There are two very difficult unavoidable stages
encountered in all doctrines, be they ethics, education and training,
reformation or the sciences. The one stage where the means become the object,
and the other where technical terms obscure realities. Both the means and the
technical terms are imperative and absolutely inborn and natural, without which
the propagation and expansion, teaching and explanation of these high objects
is practically impossible. However, be they the means or technical terms, for the
purpose of achieving the aims and realities, their function is that of
attendants and assistants. They are adopted temporarily for the completion of a
necessity.
At times they are overemphasized and deemed to be the
objects and realities themselves. When an expert in any skill deems it
necessary, he gives instruction to do without, or completely drop both the
means and technical terms. Here the expert governs the means and technical
terms instead of being controlled by them. He simultaneously considers that it
does not exceed the limits and so becomes detrimental instead of beneficial,
and instead of conveying him to his goal, it becomes an obstacle.
A historical fact which has to be acknowledged is that
time and again this misfortune befalls lofty ideals, where means become the
object and technical terms obscure realities with a thick veil. Not only were
they obscured, but moreover the bitter experiments and grave errors of the flag
bearers of these technical terms gave rise to such grievous misunderstandings
that a great number of true and upright people have learned to dread and
dislike these aims and realities. It has now become a very difficult task to
make them recognize and value these realities and make an effort to attain
these goals.
If a discourse to denote the importance of acquiring
these aims is delivered, or an effort to satisfy them is made, then they are
confronted with the enormous mountain of “means”, about which the immature and
unauthorized reformers exaggerated and also unnecessarily compelled them to do.
These reformers themselves became so confused that the actual aim was totally
forgotten and disregarded.
Similarly, when the call for these self-evident and
undisputed realities was made, it was obscured by technical terms. These
technical words could also be interpreted differently. Generally, because of
the span of time, technical terms had to be formed to explain such realities
and to draw people towards understanding them. This was done for particular
reasons, because of the demand of the social structure and special situations
that prevailed.
The forerunners of these realities, whose lives were a
true reflection of these facts, were unacquainted with these technical terms.
They used different words, expressions and ways to
explain these realities. If a study is made of the history of any science from
etymology, syntax, rules, dialect, rhetoric (balaghah) to realities,
recognition, spiritual reformation, it will be found, when a comparison is
made, that the earlier ones were in full control of the means, whereas the
latter ones were, in contrast, controlled by the means.
The authorized experts were propagators and inviters
while the novices were captives of their mentors and technical terms. This
became an agonizing factor in the path of the exalted aims of religion, ethics,
skills and sciences. Students throughout the ages were always confronted by
this difficult test.
The matter of tasawwuf is very
similar. As far as the aims and objects are concerned, they are self-evident
and unanimously accepted. Tasawwuf has been adversely affected by
the following two factors. The means were exaggerated and the technical terms
were over-emphasized and insisted upon.
If a person is questioned: “Are loyalty and ethics
important or not?” “Is it necessary to develop firm belief or not?” “Is it
commendable to be adorned with virtues and be free from vice, such as
jealousy, kibr (to degrade another arrogantly), to show off,
bear malice and hatred, have love for wealth and honor or not?” “Is it
desirable to liberate the low nafs from these evil
tendencies?” “Humility and humbleness in salat, the state of
modesty and entreatment whilst weeping in du‘a, the habit of taking
stock of one’s soul, and above all, the love for Allah and His Messenger (may
Allah bless him and grant him peace), achievement of a feeling of satisfaction
and sweetness or at least to be eager and punctual to attain it, clean
dealings, truth and trust, having regard for the rights of humanity, control
over one’s self, especially in times of anger, are all these desirable or not?”
Every sane person, especially the Muslim who is not blindfolded by prejudice,
will definitely answer that these are not only virtuous but also necessary
according to the shari‘ah, and these are the exhortations of the
entire Qur’an and volumes of Hadith literature.
If it is said that the method of acquiring these
qualities is what the latter generations named ‘tasawwuf’, they react
with a frown because of their dread for the term. Others would disapprove
because of their bitter experiences with the forerunners and false claimants.
They would recall unpleasant incidents and observations that they encountered
with them.
This is not the case with tasawwuf alone.
It is the problem with all other skills and reformations, where there will be
found amongst their propagators, administrators, missionaries and claimants
those who are genuine and the false, the authorized and unauthorized, the
mature and immature, and even the faithful and the faithless. In spite both of
these opposing types, any just person will not deny the necessity of the
profession nor object to it.
In worldly professions too, whether it is business,
agriculture, industry or craftsmanship, both types are present, the expert and
the novice, the guide and the deceiver. Yet, the affairs of the world and
religion go on as such. One must attend to one’s own affairs and neither
deprive himself of this treasure because of inexperienced claimants, nor cast
aside the actual reality because of disagreement with any technical term.
A poet has appropriately said,
“Wise men do not get involved in words,
Is the diver’s interest in shells or pearls ? “
There are two groups who are opposed to tasawwuf.
One comprises those who accept its constituents separately, but deny it if it
is referred to as a whole. The majority of the people applaud the
aforementioned aim and qualities separately, but if it be said to them that,
‘Some people have for some reasons given all these qualities a common name,’
then their colors change instantly and they say, ‘We don’t believe in tasawwuf;
it has caused great harm’.
The other group consists of those to whom it is
acceptable if it is proposed under a different name. For example if it is said,
“The Noble Qur’an has termed it tazkiyah. The Hadith names it ihsan.
The latter jurists termed it fiqh al-batin (spiritual
jurisprudence)”, they would then reply that there is no contradiction and that
all of these are declarations of Allah and His Messenger (may Allah bless him
and grant him peace).
Verily, neither can alterations be made to all the
books written, nor can the tongues of men be withheld. Otherwise, if we were
given the option, we should have referred to it by the words ‘tazkiyah’ and ‘ihsan’,
and not use the word ‘tasawwuf’. Now this is the popular name. This
designation is not exclusive to this science alone.
The history of the arts and sciences is full of such
common technical terms. Authorities on sciences have all along laid stress on
the aims and kept the means within their limits. With great courage and strong
wills they have not only refuted that which was foreign to its soul, essence,
and real goal but they have also refuted that which proved harmful and
irrelevant.
There is no such period in the history of Islam in
which the experts, tutors and propagators of this subject did not differentiate
between its body and soul, reality and form, aims and customs. All of them,
from the leader of all spiritual guides, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and
Shaykh Shihab ad-Deen as-Suharwardi to Mujaddid al-Alf ath-Thani, Hadrat Shah
Wali-Allah ad-Dihlawi, Hadrat Sayyid Ahmad ash-Shaheed, Hadrat Mawlana Rashid
Ahmad al-Gangohi, and Hakim al-Ummah Hadrat Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali at-Thanawi, all
have emphatically made a clear distinction between the kernel and shell, the correct
object and incorrect interpretation. They have vehemently rejected all those
customs and ways which were introduced into and regarded as part of tasawwuf and tariqah by
association with non-Muslims and immature sufis who were
unaware.
Such discussions are found in many places in the
following books: the Futuh al-Ghayb and Ghunyat at-Talibin of
Hadrat Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (may Allah have mercy on him), the ‘Awarif
al-Ma‘arif of Hadrat Shaykh Shihab ad-Deen as-Suharwardi (may Allah
have mercy on him), the Maktubat Imam Rabbani of Hadrat
Mujaddid al-Alf ath-Thani (may Allah have mercy on him), the works of Hadrat
Shah Wali-Allah (may Allah have mercy on him), the Sirat Mustaqim of
Hadrat Sayyid Ahmad al-Shahid (may Allah have mercy on him), the letters
written by Hadrat al-Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him), and the Tarbiyat
al-Salik and Qasd al-Sabil of Hadrat Mawlana Thanwi (may
Allah have mercy on him). They have separated the true from the false while
showing absolute impartiality.
Hadrat Shah Wali-Allah (may Allah have mercy on him)
has written thus:
“The spiritual connection of the sufis is
a great blessing and an alchemy, but their customs (those for which there is no
proof in the shari’ah) are worthless. Likewise all these men,
without exception, have earnestly stressed the importance of proper ethics,
transactions and civil rights and stipulated this as a condition of reformation
and approach (to Allah). Their writings elaborate extensively on this topic and
their congregations always consisted of advice and propagation in this
respect.”
We have been blessed to be able to stay in the company
of the saints of our times. Upon seeing them alone were we convinced of tasawwuf.
We not only found tasawwuf and tariqah in
these personalities but also the essence of the religion and the shari‘ah.
Their characters were a reflection of the character of the Messenger of Allah
(may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Their lives, actions and dealings
were weighed and molded according to the shari’ah. We noticed that
they always separated the aims from the means and laid stress on realities by
staying away from and disregarding technical terms.
They did not attach any importance to customs and were
staunch opponents and denouncers of innovations. Their obedience to the sunnah
was not confined to devotions but also enveloped their habits and dealings as
well. They were not followers of this science, but were in fact true reformers.
With their divine insight and lengthy experience, they accomplished their task,
sometimes with brevity and selection and at other times with omissions and
amendments.
Treatment and advice were dispensed to suit each one’s
individual nature. In the remedy and diet, full consideration was given to
conditions, occupations, and temperaments. Their status in this field is
similar to that of a discoverer of medicine or an inventor of a skill. They
were masters and not slaves of their profession.
Their actual concern was the health and benefit of the
(spiritually) sick and not to tread the beaten track (i.e. to be a slave of old
customs and rites). Their concept of the actual purpose of tasawwuf is
the sincerity of desiring Allah’s pleasure, be it reformation of character,
honest dealings, development of a moderate nature, self-control, giving
preference to others, submission, recitations, strivings, staying in the
company of a Shaykh, and even bay‘ah. If these are not achieved
then all this effort is synonymous to a person who works all day long trying to
move a mountain with a piece of straw.
(from 'Tazkiya aur Ihsan ya Tasawwuf o Sulook')
Courtesy- ilmgate.org