Once again, the topic of promoting “Sufism” as a means of countering the aggression of “salafi”-inspired jihadist movements, as in Pakistan presently, has come up, thanks to the establishment of a seven-member “Sufi Advisory Council” in Pakistan. The council, according to Ali Eteraz in Foreign Policy, is headed by a former minister in the Zia-ul-Haq government who has called for Sufi Muhammad, one of the leaders of the Swat “Islamist” uprising, to be charged with mutiny. Eteraz writes:
The usual response by supporters of the Sufi solution is that thanks to the extremists, Islam has already been politicized, and therefore propagandist measures promoting Sufism are the only way to fight back. But that’s precisely the problem: Propaganda is inherently discrediting. Besides, state-sponsored Sufism (which the SAC is) gets everything backward: In an environment where demagogues are using religion to conceal their true political and material ambitions, establishing another official, “preferred” theological ideology won’t roll back their influence.
The problem with using Sufism for this purpose is that it makes the usual mistake about what Sufism actually is. Sufism is not folk Islam or the circuses of “dhikr dancing” which are found in some Muslim regions, let alone the cults which develop around the graves of some deceased shaikhs. If you promote that kind of religion with a huge open-air concert, you are basically giving the extremists something to bomb. However, it will not make any dent in the attraction of the extremists to their target audience, many of whom regard these circuses as degenerate already - all the more so when they are being promoted by the government or by the west.
Sufism is a disclipline, an Islamic science, concerned with deepening one’s connection with and understanding of God, and although the shaikhs which teach it do (sometimes) write poetry which is often sung at the gatherings of their students, these gatherings are not the main purpose of Sufism. It has nothing to do with the kind of geopolitical designs which various western pundits have for it.
The differences between “Sufism” and “salafism” or “Wahhabism” also have nothing much to do with politics, but with certain matters of theology and the legitimacy or otherwise of certain types of intercession, and certain other matters which most non-Muslims would not care for very much. The stereotypes about aggressive “salafis” versus pacific Sufis do not stand up to much scrutiny, because the original Taliban were nominal Sufis as were many of those who fought the Russians in Chechnya (although not the foreign fighters). The Deobandis, generally perceived as a conservative, if not reactionary, school of Indian Muslim scholarship, are very deeply into it. Meanwhile, the mainstream of western “salafism” as found in many of the urban Muslim communities in the UK and USA eschew political activism and have publically condemned not only al-Qa’ida but all of the Islamist movements. They do not do so from the same standpoint as the commentators who promote “Sufism”, but they do so all the same.
In fact, the promotion of popular “Sufism” could have some negative social effects, given that “Sufism” is associated with feudalism in some parts of Pakistan and some of the grave-cults are associated with ugly phenomena such as mentally retarded people being used to beg around them, and at one site a fertility cult in which a “saint” supposedly bestows children on those who go to him, but the first is microcephalic and “belongs to the saint” (this account puts the phenomenon down to the prevalence of cousin marriage in Pakistan). Promote old-fashioned, traditional popular religion, and you could end up with a backward-looking, superstitious society, even if a peaceful one - something like mid-20th-century Ireland.
This is not to say we should welcome the senseless destruction by the Taliban of religious sites, including shrines; I have heard that one positive response to the wave of destruction and violence has been the cleaning-up of some of them and a drive against un-Islamic practices associated with them. However, popular Sufism is no answer to this kind of extremism; it is nothing more than entertainment, and holding a qawwali circus while Pakistan is under threat from the Taliban is no more than a latter-day equivalent of fiddling while the city burns!
Possibly Related Posts:
- Egyptian football stupidity
- Iraq police suckered by fake bomb detector
- TMI about Aleppo rape victim?
- Muslims’ needs and the cause of Islam
- Clive James on feminism and democracy
Salaam Alaikum,
Indeed. The authorities could work on building a more just society, free from corruption with a good standard of living for all, as happy people tend not be violent extremists (hence the failure of the Western based left wing terror groups), but that would probably be too much like hard work.
Sufism embraces one part of Islam, Salafism the other.
Islam is not a completely individualistic spiritual practice like Sufis think. Islam was sent to create a Muslim Ummah, not independent Muslim individuals.
And Islam is not a set of hard and dry rules like the extremists preach about it. Islam creates the perfect balance between spirituality and and action. Islam guides the heart first, then it asks it to perform action to serve humanity.
And in the end, asking a sheikh for baraka feels as repulsive as making sajda to Buddha to me.
Islam is between me and Allah. I don’t need a medium.
(I have much respect for our genius scholars who have devoted their lives to guiding us.)
“Islam is not a completely individualistic spiritual practice like Sufis think.”
How does tassawuf, if properly understood, promote “individualism”. Do you really think the great Sufis of the past, such as al-Ghazali, would approve of libertinism. If anything, orthodox sufism is all about instilling religious discipline needed for strong Ummah.
If discredited governments try to promote Sufism, they are likely to achieve the exact opposite! Sufis should be aware of how tasawwuf is being hijacked by these dubious politicians!
Most of what I have seen of Sufism has been like the actions of a government that trains an army everyday without ever intending to send them to war.
I like having a strong spiritual base, which every Muslim needs. But this is not where we stop. We need to start working to serve Allah in every possible way we can, instead of spending 6 hours a day in dhikr.
There is a story of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) during his khilafa, he went into the mosque during daytime and found some men there, he asked them what they were doing. They said they were doing dhikr. He chased them out with stick.
What Sufism has done is take Islam into a too spiritual direction, ignoring Islam’s action side.
InshaAllah this will be a great means for Naqshabandi Saifis and Dawate Islami Qaadiris to spread to all corners of the lands. This will not spread the crazy dancing Sufis that don’t even pray. Already Naqshabandi Saifis are growing really fast and on their side Dawate Islami Qaadiris.
Hopefully this will change all of Pakistan inshaAllah
“What Sufism has done is take Islam into a too spiritual direction, ignoring Islam’s action side.”
well this just shows what little exposure does. the UIC in Somalia was started by Sufis until it was taken over by wahabism. Sufis do a lot of work in their communities. Students of shaykhs spend millions in charity. another example is of Fathullah Gollen of Turkey.
salam alaykum,
strong anti-sufi words from Ikram but I’d like to know what he’s doing to ‘serve Allah’? You’ve got the solution to all our problems we’ve all been looking for then? masha Allah!
One thing both have in common is wasting Muslim people’s time.
If Salafis were any better, Saudi Arabia would not have been contracting their country’s security to hostile Americans who wish them ill and hope them to never ever produce a single bullet of their own.