Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1): 36-49, 2007

The Tariqa’s Cohesional Power and the Shaykhhood Succession Question

Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya:
Spirituality, Heredity and the Question of Body
Alexandre Papas*

Abstract
This article discusses the succession issue within a particular Sufi order, the Central
Asian Naqshbandiyya, during it pre-modern period, that is from the sixteenth to theseventeenth century. Although the Naqshbandi tariqa is theoretically opposed to thehereditary mode of succession and defends a strictly spiritual process, the history of
the order shows a fairly different image. From the early founding principles to the
Makhdûmzâda Khwâjagân, we find controversies and changes in the regulation of
shaykh succession (for example, the question of primogeniture or the notion of nisbat).
However, I wish to reconsider the consistency, rather than the contradiction, of thevarious and successive rules of Naqshbandi succession. It seems that, throughout its
pre-modern history, the order experienced an accumulation of ways of succession while
it tried to maintain a rigorous continuity, in practice and in doctrine as well, oriented
toward the sunna and the Prophetic model. Thus the various shaykh succession logics
appear as anxious attempts to struggle against the double danger of a decline and of thegrowing distance from the Prophet. And among them, Naqshbandis found a paradoxical solution in heredity, perceived as embodiment, rather than simple imitation, of theProphetic ideal.

Introduction
The Naqshbandiyya Sufi order—especially in its “classical” form, that is the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya, or pre-Mujaddidiyya—is traditionally considered to be one of the most orthodox tarîqas,and more precisely one of the most respectful of the non-hereditary, only spiritual, mode of shaykh
succession. The chain of transmission (silsila) could have been rejected, at least in words, if not byfacts: ‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî’s Nafahât al-uns min hadarât al-quds reports this famous response
given by Bahâ’ al-Dîn Naqshband to someone who asked him where his silsila went back to: “Witha silsila no one goes anywhere”[‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 391].1) Devin DeWeese showed that
* Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris
Accepted July 9, 2007
1) “Kasî az îshân pursîd ki: silsila-yi hazrat-i shumâ bi kujâ mî risad? Furmudând ki: az silsila kasî bi jâyî namîrisad.”

36

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya

this kind of rhetoric used by the Khwâjagân against traditional features of institutional Sufism (likethe silsila) was motivated by the necessity of highlighting their uniqueness as alternatives to otherSufi groups or practices in 13 th-15 th centuries Central Asia [DeWeese 1999].2) It reveals likewise atendency, in the Naqshbandiyya in particular, towards a special, closer relationship with the Prophet
and his experience in order to be an accomplished shaykh: bypassing the silsila allows a strictspiritual initiation (the uwaysî mode particularly) and a direct uptake of baraka. More commonly,
again in the Nafahât, the candidate for shaykhhood is supposed to be the one who “has reached thedegree of direction and experience” (dar maqâm-i irshâd û shaykhûkat muta‘ayin bûdand) [‘Abdal-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 408, note 455].3) In other words, the future shaykh is required to have accomplished, under a rigorous spiritual guidance naturally, the spiritual path and the whole mysticaltravel (sulûk) to be able to lead the travellers (sâlik). The rightly-guided master can guide in turn thedisciples, as the rightly-guided Caliphs could guide the Muslim believers—the irshâd passes to therâshidûn so to say; the khulafâ’ should be khulafâ’-yi râshidûn. This is one of the analogies4) often
used by Sufis referring to the Prophetic model. And we know how far it constitutes not only a model(the “beautiful example” or uswatun hasanatun of the Quran 33: 21) but a source for Sufism.
In the same Naqshbandî records from the Nafahât, it is said that “Khwâja Yûsuf Hamadânî
[the 12 th century eponymous founder of the Khwâjagân, d. 1140] sat during more that 60 years on
the carpet of shaykhhood and direction (ziyâdat az shast sâl bar sajjâda-yi shaykhî û irshâd nishastabûd) [‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 381, note 437].5) Behind this overvaluation underlining the factthat Hamadânî, as an ascetic permanently in retreat or concentration, never went outside of his lodge
except on Fridays,6) stands an allusion to the 60-year old Prophet Muhammad. This allusion to thecanonical age of the Prophet regarding shaykhhood becomes an application of the Prophetic modelin Hamadânî’s succession: he is said, indeed, to have appointed four successors called chahâr khalîfa
2) In a recent article, the same author (DeWeese) has dealt extensively with the modes of legitimation of Bahâ’ al-Dîn
Naqshband, which appear multiple and not limited to the silsila, before the crystallization of the silsila principle inthe 15 th and 16 th centuries: see [DeWeese 2006].
3) The note deals with Mawlânâ Sa‘d al-Dîn Kâshgharî (d. 1456 or 58), the murshid of Jâmî, though the quotation
does not imply himself but another Sufi called Shaykh Zayn al-Dîn Khawâfî. In fact, most of the Naqshbandî
authors emphasized the necessity of the spiritual perfection to be a true shaykh: “In order to describe the requirements a true Shaykh has to comply with, the Naqshbandî sources appear to have a marked preference for theadjectives ‘perfect’ (kamīl) and ‘perfecting’ (mukammil, mukmil). The true Shaykh is required to have reached the‘level of perfection and leading [others] to perfection (martaba-i kamāl wa ikmāl [takmīl])” according to [Ter Haar
1999: 318].
4) One could mention the bay‘a, the ashâb and so on.
5) A literal translation seems to me more appropriate. One could also translate it as: “led the order more than 60
years.”
6) “rûzî dar zâwiya-yi khud bûd (...) ‘âdât-i way ân nabûd ki dar ghayr-i jum‘a bîrûn âyad”

37Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)(namely: Khwâja ‘Abd Allâh Barqî, Khwâja Hasan Andaqî, Khwâja Ahmad Yasawî, Khwâja ‘Abd
al-Khâliq Ghijduwânî) [‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 382, note 437]. This four-Caliph structure
echoes with what ‘Alî al-Hujwîrî (11 th-Century)—often quoted by the Khwâjagân authors—exposedin an entire chapter of his Kashf al-mahjûb about the four-Caliphal origins of the four fundamental
features of Sufism [Hujwîrî 1976: 70-74 (Ch. VI “Concerning their Imâms who belonged to theCompanions)]:7) Abû Bakr al-Siddîq—“the Sufis have made him their pattern in stripping themselvesof worldly things, in fixity, in eager desire for poverty, and in longing to renounce authority (...)”;‘Umar b. al-Khattâb—“the Sufis made him a model in wearing a patched frock and rigorously
performing the duties of religion”; ‘Uthmân b. ‘Affân—“the Sufis take ‘Uthmân as their exemplar
in sacrificing life and property, in resigning their affairs to God, and in sincere devotion”; ‘Alî b.
Abî Tâlib—“ ‘Alî is a model for the Sufis in respect to the truths of outward expressions and thesubtleties of inward meanings, the stripping one’s self of all property either of this world or of thenext, and consideration of the Divine providence.” Here again, one should add that Hujiwîrî and his
contemporary fellows were obviously anxious to defend themselves against hostile feelings towards
the Mystics of the time, but what is more relevant here is, once again, the relation to the Prophet andthe model he represents.
Through these examples, I want to point out that the spiritual criterion in Naqshbandî shaykh
succession represents a permanent tendency throughout the history of the order, to keep, to preserve
the Prophetic paradigm according to Sufis, that is the sunna, the baraka, and mystical dimensions
like the nûr muhammad.

Of course, the history of the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya presents

many apparently contradictions with its founding principles, such as the spiritual succession inparticular. From as early as the 14 th century up to the 17 th century, the Khwâjagânî shaykhs split
into numerous hereditary branches and formed several rival dynasties. This evolution is usuallyconsidered as a decline of spirituality, as a loss of mystical authenticity and as the result of a power
struggle. However, while keeping in mind that the Prophetic paradigm remains the central concernof the Naqshbandiyya, one can read this conflicting history through the religious debates again, andconsequently reconsider the controversies and changes in Naqshbandî succession logic as successive
efforts to restore the Muhammadan model. I do not mean that the problem of succession is only
theoretical, peaceful and entirely without a financial or political agenda in the background, but I
wish to understand exactly its own logic and continuity, not only its factual evolution. I assume7) Some examples of tarîqas and their primordial Caliph (from [Trimingham 1998: 149-150]): ‘Alî is the primarysource; the Naqshbandiyya, the Yasawiyya and the Bektashiyya have a line to Abû Bakr; the Rifâ‘iyya to ‘Umar;
the Zayniyya to ‘Uthmân.

38

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya

that the succession issues were not being drowned out in bare strategic stakes. Rather, I will suggest
the possibility that, along with the debates about shaykh succession in the Naqshbandiyya’s long
history, has arisen a far more complicated question, that of the passing of time. The more the tarîqa
expanded the more it was exposed to the dangers of perdition and decline. Like other Sufi shaykhs,
the Naqshbandî masters were aware very early on that the primeval purity of their path—whether
real or ideal—could vanish into the ruts of time, and if the shaykhs were to succeed each other, if
they had to make history, at the same time they had to go back in time, to get closer and closer to theProphet.

1. The silsila of the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya
First of all, let’s present the tree (shajara) of the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandî silsila [Muhammad Pârsâ
1975; Khismatullin 2001]:8)

2. The Founder Shaykhs and the Ambiguous Successions
The history of the Khwâjagân, i.e. the protohistory of the Naqshbandiyya, has all the appearancesof a pure initiating shaykh succession. Reading the classical Qudsiyya by Khwâja Muhammad
Pârsâ, one follows a clear silsila progression from shaykh to shaykh [Muhammad Pârsâ 1975:
8-15]. Nevertheless, the chain of spiritual transmission shows, since the beginning, an ambiguity
insofar as several shaykhs—and prominent ones—have been initiated “magically” by a deceased
shaykh. This is of course the well-known uwaysî way of initiation, which was frequently used in theearly Khurâsânî Sufism [Uludağ 2002: 362; Ter Haar 1999; Gril 1995: 31, 36]. Such is the case for
Bâyazîd Bistâmî initiated by Imâm Ja‘far al-Sâdiq, then Abû al-Hasan Kharaqânî by Bistâmî, andalso Bahâ’ al-Dîn Naqshband himself by ‘Abd al-Khâliq Ghijduwânî. About the Naqshbandî silsila,
Muhammad Pârsâ makes sure he specifies that “a large number of its shaykhs were ûwaysî” (bîsyârî
az mashâyikh-i îshân ki dar în silsila mizkûrand ûwaysî and) [Muhammad Pârsâ 1975: 14-15].
Beside the common spiritual initiation process which, after all, remains physical, engaging “real”
persons and physical rituals such as bay‘a in particular, the uwaysî mode represented a pure spiritual,
esoteric (rûhânî, rûhâniyyat) guidance able to switch the succession logic. Significantly, this method
seems to disappear progressively within the Naqshbandiyya,9) while its opposite, i.e. the hereditary8) Needless to say, this is a basic and retrospective version of the Khwâjagân shajara, there are numerous problems
concerning segments, affiliations and identifications that cannot be examined here.
9) This does not mean that spiritual training by a deceased or an absent shaykh disappeared in the Naqshbandiyya.
See for example the râbita al-shaykh where the disciple concentrates his gaze on the face of his master until heinternalizes the ideal master. On the râbita in the Naqshbandî tradition, see [Meier 1994: 17-241].

39

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)way, developed extensively.
In his study of the medieval Central Asian Naqshbandiyya, Jürgen Paul considered that “sinceAmīr Kulāl (d. 1370) seems to have followed the tradition of hereditary shaykhhood in naming his
own successor, his complaint that Bahā’uddīn (d. 1389) took over not only his murīds, but also hisson [Hamza], may be a sign that heredity also was an issue in this conflict” [Paul 1998: 55-56]; later,“the branches stemming from Bahā’uddīn’s successors betray a tendency to become hereditary” [Paul1998: 69]. At least, two great figures, Muhammad Pârsâ (d. 1420) and ‘Alâ’ al-Dîn ‘Attâr (d. 1400),
tried to establish their own hereditary eponymous lines, creating for instance a tâ’ifa called ‘Alâ’iyyawith Hasan ‘Attâr then Yûsuf ‘Attâr [Tosun 2002: 132]. Thus, despite the criticism from Bahâ’ alDîn himself against heredity, as we have seen above, and despite the silsilas too, composed at a time40

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya

which avoided hereditary links [Paul 1998: 65], such practices were clearly a reality in the shaykhs’appointment process, even on behalf of Bahâ’ al-Dîn.10) Nevertheless, the Sharifian origin—about
Sayyid Amîr Kulâl notably—did not seem to interfere in the succession logic at this time. There
was apparently no argument about that in the Naqshbandî contemporary texts. On the other hand,
we notice that, here again, a nearly contemporary Naqshbandî hagiography such as the Nafahât aluns (composed between 881/1476-77 and 883/1478-79), makes a point of naming four khalîfa after
Bahâ’ al-Dîn: the aforementioned ‘Alâ’ al-Dîn ‘Attâr and Muhammad Pârsâ, plus Ya‘qûb Charkhî
and Nizâm al-Dîn Khâmûsh [‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 394-404, notes 447, 448, 451, 453]. If
the Prophetic ancestry did not play any role yet in succession logics, the Prophetic descent remained
a central principle. Obviously, this four-khalîfa form of Bahâ’ al-Dîn Naqshband’s succession corresponds to a certain version of events, actually a distorted one, but what is not a distortion is Jâmî’s
concern for respecting the Prophetic paradigm in the Sufi succession.

3. Khwâja ‘Ubayd Allâh Ahrâr and the Hagiographical Silsila
This contradiction between words and deeds in Central Asian Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya
increased during the second half of the 15 th century and the beginning of the 16 th century, more
precisely under the shaykhhood of Khwâja ‘Ubayd Allâh Ahrâr (d. 1490) and his first successors.
As is well known, this famous shaykh developed the Naqshbandiyya silsila in an extraordinary way[Algar 1990], mixing different methods of affiliation [Paul 1991: 533-548]. Indifferently, Khwâja
Ahrâr used both hereditary and spiritual succession logics: heredity through his first son Khwâjakâ
(Muhammad ‘Abd Allâh) [Wâ‘iz Kâshifî 1977: 472-579] and his second son Muhammad Yahya(d. 1500) [Wâ‘iz Kâshifî 1977: 579-593]; spirituality through, for instance, Mawlânâ MuhammadQâzî (d. 1515 or 16) [Wâ‘iz Kâshifî 1977: 626-631].11) Yet, Khwâja Ahrâr did not defend thehereditary mode of shaykh succession. In the Malfuzât-i Ahrâr, composed by his disciple Mîr ‘Abd
al-Awwal Nîshâbûrî, there are three consecutive sayings which identify irshâd and takmîl, thespiritual accomplishment [Nawshâhî 2001: 195-196]. The first one claims: “Spiritual direction andaccomplishment have two conditions: firstly, the knowledge of certainty in acts of approaching [God];secondly, arriving to the stage at which acts of appearance do not prevent the witnessing [of God].
When someone arrives to this degree, he is counted among the mature ones. The accomplishment of10) For example through matrimonial strategies: ‘Alâ’ al-Dîn was married to the elder daughter of Bahâ’ al-Dîn,Bîbîcha Khâtûn-i Kalân, who gave birth to Hasan ‘Attâr.
11) For an overview of Ahrâr’s successors, see [Tosun 2002: 170-188].

41

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)competence concerns him.”12) According to this formula and others, spiritual competence seems tobe the only criterion for shaykhhood according to Khwâja Ahrâr.
Moreover, Aleksej Khismatullin, in his encyclopedia article on the Khwâjagân[Khismatullin
2001: 109-115], explains how ‘Alî b. Husayn Wâ‘iz Kâshifî, the author of the Ahrârî hagiography
Rashahât-i ‘Ayn al-Hayât (written in 909/1503-04), has reconstructed the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya silsila by concealing hereditary cases in the central chain, but not in the rest. Interestingly,
Kâshifî rejected the principle of primogeniture (the elder son as first khalîfa) in hereditary shaykh
succession. No doubt, there was a strategic reason for such a rejection, that is Kâshifî’s opposition to
the rival Naqshbandiyya Jûybariyya branch which relied on the primogeniture principle—to which
I will return shortly—but at the same time, beyond this controversy, the Naqshbandî hagiographer
was particularly careful to restore or reconstruct—more rigorously or artificially than Jâmî—thefour-khalîfa logic of succession along the silsila, at least from Khwâja Yûsuf Hamadânî to Bahâ’ alDîn [Wâ‘iz Kâshifî 1977: 13-101]. All this hagiographical argumentation full of nuances means,
firstly, that heredity was both legitimately and effectively admitted.

Henceforth, Naqshbandî

circles would produce not only silsilanâma (like Muhammad b. Husayn Qazwînî’s Silsilanâmayi Khwâjagân-i Naqshband) but also genealogical pamphlets (nasabnâma), exposing the various
lineages founded by the shaykhs (for example ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Husaynî’s Nasabnâma-yi Khwâja
Ahrâr, the anonymous Bayân-i awlâd-i Makhdûm-i A‘zam, etc.). Secondly, it means that the Prophetic heritage appeared more and more as a frame in succession logic. From this controversy andchange expressed by Kâshifî, one can deduce a dual purpose: resolving the contradiction between
spiritual and hereditary succession logics while applying literally the Prophetic way of succession.

4. Nisbat-i sûrî and Nisbat-i ma‘nawîThe famous second-generation descendant of Khwâja Ahrâr, Ahmad Kâsânî Dahbidî, alias
Makhdûm-i A‘zam (d. 1542),13) has represented a watershed, a turning point, in Khwâjagân silsila atthree different though inseparable levels: first, as a theorist of shaykhhood; second, as a sayyid; andlast but not least, as a founder of hereditary saintly Naqshbandî lineages. According to Bakhtyar
Babajanov, Ahmad Kâsânî considered that the Naqshbandî leader (called shaykh-i pîshqadam orpîr-i pîshqadam) ruled not only over the disciples but also the other shaykhs of the order [Babad-12) “irshâd û takmîl du shart ast yakî ‘ilm al-yaqîn bi a‘mâl-i maqraba duwîm rasîdan bi ânjâ ki a‘mâl û ishghâl-i
zâhirî mâni‘ nayâyad az shuhûd û âgâhî waqtî ki kasî bi în martaba rasîd û râ az bâlighân shumurda and takmîl-i
musta‘iddân bi û mîfarmâyand.”13) He was a murîd of the aforementionned Muhammad Qâzî.

42

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyyazhanov 1996, 1998]. This “universalist” claim was clearly a way to present himself as the leader of
a community, not only as a tâ’ifa chief. Such ambition led Ahmad Kâsânî to restrict his ascendancy
to one lineage,14) and to extend his descent to multiple Sharifian genealogical lineages. At these threelevels, Kâsânî endeavored to renew, and to reconstruct, the Prophetic model. Although the fourkhalîfa frame—which has never been systematic—became less meaningful,15) this did not correspondto a renouncement of the Muhammadan succession pattern.

On the contrary, the Prophetic

paradigm aroused an even more literal application under Ahmad Kâsânî’s shaykhhood.
Beyond the four-khalîfa tradition, beyond the need of a Sharifian ascendancy, it seems that the
Sharifian family itself represented the new ideal of succession in the Naqshbandiyya silsila. Significantly, the Kâsânî hagiographies often used the Persian term khânawâda, family,16) and the Persian
nobiliary suffix-zâda in Makhdûmzâda, to name the Naqshbandî branch founded by Makhdûm-iA‘zam. Furthermore, the Kâsânî hagiographies composed new types of silsila structured on the
distinction between the physical lineage (nisbat-i sûrî) and the spiritual lineage (nisbat-i ma‘nawî).17)
I can mention, for instance, Abû al-Baqâ’’s Jâmi‘ al-Maqâmât, completed in 1026/1617, but likewiselater hagiographies such as the anonymous Tadhkira-yi Natâ’ij al-‘Ârifîn (circa 1550-1650)18) or Mîr
Khâl al-Dîn al-Yârkandî’s Hidâyat Nâma composed in 1143/1730. Following the detailed genealogi-

14) This is exposed in his treatise Silsila al-Siddîqîn: Makhdûm-i A‘zam, Majmû‘a-yi rasâ’il. İstanbul Üniversitesi
Kütüphanesi 649, ff. 160a-169a.
15) One should qualify this statement since, during the late history of the non-Mujaddidî Naqshbandiyya, we find aquite common representation of the Naqshbandiyya sub-orders following the four-khalîfa frame: for instance,‘Abd Allâh Nidâ’î Kâshgharî (1688-1760), a Central Asian Makhdûmzâda Naqshbandî shaykh who settled in
Istanbul in 1746, explains in his Risâla-yi haqqiyya that: “The tarîq-i khufiyya has been taught (ta‘lîm karda) byAbî Bakr Siddîq, the tarîq-i kubrawiyya by ‘Umar, the tarîq-i ‘ishqiyya by ‘Uthmân, the tarîq-i jahriyya by ‘Alî(...) ” ([Nuhoğlu 2004: 36-37 in the Persian edited text]; f. 13a in the Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Aşir Efendi 411).
In passing, we see that the Kubrawiyya is integrated into the Naqshbandiyya; and that the ‘Ishqiyya is not thename of the order founded by Abû Yazîd al-‘Ishqî (13 th-c.) but the name of the Âfâqî branch whereas the Jahriyyacorresponds to the Ishâqî branch. Later in time, in another region of Islam, we find a similar representation:according to the French explorer Henri d’Ollone who, in the early 20 th century, asked a Chinese Naqshbandî imam(ahong in Chinese) about the different Sufi orders in Northwestern China, “each of the four caliphs (...) establisheda particular rite; the Muslims in Gansu are divided between these four rites: Abû Bakr established the Khufiyya
who practice the silent prayer; ‘Uthmân the Jahriyya who practice the loud prayer; ‘Umar the Kubrawiyya and‘Alî the Qâdiriyya” [D’Ollone 1909: 574]. Interestingly, Chinese Muslims oftenly call the Sufi tarîqas madhhab,following here again a four-way model which refers to the foundations of Islam.
16) There are other occurrences of the term khânawâda in Central Asian Naqshbandî texts, but they seem to designate
broadly the affiliates of the tarîqa or the circle of disciples of a particular shaykh. More generally, we must keep inmind that, from a Sufi point of view, the tarîqa always appears as a family, the murshid as a father, the murîds assons and brothers. It is well known that Bahâ’ al-Dîn was called ‘son’ by Muhammad Bâbâ-yi Sammâsî.
17) As a Sufi terminology, the vocabulary of the nisba is also used—though in a different way—by the Suhrawardiyya
and the Kubrâwiyya.
18) On this manuscript, see [Papas 2006].

43

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)cal chains exposed in the first chapter of the Jâmi‘ al-Maqâmât, one finds two Sharifian Bakrî
lineages regarding Makhdûm-i A‘zam: a first one physical through Sultân Ilak Mazî, Burhân al-DînQilîch19) and Abû Bakr;20) a second one spiritual through the aforementioned Muhammad Qâzî andKhwâja Ahrâr.21) The unique manuscript of the Tadhkira-yi Natâ’ij al-‘Ârifîn contains a folio whichshows the silsila in the guise of two columns corresponding to the two nisba. In others words, theKâsânî hagiographical tradition synthesizes the Prophetic genealogy and the Prophetic initiation.
From then on, the history of the Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya would be marked by the double nisba
structure and would identify both heredity and spiritual status in shaykh successions.

5. The Makhdûmzâda Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya: From Heredity to Primogeniture
After the death of Makhdûm-i A‘zam in 1542 there started an extraordinary expansion of the
Makhdûmzâda Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya, primarily due to its succession process. Insofar as theirshâd was given to numerous disciples (often linked by marriage to the Makhdûmzâda family) andto the thirteen sons of Makhdûm-i A‘zam as well, several important branches developed throughout
Central Asia during the second half of the 16 th century and the 17 th century. The first two major
branches were the Jûybâriyya and the Chustiyya. Here I shall sum up a part of my book entitled
Sufism and Politics between China, Tibet and Turkestan which deals with the Makhdûmzâda[Papas 2005: 38-40 passim]: Khwâja Islâm Jûybârî (d. 1563) was a disciple of Kâsânî, and he wasalso linked to the family by the marriage between one of his daughters and one of the sons of Kâsânî,Muhammad Amîn (d. 1597). The second shaykh is Mawlânâ Lutf Allâh Chustî (d. 1571). He wasalso a disciple of Kâsânî, and one of his daughters married the son named Ishâq Khwâja (d. 1599).
A serious conflict broke out between these two figures over the question of Makhdûm-i A‘zam’s
succession.
Aside from the details, what is particularly interesting in this conflict is the controversy over theprimogeniture principle. Indeed, Khwâja Islâm Jûybârî defended this last principle and presented
his own son-in-law, that is Kâsânî’s elder son, Muhammad Amîn, as the legitimate leader (pîshwâyi tarîqa). In opposition to this, Lutf Allâh Chustî—and many Hanafî ‘ulamâ’ in Bukhârâ—supporting another son of Kâsânî, Ishâq Khwâja, brandished the Quranic verses 175 and 176 of the
4 th surah alluding to the succession: “Then those who believe in Allah, and hold fast to Him,- soon19) On these semi-legendary figures in Central Asian genealogies, see [Abashin 2001].
20) Abû’ al-Baqâ’, b. Bahâ’ al-Dîn b. Makhdûm-i A‘zam. Jâmi‘ al-maqâmât. Bodleian Library, Ms Indian Institute
Persian 118, ff. 3a-b.
21) Abû’ al-Baqâ’, ff. 10a-b.

44

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya

will He admit them to mercy and grace from Himself, and guide them to Himself by a straight way”;“They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants
or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half theinheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance:
If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there arebrothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allahmake clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.”
Thereafter, it seems that hereditary succession was no longer an issue, it was rather theprimogeniture. Beyond the strategic reasons and the economic interests, beyond the passion for
power more generally, one can view this evolution in Naqshbandiyya succession logics in continuity
with its permanent concern about the Muhammadan heritage. There was a will to transmit it by the
Sharifian way, as though the initiation process was no longer enough or no longer secure. It was amatter of incarnating the Prophetic paradigm, not only applying it, because this was the best way topreserve it. So the question was: ‘How can we identify as rigorously as possible the Prophetic genealogy and the Prophetic initiation?’ Primogeniture was an answer because this rule had the fundamental advantage of securing the passage of shaykhhood from one generation to the next one without
any rupture. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the 17 th century Khwâjagân-i Naqshbandiyya
has been characterized by a long-term conflict around the primogeniture principle.22) Following theJûybâriyya and Chustiyya split in Western Turkistan, the Khwâjas of Eastern Turkistan split into theÂfâqiyya/Âqtâghlîq and the Ishâqiyya/Qarâtâghlîq branches [Muhämmäd Sadiq Qäshqäri 1986:
40 sqq], the first one supporting primogeniture, the second one rejecting it [Papas 2005: 72-73].
Nevertheless, the two rival branches employed different means to achieve the same goal: preserving
the Makhdûmzâda saintly lineage in order to preserve the Prophetic heritage.

6. The Necessity of Blood and Body
To sump up what has been discussed, I would point out that, in spite of the controversies andchanges we can find among the premodern Central Asian Naqshbandîs, continuity remains: the will
to apply the Prophetic paradigm. Facing divisions, conflicts, and more generally worldly affairs, theKhwâjagân-i Naqshbandîs aimed to maintain a strictly Sufi version of the Sunnî framework, thatis a mystical tradition stricto sensu. It seems to me that this major concern became so dramatic,so disturbing in the course of history that the Naqshbandî shaykhs experienced the necessity22) The Khwâjas’ religious memory recounts the origins of the conflict: see [Muhämmäd Sadiq Qäshqäri 1986:
36-37].

45

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)of incarnating, embodying the Muhammadan experience. They had to go beyond the imitatio
Prophetae which had prevailed since the 13 th century. The Prophetic Sufi ideal had to come down tothe blood and body, there was no way round it. I mean that the Naqshbandî shaykhs, as early as the
14 th and 15 th centuries, were highly aware of the probable loss of spirituality in their own ranks, ofthe institutionalization of their spirituality,23) in other words they were conscious of the usual dangersof time, so they found a solution in the identification of initiation and heredity. They even felt thecritically growing distance between them and the Prophet: beside the nostalgia for Muhammad’s
life and community, significant was the appearance of the question of the generations in Sharifian
genealogy, more exactly the number of intermediaries between the Khwâjagân and the Prophet. The
question was so sensitive among the Khwâjas of Eastern Turkistan that their hagiographical writings
became progressively more concerned with this aspect: for example, a major late text (completed in1730) such as Mawlânâ Mîr Khâl-Dîn al-Yârkandî’s Hidâyat Nâma was entirely structured on anumber of chapters (bâb) equivalent to the number of Sharifian intermediaries (wâsita)—this esotericstructure is revealed by the author at the end of the text.24) This kind of hidden argument may not be
so usual, one has to admit, nevertheless it heralds the future controversies in Eastern Turkistan andFerghana about the lineage of the Khwâjas.
Therefore, instead of perceiving the hereditary logic of shaykh succession—and its success—as a decline of spirituality in Sufism and in Sufi tarîqas during the premodern times, I would rather
consider these controversies and changes as attempts to struggle against the danger of a decline.
Thus blood and body appeared as paradoxical and valuable arms. They afforded several advantages
to the premodern Naqshbandiyya: at a basic level, heredity could insure the transfer of any material
possessions (waqf goods in particular), or the transfer of the sociopolitical status held by the shaykhfather. There would be many examples to illustrate this point once one mentions the Ahrârî shaykhs
as well as the Khwâjas of Eastern Turkistan (of whom the aforementioned al-Yârkandî is a major
biographer). From the organizational point of view, the advantage would have been—at least intheory—to reduce the occasions of conflict between candidates to the succession. The establishmentof rules in the hereditary succession process, such as the primogeniture principle or any kind of rules,
aimed to make it more systematic—like other types of lineage. Moreover, the point was to avoid
any interruption in the chain of transmission: ‘How could you find a better disciple, continuator and23) See notably DeWeese [1999: 506] who writes that “the issues [in the Manâqib of Khwâja ‘Alî Râmîtanî] raisedfor the most part deal with the social profile of Sufis, and the positions taken are in the main couched in terms of
opposition to or contrast with several elements that had become normative features of ‘public,’ institutional Sufism
in Central Asia during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.”24) On this point, see [Papas 2005: 170 passim].

46

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya

heir than your own son; or a better master, initiator and legatee than your own father?’ The family
structure could guarantee the handing over of exoteric and esoteric knowledge, from the gift of the
shaykh’s private library to the teaching of secret formulas. In many respects, the family appeared
as a way to protect the material and spiritual patrimony of the Naqshbandî tradition against allcontingencies. Therefore, the deep meaning of such a hereditary-orientation is probably to be foundin a permanent struggle against the impermanence of time, its setbacks, its pitfalls, its oblivions, andits distance from the Prophetic moment.
Just a word to conclude this section: we find an interesting expression of this incarnation—
though not yet bloody—of the shaykh succession ideal in the classical Nafahât al-uns that I alreadyquoted at the beginning of my article: “His hand is my hand and his tongue my tongue” (dast-i û
dast-i man ast wa zabân-i û zabân-i man) [‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî 1981: 490-491, note 509]. This
formula has been written by Maktûb Kamâl al-Dîn ‘Abd al-Razzâq in an ijâzat letter given to amurîd. This is certainly a way of expressing the loyalty as well as the authority passing from amaster to his disciple. In fact, the formula is not originally Sufi, it comes from a political context
where a pâdishâh delegated his power to his favorite (muqarrab). Yet, I would interpret this sentencein another way: the irshâd needed more than a bay‘a, more than a handshake (musâfaha), it needed aphysical continuity, from body to body. The question which arises is how to guarantee this continuity, how the shaykh’s or the saint’s hand could be the Prophet’s hand.

Conclusion: Shaykh Succession and the History of Sufism
The question of shaykh succession is a central issue for every historian of Islamic mysticism. It
raises the problem of the evolution of Sufi orders, whatever their orthodoxy or heterodoxy may be—if these words have any relevance. Assuming that the above demonstration is right, the exampleof the classical Naqshbandiyya reveals the complexity of its evolution since the origins to the 17 th
century, and assuredly, the Naqshbandî case is not isolated. It warns the historian not to simplify thehistory of the tarîqas; to not, in other words, reduce it to a simple—and rather historicist—pattern,assuming the progressive foundation, succession, scission and decline periods. It shows that the Sufi
orders faced precise problems even if they did not always give them a formulation. It shows equallythat they tried to find solutions to these problems, even if they did not always succeed. No doubt
the history of Sufism—like other mystical traditions—is neither the history of a growing, triumphal,pure spirituality, nor the history only of great spiritual heroes. Yet, the transformation of Sufi orders
on the longue durée never presents simple decay scenarios.
Such historicism fails to understand why a Sufi order like the Naqshbandiyya, which developed47

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)various ways of legitimization and succession, and which asserted its hostility to the hereditarymode of shaykh appointment, has promoted so extensively the family institution as a Sufi mode oforganization. I believe that the question of time and the solution of body can provide a plausible
hypothesis for a wider and more complex explanation. After all, the problem was a classical one:the way to fulfill a mystical relationship with the Prophet, which can be found in different versions
from one period to another, from one part to another of the Muslim world. Further study adopting
this comparative scale might help towards a better understanding of how, historically, an esotericambition sought an exoteric means to achieve its aim.
References[Manuscripts]
Abû’ al-Baqâ’, b. Bahâ’ al-Dîn b. Makhdûm-i A‘zam. Jâmi‘ al-maqâmât. Bodleian Library, Ms Indian
Institute Persian 118.
Makhdûm-i A‘zam, Ahmad Khwâjagî Kâsânî. Majmû‘a-yi rasâ’il. İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi 649.

[Printed Matters]
Primary Sources‘Abd al-Rahmân Jâmî, Nûr al-Dîn. 1981 (/1370). Nafahât al-uns min hadarât al-quds, edited by Mahmûd
‘Âbidî. Tahrân: Intishârât-i Ittilâ‘ât.
Hujwîrî, ‘Alî b. ‘Uthmân al-Jullâbî. 1976. The Kashf al-Mahjûb. The Oldest Persian Treatise on Sufism,
Translated from the text of the Lahore edition, compared with mss. In the India Office and British
Museum by Reynold A. Nicholson. London: Luzac & Co.
Muhammad Pârsâ. 1975 (/1354). Qudsiyya (kalimât-i Bahâ’ al-Dîn Naqshband), edited by Ahmad Tâhirî
‘Irâqî. Tahrân: Kitâbkhâna-yi Tahûrî.
Muhämmäd Sadiq Qäshqäri. 1986. Täzkiräyi äzizan, edited by N. Mukhlis & S. Ämät. Qäshqär: Qäshqär
Uyghur Näshriyati.
Nawshâhî‚ Ârif, ed. 2001 (/1380). Ahwâl wa sukhanân-i Khwâja ‘Ubayd Allâh Ahrâr. Tahrân: Markaz-i
Nashr-i Dânishgâhî.
Wâ‘iz Kâshifî, Mawlânâ Fakhr al-Dîn ‘Alî b. Husayn. 1977 (/1356). Rashahât-i ‘ayn al-hayât, 2 vol., editedby ‘Alî Asghar Mu‘înîyân. Tahrân: Intishârât-i Bunyâd-i Naykikârî-yi Nûryânî.

Secondary Sources
Abashin, S. 2001. Burkhan al-Din Qylych. In S. M. Prozorov ed., Islam na territorii byvshej Rossijskoj
imperii, 3, Moskva: Izdatel’skaja firma “Vostochnaja literatura” RAN, pp. 24-25.
Algar, H. 1990. A brief history of the Naqshbandî order. In M. Gaborieau et al. eds., Naqshbandis. Cheminements et situation actuelle d’un ordre mystique musulman. Istanbul-Paris: Isis, pp. 3-44.
Babadzhanov, B. 1996. Zahîr al-Dîn Muhammad Mîrzâ Bâbur et les Shaykh Naqshbandî de Transoxiane,
Cahiers d’Asie centrale 1-2: 219-226.

48

Papas：Shaykh Succession in the Classical Naqshbandiyya＿．1998. Makhdum-i A‘zam. In S. M. Prozorov ed., Islam na territorii byvshej Rossijskoj imperii, 1,
Moskva: Izdatel’skaja firma “Vostochnaja literatura” RAN, pp. 69-70.
DeWeese, D. 1999. Khojagānī origins and the critique of Sufism: The rhetoric of communal uniquenessin the Manāqib of Khoja cAlī cAzizân Rāmītanī. In F. De Jong and B. Radtke eds., Islamic Mysticism
Contested. Thirteen Centuries of Controversies and Polemics. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, pp. 492-519.
＿．2006. The legitimation of Bahā’ al-Dīn Naqshband, Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques 60 (2):261-306.
D’Ollone, H. 1909. Recherches sur les musulmans chinois. Mission d’Ollone, Revue du Monde Musulman
IX (12), December: 521-598.
Gril, D. 1995. Les débuts du soufisme. In A. Popovic and G. Veinstein eds., Les Voies d’Allah. Les ordres
mystiques dans le monde des origines à aujourd’hui. Paris: Fayard, pp. 27-43.
Khismatullin, A. 2001. Khwadzhagan. In S. M. Prozorov ed., Islam na territorii byvshej Rossijskoj imperii, 3,
Moskva: Izdatel’skaja firma “Vostochnaja literatura” RAN, pp. 109-115.
Meier, F. 1994. Zwei Abhandlungen über die Naqšbandiyya. I. Die Herzensbindung an den Meister. II.
Kraftakt und Faustrecht des Heiligen. Istanbul-Stuttgart: in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag.
Nuhoğlu, G. 2004. Abdullah Nidaî-yi Kâşgarî ve Hakkıyye Risâlesi. Istanbul: Simurg.
Papas, A. 2005. Soufisme et politique entre Chine, Tibet et Turkestan. Etude sur les Khwajas naqshbandis duTurkestan oriental. Paris: Jean Maisonneuve.
＿．2006. Un manuscrit inconnu à propos des soufis de Kashgarie conservé à la Bibliothèque Nationale
Firdawsi (Tadjikistan), Studia Iranica 35: 97-108.
Paul, J. 1991. Forming a faction: The Himāyat system of Khwaja Ahrar, International Journal of Middle East
Studies 23 (4): 533-548.
＿．1998. Doctrine and Organization. The Khwājagān/Naqshbandīya in the First Generation after
Bahā’uddīn. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, Anor 1.
Ter Haar, J. G. J. 1999. The Importance of the Spiritual Guide in the Naqshbandî Order. In Leonard Lewisohned., The Heritage of Sufism. The Legacy of Medieval Persian Sufism (1150-1500), vol. 2. Oxford:
Oneworld, pp. 311-321.
Tosun, N. 2002. Bahâeddîn Nakşbend. Hayatı, Görüşleri, Tarîkatı [XII-XVII Asırlar]. Istanbul: İnsan
Yayınları.
Trimingham, J. S. 1998. The Sufi Orders in Islam. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uludağ , S. 2002. Tasavvuf terimleri sözlüğü. Istanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.

49