So deeply has tasawwuf or the Sufi interpretation of Islam been ingrained in the Muslim psyche and since such a long time back that it is considered by many, especially so in the Indian subcontinent but by no means there only, to be the true Islam. Anybody who even suggests therefore that Sufism is more accurately categorized as a parallel religion than as the most popular interpretation of Islam exposes himself to unpleasant epithets.
It is true that all manifestations of the revealed religion have had mystical streams. Why, something as ‘legal’ as Judaism has had one! Islam is no exception. This was inevitable considering the human propensity of blending various items into a mixture, whether they mix well or at all. But this does not change the fact that Sufism (mysticism) and revealed religions are essentially two completely different things. There are, no doubt, any number of similarities between the two in terms of practices or derived beliefs but all such similarities are merely superficial when one considers the quite irreconcilable differences between their respective foundations. Not only is Sufism not based on the Quran and the Sunnah, it contradicts them on the foundational concepts of God, Prophethood and Revelation, and the Hereafter. Those who dispute this either do not have the foggiest idea about Islam or know next to nothing about mysticism; probably both.
When it is said that Sufism is a parallel religion, it does not mean that there is no good in it whatsoever. Nor that no good man has ever been associated with it. Incidental good can emerge from almost anything. That does not mean that all those things are worth advocating. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. As for good folks, there have been many from the Sufi tradition. There have been numerous decent human beings hailing from the atheism camp as well; as well as belonging to all the theistic interpretations under the sun for that matter. What does that prove though?
That there could be great superficial similarity despite fundamental differences can be illustrated by considering (for instance) the stance of Sufism and Islam on material comforts. Both teach that corporeal gains are not worth compromising one’s integrity for. But Sufism bases this on its broader contention that worldly desires are great evils in themselves, ideally to be shunned altogether for spiritual benefits. Islam, in stark contrast, uses the exact same word (khair) for good as well as a man’s income. It only stresses the need to be responsible while pursuing worldly success. Similarly, Sufism has many other (apparently) good things going for it: its monasteries have been sources of food, shelter and education for centuries; numerous Sufi sheikhs have served as spiritual guides and mentors to multitudes of disciples, tending to their material, spiritual as well as psychological needs. All this is commendable. But for it to be called a stream of Islam, Sufism must share Islam’s fundamentals; which, unfortunately, it does not by a long stretch.
There is this unfortunate tendency among many Muslims to dismiss criticism against any of their beliefs as motivated by ulterior motives. Ulterior motives and mala fide are facts of life, but only God knows whether they are there in any given case. As far as mere mortals are concerned then, the criticism still has to be addressed.Â
The sources of Islam are the Quran (for doctrine) and the Sunnat (for practice) – both transmitted via Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As for Sufism, the Prophet never taught or practised any of it. The Sufis realize that the inability to properly ground their doctrines and practices is a serious shortcoming on their part. They tend to solve this problem in one of three ways. First: resorting to the private- or the esoteric- interpretation of the Quran, where any of its verses can be given any arbitrary meaning that suits the interpreter. This ‘solution’ hardly merits a comment. Second: by claiming that although they do not apparently derive their interpretation from the Prophet (PBUH), he is the source of it nevertheless– the way a melon inside the darkness of the earth grows by benefiting from the heat of the sun without knowing about the process (the famous melon analogy). This raises one question: How come these melons figured it out then?
The third explanation is that in addition to the religion he passed on publicly, the Prophet also taught Sufism, privately and in secret, to a select group; and an unbroken chain has continu(PBUH) that if he fails to deliver God’s undiluted and unadulterated message to everybody, he will not have fulfilled his mission.
This last rationalization leads directly to the class structure involved in the teachings of Sufism to this day. In Sufi circles therefore, there is one religion for the masses, another for the elite, and yet another for the super-elite. Their professed doctrines change dramatically according to their audience; and they are especially careful about whom they take into confidence regarding the more controversial of their teachings. The Sufis’ ambivalence regarding Mansoor al-Hallaj is illustrative. He is revered in their circles. The complaint against him, however, is that he should not have divulged the secret in public. The problem is not with what he said but with where he said it.
In the Quran and the Sunnah there is none of this distinction. Levels of understanding would naturally vary from individual to individual, but their teachings remain exactly the same whether it is a recent revert or a man who has been Muslim all his long life. The Quran is wonderfully consistent from cover to cover; and so is the Sunnah.
Despite the popularity of the Sufi interpretation, calling it traditional Islam (as its enthusiasts so like to do when they pitch it against Political Islam, say) is misleading. It is old, no doubt, but reference to the word ‘traditional’ inevitably gives rise to questions such as: Which tradition? Tradition starting where? When? For what significance can a tradition have if it does not go back far enough?
In summary, Sufism is a parallel religion despite the continuing popularity of the Sufi interpretation of Islam, and the fact that its adherents outnumber those of other interpretations put together. For these matters can hardly be settled on the basis of how many men happen to be on which side. Majorities and minorities, while they legitimately decide which party forms a government, do not amount to anything when it comes to issues such as this. Islam is that which is contained in the Quran and the Sunnah. This will be true even if one Muslim in the whole world adheres to it.
There is this unfortunate tendency among many Muslims to dismiss criticism against any of their beliefs as motivated by ulterior motives. Ulterior motives and mala fide are facts of life, but only God knows whether they are there in any given case. As far as mere mortals are concerned then, the criticism still has to be addressed. If someone wants to repudiate the parallel religion position, one must do so on the basis of arguments from the Quran and the Sunnah, not by attacking the critic. Sadly, the latter is all that enthusiasts of Sufism ever do.
