Page 22 - Chapter
Two: "In contrast, Muslim opponents of Sufism have been anxious to illustrate
that Sufism is a distortion of Islam, and they were happy to seize on every opportunity to
show that figures known as "Sufis" ignored the essentials of Islam, conspired
with unbelief and heresy, and immersed themselves in moral laxity."
Commentary: The
foregoing follows upon, and is a continuation of, the quoted excerpts on which the
previous two Commentaries are based. The "contrast" to which the
author, allegedly, is referring involves, on the one hand, the, supposedly,
‘typical’ genre of hagiography written by the Sufis which seeks to provide,
according to the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction, illustrations of
the "extraordinary human qualities" of Sufi saints and, thereby, serve as
spiritual models. On the other hand, and in contrast to the above, are the writings of
those who are hostile to the Sufi Path and, consequently, are "anxious to illustrate
that Sufism is a distortion of Islam."
Contrary to the
author’s apparent perspective, the "contrast" being alluded to is not
primarily a matter of those who are pro-Sufi and anti-Sufi, although, to be sure, this
element is present. The real ‘contrast’ is one of style, approach, and focus - a
contrast which is somewhat reminiscent of different people's way of going about a political
campaign.
More specifically, there
are some people who merely wish to outline or describe their political positions,
purposes, programs and policies, and, as well, argue for these in a positive, constructive
fashion, perhaps speaking about the potential benefits which might accrue if such
programs, policies, and the like, were pursued. Then, there are those individuals who may,
or may not have, political positions, purposes, programs, and so on of their own, but who
seem more inclined to spend their time engaged in denigrating the people who are their
political opponents than they do in developing, introducing, or explaining, their own
political position - that is, they tend to define themselves not so much by what
they are for, but whom they are against.
The latter group tends to
be preoccupied with an endless array of allegations, accusations, name-calling, rumor
spreading, dirty tricks, and personal attacks that are designed to create an unfavorable
impression which often is quite independent of actual political issues. Apparently, the
reasoning underlying this sort of style, approach, and focus revolves around a reverse
‘halo’ effect in which if one tarnishes the reputation of an individual, this
lays the ground for a residual or collateral tarnishing of the political positions,
programs, policies, and purposes associated with the candidate whose integrity and
character are being assailed..
Similarly, when the
subject of the Sufi Path comes up, there are those who seek to describe, as well as
expound upon, the nature, purpose, and methodology of this Path. On the other hand, there
are those who do not seem content with putting forth their own understanding of the nature
of Deen and the purpose of life, but whom, apparently, feel compelled to spend time,
instead, casting aspersions on this or that Sufi.
Just as is the case in
all too many political campaigns, one sees all manner of fabrications, invented
information, and manufactured stories being introduced into the debate about the Sufi Path
by people who might do everyone a greater service if they were to stick to issues and not
become entangled in such creative endeavors. People who are overly "anxious to
illustrate that Sufism is a distortion of Islam", usually have very little, if any,
understanding of the Sufi Path, and whatever ‘information’ (if one can call it
that) they do have is usually either: (1) gleaned from non-Sufi sources; or, (2) is based
on positions and/or statements that have been both taken out of context, as well as
distorted/misunderstood; or, (3) is not rooted in direct, personal experience of the Sufi
Path; or, (4) some combination of these factors.
Books like Sufism -
A Short Introduction are somewhat interesting variations on the foregoing themes -
although ultimately very problematic - because they often try to pass themselves off as
constructive, positive, friendly instances of just reporting or uncovering the basic
‘facts’ and ideas of the Sufi Path. In reality, however, all too frequently,
they actually are engaged, knowingly or unknowingly, in relating various kinds of
unsubstantiated assertions, confused contentions, distortions of basic Sufi doctrine, as
well as fundamental failures of understanding concerning important dimensions of the
exoteric and esoteric dimensions of Islam.
As a result, the errors
which are introduced through such books by the use of words, phrases, sentences, or
paragraphs that are built on a shaky, problematic, or non-existent foundation of
understanding with respect to the Sufi Path can require a great deal of work in order for
the damage, which has been inflicted in such a relatively short space, to be remedied. The
present set of Commentaries on Sufism - A Short Introduction
is a case in point.
According to the author
of the aforementioned book, the opponents of the Sufi Path were "happy to seize on
every opportunity to show that figures known as "Sufis" ignored the essentials
of Islam, conspired with unbelief and heresy, and immersed themselves in moral
laxity." What we are not told is: whether every such "opportunity" was
based upon facts or merely manufactured and imagined; or, precisely how the
"essentials of Islam" were being ignored by Sufis; or, exactly how Sufis
knowingly "conspired with unbelief and heresy"; or, the specifics of the charges
involving "moral laxity".
What are the
‘essentials of Islam’, and what justifies one in claiming this? What are
‘unbelief’ and ‘heresy’? What is ‘moral laxity’?
The author had a great
opportunity to critically explore a number of important spiritual issues that would help
demarcate and clarify the Sufi perspective, but he let it slip by. In fact, not only did
the author introduce a number of innuendoes, he also left them unchallenged.
For instance in
conjunction with the aforementioned theme of "heresy" which is often hurled at
the Sufi Path, the author might have had a brief discussion about the frequently
associated notion of "bi’dat " or innovation. In other words, one of the
factors that leads some individuals to consider the Sufi Path heretical is because,
according to the people making this sort of charge, the Sufi Path introduces a variety of
innovative practices.
Usually, such people cite
a number of Hadiths of the Prophet in which he warned against introducing innovation into
Deen. They also like to cite the severe condemnation and penalties which are said to be
awaiting those who commit bi’dat.
Unfortunately, many of
these same people place their own interpretations on what bi’dat is and what is
entailed by the principle(s) at issue. Moreover, they fail to take into consideration
other Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which might call into question
their understanding of, and insight into, this issue.
Thus, the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: "If a person sets down in
Islam a good custom [sunna hasana] which is put into practice, that person will have
written for oneself the wage of those who put it into practice, while nothing will be
diminished from their wages. Yet, if a person sets down in Islam a bad custom which is put
into practice, then, this person will have written for him, the load of those who put it
into practice, while nothing will be diminished from their loads.
The establishing of a
custom is to introduce something new. In other words, the new custom is an innovation, for
if it were not an innovation, then, no custom would need to be established since it
already would be in existence, and, furthermore, there would have been no need for the
Prophet to address such an issue in the foregoing Hadith.
Obviously, not all
innovations are necessarily of the kind about which the Prophet gave warning and which
those hostile toward the Sufi Path like to make reference. Some innovations are good and,
therefore, serve the purpose of Deen.
For example, Hazrat Omar
(may Allah be please with him) established the custom of performing, in congregation, the
tarravih prayers during the month of Ramazan (period of fasting). This was done, despite
the fact that - with the exception of three occasions, on consecutive days - the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) observed these prayers in private, and not in congregation.
Omar (may Allah be
pleased with him) described his introduction of the congregational observance of tarravih
prayers as an instance of ‘bi’hat hasanatan’. That is, it constituted a
‘good innovation’.
The principles of Islamic
jurisprudence indicate that certain conditions must hold if a given practice is to qualify
as being an instance of the problematic kind of bi’dat or innovation about which the
Prophet sought to warn people. More specifically, if someone tries to claim that
compliance with an innovation will necessarily lead to Paradise, or that failure to do so
will lead to spiritual ruination, or if the intention underlying such an innovation is
something other than to help enhance the spiritual life of the community, then, such an
innovation is to be avoided.
Whenever authentic
shaykhs have established certain customs in relation to the Sufi Path, they have done so
in accordance with the spirit of the aforementioned Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, as
well as the cited example of Omar (may Allah be pleased with him), as well as the
previously noted requirements of Islamic jurisprudence. In other words, they have not said
that observance of the custom will guarantee Paradise, or that failure to observe the
custom is tantamount to spiritual ruination. Moreover, their niyat for introducing a given
custom or practice was, God willing, to help enhance and strengthen the faith - both
individually and collectively - of those who complied with the custom.
|
