May 30, 2012 07:56pm

Sufism’s Contribution to Islamic Civilisation

Add to Spiritual Diary

Those who oppose Sufism,
deceptively pose a
question – is Sufism same as Islam? Many people who neither know Islam nor Sufism, are taken in by such deceptive questions. There are several trends in Islam, like any other religion or ideology, and Islam too, has several trends, sects and positions. Sufism is one.
One can pose such questions for every trend. For example is Wahabism same as Islam? Then we need Islam, not Wahabism. Such deceptive poseurs betray ignorance, not knowledge as pointed out above. Each trend has some reasons to emerge. Those who do not take sociological, political and historical view and try to understand everything in terms of theology, make such mistakes.
Sufism emerged in certain concrete circumstances as did Wahabism which denounces Sufism. Both emerged in totally different socio-political circumstances.
According to the Sufis, Prophet Muhammad was the first Sufi and according to some others Hazrat Ali was the first one. Whatever the case, the Prophet and Hazrat Ali had qualities which the Sufis draw inspiration from. It is important to note the circumstances in which these trends emerged in Islam which are supposedly opposite to each other. It should be noted that though theologically they may be opposed to each other, it is not necessarily so if we speak from social and psychological angles. Any trend should be seen in all its complexity,
Sufism emerged in the 2nd century Hijra when political struggle was at its peak between two Muslim dynasties, the Umayyad and Abbasid. The two dynasties were at each others’ throat for political power and were using Islam and certain so-called religious doctrines to legitimize their fight. Much blood was spilled and hundreds of thousands of Muslims died in this power struggle.
Thus Islam, in this struggle for power, was losing its spirituality and was being reduced as a political tool to seize power. Some people who were averse to political power and for whom religion was more spiritual than means of power, were left aghast by such bloodshed between Muslims and separated themselves from such struggle and began to lead an austere life essential for being spiritual.
Two great names during this period and interestingly one man and one woman are Hasan and Rabia Basri. Both are highly regarded and both kept themselves aloof from political struggles and devoted themselves to a spiritual way of life. Though Rabia had devoted herself mainly to a spiritual way of life, Hasan was a socially active and had scholarly pursuits. But he had no political ambitions.
Hasan Basri refused to endorse the doctrine of pre-determination being promoted by the Umayyads and supported instead the doctrine of free will, quoting Imam Hasan’s (Prophet’s grandson) letter to Muawiyah. The Umayyad’s were promoting the doctrine of pre-determination so that their rule may be accepted by Muslims as Allah’s Will. Hasan Basri was highly regarded by Muslims and spent a very simple and spiritual life. He used to give lessons in Qur’an to large number of people and it was one of his disciples who founded the Mu’tazila sect.
Rabi’ah was regarded highly and led a very simple life. Many miracles were ascribed to them by their followers. One important doctrine which Sufis believe is tawakkul i.e. total reliance on Allah. Many of them do not make any efforts to earn their living as Allah will provide for them. They wait for someone to bring food for them and are prepared to go hungry if no one brings anything to eat. That will also be considered as Allah’s will.
Many believe that the word ‘Sufi’ is derived from the word ‘Suf’ which means wool in Arabic as these Sufis used to wear rough woolen ‘aba’ (loose overall) as they believed in leading a simple life. Though some scholars reject this origin of the word, nevertheless it is a popular belief. Sufis generally did not pay court to the ruling caliph or king. Some did not go even when summoned by the ruler.
There is a famous story about Nizamuddin Awliya who not only refused to go to the court of the king but told his disciple Khusro when told that the king himself would visit him “that if the king comes to my hospice from one door I would walk away from the other door.” These Sufis believed that the rulers are exploiters and do not hesitate to shed blood to obtain political power.
It is true that many Sufis accepted land grants from rulers, but used the revenue for running kitchen for the poor and for their disciples. Also, they played a useful role in fulfilling the spiritual needs of the people. Muslims, it is interesting to note, went to Ulama only for their legal problems; otherwise did not regard them highly. We do not find the grave of any ‘alim’ being visited by people whereas graves of Sufi saints are centres of great attraction.
Many ulamas were jealous of Sufi saints precisely for this reason that they were highly popular among people both in life as well as after death. The Ulama generally accepted positions of power in the court (with few honorable exceptions) and thus were seen as part of exploiting classes whereas Sufis being pious and spiritual kept their distance from rulers.
The Wahabi sect of Islam on the other hand, emerged in the 18th century in what is now called Saudi Arabia when an ‘alim’ called Muhammad Abdul Wahhab saw Muslims in Madina praying and wailing and invoking intervention at the grave of the Prophet (PBUH) and ascribing various miracles to him. He was puritan in his attitude and was aghast to see prophets and saints being invoked to ward off their trouble. He believed that one cannot invoke intervention of saints and one can pray only to Allah.
By the 18th century there was a great deal of decline in the Sufi practices. To begin with, Sufism was revolt against corrupt power practices and reckless bloodshed involved of the believers themselves and its whole emphasis was on simplicity, honesty and pious life. It was this piety and selflessness which made these Sufi saints popular among people and they became role models for masses of people. Thus Sufism fulfilled a great need at the time by re-appropriating religion of Islam for the purpose for which it was revealed, but since it was misused for power struggle among the believers themselves Sufism took its place. Thus at the time Sufism fulfilled a great social and historical need.
Wahabism too, to an extent, fulfilled a religious need but went to another extreme denouncing Sufism wholesale and rejecting it lock, stock and barrel. The Wahabis became extreme and deprived people of their spiritual need. Sufism, of course should not be about superstitious beliefs or faith in miracles but for that needed reforms in certain popular practices and beliefs among common people and not total rejection of Sufi Islam with its emphasis on real essence of religion and on spiritual aspects of Islam.
But Wahabis not only reject Sufi Islam, but maintain that believers in Sufi Islam are kafirs (non-believers). In India Wahabis are known as Deobandis since Darul Uloom Deoband is the centre of Wahabi teachings and believers in Sufi Islam are known as Barelvis as the Centre of Sufi Islam is in Bareli in U.P. Both denounce each other and refuse even to pray in the mosque belonging to the other or behind each other.
It is important to note that Sufi Islam thrived in civilisations which had long and rich cultural history and Wahabi Islam in Najd which was dry desert with no rich civilisation. Sufism’s emphasis is on inner being of a human person and all that connected with it and rich insights into inner being can develop only in a civilisation with rich history and reflections and philosophical insights into inner being of a human person.
Thus we see that Sufism flourished in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Central Asian regions, India and South East Asia as these regions had a very rich civilisational history and complex culture. All great schools of Sufi thought originated in the Iran, Iraq and Central Asian region. Sufis believed in inner (batini) meaning of the the Qur’anic verses and this inner meaning, they maintained, was the essence of the Qur’an.
This inner meaning of Qur’anic verses could not have emerged in desert conditions with no philosophical and rich spiritual traditions. It was possible only in rich civilisational areas which also became centres of Sufi Islam.
The Chishtiya Sufis of South Asia – Baba Farid, Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer, Nizamuddin Awliya of Delhi, Baba Gesu Daraz of Gulbarga Sharif etc. were all greatly respected by followers of all religions in India. Even today more Hindus visit their mausoleums than Muslims. They showed equal respect for all religions as for them spirituality was the common denominator of all religions. For them religion was not a tool but a spiritual goal.
These Sufi saints were never averse to local cultures and languages, but integrated themselves with local cultures, customs and traditions. Khwaja Hasan Nizami in his book Fatimi Da’wat-e-Islam has documented in detail how Sufis adopted local customs and traditions and made them part of Sufi practices. According to Khwaja Hasan Nizami, taking out of sandal in a palkhi (palanquin) to wash the saint’s grave was a Hindu temple ritual adopted by Sufis and replaced the idol with a saint’s grave.
One Sufi saint Hamiduddin Nagori of Nagore, Rajasthan even turned a strict vegetarian to respect sentiments of local Hindus and always kept a cow with him. He did not talk to his disciples if they came to him after eating meat. He had instructed his disciples not to come to him if they have eaten meat. Though all Sufis did not go to that extent, nevertheless they respected local cultural and religious traditions in their own ways.
These Sufis, unlike the ulama, did not display any prejudice, much less discrimination, against any religious or caste communities. They treated all with equal respect. The Ulama, on the other hand, not only kept their distance from Hindus considering them as kafirs (non-believers), but also launched campaigns to purge Islam of local customs and traditions which lead to kufr (unbelief)
The Sufis, on the other hand, adopted and assimilated them into their practices. This openness on the part of Sufis resulted in bringing various religious communities together. Emperor Akbar who invited scholars of different religions for a dialogue in his court was deeply influenced by two Sufi brothers Abul Fazl and Faizi who were persecuted by traditional ulama and sought refuge in Akbar’s court.
Another great example was set by Shah Jahan’s elder son Dara Shikoh who lost the Moghul Empire to Aurangzeb, by deeply studying the Hindu scriptures like Upanishads and even translated some of them into Persian. He also wrote an interesting book and called it quite significantly Majma’ul Bahrayn (i.e. Co-mingling of two Oceans) Hinduism and Islam. He draws the conclusion that teachings of both religions are similar, the only difference is in language – one being in Sanskrit (Hinduism) and the other in Arabic (Islam).
Thus Dara Shikoh who was a disciple of Miyan Meer, a great Sufi saint from Lahore who was invited to lay down the foundation stone of Har Mandir also known as Golden Temple. Another important contribution of Sufis is in the field of music which too, they adopted from Indian classical ragas.
The ulama always denounced music as haram (prohibited) and considered it sinful to learn or play it. However, the Sufi saints used to organise what was known as mahfil-e-sama’ i.e. session of music and listening to it they would go into ecstasy. This session was technically called qawwali which was devotional music based on Indian classical ragas and was invented by Nizamuddin Awliya’s celebrated disciple Khusro. Qawwali became very popular in South Asia for Sufi mahfil-e-sama’ and most of the Sufis used to
attend it.
Nizamuddin Awliya was accused of violating Islamic Shari’ah as he used to attend these mahfils regularly, by the Ulama who were jealous of his popularity. They complained to the king who summoned him to answer the charges, the only time he came to the king’s court. He defended his position on the basis of some hadith and went away.
Islam does not ban music per se as very ably shown by the great Islamic thinker of 11-12 century Ghazzali. Islam bans music only if it is for entertainment and as part of what Qur’an calls lahw-o-la’b (i.e. anything which is done for play and entertainment without any serious purpose). Music which is devotional in nature and enables a person to concentrate or focus on devotion of Allah cannot be included in the category of haram.
These Sufis also showed dignity and respect to lower caste Hindus who were excluded from mainstream Hinduism and it was for this reason that low caste Hindus were attracted towards Islam and many of them converted to that religion though there is no record that Sufis induced them to convert. These conversions were more because these excluded and marginalised Hindus found the doctrine of equality quite attractive. However, the mainstream Islamic society practiced discrimination against them and they did not find high place.
Ziyauddin Barani, a noted historian and alim of the Sultanat period, does not consider them even worthy of being educated. Only so much be taught to them as was necessary for praying and reciting Qur’an and other Islamic rituals. He even equates them with dogs and pigs. But the Sufis had quite a respectful and dignified attitude towards them as they were as much manifestation of One Being as anyone else.
This is a great contribution of wahdat al-wujud school of Sufism that they consider all manifestation of one Being and hence equal and worthy of respect. This creates real inclusive society and all become acceptable. For Sufis who shun power no one is really other and other is to be accepted with ones otherness. For those who associate power with religion, a believer is more important than a non-believer or a non-believer is to be even rejected or inferiorised. Thus it is because of Sufi approach to Islam that society remained peaceful and evolved composite culture which we have inherited and which is our precious heritage even now and even today helps us maintain peace and stability in our society.
So approached, religion becomes integrative and not a divisive force.
This approach is most humane and equivalent of modern constitutional approach.


Comments Posted Via Facebook Comments Via Facebook
14 Comments Posted Via Speaking Tree Comments Via ST
Load More