Contribution

Sufism in the Context of Modern Politics

Marietta Stepanyants
Political analysts err in concentrating all their attention on
the burning, militant Islam in plain sight; othermanifestations of Islam deserve to be more closely
examined and better known to the public at large.
Mohammed Arkoun1I

T is really amazing that not only political analysts but evenly scholars
for years ignored Sufism as a factor of political life in the Muslim
world. It has been common to list as main trends in the modern Islamic
political thought the orthodoxes (traditionalists), the modernists, thereformers, the fundamentalists (revivalists). The Sufis have not beentaken into account, though the long history of Islamic mysticism provesthat it often gave up its neutral role as a non-political, contemplative theology and actively joined political fights.
The involvement in politics was both on individual and collective levels. Mostly, the orders took a particular side: either against an established order, injustice and oppression, or, on the contrary, in support of aruling power. Thus, for example, “The Suhrawardi shaykhs in general
never accepted the idea of revolt against any king, no matter how
unjust....In Ottoman lands the Mevlevi order in particular, and also the
Bektashi to some extent, had close alliances with the ruling power...During the Mughal period, the Naqshbandi order, which had a strong tradition of association with kings in central Asia, became prominent inpolitical affairs; Shaykh Sirhindi sought to change Mughal religious
policies, Shah Wali Allah invited the Afghan king Ahmad Shah toinvade India and fight the Marathas and later Sayyid Ahmad Shahid led
militant activists against the Sikhs... In Hindustan, the Chishti order isbest known for its consistent refusal to ask kings for financial support.”2
Sufi writers of the post-Mongol period inscribed treatises that glorified
monarchy as equal to or even superior to prophecy. Najm al-Din Razi (d.
166SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

167

654/1256) claimed that a just king is a true vice-regent of God, andmanifests the divine attributes of lordship. Likewise Husayn Wa‘iz
Kashifi (d. 910/1504–05) rated kingship as equal in some respects toprophethood.3
The heads of the orders could be indifferent to political power, butthey, as well, could aspire it in revolt against established authority, andsometimes actually be successful in founding a dynasty. The mostremarkable example of such a movement was that, which led to thefoundation of the Safawi dynasty in Persia. The movement of Turkish
self-assertion led to the foundation of the dynasty of the Qaramanoghlus
in Qonya, which traced its origin back to a dervish named Nura Sufi.4
Why then there is an underestimation of the role played by Sufism inthe modern politics? Partly, it is because of a factual decline of the influence of the orders in the XXth century due to their degradation. Muhammad Iqbal, a great Indo-Pakistan poet-philosopher and Muslim reformer,
who was so much affected by Sufism that he called Djalal ad-Din Rumi
as his preceptor and guide on the path to Truth, however, was to confessthat medieval mysticism was a cause of social stagnation for the Muslims.” And in the Muslim East,—he stated,—it has, perhaps, done far
greater havoc than anywhere else. Far from reintegrating the forces of
the average man’s inner life, and preparing him for participation in themarch of history, it has taught him a false renunciation and made him
perfectly contented with his ignorance and spiritual thralldom.”5 Theorders have failed to respond adequately to the challenges of the newtime, hence, it is hardly to be wondered that they are in decline everywhere.6
Yet, one should differentiate between an institutional Sufism presented by the orders and the Sufi teachings. “It is through the Sufi tradition
primarily that the springs of spiritual vitality have flowed in recent centuries in the Islamic world and it is perhaps still in this tradition, with allof its accumulated corruptions, that they mainly flow. Certainly nothing
has replaced it...Whether an intellectual Sufism can call forth the degreeof commitment and provide the sense of social relevance necessary for amajor spiritual revival is a question...”7
My answer to that question: everything is possible, it depends. Thereis no doubt that there is a worldwide reanimation of the interest in
Sufism. It is sufficient to have a glance at the shelves in the bookstores
so that to find out that this mystical trend of thought has returned to theinternational stage. The publishers and the authors would not choosethat subject until there is a demand for it on behalf of a wide public. The
latter is caused by a number of factors.

168

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

There is a general intellectual and spiritual atmosphere in the contemporary world marked by a crisis of rationality, and a certain degree of adissolution with an institutionalized religion, which turns an attractionof some stratas of the society (intellectuals, youth, etc.) to mysticaltrends of thought in general, and Sufism, in particular.
However, it seems to be even more important that the course of theevents in the Muslim world itself makes vital a search for responses tothe challenges of the Islamic fundamentalism—a real peril to the futureof the Muslims (by taking them back to an idealized past, and thus preventing from putting an end to backwardness), as well as to the worldcommunity in itself by greatly contributing to the scenario with a clashof civilizations. Consequently, Sufism is looked at as an alternative tofundamentalism.8
Let us consider in a more elaborate way whether Sufism can in fact
“rescue” from Islamic fundamentalism?
xxx
The very existence of Sufism implies criticism ofand challenge to the orthodox theology.
Fazlur Rahman
It is well known that the history of the Muslim world presents a great
number of examples of a traditionally tensed relations between the Sufis
and the ulema with orthodox and fundamentalist views of the latter.
Sometimes, that strain led to the extremes: the Sufis were prosecuted,
punished and publicly martyred. The hostility was firmly set up both on
theological differences and mundane considerations.
The ulema accounted a danger to their orthodox-traditionalist belief
to be rooted in many aspects of Sufis teachings: in its ontology, epistemology, ethics and social views. On ulema’s estimations the speculative
Sufism, at best represented by Ibn ‘Arabi, was the “the single great
enemy that threatened to destroy the very fabric of Islamic faith:at-tauhid.”9
The concept of wahdat-al-wujud was “different from the Muslim theological concept of Divine Unity derived from the Koran. By refusing tosee a difference between the divine and human realms it did not only
struck at the essentially transcendental character of the God of Muslim
theology, it reduced the very question of Divine, Justice, Will, Reward,
Punishment, and different religions to gross absurdities.”10
In the field of epistemology Sufis might be considered to be “theSUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

169

brothers” (Ibn Sina) with the philosophers in the search of Truth. The
speculative Sufis do not deny the validity of rational knowledge itself,
though they comprehend its limited possibilities. As Rumi said: “Reason is excellent and desirable until it brings you to the door of the King.
Once you have reached His door, divorce reason;...surrender yourself toHim; you have no use then for how and wherefore.”11 To what the Sufis
feel a real aversion is the rationality of the ulema. In Muhammad Iqbal’s
words, Sufi revolted “against the verbal quibbles” of Muslim theologists
and thus they could be qualified as “a form of free thought in a alliancewith rationalism.”12
The Sufis regard skeptically any belief forced upon man externally. To
the latter they counterpose the faith born in the internal, individual experience of a “loving heart.” Sufi ma‘rifa denotes knowledge gained inpersonal experience, mystically revealed. The idea that “each does notknow of God except that which he infers from himself”13 is most clear
and ample expression of the Sufi concept of knowledge.
While Muslim theologians’ epistemological skepticism signifies thesenselessness of attempts at attaining the Truth and the necessity ofcompliance with the letters of Koran and with the legal prescriptions of
the ulema, Sufi skepticism contains something quite different. For a
mystic the impossibility of perfect realization of the Absolute means not
submission to the dogma and blind acceptance of it but incessant striving to achieve maximum realization. Sufi notion about the incomprehensibleness of the Absolute does not close the ways of cognition; on thecontrary, it asserts the infinity of the process of cognition, the necessityof perpetual quest for Truth. “Anguish after the hidden” is a cryptical
Sufi formula denoting constant seeking for Truth. That unquenchable
thirst for knowledge, that anguish after the hidden, has been both animmense challenge to the stand of the ulema and a great attraction for
floundering minds and souls.
The Sufis believe that perfect conduct transcends the boundries oflegalized religious doctrins, sometimes they even ignore or deny the latter. Observance of Shari‘a injuctions is obligatory for the Sufis at theinitial stage of the path to perfection. But mystics can not be satisfied
with the legalistic code of behaviour since they strove to something
greater than righteousness as admitted by orthodox canons. Shari‘a forthem is the law of the phenomenal world, of the visible, while so that toenter the ‘hidden world’ one has to pass along the more difficult path of
tariqa.
For a mystic aspiring fana’, that is union with God, religious laws
seem to be of no great importance or even useless at all. Fana’ realized

170

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

through attention to religious do’s and don’ts is considered deficient. It
requires that consciousness must be lost so that man is unable to seeanything other than the Real.14
Sell intelligence and buy bewilderment, intelligence isopinion, while bewilderment is (immediate) vision.15
Theological differences between the ulema and the Sufis have been sogreat that even in those places where tassawuf is not proclaimed as aheresy and the activity of the orders is not banned (as it is done in the
Saudi Arabia, for example), still Sufi writings have been generally
excluded from the system of education at the madrasas. Yet, more thanthose theoretical differences, the challenge from the side of Sufism tothe very authority and the power of the ulema (through their special rolein society) have caused hostility of the latter towards the former.
The Sufis prescribe an adept who seek the Pass to choose a preceptor
and follow him like his guide. That naturally undermines the position of
traditional theologians and heightens the role of the shaykhs. The practice of the Sufi orders shows that shaykhs used to become masters ofunquestioned authority; their disciples (murids), as a rule, absolutelyobeyed them. Hence, the orders have been real rivals for the ulema bothin spiritual and worldly affairs. (One of many proofs for that is that the
French encouraged the Sufi orders in North Africa over orthodox Islamof the ulema, which they feared as their real enemies).
It is true that the orders are not any more so great in numbers as theyused to be in the past. It is also evident that the capacity of the existingorders to impact on the political affairs has decreased significantly inmost of the Muslim countries. Yet, they are still influential in a numberof regions, in particularly where tribal and clan relations maintain (likein Africa or the North Caucasia). However, It is not the orders but speculative Sufism that could be looked for as an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism. Tassawuf’s speculative doctrines may once again get their“corruptive” (from the point of view of the ulema) influence on popularpsychology by their fascinatingly personal concept of God. They can
succeed in undermining the authority of the ulema by capturing theminds of rank and file Muslims because they respond to human innate
spiritual needs for religiosity rather than for formal attachment to any
institutionalized and dogmatic religion.
The relevance of Sufism to modern politics is not limited by its traditional opposition to the orthodoxy. There are some other aspects of
Sufism which make its teaching attractive to the contemporaries.

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

171

xxx
By loving wisdom doth the soul know life.
What has it got to do with senseless strife ofHindu, Muslim, Christian, Arab, Turk?16
Rumi
The purpose of this part of the paper is to stress upon the relevance ofmystical teachings to secularism. Before going further in our reflections
on the subject it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the notion ‘a secular society.’ The latter could be understood in a narrow sense: a society
the ideology and the politics of which have no connections with any
religious teaching. In a wider sense, a secular society may still respect
the religious values; yet in contrast to a sacred type of a society, it elicits
from its members the willingness and ability to respond to new culturalelements, it is accessible to contact with other societies, and its value
system is permeable.17
It is then in a wider sense that secularism and Islamic mysticism
could correlate as the allies. Let me point out some of the reasons forsuch assessment.
First, the emphasis that Sufism puts on the distinction of zahir andbatin prompts an attitude of indifference to all that applies to the mundane world, to the politics in particular.
Second, Sufi concept of the unity of Being permits to make a conclusion that there is an essential unity of mankind. That accords with the
opposition to the narrowness of any belief in the superiority of one community (either religious or ethnic) over the others.
Third, in contrast to the ulema, the Sufis do not really bother aboutumma, which is expected to unify all the Muslims in an Islamic state
regulated by the Shari’a. “The orders and their walis, we might say, consecrated ‘secular’ institutions.”18 The brotherhoods were based essentially on personal attachments of their members to the saint who had
founded their order or to the living head of the latter. In some othercases the orders were associated with craft and commercial guilds, each
was under the protection of a certain saint. There have been also practiceof founding orders so that to maintain and to strengthen clan or tribe
relations, to defend common interests. While ethnic or national identity
have not been of any great significance to the orders.
Fourth, Sufi concept of a human being and his/her ability for self-perfection. Muhammad Iqbal while being critical of both the representatives of the kalam and the falsafa for their failure to apprehend the real

172

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

meaning of the Koran’s vision of a human being as a unique, free individual, pointed out that “devotional Sufism alone tried to understand themeaning of the unity of inner experience which the Koran declared to be
one of the three sources of knowledge, the other two being History andNature.”19 Iqbal asserted that the true interpretation of the mystic’s experience is “not the drop slipping into the sea, but the realization and boldaffirmation in an undying phrase of the reality and permanence of thehuman ego in a profound personality.”20
The poet-philosopher was especially attracted by the Sufi idea of the
Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). However, he added to main stages ofperfection (belief in God, seeking God, and perception of God throughlearning the depth of one’s own soul) “realization”, which becomes possible thanks to “ceaseless devotion to justice and mercy.” In Iqbal’s
mind, an individual is so independent from God that he may act even as
His associate.
In Muhammad Iqbal’s “Conversation of the Creator with Man” thelatter says:
You made the night, and I the lamp,
And you the clay and I the cup;
You desert, mountains-peak, and vale;
I—flower-bed, park, orchard; I
Who grind a mirror out of stone
Who brew from poison honey-drink.21
Iqbal underlined the significance of human efforts, their productive,
creative nature. With Iqbal the individuality, the ego, strives to approach
the Divine Ego. Yet this striving is not an abnegation of one’s self, but
self-assertion: “The ultimate aim of the ego is not to see something, but
to be something...The end of the ego’s quest is not emancipation fromthe limitations of individuality; it is, on the other hand, a more precise
definition of it. The final act is not an intellectual act, but a vital act
which deepens the whole being of the ego, and sharpens his will withthe creative assurance that the world is not something to be merely seenor known through concepts, but something to be made and re-made bycontinuous action.”22
Iqbal’s theory of ego very much inspired by the Sufi teachings is relevant indeed to the modern political situation since it presents a strong
opposition to any kind of religious fundamentalism, which makes efforts“on the one point of preserving a uniform social life for the people byjealous exclusion of all innovations in the law of Shari‘a as expoundedSUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

173

by the early doctors of Islam.” As Iqbal points out “the ultimate fate of apeople does not depend so much on organization as on the worth andpower of individual men... The only effective power, therefore, thatcounteracts the forces of decay in a people is the rearing of self-concentrated individuals...The tendency to over-organization by a false reverence to the past is contrary to the inner impulses of Islam.”23
It is not by chance that in this part of my paper I quote so extensively
Muhammad Iqbal—a Muslim reformer who was born and brought up in
India. It is in this country for centuries Sufism was looked at and used asa trend of Muslim spirituality capable to prevent from a division ofpeoples on religious grounds, and thus firing up hostility between them.
In the course of Indian history Sufism not once exercised conciliatory
and arbitrary role, it succeeded in putting ‘bridges’ between Hindus andMuslims.
It is quite significant that during the national liberation movement,
when the tension between the two main religious communities reached
its peak resulting in violence and killings of thousands of human beings,
several leaders of that movement turned to Sufism in their hopes andefforts to end that merciless fight. Abul Kalam Azad was one of themost outstanding figures among those leaders.
Born and raised in a very religious family, Abul Kalam Azad early in
his life became dissatisfied with the dogmatic religious approach. He
expressed a deep interest and a great sympathy towards the Sufi teachings. The most explicit appearance of this is found in his writings about
Sarmad Shaheed. The latter was a Sufi poet and a saint of the time when
the Mughal emperors Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb ruled the country.24
The story of Sarmad and his poetry impressed Abul Kalam Azad somuch that he made the translation of his rubaiyat into English. The
introduction to this piece of Sufi poetry clearly shows that Azad was
attracted by the aesthetic beauty of Sarmad’s poetry not less than by its‘ideological’ orientation. In a number of places he points out the antidogmatic position taken by the Sufi. The free spirit of the mystic isgreatly appreciated by the reformer, who by chance has adopted the penname, Azad (‘free’). Among the rubaiyats chosen by Abul Kalam forthe translation several are explicitly of that spirit. Like the followingone:
In prayer
I will never dissemble,
Never will I beg
At any door save the door of Knowledge.

174

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

I am the king of all I survey
I enjoy freedom from want—
Never will I eschew my love for the tavern.25
It looks like Abul Kalam maintained deep sympathy and respect for
Sufism all through his life. He used to quote Sufi poets in his writingsand speeches as the President of the Indian National Congress (1940–
1946), Minister of Education and then Minister of Natural Resources
and Scientific Research (1947–1958). It seems that for him the main
attraction of Sufism has been its spirit of universality. While Muhammad
Iqbal’s interpretation of that universality has been reduced in his political stand to Pan-Islamism, Azad’s vision has been in much broader
frames. In fact, Azad’s views changed from religious nationalism (hewas a strong proponent of Pan-Islamism in the beginning of his politicalcareer) to a secular one and in the long run to the ideology of world citizenship.
On many occasions Azad warned his compatriots about the dangers
of narrow-mindedness expressed in the form of nationalism: “There is
no room for narrow-mindedness in this modern age. We shall find asecure place in the community of nations only if we are international
minded and tolerant.”26
It should be noted here that the authority of Abul Kalam Azad in
India is very much alive these days as well. In recent years secularism inIndia has been strongly challenged by the revival of religious communalism. That made the advocates of a secular state to call the attention of
their compatriots to an ability of Sufism to be an ally with secularism.
One of the signs of the above said tendency is the international conference (scholars from seventeen countries contributed fifty papers)
organized by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations in 1991 on “Contemporary Relevance of Sufism.” The volume of the Conference wasbrought out on the birthday of Abul Kalam Azad in 1993 who, as it wassaid in the message of the President of India on the occasion of its
release, “exemplified the quintessence of Sufi thought and tradition.”
The notion of one God for adherents of all religions and the ensuing
notion of the unity of humankind worshipping one Supreme Lord was
the nucleus of Azad’s religious-political system. He considered the main
objective of religion to be in bringing people together. “The message
which every prophet delivered,—he wrote,—was that mankind was inreality one people and one community, and that there was but one God
for all of them, and that on that account they should serve Him together
and live as members of but one family.”27

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

175

xxx
My heart is capable of every form,
A cloister for the monk, a form for idols,
A pasture for Gazelles, the pilgrim’s
Ka’aba,The Tables of the Torah, the Koran.
Love is the faith I hold: wherever turn,His camels, still the one true faith is mine.
Ibn ‘Arabi
Sufi preaching of tolerance between people of different beliefs is one
more reason why tasawwuf is relevant to modern world where hostility
between different confessions is still one of the major aspects of political life.
Among the frontiers established by people between themselves themost insurmountable and impregnable seem to be those which are build
up in minds and hearts, which originate not so much from rational considerations as from a blind belief. The latter is most unshakable when it
is a religious belief.
History has demonstrated that too often frontiers were established inorder to segregate the adherents of different religious confessions. However, paradoxically that kind of division contradicts the very assignmentof religion: to link man with God, and consequently, to combine people
with each other. Pointing out to this very function of religion, in particularly, of a monotheistic creed, an outstanding Russian philosopher
Vladimir Solovyov affirmed: “The unity of God logically demands theunity of humanity.”
As a matter of fact, the Holy Scriptures clearly presuppose the unityof humanity: is it not written “My house shall be called a house of
prayer for all the nations?” (Mark, 11:17, also see Isa, 56:7). In the same
spirit the Koran says: “It is He Who created you from a single person”(VII:189), and “Mankind was but one nation, but differed (later)”(X:19).
Nevertheless one might find in the Holy Scriptures a number of passages where it seems that intolerance, enmity and even violence towards
the people outside one’s own confession are justified.
How one can explain the existence of contradictory statements in the
Holy Books? An atheist will easily respond to the question, considering
religion to be created by man, and thus to be subjected to human passions, vile motives, rivalry and fight for power.

176

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

For a believer there is no way for the Lord to contradict Himself,
since God is perfect, He is Absolute. Thus, what looks like contradictions in the Scriptures is explained to result from human misunderstanding of the true meaning of the Divine Word.
For centuries those very ‘contradictions’ of the Holy Scriptures havebeen used for moral justification of hostility and even aggression
towards heterodoxies. Intolerance to those behind the frontiers, who aresegregated as ‘the others’, is in particularly dangerous when it is sanctified by the Divine authority. Then aggression and violence are presented
as actions approved by God being aimed to bring the victory of theGood over the Evil. Thus St. Augustinian warnings are ignored: “Do notfight evil as if it were something that arose totally outside of yourself”.
Is peaceful coexistence between people of different religious creeds ispossible at all? I believe the answer could be positive if there is a wish
and a will to give up confrontation and to start dialogue.
At what religious dialogue should be aimed? What one could expectfrom it? Sometimes dialogue is carried on in anticipation of a synthesis.
However the latter is rarely achieved. A certain kind of syncretism
might take place only in result of long coexistence and interaction of traditions when they function on the same or at least neighboring territories. (That is, for example, how Sikh Religion emerged in India).
In other cases the purpose of the dialogue is to join all the religious
creeds in a new world faith. That is how synthesis is conceived by theadherents of the Baha’s faith established by Baha’a’llah (1817–1892).
The Bahai community counts about 3 millions inhabiting in all thecontinents and represents 2100 ethnic groups. The Baha’s faith is forsure cosmopolitan. Its leaders, like Shogi Effendi, consider the processof the formation of sovereign national states has come to the end. The
mature word should give up the fetish of national sovereignty and accept
the unity of the humanity by establishing the new world order: “The
Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.” Bahai preachingappeal to those who wish to overcome race, ethnic, class, religious hostility. However it is not clear how that New World Order could beachieved. The Bahai orientation to establish the New Order once andforever, to maintain it by the World State, etc. is fraught with the threatof totalitarity.
There is also another approach to religious dialogue—a mystical one.
In this case, the unity of all the religions is searched on the way of discovery of the perennial core. It is considered that the differences inbeliefs, rituals, institutional forms which seem to be important in everyday experience fade away when we see and affirm the timeless and infi-

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

177

nite reality that is no longer broken or differentiate into various forms.
In the perennial philosophy infinite reality is compared with light: whenlight passes through a prism, one can see the various shades of blue, yellow, green, and red, however, no one of these colors, which are like thedifferent cultural forms of religion, is light itself.
As there are different levels of reality (terrestrial, intermediate-psychic, celestial and infinite) there are four levels of selfhood: body, mind,soul, and spirit. The developing, ever changing religious traditions havea common core. The differences of ethical claims and the different evaluations of the life expressed in the physical world, psychic experiences,and theological expressions disappear and become one in a limitless,wholly transcendent pure consciousness, or infinite self. The purpose of
the dialogue is to bring forth a deeper apprehension of the spirit, theinner identity of all religions.
Mystical approach is characterisitic to the advocates of “the perennial
philosophy” like Seyid Hossein Nasr, Frithjof Schuon, Huston Smith. To
those who do not share their views, still it would be difficult not toacknowledge that mystical approach could be helpful in carrying on dialogue, in reducing confrontations based on the differences concerningtheological, ethical, etc. problems. That might be an explanation why
mystical approach is rejected strongly by fanatic fundamentalists, while
it is referred to by those who would like to put the end to the communal
fights and tension.
Summing up, I would like to point out one more reason why mysticism could be considered to be relevant to a dialogue of cultures byreferring again to the authority of Ibn ‘Arabi. As the Great Shaykh said:“The believer praises the Divinity which
conforms to his own belief and connects
himself to it in this way; but, all acts
return to their author, so that the believer
praises himself, as the work praises its
artist, all perfection and all lack that it
manifests falling back on its author. In thesame way, the Divinity (as such, which)conforms to the belief is created by he who
concentrates on It, and It is his own work.
In praising that which he believes, thebeliever praises his own soul, it is becauseof that he condemns other beliefs than his
own; if he was just, he would not do it ... If

178

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

he understood the sense of the word of Djunayd:‘The color of water is the color of its
receptacle’, he would admit the validity of all
the beliefs, and he would recognize God inevery form and every object of faith.”28xxx
While recognizing a potency of Sufism to be an alternative to Islamic
fundamentalism, I would like at the same time to confess that to mymind it is not the best option. There are two reasons for my claim.
First of all, there is no guaranty that Sufi alternative will result in saving from the faults of fundamentalism and not eventuate in some othernot affirmative consequences. We are to keep in mind that Sufism has
never been one-dimensioned phenomena, it has been always at least‘double-faced’ or, using the wording of Fazlur Rahman, there is “positive” as well as “negative” Sufism.29 Islamic mysticism has been both aproduct of elite consciousness and a popular religion. It has been a formof social protest against political systems as well as the legalized religious doctrine that warranted and sanctioned the system of social injustice and despotism. Yet Sufism has also been used to quell, to pacify,
and to repress social activity. Sufism counterpoised irrationalism torational thinking while also stood forth as a variety of religious freethought not infrequently contiguous with philosophic theorizing. It persuaded seekers of the Path to renounce mundane cares and bodily
appetites, to practice ascetic self-discipline, and at the same time it gave
inspiration to Hafiz, Jami, Khayam, Rumi, and many other poets who
rapturously extolled love in life. The members of orders could get rid of
the dictates of official religion as explicated by legal theologians, butthey as well could find themselves dependent upon shaykhs, who as thehistory of Sufism evidences frequently played the negative roles of ‘preceptors’, acted as ‘prophets of decadence’ and directed people a sidefrom a genuine morality.
There is another reason which makes me feel cautious about Sufism.
The latter is unable to render real ethical motivations for radical socialtransformations of Islamic societies in conformity with the challenges ofour days. In other words, Islamic mysticism can not bring that rethinking of Islam which can not only defeat fundamentalism, but, what ismore essential, will lead the Muslims away from social degradation or
backwardness.
The transformation of the traditional society (with a heavy burden of

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

179

outdated Medieval passed) in the Muslim countries and joining to postmodern world seems feasible only through a radical change of the socialrole assigned to Islam and, therefore, through a reappraisal of the entire
set of dogmatic tenets. Mystical trend may play an essential role in thetransition to look for reformation-reconstruction of Islam.
It is worth to remember “personal” life experiences of a number ofMuslim reformers of the XXth century (Djamal al-Din Afghani,
Muhammad ‘Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, etc.) who, being dissatisfied
with orthodox Islam, turned to Sufism so that, as Muhammad ‘Abduh
confessed, to pass “from the prison of ignorance into the open spaces ofknowledge, and from the bonds of blind acceptance of authoritative
belief (taqlid) in to the liberty of the Mystic union with God.”30
The first Muslim reformers did not succeed in bringing genuinechanges. For the last few decades “revivalism,” or “fundamentalism”
took a head over reformative tendencies. The upsurge of fundamentalism (the “Muslim Brothers” movement, Jamaat-i-Islami, Khomeinism,etc.) is not indicative of an unreversibal failure of reformist efforts. On
the contrary, the expansion of revivalism might be a sign of the beginning of a new round in the search of the ways to reforms, this time notas an elitist undertaking (as it has been so far) but as a large-scale movement for bringing radical transformation of traditional society. The fruitless experiments aimed at “overtaking capitalism” or oriented toward“installed socialism” revealed that any model of society, no matter how
ideal it may be, would be distorted and prove lifeless if transplanted
onto unprepared and all the more vulnerable soil. To make reforms
workable it is necessary to identify the internal impulses of a certain
culture and to set them into action.
A new generation of Muslim reformers turns to Sufism as to one ofthose needed internal impulses, or potencies. Maulana Wahiduddin
Khan in India, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in Malaysia, Abdulkarim Soroush in Iran are a few names of those who, using the wording ofanother Iranian reformer Ali Shari’ati (d. 1977), have launched “the warof religion against religion”, that is a fight carried by Islam “rethought”
against Islamic fundamentalism—“the religion of deceit, superfaction
and justification of the status quo.”31
Notes
Mohammed Arkoun. Rethinking Islam. Common Questions, Uncommon Answers.
Trans. by Robert D.Lee. Westview Press: Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford, 1994, p. 83.
2Carl W. Ernst. Eternal Garden. Mysticism, History, and Politics at a South Asian
Sufi Center. SUNY Press: Albany, 1992, pp. 15–16.
1

180

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

Ibid., p.60.
I.Spencer Trimingham. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford University Press: London–
Oxford–New York, 1973, p. 239.
5
Ibid., p. 188.
6
Ibid., p. 250.
7
William Shepard. The Faith of a Modern Muslim Intellectual. The Religious
Aspects and Implications of the Writings of Ahmad Amin. Vikas Publishing House:
Ghaziabad, 1982, p. 203.
8
One of the first to take that stand of thought soon after anti-Shah revolution in Iranwas T.O. Ling, professor of comparative religion in the University of Manchester. See
his: Islam’s Alternative to Fundamentalism—Bulletin of the John Rylans University
Library of Manchester, Vol. 64, No. 1, Autumn 1981, pp. 165–190.
9
Mohammad Umar Memon. Ibn Taimiya’s Struggle against Popular Religion. Mouton: The Hague-Paris, 1976, p. 29.
10
Ibid.
11
Discourses of Rumi. Translated, introduction, and notes by A.J. Arberry. SamuelWeiser: New York, 1977, pp. 122–23.
12
Allama Muhammad Iqbal. The Reconstruction of the Religious Thought in Islam.
Iqbal Academy Pakistan & Institute of Islamic Culture: Lahore, 1989, p. 119.
13
Ibn ‘Arabi. Wisdom of the Prophets (Fusus al-Hikam). Beshara Publications:
Aldsworth Gloucestershire, 1975, p. 13.
14
Mohammad Umar Memon. Op. cit., p. 32.
15
Jalaluddin Rumi. The Mathnawi. 4:350 (Translated by Reynold A. Nicholson. 8
vols. Gibb Memorial Series, n.s. 4. London, 1925–40)
16
Quoted from B.N. Pande. The Vedanta and Sufism: A Comparative Study. “Contemporary Relevance of Sufism”. Ed. by S.S. Hameed. Indian Council for Cultural Relations: New Delhi, 1993, p. 19.
17
See: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Micropaedia, 15th edition, vol. IX, p. 19.
18
I.Spencer Trimingham. Op. cit., p. 234.
19
Ibid., p. 96.
20
Ibid.
21
V.G.Kiernan. Poems from Iqbal. London, 1955, p. 94.
22
M.Iqbal. The Reconstruction of the Religious Thought in Islam, p. 156.
23
Ibid., p. 120.
24
Shah Jehan’s successor Dara Shikoh, was a great devotee of Sarmad Shaheed.
While the second, who ascended the throne after a period of unrest and bloodshed, in
1659, became Sarmad’s enemy and later his executor. As often happens, religion wasused to camouflage political designs. In Alamgir’s eyes, the greatest crime of Sarmad
was his proximity to Dara Shikoh. Aurangzeb needed an excuse for ordering the poet’s
execution, and the mullahs found those excuses. The following Sarmad’s rubayat was
declared as the denial of Miraj:
He who understood the mystery of Reality became vaster than the vast heaven;
Mullah says that Muhammad ascended the Heavens.
Sarmad says that the Heavens descended to Mohammad.
(The Rubaiyat of Sarmad. Indian Council for Cultural Relations: New Delhi, 1993, p. 32)
The chief Qazi mullah Qawi was going to announce a fatwa concerning Sarmad andmake a kufr sentence. Aurangzeb was shrewd enough to realize the weakness of the
Mullah’s sentence. Hence he preferred to make the execution pending the fabrication of3
4

SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN POLITICS

181

a better excuse. Finally, the ulema gave their verdict declaring Sarmad a kufr because herefused to recite more than the first two words of the Kalima “La Ilah” (It is said thatSarmad always adhered to this practice). To ulema’s howl of protest Sarmad said: “I amstill at the stage of “No”, I have not yet reached the “Yes”. If I say “Illalah”, it will be alie. How can I say what does not rise from within? The next day he was taken to thescaffold and executed. That was in 1672.
25
The Rubaiyat of Sarmad, p. 83.
26
Speeches of Maulana Azad 1947–1955. Mimistry of Information & Broadcasting,Government of India: Delhi, 1956, p. 20.
27
A.K. Azad. The Tarjuman al-Quran. vol. I. Asia Publishing House: Bombay, 1965,
p. 168.
28
Ibn ‘Arabi. Wisdom of the Prophets, p. 132.
29
Fazlur Rahman. Islam & Modernity. Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition.
The University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, 1982, p. 56.
30
See: Ch. Adams. Islam and Modernism in Egypt. New York: Russel and Russel,
1968, p. 25.
31
Ali Shari’ati. On the Sociology of Islam. Trans. by Hamid Algar. Berkeley: Mizan
Press, 1979, p. 102.