Dr. Tariq Rahman
BOOK REVIEW
Riazul Islam, Sufism in South Asia: Impact on
Fourteenth Century Muslim Society (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2002),
pp. 489. Price Rs. 650/--
Much
has been written on Islamic mysticism (sufism or tasawwuf) but
most of it is introductory, historical or explanatory. Another fact is that,
apart from S.A.A. Rizvi’s A History of Sufism in India other standard
scholarly works are by Western scholars out of which Anne Marie Schimmel’s Mystical
Dimensions of Islam (1983) and A.J. Arberry’s Sufism: An Account
of the Mystics of Islam (1977) are probably most familiar to Pakistani
readers. The book under review is, in my view, the first really standard
scholarly book based on the original sources themselves about sufism. Moreover,
it is not just a chronological history or an explanation of sufi doctrines; it
is a book of social history---it purports to tell us about the impact of the
theory and practice of sufism on Indian society, especially that of Muslims,
from the fourteenth century onwards.
The
author investigates the sufis’ views about taking unsolicited charity or futuh
(chapter 3); begging or zanbil (Appendix B to chapter 3); earning one’s
living by work or kasb (chapter 4); attitudes towards marriage and
family (chapter 5); political ideas and practices (chapter 6); the ethical
dimensions of sufism (chapter 7); the taking of disciples or murids
(chapter 8); attitudes towards learning (chapter 9) and, in the light of all
these factors, the cumulative effect of sufism on South Asian Muslim society.
The
sufi ideal is a very exalted, ethical ideal concentrating upon
self-purification and absorption in the love of God. One of the components of
this ideal is complete trust in God or tawakkul. Although Prophet
Muhammad [Peace be Upon Him] explicitly instructed that normal precautions
should be taken, the sufis started believing that real trust precludes any
mundane precautions. Thus they developed a negative attitude towards following
a profession or doing any work (kasb). Having barred themselves from
paid labour they had to wait for charity (futuh) or beg (zanbil).
The earlier sufi masters did, however, mention the Apostolic injunctions to
earn ones’ living and not to beg but the 14th Century Chishti,
Suhrawardy and other sufi masters in India did not or, if they did, they
glossed over them. Similarly, although marriage had been encouraged by the
Prophet of Islam [PBUH], the sufis felt that it came in the way of their
complete devotion to God. So, some of them abandoned their wives and children
while others remained indifferent to them. Some, however, did marry and took
care of their children whatever their theoretical position might be. Another
theory which eventually harmed Muslim societies was the anti-intellectualism of
the sufis. Though most of the sufi masters were both learned and accomplished
they emphasized virtue, love of God, mystical gnosis and not intellectual
endeavour. This created a certain slant against learning in Muslim societies
influenced by mysticism. Another factor which worked against intellectual
breakthroughs was the system of discipleship i.e. the idea that one could find
spiritual perfection only if one was trained by a mentor or pir. The
disciple, or the murid, had to be so obedient, so subservient, to the pir
that he dared not have any will or thoughts of his own. This system of belief,
in a society which was already traditional and authoritarian and ruled by
despots, could not but help reinforcing the idea of being quiescent and passive
in the face of power.
This
being so, it seems like an irony that the very same sufis were themselves so
fiercely independent that many of them, especially the masters of Chishti
sufism, refused to meet nobles and kings. Indeed, they took great risks not to
meet the rulers because they felt that meeting them or soliciting favours from
them would adversely affect their independence. In most cases, however, the
rulers granted them their independence provided they were politically neutral.
The least suspicion of political activism on the part of the sufis did,
however, invite punitive action from the king.
The
author’s methodology is especially convincing. He looks at the sufi’s sayings (malfuzat);
their letters and writings (maktubat); biographical accounts of them (tadhkiras)
and so on. He also looks at historical works i.e. contemporary and near
contemporary sources containing references to the sufis. Moreover, he also
looks at literary sources with relevance to the sufis or their works.
In the first chapter he gives a very insightful
discussion of anecdotes the essence of which is that not all of them are true.
Many of them were invented so as to support a certain theory. Even Apostolic
traditions have been invented, or selectively used, for this purpose. The
author concentrates on the fourteenth century when the Suhrawardy sufi centre
was Multan. Shaikh Bahauddin Zakariya who had founded it had left it wealthy
because he allowed meeting rulers and asking for their help. At Ajodhan there
was the Chishti saint, Baba Farid, who was sometimes on the verge of starvation
and who was indifferent to his starving family. In Delhi there was the Jama’at
Khana of the Chishti saint Shaikh Nizam ud-din Awliya where, while the
Shaikh himself was constantly fasting, the others lived well because of huge futuh
income. While discussing the aspects of sufism touched upon earlier, the author
invariably comes to these centres, as well as that of Makhdum Jahaniyan at
Uchh, to give details of how the greatest masters themselves behaved. Among
other things, he points out that the sufi masters ran free kitchens (langars)
which fed anybody who was hungry. Thus the sufis provided social security of
sorts in a very poor and cruel society where the nobles had all the wealth and
the common man next to none.
The author’s approach is learned,
balanced and rational so that he discounts the stories about incredible
miracles which abound in sufi literature and observes that miracles about sufi
wrath (jalal) do not do credit to the sufis as they do not conform to the
high ethical ideals espoused by sufism.
He also observes that the credulous attitude produced by the miracle stories
and the obedience to the pir must have contributed towards making South
Asian Muslims so disinclined to do original research as this implies breaking
out into new paths.
The
overall conclusion of the author is as follows:
In the final analysis,
Sufism was to stand or fall by its ethical standards. Several early masters as
well as fourteenth-century saints had identified Sufism with ethics. Ethics was
the essence of the entire system, and so far as ethical standards were faulted,
Sufism was bound to lose its relevance, its vitality, and its raison d’etre.
(p.460).
And the ethical ideal got corrupted by receiving
charity, not earning a living, exercising power over people through
discipleship and miracles and so on. All systems get corrupted, observes the
author, but the corruption of sufism is
all the more regrettable because of its hold over peoples’ minds in South Asia.
Indeed,
it was after the death of the great sufi masters that the system became truly
corrupt though, as evidence suggests, their close relatives did misuse,
appropriate and simply purloin huge quantities of goods and money. What
happened later was that their shrines became a means of fixed income which
continues to this day. In their names many charlatans, like the villain in
Tehmina Durrani’s novel Blasphemy, tyrannize the credulous village folk
and extort huge sums of money from their murids. All this goes on to
this day and, ironically enough, it is the very thing which the sufi masters
condemned in their own days.
The
book is very carefully researched. Dr. Islam’s use of sources commands respect.
Indeed, I have seen few works except S.H.M. Jafri’s excellent book The
Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam, which uses original
sources so well. The other great merit is that, like Jafri, the author makes
the book readable putting all the less relevant information in the notes. This
is certainly the best research work published in Pakistan on this subject and I
think it will remain the best for a long time. I recommend the book to all
scholars of Islam, specialists of South Asia and to the general reader.
Dr. Tariq Rahman