadah). Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti said “we reached Kabah and from there we proceeded to Medina” if Khwaja Moinuddin went for Hajj, he would say like this, “we reached Mecca for Hajj…” The narration simply conveys that it was not the time of Hajj when he visited Mecca.

The author of ‘Ser-ul-Aqtab’11 also reported that Khwaja Moinuddin went for a simple visit (Ziyarat/Umrah) .

This simply ascertains that Prof. Muhammad Habib misquoted and misinterpreted the narration of ‘Ser-ul-Auliya’ by putting down the argument for ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ as fabricated. He himself did not read carefully this narration of ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ and therefore could not differentiate it, whether it was for Hajj or a simple visit (Ziyarat/Umrah)

(Point 7) Prof. Muhammad Habib quoted “Sheikh Usman refer to Ahmad Ma'shuq, a mystic who according to Nizamuddin Auliya flourished in the succeeding century”

In ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ and ‘Ser-ul-Auliya’ we find the narration on Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq, didn’t offer Namaz. In ‘Siyar-ul-Auliya’ after addressing Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq thereafter, Sultan-ul-Mashaikh said ‘I heard from one person that Khwaja Ahmad Ghazali’ “All truthful will have a longing lest they were the soil so that Khwaja Ma'shuq would have trodden upon them.”

Prof. Muhammad Habib considered that Sheikh Ahmed Ma'shuq according to Nizamuddin Auliya happened to be in the succeeding century is fallacious because in the text of ‘Ser ul Auliya’ it is written like this “I heard from one person that Khwaja Ahmad Ghazali”12. In ‘Nafhat-ul-Uns’ the author has also penned down the reflections of the life of Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq. The author also mentioned with the authority of Ain-ul-Quddat Hamadan’s epistle13 that he didn’t offer Namaz. The author of ‘Lataif I Ashrafi’14 also quoted the same narration with the authority of the epistles of Ain-ul-Quddat. Also Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya quoted Ain-ul-Quddat Hamadani15 in ‘Siyar-ul-Auliya’.16

Ahmed Ghazali, who was the younger brother of Hujjat-ul-Islam (proof of Islam) Imam Muhammad Ghazali, Ain-ul-Quddat Hamadani was the disciple of Ahmad Ghazali and both these Sufis referred Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq it implies that he was the contemporary of both of them because these saints quoted and referred him.17

Prof. Muhammad Habib quoted Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq flourished in the succeeding century according to Nizamuddin Auliya proved the wrong Sheikh Ahmad Ma'shuq was the predecessor of Khwaja Usman Harvani i.e he quoted in ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ and Ahmad Ghazali died before Khwaja Usman Harvani was born and Ain-ul-Quddat Hamadani was the disciple of Ahmad Ghazali and Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya narrated like this “I heard from one person that Ahmad Ghazali” it means he heard the narration of Ahmad Ma'shuq from one person with the authority of Ahmad Ghazali and Ahmad Ghazali died before Khwaja Usman Harvani was born and Khwaja Usman Harvani quoted it in ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’

(Point 9) As Prof. Muhammad Habib says “Sheikh Usman quoted from ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ which was written at least a generation after his death”

Firstly- Prof. Muhammad Habib considered that only one ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ which was penned down by Maulana Raziuddin Hasan Saghani. At that time, the author of ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ Raziuddin Hasan Saghani was not born at that time when Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was with his spiritual master.

Secondly – As Prof. Muhammad Habib considered that the Hadith which is in ‘Anees-u- Arwah’ was from Sagani’s ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’, if we look into this book, we do not find this Hadith in Saghani’s book. This conveys that the Hadith which is in ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ is from different ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ but for calling Anees-ul-Arwah as fabricated Habib’s puts allegations which he himself does not know; he merely quoted it but he did not analysed his arguments.

Thirdly- The Author started his career as a traditionalist in 610A.H / 1213A.D and Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti reached Ajmer in 1192 A.D. Since the author of ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ began his career as traditionalist in 1213A.D this proved that the ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ which Khwaja Usman Harvani quoted was not the ‘Mashariq-ul-Anwar’ of Raziuddin Hasan Saghani.

In short, after thoroughly assessing Malfuzat and ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’, and deeply going through the criticism of Prof Habib on ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ I found that all the grounds of Prof Habib are false. He simply raised the objections about its authenticity without having detailed knowledge of life, character and teachings of Khwaja Usman Harvani and Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. He even didn’t know what Sufism is; simply he writes for ‘Anees-ul-Arwah’ calling it fabricated. He also touched those aspects which a common man did not understand with his intellect (Aql) he considered ‘wild talks’ it conveys that he don’t know about the secret aspects of Tasawwuf.

As Allama Iqbal says in ‘Bal-e-Jibril’

Khird Ke Paas Khabar Ke Siwa Kuch Aur Nahin

(The mind can give you nought, but what with doubt is fraught)

Tera Ilaj Nazar Ke Siwa Kuch Aur Nahin

(One look at Saintly Guide can needful cure provide)

1 Aina-e-Malfuzat Pg. No.28

2 Tazkirat-ul-Auliya Pg. No.3. Also refer Iqtibas-ul-Anwar Pg. No46

3 Fawaid-ul-Fawad Chapter 1 majlis 28.

4 On sources and source material Pg. No69

5 Mirat-ul-Asrar Pg. No678

6 See ‘Manaqib-ul-Arifeen’ vol 2 Pg. No 269 author remarks “his book Usool-ut-Tariqat is a comprehensive book in which he discussed all the issues of tariqat, as well as its status, is the guide to the secret aspect of Sufism”. The author of ‘Akhbar-ul-Akhyar’ pg.no.52 also quoted that Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya selected the Malfuzat from his books and wrote it. This quote conveys that Sufi Hamiduddin Nagori wrote books. More over Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya have go through the books and acquire the Malfuzat for compiling and writing it. Another book of Sufi Hameeduddin Nagauri is ‘Khayalat-e-Ushshaq’ preserved in Pir Muhammed Shah library serial no.1374&1375

7 Khwan-e-Pur-Nimat Pg. No. 125-126, 37th Assembly

8 Mirat-ul-Asrar Pg. No. 554,592,594

9 Ibid Pg. No. 556

10 Akhbar-ul-Jamal Pg. No. 181

11 Ser-ul-Aqtab Pg. No. 138

12 Siyar-ul-Auliya Pg. No. 621

13 Nafhat ul Uns Pg. No. 543

14 Lataif-e-Ashrafi Pg. No. 62

15 Khwaja Banda Nawaz also wrote an explanatory note on the book of him entitled as ‘Sharah Tamhidat, Zubdat-ul-Haqiq’

16 Ser-ul-Auliya Pg. No. 636

17 See Fawaid-ul-Fawad chapter II Majlis No 33