0021-1818_islam_98-1-2-i-259

192 Reviews
using selective translations from the Collected Letters, that Sirhind\ opposed
all forms of antinomianism. In letter 3.33, Sirhind\ contextualizes highly controversial
verses of Ya1ya Manyar\ and Mansur al-0allaj through innovative exegesis.
(p. 228) Following ter Haar, Buehler points out that Sirhind\ aimed to
help superficial jurists and common people understand such utterances in perspective.
In this vein, Buehler also contends that Sirhind\’s doctrine of vahdat-e
ˇsohud (the unity of contemplative witnessing) should not be viewed as a critique
of Ibn ^Arab\. (p. 53–55) Rather, he reminds readers that Ibn ^Arab\ would have
shared Sirhind\’s criticisms regarding those who conclude their spiritual path
at asserting the unity of being (towhid-e vojudi). Buehler further agrees with ter
Haar and others that Sirhind\ was able to reconcile vahdat-e ˇsohud and vahdat-e
vojud as legitimate experiences within a single framework. Both stages according
to Sirhind\, are markers on a spiritual path towards the stations of being a servant.
The latter term is more “jurist friendly.” (p. 55) Sirhind\’s own progress
through both stages is laid out in letters 1.13 (pp. 124–126), 1:290 (pp. 136–159), and
1:291 (pp. 159–68).
It is noteworthy that Buehler chose to translate these and other seminal epistles
like 2:67, on the creed of the ahl-e sonnat va-jama^at, and 1.11, on account of
which Sirhind\ was imprisoned by the Mughal emperor Jahang\r. Many of these
letters have been deeply engaged and debated by later Suf\s and modern
scholars. It is not clear, however, how Buehler selected letters for this volume
and whether certain aspects of Sirhind\’s work have been emphasized in Revealed
Grace above others. It would have been beneficial if Buehler had outlined the
contents of the additional Collected Letters. Buehler could also have better explained
the criteria for organizing letters into three thematic chapters, as many
letters deal with overlapping topics.
Additional clarification is also required on how letters translated in this volume
addressed to Mughal public officials, notably 2.67, aimed at influencing
Jahang\r, relate to the majority of Sirhind\’s teachings. Buehler, after all, seems
to agree with Friedmann that Sirhind\’s advice to officials may have been appeals
to preserve the social order at the state level, and did not necessarily align with
his guidance to disciples and non-notables. 3
The way in which Sirhind\’s mujaddid\ successors, ^ulama# and Suf\s outside
of the silsila engaged the Collected Letters also merits further research. It would
be relevant to know, for example, which letters were most frequently read, and
3 See Yohanan Friedman, Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His
Image in the Eyes of Posterity (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), 75.