Sufism: Examining Major Misconceptions and Charges
By Dr Muhammad Maroof Shah, New Age Islam
24 May 2025
(From Files)
-----
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 of exemplary ethic 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 pseudo Sufis 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 the 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 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 Tasawwuf 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 Ghaus 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 defence 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 defence 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/Tahajjud 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 practising 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 is allowed as per discretion of a teacher and requirements of a disciple. It is not duly appreciated that the path has be 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.”
Fiction: Sufism Denies The Rights Of The Body.
Fact: One can refute this by just noting that for Islam the body is spirit in space and time, as Iqbal put it and for a long time Islam’s supposed body centrism was a charge against it. Importance of food in Islamic culture, and to take the specific example of Kashmir, we ca illustrate it to show the care of body in Islamic Sufi culture. One can easily see that from wide spread presence of prayer food culture (Tahri) and, recalling Upanisadic Annam Brahman, sacral view of food as constituting, so to speak, “Muhammadan substance” (Annei Muhammad) and varied associations of use of food for spiritual nourishment and celebrating of major events in life from birth to death and special days besides death anniversaries of elders/saints by sumptuous meals that usually make use of prized foods of animal origin we find special mysticism of food in Kashmir. We also find in large scale acceptance of Sufi practices that lead to “enraptured state of consciousness of the body” and rather unusual development of the connection between the feminine and the sacred that underemphasizes gender segregation and veiling of mysteries and women (Kashmiri women, traditionally, expose part of hair and face and have been conspicuously occupying public spaces from shrines to streets to marriages and many other social functions) and radical expressions of Sufi Unitarianism in certain influential mystic-romantic poets like Hafez echoing Rusul Mir and “transgressive” Zargar and certain “anti-ascetic” “antinomian” tendencies in many avowed Sufi circles in Kashmir a unique flowering of body cognizant as against body denying culture. The body is considered a providentially gifted temple of the divine and thus treasured part of integral personality that can’t be desecrated even after death and that survives dissolution in earth if not dishonoured/corrupted by sin as is believed to be the case in case of prophets, saints and martyrs.
Fiction: Sufism Has Be Dismissed/ Negatively Judged By The Quran And The Sunnah
Fact: We need to clearly understand judging faculty and how it is to this faculty that God/the scripture presents or addresses its own claims or invitations. Given revelation is an intellection basically, what we call God’s judgment or scriptural position is the judgment of intellect in the name of which sage also judges. The scripture in itself is no new argument or position but a space or plea for letting intellect function without any distorting factors. It is one’s “own” best judgment. It is due to this that one is the best judge against oneself in the otherworld. If this sound s rather abstruse, let us try to argue the same point from another vantage point.
Given primacy of love for every understanding of God/religion if one succeeds in showing integral link between love and Sufism, every critique of the essence of Sufism can be shown to be missing the essential point or only partly applicable. Given the fact that it is in the name of love that every critique is ultimately legitimated and love itself is beyond reproach and the equation of Sufism with love has been stated forcefully in Ibn Arabi and Rumi and their numerous followers including great Sufi poets down to Iqbal, it can be asserted that no exoteric theological critique of Sufism can be entertained if it fails, in turn, to attend to the reality of primacy of love. Only those interpreting of scripture are ultimately authentic that lead to furthering love as noted by one great exponent of traditional science of interpretation. This implies Sufism if true to its claim of following the caravan of love is the gold standard in light of which every other religious/philosophical school is to be judged.
Given the prerequisite of prophethood is sainthood and what is granted to the prophet from the unseen is due to the former, it is clear that the Sufi and the prophet can’t but agree and we can’t judge epistemic veracity of saint against saint in the Prophet or vice versa. This explains Sufi insistence that saints and prophets drink from the same fount. How is it that the diverse cultures – who apparently didn’t know prophets agree in basic ethical and spiritual insights and these they share with those cultures where prophets were well known. The Greek and Hebrew cultures, the Buddhist and Confucian Chinese cultures, Islamic and Far eastern cultures are united in affirmation of/access to the Sacred and the ethical and intellectual concomitants for the same. How to comprehend the Prophet’s saying often reiterated by Sufis that the Shaykh is like a prophet for his community. Thus the sage and the prophet have not been in conflict in the history of cultures. Instead sages have been the best interpreters and expositors of respective traditions.
In light of the above we can state that we could well title the books against questioning Sufism on supposedly religious or theological grounds, as religion/Islam in light of Sufism.
Fiction: Sufis have carefree attitude towards religion and are more prone to indulging in desires. They take threats and promises of God less seriously.
Fact: Far from it, the Sufis are more earnest, more serious, more ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of object of religion, God. Intense yearning for God drives them almost mad. Taking love affair with God very seriously, they can’t afford for the end of the world or death to encounter their beloved. They make it a point to live God, breathe God and not just talk about God. They take the prophets so seriously that they do everything to imitate them. They want to witness first hand, on their own authority, what others are content to believe on other’s authority. They take the notion of heaven so seriously that they claim they have keys of it here and now and reside therein. They can’t afford compromise of any kind and seek to pursue perfection in every sphere. They live and die for beauty. They aren’t content to be mere slaves but seek audience of the King as friends (Awliya). They, following Abraham, demand certitude.
A few points about Sufism need to be briefly elaborated and clarified to show why there is little justification for popular charges against it or framing of it by its critics.
No need of Sufi Orders
One of the greatest authorities on Sufism and influential scholars, Shah Waliullah) stated in Al- Qaul al-Jamilthat
…never believe that the Nisbah (connection with Allah) will not be gotten unless ascribing oneself to any Sufi order or reciting particular wazaif or practicing specific performance. My preferable opinion is that the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) and their successors have obtained the peace (sakma) 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- softing (riqaq) matters etc.'' (trans. Moslehiddin, 2003:98).
And in Al-Intibah that “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” (trans. Moslehuddin, 2003:98).
Problematic Questioning of Orthodoxy of Ibn Arabi
The problem of dismissing orthodoxy of Sufism, especially its greatest expounder Ibn Arabi, that has emerged more significantly quite recently needs engagement with Ibn Arabi and all the great names who admired/popularized/appropriated him – such figures as Jalaludeen Suyuti, Data Ganj Baksh, Sultan Bahu, Baab Ghulam Farid, Syed Ali Hamdani, Mulla Sadra, Shah Waliullah, Imam Khomeni, Allama Tabatabai. As Anamerie Schimmel has noted, such Sufi orders as those of Moinuddin Chisti, Nizamuddin Awliya have been closely related to ideas of Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi is a descendent of Abdul Qadir Gilani, the founder of Qadariya. Many great names in Ahle Hadith movement have been admirers of Ibn Arabi. About Ibn Arabi, Siddiq Hassan wrote: “Summarizing, it’s not possible to contain [mention] your status and miracles in [just] a few volumes. He was Allah’s apparent proof on Earth and the Mazhar [place where something becomes apparent] of His illuminating signs”
(Siddik Hasan Bhopali in his Al Taj ul Mukallal, page 176) Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlvi is quoted by his student (Fazl Hussain Muzaffarpuri) as saying 'He is the last of the Muhammadan sainthood'(Khatim al Wilaayat-e-Muhammadi)." Wahiduz Zaman, another noted Ahle Hadith scholar says: Among the Sufis who believed in Wahdat al-Wujud were Shaykh Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi. Shaykh Ibn Arabi, may Allah have mercy on him, were an Ahlul Hadith [meaning : a scholar who has reached the rank of a Mujtahid and is capable of doing ijtihad] in both Usools and Furoo’ee matters. Anyone who speaks bad regarding them is in danger [i.e., his hereafter is in danger.] (Hadiyat al-Mahdi) Maulana Fadhl Hussain Mudhafarpur, noted Ahle Hadith scholar and student of Mian Nazir Hussain Dehlavi, testifies
"When he (i.e. Miyan Nadheer Husain) would teach Kitab al-Raqa'iq and explain the detailed elements of Tasawwuf [Sufism] and its realities, he would say: 'Dear fellows, what we see here is revival of religious knowledge!'. For this reason, amongst the scholars he would laud al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi al-Din Ibn 'Arabi greatly, and he would say: 'He is the last of the Muhammadan sainthood' (Khatim al Wilaayat-e-Muhammadi)." [AlHayah Ba’ad al Mamaat,p.123]
Questioning of Orthodoxy of Sufism
As for “Sufism,” as I said, it has been understood in many ways, often mutually contradictory. I take it to mean the tendency among Muslims to seek a personal relationship with God, and I see it as normative for the Islamic tradition. In other words, every Muslim should seek for this personal relationship, so every Muslim should have some “Sufi” dimension to his or her religious life. I have no particular attachment to the word “Sufism,” and I use it simply because it is the best of the alternatives. Words like “mysticism” and “esotericism” have too many negative connotations.
Those who are to quick to dismiss Sufism in what they claim as canonical basis need to consider what Martin Lings has written about metphysics, first science, and Sufism that it
... has the right to be inexorable because it is based on certainties and not on opinions. It has the obligation to be inexorable because mysticism is the sole repository of Truth, in the fullest sense, being above all concerned with the Absolute, the Infinite and the Eternal; and ‘If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?’ Without mysticism, Reality would have no voice in the world. There would be no record of the true hierarchy, and no witness that it is continually being violated (Oldmeadov, 2007).
Harry Oldmeadov in “The Comparative Study of Eastern and Western Metaphysics: A Perennialist Perspective” elaborates this point:
Metaphysics, therefore, is immutable and inexorable, and the ‘infallible standard by which not only religions, but still more “philosophies” and “sciences” must be “corrected”... and interpreted.’
Metaphysics can be ignored or forgotten but not refuted ‘precisely because it is immutable and not related to change qua change.’
Metaphysical principles are true and valid once and for all and not for this particular age or mentality, and could not, in any sense, ‘evolve.’ They can be validated directly in the plenary and unitive experience of the mystic.
William Chitick in his Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul explains the point of religion to bypass key misgiving of certain critics about orthodoxy of Sufism:
The final goal of religion, and, indeed, of all human endeavor, is to awaken the intellect. Awareness of whatever sort is nothing but a glimmer of intellect, and there are infinite degrees of awakening. People are diverse in their aptitudes for finding the divine light within themselves. The teachings of prophets, sages, and avataras are addressed to all people and are meant to guide everyone to the light; following these teachings properly and sincerely will ensure that people find the light in a congenial manner after death. The intellectual tradition isdesigned to guide those who have the capacity to develop their self-awareness through realization here and now, without waiting for the promises of the afterworld (Chittick, 2007: 32-33).
The point that the blind are no judge of colours – exotericist authorities and rationalist philosophers can’t dismiss the discoveries of Urafa – is eloquently put forth by Chittick, in the same work, through imagining Hayy Ibn Yaqzan (“Alive, son of Awake.” The name refers to the soul that has been reborn by actualizing the intellect) reflect:
Ibn Yaqzan would think that the modern learned classes imagine that they know all sorts of things, but in fact they know nothing. Verified and realized knowledge carries with it the self evidence of certainty, but people have no certainty about anything.
Since all their information and learning is of the transmitted variety, they do not know for themselves and in themselves (Chittick, 2007: 35).
The relevant question regarding orthodoxy of Sufism may be phrased thus: 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. Let us try to answer 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. For Sufism God is not a thing to be debated or argued but something to be realized or tasted or enjoyed. Against those who quote this or that verse or hadith to discredit Sufism on supposed incompatibility between them need to note that the tables can be turned against them as Sufism is self-authenticating, so no need to cross check its claims by scripture which is either silent or makes veiled references to esoteric truths.
Elitism of Sufism
Indeed Sufism is not for all though one can say that we are al seekers and our journey is towards God. Sufism as it is traditionally known or framedis not everybody’s cup of tea. It is not needed by everyone as faith of a believer is enough for salvation. Its aim is not to save but to deliver, to see God. If one can be content on something less than direct vision, no obligation to turn to Sufism.
Little Point in Wujudi Shuhudi Debate
Chittick has made illuminating remarks on the much hyped controversy about Wujudi and Shuhudi paradigms.
In the Sufi discussions of the word wujūd, the term shuhūd or “witnessing” frequently plays a significant role. It is often not clear that shuhūd means anything other than wujūd. For example, in listing various definitions of wujūd offered by Sufi teachers, Qushayrī provides an early example of the many poems that use the two words as rhymes: “My wujūd is that I absent myself from wujūd with what appears to me through shuhūd.” In the context of Qushayrī’s several definitions of the word, it is obvious that wujūd here means “finding”: it designates the poet’s consciousness of himself and others. As for shuhūd, it means seeing God face to face. The poet means to say that true awareness is to be unawareof oneself and aware only of God.
Problems with Legalism and the Way Out
There are those who have rigid fatwas to throw on every issue, who don’t allow choosing easier juristic opinions from other schools, who make virtue of difficulties, who think there is no scope for second opinion on host of issues including music, painting, dress code, 20 or 8 Rakat Taraweeh, triple talaq, beard, shaping brows, Nikah-I Miysar etc. For them I quote only a passage from Ibn Arabi’sMeccan Revelations:
Out of divergence in legal questions God has made both a Mercy for his servants…But the Fuqaha of our times have restricted and forbidden for those who follow them, what the Sacred Law had widened for them. They say to one who belongs to their school, if he is a Hanafic, for example: don’t go looking inShafi for a rukshat (a lightening)”….. That is one of the gravest calamities…in the matter of religion. Now God has said that “he has imposed nothing difficult on you in matters of religion” the law has affirmed the validity of the status of him who makes a personal effort to interpret for himself or for those who follow him. But the fuqaha have forbidden this effort, maintaining that it leads to making light of religion. Such is their role in fulfilment of ignorance
No negation of the personality and the world
The following remarks by Faruuqi, building primarily upon Zargar invoking classical Sufi authorities, respond to Iqbal’s charges that fana means negation of selfhood that Sufi metaphysicians were pantheistic and misconstrued the notion of the Infinite as infinite extension.
Since Iqbāl interprets (or misinterprets) the concept of fanāʾ as a ‘loss of individuality’ or ‘negation of selfhood,’ it would be appropriate to decode this term in Sufi authors themselves and see how they explain it. As Zargar cogently elucidates, annihilation of the self (fanāʾ al-nafs), annihilation in God (fanāʾ fi-l-llāh) or simply, annihilation is a specific, technical term in Sufism, which does not mean a general sense of losing one’s attributes of selfhood that Zargar aptly calls ‘self-loss.’ According to Zargar, self-loss might be applied to all the ways in which one loses one’s own traits and sense of self in approaching God through His attributes, annihilation signals a completion of this process. This means it can be not only a stage in the Sufi path, but also a matter of perception or a realization. Complementary to annihilation, as Zargar explain, is the phenomenon of ‘subsistence’ (baqāʾ) through God. It is crucial to note that annihilation is always accompanied by some form of subsistence. Through subsistence, the annihilated self engages with creation, living among others, and interacting with them. He or she does so through acquired divine attributes that have replaced or transformed his/her blameworthy attributes. It is thus problematic to think annihilation implies a ‘negation of selfhood.’ (Faruque, 2018: 182).
To wit, the goal of every spiritual traveller (sālik) is to transcend her lower self (Nafs) through the mystical experience of annihilation (fanāʾ) so that when in the cases of the few such a culminating moment does occur, the Divine Self is able to reflect Its image in the polished mirror of the self, now empty of its individual content. It is precisely at that moment that the individual self becomes the ‘eye’ with which the Divine sees His creation, i.e., when the individual self is transcended by the Divine Self. That is the reason Thānavī devotes pages to explicate the modalities of spiritual life leading to the culminating experience of ‘fanāʾ.’ According to Sufis, the spiritual goal of fanāʾ is to cast off all such accidentalities, paving thereby the way for the realization of the cosmic and meta-cosmic dimensions of the individual self associated with the perfect human. So, it is plain that the perfect human is not to be confused with the ‘individuality’ of any particular human; rather it refers to the trans-historic and trans-generic reality lying at the centre of the human state that can be actualized in different degrees by following a spiritual path (Faruque, 2018: 209).
Now there is little evidence to suggest that Sufi metaphysicians (whom Iqbāl calls pantheists) considered God’s infinitude extensively in spatial form. For instance, Mullā Ṣadrā’s expression ʿidda, mudda wa shidda’ (numericality, duration, intensity), in relation to mā lā yatanāhī bimā lā yatanāhī (Infinite by virtue of Its own infinity), i.e. God is well known. As for the loss of individuality, it is clear from the writings of Shabistarī and others discussed in this study that for them, there is no ‘individuality’ to begin with because as Lāhījī explained “there is no possibility of duality in the divine unity” (Dūʾī Rā Aṣlan Dar Maqam-I Tawḥīd Rāh Nīst). That is, all conceptions of ‘individuality’ separate from the Divine are ultimately illusory, arising due to God’s self-determination (Faruque, 218:265).
Who Disputes Esoteric Meanings of the Quran?
One may have the final words from Ghazzali who was supremely qualified as a religious scholar and a Sufi to comment upon such a controversy that has recently been much hyped.
The man who claims that the Koran has no meaning except that which the exoteric exegesis has transmitted is acknowledging his own limitation. He is right in his acknowledgment, but is wrong in his judgment that puts all people on the level to which he is limited and bound. Indeed, reports and traditions (of the Prophet and others) indicate that for men of understanding there is great latitude in the meaning of the Koran. Thus 'Ali said "The Messenger of God did not confide to me anything which he concealed from people, except that God bestows understanding of the Koran upon a man." If there were no meaning other than that which has been transmitted, what then is meant by that understanding of the Koran? The Prophet said, "surely the Koran has an outward aspect (zahir), an inward aspect (batin), an ending and a beginning." This tradition is also related as being from Ibn Mas'ud on his own authority, and he was one of the scholars of exegesis. What then is the meaning of the outward aspect, the inward aspect, end and beginning?"
Ali said, "If I wished I could load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Surah (al-Fatiha) of the Koran." What is the meaning of this, when the exoteric interpretation [of this Surah] is extremely short? Abu al-Darada said "A man does not truly understand until he attributes different perspectives to the Koran."
Concluding Words
Sufism has been an aspiration to keep God at the Centre or attune us to the Real. The central method or this has been sharpening awareness of what is or cleansing the doors of perception or guarding against what clouds intelligence. Key points of Sufism – attention to breath implying centering consciousness on the present, service of the Other, doing everything as it should be ideally done, sincerity of purpose, guarding against nafs and all its disguises, one pointed focus on God alone or exclusive attachment to the Real, cultivating love/gnosis, science of stations/virtues, freedom, adab, giving everything its due, seeing everything in terms of beauty, as journey within from the self/ego to the non-self/Self, psyche to Spirit – are all universally treasured aspirations of mankind. As such Sufism has its takers everywhere and one can’t spit at the sun. If Sufism is deviation from the Revealed Norm, indulgence in ecstasies, worship of desires or airy abstractions or transgressions of various kinds, it has never been the self understanding or standard understanding of major Sufi authorities.
A cursory glance at the history of Islamic intellectual, spiritual and literary figures shows that association with Sufism is a condition for greatness and influence or acceptability amongst both masses and intellectual elite in the Muslim world. Rejecting Sufism as heretic or qietistic or contaminated by unislamic/antiIslamic elements or contravening Shariah would need one to invent new history of Islam or new grammar of spirituality, raze much of architecture to ground that is informed by Sufi principles or motifs, ban shrines, Langars, prayer food culture, calendar of activities of masses that have Sufi connection, ban Sufi music and much of art, ban such figures as Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jeelani, Ghazzali, Shah Walullah and Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi, not to speak of Ibn Arabi from public consciousness and in Kashmir edit out both Shaykh al-Alam and Syed Ali Hamdani out of syllabus and consign Sufi poets to dustbin. Amongst poets, almost all great names in poetry and philosophy and most of sciences and even many influential political thinkers including revivalists. Even major icons of Salafi movement would have to face a hard trial for their support of Sufism or Ibn Arabi. The great Imams of Fiqh and Hadees, dozens of Quranic tafseers infected by certain elements of Sufi exegesis from Ruhul Maani to Tafseeri Kabeer to Study Quran besides great works in seerah literature will have to be proscribed. Besides na’t in almost all languages written in Sufi colour, great epics, drams, myths and folk tales have Sufi connotations. Opposing Sufism would entail denying esotericism in principle and thus privileging or even absolutizing letter/literalism. The very idea of science of tawil becomes problematic as do many traditional sciences that have a metaphysical foundation. In fact, as Shuja al-Haq has noted, “Sufi tradition is seen as a representation of the tradition, of a way of seeing and living, that formed the core or nucleus of premodern corpus of knowledge.”
References:
Chittick, William, 2007, Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul, Oneworld, Oxford.
Faruque, Muhammad Umar, 2018, The Labyrinth of Subjectivity: Constructions of the Self from Mullā Ṣadrā to Muḥammad Iqbāl. Phd Thesis.Gowhar, G.N., 2009, Kashmir Mystic Thought, Gulshan Publishers, Srinagar
Moslehuddin, Muhammad, 2003, Shah Waliullah’s Contribution to Hadith Literature: A Critical Study PhD thesis.
Oldmeadow, Harry (2007). “The comparative study of eastern and western metaphysics: A perennialist perspective.” Sophia 46 (1):49-64
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/sufism-misconceptions-charges/d/135653
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism