Dr Maroof Shah
We have been told various stories about Sufism to discredit it on religious, ethical, political and other grounds. The Sufis in turn assert they are the most sincere and loyal to the essence of Islam and can boost exemplary ethical and responsible political consciousness. We need to state key claims of Sufism before we examine a few charges against it.
Sufism may be read as an invitation to make nothing of oneself or choosing to be nobody as it recognizes the lie of saying I –only God can truly say I according to Sufism. Sufism eschews munazara and makes of silence a great virtue. How can one argue a case against humility and silence? It calls for attention to the present moment or minding one’s business. It requires perfection of ethics of self discipline, absolute trust and sincerity and seeing God before seeing anything else. It doesn’t trade in point-scoring. It ideally asserts nothing of its own and is an invitation to be witness of truth in every event or phenomenon. It is a discipline to make one receptive to other, to humbly listen, to get transformed through dialogue. It invites one to self discovery and fellowship of spirit for co-discovering or travelling on the path of self-naughting.
The relevant question is not is Sufism true but are we true to ourselves. Who can disagree that we need to know ourselves? If we know ourselves we know God. The question is do we know our essence, our real self. Answering that question and answering this question we answer all questions. Fools debate while the wise people enjoy the feast that God is serving every moment. God is not a thing to be debated or argued but something to be realized or tasted or enjoyed.
So much is still being written about some of the concocted stories and charges that have long been dismissed by foremost scholars. This is simply ignorance about its self-understanding. We find much heat and little light on key issues in influential polemical works examining Sufism. Let us note a few points that, among others, are much rehearsed in polemical literature and popular press and against which enough evidence has now been collected to discredit:
Major Discredited Stories about Sufism
· Foreign origin of Sufism.
· Heterodoxy of Sufism/Ibn Arabi.
· Sufism as marginal force/approach in the classical period down today.
· Ignorance/carelessness of the Sufis about hadith or other religious sciences.
· Conflict between key Sufi doctrines and explicit canonical material.
· Sufism as status quoits, Sufism as responsible for decline of Muslims.
· Occultistic/spiritist framing of Sufism.
· Sufism as parallel religion or disconnected from Islam.
· Sufism as indulging in negation or escaping this world.
· Sufism as reason negating, emotional affair without deep intellectual content.
· Sufism as drug peddling pleasure or intoxication pursuing science of states as distinguished from the science of virtues/stations.
Let us reproduce a few points that have been discussed in the author’s Revisiting Sufism.
• Fiction: Sufism is not indigenous to Islam. It entered rather late and constitutes an innovation.
Fact: This view itself is an innovation generally unheard of till last century. To be a Muslim implied one has had something to do with something of Sufism as an insider. According to the research of Carl Ernst, “prior to the nineteenth century Islam and Sufism were never dissociated as separate orders, and as recently as the late eighteenth century, most of the exceptional religious scholars in the centers of the Muslim world were intimately engaged with the mystical dimension of Islam. In fact, it is the mystics who played the decisive role in the interpretation of the Quran.”
Fiction: It is parallel religion in opposition to Islam
Fact: It may be methodologically parallel but is not in opposition to Islam. Sulooki nubuwwah is different from sulooki wialayah as Shah Waliullah observed but they are not in opposition. Sages (hukama) far from opposing prophets expound and illuminate and propagate their teachings in their own way or converge with the objectives of the prophets. Shah Waliullah has clarified, for instance, that “the existence of Qutb, Ghawth and Khadhir was not proved by the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma'(unanimous resolution of Islamic scholars) And whoever of the Sufis claimed it, did not prove it by the Quran and Sunnah but by the kashf (illumination), whereas the kashf is not the document of Shan’ah.” He has seconded Imam Ibn Taimiyyah in this point for whom, the kashf and vijdan (intuition), as for the Shah, are natural love exists in every servant of Allah, but if anyone claims that those are rituals of Sha’riah that is wrong. To accuse Tasawwuf of being a parallel religion is to fail to understand both certain autonomy of esotericism and its integral connection with exoteric dimension. Esotericism includes and transcends rather than rejects or runs parallel to zahiri or exoteric aspect of religion. If you are indeed devoted to integral view of Shariah, you are by default a Sufi. Ibn Taymiyah is every inch a Sufi as is Ibn-al Qayyim. The golden rule is deepen your devotion and sincerity in following shariah, taste its halawat and have an eye on Ihsan as told in Hadees-i Jibriel and one is a Sufi. When Sufism appears something extra to religion it is really an internal, logical development of its intellectual and spiritual dimension. When it seems to contradict the letter of the law, check if the letter is ultimately to be taken autonomously or in relation to the spirit it embodies. How come Ibn Arabi states shariah is haqiqah and even Ibn Taymiyyah who had some doctrinal differences with him, is all praise for his exemplary conduct. It isn’t that Sufis don’t want to antagonize Ahl-az-Zahir but it is a principled stand.
Fiction: The Sufis are status quoists, quietists, royalists and suck people’s money.
Fact: Though pseudoSufis have been legion, if we examine lives and works of Sufis as expounded or required in authentic silsilahs, we find that they “did not accept royal service or jagir, nor amassed riches.” They earned their bread and did not like to be a burden on society. When we look at the list of Sufis of the Baghdad, Khurasan, Bukhara, Indian region in say the Risala of Imam Qushairi, or the Tadhkirat ul-Awliya of Farid-ud-din Attar or in the Nafahat-ul-Uns of Maulana ‘Abd ur-Rahman Jami, we see they earned their living by some craft or trade. “In Nafahat ul-Uns, over fifty professional nisbah surnames appear tacked on to the names of the various Sufis. There are all kind of professional, nisbah, from the respectable zargar (goldsmith), ‘attar (perfume or drug dealer), khazzaz (silk merchant), saraf (banker), jouhari (jeweller), warraq (copyist), to a what were considered lowly ones (rightly or wrongly, that is not the point of discussion here though I must remark that Islam was all for dignity of labour and the different prophets are said to have been themselves associated with various oftenly depreciated as lowly works such as shepherding sheep and goat, milking animals, doing cleaning work in the kitchen etc. and have brought from heaven many sciences used in crafts/industries) as, (noted by Dr Aashiqul Islam) “kharraz (cobbler), khaffaf (boot-maker), na’lain-doz (clog-maker), hallaj(cotton dresser), sakkak (cuttler), juwalgar (sack maker), saqqa (water carrier), saqati (pedlar), qassab (butcher), haddad (blacksmith), khawwas (vendor of palm leaves), qassar (fuller), gazur (bleacher), khabbaz (baker), haffar (digger), kulal (potter), sifalfarosh (seller of earthen wares), nassaj (weaver), sammak (fish monger), hammal (porter), hajjam (barber), falez-ban (keeper of melon field), hatter (cutter), zaqqaq (maker of skin bags), sabbag (dyer), dabbagh (tanner) etc. They spent the greater part of their earning on the poor and needy, thus they practically insisted on living on an equal status with the most destitute members of the society. The Muslim society as a rule, never adopted love for riches and money or contempt of poverty or trade, as a national character.”
The Sufis have been known to not only participate but even lead many resistance movements against alien/colonial powers. Famous Sufis have not been spared in battles. Whatever literal historical truth in Ibn Arabi’s relationship with Ertugal Gazi, the picture depicted is seconded by general history of association of Muslim kings and Sufis for the end depicted in the serial. Sufis have been known to be king makers not only in the esoteric silence of controlling a secret empire but literally by taking interest in the affairs of the state and welfare of people. India has famous accounts in this connection. And key role played by the Sufis against colonial powers is well known to students of history. Kashmir’s political history had a decisive influence of Sufi from Hamadani to Shaykh al-Alam to Shaykh Hamza Makhdoom to Yaqub Sarfi is well documented.
Fiction: Iqbal opposed Sufism as foreign to Arab- Islamic spirit. “Islam ki sarzameem mei ajmi pouda.”
Fact: Iqbal has been misquoted here as he had remarked about wujoodi taswauuf’s ajmi connection, not wujud of tasawuuf as such. And by all accounts, self avowedly and by consensus of Iqbal critics, he was himself a Sufi thinker and Ajmi Sufis like Rumi and Bedil and major Sufi figures from Gous al-Azam to Mansoor to Ibn Arabi to Hazrat Nizamuddin to Sirhindi to Hujwiri were influences over him.
Fiction: Sufism is inherently opposed to Shariah; Sufis have been known to oppose/ignore/trivialize shariah.
Fact: Nothing is farther from stated position of major traditional Sufi schools and figures. It is axiomatic for Sufism to uphold shariah in letter and spirit and we can quote lives and works of major Sufis as conforming to shariah. The perception that certain Sufi doctrines and practices constitute shirk or are problematic from shariah view point has been definitively refuted by newer investigations and cursory look at creedal statements and self defense of certain practices that are controversial for critics is enough to convince anyone that shariah has been of seminal significance to definition and mission of Sufis. The celebrated defense of such Sufi figures as Ibn Arabi (who has been first target of critics or at the centre of controversy) from a galaxy of foremost sharia scholars from great shariah authorities from Imam Suyuti to Abdul Wahab Sharani to Ashraf Ali Thanwi to Ahmed Reza Khan Berelwi is well known. More recent academic or critical Western scholarship has demonstrated beyond any doubt that Ibn Arabi was neither a pantheist/philosophical monist but a transcendence affirming Unitarian, never upheld incartionism or erased duality of the relative and the Absolute (corresponding approximately to servant and the Creator duality) or upheld any doctrine that has been rejected by great creedal authorities.
Fiction: Sufism has been controversial from the very start in Islamic history
Fact: No scholar worth his salt had the nerve to oppose the essence of Sufism about which almost every page of the Quran cries and describes in dozens of verses with reference to Sadiqeen, Mukhliseen, Awliya, Abrar, Muqarribeen, Mustafeen, Muhsineen etc. and is discernible in the life of Prophet from his retreat in Hira to night vigils/tahajjad prayer to itikaf to many kinds of non-obligatory prayers, fasts, choice of voluntary poverty and all virtues the perfection of which he embodied, and lives and deeds of Companions and following generation and key figures of early Sufi masters who were known for piety though criticisms Some of the most famous “adversaries” of Sufism including Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim and Ismail Shaheed were every inch practizing Sufis. Major Ahl-e hadith scholars held Ibn Arabi in high esteem. What was controversial was not the essence and objectives of Sufism but after conceding orthodoxy of Sufism certain perceived minor points of excess and deficit or supposed misinterpretations or certain deviations from shariah in doctrines, deeds and rituals of certain claimants of Sufism about which Sufi authorities have from the earliest times been quite alert and clarified the normative positions or scope for so-called deviations.
Fiction: The Sufis are foreign to the Quranic text and from the word to the doctrine to practices everything is non-Quranic and even anti-Quranic in origin or formulation.
Fact: Hundreds if not thousands of refutations of such claims have already been made. From Al-Qushari to Hujwiri to Shah Waliullah to Ashraf Ali Thanwi to Tahir al-Qadri and Shaykh Hamza in our day we find elaborate engagement with such critiques and convincing refutation of the same. Regarding Quranic roots and endorsement of Sufism in recent works one may cite What is Sufism? and The Book of Certainty by Martin Lings Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din, Introduction to the Sufi Doctrine William Stoddart, Sufism for Beginners by William Chittick, Sufi Essays by Nasr and Quranic Sufism by Mir Waliuddin.
Fiction: Sufism encourages parallel centre of authority (pir parasti) or dispenses with the authority of Revelation.
Fact: Given obvious requirement of teachers for initiation and transmitting/monitoring elaborate science of stations and states and methodological autonomy of sage/Shaykh of sulooki wilayah, it, however, is very clear that the central authority of Revelation is not thereby negated but complemented and even further corroborated on other grounds given Revelation of intellection for the masses and the Prophet ultimately invites one to God who is the object of Sufi practice as well. Given essential convergence between intellection and Revelation in epistemological content and standing invitation and objective of the Prophet consisting in making saints of believers and essentially complementary nature of faith and gnosis, islam/iman and ihsan, sulooki nubuwwah and sulooki wilayah, the requirement of a teacher shouldn’t be problematic at all. However, it is forgotten that it is God the Guide in any case who grounds guidance and to whom invitation is made by the Prophet and the Shaykh who sees himself as not replacing but representing the Prophet. Given sainthood is, in Sufi theory, a mandatory requirement for becoming a Prophet and the exemplary ideal in Sufism is the life of the Prophet for a Sufi, and key Sufi stations and states are all modelled on his life and teachings, the whole edifice of the discourse of conflict between prophets and mystics flounders.It is also forgotten that in mainstream Sufism there has always been a scope for informal transmission of guidance or default initiation as in Owaisi tradition. Shah Waliullah has also clarified the point of dispensability of formal teacher and need for joining a particular Shaykh/silsilah thus: “Never believe that the nisbat (connection with Allah) will not be got unless ascribing oneself to any Sufi order or reciting particular wazaif for practicing specific performance. My preferable opinion is that the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) and their successors have obtained the peace of their mind and soul by the way of salat (prayer), glorification of Allah (tasbih), continuous purity, reciting the Quran and thinking over it, hearing the admonitions and Hadiths relating to heart-softening (riqaq) matters etc.” Thus according to him, “the conditions, systems and instructions of Sufism are changeable according to the difference of epochs and times, therefore, no specific Sufi order is necessary for a mystic.” He was also explicit about non-cultic nature of joining a Shaykh/silsilah. He argued that serious intention to find God compels God to send a guide if needed in physical form though certain texts when read can constitute or channelize barakah that is normally associated with a formal guide/chain.
It is also to be noted that the Shaykh is one who invites a disciple not to himself but to the guide within and the Self in him/her. And he/she is not possessive about disciples. Sufism is not grave worship. It worships the Living God (Al-Hayy), the principle of all life. It acknowledges ultimately no external authority of pir but finds the authority of the Self within. Far from being a monolith or rigid system for Sufism the paths by which its followers seek God are in number as the souls of men. Asceticism, purification, love and gnosis that mark Sufi path are universally available means that anyone. These are merely the means to an end, and not the end itself and as such numerous permutations and combinations of means are allowed as per discretion of a teacher and requirements of a disciple. It is not duly appreciated that the path has been traversed alone by every person and thus any guide can never intrude beyond a point. It has been aptly put by a modern scholar: “Muhammad (SAW) was a Sufi when on his way to becoming a Prophet” and Sufis believe that Muhammad (SAW) was indeed a Sufi throughout his whole life.”
