Dear Brother Alex’s blog pointed me out to this post by Shabana Mir titled “Literalistic Wahabistic Sufism”. (Alternative Link)
One of the problems of tariqa is that students are rarely capable of understanding the fundamentals of their own tariqa, much less attempting to understand another. Before we begin labeling other tariqa’s as “goofy-sufi’s” or “literalistic wahabi sufi’s”, are we ready to examine our own tariqa or at least our own commitment to tariqa?
There also seems to be a confusion brewing among supposed Sufi mureeds and mureedah’s, such as in Shabana’s article, that Sufism is simply a form of anti-Wahabi Islam. It is disturbing to her that, outwardly, some Sufi’s may actually look or behave like Wahabi’s (in terms of promoting orthodoxy and other traditional practices). The question becomes, is it the Sufi’s imitating the Wahabi’s or is it quite the reverse?
Why don’t we first examine the purpose of Sufism? Tazkiyat al Nafs. Purification of the self, the ego.
Looking at history, one can see Sufi’s were very well established as to their purpose and methods well before the birth of these extremists reformers. Not everyone was a mureed. Those that decided to accept the Way dedicated themselves to the principles of their tariqa and the lessons taught by their Shaykh. Suppressing the Nafs is not a simple matter, and the organized approach offered by the tariqa’s is grounded with specific techniques in order to enact change.
The first thing we need to understand is that Tazkiyat al Nafs involves change. Gradual or [shudder] immediate, the mureed is nothing if he is not affected by the transformative process of the tariqa in either some minor or major way. A failure to change is a really a failure of the mureed, of the Shaykh and of the tariqa itself. I wonder if some may consider the transformation as something less than “real” as the article suggests? If so, what form of transformation is acceptable to our ultra-modern brethren?
In fact, it is part of the transformative process that Sufi’s leave what is considered a false ‘reality’ to a more true form of reality. What they leave cannot be described as “Western”, nor is it even “Eastern”, but it is what we call the “Dunya” itself. Any simple glance of the work of the great Shaykh’s of Islam will provide that understanding.
The second thing to emphasize is that Sufism is not the religion, it is simply the area of study. The religion is Islam. Progressive, reformist, modernist ideas might have a place in Islam as a religion, but the claim that Sufism incorrectly promotes dogmatic or literalistic ideals is quite odd to hear. A tariqa is a -Way- towards self-purification and control over one’s ego, changing how that is accomplished is (in reality) creating a new tariqat.
And when dealing with a multitude of Sufi orders, the best way to judge between them is through something we call the Shariat, which is quite a bit older than the 12th century mentioned in Shabana’s article. Shariat is the compass which allows us to seperate the deviant versus the rightly guided in all things in life (not just Sufism). Furthermore, the proper implementation of the Sacred Law is in fact, an intricate part of many Tariqa’s lessons and techniques:
Partly because their staunch orthodoxy recommended them to the ulema, the Naksibendiye were among the most widespread and politically and socially influential Ottoman tarikats. - Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad “Spiritual Life in Ottoman Turkey”
As far as this omnipresent fear of applying the Shariat to one’s life that exists within some of the pseudo-elite Western Muslims: the idea that it’s application is somehow, less “Real”, is actually quite sad. Is it “wahabistic literalism” to believe that there exists legalism at all within the Islamic tradition?
If we can at least acknowledge some form of legalism exists within Islam, then why don’t we spend time learning that (in the traditional manner) before condemning it to be too “firm” or “literalistic”?
Understanding the complexities of Shariat law and how it can organically grow within its own tradition is quite important before creating an irrational fear of it in one’s heart. A fear that may come from the unknown or knowing only pieces.
When considering some of the inconveniences Shariat may cause (i.e. in Shabana’s flight example), it might be helpful to remember that it is one’s nafs which hates inconveniences and loves ease.
Finally, the accusation of an ill-functioning “gradualism” away from “literalism” is one that Shabana will want to rethink. It is not gradualism in the direction of abandoning Shariat that even the ‘easy’ Sufi tariqas take. Rather, it is a historically recorded technique of the Sufi orders to use gradualism towards Shariat, at least when dealing with the masses. The Wahabi movement is actually a good example of this. It only took a few centuries for many of today’s Indo/Pak Muslims to go from being converted to Islam by Sufi’s (from liberal pagan religions) to adoring the most rigid literalistic forms of Islam.
It is actually an important reminder for all of us that Sufism does promote a proper application of the Shariat as part of its very core.
The Wahabi’s are wrong, but its not because they adore the Shariat and Orthodoxy, it is because they misunderstand it.
April 17th, 2006 - 4:22 am
Salaam ‘Alaikum
Subhan’Allah! Some interesting points, and I thank you for putting this up!
April 17th, 2006 - 5:36 am
Shalom,
A very important contribution to the whole discourse. It added depth to my inadequate understanding. Thanks.
April 17th, 2006 - 10:38 am
Jazakallah khair.
April 17th, 2006 - 12:19 pm
Salaam, fascinating… and thank you for this, helps me clear up some of my own misconceptions - esp. the bit about “gradualism.”
April 17th, 2006 - 3:39 pm
Salaams,
With all due respect, I think you’ve misunderstood Shabana’s key points.
Most importantly, I think it’s clear that her criticism is not of Sufism or Shariah, but rather of Muslims who shortchange Sufism and Shariah in a manner reminiscent of Wahhabism’s extreme literalism, absence of compassion, and indifference to the exigencies of circumstance. It’s not a comparison many of us like, but the reality is that the similarities are sometimes quite striking.
Btw, are only Wahhabis capable of misunderstanding Sufism and Orthodoxy?
I must say that I discern whiffs of very un-”Sufi” pride in some of the responses to her piece I’ve seen in the blogosphere.
Wasalaam.
Svend
April 17th, 2006 - 4:00 pm
BTW, I do not mean to accuse you of pride, so much as note a trend. It seems like many on the Sufi “side” find outrageous the idea that Sufi Muslims could err or be affected by fads or ideologies like other Muslims (hence the assumption that this must be an attack on Sufism or Tradition rather than simple nasiha to fellow Muslims).
Also, I think the “gradualism” she was referring to concerned not our embrace of shariah but whether contemporary Western scholars openly share their personal beliefs about greatly misunderstood matters (e.g., murtads; how many scholars really believe in the “traditional” death penalty for apostasy) or play it safe politically by sticking to the lowest common denominator in Islamic discourse and slowly trying to shift the discussion in the right direction.
There should be no gradualism in sharing the truth, especially when widespread misunderstandings are creating great hardship and fitnah.
April 17th, 2006 - 4:25 pm
walaikumas-salaam Svend,
Upon re-reading, I must say I have to disagree. Although you are probably in a better position to understand her intended key points.
What comes across from the article is quite clear, especially regarding the sacred law and Sufism. A slight misunderstanding of both.
It is quite similar to criticisms she mention in a similar post regarding sunnipath’s reaction to “Tariq Ramadan”.
http://shabanamir.com/koonj/?p=52
I can absolutely understand the need for compassion and an understanding of circumstance in Islam. One question that arises is whether such compassion and understanding is already built into the traditional understanding of the Sacred Law.
But then again, are we discussing the ordeals of purfication of the self (Tazkiyat ul Nafs/Sufism) or Islam as a social force? Back to my posts point about confusing Islam and one of its area of study, Sufism.
Sufism is not necessarily the place to find Islamic compassion. At least, not for all tariqats. True Sufi’s are those who come through the fire of fana-fi-Allah, and it is by no means something that is achieved without a deliberate strategy of attack on ones nafs.
Such a battle was difficult enough for it to be deemed Jihad ulAkbar (The Greater Jihad), so we should reflect on that as well.
I agree that the goals of compassion and such are important. Such attributes, of a genuine nature unheard of outside of Sufism, are characteristics of the Masters.
However I fail to see how this need for compassion opens the door to calling those who idealize the traditional methods of learning, knowledge or even dress and food as “less real”.
Maybe an example of the groups she describes below would be beneficial:
“Some groups are using Sufism just as the Wahhabis and the Islamists used Wahhabi and Islamist thought: for an absence of attention to historicity in religion.”
If she is referring to organizations such as SunniPath, then I absolutely responded appropriately.
–
Your example of the death penalty is actually perfect to demonstrate the misunderstanding.
All traditional scholars believe in this penalty, however they don’t believe it can be exercised in a vacuum of other aspects of the Shariah which creates a number of checks and balances.
Furthermore, it was Shaykh Hajj Gibril Haddad who said that the effect of the law is to suppress the disturbing voices of apostates, not to execute them and make them martyrs. The law only has applicability within the Islamic polity, which is another way for Islam to encourage the migration of apostates.
Living among apostates was quite common, the Quran calls them Munafiq’s.
April 18th, 2006 - 9:00 am
Asalaamu alaikum.
Came to you via SunniSister. Without having read (or feeling much need to read) Shabana’s post, I cannot comment in relation to refuting her.
But I do think this is a very good description of the point/purpose/role of the tariqa and base from which it derives. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
April 18th, 2006 - 12:24 pm
Walaikumassalam,
Jazakallahkhair.
April 19th, 2006 - 9:38 pm
As-Salaam wa Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu,
Mash’Allah. Well said.
Was-Salaam
April 21st, 2006 - 12:23 pm
Salaams and thanks for the thoughtful response. Things have gotten insanely busy at work.
I agree completely that an awareness of “compassion and understanding” is built into traditional Islam.
Knowing how woefully ignorant I am, I’m loth to hold forth on Sufism, but I guess I need to try to clarify what I’m getting at.
I agree that these questions aren’t directly related to Sufism, the paramount preoccupations of which are indeed spiritual and personal development as opposed to political or social action (priorities which apply to Islam in general, of course; this isn’t unique to Sufism). However, I don’t think that fact makes the matter irrelevant to the social/political concerns raised by Shabana, as I would argue in all humility that there is a methodological inconsistency in the case of some undeniably brilliant contemporary Sufi thinkers—for whom I retain great respect and, frankly, awe–between their arguably overly rigid and/or literalistic approach to Shariah and the hermeneutic sophistication and careful attention to context deployed by in matters of Aqida.
I see an marked disparity there at times. To use a artistic metaphor, I believe some brilliant, learned and sincere scholars for some reason sometimes choose to paint some Islamic intellectual endeavors in full color, but inexplicably and (I believe) unnecessarily limit themselves to black and white for others.
It’s ironic: From the simplest standpoint, if there’s one thing we should be obsessively literalistic about, it’s matters of aqida and ibadah—that concern is at the heart of the Salafi critique of Sufism (which I do not accept)—but in this case we’re only literalists with the ultimately less important and doctrinally significant matters, namely questions of shariah. (I’m not belittling shariah or its centrality in a Muslim’s life, btw.)
Speaking of Shariah, I should probably go to juma! Will try to continue this later.
April 21st, 2006 - 2:29 pm
z
April 21st, 2006 - 2:51 pm
I’m having trouble posting. Perhaps there’s a max length that’s interfering? I’ll break my comment up:
One more quick observation. I wrote, “I agree completely that an awareness of “compassion and understanding” is built into traditional Islam.”
I’m only speaking on my own behalf here, but I think part of this question depends on the extent one equates “Traditional Islam” with the beliefs of those living today who interpret and represent that tradition. One can believe in the former while sometimes questioning the consensus among the latter, I believe.
It’s probably fair to say that I’m more open to the possibility of culture, politics, contemporary trends (e.g., contemporary Muslims’ need for black & white answers for all questions), and scholars’ individual temperments distorting the transmission of Islamic tradition to some extent today.
[cont.]
April 21st, 2006 - 2:54 pm
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the system. I see no intellectual or spiritual reason for excluding the possibility of the existing interpretative establishment (i.e., the consensus among the ulema as we understand it today) being simultaneously divinely guided and fallible to human error. These things are very complex.
April 21st, 2006 - 2:55 pm
In short, I don’t accept that those who call themselves Traditionalists today own the copyright on the term. I don’t mean to call into question anyone’s authenticity or intentions, so much as note the fact that many of these doctrinal issues are contested and open to multiple readings based on honest readings of authentic sources.
Enjoining good and forbidding isn’t just about enforcing dress codes–it’s also voicing your concern in a constructive and humble manner when you feel Islam’s values are being neglected or eclipsed by your brothers and sisters. Nasiha isn’t just top-down, from scholars to the masses; sometimes scholars benefit from it, too.
April 21st, 2006 - 2:56 pm
Finally, I think that one can have these concerns while still respecting and loving the scholars with whom one is disagreeing. For example, I disagree with Sheikh Nuh on a number of things, but that doesn’t change my awe before his erudition, eloquence and commitment to Islam. If I share a concern that I have and just get it wrong–as is quite possible given my paltry knowledge–a scholar who sees my errors will easily be able to correct me and nip the misunderstanding in the bud (which will ultimately help everyone, as I’m probably not the only person laboring under that misunderstanding). But even the greatest shuyukh make mistakes and can sometimes benefit from constructive criticism from those who lack their knowledge but happen to notice something they’ve overlooked in this case, as the incident involving Hazrat Umar and the woman of Medina shows.
[Sorry about the disjointed way this was posted. The page wouldn't let me post it all together. Perhaps that's a sign I need to be doing other things!
]
April 22nd, 2006 - 8:12 am
as-salamu’alaikum Svend,
Thanks for this..I’ll be considering it today
April 22nd, 2006 - 3:01 pm
Salaams. Sure. I for one don’t view this as a debate. I’m just trying to give you a sense of where I’m coming from since I was the one who started the discussion. Allah alim.