The Good Sufi - an agent of social justice |
Friday, 03 September 2010 10:00 |
Earlier this year The Samosa published The Bad Sufi, a controversial article looking at how modern Sufism in Pakistan has become a tool of the corrupt ruling elite and their US backers to maintain their power and privilege. Now Qalandar Bux Memon and Ali Mohsin look at the positive role that Sufis once played as campaigners for social change and against corrupt rulers - and how Sufism might reprise this role today.
The foundation on which this power rests is their hereditary lineage from scholars or rebels of Islam – the Sufis. The British strengthened their descendents to act as a local collobrator elite to safe guard their own power. But the root of their power is theological – that as descendents of the Prophet (pbuh) or a holy Pir, they continue to have a superior connection to ‘god’ than the rest of us. Given that Pirs and Syeds tend to belong to political rather then military ranks of power, Sufism as manipulated by them – contemporary Sufism – has been their ruling ideology. And this ideology, though opposed by some in the military, is certainly the ruling ideology of Pakistan’s political elite, elements of the bureaucratic and military elite, and backed by America.
Listen to the words of Bulleh Shah on the matter: “Those who call me and respect me for being a Syed, I pray, for them to receive the punishments of Hell.” In another poem he tells us: “Oh Bulleh, get up Bulleh, get up, go where all are blind, where no-one knows us or venerates us.” Equally, emphatic are these verses from the Sindhi Sufi Sachal Sarmast: “Banding people into orders, to get called a Pir/saint their concern, pouching hands, prayer mats, hats, absolute lies they churn.” Or from another of Sachal’s poems: “I have no ambition to become a leader or makhdoom, neither a Pir nor shaikh, nor I intend to be a fortune teller.”
If these Sufis did not claim spiritual distinction, then certainly their descendants have no right to do so. That they do is painful, for in almost every case the spiritual distinction is used to acquire material wealth. While Sachal and Bulleh Shah learnt to abhor exploitation of humans or of nature, contemporary Sufis glory in such exploitation.
Equally illustrative is the companion of the prophet, Abu Dharr, a caravan bandit desert-dweller who upon hearing of the Prophet went to find him and upon finding him became the fifth convert to Islam. Under the message of Islam, Abu Dharr shed his past activities and, taught by the Prophet, entwined in his life Islam’s message of equality. Upon seeing this message threatened by the Caliph Uthman, he stood firm and stated: “O Uthman! You have made the poor, poor and the wealthy, wealthy.”
More significant for Islamic history was his rebuke to Muawiyyah for building the monstrous Green Palace. Again unable to tolerate the deviation of the message, he declared: “If you are building this palace with your own money, it is extravagance, and if with the money of the people, it is treason.” The palace, as always, was being built from the people’s money. The Prophet built plain houses of clay and his descendants today build palaces.
Abu Dharr is right to call this treason, and treason allows (if not requires) revolt. Rather then fatalism or quitism, the message of Islam and Sufis has been one of questioning leaders and even revolt. Leaders – be they landlords, Pirs, or politicians – must be overthrown when leading society to injustice, and not be accepted fatalistically. The right to revolt and challenge leaders is inscribed in Islam; let me quote Abu Dharr again: “I am perplexed by a person who finds no bread in his house. How is it that he does not arise against the people with his sword unsheathed?”
In Sindh, Shah Inayat is venerated for his opposition to empire and landlords. In the early 18th century he set up a commune on theological lines in defiance of the Mughal Empire. Like Bhatti, he held that the land belonged to God and that only those who worked to grow the crops were entitled to it. The commune’s motto succinctly sums up this ideology: ‘Those who sow should eat’. His thoughts convinced peasants far and wide not to pay crop share as tax to either the empire or local landlords. Oral history suggests that the commune grew to more than 40,000 strong. As the commune acquired more attendants, so too did it attract the wrath of the empire. Emperor Farrukh Sayyar sent in troops; upon their arrival they besieged the commune. The commune’s Sufis resisted for months. Having failed to achieve their goal with force, the empire turned to cunning. Offering peace talks, swearing no less than on the Quran to guarantee Shah Inayat’s safety, they angled him out of the commune, arrested and then beheaded him. It should be noted that in both rebellions, Sufis fought tooth and nail for their ideals in this world. In Sindh, Shah Inayat’s name is well known and he continues to inspire calls for social justice.
As we search for ways to fight against inequality and injustice, where Bhutto landlords and their offspring drink from rivers of champagne in Paris, London and New York while their subjects watch the rotting bones of their children, and where the murder of a family of peasants sees no redemption but 4 billion rupees of loans to Pirs and Syeds and Bhuttos and Zardaris can be pardoned by the law, we must learn from past rebels and challenge head-on the rule of these latter day Pharaohs. It is upon such a revival that the future of Pakistan and this region rests. Good Sufis fight for the true message of Islam – the message of doing away with hierarchies, be they spiritual, political or economic, and moving society ever closer to equity and equality. Those who fight against the idolatry of hierarchies are the good Sufis. |
Last Updated on Saturday, 04 September 2010 13:03 |
I think it is incorrect to say "Islam... [stands for] the eradication of hierarchies". Clearly the Quran believes in hierachies, divine and human. Please consider gender, slaves, non-Muslims. It was very progressive for its time, but it would be quite incorrect to say that it stands against hierarchies.
Second, it is not correct to make the general statement that sufism suits US imperial objectives. Clearly US imperialism built up Islamic Deobandi and Wahabi Islam during the cold war which is mortally opposed to sufism. It is more correct to say that "at this historical juncture..." And with the current negotiations between Karzai, Nato and the Taliban, this may all change again.
Third, I think there is not enough about "the good sufi" in this article. There is a lot of overlap with your last article. I would have been very interested in learning more about how sufism was historically converted from its its original message into its new form. This is a transformation that few have thought about.
In solidarity
Taimur Rahman
Shahzad Irfan
She was asked in an interview how she would describe faith and she said the following,
"How would you describe the concept of faith?
The best way that I can describe it is this. To me, faith is like art, it means different things to different people at different times and in different places......... Art can be used as a mirror to the soul and has in fact been a tool for self reflection, one I have used many times as a social worker. Similarly, the way you interpret Islam may actually say a lot more about you than about Islam itself." Tahmena Bokhari
see her full answer...
http://forum.oyetimes.com/views/columns/4758-whats-faith-got-to-do-with-it
There was a good article in the Samosa about the religion of peace vs the people of peace by Bokhari, and by the way, Bokhari herself is a Syed and seems to be quite spiritual, anyway, I think Sufism addresses the problem she identifies in that article. She identifies that we have come to know only a ghettoized version of Islam. So I think the teachings of sufism actually help uplift Muslims to rise to be their best and move away from the petty, silly, superficial, external and ghetto ideas that have taken over our religion.