research paper Sufism

Sufism in History and its Relationship with Power

Author(s): TANVIR ANJUM

Source: Islamic Studies , Summer 2006, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 221-268

Published by: Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20839016

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Islamic Studies

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Islamic Studies 45:2 (2006) pp. 221-268

Sufism in History and its Relationship with Power

TANVm ANJUM

Mysticism is a universal phenomenon which represents a streak or a current that runs through many great religious traditions of the world, including

Hinduism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In Islam, this tradition is referred to as Sufism or tosawwuf. Originating from certain Qur'?nic injunctions and the sayings and deeds of the Prophet (peace be on him), Sufism as a distinct movement acquired its specific contours at a relatively later stage. The popularity of the Sufi movement, which went hand in hand with the crystallization of a set of Sufi doctrines and practices, was far from being an abrupt development. On the contrary, the growth of Sufism into a fully-developed movement with institutionalized practices was the result of a protracted process stretching over

centuries during which it proliferated over the length and breadth of the Muslim lands.1 But from its very inception, Sufism had a problematic relationship with the Muslim establishment ? with the custodians of both political and religious authorities. The ruling elite, which had a firm grip over political power, were generally suspicious of its disruptive and revolutionary potential, while the 'ulama' (the religious scholars, including the theologians and jurists), particularly those who served on official positions and had come to represent the religious authority, were even more apprehensive of the Sufis.

Some of them sincerely contested the Sufi doctrines and practices, while others

were prone to envy the public esteem which the Sufis enjoyed, since the latter were seen by the people as an alternative locus of religious authority.

The present paper attempts to explore the meaning, origin and evolution of Sufism and to delineate its cardinal doctrines and institutionalization of

major Sufi practices. It also seeks to enquire the causes behind the rapid popularity of the Sufi movement among the Muslims. In addition, it

1 The term 'Muslim lands' here refers to the areas inhabited by people predominantly or significantly Muslim by faith such as the Middle East including Arabia and Iraq, Persia and parts of Central Asia.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

222 TANVIR ANJUM

investigates the relationship of the Sufis with the various political authorities

in the Muslim lands from the seventh to the early thirteenth century.

Before we embark on these explorations, it would be worthwhile to be clear as to what Sufism is.

What is Sufism?

Since there is a lack of a standard appellation for Sufism or tasawwuf especially in studies on it in non-oriental languages, a number of terms are in common currency for it. The terms Sufism and tasawwuf are interchangeably used for other phrases such as mysticism or Islamic mysticism. However, there

are conceptual problems with these appellations, particularly with the latter two. In fact the Western scholars of Sufism and the orientalists have usually tended to interpret Sufi doctrines and practices through the prism of Christian

concepts, which might at times be quite misleading and confusing. This tendency is evident from the use of a terminology having Christian connotations for describing and explaining Sufi concepts.2 For instance, terms such as saint and sainthood carry distinctive connotations in the Christian

religious tradition, and one is liable to confuse them with the Christian concept of sainthood. According to the Christian concept of sainthood, the holiness of saints is recognized by the process of canonization instituted by the

Roman Catholic Church. On the contrary, there is no such practice in Islam, as the Sufi shaykhs do not need any formal recognition of their spirituality from any institution. Similarly, the usage of sociological concepts such as Max

Weber's concept of charisma (often mistakenly used as an English equivalent for barakah) for the spiritual powers of the Sufi shaykhs also seems to be reductive, and hence inadequate.

Before we look into other matters pertaining to Sufism, we shall briefly explore the meanings of the relevant terms in use.

The term 'mysticism' is used in a generic sense to refer to any of the mystical traditions in, or spiritual essentials common to, the great religions of the world like Hinduism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism,

Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is considered to be the core of

2 When a word is translated from one language into another, it is important that the translation must be faithful to the meaning of the word translated. Since all languages contain their specific worldviews, the task of translation becomes challenging. It becomes further complicated when concepts are to be translated, and particularly when these concepts are religious, since a small difference in meaning may create problems in explanation and analysis. For problems of translation from one language into another, see Joseph F. Graham, ed. Difference in Translation

(New York and London: Ithaca, 1985).

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 223

all religions.3 Mysticism is generally believed to be associated with mysterious phenomena. The words 'mystic' and 'mystery' have common etymological roots, being derived from a Greek word myein, meaning "to close the eyes."4

Mysticism has been defined as "the belief that knowledge of God and of real truth may be reached by directing one's mind or through spiritual insight independently of reason and the senses."5 In fact it refers to the esoteric aspects

and the spiritual current going through many of the great religions. Broadly speaking, it underlies some basic principles common to all mystical traditions.

These principles entail a direct consciousness of God by an individual, his or her comprehension of the Divine Truth, and the consequent development of his or her meditative and intuitive faculties.

Here it seems useful to briefly explore the meaning of the terms related to

mysticism. One such term is mystic, used both as a noun and as an adjective. As a noun, a mystic is defined as a person who tries to become united with God and so reach truths beyond human understanding. As an adjective, it is defined as (i) having hidden meaning or spiritual power, (ii) of or based on mysticism, and (iii) causing a feeling of deep respect and wonder.6 Since the terms mysticism and spiritualism or spirituality are often used interchangeably, it is pertinent to look into their definitions as well. Spiritualism has been defined as "belief in the possibility of receiving messages from the spirits of the dead," whereas spirituality has been defined as "the state

or quality of being concerned with spiritual matters."7 The Sufi adepts also focus on their spiritual development and self-purification, and in some instances, they are said to derive spiritual benefit from the spirits of the Sufi shaykbs of bygone ages.

The term 'Sufism' is of German coinage. In 1821, a Latin work by F. A. G. Tholuck, a German professor of Divinity, introduced the term.8 Used in

3 Keeping in view the dominant doctrinal trend in the mystical systems of various religions, Dupr? has labelled Hindu mysticism as the Mysticism of the Self, that of Buddhism as the Mysticism of Emptiness, that of Eastern and early Western Christianity as the Mysticism of the

Image, that of Islam and modern Christianity as the Mysticism of Love, and that of Judaism as

Eschatological Mysticism. For a brief account of mysticism in various religious traditions, see Louis Dupr?, "Mysticism" in The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 10: 245-61.

4 Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 2003

rpt., first published 1975), 3. 5 Jonathan Crowther, ed. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 770. 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid, 1146. 8 Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck, Sufismus sive Theosophia Persarum Pantheisitica (Berlin:

Duemmleri, 1821).

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

224 TANVIR ANJUM

common parlance, it is generally perceived to be an anglicized version of the word tasawwuf The postfix 'ism' refers to a system or a philosophy. The term Sufism was popularized by the British Orientalists,9 which has been spelled as Sufiism as well.10 Owing to its having gained common currency, the term Sufism has been used in this paper.

A word of Arabic origin,11 tasawwuf is the name given to the mystical tradition of Islam, or Islamic mysticism. It is generally considered to be a standard appellation in studies on Sufism in oriental and non-Western languages. In common parlance, an individual who becomes associated with Sufism or becomes a 'seeker of divine truth' is described as a Sufi or an initiate.

William Stoddart makes an important clarification in this regard: "Strictly speaking, the Arabic word s??, like the Sanskrit word yogi, refers only to one

who has attained the goal; nevertheless, it is often applied by extension to initiates who are still merely traveling towards it."12 So a Sufi does not have to

be necessarily an adept; any individual committed to traversing the spiritual trajectories may also be termed as a Sufi.

Before we look into the definition and meaning of tasawwuf it seems befitting to explore the etymological derivation of tasawwuf and Sufi.

Etymological Derivations of Tasawwuf and Sufi

The Arabic word tasawwuf is derived from the word Sufi [Sufi]. Different theories have been put forth about the etymological derivations of the words tasawwuf and Sufi. Medieval scholars of the tenth and eleventh centuries wrote

treatises on the subject as well. For instance, Ab? Bakr Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Kal?b?dhi (d. 385/995), a fourth/tenth century scholar of Sufism, devotes an

entire chapter to explain how the Sufis account for their being called Sufis. He

cites various opinions regarding the etymological sources of the word Sufi, which have been summarized as such: safa' (purity), because of the purity of their hearts; saff (rank) as they are in the first rank before God; suffah (the platform) as the qualities of the Sufis resembled those of the ash?b al-sujfah (People of the Platform, a group of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) who had devoted their lives to worship and learning); s?f (wool)

9 William C. Chittick, Sufism: Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001 rpt., first published 2000), 2. 10 For instance see, 4Al? ibn 'Uthm?n al-Hujw?r?, Kashf al-Mahj?b, Eng. trans. R. A. Nicholson

(Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation, 1976 rpt., first published 1911), passim. 11 Mawlaw? 'Abd al-'Aziz, Mawl?n? Muhammad Sa'id, and Mawlawi Muhammad Munir,

Lugh?t-i Sa'?d?, 3d ed. (Karachi: H. M. Sa'?d Co., 1957), 168. 12 William Stoddart ['Imr?n Yahy?], Sufism: The Mystical Doctnnes and Methods of Islam (Lahore:

Suhail Academy, 1999 rpt., first published 1981), 20-21.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 225

because of their habit of wearing wool, and safwab (the chosen, the select) owing to their being the elite, or the chosen or selected ones.13

A fifth/eleventh century Sufi scholar, eAl? ibn 'Uthm?n al-Hujw?r? (d. circa 464/1071), discusses the etymological roots of tasawwuf at some length in his monumental work Kashf al-Mahj?b (The Unveiling of the Veiled). In addition to its etymological derivation from s?f or wool, he cites the opinions of well-known authorities in this regard. He mentions that some consider that the Sufis are so called because they are in the first rank (saffi awwat). Others maintain that it is because the Sufis claim to belong to the ash?b al-suffahy while still others contend that the title is derived from sofa3 (purity). Nonetheless, al-Hujw?r? accepts that these explanations of the true

meaning of Sufism are far from satisfying the requirements of etymology, though each of them is supported by subtle arguments. He concludes by asserting that the word Sufi has, in fact, no etymology.14

In the introduction to the English translation of Aw?rif al-Ma'?rif written

by a seventh/thirteenth century Sufi-scholar Shih?b al-D?n Abu Hafs 'Umar b.

Muhammad al-Suhraward? (d. 632/1234), Wilberforce Clarke states that the word Sufi has been derived from s?f (wool), s?fiy (wise or pious), s?fi (woollen), safa' (purity) and s?fi (pure).15 According to another view, the etymological origin of the term Sufi goes back to the Greek word sophia, meaning wisdom and wise. Titus Burckhardt, however, rejects this view.16

The above discussion indicates that there is no consensus regarding the etymological derivation of the words tasawwuf or Sufi. Nonetheless, according to the generally accepted view by a majority of scholars of Sufism, Sufi has been derived from the Arabic word s?f meaning wool. Hence, tasawwuf literally means 'wearing wool,' and Sufi is the 'one who wears wool.' According to Ab? Nasr 'Abd Allah b. 'Ah al-Sarr?j (d. 378/988), a fourth/tenth century Sufi scholar, in pre-Islamic times it was customary among the ascetics as well as the ancient prophets to wear coarse woollen

13 For a detailed discussion, see Ab? Bakr al-Kal?b?dhl, Kit?b al-Ta'arruf ti-Madhhab Ahi al Tasawwuf Eng. trans. A. J. Arberry, The Doctnne of the Sufis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978 rpt., first published 1935), 5-11. 14 Al-Hujwiri, Kashfal-Mahj?b, 30, 34. 15 See Wilberforce Clarke, "Introduction" in Shaykh Shih?b al-D?n 'Umar ibn Muhammad al

Suhrawardl, 'Aw?Hf al-Ma'?rifi Persian trans, from Arabic by Mahmud ibn 'Ali al-K?sh?ni, Eng. trans, from Persian H. Wilberforce Clarke (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 2001 rpt., first

published 1891), 1. 16 Titus Burckhardt [Ibrahim al-D?n] argues that this is etymologically untenable because the Greek letter sigma normally becomes s?n (s) in Arabic and not sad (s). It may be, however, that there is here an intentional, symbolical assonance. Idem, An Introduction to Sufi Doctnne, trans. D. M. Matheson (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1996, rpt., first published 1976), 3, n. 1. See also Julian Baldick, Mystical Islam (London: IBTauris, 1989), 3.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

226 TANVIR ANJUM

garments.17 This particular attire symbolized penitence as well as self-denial and rejection of worldly desires and material needs. In the Near East, woollen

cloaks were also worn by Nestorian Christian monks, who had adopted poverty for reasons of piety, and later it came to be used by early Muslim Sufis as well.

Various views have been expressed about the first usage of the term tasawwuf and the epithet Sufi. Al-Hujw?r? traces back the use of the word tasawwuf to the Holy Prophet (peace be on him), as he cites his saying: "He

who hears the voice of Sufis (ahi al-tasawwuf) and does not say Amen to their prayers is inscribed before God among the heedless."18

As for the epithet Sufi or ahi al-tasawwuf, al-Sarr?j states that the word Sufi was current in pre-Islamic days for people of excellence and virtue, but with specific connotation of tasawwuf it gained common currency during the times of tabi%n (the Successors of the Companions of the Prophet) and tabc tabi?n (the Successors of these Successors).19 According to Ab? -Q?sim 'Abd al-Kar?m b. Hawz?n al-Qushayr? (d. 465/1072), before the second/eighth century, the term ahi al-tasawwuf was already being used for specific groups and individuals having proximity with God.20 Ab? H?shim al-K?f? (d. 159/776) is considered to be the first person who was labelled as a Sufi.21 In

fact, many Companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) did have what might be termed a Sufi bent of mind, and they fervently devoted themselves to prayers and worship, which is considered to be one of the characteristics of the

Sufis. However, for these Companions, including ahi al-suffah (People of the Platform),22 the title or epithet of Sufi was never specifically used in its present connotation. Al-Qushayri argues that sah?bah (the Companions of the Prophet) were so called because no epithet could be more respectable for a person than being a sah?biP This view has been corroborated by N?r al-D?n 'Abd al-Rahm?n J?m? (d. 898/1492) as well.24 Therefore, the earliest Muslims

17 Ab? Nasr 'Abd Allah ibn 'Ali al-Sarr?j al-T?si, Kit?b al-Luma' fCl Tasawwuf ed. R. A. Nicholson (London: Luzac and Co., 1914), 21. 18 Al-Hujw?ri, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 30. [This is, obviously, an inauthentic hadith for the term ahi al

tasawwuf had not come into use during the life of the Prophet (peace be on him). Ed.].

19 Al-Sarr?j, Kit?b al-Luma\ 21-22.

20 Ab? l-Q?sim 'Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri, Risalah-i Qushayriyyah, Urdu trans, with Introduction and Notes, P?r Muhammad Hasan (Islamabad: Id?rah-'i Tahq?q?t-i Isl?m?, 1970), 21. 21 . A. Dar, "Section A: Sufis Before al-Hall?j" in M. M. Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim

Philosophy pelhi: Adam Publishers, 2001 rpt., first published 1961), 1: 336. 22 For a list of this pietistic circle of early Sufis, see al-Hujw?r?, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 81-82.

23 Al-Qushayri, Ris?lah-H Qushayriyyah, 21. 24 N?r al-D?n 'Abd al-Rahm?n J?m?, Nafah?t al-Uns min Hadar?t al-Quds, ed., introduction and

notes, Mahm?d '?bidi (Tehran: Intish?r?t Ittil?'?t, 1370 Solar ah), 15.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 227

in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) with predilections peculiar to Sufis, were not designated as Sufis. Similarly, ?Abd al-Rahm?n ibn Muhammad Ibn Khald?n (732-808/1332-1406) argues that in the first three generations of Islam, Sufism was too widely diffused to have a specific name. However, later when worldliness became common and materialism crept among Muslims,

those who dedicated themselves to the worship of God were distinguished from the rest by the titles of S?fiyah and Mutasawwifah.25

Defining Sufism

While referring to various definitions of Sufism in Arabic and Persian works on the subject, Reynold Nicholson makes an interesting observation: that their chief importance lies in showing that Sufism is 'undefinable.'26

Nonetheless, modern scholars of Sufism have attempted to define it. What follows is a selection of a few definitions of Sufism or tasawwufby some eminent scholars of the subject.27

Scholars have defined and explained the meaning and salient features of Sufism in various ways. According to Murray Titus, for instance, Sufism is "an

attitude of mind and heart toward God and the problems of life."28 Spencer Trimingham defines mysticism as a specific method of approach to reality by making use of intuitive and emotional spiritual faculties. These faculties are generally dormant but they can be called into play through training under guidance.29 Annemarie Schimmel defines the spiritual current in a wider sense

and holds that it is the consciousness of the one reality that can be called Wisdom, Light, Love or nothing. Mysticism is the love of the Absolute ? for the power that separates true mysticism from mere asceticism is love.30

According to Burckhardt, al-tasawwuf or Sufism is an expression of the inward

or internal (b?tin) and esoteric aspect of Islam, as distinguished from its outward or external (zdbir) and exoteric aspect. It designates the "whole of the contemplative ways founded on the sacred forms of Islam."31 In the opinion of

A. J. Arberry, Sufism is the mystical movement within Islam, whereas a Sufi,

25 'Abd al-Rahm?n ibn Muhammad Ibn Khald?n, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History,

Eng. trans. Franz Rosenthal (New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1958), 3: 76. 26 Reynold A. Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979 rpt.; first published 1914), 25. 27 While outlining the views of scholars, no distinction has been made between mysticism or Sufism, as many scholars seem to use these terms interchangeably.

28 Murray T. Titus, Indian Islam: A Religious History of Islam in India (London: Oxford University Press, 1930), 111. 29 J. Spencer Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 1. 30 Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 4.

31 Burckhardt, An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, 3,164.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

228 TANVIR ANJUM

the one who associates himself with this movement, is an individual who is

devoted to an inner quest for mystical union with his Creator. It also involves a "personal trafficking with God."32

Frithjof Schuon divides the religion of Islam into three basic dimensions:

islam (outward works of the religion), iman (faith), and ihs?n (virtue and perfection) according to the famous hadith of Gabriel (see n. 36 below). According to Schuon, the third dimension of ihs?n, which literally means embellishment, beautiful activity, right-acting or charitable activity, is essentially an esoteric notion, and it is "quintessential esoterism." Ihs?n is an operative virtue, which confers upon believing and doing the qualities that make them perfect, and intensify and deepen both faith and works.33 In the words of Stoddart, mysticism is the "inward or supra-formal dimension"34 as

opposed to the outward and formal expression of a religion. Explaining the distinguishing features of the Sufis, Hardy opines that they "craved for a more

emotional religion, one in which God appeared as a loving, succoring friend rather than as an abstract definition of undifferentiated unity, incomprehensible in His essence, inscrutable and arbitrary in His decrees."35 Like Schuon, William Chittick also divides Islam into the above-mentioned three dimensions, and identifies the third dimension of ihs?n to be concerned

with depth, or the inner attitudes that accompany activity and thought, with Sufism. He argues that the Qur'?nic usage of the word ihs?n makes clear that it

is not only an external and ethical good, but also an internal, moral, and spiritual good.36

The underlying theme in all these definitions seems to be the idea of locating the latent divine sentiment in one's heart or conscience. It is an attitude of mind, heart and soul that entails an individual's direct relationship

with God with a profound comprehension of the Real and Absolute Truth. The method involved in this quest for spiritual development is contemplative rather than scholastic. The core practices of Sufism lead to purification of the

32 See A J. Arberry, "Introduction" in his Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat

al-Auliya? (Memorial of the Saints) by Fand al-Din Attar (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), 1-2. 33 Frithjof Schuon [Shaykh Isa N?r al-D?n Ahmad], Sufism: Veil and Quintessence, Eng. trans.

William Stoddart (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1985 rpt, first published 1979), 129-30.

34 Stoddart, Sufism: The Mystical Doctrines and Methods of Islam, 19. 35 Peter Hardy, "Islam in Medieval India," in Ainslie T. Embree, ed. Sources of Indian Tradition, 2d rev. ed. (New Delhi: Viking, 1991), 1: 447. 36 William C. Chittick, Faith and Practice of Islam: Three Thirteenth Century Sufi Texts (Lahore:

Suhail Academy, 2000), 2-5, 10-12. According to Chittick, in the hadlth of Gabriel, the Prophet

Muhammad (peace be on him) defined ihs?n as "serving [or worshipping] God as if you see Him, because if you do not see Him, He nonetheless sees you." Chittick also adds that two Qur'anic terms, ikhl?s (sincerity) and taqw? (God-wariness), are close to ihs?n in meaning.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 229

self which seek to regulate and direct the spiritual Ufe of people. A Sufi aims at

a bi-dimensional development of his self; first, the strengthening of his spiritual and personal connection with God, and second, perfecting his inter personal relationships.

The Sufis generally believe in three corresponding and complementary spheres of Sufism: sharVah (the revealed law), tar?qah (the way or the method),

and haqiqah (the ultimate truth). SharVah is the prescribed law in Islam for regulating the conduct of the individual and collective life. The tar?qah is the

way or the method which guides a seeker on the path of Sufism, while the haqiqah, the ultimate truth or the knowledge of and nearness to God, is the goal of a Sufi's life.

Origins of Sufism

Varied opinions have been expressed regarding the origins of Sufism: some suggest that the roots of Sufism lay in pre-Islamic religious traditions, while others argue that the Qur'anic injunctions and the deeds and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) provided the bases of Sufi doctrines and practices. Late thirteenth/nineteenth and early fourteenth/twentieth century western orientalists generally corroborate the former view, while the

later day historians and scholars of Sufism generally maintain the latter position.

According to E. H. Palmer, Sufism is "the development of the Primaeval religion of the Aryan race."37 Nicholson points out to the external or non Islamic influences on Sufism, which include Christianity, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Vedantism. However, he adds that the seeds of Sufism were inherent in Islam, and these internal forces within Islam cannot be isolated from the external factors. To quote him, "the great non-Islamic systems ... gave a stimulus to various tendencies within Islam which affected Sufism either positively or negatively."38 John P. Brown alludes to the "deeply

spiritual principles" which appear in the Qur'an, and the "innumerable mystical...reasonings" of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).39 While critically reviewing the varied theories of the origins of Sufism, Edward G. Browne gives his verdict in favour of the theory that Sufism represents the

37 E. H. Palmer, Oriental Mysticism: A Treatise on Sufistic and Unitarian Theosophy of the Persians

(London: Luzac, 1969 rpt, first published 1867), as cited in Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 9; for a detailed discussion, see 9-11.

38 Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, 20; for a detailed discussion, see 8-23.

39 John P. Brown, The Darvishes or Oriental Spiritualism, ed. with Introduction and Notes, H.

A. Rose (London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd, 1968 rpt, first published 1868), 71-72.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

230 TANVIR ANJUM

Esoteric Doctrine of the Prophet of Islam (peace be on him).40 Commenting on the origins of Sufism, Duncan B. Macdonald suggests:

"Like almost everything else in Islam the seeds were already in the mind of Muhammad."41 Louis Massignon, a renowned French scholar of Sufism, has altogether rejected the view that Sufism was alien to Islam. Instead, he has argued that "it is from the Koran, constantly recited, meditated upon, applied,

that Islamic mysticism proceeds, in its origin and development."42 Among the better-known scholars, H. A. R. Gibb corroborates the views of Louis

Massignon.43 According to Philip K. Hitti, Sufism has its origin in the Qur'an and Hadith, though later on it absorbed elements from Christianity, Neo Platonism, Gnosticism and Buddhism.44 G. E. von Grunebaum maintains that

Sufism was "anchored firmly in the word of God, that source from whose multiplicity it extracted the challenge to interiorize relations with the Creator."45 Trimingham considers Sufism a natural development within Islam, which owed little to non-Muslim sources. He, however, adds that it received

"radiations from the ascetical-mystical life and thought of eastern Christianity."46 Schimmel also argues that the view that Sufism was an Islamized form of Vedanta philosophy or Yoga, has now been discarded. In her opinion, "Sufism traces its origin back to the Prophet of Islam and takes inspiration from the divine word as revealed through him in the Koran."47

Stoddart refutes the view that Sufism developed chiefly as a result of external influences. However, as he succinctly puts it: "Sufism has sometimes borrowed formulations deriving from Neo-Platonic and other spiritual doctrines which coincide with its own view of reality, but this has always been

for convenience of expression, and does not constitute any syncretism."48 Khaliq Ahmad Nizami has also suggested that the origins of the Sufi ideas can be traced back to the Qur'anic and Prophetic traditions. He has rejected the

40 Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia: From the Earliest Times until Firdawsi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 rpt, first published 1902), 1: 418-19; for a detailed review of the various theories of the origin of Sufism, see 418-21.

41 Duncan Black Macdonald, Aspects of Islam (New York: Macmillan, 1911), 184.

42 Louis Massignon, Essai sur les origins du lexique technique mystique musulmane (Paris: J. Vrin,

1954), 104, as cited in Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 153. 43 Hamilton A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: A Historical Survey (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 128. 44 Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs (London: Macmillan, 1958), 433. 45 G. E. von Grunebaum, Classical Islam: A History 600-1258, Eng. trans. Katherine Watson (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970, German ed. published from Berlin in 1963), 131. 46 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 2.

47 Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 345, 24.

48 Stoddart, Sufism: The Mystical Doctrines and Methods of Islam, 43.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 231

alternative views that Sufi doctrines owe their origins to the Greek, Vedantic or Buddhist philosophies.49 Many scholars of Sufism, including its proponents, trace its origins back to the Qur'?n50 and the practice of the Holy Prophet (peace be on him),51 and cite a number of Qur'?nic verses and ah?dith in support of their assertion.52

While discussing the origins of Sufism, the similarities between the spiritual traditions, doctrines and mystical experiences of the adherents of faiths other than Islam and those of Sufism have been brought to the fore. First, one may find a certain degree of truth in the assertion that all mystical

traditions associated with different religions of the world have something in common, but the similarities and commonalities do not necessarily mean that the latter were a borrowing from the former in terms of their doctrinal system, methods and practices. Secondly, there were stark differences among the mystical and spiritual traditions as well, as each of them stemmed from a

particular religious tradition. Moreover, historical factors such as intellectual environment, socio-cultural conditions and political climate in which a

mystical system took roots and flourished, cannot be overlooked in this regard. Lastly, like any other mystical tradition, Sufism did not develop in a void. When the Muslims came into contact with people of other races, cultures and intellectual traditions, a mutual exchange of ideas was inevitable. The Sufis too imbibed ideas and concepts as well as practices from them, which helped develop the Sufi doctrines further.

Rise and Growth of Sufism: A Causal Explanation

Sufism is essentially a minority affair, demanding considerable intellectual sophistication from its adherents. Nevertheless, it has popular manifestations as well which are generally referred to as 'popular religion' or 'low culture.' Regarding popular religion, Jonathan Berkey makes an important clarification that it was not identical but closely associated with Sufism.53 The early

49 See details in Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, T?r?kh-i Masha'ikh-i Chisht (Delhi: Id?rah-'i Adabiyy?t-i D?l?, 1980), 1: 45-49. 50 See details in Seyyed Hossein Nasr, "The Quran as the Foundation of Islamic Spirituality" in

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic Spirituality: Foundations (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 2000), 1: 3-10. 51 Frithjof Schuon, "The Spiritual Significance of the Substance of the Prophet" in ibid. 48-63. 52 For a brief discussion, see Y?suf Satm Chishti, Tarikh-i Tasawwuf: Hindi, Yunanl, Ist?m?

(Lahore: 'Ulama* Academy, 1976), 104-22. For some Qur'anic verses and ah?dith relating to Sufism, see Stoddart, Sufism: The Mystical Doctrines and Methods of Islam, 77-82.

53 Berkey contends that the characteristic features of popular religion included the popularization of practices associated with Sufis, veneration of individuals, visitation of tombs, and the rise of syncretic trends and superstitions. Idem, The Formation of Islam, 248-57, esp. 249.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

232 TANVIR ANJUM

centuries of Islam witnessed the growing popularity of Sufism. The renowned Sufis who lived in the second/eighth, third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries

included Hasan al-Basr? (d. 110/728), Malik ibn Dinar (d. 131/748), Abu H?shim al-K?f?, Ibrahim ibn Adham (d. 160/777), Sufy?n b. Sa??d al-Thawr? (d. 161/778), D?w?d b. Nas?r al-T?'? (d. 165/781), 'Abd Allah ibn Mubarak (d. 181/797), R?bi'ah al-'Adawiyyah al-Basri (d. 185/801), al-Fudayl ibn 'Ay?d (d. 187/803), Shaq?q al-Balkh? (d. 194/810), Ma'r?f al-Karkh? (d. 200/815), Bishr ibn al-H?rith (d. 227/841), Ahmad ibn Harb (d. 235/849), al-H?rith b. Asad al-Muh?sib? (d. 243/857), Thawb?n b. Ibr?h?m Dh? 1-N?n al-Misr? (d. 246/861), Sari b. al-Mughlas al-Saqat? (d. 253/867), Abu Yaz?d Tayf?r b. ?s? al-Bist?m? (d. 261/874), Sahl b. 'Abd Allah al-Tustar? (d. 283/896), Abu -

Hasan al-N?r? (d. 295/908), Ab? 1-Q?sim Junayd b. Muhammad b. 'Al? al Baghd?d? (d. 298/910), Husayn ibn Mans?r al-Hall?j (d. 309/922), Ab? Bakr al Shibl? (d. 334/946) Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Jabb?r al-Niff?r? (d. 354/965), and Ab? T?lib Muhammad b. 'Al? al-Makk? (d. 386/996).

By the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries, Sufism had strongly made its presence felt in the Muslim lands. It earned approval and wide ranging appeal among people. As Hodgson has observed, and possibly with an appreciable degree of plausibility, it transformed into a kind of "institutionalized mass religion"54 owing to its popularity and institutionalization of its practices. By that time Sufism had integrated into the

religious life of the Muslims, and had emerged as a dominant mode of Islamic piety. In fact, in the last quarter of the fifth/eleventh and the early years of the

sixth/twelfth centuries, Ab? Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazz?l? (450-505/1058 1111), tried to reconcile Sufism with the SharVah, thus bridging the gulf between the two.55 His younger contemporary, 'Abd al-Q?dir al-J?l?n? (d. 561/1166) further popularized Sufism. As the juristic and Sufi versions of Islam came closer to each other, more people including the jurists belonging to

various schools of fiqh (Muslim jurisprudence) started entering the fold of Sufism. Lessons in jurisprudence were given in the kh?nq?hs while the madrasahs housed Sufis as well. As a result, the institutions of madrasah and

kh?nq?h were later merged at the end of the ninth/fifteenth century.56 The process of assimilation of the juristic and Sufi variants of Islam gave further impetus to the popularity of Sufism in Muslim societies.

54 Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), 2: 210-22. 55 For a detailed study, see W. Montgomery Watt, The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali (London:

George Allen and Un win, 1953). 56 For a detailed study, see Jonathan Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge: A Social History of

Islamic Education (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 47-50, 56-60.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 233

A host of factors contributed to the rise and popularity of Sufism which can be explained in the backdrop of the political, intellectual, religious and socio-economic conditions of the then Muslim lands. It is in this context that

causal explanations for the historical evolution of Sufism in Egypt, Iraq, Persia, Central and Western Asia, and Afghanistan have been explored briefly hereunder.

To begin with, socio-economic, religious, theological and intellectual factors considerably contributed to the rise and popularity of Sufism. Sufism

or the Sufi trend in Islam asserted itself during the Umayyad rule (41 133/661-750) when God-conscious persons raised the voice that rulers were indulging more than they should in this-worldly activities, involving acquisition of material wealth and kingly ostentations, and not giving due heed

to salvation in the Hereafter. Thus, Sufism can be interpreted as a reaction against the growing materialism which spread in Muslim societies as a result of

prosperity in the wake of conquests and annexation of vast territories in Persia, Byzantium, Central and Western Asia, and Africa. Sufism thus began as

an ascetic revolt against luxury and worldliness, and henceforth came to be identified with other-worldliness. As already pointed out, the Sufi doctrine of

voluntary poverty stood in sharp contrast to the wealth of the royal household and the well-off urbanit?s. Its ideal of poverty represented a silent reaction against the growing materialism and covetousness among the

Muslims.

According to Victor Danner, during the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries the original synthetic vision of things expounded in the Qur'?n and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be on him), wherein the exoteric and the esoteric dimensions were complementary even if different, was gradually replaced by a separation between the esoteric and exoteric domains. In other

words, the message of Islam was gradually reduced to its exoteric aspect, which

provoked, by way of reaction, the rise of esotericism or Sufism in these centuries.57 Actually during these early centuries, the territorial stretch of the

Muslim Empire had considerably expanded and had brought millions into the fold of Islam. This necessitated the codification of Hadlth literature, fiqh, history, biography, and many other branches of learning. With the emergence

of various schools of jurisprudence, the SharVah or the exoteric aspect of Islam

was crystallized. Consequently, not only due attention was not paid to the esoteric aspect of Islam, but rigidity and formalism also crept in the practices

of the various schools of fiqh. The Sufis, who had by now come to represent the esoteric aspect of Islam, were critical of the cold rigidity and formalism of

57 Victor Danner, "The Early Development of Sufism" in S. H. Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic

Spintuality: Foundations, 1: 239, 252.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

234 TANVIR ANJUM

these schools. They showed antipathy towards ceremonialism in religious observances with exclusive stress on ritualistic expressions, often devoid of

inner meaning or essence, which was prevalent among the people at large. More emphasis was laid on the outward dimension of varied acts of worship, often in disregard of their inward significance or purpose.58 Under the influence of these so-called 'externalist' theologians, jurists and (ulama\59 who

were more concerned with the outward forms of Islamic observances, the

people generally tended to reduce Islam to rituals and ceremonies. In these circumstances, Sufism stood as a symbol of reaction against the prevalence of "dogmatic piety"60 and formalism, and thus represented non-conformism to religious conservatism. In the words of Titus, Sufism was a "natural revolt of the human heart against the cold formalism of a ritualistic religion."61 The Sufis were also perturbed by hair-splitting theological quibbles and bitter controversies among the proponents and adherents of various schools of fiqh,

which occasionally led to riots in urban centres such as Baghdad. During the 'Abbasid period, the God-conscious people came to face,

along with the challenge of materialist and this-worldly trends, another challenge, that posed by Greek thought and the Mu'tazilah. While this development contributed to the intellectual growth of the Muslims in a positive manner, it had its excesses too. The most basic form of the challenge was that, judged on the basis of reason alone, nothing could happen without a cause. The implication was that since everything was happening according to fixed laws, God now stood inactive, without any active role in the functioning

of the universe. In fact, the translation of Greek philosophical texts into Arabic had encouraged a rational enquiry into the tenets of the Muslim faith. For the Muslim philosophers and rationalists associated with the Mu'tazilite school of thought, the main criterion for every reality was reason. In other

words, as Danner has aptly put it, knowledge was reduced to "abstract, mental categories, bereft of direct, spiritual vision of the Real..."62 The Muslim 'ulama'

presented their answer to the challenge under a new branch of knowledge

58 For a brief discussion on the outer and inner meanings of Qur'anic verses and ah?d?th, see

Martin Lings [Ab? Bakr Sir?j-ud-D?n], What is Sufismi (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1983 rpt., first

published 1975), 28-32; Syed Ali Ashraf, "The Inner Meaning of the Islamic Rites: Prayer, Pilgrimage, Fasting, Jihad" in Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic Spintuality: Foundations, 1:111 30. 59 Hodgson has used the term 'Shari'ah-minded' 'ulama* for the externalist 'uUma\ Idem, The

Venture oflsUm: The Classical Age of Islam, vol. 1, passim. ^Grunebaum, Classical Islam, 131. 61 Titus, Indian Islam, 111.

62 Danner, "The Early Development of Sufism" in Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic SpiHtuality: Foundations, 1: 254.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 235

called Ilm al-Kal?m. The Sufis presented their own answer, which emphasized immersion in search of nearness to God. According to Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1357/1938), the germs of scepticism latent in rationalism ultimately necessitated an appeal to a super-intellectual source of knowledge.63 Sheer rationalism and pursuit of religious truths using dialectical methods, largely borrowed from the Greek intellectual tradition, drove introverted people like

the Sufis to search the Ultimate Truth by emotional means involving the intuitive faculties of human beings. The Sufis aspired for a kind of freethinking in their pursuit of the ultimate knowledge of God and the universe. They sought a direct and personal method of comprehending the Absolute Truth or the Supreme Being. It was believed that the search or quest for God, out of God's own blessings, was to result in making a person's heart filled with knowledge: a person could thus have ma'rifah or intuitive knowledge, and ultimately haq?qah, the knowledge of and nearness to God.

This approach was distinct not only from the conventional mode of thinking prevalent among the majority of conformist ulam?\ theologians and jurists, but also from the rationalist approach of the Mu'tazilites. The fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries are considered to be the apogee of

Mu'tazilite thought, after which it witnessed a constant decline, after it was countered by al-Ghazz?l?, who was a philosopher-cum-theologian turned Sufi.64 Thus, Islamic philosophical and intellectual movements such as

Mu'tazilism in a way also provided a stimulus to the Sufi tendencies within Islam.

Apart from these, there were political factors as well which played a crucial role in the rise and popularity of Sufism. A brief description of these factors seems quite appropriate here.

The more the social decay and political instability, the greater was the impetus for the spread of Sufism. The discontent within the Muslim community in its early days resulted in disturbances and turbulence which culminated in the assassination of the third and the fourth Rightly Guided Caliphs, 'Uthm?n ibn 'Aff?n (d. 35/656) and 'Ah ibn Ab? T?lib (d. 40/661). The Rightly Guided Caliphate was followed by the Umayyads, and later on by the 'Abb?sids, who turned the state into a hereditary monarchy, notwithstanding their claims to the Caliphate. In fact, since the demise of the Prophet (peace be on him), and more particularly since the assassination of the Caliph 'Ali, the question of political authority and transfer of power was never quite resolved. Husayn (d. 61/680), the son of the Caliph 'Ali, led the

63 Muhammad Iqbal, The Development of Metaphysics in Persia (Lahore: Bazm-i Iqb?l, 1959 rpt., first published 1954), 79. 64 See . 55 above.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

236 TANVIR ANJUM

famous rebellion against the Umayyad rule. The rebellion ended in disaster at Karbal?' in Iraq in 61/680, and consequently, the family of Caliph 'Ah was almost exterminated. The tragic events at Karbal?' rocked the Muslim community, and spurred a movement of pious penitence among a section of its members for having failed to come to the support of Husayn against the

Umayyads. Under the Umayyads, the Arabs, who constituted the ruling elite, came

to have a major share in the political, military, administrative, social and economic power, whereas the non-Arabs, barring a few exceptions, were generally denied any noticeable share in the government. The dissatisfaction of

the people, particularly of the non-Arabs, with the rulers' scant attention to the requirements of socio-economic justice found political, religious, philosophical, social, cultural and literary expressions.

The grievances of the Kh?rijites and Sh?'ites found political expression in the outbreak of various revolts during the Umayyad rule. The maw?l?

movement represented the resentment of the non-Arab subjects who, despite their acceptance of Islam, were placed below the Arabs in social and political hierarchies. They were at times even subjected to taxes, which were theoretically supposed to be imposed on the non-Muslims.65 These and many other discriminatory measures drove many of them to revolts. Iraq and Khur?s?n were the provinces that were threatened most by revolts and other disturbances. Since these centres of discontent had witnessed Umayyad persecution, it is perhaps not insignificant that it is these very areas that saw the growth of Sufism. In a hostile environment of political persecution, the people of Iraq, especially of K?fah and Basrah ? the strongholds of opposition against the Umayyads ? found solace in the fold of religion, and more notably in Sufism.

Under the 'Abb?sids, on the intellectual plane the Mu'tazilites rejected the Ash'ar? model of theology66 since, in their view, the model served the interests of the ruling elite. The model is, in fact, perceived by some as an instrument of unquestioning subservience to the political authority. One scholar, for instance, asserts that the reasons for the rise of both the

65 Bertold Spuler, The Muslim World: Historical Survey, The Age of the Caliphs, Eng. trans, from German F. R. C. Bagley (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960), 1: 39-40, 44; Reuben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam (Being the second edition of The Sociology of Islam) (Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press, 1979, rpt.; first published 1957), 58.

66 Ash'arism is a philosophico-religious school of thought associated with Ab? 1-Hasan 'Ali ibn Ism?'?l al-Ash'ar? (d. 324/936). For al-Ash'ari's life and works, Ash'arite theology and its fundamental principles, and Ash'arite metaphysics, see M. Abdul Hye, "Asli'arism^ in M.M. Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 1: 220-43.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 237

Mu'tazilites and the Sufis were "more political rather than religious or academic in nature."67 Though the assertion seems reductive as Sufism was more than a political response to the then prevailing conditions, it cannot be denied that there were political reasons, in addition to other more fundamental reasons, behind the rise and growth of Sufism. Since both the

Mu'tazilites and the Sufis had attempted to redefine the basic concepts of Muslim theology, they were branded as "heterodox," in order to curb their freedom of speech and freedom of action. In the same way, the zindlqs or freethinkers were persecuted by the state in the later half of the second/eighth

century. It was, in fact, the political and economic dissatisfaction under the guise of religion which led to the rebellions of many Persian leaders in Khurasan like Sunbadh [Sunb?dh], the Magian (137/755),68 and Ust?dhs?s [Ust?dhs?s] (150-1/767-8),69 and many more. The movement of a Mazdakite named B?bak (201-223/816-838) in the days of the 'Abbasid Caliph al Ma'm?n (r. 198-218/813-833) was also a political expression of the growing economic discontent. B?bak's heresy acquired the dimensions of a peasant revolt since the followers of the Mazdak? sect belonged to the peasant communities of northern Persia. B?bak stood for the break-up of large feudal estates and distribution of land among landless peasants.70 Similarly, during the 'Abbasid rule, the grievances of the subject races, particularly the Persians, found a literary expression in the form of the Shu'?biyyah movement. It claimed superiority for non-Arabs in poetry and literature.71

It was against the backdrop of these religio-theological and intellectual as

well as political and socio-economic conditions that the rise and popularity of Sufism can best be understood. In short, Sufism signified not only a protest against the growing materialism among the Muslims, an excessive insistence on

the exoteric aspect of Islam and the intensifying formalism of the 'ulama' and Mu'tazilism, but also a subtle and guised protest against the high-handedness of the rulers and other political abuses of the age.

67 See Manzoor Ahmad, "Introduction" in Mohammad Kamal, Heterodoxy in Islam (Karachi: Royal Book Company, 1993), vi. 68 See, for a brief discussion, W. Madelung, "Sunb?dh" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn.

(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 9: 874-75. 69 See, for a brief discussion, W. Madelung, "Ust?dhsis" in ibid., 10: 926-27. 70 For the doctrines of Mazdakism, see M. Guidi [M. Morony], "Mazd?k" in ibid., 6: 949-52, esp. 950. 71 Spuler, The Muslim World: A Historical Survey, The Age of the Caliphs, 1: 55. For a brief analysis of the social significance of the Shu'?biyyah movement, see Hamilton A. R. Gibb, Studies on the Civilization of Islam, eds. Stanford J. Shaw and William R. Polk (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1962), 62-73.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

238 TANVIR ANJUM

Development and Institutionalization of Sufi Practices

The doctrines and practices associated with Sufism grew and developed in stages. The gradual institutionalization of Sufi practices took place three centuries after the 'Abbasid Revolution in 129/749. Having passed through its formative phase in the second/eighth, third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries,

Sufism acquired the contours of a vibrant movement with relatively systematic

doctrines and institutions during the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries. Scholars of Sufism have attempted to theorize about the historical evolution of Sufism by dividing it into different stages or phases. Such attempts have been made by scholars of Sufism such as Nizami, Trimingham, Fritz Meier and Arthur Buehler.

According to Nizami, there can be discerned three distinct stages in the development and growth of the Sufi movement in Islam. These are: (i) the period of the quietists; (ii) the period of the mystic philosophers; and (iii) the period of the silsilahs.72 The designation of the first phase has been borrowed by Nizami from Nicholson.73 According to them, the Sufis of the early era represented a reaction against the political conditions of the Umayyad Empire.

There was a silent and subtle protest against the materialistic tendencies among

the rulers by the profoundly God-conscious persons or the early Sufis. The prominent Sufis of the era include Hasan al-Basr?, Ibrahim ibn Adham, Ab? H?shim 'Uthm?n and R?bi'ah al-'Adawiyyah al-Basr?. The Sufis of this phase focused on their self-purification. Literature on Sufi thought began to appear in the third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries, and it is only in the fif th/eleventh century that the Sufis began to be organized in groups. Here one may argue that the designation of this era seems somewhat inappropriate,

as it does not adequately convey the characteristic features of Sufism in the said period. Moreover, it makes one assume that these early Sufis, being quietists, had cut themselves off from the world and retired into seclusion. On

the contrary, some of the Sufis of this era even participated in military campaigns against the Byzantine Empire. These included, among others, celebrated Sufis like Ibrahim ibn Adham, 4Abd Allah ibn al-Mub?rak, Shaq?q al-Balkh? and Ahmad ibn Harb. So the epithet "quietists" seems somewhat inapt. The second phase was characterized by the development of a well-knit system of Sufi thought by such Sufi philosophers as Ab? -Q?sim al-Qushayri,

Ab? Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazz?l?, Shih?b al-D?n 'Umar b. Muhammad al

72 Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, "Mysticism" in Islam, Guru Nanak Quincentenary Celebration Series (Patiala: Punjabi University, 1969), 55-66. 73 Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, 4. For an entirely different meaning of quietism, see

Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 266.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 239

Suhrawardi, Muhy? -D?n Muhammad b. 'Ali Ibn al-4Arabi (560-638/1165 1240), popularly known as al-Shaykh al-Akbar (The Greatest Master), and Jal?l

al-D?n Muhammad b. Muhammad al-R?m? (d. 672/1273). The last and the most important stage was characterized by the rise of Sufi silsilahs (chains of transmission of spiritual authority) in the sixth/twelfth century.

Trimingham's three-phase theory of the historical evolution of Sufism has

been summarized below.74 The first phase, i.e. the kh?nq?h stage, was marked by tremendous creativity of thought and simplicity of the Sufis' social organization. Initially, there were no formal bonds between the master and his

pupils, but later, kh?nq?hs or Sufi dwellings were established all over the Muslim world. The second stage ? taftqah ? saw the doctrinal evolution and social organization of Sufism in the form of Sufi schools, along with the formation of spiritual lineages or silsilahs. The practice of formal initiation was also introduced, and in this stage Sufism became institutionalized. In the third

and final stage, called ta'ifah, it acquired the form of Sufi cults with exaggerated veneration and even excessive adoration of Sufis, who then came to be designated as pirs. These Sufi cults were centred on the spiritual power or blessing tyarakah) of a single individual. The headship of ta'ifahs became hereditary. Tombs of great Sufis, called dargahs, .generally to a large extent replaced kh?nq?hs. This phase also witnessed the introduction of astrology and

magic among Sufi circles. Trimingham's theory is, however, no longer being used in recent works

on Sufism. One even discerns certain inconsistencies in it. First, it is difficult

to demarcate the first and the second stages chronologically. Secondly, the nomenclature of the third phase may cause some confusion, as t?'ifahs came to

represent the multiple branches of the main tariqahs, in the sense used by Trimingham for the last phase, which he dates from the ninth/fifteenth century. The word, in fact, acquired this new meaning later on, as from the third/ninth century, the Sufi groups were referred to as t?'ifahs, meaning the

groups of men of God. The famous third/ninth century Sufi, Junayd al Baghd?dl, was known as Sayyid al-T?'ifah (the Master of the men of God). Moreover, the Sufis continued to view themselves as a t?'ifah, that is, a distinct

group of men of God, and be referred to as t?'ifah later on as well.75 Thus, the

designation of the third and the last phase, which corresponds to a development that took place much earlier, may create confusion for the readers. Lastly, Trimingham's categories do not highlight the striking change in the role of the Sufi shaykhs in the entire system of spiritual guidance and development in particular, and in the society in general.

74 See details in Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, chaps. 1-3:1-104.

75 E. Geoffroy, "Ta'ifa" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 10:116-17.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

240 TANVIR ANJUM

Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence observe that Trimingham's work is marred by a theory of classicism and decline, as the above-mentioned first two

phases of Sufism, according to Trimingham, were marked by the rise and growth of Sufism, while the third, and final phase was marked by decline in Sufism.76

Meier periodizes Sufism in four historical phases: pre-classical Sufism, classical Sufism, post-classical Sufism, and neo-classical Sufism. According to him, the second/eighth century constituted the pre-classical phase of Sufism when the woollen garment was widely adopted by the Sufis, and the practices of sama' (devotional music concert) and dhikr (remembrance of God, or recollection of God's presence) were developed. During the third/ninth, fourth/tenth and the early part of the fifth/eleventh centuries, which constituted the classical era of Sufism, Sufi ideas found a perceptible degree of

public approval, and Sufism emerged as a religious movement. The great Sufi masters lived in this era, which also witnessed the composition of Sufi texts and the establishment of purpose-specific residential schools of the Sufis. In the

post-classical age of Sufism, corresponding to the end of the fifth/eleventh century, and the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, a higher value

was placed upon visionary and occult experiences. The era was also characterized by the veneration of the Sufi shaykhs, the emergence of Sufi orders, and the 'formularization', i.e. composition of Sufi prayers and litanies. The neo-classical stage of Sufism, stretching from the seventh/thirteenth to the

eighth/fourteenth centuries, was distinguished by a revival of the more restrained practices of the classical era of Sufism, and a return to the fundamental principles of Islam. In this era, the reformers of Sufism, who included the Sufis as well as the theologians critical of Sufi practices, tried to curtail the excesses of Sufism. Unlike the earlier phases of Sufism, membership

in more than one Sufi order became prevalent in this era.77

The scheme of periodization suggested by Meier covers only the period stretching from the second/eighth to the eighth/fourteenth centuries, and does not include the subsequent centuries. Like the periodization scheme suggested by Trimingham, Meier's scheme also presumes a theory of classicism, privileging one stage of Sufism, i.e. the classical age, over the rest of

the ages, i.e. the pre- and post-classical eras. Moreover, it also implies

76 Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence, Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia

and Beyond (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 11. Ernst and Lawrence also maintain that Trimingham's observations "contain a modern and strongly Protestant attitude." Ibid, 10. Moreover, he sees decline in Sufism as inevitable. Ibid.

77 Fritz Meier, "The Mystic Path" in Bernard Lewis, ed. The World of Islam (London: Thames

and Hudson, 1980 rpt, first published 1976), 117-25.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 241

borrowing of terms and vision from European history.

Buehler has also attempted to mark some stages in the evolution of Sufism. These are characterized by (i) the teaching shaykhs, (ii) the directing shaykhsy and (iii) the mediating shaykhs.7* Buehler's periodization, being overtly cshaykh<ent?ic\ assumes the institution of the Sufi shaykh as the centre

of gravity in Sufism from its very inception. The Sufi shaykh gradually acquired a central role in the development and growth of Sufism. In the early centuries of the development of Sufism, all Sufis were not necessarily associated with teaching or instruction in a formal or informal sense. In addition, Buehler has discussed the mediational function of the Sufis from various dimensions, viz., between God and humans, between individuals, and between factions,79 but he has not discussed the mediational function of the

Sufis between the state and the people.

The phenomenon of Sufism is said to have existed during the times of the

Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him),80 as many of his Companions (sah?bah) attended to their spiritual development by receiving spiritual guidance directly from the Prophet (peace be on him) himself. The markedly spiritual orientation of many of his Companions which makes them appear as the precursors of the Sufis is evident from different episodes of their lives. These include, among others, the four caliphs, viz., Abu Bakr al-Sidd?q (d. 13/634), 'Umar al-Khatt?b (d. 23/644), 'Uthm?n ibn 'Aff?n and 'Ali ibn

Abi T?lib, as well as those belonging to the House of the Prophet (peace be on him) such as Hasan ibn 'Ali (d. 49/669), Husayn ibn , and 'Ali ibn Husayn ibn 'All (Zayn al-??bid?n) (d. 94/713), etc.81 Ash?b al-Suffah (People of the Platform) are considered to be the first collective expression of the Sufi tradition in Islam. These included, among others, Companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) such as Abu Dharr al-Ghif?r? (d. 32/653)82, Salman al-F?rs? (d. 36/656), and Bil?l ibn Rab?h al-Habash? (d. 20/641), etc.83 Another 'Companion of the Prophet' named Uways al-Qaran? (d. 37/657), who in fact

78 Arthur F. Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet: The Indian Naqshbandiyyay and the Rise of the

Mediating Sufi shaykh (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998). 79 Ibid., 11.

80 It has been argued that the Traditions of the Prophet abound in Sufi precepts, which show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was in fact, as the Sufis insist, the first Sufi shaykh in all but name. Lings, What is Sufismi, 101. 81 See details in al-Hujw?r?, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 70-80.

82 For a detailed study, see A. J. Cameron, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari: An Examination of His Image in

the Hagiography of Islam (Lahore: Universal Books, 1978). 83 Al-Hujw?r?, Kashf al-Mahjub, 81-82. The Sufis of the later times, including the tabi1 tin (the Successors of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be on him)), tab* t?bi'?n (the Successors of these Successors) and those who came after them, have also been dealt with by al-Hujw?r?. See

ibid., chaps. 10 and 11, 83-160.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

242 TANVIR ANJUM

had never met the Prophet (peace be on him), is also counted among the early Sufis.84

The Sufis of the first/seventh and second/eighth centuries either lived as isolated individuals or formed loose groups. Later, from the third/ninth century onwards the Sufi groups came to be called ta'ifah. Sufis of the early era

included the wandering mendicants, travelling from one place to another in groups or individually, and those leading sedentary lives. The three major centres of Sufism which emerged in the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries were Iraq, especially the metropolitan cities of Basrah, K?fah and Baghdad, the politically turbulent province of Khurasan, especially the city of Balkh, and Egypt. Other early centres of Sufism included Damascus, and the desert wastes of Arabia and Sinai. What follows is a brief description of the development and growth of Sufism in its various phases. However, it is important to note that the evolution of these phases of Sufism followed different timetables in different regions of the Muslim lands.

Appearance of Sufi Dwellings or Kh?nqahs

The second/eighth and third/ninth centuries were the times when the Sufi practices began to be crystallised. While discussing the evolution of Sufism, Gibb states that the collective organization of the Sufis began to appear in the

second/eighth century in the form of small groups, and then appeared their dwellings.85 These Sufi dwellings were variously known as rib?ts, z?wiyahs, jam?atkh?nahs and kh?nq?hs in different geographical regions, but the variation in their nomenclature also depended on their specific functions and role. In contemporary literature, these Sufi dwellings are often mistakenly referred to as hospices, convents or monasteries, but these latter terms carry their own distinctive meaning in the context of Christianity. Moreover, these

terms do not capture the complexity of the Sufi institutions.

Regarding the distinctive meaning attached to each type of the above mentioned Sufi dwelling, Trimingham is of the opinion that:

the rib?t was an Arab type of hostel or training-centre; the kh?naq?h was the Persian non-training hostel type introduced into the cities of the Arab world; z?wiya was the term applied to smaller establishments where one shaikh dwelt with his pupils; whilst a khalwa designated the 'retreat' of a single dervish,

84 Ibid., 83-84.

85 Gibb, Mohammedanism, 132. According to a more recent work, the first kh?nq?hs or the Sufi

dwellings were built around the beginning of the third/ninth century. For a detailed discussion

on the development of kh?nq?hs, see Muhsin Kiy?ni, Tar?kh-i Kh?nq?h dar ir?n (Tehran: Kit?bkh?nah-,i Tah?ri, 1990), 137-84, and Buehler, Sufi Heirs of the Prophet, 44-54.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 243

frequently a cell situated around a mosque square. A more isolated 'hermitage' was sometimes called a r?bita.*6

According to J. Chabbi, the term rib?t has a host of meanings attached to

it, such as a look-out post, small fort, fortified city, caravanserai, staging-post

and an urban establishment of the Sufis.87 Many of its meanings are associated

with warfare. In fact, there were ribats or Sufi dwellings on the marches with Byzantium, and in North Africa. The term z?wiyah was used for smaller Sufi

dwellings where the Sufis lived and prayed, but unlike the kh?nq?hs, these dwellings were not meant to serve as places where their resident Sufis could

receive others, and thus make contact with the world outside. Such dwellings were generally prevalent in the West or al-Maghrib. However, the term was systematically employed in this sense from the seventh/thirteenth century onwards.88 In addition, there emerged small Sufi retreats or small cells known as khalwahs associated with a single Sufi master. Sometimes the small cells constructed inside a large Sufi dwelling for individual Sufis were also known as

khalwahs}9 The term jam?'atkh?nah (literally meaning a place of communal living) is generally employed for Sufi dwellings constructed by the Chishtis in

India, which consisted of a large hall, where all the inmates of the khanqab used to live together under one roof.90

As for the provenance of the Sufi dwellings called kh?nqahs, they seem to have been adopted from the Karr?mis. In the third/ninth and fourth/tenth century eastern Persia, the adherents of the Karr?miyyah sect in Khurasan and

the eastern provinces had established their centres of worship and instruction all over Khurasan, known as kh?nq?hs. These centres were modelled on similar institutions run by Manicheans in Khurasan and Transoxiana.91 Ibn

Karr?m (d. 283/896), the founder of the sect, was an ascetic of Sijist?n who had

constructed his kh?nq?h in Jerusalem.92 The sect, known after its founder, was

considered heretical by the Sunn?s. However, the sect disappeared later, but its

86 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 17-18.

87 For details see J. Chabbi, "Rib?t" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 8: 493-506. 88 Ibid., 504.

89 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 169.

90 In addition, the Sufi dwellings, also referred to as d?'irah (literally meaning circle), came into

existence later in the eleventh/seventeenth and twelfth/eighteenth centuries. Their primary aim was to provide place for spiritual meditation to people. For a brief discussion on the various types of Sufi dwellings, see, Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Some Aspects of the Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century (Aligarh: Department of History, Muslim University, 1961), 175, n. 1.

91 J. Chabbi, "Kh?nk?h" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 4: 1025-26.

92 W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973), 289.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

244 TANVIR ANJUM

legacy still continues in the form of Sufi dwellings. Etymologically, kh?nq?h is

a composite word: kh?n is derived from the Persian word khanah meaning a house, while the Arabic word q?h means a practice or an act of worship. Therefore, a kh?nq?h literally means a place of worship.93 In studies on Sufism, the term is used for all types of Sufi dwellings in a generic sense, without any

distinction; and hence, it has been used in that sense in the ensuing discussion as well.

The foundations of the Sufi dwellings or kh?nq?hs were laid in the third/ninth, fourth/tenth and early fifth/eleventh centuries, though these developed fully later on. There are different assertions as to where and when the first kh?nq?h was built. According to some, the first kh?nq?h was constructed in Ramalah in the then Syria,94 whereas according to others, an early rib?t was founded on Abad?n Island on the Persian Gulf by an second/eighth century Sufi, cAbd al-W?hid ibn Zayd (d. 177/793).95 Later on, these Sufi dwellings mushroomed in large numbers in urban centres as well as

in rural settings all over the Muslim lands.

The kh?nq?hs mark the collective organization of the Sufis. With their emergence, the collective and communal aspect of the Sufi lifestyle became a requirement for the disciples and all those who aspired to tread the path of Sufism. At the beginning of the fifth/eleventh century, Ab? Ish?q al-Kazar?ni

(d. 424/1033) required that his disciples Uve a communal life in kh?nq?hs which he had founded.96 Similarly, a Khur?s?nian Sufi, Ab? Sa'?d ibn Ab? - Khayr (d. 441/1049) maintained a personal kh?nq?h in his native town Mayhana, near Sarakhs. He outlined the rules and regulations guiding the behaviour of the disciples living collectively, and required from them that they

perform their prayers in common and also carry out other acts of worship together.97 Thus, by the fifth/eleventh century, these Sufi dwellings had become an essential feature of Sufism.

These kh?nq?hs or Sufi dwellings were constructed either by a sultan, a noble, some wealthy individual, or by some prominent Sufi. They were

93 Nith?r Ahmad F?r?ql, Chishti T?timat aur lAsr-i H?dir m?n un kl Ma'nawiyyat (New Delhi: Islam and the Modern Age Society, 1981), 80.

94 Dar, "Early Sufis (Continued)" in M. M. Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 1: 336. 95 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 5, and Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions oflsUm, 31. For

a brief life sketch of 'Abd al-Wahid ibn Zayd, see P. Nwyia, "'Abd al-Vahed ibn Zayd" in Encyclopedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarsharter (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 1: 167 68; and Id?rah-'i Tasn?f-o T?l?f, Anw?r-i Asfiy?* (Lahore: Shaikh Ghulam Ali and Sons, n.d.), 38 40. 96 Wilfred Madelung, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran (Albany, NY: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988), 48-49. 97 R. A. Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980 rpt., first published 1921), 46.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 245

supported by endowments (awq?f) which their founders (kings, nobles, or the Sufis themselves) had set aside for the purpose of their maintenance and upkeep. But despite the financial support from m&^funds, ^ey enjoyed much autonomy and independence. Hodgson contends:

The worship at the mosque never ceased to be associated in some degree with political authority; it was a state function. The kh?niq?hs were eminently private

from the very beginning. Even when endowed by an amir, they retained this air.

When the kh?niq?hs became the foci of the more private, personal side of worship, they reinforced the fragmentation of Muslim societies in apolitical social forms (and at the same time...gave these forms legitimacy and spiritual support).98

In fact, the fifth/eleventh century marked the triumph of Sunn? traditionalism, and the overthrow of political Shf ism in the wake of the Selj?qs' wresting control of the 'Abbasid heartlands from the Shrite Buwayhids. It gave rise to a new institution in the Muslim society ?the madrasah (college of learning), particularly founded and patronized by the Selj?q rulers, who were staunch Sunn?s. They tried to reassert their political authority as well as that of Sunn? Islam. These political developments considerably contributed to the stabilization of Sufi institutional structures.

Historians have pointed out the parallel institutional development of madrasahs and kh?nq?hs in that period. As many Sufis became associated with these madrasahs for teaching and lecturing, there remained little distinction between a mosque or a madrasah and a Sufi kh?nq?h." Like the madrasahs, the Selj?qs and Ayy?bids also encouraged the foundation of kh?nq?hs which, like the madrasahs, were managed, endowed and supervised by the state.

Nonetheless, an adverse impact of the state's support to the kh?nq?hs was that they became state-run institutions controlled by the state, as their directors came to be officially appointed. These appointments were often political in nature, as the directors appointed there were often not necessarily Sufis. By the sixth/twelfth century, the kh?nq?hs had become rich and flourishing establishments.

Introduction of Silsilahs or Tariqahs

Another important development in Sufism was the emergence of the silsilah (pi. sal?sit) or the tartqah (pi. turuq).100 Tartqah literally means a path or way,

98 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods, 2: 213-14. 99 Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge, 44-94. 100 For a brief survey, see E. Geoffroy, "Tarika" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 10: 243

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

246 TANVIR ANJUM

and a practical method, whereas silsilah literally means a connection, a link or a chain. They can be defined as spiritual lineage or pedigree, or initiatic genealogy. Every silsilah traced its spiritual lineage or genealogy to some revered Sufi shaykh, considered to be the founder of the silsilah, and through

him it was linked to his spiritual preceptor, and this vertical chain of authority

was invariably traced back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). In this way, the succeeding Sufis, including the founder of the silsilah, recognized

themselves as the spiritual heirs of the Prophet (peace be on him). The first pedigree of Sufi teachers was prepared by Ab? Muhammad Ja'far b. Muhammad al-Khuld? (d. 348/959), after which this practice became customary among the Sufis of the later generations.101 A silsilah as a chain of genealogical authority serves as a source of identity and legitimacy for the succeeding generations of Sufis.

The Sufi groups or ta'ifahs of the early era later developed into silsilahs. They have been incorrectly translated as Sufi orders, Sufi fraternities or brotherhoods. Having their origin in Christianity, these terms have distinctive

meanings and connotations of their own, and do not adequately explain the true nature and characteristics, or convey the complexity of Sufi silsilahs. It

was the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries which witnessed the

mushroom growth of these silsilahs all over the Muslim lands, though al Hujw?r?, writing in the fifth/eleventh century, mentions twelve schools of Sufis, condemning the practices and beliefs of two, while approving the rest of

the ten schools.102 Trimingham, however, contends that these schools had not

developed into silsilah-tar?qah at that time.103 Some of the important silsilahs

that emerged later on are outlined hereunder along with the names of their founders:

Silsilah Q?diriyyah was named after Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, who is buried in Baghdad.

Silsilah Chishtiyyah was founded by Khw?jah Ab? Ish?q Sh?m? (d. 238/940). It originated from Chisht, a small village near Herat in Khur?s?n in the then Persia.

Nowadays it is situated in Afghanistan. The silsiUh was popularized in India by Shaykh Mu'?n al-D?n Chisht? of Ajm?r (d. 633/1236).

Silsihh Rif?'iyyah was derived from Shaykh Ahmad ibn al-Rif?'i (d. 578/1182).

46. 101 Meier, "The Mystic Path" in Lewis, ed. The World of Islam, 119.

102 The former ten schools include the Muh?sib?s, the Qass?r?s, the Tayf?ris, the Junaydis, the Nuris, the Sahlis, the H?kim?s, the Kharr?z?s, the Khafifis, and the Sayy?ris, whereas the rest of

the two are the Hul?l?s and the Hall?j?s (including the Ib?hat?s as well as the F?risls). Al Hujwiri, Kashf al-Mahjub, 130-31; for their details, see chap. 14: 176-266. 103 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 12.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 247

Silsilah Yasaviyyah was associated with Shaykh Ahmad al-Yasav? (d. 561/1166).

Sikilah Sh?dhiliyyah originated from Shaykh Abu Mayd?n Sh?'ayb (d. 593/1197) but attributed to Shaykh Abu 'l-Hasan 'Ali al-Sh?dhil? (d. 656/1258), who popularized it.

Sikilah Badawiyyah of Shaykh Ahmad al-Badaw? (d. 675/1276) was centred in Egypt.

Sikilah Suhrawardiyyah was founded by Shaykh Naj?b al-Din 'Abd al-Q?hir (d. 563/circa 1167), also known as Diya' al-Din Ab? Naj?b al-Suhraward?. Suhraward was a town situated in north-eastern Persia. The real founder of the

silsilah is considered to be his nephew named Shaykh Shih?b al-Din Abu Hafs 'Umar b. Muhammad al-Suhrawardi (d. 632/1234), the author of a famous Sufi text 'Aw?rif al-Ma'drif.

Sikilah Kubrawiyyah was originated from Shaykh Najm al-Din Kubr? (d. 618/1221).

Silsilah Naqshbandiyyah is initially attributed to Shaykh Yusuf al-Hamad?ni (d. 534/1140) and Shaykh 'Abd al-Kh?liq al-Ghujdaw?n? (d. 575/1179). Later, it came to be identified with Shaykh Muhammad Baha' al-Din Naqshbandi (d. 791/1389). The town of Naqshband was situated near Bukhara in Central

Asia. The silsilah was introduced in India by Khw?jah B?qi Bi'llah in the ninth/fifteenth century. The Silsilah is also referred to as Silsilah-i Khw?jag?n as well.

Silsilah Mevleviyyah was founded by Mawl?n? Jal?l al-Din Rumi who was buried in Konya (Turkey). He was the author of famous Mathnawi Ma'naw?, a classical Persian work of Sufi poetry. The silsilah is confined to Anatolia, and the whirling darv?shes are identified with it.

From the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century, the silsilahs assumed the role of schools of Sufism, with one centre attached to one Sufi

Shaykh, which perpetuated his name, his particular teaching, method, and spiritual practices. These silsilahs were quite diverse in their nature and characteristics. They betrayed the diversification of religious and spiritual experience as the methods adopted for the spiritual training and growth of the

aspirants or disciples were quite different and diverse, such as the modes of dhikr or remembrance of God, sam?( or Sufi music concert, and raqs (devotional ecstatic dance). In fact, the goal of all the Sufis and Sufi silsilahs was

one, but they pursued different paths to reach their goal. It is important to clarify that the crystallization of silsilahs did not imply that the adherents of

one were separated or isolated from all other silsilahs. The Sufi initiates could get initiated in multiple silsilahs in order to receive spiritual benefit from them.

However, the practice of multiple initiation was developed fully at a later stage, and it is reported that the Egyptian Sufi of Sh?dhil? Silsilah, Shaykh

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

248 TANVIR ANJUM

Sha'ran? (d. 973/1565) was formally initiated in twenty-five silsilahs other than his own.104

Centrality of the Sufi Master or Shaykh in Sufism

Another simultaneous development was that with the rise of the silsilahs, the Sufi masters or shaykhs emerged as a centre of gravity of the Sufi establishment. Here it seems appropriate to briefly discuss the categories of Sufis and the alternative expressions used for them. Al-Hujw?r? distinguishes between a complete Sufi, a genuine seeker of the Sufi path, and the imposter or charlatan. A Sufi is one who has reached the goal, who has annihilated his self into the Absolute Truth, whereas mutasawwifmeans "he who strives to be

a Sufi" or the Sufi aspirant. As for the mustaswif, he is an imposter or a charlatan pretending to be a Sufi for some personal gain.105

There is a nomenclatural variety in the epithets used for the Sufis. A host

of Arabic and Persian terms like marabut, darv?sh, faqlr, plr, wall, murshid, shaykh, majdh?h and qalandar are found in common usage. Nonetheless, they have distinctive meanings attached to them, though some of them are often used interchangeably. These terms having slightly different meanings need to be clarified here, as some of them denote the varied categories of Sufis as well.

The Arabic term wall is understood in Sufi literature as someone who is

close to God or is considered to be a friend or prot?g? of God, whereas the Persian epithet plr generally refers to a healer or problem solver. Some scholars have employed the term plr in a general sense as well. For instance,

Desiderio Pinto defines plr in a generic sense as a guide, helper, teacher who takes people to God, he is closely associated with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), has a close and intimate relationship with God, and acts as a

mediator between God and man.106

The Arabic word shaykh has a variety of meanings, but it is a more general term employed for both plr and the Arabic word murshid, meaning a spiritual mentor or guide. The term faqlr literally means a p?or, derived from the Arabic word faqr ([voluntary] poverty), which is one of the celebrated virtues of Muslim Sufis and non-Muslim ascetics alike. Its Persian equivalent is darv?sh, derived from dar (door) and v?sh (to beg) meaning poor or beggar

104 Michael Winter, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of'Abd al-Wahhab al-ShaWani (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982), 90, as cited in Berkey, The Formation of Islam, 239.

105 Al-Hujw?ri, Kashfal-Mahj?b, 34-35.

106 See details in Desiderio Pinto, Piri-Muridi Relationship: A Study of the Nizamuddin Dargah (Delhi: Manohar, 1995), 125-40; see characteristics of p?rs, 141-47, duties of plrs, 147-52, adab (etiquettes for veneration) of p?rs, 152-59, and their powers, 159-77.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 249

who goes from door to door. Darv?sh is the one who has given up all his worldly possessions, and either Uves in a kh?nq?h or is a wandering mendicant.107 In addition, there are other categories as well which include the following: the Persian epithet majdh?b refers to the one absorbed in, or enraptured with, the love of God, generally having lost sanity and self-control;

while qalandar is generally understood to be a libertine mendicant having antin?mi?n and non-conformist tendencies.108 However, it must be remembered that some of these terms were not current in the early days of Sufism, and became popular later on.

Let us now return to the original point, centrality of the position of the Sufi shaykh. With the development of the silsilahs, the Sufi shaykhs assumed a

central position not only in a silsilah or a kh?nq?h, but in the entire process of

spiritual development and training of a disciple.109 The Sufi doctrine and concept of suhbah (literally meaning companionship) explains it well. According to it, the company of a Sufi shaykh is considered to be a source of spiritual development of a disciple, and is preferred to seclusion.110 With the passage of time elaborate rules of suhbah were developed, and there also appeared texts and literature on the subject as well. 'Abd al-Rahm?n al Sulam?'s (d. 412/1021) Kit?b ?d?b al-Suhbah is one such example in point. Thus, the institution of a directing shaykh or preceptor, being indispensable for the spiritual development and training of a murld, emerged as a centre of gravity in the entire system of spiritual guidance. The term murld literally meant an aspirant, or he who has made up his will, i.e. to enter the path. It was used as a designation for the disciples or initiates. The disciples can broadly be classified into two types depending on their motives in getting initiated: those getting initiated or becoming murld for the purpose of seeking

the blessings of a Sufi shaykh, and those performing bay'at for embarking on

the spiritual trajectory. Only a few disciples could become the khulafa' (pi. of

107 Brown, The Darvishes or Oriental Spiritualism, 49. Also see Duncan Black Macdonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam (Beirut: Khayats, 1965 rpt, first published 1909), 162. 108 For a detailed discussion, see P. M. Currie, The Sbrine and Cult of Mu'tn al-dln Chishti of

Ajmer (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 1-8; A. C. Mayer, "Pir and Murshid: An Aspect of Religious Leadership in W. Pakistan," Middle Eastern Studies (1966-67), 3: 161-64, and J?rgen

Wasim Frembgen, "The Majzub Mama Ji Sarkar: A Friend of God moves from one house to another" in Pnina Werbner and Helena Basu, eds. Embodying Charisma: Modernity, Locality and

Performance of Emotion in Sufi Cults (London: Routledge, 1998), 144-46. 109 For a critical analysis of the doctrine of salvation through the Silsilah and the Shaykh, and adoration of the Shaykh, see Muhammad Salim, "Conception of Shaikh in Early Sufism" in The

Proceedings of the All Pakistan History Conference (First session) Held at Karachi, April 1951, comp. S. Moinul Haq (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, n.d.), 89-95. 110 See for details Khaliq Ahmad Nizami "Suhbah" in The Encyclopedia of Religion, 14: 123-24;

and Stuart W. Smithers, "Spiritual Guide" in ibid, 14: 29-37, esp. 32-33.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

250 TANVIR ANJUM

khalifah) or spiritual successors of a shaykh, who were authorized by him to teach, guide and instruct the disciples.111 Generally, one among them was designated as his principal khalifah.

Another development was the inception of the practice of disciples performing bay'at (literally meaning a pledge or oath-taking) at the hands of a

Sufi shaykh. Bay'at has been defined as formal initiation, whereby an aspirant

gets initiated in a silsilah, which is tantamount to admitting a seeker in the fold

of Sufism. The term mufidi is used for discipleship. The p?r-mur?d relationship

was characterized by an intensely personal bond between the two. Elaborate rules and regulations guiding the conduct of the disciples were also laid down.112 For instance, a sixth/twelfth century Sufi, Shaykh Ab? -Naj?b al Suhrawardi, wrote a treatise ?d?b al-Murid?n for the guidance of the disciples. Another practice among the Sufis was the bestowal of a khirqah, a worn and patched cloak, to a disciple by a shaykh, which symbolized the recognition of the Sufi training received by the former. The khirqah was a source of spiritual

barakah (blessing) as well as symbolic of the trainee's rejection of wealth and material things in favour of spiritual riches. The origin of the practice of granting khirqahs goes back to the second/eighth century,113 but the practice was still in its rudimentary stage at that time. In the ensuing centuries, the

practice became more common and was eventually institutionalized.

Fundamental Doctrines of Sufism

The doctrinal development of Sufism stretched over centuries. The articulation of the Sufi doctrines began as early as the second/eighth century,

but there are no records of contemporaneous texts containing the historical evolution of these doctrines. One of the chief characteristics of the initial

phase of Sufism was its doctrinal simplicity. This was the phase when the adherents of Sufism focused more on its experiential aspects as compared to theorizing of the Sufi practices. The third/ninth and fourth/tenth centuries

111 In fact, from the fifth/eleventh century onwards the term khal?fah came to be used in the

context of Sufism for the successors of the Sufi Shaykhs. For a brief survey, see F. De Jong,

"Khalifa," part "In Islamic Mysticism" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 4: 950-52. 112 For a detailed survey see Bikram N. Nanda and Mohammad Talib, "Soul of the Soulless: An

Analysis of Pir-Murid Relationships in Sufi Discourse" in Christian W. Troll, ed. Muslim Shrines in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 125-44. 113 The practice of granting ceremonial garment or khirqah to a disciple by a Sufi shaykh is

mentioned as early as the eighth century by Ahmad ibn Harb and al-Muh?sibi. See Jean-Louis Michon, in "Khirka" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 5:17. According to Meier, the practice dates from the time of Shaykh Ab? 'Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn al-Khafif (d. 370/981), a Sufi who lived in Shiraz (Persia). Idem, "The Mystic Path" in Lewis, ed. The World of Islam, 121.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 251

witnessed the further doctrinal growth of Sufism as well as the theorization of

Sufi practices. A detailed history of the doctrinal evolution of Sufism lies beyond the scope of the present paper. Nonetheless, we are essaying below a very brief account of the fundamental Sufi doctrines. However, the ensuing discussion is focused less on doctrines concerning the attributes of God and the nature of gnosis, and more on the doctrines affecting the social attitudes and behaviour of the Sufis including their ethical ideals and moral values as well as ideas regarding their personal conduct. It seems necessary, though, to point out that it is difficult to draw a Une of demarcation between the two, as

the doctrines of the former kind may have social implications.

While studying Islamic ethics, Donaldson takes note of the fact that when the principles and purposes of conduct are taken into consideration, the fundamentally mystical character of Muslim ethical thinking is soon evident.114

The ethical principles of the Sufis seem to be distinct from those of the so called 'externalist' 'ulama', jurists and theologians, who were more concerned

with the legal and juristic aspects of Islam. What follows is a brief description of the fundamental doctrines of Sufism:

The concept of gnosis or intuitive knowledge (ma'arifah or hikmah) as a means of comprehending God was first articulated by Dh? -N?n al-Misr?. It comprises intuitive or esoteric knowledge as opposed to knowledge acquired through the five senses and reason ('Urn or exoteric knowledge), which leads to

a comprehension of the Absolute. In other words, it is super-intellectual knowledge of God.115 As the concept of ma'arifah or intuitive knowledge came

very close to revelation to the Prophet (peace be on him), the 'ulama' possessing knowledge of Islamic law or SharVah, became highly critical of the Sufis. During the fourth/tenth century some important Sufis even had to give

their lives on charges related to the claim of intuitive knowledge. Conflict between Sufis of various hues and the 'ulama' has, in one or the other form, continued ever since.

The concept of fan?' (the annihilation of the mortal self, or absorption into the Godhead) was central to the thinking of the Persian Sufi Ab? Yaz?d al-Bist?m?. In spiritual annihilation in God, the dichotomy and distinction between I and thou ceases to exist. Fan?' signifies the death of self-will and self

consciousness. A parallel idea is found in Hinduism and Buddhism as well. Another associated doctrine is that of subsistence or permanence (baq?). Love

114 Dwight M. Donaldson, Studies in Muslim Ethics (London: S. P. C. K., 1953), 110. 115 See details in al-Kal?b?dhi, Kit?b al-Ta'anuf, 46-51, al-Hujw?ri, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 267-77, and al-Suhraward?, 'Aw?nf al-Ma'?nf 98-101. See also the views of al-Muh?sibi on gnosis in

Margaret Smith, al-Muh?sih?: An Early Mystic of Baghdad (Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation, 1980 rpt., first published 1935), 298-304.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

252 TANVIR ANJUM

for God in the Sufis' life holds the hope that beyond personal annihilation there will be divine restoration or permanence. According to al-Hujw?ri, Ab? Sa'?d Kharr?z was the first to explain the states of fan?* and baq?\ As for the doctrine of baqa\ it signifies actual permanence in the Real; it represents the stage when a person loses his status in the attributes of the Real and achieves a

vision of God Himself.116 According to the doctrine of unity (tawhid), God is the only reality and He is unique in His timelessness. He is incomparable, and nothing is like Him. It signifies the negation of God's temporality, and the affirmation that God is eternal.117

The early Sufis such as Hasan al-Basri believed in and propagated the concept of fear (khawj),m signifying the fear of God's wrath, of the Day of Judgment and that of punishment of hell fire. Love for God (mahabbah), however, emerged as a central idea in a Sufi's life, which requires exertion, discipline and patience, but it is Sufi belief that he may be blessed with love inspired by God, love satisfied with nothing less than God Himself. The notion of disinterested love of God was clearly articulated perhaps for the first

time with overpowering force by R?bi'ah al-Basr?. Because of her advocacy for disinterested love of God, she became the model of selfless love among the Sufi

circles. She urged the worship of God out of love, instead of owing to fear of hell or desire for paradise. She taught that a Sufi must love God for His Own sake.119 Other Sufis like Dh? -N?n al-Misri, Sari al-Saqat? and Junayd al Baghd?d? further articulated the idea.

Junayd al-Baghd?d? advocated the principle of sobriety (sahw) in Sufi practices and behaviour. His apparent behaviour, actions, and utterances were in consonance with the Shart'ah (the Islamic law), and for this reason his Sufi doctrines and practices were generally approved by his contemporary theologians, jurists and 'ulama'. The principle opposed to sahw is that of ecstatic intoxication or 'drunkenness' (sukr), characterized by loss of self control because of an excess of longing and extreme love.120 It was propagated by the early Sufis such as Ab? Yaz?d al-Bist?m? and al-Hall?j.

116 For details see al-Kal?b?dh?, Kit?b al-Ta'arru)r, 120-33; al-Hujw?ri, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 242-46; al

Suhraward?, *Awarifal-Ma*arif, 195-98; and M. Hamiduddin, "Early Sufis: Doctrines" in Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 1: 332-34.

117 For an elaborate discussion, see al-Hujw?ri, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 278-85; and Hamiduddin, "Early Sufis: Doctrines" in Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 1: 320-21.

118 Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 30. See details in al-Kal?b?dhi, Kitab al-Ta'arruf, 88 89. 119 Margaret Smith, Rabi*a The Mystic and Her Fellow-Saints in Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984 rpt., first published 1928), 96-110.

120 For various explanations of the doctrine of sobriety, see al-Kal?b?dhi, Kitab al-Ta'arruf 110?

12. For a discourse on sobriety and intoxication, see al-Hujwiri, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 184-88.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 253

Historians and scholars of Sufism have pointed out that the ascetic impulse, based on otherworlcUiness and utter renunciation of worldly pleasures, was a part of the Sufi tradition from the very beginning.121 One of the foremost Sufi doctrines was the doctrine of [voluntary] poverty (faqr)y

which was characterized by a denial of material needs. The lifestyles of Sufis exhibited indifference to wealth, and that was why they came to be referred to

as faqtr (poor or destitute). The manifestations of poverty included extreme simplicity of living, lack of worldly possessions, wearing of coarse clothes, having very simple food such as herbs, and even continual fasting. The early Sufi texts are full of exaltation of poverty, since it was treated as a celebrated

virtue practiced by the Prophet (peace be on him) himself. One of the earliest Sufis, Hasan al-Basr?, cherished the values of hunger and poverty, while branding wealth as an evil which distracts people from their righteous goal.122 Nonetheless, one also comes across a few exceptions such as H?rith al Muh?sib?, who preferred wealth (ghina) to poverty.123

The Sufi ideal of poverty stood in sharp contrast to the wealth of the royal household, the ruling elite and the well-off urbanit?s. The Sufi ideal of poverty symbolized a silent protest against the growing and widespread materialism which found its way to the Muslim community in the wake of conquest and annexation of vast territories in Persia, Byzantium, Central and

Western Asia, and Africa, bringing prosperity and affluence.

The Sufis believe that hearing the recitation of the Qur'?n, chanting of poetry or music may induce ecstasy in an individual. For this reason, devotional music or sarna' is considered by a large number of Sufis to be a source of ecstasy and a method of spiritual realization, and hence, permissible.124 Devotional music and ecstatic dance were meant to arouse spiritual ecstasy and rapture, and many Sufis are said to have died from the heightened emotions caused by it. The formal practice of sam?c was supplemented by ritualistic ecstatic dance or raqs, which was intended to plunge the dancer into a state of concentration on Allah. Those who approved sam?' and wrote about it can be classified into two groups: Muslim philosophers (faldsifah) such as Ab? Y?suf Ya'q?b b. Ish?q al-Kindi (d. 260/873), Ab? Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyy? al-R?z? (d. 320/932), Ab?

121 Christopher Melchert, "The Transition from Asceticism to Mysticism at the Middle of the Ninth Century CE," Studia Islamica, vol. 83 (1996), 51-70. 122 See Hasan al-Basri's letter to Umayyad Caliph, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-4Aziz, in A. J. Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam (New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 2003 rpt., first published 1950), 33-35. 123 Dar, "Early Sufis (Continued)" in Sharif, ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy, 1: 339.

124 For a brief survey, see J. During, "Sama*," part I, "In Music and Mysticism" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 8: 1018-19.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

254 TANVIR ANJUM

Nasr Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tarakh?n al-F?r?b? (d. 339/950), Ab? cAl? Ibn S?n? (d. 428/1037), Ab? Bakr Ibn B?jjah (d. 533/1138), and Saf? 1-D?n (d. 692/1293) as well as the Ikhw?n al-Saf?' (third/tenth century); and Sufi scholars such as al-Hujw?r?, Imam al-Ghazz?l?, and Ahmad al-Ghazz?l? (d. 520/1126).125 The practices of sama' and raqs became especially popular in the Middle Period with the Sufis in Persia, India and Anatolia. The practice of sama' found its highest expression among the Sufis associated with the

Mawlviyyah Silsilah, whose founder, Jal?l al-D?n R?m? of Konya, the famous Persian Sufi poet, practiced it along with his disciples and associates.

Devotional music and ecstatic dancing among the Sufis evoked much criticism and objection from the 'externalist' 'ulama\ jurists and theologians, who were more concerned with the outward conformity to the law or the SharVah. Criticism of this practice came not only from the juristic circles, more particularly from the Hanbal?s, but also from the more sober Sufi circles. Its important critics included Ab? Bakr 'Abd Allah Ibn Ab? 1-Duny? (d. 281/894), Ab? 1-Faraj 'Abd al-Rahm?n b. 'Ah Ibn al-Jawz? (d. 597/1200) and Taq? 1-D?n Ab? VAbbas Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328).126 Many Sufi scholars have also expressed reservations about it, and have approved of it

with some conditions for the listeners. Al-Hujw?r? is, for instance, among those who have approved it with some conditions. He has devoted an entire section to it in Kashf al-Mahj?b, and has dealt in detail with its various principles, functions, conditions of performance, and aspects such as dancing and rending of garments.127 Similarly, Imam al-Ghazz?l?, who approved of it in

principle, required certain conditions to be met before listening to it.128

Another important Sufi doctrine is that of companionship (suhbah), which specifically refers to a Sufi's return from seclusion, as well as the company of the Sufi master for the disciple (mur?d).129 Another related doctrine is that of retirement (khalwah).m Adherence to the Sufi way of life did not necessarily involve continuous seclusion or solitude, severing ties with the people at large, though the Sufis used to retreat from the worldly life for

125 Jean-Louis Michon, "Sacred Music and Dance in Islam" in Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic

Spirituality: Manifestations, 2: 472-78. 126 Ibn Abi 1-Duny? wrote Dhamm al-Mal?h? (Censure of Instruments of Diversion), while Ibn

al-Jawz? wrote Talbts Iblis (The Dissimulation of the Satan) in condemnation of sama\ Ibid., 471-72. Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a treatise in condemnation of sama'. 127 Al-Hujw?r?, Kashfal-Mahj?b, 393-420.

128 See a detailed discussion in Im?m Ab? Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazz?l?, Ihy? 'Ul?m-id-Din, Eng. trans. Fazal-ul-Karim (Lahore: Islamic Book Foundation, 1981), chap. DC in Book , 203 24. 129 For a detailed study, see al-Hujwiri, Kashf alMahjiib, 334-66.

130 Al-Suhraward?, 'Aw?rif alMa'arif 70-73.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 255

some period of time for spiritual gains. This is known as khalwah. The early Sufis, while practicing it, retired to forests, deserts or wilderness. In some cases it lasted for months, while in others it stretched over years and even decades.

Nevertheless, it should not lead one into thinking that the Sufis generally led quietistic and secluded lives. It is essential to bear in mind that the practice of khalwah was a temporary phase after which the Sufis used to resume living among the people. It is important to note that all Sufis stressed the principle of

service to humanity, which was, of course, not possible while in retirement.

Other important doctrines include the concept of sincerity (ikhlds)ym which required that only God be sought in every act of obedience to Him, and

also implied sincerity in every thought and action; the concept of repentance or penitence (tawbah)ym which includes repentance from sin as well as from forgetfulness and distraction from God; and the concept of heightened or concentrated piety133 (zuhdy often mistakenly translated as asceticism) that signifies the avoidance of even the permitted pleasures of worldly life, and eventually giving up of everything that distracts the heart and mind from God.

The concept of trust in, or reliance on, God ? tawakkulm ? was developed by Shaq?q al-Balkh?, a pupil of Ibrahim ibn Adham. Later on, it was further developed by Dh? -N?n al-Misr? and Junayd al-Baghd?dl. The doctrine of self-examination (muh?sabah) was attributed to H?rith al-Muh?sib?,135 which earned him his epithet as well.

An essential Sufi value is that of tolerance in social behaviour and

universalism in approach. The Sufis had an inclusive approach towards people belonging to different sects, juristic schools (madhahiby pi. of madhhab)y racial or ethnic groups, and even religions. They displayed more tolerance towards all, including non-Muslims, as compared to the upholders of juristic Islam or theologians. In fact, Sufism served as a junction for the mystically-inclined adherents of different religious traditions. Since the society under the vast

Muslim Empires of the Umayyads and 'Abbasids had a pluralistic environment ? racially, ethnically, culturally and religiously ? it provided greater opportunities of interaction with people belonging to varied racial, ethnic, cultural backgrounds as well as religious traditions. The Sufis held discourses with Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, and Buddhist and Zoroastrian sages. Moreover, Muslim society was also beset by strong sectarian cleavages,

131 For details, see al-Kal?b?dhi, Kit?b al-Ta'arruf, 90-91.

132 Ibid., 81-82, and al-Hujw?ri, Kashf alMahj?b, 294-99. 133 Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 110.

134 Al-Kal?b?dhi, Kit?b al-Ta'arruf, 92-93.

135 Smith, Al-Muh?sib?: An Early Mystic of Baghdad, 53; for details see 168-77. See also, ?ahin Filiz, "The Founder of the Muh?sabah School of Sufism: Al-H?rith ibn Asad al-Muh?sibi," Islamic Studies, 45:1 (2006), 59-81.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

256 TANVIR ANJUM

and there existed friction among the adherents of various madh?hib. Sufism left an indelible mark on the life of the Muslims, as the Sufis often rose above

sectarian affiliations, despite the fact that most of them were Sunn?s by orientation.136 In addition, though many of the Sufis taught fiqh in various madrasahs (religious seminaries), they discouraged these juristic differences to become bones of contention.

Two complementary Sufi doctrines deserve special mention, since these have significant political linkages: the doctrine of wil?yat or wil?yah (spiritual

territory or domain) and the doctrine of hierarchy of Sufis. According to the

doctrine of wil?yat, various geographical territories are considered to be under

the spiritual jurisdiction of different Sufi shaykhsP7 In other words, the entire world is considered to be divided into various geographical regions like different units of administration, each one of which is believed to be spiritually ruled by a Sufi shaykh. The heads of various silsilahs used to dispatch their khulaf?* (deputies) to these wil?yats, and these khulaf?' in turn

used to appoint their subordinate khulaf?3 for towns and small cities. In this way, one main Sufi centre used to control a whole network of kh?nq?hs in various regions.138 As for the doctrine of hierarchy of Sufis, it was clearly articulated by Shaykh Ibn al-'Arabi for the first time. He argued that there are

different hierarchies among the Sufis. On the top of it is qutb, the spiritual ruler of the entire world, who is coexistent with the temporal sultan or the king.139

136 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: The Classical Age of Islam, 1: 393. 137 However, the doctrine of wil?yat or wil?yah is not to be confused with the concept of

wal?yat or walayah, literally meaning to be near, or to be close to, and refers to closeness or love

of God, saintship or sainthood. Moreover, the words wil?yah and wal?yah are Arabic in origin, whereas wil?yat and wal?yat are Persian words. The concept of wil?yah or wil?yat also refers to

authority, power, and ability to act. See discussion on wil?ya and wal?ya in Vincent J. Cornell,

Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998), see Introduction, xvii-xxi. See also Bernd Radtke, "The Concept of Wil?ya in Early Sufism" in Leonard Lewisohn, ed. Classical Persian Sufism: From its Origins to Rumi (London: Kh?nq?h? Ni'matull?h? Publications, 1994), 483-96; Simon Digby, "The Sufi Shaikh as a Source of Authority in Medieval India" in Marc Gaborieau, ed. Islam et Soci?t? en Asie du Sud (Paris: L'Ecole des Hautes ?tudes en Sciences Sociales, 1986), 62-63; and Simon Digby, "The Sufi Shaykh and the Sultan: A Conflict of Claims to Authority in Medieval India," Ir?n, vol. 28 (1990), 71-75. 138 In the words of Werbner and Basu, the Sufi notion of wil?yat refers to "spiritual dominions

controlled by famous saints, but these also have an organized temporal, spatial and social realization. Shrines thus represent important landmarks in the sacred geography of Islam in South Asia. Symbolically, their spatial ordering often mirrors the sacred pilgrimage centres of Islam in Mecca and Madina." Pnina Werbner and Helena Basu, "The Embodiment of Charisma"

in Werbner and Basu, ed. Embodying Charisma, 12.

139 The qutb is assisted by two im?ms, under whom work four awt?ds, and seven abd?ls. See

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 257

Relationship of Early Sufis with the State and Political Authorities

Bearing in mind these doctrinal and institutional developments in Sufism, we shall now embark on a brief discussion and analysis of the relationship between the Sufis of the early era with political authorities. However, the discussion does not intend to be an exhaustive narration of all cases of the

Sufis' interaction with the state; rather, its purpose is to merely highlight the

critical issues in this regard.

While studying the patterns of the Sufi behaviour vis-?-vis the state, one may raise a number of questions: did the Sufis of the early era represent a homogenous group in terms of their beliefs and practices, particularly as far as

their relationship with the political authorities was concerned? What was the doctrinal position of the Sufis regarding questions of political power and authority? How far was the Sufis' response to political authority rooted in their doctrines?

The relationship of the Sufis with political authorities is doubtlessly a complex phenomenon. Its complexity lies in the diverse responses of the Sufis

to politically engage the state or to refrain from it. There were different approaches to this among the Sufis of various regions and silsilahs. Many Sufis

avoided any contact with the kings and nobles, and discouraged any association with the political authorities among their fellow Sufis. On the contrary, many Sufis saw their engagement with the political authority as a

means of positively affecting the behaviour of the king and nobility, as well as

the state policies. This shows that the response of the Sufis to the political authorities was not homogenous, as were the actions and behaviour of the Sufis quite diverse in this regard. Similarly, some of the rulers sought counsel

of the Sufis for their personal conduct as well as in state affairs, some thought

it better to keep their hands off the Sufis and leave them and their kh?nq?hs undisturbed, whereas some rulers tried to regulate and control the Sufis as well.

The Sufis' relationship with the state has generally been treated under two broad themes, namely, the conflictual or oppositional relationship, and cordial or friendly relationship. But these two categories typify two extremes,

which obviously blur the richness and complexity of the variegated phenomenon. Moreover, the fact that in Islam the political authority remained closely associated with the religious authority epitomized by the ulama\ jurists and theologians, further adds to the complexity of the issue.

details in Muhy? 1-Dln ibn al-'Arabi, al-Fut?h?t alMakkiyyah, Urdu trans. 'All?mah S?'im Chisht? (Faisalabad: Ali Brothers, 1986), 56-57. For details of the Sufi hierarchy, see also al Hujw?r?, Kashfal-Mahj?b, 147,214,229; and J?m?, Nafah?t al-Uns min Hadar?t al-Qudst 15.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

258 TANVIR ANJUM

To begin with the role of the custodians of religious authority, it is misleading to assume the 'ulama'140 of the early Islamic era as a fairly distinct group, as they were loosely defined and were also unstructured.141 Like the Sufis, the 'ulama', jurists and theologians were also heterogeneous in terms of their beliefs and doctrines, legal preferences, and approaches to the state, rulers

and political authorities. Those who were closely allied with the state naturally influenced the rulers as well as the official policies. Therefore, the relationship between the 'ulama', jurists and theologians, and the Sufis was quite crucial in shaping the official policies regarding the Sufis.

Historically, the relationship between the Sufis and the 'externalist' 'ulama', jurists and theologians was, on the whole, hardly cordial. The latter

were the traditional custodians of religious authority, and were in most cases allied with the state.142 Their insistence on, and preoccupation with, the outward forms and exoteric aspect of religion stood in sharp contrast to the Sufi doctrines emphasizing the internal and esoteric dimensions of the same. Some of the views of the Sufis were considered to be blasphemous by the 'ulama', and it was this reason that the former often had recourse to poetry,

which not only made it easier to express complicated Sufi beliefs, but also helped conceal some of the Sufi ideas.143 Similarly, the approach of the 'ulama'

and the Sufis towards the issues pertaining to morality was also radically different from each other.144 It was for this reason that the latter perceived the

140 As a general term, the word 'ulama1 (plural of Arabic word 'dlim, derived from 'Urn or knowledge, which literally means a knowledgeable person) came to refer to the learned Muslims or religious scholars during the early Islamic era, which included, more specifically, the muhaddithun (traditionalists; experts of Hadtth), fuqah?1 (jurists, or experts of Islamic law), muftis (expounders of Islamic law) and q?d?s (judges). 141 According to Roy Mottahedeh, in the early Islamic era, the * ulama1 formed a vaguely defined

category, having a least restrictive meaning as it overlapped with a number of other categories. Moreover, it was not a distinct group, but the 'ulama1 were a category with a self-conscious identity. Idem, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1980), 137,140,142-43. 142 See Introduction in Nikki R. Keddie, ed. Scholars, Saints and Sufis: Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 3.

143 E. A. Bertels, Sufism i Sufiyskaia Literatura (Moscow: 1965), 60-61, as cited in E. A. Poliakova, "Some Problems of Sufi Studies," Islamic Culture, Lahore, vol. LXI, no. 3 0uly, 1987), 74. 144 In this regard, the approach of the 'ulama1 has been termed as teleological, as they generally determine the Tightness or wrongness of an action solely by its consequences ? in this world and in the life hereafter. On the contrary, the Sufis' approach may be termed as deontological as they tried to assess human actions morally by the motives and intentions of the people. Tanvir

Anjum, "Moral Training by the Mystics: Strategies and Methodologies," Historicus, Quarterly Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi, vol. XLVI, no. 1 Qan-Mar 1998), 77.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 259

former as those "concerned more with the husks than with the kernel of truth."145

In addition to the crystallization of schools of fiqh, the increasing formalism in matters of Shaft'ah, and a more or less exclusive emphasis on the

exoteric aspects of Islam had increased the importance and prestige of the 'ulama' in the Muslim society. Moreover, the 'Abb?sid regime had employed 'ulama' on the administrative, juridical and even executive positions of the state. These developments led to the conclusion that the 'ulama' were the sole

interpreters of the revealed message of Islam and had the exclusive monopoly of the interpretation of the Shart'ab. "Had they been allowed," according to Danner, "to go along in such a fashion, with no opposition to their claims, Islam would have seen something similar to what took place in early Christianity, when the official church stamped out all spiritual esoterism that claimed an independent existence for itself."146 In these circumstances, the Sufis

asserted themselves, and claimed that they represented the esoteric aspect of Islam.

As the Sufi doctrines and practices started getting clearly articulated, misgivings and doubts regarding them appeared in the circles of the 'externalist' 'ulama', jurists and theologians. Though most of the Sufis were respectful to the Shaft'ah, and their personal conduct was in conformity with it, some of the Sufi groups indulged in flagrant violation of the norms of the

society and the injunctions of the Shart'ab. They were generally referred to as

mal?mat?s (literally meaning disposed to self-blame). They deliberately lived, or made a show of living, blameworthy lives in order to conceal their spiritual

achievements from others. Not only the 'ulama1\ jurists and theologians, but the more sober Sufi circles too did not extend to them their approval. Al

Hujw?r?'s assertion of disapproval of two such Sufi groups has already been mentioned.147

The institutionahzation of the silsilabs gave Sufism a wide-ranging appeal. The silsilabs made the Shaykhs or the Sufi masters the locus of religious authority for the people in general, and for their disciples in particular, which

further undermined the traditional authority of the juristic leaders, theologians and 'ulama' in the realm of religion. In a sense, the Sufis emerged as a parallel locus of religious authority, as the exclusive monopoly of the 'ulama' over religious authority was challenged by the Sufis, who were regarded by their disciples as the sole authority in all matters.

145 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: The Classical Age of Islam, 1: 403. 146 Danner, "The Early Development of Sufism" in Nasr, ed. Encyclopaedia of Islamic Spirituality-. Foundations, 1: 255. 147 See n. 102 above.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

260 TANVIR ANJUM

The historical events regarding the relationship of the Sufis and the political authorities can hardly be generalized owing to the diversity of their responses to each other. On the one hand, we come across evidence of the

state extending patronage to the Sufi establishment, and the Sufis acting as allies of the sultans and accepting official titles and designations, but on the other, we have legendary figures among the Sufis such as al-Hall?j, 'Ayn al Qud?t Ab? -Ma'?l? 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Hamad?n? (d. 525/1131) and Shih?b al-Din Yahy? b. Habsh al-Suhraward? (d. 587/1191), who were executed by the political authorities which earned them the epithet of 'martyrs.' Given below is a brief overview of the Sufis' relationship with political authorities.

As pointed out earlier, the fifth/eleventh century marks the triumph of Sunn? traditionalism in the wake of the Sh?'ite Buwayhids' ouster from power,

and the Sunni Selj?qids' assumption of political authority in the 'Abb?sid Empire. The Selj?qids were in dire need of support from the varied segments of society in order to assert and firmly establish their political authority. Moreover, being staunch Sunn?s themselves, they tried to reassert the authority of the Sunn? version of Islam. The institutions of madrasahs and kh?nq?bs played a crucial role in this regard, as they were patronized and supported by the Selj?qid rulers and the ruling elite. In addition to the Selj?qids, the Zingid and the Ayy?bid rulers, as well as their lieutenants and successors, not only constructed kh?nq?bs, but supported the Sufi establishment as well. In this way, not only did these regimes strengthen their

hold on power, but this official patronage, in the opinion of Trimingham, made Sufi establishment more 'respectable' in the eyes of the people.148

On this basis, one may discern and infer that the Sufi-state relationship was two-way traffic, and in addition to the Sufis being a source of legitimacy for the political authorities, the state patronage could also extend legitimacy to

Sufism, and help the Sufis win social approval and acclaim. The sultans and amirs, particularly the Selj?qid rulers, supported the existing kh?nq?bs and granted them endowments, which opened the way for the direct interference of the state in their affairs.

In fact many Sufis tactfully used their association with the political authorities as a means of influencing the behaviour of the Caliphs or kings and

the umar?', as well as their state policies in a positive and constructive way. On the other hand, the political authorities benefited from the social acclaim of the Sufis in order to overcome political problems. An outstanding example in this regard is that of the founder of the Suhrawardiyyah Silsilah, Shaykh

Naj?b al-D?n Ab? -Q?hir al-Suhraward?, who had close and very cordial

148 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 9.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 261

relations with the Caliphs of Baghdad. He enjoyed such prestige and honour that if anybody sought shelter in his rib?t (Sufi dwelling) he could not be forcibly taken away even by a Caliph or a Sultan.149 His nephew, Shaykh Shih?b al-D?n Ab? Hafs 'Umar b. Muhammad al-Suhrawardi, who is considered to be the real founder of the Suhraward? Silsilah, served as the

envoy of, and chief religious adviser to, the 'Abb?sid Caliph al-N?sir (r. 575 622/1180-1225). According to al-Suhrawardi, the authority of the Caliph over his subjects and as a mediator between his people and God was conceived in terms parallel to that of the authority of a Sufi shaykh over his disciples.150 The Caliph not only founded kh?nq?hs in Baghdad, but also appointed the shaykh as the director of many kh?nq?hs. Together they initiated a programme of political and religious, or more accurately, spiritual reform in the state. Apart from other efforts, a systematic reformation of Sufi silsilahs was also initiated.

Caliph al-N?sir himself founded at least six kh?nq?hs in Baghd?d, and appointed al-Suhrawardi as the director of several other kh?nq?hs established by others,151 which symbolized the subordination of the Sufis to the political authorities. The Caliph also controlled the appointment of director to other

kh?nq?hs. The Shaykh also helped the 'Abb?sid Caliphs in their hour of need. For instance, when Khw?rizm Sh?h, Muhammad II, invaded Baghdad in 614/1217-18, it was the Shaykh who dissuaded him from attacking the city.152

In the sixth/twelfth century, another pattern of State-Sufi relationship is

found in the Maml?k State in Egypt, a semi-autonomous kingdom and an appendage of the 'Abb?sids. On the one hand, the Maml?k sultans were in dire need of legitimacy for their rule, and so they sought the help of the Sufis for consolidation of their political authority. On the other hand, fearful of the

growing influence of the Sufis in Egypt, they also tried to control and regulate

them. Under the Maml?ks in Egypt, the shaykhs of kh?nq?hs were given appointments by the state. The Maml?k sultans used to confer the title of Shaykh al-Shuy?kh (literally meaning master of the masters) to the heads of various kh?nq?hs. The Shaykh al-Shuy?kh also exercised authority over other Sufi establishments in the Maml?k State. Like the official title of Shaykh al Isl?m in India, it was more of an honorific nature, and did not imply any specific role and responsibilities.153 In addition, there existed kh?nq?hs in various parts of the Muslim world, including Egypt and Syria, which were

149 Nizami, Some Aspects of the Religion and Politics in India during the Thirteenth Century, 252.

150 Berkey, The Formation of Islam, 241. See some details of Caliph al-Nasir's theory of the Caliphate, Angelika Hartmann, "Al-N?sir Li-D?n Allah" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn, 7: 996-1003. 151 Berkey, The Formation of Islam, 241-42.

152 Hartmann, "Al-N?sir Li-Din Allah" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 7: 996-997.

153 Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, 18.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

262 TANVIR ANJUM

officially supported. Since they were constructed or managed by the state, the

government used to appoint their directors as well. As a result, the people who

were made the directors of these kh?nq?bs, were often not necessarily Sufis. Even Ibn Khald?n was appointed the director of Kh?nq?h Baybars in 794/1392. The buildings were, in fact, awq?f endowments, and some of the former waztrs were made in-charge of kh?nq?bs as well.154

Owing to these developments, the interference of the state in the lives and

kh?nq?bs of the Sufis increased manifold. It had an adverse impact on the development of Sufism, as in such circumstances not only many Sufi imposters

made fortunes and the autonomy of the kh?nq?bs was compromised, but the Sufis were also drawn into political affairs. Moreover, this symbiotic relationship between the Sufis and the rulers implied the subordination of the

Sufis to the political authorities.

Having briefly surveyed the symbiotic relationship between the Sufis and the rulers, it is useful to turn to the other side of the coin. Contrary to the Sufis who enjoyed cordial relations with the rulers, there were many Sufis whose relationship with the political authorities was not comfortable or smooth. Their responses to the rulers ranged from the Sufis' indifference to political affairs to conflict with the political authorities leading to the execution of some of the Sufis.

To begin with the early Sufis, Hasan al-Basri did not enjoy a smooth relationship with the political authorities. According to Far?d al-D?n al-'Att?r (d. 617/1220), once he was delivering a sermon, and Hajjaj ibn Y?suf (d. 95/714), the Umayyad Governor of Iraq, came there with his troops.

Hasan continued his sermon without paying any attention or showing any particular respect to Hajjaj.155 Since he used to boldly criticize the repressive policies of Hajjaj, consequently he was forced to go into hiding till Hajjaj's death as the governor had ordered his arrest.156 During the reign of the Umayyad Caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-4Aziz (r. 99-101/717-719), Hasan reportedly wrote a letter to the Caliph warning him against the false hopes and expectations of the world. This is understandable since Hasan cherished the values of hunger and voluntary poverty, and branded wealth as an evil.157

154 For details, see ibid., 19-20.

155 Shaykh Fand al-D?n 'Att?r, Tadhkirat al-Awliy?\ ed. Mirz? Muhammad Khan Qazv?n?, Introduction by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahh?b Qazv?n?, 2 vols in one ( . P.: Kit?bkh?nah-'i

Markaz?, 1344 Solar ah), 1: 37-38. 156 Al-Hujw?r?, Kashf alMahj?b, 88-89. 'Att?r also mentions that once Hajj?j's men came searching for him, and he sought refuge in Habib 'Ajam?'s cell. Idem, Tadhkirat al-Awliya\ 1: 59. 157 Arberry, Sufismi An Account of the Mystics of Islam, 33-34. 'Att?r also refers to the correspondence between the two, in which Hasan gave good counsel to the Caliph. Idem,

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 263

Similarly, on another occasion, Hasan is reported to have warned the governor of Basrah Ibn al-Hubayrah to fear God more than the Caliph, since God could protect him against the Caliph, but the Caliph could not protect him against God.158 An episode from the life of Malik ibn Dinar informs that

he was not afraid to restrain his licentious neighbour, who had himself declared that no one had the power to check him as he was the Sultan's favourite.159 Malik ibn Dinar's actions displayed disregard and fearlessness of political authorities. Another celebrated early Sufi was Ibrahim ibn Adham, who was initially a prince of Balkh, but had abandoned royal grandeur to choose the austere Sufi way of life. He refused to accept a lavish cash offering

from a wealthy person, and preferred poverty to riches.160

The second 'Abb?sid Caliph, Ab? Ja'far al-Mans?r (r. 137-158/754-75), is said to have selected the names of four eminent Sufis and scholars, from whom

one was to be selected for appointment as the q?di of Baghdad. These included Sufy?n al-Thawri, Mis'ar ibn Kid?m (d. 152/769) and the famous jurist Ab?

Hanifah Nu'm?n ibn Th?bit (d. 150/767). Sufy?n fled away and went into hiding to escape persecution by the Caliph, Mis'ar pretended to be mad before the Caliph, while Ab? Hanifah refused to accept the offer.161

The 'Abb?sid Caliph H?r?n al-Rashid (r. 170-193/786-809) sought counsel from the eminent Sufis of his time. In Caliph H?r?n's conversation with Fudayl ibn 'Ay?d, as recorded by Farid al-Din 'Att?r in Tadbkirat al Awliy?\ not only Fudayl refused to accept the offer of a thousand dinars (gold coins) from the Caliph, but also had the courage to severely reprimand the Caliph regarding his abuse of power. Fudayl also exhorted H?r?n to dispense justice, consider his high office to be a trial, fear God, and be wary of the flattery of advisors and associates.162 In a similar vein, H?r?n's meeting with Shaqiq al-Balkhi has also been recorded by 'Att?r. The Caliph was advised to display truthfulness like that of Ab? Bakr, discrimination between truth and falsehood like that of 'Umar, modesty and nobility like that of 'Uthm?n, and knowledge and justice like that of 'Ali.163 Similarly, 'Att?r mentions the meeting of H?r?n and Ya'q?b b. Ibr?him Ab? Y?suf al-Q?di (d. 182/798) with D?w?d b. Nas?r al-T?'i (d. 165/781), when on the Caliph's demand D?w?d admonished him, whereupon the Caliph wept copiously. D?w?d al-T?'i also

Tadhkirat al-Awliya!, 1: 39-40. 158 Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, 79; for some details of Hasan al-Basri's political attitude, see ibid., 77-81. 159 'Att?r, Tadhkirat al-Awliy?\ 1: 50. 160 Ibid., 94.

161 See details in al-Hujw?r?, Kashf al-Mahj?b, 93-94.

162 For details of their meeting, see 'Att?r, Tadhkirat al-Awliy?\ 1: 80-82. 163 For details see ibid., 182-83.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

264 TANVIR ANJUM

refused to accept offerings from the Caliph.164 Imam Guazzali had taken an oath at the tomb of the Prophet Ibrahim (peace be on him) that he would never visit a royal court, nor accept any grant from a king.165 In this way, the

generality of the early Sufis refused to be beneficiaries of the state, and thus

avoided any identification with the political authorities. In the words of Hodgson:

The refusal of some Sufis to permit any association with the amir's court served

to underline the alternative social outlook. It was as if the court were carefully quarantined so as to minimize its influence. Thus Sufism supplemented the Shari'ah as a principle of unity and order, offering the Muslims a sense of spiritual unity which came to be stronger than that provided by the remnant of

the caliphate.166

Sufism was perceived as a threat or challenge to the power and authority of the 'ulama9 and jurists, and that was why one comes across tensions between Sufism and juristic Islam in the medieval period. Many Sufis were accused of heresy, and some were even awarded punishments by the political authorities. 'Attar has dealt with Sufy?n al-Thawrfs troubled relationship with the Caliph who had ordered his execution, but it was preempted by the accidental death of the Caliph.167

Dh? -N?n al-Misri was arrested on charge of heresy, taken to Baghdad, and thrown in prison. Later he was brought before the 'Abbasid Caliph al

Mutawakkil (r. 232-247/847-861), where he answered all the charges levelled against him. Upon hearing him, the Caliph burst into tears, became his disciple ordered his release and allowed him to return to Cairo.168 In 260/874 another Sufi, Sahl al-Tustari, was compelled by the political authorities to seek

refuge in Basrah.169 Similarly, Ghul?m Khalil (d. 275/888), a staunch Hanbalite confidant of an 'Abbasid Caliph, was hostile to the Sufis and accused them of

heresy. He approached the Caliph and urged him to order the arrest of Ab? Hamzah, Raqqam, Ab? Bakr al-Shibli, Ab? -Hasan al-N?ri and Junayd al Baghd?d?. After they were arrested, the Caliph ordered them to be slain. However, their beliefs were later scrutinized by a qadi (judge), who acquitted

164 Ibid., 204. 165 Muhammad Shibl? Nu'man?, alGhazz?lt: Imam Muhammad ihn Muhammad Ghazz?l? kl

Saw?nih 'Umr? (Lahore: Maktabah-'i D?n-o Duny?, 1959), 46-47. 166 Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: The Expansion of Islam in the Middle PeHods, 2: 221. 167 For details of the incident, see 'Attar, Tadhkirat al-Awliy?\ 1: 174-75. 168 See details in ibid., 117-18.

169 See Arbeny's introductory note to extracts from Sahl's life and teachings, Arberry, Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat al-Auliya\ 153,157.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 265

them. Eventually, the Caliph dismissed them with honour.170

The Sufi Martyrs

Some of the eminent Sufis were executed by the political authorities, and for this reason they earned the title of 'martyrs.' Apparently, they were executed

for their bold doctrinal expressions for they were accused of undermining the fundamental beliefs of the Muslim faith.171 This only partially corresponds to reality as the political considerations behind their execution figured quite prominently. In addition to the charges of polytheism or shirk and holding unconventional views, they were accused of professing Ism?'?lism or having sympathies for Ism?'?l?s. In fact, in those days Ism?'?lism posed a political threat to the 'Abb?sid political authorities in the form of the rival F?timid Caliphate or the Assassins of Iran and Syria. Given below is a brief account of three eminent Sufis, who were executed by the political authorities:

Husayn ibn Mans?r al-Hall?j, literally meaning a cotton carder (243-309/857 922), has emerged as a legendary figure among the Sufis. He was kept in prison for eight years before he was executed in 309/922 for having uttered the apparently blasphemous words and -Haqq: "I am the Truth" (al-Haqq being one of the names of God). This apparently self-divinizing cry, tantamount to shirk (polytheism) in the eyes of the 'externalist' (ulamd\ jurists and theologians, was in fact a proclamation of his identity with God. Nonetheless, it would be grossly incorrect to assume that merely the words uttered in a state of spiritual ecstasy by al-Hall?j led to his execution during the reign of 'Abb?sid Caliph al-Muqtadir (r. 295-320/908-932).172 The critics of al-Hall?j at the court of Baghdad also accused him of sectarian affiliation with the

Qar?mat?s, as some of al-Hall?j's ideas bore some resemblance with those of the Ism?'?l?s, but as a matter of fact it was his alleged political association with

the Qar?mat?s for which he was punished. The Qar?mat?s had established their independent state in Bahrayn in the early fourth/tenth century,173 which

170 'Att?r, Tadhkirat al-Awliy?\ 2: 41.

171 It has been argued that a Sufi may be said to have two centres of consciousness: one human and one Divine. He may speak now from one and now from the other, which accounts for certain apparent contradictions in Sufi utterances. Lings, What is Sufismi, 14.

172 For a detailed study, see Louis Massignon, The Passion of al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam, Eng. trans. Herbert Mason 4 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). 4 vols. For a brief summary of the criticism aimed at al-Hall?j's doctrines, see Louis Massignon, "The Juridical Consequences of the Doctrines of Al-Hall?j," Eng. trans. Herbert Mason, in Merlin L.

Swartz, ed. Studies on Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 148-54. See also, M. Abdul Haq Ansari, "Husayn ibn Mans?r al-Hall?j: Ideas of an Ecstatic/' Islamic Studies, 39: 2 (2000), 291-320. 173 For a brief history, see Wilferd Madelung, "The Fatimids and the Qarmatis of Bahrayn" in

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

266 TANVIR ANJUM

naturally threatened the 'Abbasid political authority.

'Ayn al-Qud?t Abu'l-Ma'?li 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad Hamad?n? (491 525/1098-1131), an early sixth/twelfth century Sufi-scholar, had received training in Sufism as well as philosophy. He was executed for his unconventional beliefs, as propounded in his works, regarding prophethood, life hereafter, such as his denial of the physical hell and paradise, saying that

they were merely parables coined for common people, and other charges accusing him of pantheism. He was put in prison for a few months, released and then later executed in 525/1131 at the age of 33.174 Apart from his controversial theological views, the political authorities were suspicious of his ideas which bore similarity with those of the Ism?'?l?s, and were considered a political threat.

Shih?b al-D?n Yahy? b. Habsh al-Suhrawardi al-Maqt?l (548-587/1153-1191), another sixth/ twelfth century Sufi scholar, was executed in 587/1191 at the

age of 38. His epithet al-Maqt?l, meaning 'the killed' is used to distinguish him from other Sufis of the same silsilah. He was also known as Shaykh al-Ishr?q, the master of illumination. He taught at the court of the Selj?qid Sultan Qilij

Arsal?n (r. 1155-1192) and his son. Having mastery in both philosophy and Sufism, he wrote many theosophical works, which spurred vehement criticism and made him a controversial figure among the jurists as well as some of the Sufi circles. He used to express his esoteric ideas in an outspoken manner.

Moreover, his relationship with Prince Malik al-Z?hir (d. 615/1218), the governer of Aleppo, also excited the jealousy of the contemporary 'ulama' and jurists associated with the court at Aleppo.

Yahy? b. Habsh al-Suhrawardi's philosophy of illumination, which drew heavily on neo-Platonic speculation and Zoroastrian imagery, had considerable influence on later Twelver Sh?'ism. At the instigation of the 'ulama' of

Aleppo, he was tried and executed, by the Prince Malik al-Z?hir on the orders of his father, the Ayy?bid Sultan Sal?h al-D?n (Sal?d?n) (d. 589/1193). The Prince initially evaded the orders of his father, however, later he conceded to

the demand to avoid his removal from the governership of Aleppo.175 In fact, the later was more concerned about the political threat which he perceived in

Farhad Daftary, ed. Mediaeval Ismo!ili History and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21-73. 174 See Hamad?n?'s own apologia written in prison titled "Complaint of a Stranger Exiled from

Home" in A. J. Arberry, A Sufi Martyr: The Apologia of1 Ain al-Qud?t al-Hamadh?n?, [sic] Eng. trans, with Introduction and Notes (London: George Allen and Un win, 1969). See also Carl Ernst, Words of Ecstasy in Sufism (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985), 110-15.

175 Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman, eds. History of Islamic Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 459, n. 13.

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SUFISM IN HISTORY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH POWER 267

the teachings of Yahy? b. Habsh al-Suhrawardi, which bore some similarity with Ism?'ili doctrines. Moreover, after recapturing Syria from the Crusaders, Sal?h al-Dln needed the support of the jurists and 'ulama' in order to maintain his political authority, and so he acceded to their demands, and al-Suhrawardi was put to death.176 Thus, the reasons for his imprisonment and subsequent death were not merely theological in nature, but were political as well.

In addition to the historical data cited above, there are very few instances

when the Sufis had a violent clash with the political authorities. For instance, during the reign of the last Selj?qid ruler, Sultan Ghiy?th al-D?n (r. 633 657/1236-1259), a Sufi named B?b? Iliy?s al-Khur?s?ni of Amasia is said to have instigated a darvesh revolt. The revolt was suppressed, and the B?b? was killed in a general massacre of the Sufis.177 Such occasions were relatively rare

in the early centuries as compared to the later times, when many Sufis and Sufi

groups clashed with the colonial states in Asia and Africa during the twelfth/eighteenth and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries.178

176 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Three Muslim Sages: Avicenna, Suhrawardi, Ihn 'Arabi (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1988), 52-82. Hossein Ziai claims that "Recent studies have demonstrated that al Serhraward?'s execution was directly linked to his involvement in politics, whereby he sought

to implement the "Uluminationist political doctrine" which he had taught to several late 6th/12th century rulers, among them the prince 'Ala' al-Din Kay Kub?d; the Saldj?k Sulaym?n Sh?h, who commissioned the Partaw nama\ the rular of Kharp?t, Malik 'Imad al-D?n Artuk,

who commissioned Alw?h-i 'Im?dt; and, lastly, to the Ayy?bid Sal?h al-D?n's young son, the prince al-Malik al-Z?hir Gh?z?, governor of Aleppo." See Idem, The Source and Nature of Authority: A study of SuhrawardVs Uluminationist Political Doctrine, in The Political Aspects of

Islamic Philosophy, ed. C. Butterworth (Cambridge, MA: 1992), 304-344, cited in Idem, "Al Suhrawardi" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn., 9: 782-784. 177 See Rose, "Introduction" in Brown, The Darvishes or Oriental Spiritualism, xx.

178 For instance, Ernest Gellner highlights the role of Ahansal Sufis, who resisted the first colonial advance of the French in Africa, and even defeated the French-aided troops of local rulers in 1922. Idem, Saints of the Atlas., (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969). Dale F. Eickelman discusses the activities of darv?shes, who played key religious, political and economic roles in North African society, particularly in Morocco from the eighth/fourteenth to the eleventh/seventeenth centuries. Idem, Moroccan Islam: Tradition and Society in a Pilgrimage Centre (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1976). Alexandre Bennigsen and S. Enders Wimbush have discussed the political and social activity of the Sufi silsilahs in Soviet Union, particularly of the Naqashband? Sufis, who headed the resistance to the Buddhist (Oirots and Kalmuks) and Russian invaders in the eleventh/seventeenth, twelfth/eighteenth and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries. Idem, Mystics and Commissars: Sufism in the Soviet Union (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985). Similarly, Serif Mardin focuses

on the political role of Badi* al-Zam?n Sa'?d N?rsi (d. 1960), the founder of N?rs? Movement in

Turkey, which posed a political threat first to the Ottoman rulers and then to the Turkish authorities. Idem, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said

Nursi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989). However, this is not to deny the fact that many Sufis collaborated with the colonial governments to help consolidate their rule in colonized regions by acting as intermediaries. See, for instance, Sarah F. D. Ansari, who

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

268 TANVIR ANJUM

It can be inferred from the above discussion that there were varied

patterns of interaction between the Sufis and the state. On the one hand, there

were diverse patterns of Sufi responses to the state and political authorities, ranging from alliance and collaboration with the intent to reform the polity to

criticism on the personal and political conduct of the rulers and violent clash and conflict with the political authorities. On the other hand, the policy of the

rulers and political authorities was also not consistent; rather it exhibited quite

diverse patterns. Some rulers enjoyed quite friendly and cordial relations with the Sufis, and also extended them official patronage, offered official positions

and grants to them as well as support for their kh?nq?hs. However, many of them perceived the Sufis as a threat to their political authority, and thus tried to control and contain them, and make them subordinate to the state. Some of

them even coerced the Sufis into accepting the official theological doctrines.

$ $ $

discusses the role of the Sufi pirs of Sindh during the colonial era, and informs how they played

the role of 'intermediaries' between the colonial rulers and the populace, and helped the British consolidate their power in Sindh. Since the British system of political control was based on patronage and public distribution of honour, these pirs benefited from the system. Moreover,

the work also sheds light on the resistance offered to the colonial regime by the pirs and their followers during the 1890s and later during the Khilafat Movement between 1919 and 1924, which posed the "first real collective challenge issued to the British rule by Sind's religious leadership." Idem, Sufi Saints and State Power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 8. Similarly, Claudia Liebeskind focuses on three Sufi shrines of Awadh in northern India, viz., Takiyah Sharif (K?k?r?), Khanq?h Karimiyyah (Sal?n), and the shrine of H?j? W?rith Shah (Deva), and analyzes their survival in the colonial era. The work identifies the responses of the Sufis of the three spiritual centres to the colonial state, which had introduced certain changes that brought about tensions between these Sufis and the State, and examines how these Sufis coped with the changes and subsequent tensions. Idem, Piety on its Knees: Three Sufi Traditions in South Asia in Modern Times (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998).

This content downloaded from �������������80.227.100.37 on Sun, 04 Oct 2020 13:36:43 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms