Sufism :
Camouflaged and sugarcoated version of Islam is called
Sufism.
Islam as contemplated, taught and practiced by Mohammed
and his immediate followers was a set of commandments to be followed by
muslims. It was devoid of love and spirituality. Once the dust of the first
wave of Islamic conquest settled, need arose among populace to satisfy
their deepest spiritual longings (which is normal for any human being) and
desires leading to pietistic asceticism, which in turn led to the development
of the popular mystical side of Islam - known as tasawwuf or Sufism.
Sufism is a reaction or response to what was lacking in
early Islam.
It emerged in eighth and ninth century A.D. trying to
find a deeper mystical meanings in assertions made in the Quran by many Persian
thinkers.
Sufis reinterpret Koranic doctrine, dress it up with
rationality and sugarcoat it with alien un-Islamic philosophies taken from all
kinds of sources, Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, Gnostic, Neo-Platonism,
Hinduism and even Buddhist to make it toothsome to their own refined mystical
palate.
Sufis claimed theirs to be the inner message of Islam ie
kernel of Islam while the Sharia being its outer shell. The truth is the
opposite. The kernel and core of Islam is the Quran and sunna, whereas Sufism
is only a gloss that masks it.
Sufis :
It needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct
themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders? Did
they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder
of Hindu temples and innocent masses? Did the Sufis ever object to the capture
of helpless men and women as slaves and the use of the latter as objects of
carnal pleasure? These are some of the questions to which answers have to be
found by every genuine student of Indian history.
Most Sufis came to India accompanying the invading armies
of Islamic marauders either sent into regions as information gatherers so that
the Islamic invaders can have a first hand knowledge of the target
localities or followed in the wake of
the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of Islam. At least the following
four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repetitively invaded
India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took
recourse to extensive slaughtering of the commoners. Almost all Sufi masters
were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of temples
and cities by the marauding hordes across the sub-continent. Taking advantage
of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and
mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing
balm on the defeated and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them
to the religion of the victors. The following well-known Sufi masters came to
India along with the invading Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India in
wave after wave:
1. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin
Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D.
2. Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of
Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of Islam.
3. Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
4. Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin came to Delhi in the
year 1335 accompanying a contingent of the Muslim Invaders.
Additionally, the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of
Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of
conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of Multan several decades after the Hindu
ruler had been defeated and the kingdom laid waste after repetitive plunder and
manslaughter. Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of
spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade
them to convert to Islam. Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever
objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, or to the
destruction neither of temples, nor for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement
of the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of Ghazni and
Baghdad. Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism they even participated in
the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate their
authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in
the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a
just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to
help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.
“Many sufis were sent in all directions by Nizãmu’d-Dîn
Awliyã, the Chistîyya luminary of Delhi; all of them actively participated
in jihads against the local population. Nizãmu’d-Dîn’s leading
disciple, Nasîru’d-Dîn Chirãg-i-Dihlî, exhorted the sufis to serve the Islamic
state. “The essence of sufism,” he versified, “is not an external
garment. Gird up your loins to serve the Sultãn and be a sufi.”
History of sufism in India by S.A.A. Rizvi, pp 189, Vol.
1
Professor Aziz Ahmad, a renowned scholar of Islam in
India writes : “In Indian sufism anti-Hindu polemics started with Muinal-din
Chisti. Early sufis in Punjab and early Chistis devoted themselves to the task
of conversion on a large scale. Missionary activity slowed down under Nizam
al-din Auliya, not because of any new concept of eclecticism, but because he
held that the Hindus were generally excluded from grace and could not be easily
converted to Islam unless they had the opportunity to be in the company of the
Muslim saints for considerable time.” In other words the native Hindus were as
a nation, not fitting to become Muslims. This is the sort of hatred that the
Sufis had for the Hindus.
Let us examine what various scholars / historians have to
say about each of these Sufis :
Moinuddeen Chishti (1141 - 1236 CE):
Following excerpts from 'SIYAR AL AQTAB by Mîr Khwurd :
“Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in
the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrãb and mimbar.
In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the
sound of ‘Allãhu Akbar’.” :
“Although at that time there were very many temples of
idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His
Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol
temples.”
“The other miracle is that before his arrival the whole
of Hindustan was submerged by unbelief and idol-worship. Every haughty man in
Hind pronounced himself to be Almighty God and considered himself as the
partner of God. All the people of India used to prostrate themselves before
stones, idols, trees, animals, cows and cow-dung. Because of the darkness of
unbelief over this land their hearts were locked and hardened.”
“All India was ignorant of orders of religion and law.
All were ignorant of Allãh and His Prophet. None had seen the Ka‘ba. None had
heard of the Greatness of Allãh.
“Because of his coming, the, Sun of real believers, the
helper of religion, Mu‘în al-dîn, the darkness of unbelief in this land was
illumined by the light of Islam.”
“It is said that among those temples there was one temple
to reverence which the Rãjã and all the infidels used to come, and lands had
been assigned to provide for its expenditure. When the Khwãja settled there,
every day his servants bought a cow, brought it there and slaughtered it and
ate it…”
“So when the infidels grew weak and saw
that they had no power to resist such a perfect companion of God, they… went
into their idol temples which were their places of worship. In them there was a
dev, in front of whom they cried out and asked for help”
“…The dev who was their leader, when he saw the perfect
beauty of the Khwãja, trembled from head to foot like a willow tree. However
much he tried to say ‘Ram, Ram’, it was ‘Rahîm, Rahîm’ that came from his
tongue… The Khwãja… with his own hand gave a cup of water to a servant to take
to the dev… He had no sooner drunk it than his heart was purified of darkness
of unbelief, he ran forward and fell at the Heaven-treading feet of the Khwãja,
and professed his belief…
“The Khwãja said: ‘I also bestow on you
the name of Shãdî Dev [Joyful Deval]’…
“…Then Shadî Dev… suggested to the Khwãja, that he should
now set up a place in the city, where the populace might benefit from his holy
arrival. The Khwãja accepted this suggestion, and ordered one of his special
servants called Muhammad Yãdgîr to go into the city and set in good order a
place for faqîrs. Muhammad Yãdgîr carried out his orders,
and when he had gone into the city, he liked well the place where the radiant
tomb of the Khwãja now is, and which originally belonged to Shãdî Dev, and he
suggested that the Khwãja should favour it with his residence…”
The author of Siar-ul-Aulia has summed up, the
contribution of Khwaja Moin ud-din in these' words:"Hindustan, to the end
of its farthest southern limits, was a land, of-pagans and polytheists.
Whosoever held power made the claim: 'I am the Lord, Most High'. The
inhabitants of the land made almost every object and being a partaker of divinity.
Stocks and stones, trees and beasts, cow and cow dung were the things before
which they prostrated. Darkened by the gloom of infidelity their hearts had
been securely sealed. All were strangers to the faith in God and His
ordinances, the Lord of the worlds and His apostles; neither anybody knew the
true direction of God's religion nor had anyone heard the call that 'God is
Great.' The moment Khwaja Moin ud-din set his foot on this land, the dreariness
of paganism gave way to the brightness of Islam; Thanks to his efforts and
blessings, the relics of fetishism were replaced by the pulpit, the niche and
the arch, and the lands ringing, with the sound of idolatrous cults were filled
with the cries of Allah-a-Akbar. Whosoever would be blessed with true
faith in God in this country and whosoever shall partake this wealth till the
Day of Reckoning and their progeny as well as all those who will extend the
bounds of true faith in this land shall go on increasing the merits all
rewards' of Sheikh-ul-Islam Moin ud-din Hasan Sajazi."
Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti of emerges as a Sufi master who
nursed a deep hatred against the infidel Hindus and showed utter contempt for
their religious beliefs. As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in ‘A History of Sufism
in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117), there is a reference in
the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi, to the fact that when Moinuddin Chishti
reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer, where a number of holy shrines of
Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef kebab at the sacred
place surrounded by many temples. It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi
that theKhwaja had dried the 2 holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the
magical heat of Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the
idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a
burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithiviraj
Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the
battle of Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We
have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam”. [Source:
Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of ‘A History of Sufism in India’].
“Mu‘în al-dîn had a second wife for the following reason:
one night he saw the Holy Prophet in the flesh. The prophet said: ‘You are not
truly of my religion if you depart in any way from my sunnat.’ It happened that the ruler of the Patli fort, Malik Khitãb,
attacked the unbelievers that night and captured the daughter of the Rãjã of
that land. He presented her to Mu‘în al-dîn who accepted her and named her Bîbî
Umiya “ – Sita Ram Goel in 'Hindu temples - What happened to them’
Above story finds mention at his shrine’s site :
http://dargahajmer.com/married-life/
“Sculpted stones, apparently from a Hindu temple, are
incorporated in the Buland Darwaza of Muin-al-din’s shrine. Moreover, his tomb
is built over a series of cellars which may have formed part of an earlier
temple… A tradition, first recorded in the Anis al-Arwah, suggests that the
Sandal Khana is built on the site of Shadi Dev’s temple.” [P.M. Currie, The
Shrine and Cult of Muin al-Din Chishti of Ajmer, OUP, 1989]
Nizam –udin – Auliya (1238 – 1325) :
K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, The Life and Times of
Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the
Auliya openly used to say that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech,
we achieve by our behavior.” The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for
unquestioned obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi, to the dictates of the
ulema. According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote
that though he had been associated with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years,
“but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ” .The well known
authority on Sufism, S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of
Sufism in India’ that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous
gifts given to him by Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was
unconcerned with the source of the gift, provided it was paid in cash.
Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned
loyalty and obedience to the ulema. As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya
used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of Hell. In his khutba
he would leave no one in doubt that Allah has created Paradise for the
Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what
they have done”. It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous
treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New
York, 1992) that the Auliya confirmed on the authority of the great
Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of the unbelievers is
certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if they agreed to
confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.
In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosophy,
Fuwaid al-Fuad, a very interesting instance of enslaving the kaffir Hindus for
monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi,
provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the
lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these
slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”. And it was
confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”. Obviously therefore,
neither spiritual ethics and nor justice to all, including the infidels, were
the strong points of Sufi saints.
Moreover, Auliya’s temper and teachings can be known
easily from the writings of his disciples - Amir Khusru, the poet, and Ziauddin
Barani, the historian
Amir Khusru (1253 – 1325) :
Poem Ashiqa, written in Persian :
"Happy Hindustan, the splendour of Religion, where
the Law finds perfect honour and security. In learning Dehli can
now compete with Bokhara, for Islam has been made manifest by
its kings.”
“The whole country, by means of the sword of our
holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by
fire. The land has been saturated with the water of the sword,
and the vapours of infidelity have been dispersed. The strong men of
Hind have been trodden under foot, and all are ready to pay Jizya.”
“Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not
the law granted exemption from death by the payment of poll-tax,
the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been
extinguished. From Ghazni to the shore of the ocean you see all under
the dominion of Islam.”
“Cawing crows see no arrows pointed at them
; nor is the Tarsa (Christian) there, who does not fear (taras)
to render the servant equal with God ; nor the Jew who dares to
exalt the Pentateuch to a level with the Kuran; nor the Magli who
is delighted with the worship of fire, but of whom the fire
complains with its hundred tongues. The four sects of Musulmans are
at amity, and the very fish are Sunnis."
Parts of his other poem :
“The lightning of Mughal fury penetrated even to
those parts, and smoke arose from the burning towns of Hindustan, and
the people, flying from their flaming houses, threw themselves
into the rivers and torrents.”
“When the bank of the entrenchment had reached the
height of the western bastion of the fortress, the Royal Westerns, shot
large earthen balls against that infidel fort, so that the hearts of
the Hindus began to quail."
(These translations have been taken from 'History of
India as told by its own historians' written by Elliot and Dowson in eight
volumes)
Ziauddeen Barani, a close friend of Amir Khusro, has
recorded a conversation between Allauddeen khilji and a Qazi Mughisuddeen
regarding Hindus and payment of Jizya. Here it is:
The Sultan then asked, " How are Hindus designated
in the law, as payers of tribute (Kharaj guzar) or givers of tribute {kharaj-deh)
?" The Kazi replied, "They are called payers of tribute (ज़िम्मी),
and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without
question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer
throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths
wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The
due subordination of the zimmi (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble
payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of
Islam is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in
contempt, for he says, 'Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus
in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most
inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to
slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to Islam
or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.' No doctor but
the great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the
imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools
allow no other alternative (to Hindus) but 'Death or Islam.'"
Their lament was that it is Hanifi school of thought that
is followed in India which allows imposition of jizya on un-believers had it
been any other school of thought, India would have been cleaned of Hindus.
Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani (1314-1384) :
Following excerpts by a tolerant Islamic Sufi spiritual
leader of Kashmir in his book Zakhiratulmaluk :
1. Muslim ruler shall not allow fresh constructions of
Hindu temples and shrines for image worship.
2. No repairs shall be executed to the existing Hindu temples and
shrines.
3. They shall not proffer Muslim names,
4. They shall not ride a harnessed horse.
5. They shall not go about with arms.
6. They shall not wear rings with diamonds.
7. They shall not deal in nor eat bacon.
8. They shall not exhibit idolatrous images.
9. They shall not build houses in the neighborhood of Muslims.
10. They shall not dispose of their dead in the neighborhood of Muslim Maqbaras
nor weep nor wail loudly over their dead.
11. They shall not deal in nor buy Muslim slaves.
12. No Muslim traveller shall be refused lodgement in these temples and shrines
where he shall be treated as a guest for three days by non-Muslims.
13. No non-Muslims shall act as a spy in the Muslim state.
14. No difficulty shall be offered to those non-Muslims who of their own choice
show their readiness for Islam.
15. Non-Muslims shall honor Muslims and shall leave their assembly whenever the
Muslims enter the premises.
16. The dress code of non-Muslims shall be different from that of Muslims to
distinguish them.
The author of Siyarul-Arifin, Hamid bin Fazlullah is
also known as Dervish Jamali Kamboh Dihlawi. He was a Sufi of the
Suhrawardiyya sect who died in AD 1536 while accompanying the Mughal
Emperor Humayun on an expedition to Gujarat. His son, Shykh Gadai was with the
Mughal army in the Second Battle of Panipat (AD 1556) and advised Akbar to kill
the Hindu king, Himu imprisoned in battle, with his own hand. On Akbar’s
refusal, according to Badauni, Shykh Gadai helped Bairam Khan in beheading the
blinded and fatally wounded Himu. This work, completed between AD 1530 and
1536, is an account of the Chishti and Suhrawardi Sufis of the period.
Sheikh Jalaluddin Tabrizi (AH 533-623) was the
second most famous disciple of Sheikh Shihabuddin Suhrawardi (AD 1145-1235),
founder of the Suhrawardiyya silsila of Sufism. Having lived in Multan, Delhi
and Badaun, he finally settled down in Lakhanauti, also known as Gaur, in
Bengal.
Devatala (Bengal) “Shaikh Jalaluddin had many disciples
in Bengal. He first lived at Lakhnauti, constructed a khanqah and attached a
langar to it. He also bought some gardens and land to be attached to the
monastery. He moved to Devatalla (Deva Mahal) near Pandua in northern
Bengal. There a kafir (either a Hindu or a Buddhist) had erected a large
temple and a well. The Shaikh demolished the temple and constructed a takiya
(khanqah) and converted a large number of kafirs… Devatalla came to be known as
Tabrizabad and attracted a large number of pilgrims.”
[S.A.A. Rizvi: A History of Sufism in India. Vol. I, New Delhi, 1978]
Tarikh-i-Kashmir was written by Haidar Malik
Chadurah, was a Kashmiri aristocrat in the service of Sultan Yusuf Shah (AD
1579-1586) and purports to give the history of Kashmir. Earlier portions are
based on Kalhana’s Rajatarangini with some additions in the later period. It
was begun in AD 1618 and finished sometime after 1620-21.
Sufi Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi of Kashmir was a sufi of the
Kubrawiyya sect who came to Kashmir first in AD 1481, next in AD 1501, and
finally in 1505 in the reign of Sultan Fath Shah. He found it convenient to
work as a member of the Nr Bakhsh Sufi sect. His doings are “anticipated” in
the Tarikh-i-Kashmir as follows:
“…Baba Uchah Ganai went for circumambulation of the two
harms (Mecca and Medina)… in search of the perfect guide (Pir-i-Kamil). He
prayed to God (to help) him when he heard a voice from the unknown that the
‘perfect guide’ was in Kashmir himself… Hazrat Shaikh, Baba Uchah Ganai…
returned to Kashmir… All of a sudden his eyes fell upon a place of worship, the
temples of the Hindus. He smiled; when the devotees asked the cause of (his
smile) he replied that the destruction and demolition of these places of
worship and the destruction of the idols will take place at the hand of the
high horn Sheikh Shams-ud-Din Irraqi. He will soon be coming from Iraq and
shall turn the temples completely desolate, and most of the misled people will
accept the path of guidance and Islam… So as was ordained Sheikh Shams-ud-Din
reached Kashmir. He began destroying the places of worship and the temples of
the Hindus and made an effort to achieve the objectives.” [Tarikh-Kashmir,
edited and translated into English by Razia Bano, Delhi, 1991, pp. l02-03. ]
Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624) :
The mission of Shaikh Sirhindi popularly know as Mujaddid
was to purify Islam from the influence of Akbar with a view to counter his
policy of "the Hindu wielding the sword of Islam" and "Peace
with all". Unhappy with the regime of Emperor Akbar for withdrawal of
Jejia tax imposed on the Hindus, Sirhindi made hectic effort to purge Islam of
all extraneous influences. He viewed Hindu mystics like Guru Nanak and Sant
Kabir contemptible, as they did not follow Sharia.
With contempt against old schools of mysticism for
tolerance, Sirhindi condemned the reign of Akbar for his 'broadmindedness' and
policy of 'peace with all'. Propagating against the contemporary socio-cultural
situation Sirhindi, felt that the attitude of Akbar "sullied the purity of
Islam and the political social and cultural life of Muslims" (History of
Sufism in India by Saiyied Athar Abbas Rizvi, Volume 2, 1992, Page Page 212).
During the closing years of Akbar reign, when his son Salim had revolted
against him, Sirhindi spread the virus of communalism with some success
"in the beginning of Jehangir's reign". He strongly criticised
freedom of worship granted to the Hindus. Hate-Hindu syndrome was so deep
in him that "death of Akbar (1605) filled Shaikh Ahmad with hopes that the
pristine purity of Islam would be implanted in India" (Sufism in India by
Saiyied Athar Abbas Rizvi, Volume 2, 1992, Page 204). "Misguided and
greedy Ulama, he (Sirhindi) believed, were responsible for the alleged downfall
of Islam in Akbar's regime" (Ibid. Page 365.)
With his strong contempt against Shia and the Hindus,
Sirhind wrote several letters to the nobles in the court of Jehangir for
guiding the emperor on the path of Shariat, and for removal of Qafirs (Shias
and Hindus) from the administration. He was dead against any honourable status
of Hindus in Islamic government. Sirhind wanted the religious freedom enjoyed
by the Hindus during Akbar regime to be curbed. Enraged with his too much
interference in administration, Jehangir imprisoned him in Gwalier (A History
of Sufism in India by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Vol. II, 1972, Page 178) but
released him after one year. Sirhind not only "injected communal virus
into the body politic of the country but also generated hatred, mutual distrust
and discord among the various sections of Muslims"(Ibid. page XII).
Despite this anti-Hindu tirade of Sirhindi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in 1919
eulogiged the role of Mujaddid (Sirhind),"who did not see eye to eye with
the policy of state" (Ibid. Page215).
He was the leading light of the Naqshbandi sufi silsila,
and the foremost disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah who brought this silsila to
India in the reign of Akbar. He was always foaming at the mouth against Akbar’s
policy of peace with the Hindus. He proclaimed himself the
Mujaddid-i-alf-i-sdni, (renovator of the second millennium of Islam). Besides
writing several books, he addressed many letters to several powerful courtiers
in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. His Maktiibctt-i-Imdm Rabbant have been
collected and published in three volumes. According to Professor S.A.A. Rizvi,
“Sharia can be fostered through the sword’ was the slogan he raised for his
contemporaries.
Excerpts from his writings :
“The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs.
One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims. The real purpose of levying
jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able
to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified
and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the
honour and might of Islam.” In Letter No. 81, he said: “Cow-sacrifice in India
is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay
jiziya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice.” After Guru Arjun Dev had
been tortured and done to death by Jahangir, he wrote in letter No. 193 that
“the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement
and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus.”
Professor Rizvi has cited select passages from the
original Persian of Ahmad Sirhindi’s letters. It is only recently that the
letters have become available in Urdu translation. Ahmad Sirhindi wrote to many
Muslim notables in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. Some of these letters were in
strong protest against Akbar’s liberal, equitable policies vis-à-vis
Hindus. Some of his statements
translated from the original Urdu script have been reproduced below:
“It is said that the Sharia prospers under the “shadow of
the sword” (al-Shara’ tahat al-sait). And the glory of the holy Sharia depends
on the kings of Islam.”
“Islam and infidelity (kufr) contradict one another. To
establish the one means eradicating the other, the coming together of these
contradictories being impossible. Therefore, Allah has commanded his Prophet to
wage war (jihad) against the infidels, and be harsh with them. The glory is
Islam consists in the humiliation and degradation of infidels and infidelity.
He, who honours the infidels, insults Islam. Honouring (the infidels) does not
mean that they are accorded dignity, and made to sit in high places. It means
allowing them to be in our company, to sit with them, and talk to them. They
should be kept away like dogs. If there is some worldly purpose or work which
depends upon them, and cannot be served without their help, they may be
contacted while keeping in mind all the time that they are not worthy of
respect. The best course according to Islam is that they should not be
contacted even for worldly purposes. Allah has proclaimed in his Holy Word
(Quran) that they are his and his Prophet’s enemies. And mixing with these
enemies of Allah and his Prophet or showing affection for them, is one of the
greatest crimes.”
“The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of
friendship, which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land… What
right had the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended
imposition of jizyah for their (infidels) humiliation and degradation. What is
required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Muslims. The
slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam. To consult them (the kafirs) and
then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam),
which is strictly forbidden.”
“The prayer (goodwill) of these enemies of Islam is false
and fruitless. It should never be called for because it can only add to their
numbers. If the infidels pray, they will surely seek the intercession of their
idols, which is taking things too far. A wise man has said that unless you become
a dewanah (crazy) you cannot attain Islam. The state of this mania means going
beyond considerations of profit and loss. Whatever one gains in the service of
Islam should suffice…”
“Ram and Krishan whom Hindus worship are insignificant
creatures, and have been begotten by their parents… Ram could not protect his
wife whom Ravan took away by force. How can he help others? It is thousands of
times shameful that some people should think of Ram and Krishan as rulers of
all the worlds. To think that Ram and Rahman are the same, is extremely
foolish. The creator and the creature can never be one… The controller of the
Cosmos was never called Ram and Krishan before, the latter were born. What has
happened after their birth that they have come to be equated with Allah, and
the worship of Ram and Krishan is described as the worship of Allah? May Allah
save us!”
“Our prophets who number one hundred and twenty four
thousand have encouraged the created ones to worship the Creator. The gods of
the Hindus (on the other hand) have encouraged the people to worship them (the
gods) instead. They are themselves misguided, and are leading others astray.
See, how the (two) ways are different!”
“Before that kafir (Guru Arjun Dev) was executed, this
recluse (meaning himself) had seen in a dream that the reigning king had
smashed the skull of idolatry. Indeed, he was a great idolater, and the leader
of the idolaters, and the chief of unbelievers. May Allah bless him! The Holy
Prophet who is the ruler of religion as well as the world, has cursed the
idolaters as follows in some of his prayers – “O Allah, demean their society,
create divisions in their ranks, destroy their homes, and get at them like the
mighty one.”
“It is required by religion (Islam) that jihad should be
waged against the unbelievers, and that they should be dealt with harshly. It
is obligatory on Muslims to acquaint the king of Islam with the evil customs of
false religions. Maybe the king has no knowledge of these evil customs. Some
Ulama of Islam should come forward, and proclaim the evils present in their
(unbelievers’) ways… It will be no excuse or, the Day of Judgment that they did
not proclaim the tenets of the Sharia because they were not called upon (to do
so).”
“Therefore, it is necessary that infidelity should be
cursed in order to serve the faith (Islam). Cursing unbelief in the heart is
the lesser way. The greater way is to curse it in the heart as well as with the
body. In short, cursing means to nourish enmity towards enemies of the true
faith, whether that enmity is harboured in the heart when there is fear of
injury from them (infidels), or it is harboured in the heart as well as served
with the body when there is no fear of injury from them. In the opinion of this
recluse, there is no greater way to obtain the blessings of Allah than to curse
the enemies of the faith (be impatient with them). For Allah himself harbours
enmity towards the infidels and infidelity…”
“Once I went to visit a sick man who was close to death.
When I meditated on him, I saw that his heart was layered with darkness. I
intended to remove those darkness. But he was not yet ready for it… When I
meditated more deeply, I discovered that that darkness had gathered due to his
friendship with the infidels. They could not be dispersed easily. He had to
suffer torments of hell before he could get purged of them.”
“Every person cherishes some longing in his heart. The
only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies
of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be
humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes
and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you
again and again to act in this way. Now that you have yourself arrived at that
place, and have been appointed to defile and insult that dirty spot and its
inhabitants, I feel grateful for this grace (from Allah). There are many who go
to this place for pilgrimage. Allah in his kindness has not inflicted this
punishment on us. After giving thanks to Allah, you should do your best to ruin
that place and their false gods … whether the idols are carved or uncarved. Let
us hope that you will not act slow. Physical weakness and severity of the cold
weather, comes in my way. Otherwise, I would have presented myself, and helped
you in doing the job. I would have liked to participate in the ceremony and
mutilate the stones.”
Shah Wali'ullah :
“He was a prominent Muslim thinker of eighteenth century
who shaped the destiny of Indian Muslims was also a Sufi of Naqshbandi order.
His contempt against the Hindus was identical to Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi. The
rise of two Hindu rebellious groups namely Marathas and Jats against the Muslim
rulers in 1750s stirred the mystic spirit of Wali Ullah and he invited Ahmad
Shah Abdali, the Afghan ruler to invade India to save the Muslims from the
subjugation of Hindus. While formulating the contours of his mystical ideology,
he transformed the Islamic mysticism to a theo-political concept for supremacy
of Islam and for political power to the Sunnis.
Wali Ullah started a tradition of reformed Sufism in
which Islamic mysticism was far superior to other form of mystic philosophy.
His reform in Sufi cult made the spirituality of Islam subservient to Political
Islam. His doctrine for internal unity of Muslims through complete adherence to
pure Islam was only to fight against the infidels and for reestablishment of
assertive Islamic political power. His ideology had no scope to accommodate any
order of non-Islamic mysticism, which he regarded unhealthy. He tried to comb
out all the foreign influences, such as neo-platonism and Vedantism from
Islamic mysticism. Carving out a new path for Sufism he became an active
Islamist with a sole objective for resurgent Sunni political power in Delhi.”
(A History of Sufism in India, Vol. II, Rizvi, Page 259).
Bridging the gulf between the Islamic clerics and Sufis,
Wali Ullah infused new vigour in practice of Naqshbandi Sufi order. He
synthesised the disciplines of the three major Sufi orders namely Qadari,
Chisti and Naqshbandi with a view to unite the Muslim society against the
Hindus. Like Shaikh Ahmad Sirhind he was also against the presence of Hindu
employees in the administration of Muslim rulers as he viewed it detrimental to
the purity of Islam. His attempt was to purify Islam from the mystic influence
of Hinduism. Under the influence of Serhindi whose belief that Islam is a
complete way of life stirred the Muslims to retrieve the medieval glory of the
faith in this sub continent. The exclusivist Ideology of Wali Ullah, which
sowed the seed of Muslim separatism in South Asia had nothing to do with the
secular intellectual approach towards spiritualism.
Against the total rejection of Sufism by his contemporary
radical Islamist Wahhab of Saudi Arabia, Waliullah used his mystic ideology for
political domination of the Muslims in the region. However, the spirit and aim
of both were for adherence to pure Islam. He was the main guiding source for
Muslims after the decline of Islamic rule in Indian subcontinent. Contrary to
the commonly viewed Sufi tradition he was not receptive to the spiritual
tradition of local Hindus in any form. His main spiritual concerns if any was
for revival of Islamic India.
The Muslim ruler under the influence of the doctrine of
Shah Wali Ullah patronised Islamic learning and "took away the
administrative and economic power that had passed into the hands of
Hindus" (Islamic Mysticism in India by Nagendra Kumar Singh, Page 185). "For
Shah Wali Ullah, the decline of Mogul political power and the spiritual
decadence of Indian Islam were closely related "(The Sufi Orders in Islam
by J. Spencer Trimingham, Oxford, 1971, Page 196).
Importance of Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah :
Sufis like Sirhindi and Wali Ullah, who politicised the
mystic ideology for political domination of Islam, were projected as Islamic
reformists for purifying Islam from any extraneous influences. They conveyed
the political aspect of Islam to Muslim masses so aggressively that it created
a permanent imprint on their psyche. It is therefore said that the Sufi
Islamists saved the Islam but failed to save the downfall of Mogul Empire.
According to
Allama Iqbal, "he (Wali Ullah) was the first Muslim to feel the urge for
rethinking the whole system of Islam without in any way breaking away from its
past" (The Sufi Orders in Islam by J. Spencer Trimingham, Oxford, 1971,
Page 198). In fact Wali Ullah and Abd al Wahhab recommended religiously
approved jehad against unbelievers (non-Muslims) but rejected the commonly
viewed difference between lesser jehad and greater jehad. "This physical
armed struggle had commonly been termed 'lesser jihad' (al-jihad-al -asghar),
the greater jihad (al-jihad-al akbar) being the struggle for the interior spiritualisation
of individual battle waged against the base self rather than exterior
armies" (Sufis and anti-Sufis by Elizabeth Surriyeh, 1999, Page 29).
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the first Education Minister of
independent India, writes in his Tazkirah: “but for these letters Muslim nobles
would not have stood by Islam and but for the efforts of Shaikh Ahmad, Akbar’s
heterodoxy would have superseded Islam in India.”‘ Later on, when K.A. Nizami
published a collection of Shah Walilullah’s letters addressed to various Muslim
notables, including Ahmad Shah Abdali, he dedicated it to Maulana Azad. The
Maulana wrote back, “I am extremely happy that you have earned the merit of
publishing these letters. I pray from the core of my heart that Allah may bless
you with the felicity of publishing many books of a similar kind.” That should
give us a measure not only of ‘Muslim Revivalism’ but also of many Maulanas who
masqueraded as ardent nationalists in order to fight the battle for Islam from
within the Indian National Congress.
Other Sufis :
Sayyid Ahmad Barelavi, a disciple of Abd al Aziz, (the
son of Shah Wali Ullah) continued the tradition of Waliullah by synthesising
the three major Sufi orders" (The Sufi orders in Islam by Spencer
Trimingham, Oxford, 1971, Page 129). He launched armed jehad against the
non-Muslims but was killed in the battle of Balkot against Sikh leader Ranjit
Singh. Karamat Ali, a disciple of Sayed Ahmad Barelavi further developed the
ideology for purifying Islam from the influences of Hindu custom and tradition.
"His work largely paved the way for the establishment of the organisation
which has more recently been developed under the name of Ahl-I-Hadith"
(Indian Islam by Murray T Titus, 1979, Page 186). It was a neo-Sufi concept of
Islam interpreted by Shah Wali-Ullah.
The leaders of Deoband movement were also under the
influence of both Wali Ullah and Wahhab and accordingly they resisted against
the British and were critical of Aligarh movement because of its leader Sir
Sayed Ahmad being loyal to it. Protracted struggle with the concept of greater
jehad was the basic creed of Deoband movement, which is a synthesis of Wahhab
and Wali Ullah. Deobandis extreme austere approach towards Wahhab and harsh
condemnation of the much popular practice of Sufism in India are being viewed
as a totally anti-Sufi movement. Ahmad Riza Khan Barilavi(1856-1921), the
founder of Barelavi movement was the defender of traditional Sufi movement but
Mohammad Ilyas, a pietistic missionary group though, appropriated the ethical
emphasis of Sufism rejected its ritual, metaphysics and sainthood (M.A.Haq -
The Faith Movement of Maulana Ilyas, London, 1972 - Quoted from Encyclopaedia
of Islam Vol. X, page 336).
Bahar-i-Azam is an account of a journey undertaken in
1823 by Azam Jah Bahadur “after he ascended the throne of the Carnatic as Nawab
Walajah VI.” The author, Ghulam ‘Abdul Qadir Nazir, was his court scribe who
accompanied the Nawab on this journey. The Nawab was only in name as he was
living in Madras on British gratuity, in lieu of his ancestral principality of
Arcot which had been turned over to the British in 1801. The account names
numerous Sufis etc., who came to the districts of Chingleput, North Arcot,
South Arcot, Tiruchirapalli and Thanjavur and established Muslim places of
worship. What these new monuments replaced becomes obvious from the following
instances.
Sufi Natthar Wali of Tiruchirapalli (Tamil Nadu) “It
is said that in ancient days Trichila, an execrable monster with three heads,
who was a brother of Rawan, with ten heads, had the sway over this country. No
human being could oppose him. But as per the saying of the Prophet, ‘Islam will
be elevated and cannot be subdued’, the Faith took root by the efforts of
Hazarat Natthar Wali. The monster was slain and sent to the house of
perdition. His image namely but-ling worshipped by the unbelievers was cut and
the head was separated from the body. A portion of the body went into the
ground. Over that spot is the tomb of the Wali, shedding radiance till this
day.”
Sufi Shah Bheka “Shah Bheka… when he was at
Trichinaply during the days of Rani Minachi, the unbelievers who did not like
his stay there harassed him. One day when he was very much vexed, he got
upon the bull in front of the temple, which the Hindus worship calling it
swami, and made it move on by the power and strength of the Supreme Life Giver…
They abandoned the temple and gave the entire place on the aruskalwa as present
to the Shah.” (this is during a time when the Muslim faction in court politics
was dominant)
Sufi Qãyim Shah “Qayim Shah[…]was the cause for the
destruction of twelve temples. He lived to an old age and passed away on the
17th Safar AH 1193.”
Sufi Nur Muhammad Qadiri of Vellore (Tamil
Nadu) “Hazarat Nur Muhammad Qadiri was the most unique man regarded as an
invaluable person of his age. Very often he was the cause of the ruin of
temples. Some of these were laid waste. He selected his own burial ground
in the vicinity of the temple. Although he lived five hundred years ago, people
at large still remember his greatness.”
[Bahar-i-Azam, translated in English, Madras, 1960, 382 Ibid., p. 51. Sayyid
Nathar Shah (AD 969-1030) from Arabia destroyed a Shiva temple and converted it
into his khanqah. He died in AH 673, and the khanqah became a dargah which has
since grown into an important place of Muslim pilgrimage]
Sharia and Sufism :
Sufis take their inspiration from the following verses of
Koran :
Surah 24:35,
“Allah is the Light of Heaven and Earth! His light may be compared to a niche
in which there is a lamp; the lamp is in a glass; the glass is just as if it
were a glittering star kindled from a blessed olive tree, {which is} neither
Eastern nor Western, whose oil will almost glow though the fire has never
touched it. Light upon light, Allah guides anyone He wishes to His
light.”
Another verse, often chanted in Sufi gatherings, and
which the Sufis claim sums up the whole of Sufism is Surah 2:156, “Verily
we are for Allah, and verily unto Him we are returning.”
A third often used verse is Surah 50:6, “We (Allah)
are nearer to him (man) than his jugular vein.”
The Sufis believe that Muhammad has said that every verse
of the Quran has ‘an outside and an inside’ - a belief clearly in line with
their quest for the haqiqa (inner truth).
"Seekers of Tawhid should strive to dedicate
themselves to the Prophet Mohammad, so much so that their entire selves,
including their hearts and their spirits, were free of thoughts other than of
God" (History of Sufism in India by Saiyied Athar Abbas Rizvi, Volume 2,
1992, Page 178).
Al Ghazali, perhaps the greatest Muslim scholar and a
Sufi wrote:
“One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at
least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they
are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire
to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book
– primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically]
revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books.
Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food
as they need...
The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His
Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on
non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the
official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protuberant bone
beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously
display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the
Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse
or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not
walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an
identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public]
baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue"…. [From the Wagjiz, written in
1101 A.D.]
Al Qushairi (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that
there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of the
Sharia
The great Sufi master, Al Hujwiri (Daata Ganj Bakhsh),
laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the
ultimate Truth and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the
indisputable Law for all Sufis. In other words, the Sufism and the ulema
represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally
accepted and obeyed by all Muslims. By definition therefore Sufi masters could
be no exception. The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known
as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of
Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths
are barred, except to him who followth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e.,
Prophet Muhammad) [Source: Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101].
Reynold A. Nicholson writes in the Preface to the famous
tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982). “No Sufis, not even
those who have attained the highest degree of holiness, are exempt from the
obligation of obeying the religious law”. In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al
Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh,
was widely regarded as the grammar of Sufi thought and practice. Most Sufis
have invariably drawn on the contents of this Treatise for preaching the Sufi
thought (also known as Sufi sisals). On page 140 of Kashaf al Mahjub, Al
Hujwiri loudly proclaims that “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth,
and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law.
Sufis hatred of Hindus and aim of conversion :
It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints, to
accept a Hindu ascending the throne of any kingdom during the heydays of the
Muslim rule. In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of his well
researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New
Delhi) it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, king Ganesha,
captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D., Ibrahim Shah Sharqi, attacked
his kingdom at the request of outraged ulema and numerous Sufis of Bengal. In
the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and
secured a political agreement to the benefit of the Muslim community and
satisfaction of Sufis. Under dire threat King Ganesha was forced to abdicate
his throne in favour of his 12 years old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam
and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin - to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters.
Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of Sufi
philosophy, was a diehard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as
stated in the same tome, by S.A.A. Rizvi. The Sultan also used to force the
Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become
outcastes in their own community. And the endgame of the Sultan could as well
be that perhaps some of the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.
"The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were
as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place
of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be
accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one
instance that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged
to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups.
He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to
re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax
and jizya. To Babur he wrote, "Extend utmost patronage and protection to
theologians and mystics... that they should be maintained and subsidized by the
state... No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of
Islam... Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they
should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should
be made to pay the jizya...They should be disallowed from donning the dress of
the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and
not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely… They should not
be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims. [The Legacy of
Muslim Rule in India – KS Lal [1992], p. 237]
Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in
spirituality and mysticism, the Hindus have developed the custom of visiting
dargahs and continue to pray at the tombs of Sufis, no Muslim, nor any
Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before
the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. For them it would be an act of grossest
sacrilege and unacceptable violation of the basic tenets of Sufism. That is the
truth about the Sufi saints and their philosophy of inter-religious harmony.
Contrary to the spiritual mission of Sufism, the cult was
primarily introduced in India for spread of Islam with a view to help the
Muslim rulers for political domination. By and large the spiritual successors
of mystic Islamic saints enjoyed the royal favour of Muslim rulers and gave
moral support to the atrocious Muslim invaders and looked other way to ignore
the growing social conflict. They also guided the State in political affairs
with their experience of regular interaction with common people.
The way Sufis' tombs emerged as a place of pilgrimage
suggests that the missionary objective of the Islamic mystics was formulated
mainly for conversion and to establish the Perso-Arabian cultural domination in
South Asia. Even though the Sufi saints got convinced with non-Islamic
worldview on metaphysics in course of their interaction with non-Muslim saints,
they did not allow their followers to accommodate it in the straight jacket of
Islamic theology. Sufi saints commonly viewed as symbol of secularism however,
never opposed Jejiya (Tax imposed on non-believers) levied on Hindus in Islamic
India. Therefore, in stead of advising the Muslim marauders against their
inhuman deeds, the Sufis overlooked the plight of Hindu priests and saints, who
were forced to flee and hide themselves.
Under the patronage of the State under Muslim rulers, the
Sufi mystics while offering spiritual guidance and support to the Hindu
subjects allured them for adoption of Muslim identity, superiority of
Arbo-Persian-Turkish tradition and accordingly transplanted them in the
cultural tradition of India. "The establishment of Sufi orders in India
coincided with the rising political power of Muslims (Muslim-Almanac edited by
Azim A.Nanji, 1996, Page 61).
"On paper, the Sultanate seemed to be a perfectly
Islamized state (but) religious leaders often of Arab origin and the religion
(Islam) were subordinated to the political exigencies of the Turko-Afghans, who
were in power" (A History of Modern India edited by Claude Markovitz,
Anthen Press, 2002, Page 30). "No document attests to the peaceful
preaching of the Sufis that most defenders of Islam put forward today"
(Ibid. Page 33). "The attraction exercised by the politico-economic
benefits that Islam offered seemed to have been the primary motivation for
conversion, which particularly affected the middle strata of society"
(Ibid.page 33).
Problem of Sufism :
Inspite of Sufi masters adherence to the Sharia it still
lacks legitimacy. Sufis in their search for legitimation of their spiritual
quest have failed to show that Islam as
a religion contained within it a spiritual-ascetic tendency from the very
beginning.
Despite the fact that except Prophet Mohammad, the
sainthood in Islam has been a debatable issue, Sufism of various orders in the
name of their founder saints has become a universal aspect of Islam. Sufis are
known as Islamic spiritualists and the Muslims commonly view them as
intermediaries between God and individuals.
Sufis created a more serious problem for Islam, as due to
their religiosity, they introduced new teachings, reinterpreting the Quran and
sunna.
The orthodox ulama developed their theology in line with
what they viewed as their ‘Judeo-Christian’ roots, while the Sufis were largely
influenced by Eastern mystics. Consequently, the influences of Hinduism, and
other forms of mystical religions on the development of Sufism, can be seen, in
part, as a result of the doctrine of the indescribability of Allah.
This problem can be seen in radical Islamists blowing the
sufi shrines as Zakir Naik puts it that it is shrik to worship sufi graves and
it is no different than worshipping an idol.
Exceptions :
Bulleh Shah (1680–1757) :
Some of his couplets :
“taykon Ka’abay day wich paya noor dissay,
Saday but-khanay wich Huzoor wasay,”
“you see God in Ka'aba, I see the Lord even in a Mandir, Bulleh Shah”
" koi Rehman jay pasay koi bhagwan jay Pasay.
Muhenjo sajdo unhai khay a jo insan jay pasay"
“Some support Allah some Bhagwan, I bow to the person who supports a human”
Even he did not question Islamic religious orthodoxy :
“Bulleh Shah's poetry and philosophy has never questioned
the Islamic religious
orthodoxy of his day but he did sometimes use metaphors to express his
frustration towards the rigidity of Muslim clerics of his time.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulleh_Shah
Sheik Farid :
Dara Shikoh (1615-1659):
Passion to the essential spirituality of life was hardly
found in any Muslim ruler or Prince except Dara Shikoh. He was perhaps the only
sincere Muslim prince, whose "effort was to find a common ground between
Hindu and Muslim religious thought" (Islamic Mysticism in India by
Nagendra Kumar Singh, Page 179). For this he was accused of heresy.
One author, Martin Lings, who is a practicing Sufi, quite
boldly states that “Prince Dara Shikoh (or Shukuh), the Sufi son of the Mogul
Emporer Shah Jahan, was able to affirm that Sufism and Advaita Vendantism
(Hinduism) are essentially the same, with a surface difference in terminology.”
Muslim scholar, Seyyed Hossein Nasr states that the “orthodox
Naqshbandi saint Mirza Mazhar Jan Janan considered the Hindu Vedas as divinely
inspired.”
Various other sufis sayings that relate to the Vedantic
thought :
Mansur al-Hallaj (d.922): “I saw my Lord with the eye of
the heart. I said: Who art Thou? He answered: Thou.”
Abu Maydan (d. 1197): “Everything outside of God is
unreal, everything taken individually or collectively, when you truly know
it... Whatever does not have root in his Being, can in no wise be real.”
Muhammad al-Harraq (d. 1845): “Seekest thou Laila [Divine
Reality], when she is manifest within thee? Thou deemest her to be other, but
she is not other than thou.”51
Jalal al-Din Rumi (d.1273): “Though the many ways
[diverse religions] are various, the goal is one. Do you not see there are many
roads to the Kaaba?”52
Ibn ‘Arabi stated,
My heart has become capable of every form: it is a
pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christians, and a temple for idols and
the pilgrims Ka‘ba and the tables of the Torah, and the book of the Koran. I
follow the religion of Love: whatever way Love’s camels take, that is my
religion and faith..54
Another Sufi saint, Mahmud Shabistari, in his work
Gulshan-i Raz (The Mystic Rose Garden) concurs, declaring, “..what is mosque,
what is synagogue, what is fire temple? ... ‘I’ and ‘You’ are the Hades veil
between them.. When this veil is lifted up from before you, there remains not
the bond of sects and creeds.”55
Quotation from the great 13th-century Sufi philosopher
Ibn Arabi:
“Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you
disbelieve all the rest; if you do this you will miss much good. Nay, you will
fail to realise the real truth of the matter. God the omnipresent and
omniscient cannot be confined to any one creed, for he says in the Quran:
"Wheresover ye turn, there is the face of Allah."
“When you know yourself, your ‘I’ness vanishes and you
know that you and Allah are one and the same.” This clearly states the belief
that everything that exists is one, having the same essence and reality.
Is this contrary to orthodox Islam? How have Muslim
scholars responded to al-‘Arabi’s teachings?
Answer by Imam Mohamad M. Algalaleni (leader of the
London Mosque) :
“Actually, all the scholars, or at least the majority of
them did not accept what Ibn Arabi brought to the Islamic thinking or belief.
Because, as you know, Islam is based on the ‘oneness’ or tawhid, a Muslim
should worship Allah alone, and Allah Almighty is not, or we as human beings
are not part of Allah. Thus Ibn Arabi’s concepts created divisions or differentiation
between scholars and himself. Up to today, many scholars have written books
against Arabi’s ideas, even though some of his students try to defend Ibn Arabi
by saying he didn’t mean what people understood him to teach - that mankind and
God are one unit. Yet the majority of Muslims rejected Arabi’s teaching because
it is the opposite of tawhid, of oneness; believing in Allah. Nonetheless, I
feel that this kind of high feeling [in Ibn Arabi] was because he was very
sensitive towards God and as a result said this teaching - actually this
teaching was mistaken; but maybe he didn’t mean it in this way. There are
people who didn’t go deeply into his philosophy and blamed him... but this is
actually a long story. In conclusion, I would say that we don’t agree with this
statement anyway.”
