In the introduction to his The Mystics of Islam, Reynold A. Nicholson, while referring to Sufism (or Islamic mysticism), says that it is “a subject so vast and many-sided that several large volumes would be required to do it anything like justice. Here I can only sketch in broad outline certain principles, methods and characteristic features of the inner life as it has been lived by Moslems of every class and condition from the eighth century of our era to the present day.”

How, therefore, can I rush where a scholar like Nicholson fears to tread? But it would be appropriate, perhaps, to quote from the same book a few more sentences so that readers may at least get a feel for what Sufism or mysticism is. In Nicholson’s words: “The whole of Sufism rests on the belief that when the individual self is lost, the Universal Self is found, or, in the religious language, that ecstasy affords the only means by which the soul can directly communicate and become united with God. Asceticism, purification, love, gnosis, saint-ship – all the leading ideas of Sufism – are developed from this cardinal principle.”

But let me quote from Aziz Ahmed’s book Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford), too, where he criticises orientalists like Browne for their misleading theories of the ‘Aryan’ origin of mysticism and Goldziher, and others, for over-emphasizing “on the basis of analogy and conjecture and fragmentary evidence, the Hindu-Buddhist heritage of Sufism.”

Aziz Ahmed, while appreciating Nicholson’s point of view that Sufism cannot be traced back to a single definite root and it was definitely not a product of Indian or Persian philosophy, quotes Arberry who says mysticism is “a constant and unvarying phenomenon of the universal yearning of the human spirit for personal communion with God.”

But one cannot help feel that even Nicholson has a tendency of drawing parallels between Christian anchorites and Muslim Sufis, between Christian Gnosticism and Islamic Sufism. He tries to trace the influence Neo-Platonism and Buddhism exerted in India and Persia. The existence of Greek, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian mysticism cannot be denied but the words ‘Sufism’ and ‘mysticism’ are not synonymous.

The word ‘Sufi,’ as Nicholson himself admits, has a religious connotation and is used in the context of Islamic doctrines. Sufism, as asserted by many scholars, basically has its roots and origin in Islam and Sufism’s metaphysical terminology has largely been derived from the Quran. Its many practices, too, have been derived from Islamic sources and not from Christian or Indo-Buddhist ones, as suggested by some.

Comparing Sufism with Hindu mysticism, or asceticism or quietism of any other religion for that matter, is therefore unjustified. Though in the latter part of the first millennium some theosophical rather than theological concepts infiltrated into Islamic Sufism through some Sufis who stressed the love of God and cognition of the Divine realities as an end in themselves, the origin of Islamic mysticism was Quranic in essence and thought.

Now raises the question of un-Islamic elements and practices of what is seemingly Sufism or Islamic mysticism. Many have expressed their views on the topic, which at times becomes too hot to handle as it involves answering some tough questions and some soul-searching.

Professor Yousuf Saleem Chishtie (1895-1984) was a person capable of handling the issue with emotional detachment as he was not only a learned person but also an authority on philosophy, Islamic history, Iqbal, mysticism and comparative study of religions. Tareekh-i-Tasawwuf, or the history of mysticism, is his book that thrashed the subject of mysticism and its origin with erudition and authentic references. When published in 1976 by the government’s Auqaf department, the book excluded a chapter ‘The intermingling of un-Islamic ideologies in Islamic mysticism,’ as it was bound to raise many heckles.

The proscribed chapter was separately published under the title Islami Tasawwuf Main Ghair Islami Nazariyat Ki Amezish but had since been out of print. When reprinted some years ago, it became immensely popular and subsequent printings had to be carried out. The present printing – the seventh – confirms its popularity as Urdu books rarely see the second printing or revised editions.

As mentioned by Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi in his preface to the book, the un-Islamic elements in Sufism bother a lot of educated people but it is generally construed in a different way and the blame is put on Sufism itself. The banned chapter published in book form makes one realise that if the book is any standard to go by, it is some other elements that are to be blamed.

The book is written with a specific point of view and presents one side of the argument with which many may or may not agree with. Though the author in his own opinion has tried to be objective and has based his arguments on historical facts, it, however, may be difficult for some to agree with the author. Proceed with caution.