786
The Zahuri Sufi Web Site
|
A Contribution Towards Defining Sufism
There are many who like to define 'Sufism' in large and universal terms that focus on the liberal attitude of Sufis towards those who do not follow the Islamic faith or follow any particular religious practice. There are those who, seeing Sufism as the essence of of all religions, therefore try to be eclectic in their religious practices and to describe themselves thus as Sufis. There are those who see Sufism as having nothing to do with religion per se. On the other hand there are those who like to see Sufism as merely the tolerant face of Islam.
Let me here offer a humble suggestion to the ongoing debate for what it may be worth. My suggestion is that the essential and defining point in Sufism, the thing that makes it Sufism, is the relationship between the spiritual guide and the spiritual disciple. It is true that this is not unique to Sufism - the master and disciple relationship is well established in Hindu and Christian tradition for example. There are also examples of Islamic mystics (the Owaisey) who do not admit an external relationship to a spiritual guide and yet appear to come within the fold of Sufism.
Let us take the second point first since it is easiest to answer. It is true that there are and have been many mystics through the centuries of Islam who have found their guidance from within - usually in the form of another mystic or even a Prophet. Nevertheless whether the relationship is inward or outward the relationship is intrinsically the same. Still it is true that it may be more useful to regard such figures as primarily mystics rather than Sufis as such. What is sure is that they will have little regard for such labels at any event.
With regard to the commonality of the master-disciple relationship with other religious or cultural traditions this actually reinforces the point. The follower or 'chela' of a Hindu or Buddhist 'Guru' for example defines his form of mysticism or yoga by his relationship with his master and through him with a particular tradition in the same way a 'sufi' defines himself by his relationship with a master and through him with a tradition.
The contemporary or westernised forms of non-Islamic 'Sufism' generally receive a bad press both from academic students of sufi history and from Muslims sympathetic to Sufism (not to mention Muslims who have no such sympathy). They do not receive a bad press from Sufis as such simply because they will not care to enter into such criticism - which from their point of view would be poor manners.
The relationship with the guide implies a giving up of self direction, it implies putting one's heart unreservedly into the hand of the guide. It implies leaving aside all personal opinion, it implies even leaving aside ones own preference of religious practice. It leaves aside the possibility of criticism, inward or outward, even on what appears to be sound theological or even humanitarian grounds. It implies being in love - in ignoring all statutes, all prohibitions, all limits, reasonableness, all political affiliation, or any other values unless those are espoused or commanded by the guide. It does not admit of reservation, it does not admit of evaluation, or judgment. It is not for the fainthearted and it is also vulnerable to abuse from charlatans and those with personal charm but hidden agendas. The guide is not a commodity to be 'chosen' from the shelf in the supermarket. It is a dangerous and difficult thing to contemplate such a relationship and often requires genuine desperation to enter into it. It is this that makes this such a central even defining point of Sufism. The sufi is one who has made this commitment with one hundred percent of his being. The model of it is the relationship between the holy Prophet Muhammed and Hazrat Ali.
This, I submit, defines Sufism on the basis that it differentiates the sufi from the mystic without being critical of the mystic and without implying that there is no common ground or universality in the mystic view of life (irrespective of religion or culture) - which there certainly is. Nawob Gudri Shah Baba spoke of mystics of all faiths as being 'like beads on a single thread'. When we count on the rosary one bead is much as another - but for the purposes of counting the definition of one bead from another has its value - and it is in this spirit we offer our humble suggestion into an ongoing debate.
I will add one other point, which I think takes us beyond the debate altogether. That is the reference that is found in so many places in the the holy Qur'an in which God tells us to believe - and do good, to pray and do good, and so on. Always the emphasis is on the value of good deeds or actions as the fruit of our belief or prayer. Therefore be a mystic, or be a sufi, or be a pious religionist, or be a simple honest person but know that it is 'by their fruits that ye shall know them'.
I wish you all a very happy and prosperous New Year for 2004.
Jamiluddin Morris Zahuri. (Southampton. Dec 24th 2003).