THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ISLAMIC MYSTICISM IN INDIA: THE CASE OF SHĀH WALĪ ALLĀH AL-DIHLAWĪ

YURI ISHIDA

ABSTRACT

This study demonstrates the acceptance of Greek philosophy within Muslims, and the synthesis
of Greek philosophy and Islamic mysticism from the psychological viewpoint of Islamic mysticism.
In order to describe how Greek philosophy was inherited and how it has evolved in India, the furthest
Islamic cultural area from the birthplace of Islam, this paper focuses on the psychological theory of
Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī (1703–1762), a famous Muslim thinker in eighteenth century India.
Al-Dihlawī was a prolific writer who studied various fields. There are some books on him which
look at the psychological theory of Islamic mysticism. However, this paper focuses on two books: al-
Qawl al-jamīl and al-Tafhīmāt al-ilāhīya. Al-Qawl al-jamīl is a beginner’s guide to Islamic mysticism.
In this book, al-Dihlawī introduces the psychological theory of his father ‘Abd al-Raḥīm (1644/5–
1719), who led him on the path of mysticism. Al-Dihlawī also refers to the theory of Aḥmad al-Sirhindī
(1564–1624), known as the pioneer of Islamic reformism in India. In al-Tafhīmāt al-ilāhīya, al-Dihlawī
explains the theory of Khwāja Khurd (1601–1663), ‘Abd al-Raḥīm’s master and a fellow disciple of al-
Sirhindī in Islamic mysticism. His original psychological theory of al-Dihlawī is present in this book
too. Analyzing these two books enables one to follow the evolution of psychological theory in India.
In Islamic mysticism, the soul or spirit is known as laṭīfa (subtle entity). Islamic mystics believe
there are several laṭīfas (laṭā’if ) and that these laṭīfas create class order and structure. For example,
‘Abd al-Raḥīm showed al-Dihlawī the six layered circles of laṭīfas. According to the episode in the al-
Qawl al-jamīl, ‘Abd al-Raḥīm drew the circle of qalb, one of laṭīfas. Inside it, he drew another circle of
rūḥ, and within it drew the innermost circle, anā. However, for al-Sirhindī, the six laṭīfas are qalb, rūḥ,
sirr, khafī, akhfā, and nafs. Furthermore, each laṭīfa corresponds to a certain part of the body. In the
theory of Khwāja Khurd, there are two laṭīfas: the apparent laṭīfas and the hidden laṭīfas. The apparent
laṭīfas include nafs, ‘aql, sirr, qalb, rūḥ, and the hidden laṭīfas consist of khafī, anānīya kubrā, nūral-quds, ḥajar al-baht, and dhāt. The apparent laṭīfas and the hidden laṭīfas are connected by akhfā.
The lower levels of the apparent laṭīfas are attracted to certain parts of the body: qalb is drawn to the
heart, ‘aql is drawn to the brain, and nafs is drawn to the liver. However, the mystics ascend from the
level of the apparent laṭīfas to the hidden laṭīfas and finally reach the highest laṭīfa, dhāt. Against these
three theories, al-Dihlawī proposes seven periods that correspond to a certain ability or laṭīfa. The first
period is the period of the mineral; the second is the vegetable period that offers nutrition and growth;
the third is the animal period that offers perception, sense, volition, and decision; the fourth is the
period of Adam where language, qalb, ‘aql, and nafs are attained; the fifth is the Prophet Muḥammad’s
period where sirr and rūḥ are attained; the sixth is the period of Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240) that gives
khafī; the last and seventh period is the period of al-Dihlawī where ḥajar al-baht and anā are attained.
A comparison of these four theories shows that the differences among them are clarified despite
their similarities in living time, place, and the mentoring relationship of Islamic mysticism. This article
concludes with the following three points.
First, al-Dihlawī learned the theory of ‘Abd al-Raḥīm from his father during his teenage years;
the description in the al-Qawl al-jamīl as well as his autobiography supports this fact. However, al-
Dihlawī might not have been acquainted with al-Sirhindī or may not have even read his book because
what al-Dihlawī explains as the theory of al-Sirhindī differs from what al-Sirhindī says in his work.
In spite of the difference between the theories of ‘Abd al-Raḥīm and al-Sirhindī, al-Dihlawī neither
explains the reason behind the division nor declares which theory he subscribes to; this might be
because of the fact that al-Qawl al-jamīl is one of the earliest work of al-Dihlawī.
Second, Khwāja Khurd’s theory in al-Tafhīmāt al-ilāhīya might be arranged by al-Dihlawī
because of the catechetical context: al-Dihlawī answers the questions from Khwāja Khurd the deceased.
Their conversation is considered to be a kind of fantasy and may explain the difference between the
theories of ‘Abd al-Raḥīm and Khwāja Khurd. It must be noted, however, that the two scholars are tied
together by the master–disciple relationship.
Third, the psychological theory of al-Dihlawī seems be influenced by the Aristotelians. Al-
Dihlawī’s experience of having studied abroad in Madina will be the key that has not been seen in the
other three Indian Muslim scholars