Sufism vs. Islamism

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

Let us compare and contrast two seemingly opposite trends in the world of religious activity, namely, Sufism and so-called Islamism.

I say so-called because this is a term that was coined by non-Muslims to describe a modern political ideology that claims to be Islamic. In a very broad sense, they define Islamism as the view that Islam should have at least some role in politics and the public sphere. Based on this broad and loose definition, not only am I myself an “Islamist” but I don’t think it is possible for any Muslim to truly meet the criteria of being a Mu’min, a Believer, without likewise being an Islamist. Rather, I say that the Muslim who hates to see Islam having a role in politics and the public sphere must necessarily have nifaq in his or her heart. And this broad definition of Islamism necessitates that it is not a modern ideology but something that has been present in the Muslim Ummah from its very inception.

Now let us consider the more technical and precise definition of Islamism which is a modern political ideology postulating that the very objective of Islam is to establish a State. And this modern ideology is characterized by a heavy emphasis on political activity, believing it to be superior and more beneficial than a private spiritual pursuit or a lifestyle of other worldliness. I consider Abul-Ala Mawdudi, founder of Jama’at Islami, the true author of modern Islamist ideology. He argued that without possession of a State Islam is merely theoretical, a blueprint for a building that has yet to be constructed. Mawdudi controversially said that every Prophet raised up by Allah was sent for the purpose of establishing a theocracy on Earth, and therefore were occupied in revolutionary political struggle, which he termed “Jihad”. The salient acts of worship in Islam, namely, offering Salah five times daily and fasting in the month of Ramadan, are merely training exercises that mentally discipline the Muslim to be effective in this “Jihad” or revolutionary political struggle. Mawdudi further opined that the Muslim Ummah is basically an international political party. I disavow such an ideology, which clearly has no connection to orthodox Islam, but it most apt to be described as a heretical distortion of the Religion of Muhammad, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam!

Today, the main movement which represents this modern Islamist thought is the Ikhwan al-Muslimun or “Muslim Brotherhood”, though it is certainly not the only one. The Brotherhood originates with Hasan al-Banna in Egypt of the late 1920s, predating even Mawdudi and his Jama’at Islami which was founded in 1940s British India. But while Mawdudi’s organization was unable to make much of a mark in the Subcontinent, the Brotherhood became widely popular and successful in the Arab World. If not for the severe repression of the Brotherhood and its multiple affiliates throughout the Middle East and North Africa by the foreign-backed regimes it would probably be the dominant political force in that region.

As for Sufism, it is an ancient tendency within Islam that emerged in the time of the Salaf. Essentially, Sufism represents the dimension of Islam concerned with inner purification and attaining personal nearness to Allah, through devotion, an ascetic lifestyle and especially attachment to a spiritual guide. The main figures associated with Sufism in the early days of Islam, namely, Uwais al-Qarani, Imam Zain al-Abidin, Hasan al-Basri, Bishr al-Hafi, Habib al-Ajami, Dawud at-Ta’i, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi, Sari al-Saqati, Junaid al-Baghdadi, Dhun-Nun al-Misri, Ibrahim bin Adham and so many others. These other worldly Saints remained aloof from political activity and were by no means revolutionaries. Yet the influence they had in this Ummah, due to their charisma, cannot be overstated. And these early Sufis lived primarily during the Umayyad and Abbasid period. That was a time when the Earthly dominion of the Muslims was established, though the Muslim rulers themselves were generally impious. Hence, it could be argued that there was not much of a need for Muslims to be involved in political or revolutionary activity at the time of triumph and power, as opposed to today when our dominion has been broken and we are, for all intents and purposes, subjects of the non-Muslim powers indirectly through their vassals.

Yet the impiety and moral corruption of the hereditary rulers during the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties did motivate some heterodox sects to engage in political and revolutionary activity. Here I am referring to the Khawarij and the early Shi’ah factions. Even the Mu’tazilah had as one of their five principles the doctrine of Amr bil-ma’ruf wan-nahi anil-munkar (the ordering of virtue and the prohibiting of vice), by which they meant that the Muslims must enforce moral conduct upon their own rulers, and replace them by force if they are sinful. But all these individuals and sects that held the doctrine of revolt against the impious ruler, and practically launched uprisings against various Umayyad and Abbasid kings were non-Sufi. In a sense, the quietism and apolitical nature of the Sufis shaped the orthodox Sunni worldview. So the modern-day “Islamists” inherit the ideas and legacy of the non-Sunni, non-Sufi trends like Kharijism and Shi’ism and display no continuity with classical, orthodox Sunni Islam.

However, it can’t be denied that as the Earthly dominion of the Muslims significantly waned the reaction of Sunnis and Sufis to the changing world order was not uniform. While most continued in their apolitical other worldliness seeing no fundamental difference between the impious Muslim dynasties of old and the new, non-Muslim European imperialist governments that had replaced the former, others declared Jihad and attempted to violently resist the foreign conqueror. We respect both courses of action and consider them both legitimate. But with respect to the Jihads against colonialism and imperialism, the Sufis who often led them from the front were motivated by religious zeal and the defense of Islam rather than nationalism or some other secular objective.

Tragically, these originally Islamic movements of Jihad and resistance to European imperialism were hijacked by secular nationalists and leftists, who riding on the wave of success of armed resistance and political struggles of the Muslim populations managed to seize power and entrench themselves. Ironically, these native but secular Muslim rulers who replaced the European imperialists are generally more brutal and repressive than them. They have also proved to be more harmful to the societies they control in terms of pushing for their secularization and cultural Europeanization in the name of modernity and progress. In the Arab World the traditional Sufi orders were weakened by snatching their awqaf thus ending their financial independence and consequently their dynamism.

The decline of the Sufi orders left a vacuum that was filled by modern “Islamist” groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The dilemma with these modern “Islamists” is that while initially they argued that obtaining political power was the means through which they would reverse the trend of cultural secularity that was on the rise in the Ummah, gradually they themselves became liberal reformist in tendency, exhibiting anti-clerical and anti-traditional sentiments. Modern “Islamists” often advocate for a more “progressive” attitude toward the role of women in Islam, that they should be more active and visible in the public sphere, and especially given access to modern, secular education and professions. It seems this is now the general policy of the “Islamists” because they believe that empowerment of women is the means through which they can build a mass movement that will facilitate their rise to power. Now it is understood why Ikhwanis and other “Islamist” groups typically organize their female members into auxiliaries, and why there is much ikhtilat (intermingling of the sexes) at their events and meetings.

Returning to the Sufis, they have generally believed that the constant rise and fall of governments and empires in this Earthly realm is truly the work of Allah, as it says in the Holy Quran:

قُلِ اللّٰہُمَّ مٰلِکَ الۡمُلۡکِ تُؤۡتِی الۡمُلۡکَ مَنۡ تَشَآءُ وَتَنۡزِعُ الۡمُلۡکَ مِمَّنۡ تَشَآءُ

Say, Allahumma, King of the Kingdom, You give the kingdom to whomsoever You wish and You take away the kingdom from whomsoever You wish

(Surah 3, Ayah 26)

Therefore, one should not be too concerned with the mundane cycle of governments and politics. Generally speaking, the kings of this world deserve respect and obedience as they are the Shadow of God upon the Earth, He being the One Who placed them upon their thrones to wield authority. This Islamic conception of the divine right of kings is what give this world a semblance of stability and order for humans, who if freed from the iron scepter would quickly descend into barbaric anarchy. Indeed, this summarizes the orthodox Sunni doctrine that has only ever been challenged by heretics in the past like the Kharijites, Shi’ites and Mu’tazilites.

Yet, this conception of the orthodox Sunnis and Sufism should never be interpreted as complacency or contentment with secularism. Rather, it is the wholesale adoption of secularism in most modern Muslim States that has contributed to their impotence and humiliation. That humiliation was on full display when the secularist tyrant Bashar al-Asad had to flee Syria in the face of the mass defection and desertion of his armed forces. And prior to Bashar a similar fate of utter humiliation was experienced by Saddam and Gaddafi, secularist dictators who viewed grassroots religiosity in the societies they governed as the greatest threat to the persistence of their rule. It is not a coincidence that these three dictators and their secularist regimes were overthrown by the might of the American infidel. Such is the way of Allah, He gives dominion to whom He wishes and snatches it away from whom He wishes.

So the modern “Islamists” would be wise to consider the bigger picture and not allow their lust for power to make them also compromise firm Islamic principles and teachings of the Shari’ah lest they too suffer the same fate of the secularist Arab dictators. We saw something of that when the Brotherhood greedily grabbed power in Egypt, and prioritized the interests of their own party rather than that of Islam. The reaction to their bit of mischief was severely disproportionate, I believe, because they improperly used the name and symbols of this Religion insincerely and for ulterior motives. The apparently new government that is being established presently in Syria, dominated by the HTS and other “Islamist” factions should consider this matter carefully and not repeat the blunders of “Islamists” who preceded them in places like Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and even Palestine. If their sincerity and zeal for Islam is as strong as the Taliban’s then it is hoped they shall not only survive but flourish. Being uncompromising on the fundamental laws of our Religion is of course tempered with wisdom. The focus of any Islamic government should be a revival of religiosity and facilitating of spirituality in the society. That is where the Sufis enter the picture and where their role is vital.