The Dialogue
within - Part 3
The Sufis and the Salafis
By Professor Nazeer
Ahmed
CA
Ignorance
is the mother of prejudice. The Sufis and the
Salafis are both within the historical spectrum
of Islam but they have misunderstood each other’s
positions. It is the social decay and the political
impotence of the last two centuries that has pushed
the Salafis in the direction of extremism and
injected certain objectionable practices into
Sufism. The issues are not new and have historical
precedence.
The Sufis consider the Ayats of the Quran to be
Signs to a deeper understanding of God’s
creation. This openness has allowed the Sufis
to explore the meaning of time, the profound issues
of existence and nonexistence, real and unreal,
the characteristics of the self, the attributes
of the heart, the primacy of love, behavior modification
as well as the meaning of life and death within
the paradigm of orthodox Islam. No other system
of human thought has explored these issues as
thoroughly and as comprehensively as has Islamic
tasawwuf.
The Salafis on the other hand take a literal interpretation
of the Quran and consider any departure from it
to be a deviation. However, a closer understanding
of history shows that the two positions overlap
to a large extent. The Quran is both literal and
allegorical. Here are some specific examples.
In the tenth century, Al Ashari, whose work marked
the final triumph of orthodox Islam over the Mu’tazalite
(Greek rationalists) examined the nature of time
and considered it to be discrete in nature. He
advanced the theory of occasionalism, meaning
that time flows in small discrete steps and the
will of God intervenes at every moment to determine
the outcome of an event. Al Gazzali (d 1111) used
this very thesis to deliver a mortal blow to the
rationalists. Thus the work of one of the greatest
of the Salafis, namely al Ashari, became the mechanism
for a triumph of tasawwuf in the hands of al Gazzali.
As another example, Ibn al Arabi expounded the
principle of Wahdat al Wajud based on his esoteric
interpretation of what is real and what is not.
This principle was superseded by the works of
the great mujaddid Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi (d 1624).
In his Maktubat, Shaikh Sirhindi elaborated on
the attributes of existence and nonexistence and
proposed the sublime idea of Wahdat us Shahada.
The sciences of tasawwuf have evolved over the
centuries and some of the most perceptive minds
in Islam have contributed to its growth. Yet so
many Muslims are stuck on Wahdatal Wajud and the
work of Shaikh ul Akbar Ibn al Arabi. These oceans
of knowledge are deep and we caution our young
readers to dive into them only with proper preparation,
humility and the help of a guide. Even though
Wahdat al Wajud was replaced with the sublime
idea of Wahdat us Shahada by Mujaddid alf e thani,
Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi some people continue to
believe in it. It is the equivalent of believing
in the Copernicus system of astronomy in the age
of the Hubble Space Telescope.
The focus of tasawwuf is confrontation and conquest
of the ego. And its goal is proximity to the divine.
The methods and processes that have been perfected
over the centuries to overcome the ego and get
close to divine presence are called tareeqas.
There are several well-known tareeqas: the Chishtiya,
Qadariya, Naqshbandi, Mujaddidi, Qalandariya,
Shadhuli, Jazuliya, Tijaniya and others.
The Salafis share the goal of controlling the
ego but question the need for a tareeqa. They
maintain that observation of the Shariah is sufficient
to attain this goal. Here again the two positions
overlap. The first step in the practice of tasawwuf
is strict adherence to Shariah. Without the discipline
of the Shariah, tasawwuf is like a ladder that
dangles between the heavens and the earth. It
is only the Shariah that gives it a firm foundation
on earth. This is one of the main theses in al
Ghazzali’s dialectic in his masterpiece,
Yahya al Uloom.
The Sufis emphasize the need for a shaikh to show
them the way. The Salafis object to it taking
the position that there is a one to one relationship
between man and God and a shaikh is unnecessary.
The two positions are valid in their own contexts.
A shaikh is a teacher but with a difference. Whereas
a teacher opens up the mind, a sheikh opens up
the heart. A teacher emphasizes learning. A shaikh
emphasizes cleansing of the nafs. A teacher is
a learned person and a graduate of a seminary.
A shaikh is a learned person who has received
his training from another shaikh in a continuous
and unbroken chain from the Prophet. A teacher
molds the mind. A shaikh molds character. A teacher
prescribes medicine for bad manners. A shaikh
removes its root cause. A teacher demands attention.
A shaikh demands focus and concentration. Those
who study under a teacher respect him. Those who
study under a shaikh love him. History is replete
with examples of how the love of a sheikh inspired
great works of literature. It was the love of
Mevlana Rumi (d 1273) for his sheikh Shamsuddin
Tabrizi that inspired the Mathnavi, one of the
epic poems of mankind.
The Salafis emphasize the primacy of documentation
for proof of religious practices. The Sufis emphasize
transmission, whether it is verbal or documented.
Hence the Salafis may be called kitabi (those
who rely on what is documented) while the Sufis
may be called akhbari (those who rely on what
is transmitted). The former emphasize Hadith while
the latter emphasize the Sunnah. The two positions
are not irreconcilable. Most collections of Hadith
existed for centuries as verbal transmissions
and were documented by the great muhaddithin decades
after the death of the Prophet. It is apparent
that the sources of the Sufis and the sources
of the Salafis both went through a chain of verbal
transmission for some time. They were accepted
by the ulema and the shaikhs only after the most
rigorous and thorough examinations. Both the Sunnah
and the Hadith are required in the practice of
faith.
There is a misunderstanding about the place of
dhikr in some circles. Dhikr, as a constant remembrance
of divine names, is sanctioned both by the Quran
and Hadith e Qudsi. Indeed, every atom in the
universe dances to the rhythm of dhikr, drunk
with the memory of the divine command “kun”.
The disagreements lie in the form of dhikr, whether
it should be silent or loud, how and in what form
it should be practiced. Here, moderation is required.
The social and spatial context should determine
the appropriateness of how individuals and groups
engage in dhikr.
There are other issues as well. The Sufis celebrate
the Maulud (birth of the Prophet) whereas the
Salafis object to it. The Sufis emphasize the
intercession of the Prophet whereas the Salafis
emphasize the sufficiency of good deeds. These
we dismiss as non-issues which can be easily sorted
out once a level of understanding and mutual tolerance
is reached. There are deeper issues as well. The
Sufis consider the Light of Muhammed (pbuh) to
be a living reality and to be the Light of Existence.
The Salafis consider Muhammed (pbuh) to be in
a state of “barzaqh”, meaning an intermediate
station between this life and the Day of Judgment.
These are profound issues only for the initiated,
the people of knowledge and wisdom and we will
avoid them here at this time.
Tasawwuf is not the abnegation of Buddhism nor
is it the agnosticism of the Greeks. Unlike the
renunciation of Buddhism, tasawwuf teaches detachment
from the world, not its renunciation. Hence, a
Sufi is an involved citizen of the world, enjoining
what is noble, avoiding what is evil and believing
in the divine. Some of the most determined resistance
to the political and military dominance of Muslim
lands by the European powers has come from Sufi
circles. It was the organized stand of the Jazuliya
Sufis at the Battle of Al Qasr al Kabir (1578)
that saved Morocco and Algeria from Portuguese
destructions. Shaikh Shamyl of Daghestan (circa
1850 - 1860) led the resistance to Czarist imperialism
in the Caucasus. The Sanusiya movement (1911)
in Libya stood up to Italian colonialism.
However, starting with the eighteenth century,
as social decay set in and political initiative
slipped from the Muslims, extremism crept into
the Islamic body politic. Reform movements arose
to correct the spreading rot. Some were partially
successful, some were not, yet others were co-opted
and abused. In addition to the Tanzeemat of the
Ottoman Empire (1830-1907), we mention here the
works of Shah Waliullah of Delhi (1762), Uthman
Dan Fuduye (d 1817) of Nigeria and Shaikh Abdel
Wahab (d 1787) of Arabia. The curtain fell on
the age of spirituality. In its place arose the
age of the mujawars (those who hold the broomstick).
Where once great Sufis illuminated entire continents
with their light, local pirs emerged, who were
more intent on exploiting the ignorance of rural
populations than in imparting genuine knowledge.
The interested reader may study the political
flip flop of the sajjadanishin in the Punjab between
the Union Party and the Muslim League in pre-partition
British India (1945-46).
On the other side, the Salafis were co-opted by
political power and politics and retreated into
a multi-layered cocoon of bida, shirk, kufr and
haram, denouncing culture, destroying history,
condemning music and art, making religion a caricature
of its self, a body without soul, a tree without
sap. The flight from spirituality was accentuated
by the growing global urbanization and the increasing
distance between man and his mystical self. Nature
abhors a vacuum. When spirituality disappeared,
extremism gushed in. As tasawwuf decayed and classical
Salafism disintegrated, the Sufi and the Salafi
went after each other with a vengeance hurling
accusations of heresy, each claiming that the
other was outside the fold of Islam. Just examine
the innumerable websites, some maintained by Muslims
and others by their enemies, which are dedicated
to abuse rather than a search for mutual understanding.
Islam in America has the unique opportunity to
bridge the gap between the Sufi and the Salafi.
It is a melting pot of races and a caldron of
ideas. Here the Sufi and the Salafi can meet,
enjoining moderation, avoiding extremism and together
plant a beautiful tree of Ehsan whose fruit is
the spirituality of classical tasawwuf and whose
roots are firmly bonded to the discipline of genuine
Salafism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
