Revisiting the Canon and Legacy of Nund Rishi

Muzaffar Khan has given us a provocative, original  and insightful, though at places disturbing, reading of Alamdar Nur al-Din. One of the books of its kind – scholarly, candid, mincing no words in countering perceived fictions, interpolations, legendary accretions and problematic ideological frameworks or narratives. He points out major errors of those usually considered stalwarts in Alamdar criticism.

While  critically analyzing and explaining away much of legendary and hagiographical material, a significant number of verses classified as authentic by previous scholarship, Khan notes and illustrates Quranic and other canonical roots of key themes and dozens of shrukhs.   All Alamdar students may profit from it even if they may disagree or get disturbed at places.

An original compelling review of Nur Namah that may well be considered as new addition to the Alamdar literary criticism, candid review of hagiographic material that is the staple diet of popular lore, noting parallels with legends and stories across traditions (with Nanak and Ibrahim ibn Adham, for instance), brilliant sustained critique of critics of khat i irshad, historical critique of several orthodoxies in Alamsar scholarship and showing such tales as Sadra plucked the bouquet, ‘the babe that wouldn’t suckle,’ initiation into burglary, death of his children, such accounts as that of three Rishi brothers, origin of ‘eat, my long sleeves’ etc.

The judgment offered is  that the authors of Rishnamas never seem to have passed a judgment or even made an objective assessment of certain fake stories invented by dishonest people and “some recorders of early or lay Dr Rishinamas who knew some Persian literature were dishonest enough to invent stories about the lifestyle of the austere Shaykh.” He notes fiction in Rishnamas is sold as genuine history

Aafaqi, Gouher, Ghulam Rasool Nazki, Teng and many others are critically analyzed and the arguments presented call for serious attention.  Some scholars are more positively  invoked such as Rashid Nazki, Margoob Banhali and at places Asadullah Aafaqi to substantiate his own reading of the canon.

The biographers, writes Khan, have not been fair to Alamdar. His personality has been distorted. There is romantic glorification of the past events and personalities. This distortion is done even today be mediocre pen pushers for vested interests. The only exception he asserts is Abdul Ahad Azad who had already protested fictionalization of events and miracle hoisting tendency of biographers. There is so much of simply legendary value that most scholars have accepted as historical and so much divergence in events in Rishinamas and in shrukhs that it is difficult to reconstruct the original life story or text. The Shaykh was not fortunate enough to find a biographer; he has found only weak hagiographers.  With Azad he asserts difficulty of separating authentic from inauthentic in the text.

Khan has argued for questioning authenticity of several shrukhs on various grounds – linguistic, stylistic, historical and religious. Let us note a few examples he finds of doubtful or problematic  and thus questionable for inclusion in Almadar canon.

• Some Mansuri shrukhs.
• Most verses of Teuth mei war ditto devo (Lord, Grant me such a favour) including O Lal of Padgampora…)
• The poem “Lord !I wish not to be reborn there” (it is composed by a believer in the concept of ava-gown, transmigration of soul ) who was essentially a believer in any one of the Indian religions. The poet decries slaughter of sheep, use of horse and donkey as beasts of burden, and ploughing of arable land with oxen.”
• Fifth stanza in (I remember Thee, my Lord) that refers to lifting to Mount Kaliash
• References to Rama in (Lord Himself ordained our fate) as he hadn’t been a favorite incarnation of the Saivists of Kashmir

The author makes several assertions though doesn’t dissect views and evidences presented by those who argue for the contrary. One may note a few:

• Nuruddin was not a philosopher at all. He only presented religious truths in his verses.
• Lalla was a pure Hindu mystic, Saivist yogni of Trika school. Khan denies any point in comparing Alamdar and Lalla. “They lived in different worlds, and their experiences were not alike.” He notes there is little evidence of their meeting. Though Khan notes use of Trika idiom in such poets as Shah Gufoor and Shams Faqeer, but asserts that “It isn’t possible for this author to interpret these verses, in view of the large body of verses written by these later poets about the Sufi thought. One can only say: SU:HAM”(I am He) doesn’t in any way match with ALLAH- HU” (He is Allah). The former expression is a monist view.
• The term Rishi, Khan asserts, was, in the days of the Sahykh, a Kashmiri equivalent for ‘Sufi’ living in seclusion, and nothing more. The author asserts that the truth is that Lalla was a pure Hindu mystic, Saivist yogni of Kashmir Trika school which subscribes to monism, believes in transmigration of soul and expressed devotion to Hindu gods.

Illuminating analysis of many shrukhs showing why they need to be revisited and the Canon of Alamdar corpus has to be rethought. Incisive and compelling critique of major scholars of Rishiyyet calls for note.

There is much useful material on linguistic analysis of shrukhs and references to Sanskrit, Pali, Kisthwari Marazi  features and other peculiarities besides a note on historical linguistics. This work has shown certain key verses often at the heart of controversies between more secular and religious or exclusivist sectarian voices need to be revisited for editing authentic Canon though it casts doubts on the very possibility of evolving consensus on the authentic text. Candid, provocative and well argued, much of Khan’s critical work can’t be ignored in any future criticism of Alamdar studies.

The central thesis of the book that Alamdar must be appreciated in strictly Muslim Sufi terms has been elaborated from various angles and the material in Alamdar’s life or Canon that has been framed in more trans-religious terms has been explained away or argued as non-authentic . Sometimes his suggestions about interpolation don’t appear compelling. For instance he asserts that the verse “Muhammad tae chor yar berhaq genzrekh/temen nish andnay duniyihk nyay”  has doubtful authenticity because the Shaykh hardly ever discussed the importance of dunyiheik nyay” (the affairs of the world”).

The word, Rabbana, used in another verse, is also thought to be interpolation on the ground that it is never used in his entire poetry for addressing Allah.  We may get an idea of his approach and religious framing of the whole issue from his analysis of vegetarianism and celibacy from the following statements.

“It has to be recalled, however, that Uways al Qarni, Rabia al Adwiyya, Baba Farid Ganjshaker, Shaykh Hamza Makhdoom Kashmiri and many other Sufis led a conjugal life. Moreover, Sufis used to be frugal, though they didn’t deny animal  food to their stomachs. Even today, neophytes are advised, sometimes, to abstain from all animal foods, garlic, onions, radish etc for certain periods. (These eatables may be aphrodisiac or have a disagreeable smell)”

We have ignored certain shrukhs which appear prima facie to be interpolations. For example, the shrukhs which make a mention of Shiva, and monism. They could either be the outpourings of Lal Ded or some other Sayaivist of the period following the Era of the Sahykh. “The author firmly declares that “Sufism or Rishi thought need not be compared with Shaivism.”  “Existence of some similarities of views between the two schools, mystical and philosophical, doesn’t indicate anything.”

The author invokes Sirhindi in approaching Wujoodi paradigm. Against major Muslim scholars and Sufis he thinks that al-Hallaj was a believer in hulool though he notes in the same breath that he prayed and remarks ‘Should we say: “to himself.” The author finds it problematic in the Shaykh to use Sahib for Allah and asserts “The use of the word Sahibo isn’t suitable for Allah and Nuruddin started this galtul awam.” The author mistranslates Unitarian metaphysics/wahdatul wujood as monism.  Certain important theses/works that have  appeared in last decade haven’t received adequate attention or not noted at all.

Khan succeeds in getting removed much confusion about the life and work of Shaykh, establishing  orthodoxy and Quranic basis of shrukhs and making a strong case for need for rereading Nurnamas  and contemporary scholarship on Alamdar more critically. However, he doesn’t engage with finer distinctions used by towering scholars on the meaning of wujoodi interpretation, distinction between religion and metaphysics, individualistic mysticism and supra-individual metaphysics, saint and sage, need for reading  Sufis such as Mansoor and Ibn Arabi in metaphysical terms to bypass shuhoodi-waujoodi interpretations.

He doesn’t engage with elaborate discussions on the interpretation of term Reshi, the genre of shastra poetry in major Sufi poets, warrant for studying traditions in terms elaborated by metaphysicians of traditionalist school. There are also more nuanced ways of appreciating  hagiographic and mytho-poetic elements in Nurnamas. And there is no need to invoke interpolation or inauthenticity of text thesis of we deploy hermeneutical tools developed by foremost scholars of mysticism and metaphysics for studying mystic poetry.