In this write-up, which will exceed this column, I refute the general perception about sufis being pacifists, reconciliatory and averse to violence.

Sufism is often described as tolerant, open to difference and largely non-political. However, a close study of the history of sufism contradicts this view. We find numerous spiritual figures who were warriors and can be seen as political.

Historically, some sufis have practiced and justified violence as an ethical form of struggle. One such person was Pir Abdul Rahman bin Aashus whose burial site is in the neighbourhood of Garh Maharaja (in Jhang district) on Jhang-Muzaffargarh Road.

The site of his mausoleum exists at the cusp of three districts, Jhang, Multan and Muzaffargarh, but his following goes far beyond the southern confines of the Punjab. His influence has reached interior Sindh and Balochistan.

Information about Pir Abdul Rahman has reached us through oral narration in the form of a tale.

Sufism is mystical Islamic belief and practice in which certain Muslim sections seek to find the truth of divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God. Compared to other Islamic sects, which are puritanically oriented, sufism is often perceived as more moderate, tolerant and peaceful. By educating the masses and deepening the spiritual concerns of the Muslims, sufism has played an important role in the formation of Muslim society.

Opposed to the dry casuistry of the lawyer-divines, the mystics nevertheless scrupulously observed the commands of the divine law. Their articulation is socially and culturally mediated. Local language and social practices have usually been employed by sufis while instructing the masses about the divine message.

The Encyclopedia of World Religions states that sufis believe “the human spirit being a direct emanation from the divine command, is therefore an emanation of God himself, and could find its highest aim only in the obliteration of its illusory selfhood and absorption into the Eternal Reality.”

The sufism aims communion with God through spiritual realisation; soul being the agency of this communion and propounding the God to be not only the cause of all existence but the only real existence. It may provide a vital link to understand the source of religious experience and its impact on mental health.

Athar Abbas Rizvi’s monumental work(s) provide sufficient evidence about the profound impact sufism has left on religious, cultural and social life in South Asia. Sufi scholars, travelling from all over continental Asia, had been a source of socio-cultural synthesis in the medieval times. They were instrumental and influential in the social, economic and philosophic development of India.

Outlining the four principles of repentance, sincerity, remembrance, and love, it traces the fundamental stages and states of the spiritual novice’s transformative journey, emphasising the importance of embracing both human limitations and God’s limitless love. But during the days of political disorder, sufis did forsake the path of love and resorted to militancy. Shah Jamal fought on behalf of the Pathans against the Sikhs when the latter wanted to capture Multan.

In recent years various think tanks, such as the Rand Corporation and the Heritage Foundation and a host of academics from different universities, have counselled Muslim states to sponsor moderate sufi orders to mitigate the fast-pervading influence of violent outfits which have mushroomed in various Muslim polities.

In Morocco, King Mohammed VI is said to have promoted sufism to ward off violent extremist groups and to diminish the power of his political adversaries which subscribe to the salafi creed. Similarly, governments of several other Muslim countries have gone on to sponsor the adherents of certain sufi orders (silsilas) to varying degrees.

The reasoning behind this maneuver is the assumption that sufis are more tolerant than their counterparts (namely, the salafi groups that have condemned sufi practice or Deobandi ideology, who prioritised sharia over tariqa), and that this tolerance presumably will translate into less interference with state power.

This has also generated a dichotomous perception of Islam in American foreign policy circles. In this view, there is a “friendly Islam,” which is apolitical and transcendent and thus associated with Islamic mysticism (ta awwuf), and an unfriendly Islam, more closely associated with revivalist and reform movements that openly express political goals.

In fact, sufism is construed as being fundamentally different from normative Islam. Abdallah Lipton states, “Islam is understood as inherently intolerant and incompatible with Western secularism, while sufism… is claimed to be profoundly tolerant and secular because it is similar to Christianity.” In simpler words, then while Islam is depicted as legalistic and rigid, sufism is underlined as an “alternative Muslim subjectivity”.

Renowned historians and scholars of Islam as well as Orientalists like Marshall Hodgson, Miguel Asín Palacios, and Henri Corbin have highlighted what Marshall Hodgson described as the “catholic” (i.e., ecumenical) aspect of Islamic mysticism and its similarity to Christian mysticism. In their view, sufism managed to expand institutionally throughout the Muslim world because of its ability to “transcend” borders (and also, presumably, politics).

That was despite the militant roles played by some sufi orders in advocating defensive jih d (or lesser jih d) in conjunction with a greater jih d (struggle against the ego), as well as broader programmes of Islamic reform and spiritual practice. A prominent example of this type of activity by sufis in North Africa is that of Abd al-Q dir al-Jaz ‘ir (d.1883), an Algerian sufi sheikh and early nationalist leader known for his ethical conduct in war and protection of Christians, who led an organised military resistance against the French colonial occupation.

Even in India, a majority of sufis and religious scholars came with the invading armies from the northwest and Iran.

While surfing the landscape of southeastern Punjab, several orally transmitted traditions reveal the punitive character of some sufis. Whenever they had to contend with the recalcitrance of the people subjected to their instruction, they resorted to depriving them of water as a sufi did in Chiniot. River Chenab’s water was sucked in by the sufi in his water pot used for ablution. There are many such examples.

(To be continued)

The author is a professor of history and a writer. He can be reached at tahir.kamran@bnu.edu.pk