Page 22 - Chapter
Two: "The internal, Islamic attacks on Sufism that often have been made over
history have many causes. Not least has been the social and political influence of Sufi
teachers, which often threatened the power and privileges of the jurists and even the
rulers."
Commentary: The
author’s phrase: "The internal, Islamic attacks on Sufism", is incorrect.
The attacks were not Islamic ones, but, rather, the work of Muslims who failed to
understand the tremendous breadth, depth, richness, and subtlety of the Islamic religious
dimension considered as a whole, rather than from some limited, truncated, theological
perspective.
The author goes on to say
there were ‘many’ causes of these attacks. In actuality, there were only four
causes for the attacks - namely, nafsi-amaara (the rebellious self), dunya (the network of
spiritually destructive entanglements generated by the self-serving efforts of a
multiplicity of rebellious capacities working in opposition to one another), Iblis (that
is, Satan, who after falling from Grace asked for a period of respite, that was granted by
God, which Iblis, then, vowed to use to sway human beings from the ‘straight
path’), and unbelievers (those who, irrespective of their ethnic, cultural, racial,
linguistic, and sexual identity, either did not believe in God or who were intent on
sacrificing the Presence of God on the alter of their own conceptual likes and dislikes.).
For example, the author
indicates that two of the sources of attack - among the many other, unnamed causes to
which he alludes, were "the social and political influence of Sufi teachers, which
often threatened the power and privileges of the jurists and even the rulers." In
truth, the desire to acquire, or hold on to, power and privilege, is nothing more than an
expression of how nafsi-amaara, dunya, Iblis and unbelievers often collude to serve their
respective ends.
There are, to be sure,
many permutations and combinations which arise out of how the rebellious soul, dunya,
Iblis, and unbelievers can conjoin to spread spiritual disaffection throughout the Earth.
Nonetheless, the underlying causes are, at most, four, and, in a more fundamental sense,
really, reduce down to just one cause - the tendency of the rebellious soul - whether in
humankind or jinn - to wreak havoc ... for itself and for others.
The author doesn’t
elaborate on just how Sufi teachers supposedly "threatened the power and privileges
of the jurists, and even the rulers". Can one suppose that Sufi shaykhs were part of
some underground, guerilla movement preoccupied with devising strategies about how to
wrestle power and privilege from those already entrenched in that which the Sufi shaykhs
sought?
In truth, the vast
majority of Sufi shaykhs, as well as those mureeds or followers who were sincere and
serious in adhering to the teachings of their shaykhs, were averse to power, privilege, or
influence in the political process. Furthermore, they were not initiators of, nor
participants in, guerilla movements and rebellious uprisings.
Sufi shaykhs implemented
a model that had been followed by the Prophets for thousands of years. More specifically,
whenever possible, Prophets shied away from confrontation with, or armed struggle against,
worldly powers unless given permission by God to defend themselves under certain
conditions.
For instance, Noah (peace
be upon him) was not told to take up arms against the unbelief and spiritual corruption
which prevailed during his times. Instead, he was told to build an ark and leave the rest
to God.
Lot (peace be upon him)
was not told to do physical battle with the various forms of iniquity with which his
locality was infested. He was told to steal away in the dark of night.
Moses (peace be upon him)
was not told to organize the Jewish tribes into an army that would do physical battle with
the Pharaoh. They were told to run away across the Red Sea.
Jesus (peace be upon him)
was not told to engage the Roman Empire in armed warfare. Instead, he counseled others to
turn the other cheek, and he applied to himself that which he recommended to others.
Initially, Muhammad
(peace be upon him) was not instructed by God to physically resist the physical attacks
and various intrigues which were perpetrated by various Arab tribes. In fact, for thirteen
years, the Prophet and other Muslims were instructed by God to endure, with patience, the
numerous attacks, privations, abuses, humiliations, and plots leveled against the
fledgling community by a hostile tribal power structure.
Indeed, even when the
Arab tribal leaders finally decided to assassinate the Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon
him) was not told to physically repel such an attempt. Instead, he was told to take flight
and go to Yathrib (now Medina) some 500 miles to the northeast.
Only after the tribal
leaders declared war on the Prophet and the Muslim community in Medina, and only after
those leaders were prepared to launch an armed attack with a force which was substantially
bigger than, and far better equipped than, the Muslim community, did Revelation come from
God giving the Prophet permission to allow the Muslim community in Medina to defend itself
against armed aggression - and, even then, the permission was of a limited nature. For
instance, in the various battles which took place over a number of years (and in each case
the Arab tribal leaders and their allies were the aggressors), there were only a little
over three hundred people who lost their lives - both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Although the loss of any
life is a cause for sorrow, the Prophet established rules of engagement which were
designed to keep casualties on all sides to a minimum. For example, the Prophet stipulated
that women, children, and old people were non-combatants and could not be harmed. In
addition, he indicated that the crops or means of livelihood of the opposing side could
not be harmed.
Eventually, after a
number of battles spread out over a span of years, the Prophet assembled an army of, some,
10,000 people and marched on Mecca. When this army reached the outskirts of Mecca, word
quickly spread, and the Meccans realized they were no match for the army that was at its
gates.
Despite all the abuses
which the Meccans had heaped upon the Muslims over many years, and despite all of the
transgressions that they had committed against the Prophet and the Muslim community, Mecca
was conquered without a single drop of blood being spilled. In fact, when the conquest had
been completed and the leaders of the Meccans had been assembled, the latter group fully
expected to be executed by their conqueror, but, instead, the Prophet said: "On this
day, I find no fault with you" and not only let them go free, but he, as well,
appointed some of them as administrative heads of Mecca before he departed and returned to
Medina.
Throughout his life,
whenever the Prophet was given the choice between peace and conflict, he always took the
path of peace. Similarly, whenever the Prophet was given the choice between forgiveness
and enmity, he chose forgiveness.
Given that Sufi shaykhs,
in particular, and Sufis, in general, look to the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him) as a role model for conduct in life, one needs, again, to raise the question
which the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction does not explore when the
latter speaks of "the social and political influence of Sufi teachers, which often
threatened the power and privileges of the jurists and even the rulers." This
unaddressed question revolves about the precise nature of the ‘threat’ which
jurists and rulers allegedly felt in relation to Sufi teachers.
Undoubtedly, there were
some, unknown number of jurists and rulers who, from time to time, and from place to
place, may have felt threatened by Sufi teachers. However, the term "often"
which is employed by the author is much too vague and unsubstantiated to be permitted to
stand unchallenged.
The Muslim world has been
in existence for over 1400 years, and this world covers many geographical regions,
peoples, cultures, and historical eras. On many occasions and in many places, the Sufi
influence not only has been appreciated, but even sought out, by those in power -
although, more often than not, Sufi teachers have tried to maintain as much spiritual
distance as possible between themselves and the centers of political power and have
counseled their followers do likewise.
On many other occasions,
and in many other places, the relationship between the Sufi shaykhs and the political
centers of power have been neither hostile nor overly friendly. In effect, during such
times and places, the two lived in separate domains and didn’t have much contact, or
much to do, with one another.
Of course, on some
occasions and in some places, there was an attempt by some rulers and/or jurists to
generate friction with respect to the Sufi shaykhs. This may have been done for this or
that political and/or theological purpose, but it always was the result of a basic
ignorance about, and misunderstanding of, the nature of the Sufi Path.
Spiritual ignorance is
one of the qualities of nafsi-amaara. Those who are operating under the sphere of
influence of this dimension of the soul feel threatened by many things - not just Sufi
shaykhs.
One day nafsi- amaara
growls and snaps at a Sufi shaykh. The next day it growls and barks at someone else -
whomever happens to be the target of opportunity de jure.
In any event, contrary to
the aforementioned assertion of the author, those doctrinal attacks that were directed
against the Sufi teachers were not Islamic in nature. In fact, the ‘attack-mode’
is not part of the Islamic framework.
Islam enjoins people to
consult, discuss, explore, listen, clarify, reflect, develop, expound, study, learn, and
reason about issues. It does not encourage anyone to attack others - physically,
emotionally, conceptually, economically, or in any other fashion - and, to the extent
anyone feels compelled to attack others, such an individual has, to use a recurring phrase
of the Qur’an, ‘transgressed beyond bounds’ and, therefore, cannot justify
what he or she is doing as being Islamic.
|
