William Dalrymple on Sufism
There is an article by William Dalrymple (of White Mughals fame) in today’s Guardian, entitled Gateway of the heart, about Sufism being under attack in India from so-called Tablighis. While there is no doubt that there is vocal opposition to Sufism from ill-informed and well-funded corners of the Muslim world, accusing Tablighis of anti-Sufism is somewhat ignorant. (Dalrymple is presenting a programme on this subject tomorrow on Radio 3 at 9.30pm.)
The Tablighis (and their parent Deobandi school) have been Sufi from the beginning. They concentrate on going out into the community in order to bring non-practising Muslims back to the mosque, and also run the “khurooj” scheme whereby groups are sent to stay in mosques in other parts of the country. They are not, in themselves, a tariqa, but the founders of the Tablighi Jama’at were – in fact, they were transmitters of four Sufi tariqas. The anti-Sufi “Amin” Dalrymple met in Delhi clearly does not know as much about the TJ as he may think.
What the Deobandis are against is Shaikh-centred cults, such as develop around the tombs of Sufi shaikhs after they die. There are a number of incorrect and sometimes shirki practices at some of these places, and sometimes outright atrocities, such as what goes on in Gujrat, Pakistan, where there is a fertility cult run by the family of a shaikh. Women go to the shrine to seek cures for infertility, but on the understanding that their first child will be “microcephalic”, that is, small-headed, and must be given up to the shrine in order to beg there. The reality, and the brain-damaged adults have the scars and marks to prove it, is that metal rings are put round the children’s heads in order to prevent them from growing.
This is merely the public face of popular Sufism, along with the “hadra” meetings found in some mosques. Sufism in reality is a purely Islamic science concerned with deepening one’s understanding of Allah Most High, and with eliminating bad personality traits and habits. While other religions may adopt certain techniques, such as the muraqaba by which people attempt to go a certain time without doing certain things or missing certain things, Sufism itself cannot be divorced from Islam, and it isn’t a means to bring Muslims together with non-Muslims. There can be no unity in religion between us and non-believers, even if we can find common ground on some moral issues.
Dalrymple also makes the mistake of confusing intolerance or puritanism (as we experience from the Wahhabism, for example) with orthodoxy. “Until the 20th century,” he tells us, “ultra-orthodox strains of Islam tended to be regarded as heretical by most Muslims; but since the 1970s, Saudi oil wealth has been used to spread these intolerant beliefs across the globe.” The fact is that there is nothing orthodox about the sect (Wahhabism) he is talking about – it is actually a deviant, heretical sect which is taken for orthodoxy because (a) it occupies the Two Holy Shrines and (b) it is intolerant and accuses everyone else of heresy. It is this sect which threatens Sufism, not Deobandism or the TJ. I intend, insha Allah, to write a letter to this newspaper about this issue.
