|
|
|
July 14, 2002
SYNDICATED: For the love of God
Much has been written on Islamic mysticism (sufism or tasawwuf) but most of it is either introductory, historical or explanatory. Moreover, apart from S.A.A. Rizvi’s A history of sufism in India other standard scholarly works are by Western scholars out of which Annemarie Schimmel’s Mystical dimensions of Islam (1983) and A.J. Arberry’s Sufism: an account of the mystics of Islam (1977) are probably most familiar to Pakistani readers.
The book under review is, in my view, the first really standard scholarly book based on the original sources themselves about sufism. Moreover, it is not just a chronological history or an explanation of sufi doctrines; it is a book of social history — it purports to tell us about the impact of the theory and practice of sufism on Indian society, especially that of Muslims, from the fourteenth century onwards.
The author investigates the sufis’ views about taking unsolicited charity or futuh; begging or zanbil; earning one’s living by work or kasb; attitudes towards marriage and family; political ideas and practices; the ethical dimensions of sufism; the taking of disciples or murids; attitudes towards learning and in the light of all these factors, the cumulative effect of sufism on South Asian Muslim society.
The sufi ideal is a very exalted, ethical ideal concentrating upon self-purification and absorption in the love of God. One of the components of this ideal is complete trust in God or tawakkul. Although Prophet Muhammad [Peace be Upon Him] explicitly instructed that normal precautions should be taken, the sufis started believing that real trust precludes any mundane precautions. Thus they developed a negative attitude towards following a profession or doing any work (kasb).
Having barred themselves from paid labour they had to wait for charity (futuh) or beg (zanbil). The earlier sufi masters did, however, mention the Apostolic injunctions to earn ones’ living and not to beg but the fourteenth century Chishti, Suhrawardy and other sufi masters in India did not or, if they did, they glossed over them.
Similarly, although marriage had been encouraged by the Prophet of Islam [PBUH], the sufis felt that it came in the way of their complete devotion to God. So, some of them abandoned their wives and children while others remained indifferent to them. Some, however, did marry and took care of their children whatever their theoretical position might be.
Another theory which eventually harmed Muslim societies was the anti-intellectualism of the sufis. Though most of the sufi masters were both learned and accomplished they emphasized virtue, love of God, mystical gnosis and not intellectual endeavour. This created a certain slant against learning in Muslim societies influenced by mysticism.
Another factor which worked against intellectual breakthroughs was the system of discipleship i.e. the idea that one could find spiritual perfection only if one was trained by a mentor or pir. The disciple, or the murid, had to be so obedient, so subservient, to the pir that he dared not have any will or thoughts of his own. This system of belief, in a society which was already traditional and authoritarian and ruled by despots, could not help but reinforce the idea of being quiescent and passive in the face of power.
This being so, it seems like an irony that the very same sufis were themselves so fiercely independent that many of them, especially the masters of Chishti sufism, refused to meet nobles and kings. In most cases the rulers granted them their independence provided they were politically neutral.
The author’s methodology is especially convincing. He looks at the sufi’s sayings (malfuzat); their letters and writings (maktubat); biographical accounts of them (tadhkiras) and so on. He also looks at historical works and literary sources containing references to the sufis.
In the first chapter he gives a very insightful discussion of anecdotes the essence of which is that not all of them are true. Many of them were invented so as to support a certain theory. Even Apostolic traditions have been invented, or selectively used, for this purpose. The author concentrates on the fourteenth century when the Suhrawardy sufi centre was Multan. Shaikh Bahauddin Zakariya who had founded it had left it wealthy because he allowed meeting rulers and asking for their help.
At Ajodhan there was the Chishti saint, Baba Farid, who was sometimes on the verge of starvation and who was indifferent to his starving family. In Delhi there was the Jama’at Khana of the Chishti saint Shaikh Nizam ud-din Awliya where, while the Shaikh himself was constantly fasting, the others lived well because of huge futuh income.
Among other things, he points out that the sufi masters ran free kitchens (langars) which fed anybody who was hungry. Thus the sufis provided social security of sorts in a very poor and cruel society, where the nobles had all the wealth and the common man next to none. The author’s approach is learned, balanced and rational, so that he discounts the stories about incredible miracles which abound in sufi literature and observes that miracles about sufi wrath (jalal) do not do credit to the sufis as they do not conform to the high ethical ideals espoused by sufism. He also observes that the credulous attitude produced by the miracle stories and the obedience to the pir must have contributed towards making South Asian Muslims so disinclined to do original research as this implies breaking out into new paths.
The overall conclusion of the author is as follows: in the final analysis, sufism was to stand or fall by its ethical standards. Several early masters as well as fourteenth-century saints had identified sufism with ethics. Ethics was the essence of the entire system, and so far as ethical standards were faulted, sufism was bound to lose its relevance, its vitality, and its raison d’etre. The ethical ideal got corrupted by receiving charity, not earning a living, exercising power over people through discipleship, miracles and more. All systems get corrupted, observes the author, but the corruption of sufism is all the more regrettable because of the influence it holds on the minds of the people in South Asia.
Indeed, it was after the death of the great sufi masters that the system became truly corrupt, as evidence suggests. Close relatives of the Sufis misused their priviliges, and would purloin huge quantities of goods and money. Their shrines later became a means of fixed income — a custom that continues to-date. In their names many charlatans, like the villain in Tehmina Durrani’s novel Blasphemy, tyrannize the credulous village folk and extort huge sums of money from their murids. All this goes on to this day and, ironically enough, it is the very thing which the sufi masters condemned in their own days.
The book is very carefully researched. Dr Islam’s use of sources commands respect. Indeed, I have seen few works except S.H.M. Jafri’s excellent book The origins and early development of Shia Islam, which uses original sources so well. The other great merit is that, like Jafri, the author makes the book readable putting all the less relevant information in the notes. This is certainly the best research work published in Pakistan on this subject and I think it will remain the best for a long time. I recommend the book to all scholars of Islam, specialists of South Asia and the general reader.
Sufism in South Asia: impact on fourteenth century Muslim society
By Riazul Islam
Oxford University Press, 5 Bangalore Town, Sharae Faisal, Karachi-75350. Tel: 021-4529025
Email: ouppak@theoffice.net
ISBN 0-19-579005-7
489pp. Rs650
|
|
|
|
