Sufism is a loaded term. It can evoke a wide spectrum of emotions in us, depending on our ideological orientations. While the term itself was not coined by the Prophet ﷺ or even the Companions, the discipline of knowledge that addresses the actions of the heart and purification of the soul has come to be referred to by many scholars as ‘taṣawwuf.’ Taṣawwuf and Sufism became names not only for the science, but its referents and subject matter: the actions of the heart and the inner states. How could this be a subject of controversy with conflicting reports about it from the major scholars? This has to do with the history and evolution of the movement.
During the time of the Companions, there was seamless harmony between knowledge and practice, the exterior and the interior, and rituals and spirituality. After their time, a gulf started to form between these concepts, where many people became overindulgent in the pleasures of this life and heedless about their hearts and inner states due to the prosperity enjoyed by Muslims of the successive generations and the relative fading of the light of revelation. Even some scholars were more attentive to intellectual resourcefulness and legal technicality than to spirituality. As a response to this, some of the earlier pious predecessors started to emphasize concepts they felt were endangered. The emphasis here was on asceticism and the purification of the soul. The earlier masters were compliant with the Shari‘ah. However, as time went by, many claimants of taṣawwuf added many innovations to their practice; more perilously, many adopted concepts that were imported from other religions and philosophies, such as existential union.
The deviations that ensued may have had earlier unintended triggers. For example, because the earlier masters wanted to highlight the inadequacy of knowledge without commitment and practice, some later began to undermine the epistemic value of the Revelation in favor of correct but abused concepts like dhawq (taste) and ilhâm (inspiration). Some even created a dichotomy between the Shari‘ah (scriptural instructions) acquired through learning and the ḥaqeeqah (reality) captured by the hearts of the ‘ârifeen (knowers). This would result into a cultish attitude among many seekers, making their sheikhs’ findings the standard of truth. Because the earlier masters wanted to highlight the oneness of God and His absolute control, some later undermined the agency of humans, which would lead some to conflate Allah’s universal decrees with His legal commands. This would ultimately result in indifference, pacifism, and antinomianism.
Because of these deviations and others, it is not uncommon to find the dispraise of Sufis in the discourse of the greatest scholars, starting with no less than Imam ash-Shâfi‘i and some of his contemporaries who did not even witness the worst innovations or heresies yet to be propagated. Other scholars looked at the pure beginnings and were impressed by the devotion and manners of many masters and seekers, so they followed them; some exaggerated in their praise and some were even unable to see their flaws and attempted to justify them.
What did the scholars who dispraised them mean, and what is the right stance? I believe that the dispraise of some scholars and the praise of others need to be contextualized. While some issues may be controversial among the scholars themselves, most are not. The praise and dispraise were both valid, but they pertained to different iterations of taṣawwuf. A most balanced synthesis can be found in these words of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be bestow mercy on him):
Because of the disagreements over their ijtihâds, people disagreed over their paths. A group condemned Sufism and said they are innovators who departed from the Sunnah. This was reported from many imams whose statements in this regard are known. A group of fuqahâ’ and the scholars of kalâm (speculative theology) followed them in this opinion. Another group exaggerated in their praise and claimed they are the best of all creations and the most complete in virtue after the prophets. And the two extremes in judging these matters are blameworthy.
The correct position is that they excel in obedience towards Allah, as others excel. Some of them are among the vanguard, congruent with their effort, and some are average among the people of the right hand (ahl al-yameen). In both groups, there are those who commit errors in their ijtihâd; some repent while others do not. Also, of those who claim to be of them are those who transgress themselves and disobey their Lord. And some of the innovators and blasphemous groups have attached themselves to them. The verifying scholars of the Sufis, however, do not recognize these groups and individuals to be of them. Al-Ḥallâj, for example, was rejected and called out of the path by the majority of the sheikhs, such as al-Junayd ibn Muhammad, the master of the assembly (sayyid aṭ-ṭâ’ifah), and others, as reported by Sheikh Abu ‘Abdir-Raḥmân as-Sulamiy in his Ṭabaqât aṣ-Ṣoofiyah and as al-Ḥâfidh Abu Bakr al-Khaṭeeb mentioned in Târeekh Baghdâd.
This is the original taṣawwuf. Then, after that it split up into groups and the Sufis became of three strands: ṣoofiyat al-ḥaqâ’iq (realities), ṣoofiyat al-arzâq (monetary gains), and ṣoofiyat ar-rasm (formalities). As to the ṣoofiyat al-ḥaqâ’iq, they are the ones we have described.
As for the ṣoofiyat al-arzâq, they are the ones who had endowments set up for them, such as the khanqahs. They are not necessarily of the people of the knowledge of realities (ḥaqâ’iq), for that is mighty and rare. The majority of the people of ḥaqâ’iq are not known to abide in the khanqahs. However, there are three prerequisites [for them to deserve sustenance from the endowments]: the first is shar‘i integrity in that they fulfil the obligatory acts and abstain from the prohibitions; the second is adhering to the etiquettes (âdâb) of the people of the path most of the time, and these are the etiquettes of Shari‘ah. As for the fabricated and innovated etiquettes, they do not matter; and the third is that they do not hoard any excesses of worldly material. As to he who hoards wealth or does not have praiseworthy manners and does not adhere to the shar‘i etiquettes or is a fâsiq, then he is not deserving of that.
As for ṣoofiyat ar-rasm (formalities), they are limited to the attire and fabricated etiquettes, etc. Their likeness among the Sufis is the likeness of those who merely wear the attire of the people of knowledge and the people of jihad and imitate some of their speech and actions in a way that makes the one who does not know their reality assume that they are of them, but they are not. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo‘ al-Fatâwâ, 11:17-20)
What should we do, then, with a legacy that is filled with pearls and jewels mixed with rocks and sometimes scorpions and snakes? Three questions will need to be answered.
The first is whether we can afford not to talk about spirituality, the inner states, the actions of the heart, manners and etiquettes, etc.? The answer to this is a resounding “No”—by agreement. It is also hoped that we all agree on the prime importance of putting more emphasis on these aspects of religiosity. It seems that the contemporary “Islamic Awakening” suffers a great deal because of insufficient emphasis on these core teachings of Islam.
The second is whether we can afford to find all of what we need of these teachings away from the heritage of the masters who are identified as Sufis? The answer to this is not as clear as that to the first question, because it may be said that the four Imams and their contemporaries who were not identified as Sufis and their predecessors and followers have not ignored the inner states as some may think. Despite that, it is still clear to me that we cannot afford to ignore the heritage of the greatest and purest of the earlier masters, such as Ma‘roof al-Karkhi, Sariy as-Saqaṭi, Abu al-Qâsim al-Junayd, Abu Sulaymân ad-Darâni, Sahl al-Tustari, and their likes, or even al-Harawi, al-Jeelâni, Abu al-Bayân, Abu Madyan, Ibn ‘Aṭâ’, and their likes. Can you imagine Madârij as-Sâlikeen purged of their wisdom?
The third is whether we need to call this discipline or path Sufism or taṣawwuf? The answer to this is even less clear than the answer to the second question. The reason for its unclarity goes back to several factors, foremost among them is that this term was not coined by the Prophet ﷺ or his Companions; in fact, we do not even know who coined it and what it is derived from, despite the many theories in this respect. Secondly, the term tazkiyah is what Allah used in the Qur’an to refer to the purification of the soul; why should we not, then, use the Qur’anic term? Thirdly, why should we use a term that does not have an agreed-upon standard definition and which may be used to refer to utterly heretical concepts?
My answer to this is multifold. First, I prefer the use of the Qur’anic term ‘tazkiyah.’ Second, I believe (as stated by the masters of the path) that one should never call oneself a Sufi, because this is like calling oneself pious or devout. Third, I still believe that we should remove the sensitivity against the word taṣawwuf because it is irrational to wage a war against a term that could mean various things. Waging a war against the term will also cause novices aversion to the valuable heritage of those who were identified as Sufis. Finally, the aversion of the people of fiqh and Hadith to the use of the term will allow ignorant and blasphemous groups to hijack it and take uncontested ownership of it. This means they will be the spokespersons of a legacy that is integral to our deen and entrenched in our heritage.
The proper approach to taṣawwuf is, then, a loving yet critical examination of its heritage. I argue that this was the true Taymiyyan approach. The scholarly community needs to embrace the Sufi legacy and transfuse it with emphasis on:
- strict adherence to the Revelation
- prioritizing the understanding and practice of the first community
- prioritizing clarity vs. symbolism (al-Junayd vs. al-Kharrâz; may Allah have mercy on them)
- leaving out that which causes doubt for that which causes no doubt
- calling out departures from the path of the upright mashayikh (Ahl al-Istiqâmah)
وصلى الله على محمد والحمد لله رب العالمين