12
As one of the greatest scholars of Sufism, R. A. Nicholson, said, the earliest Sufis were ascetics and quietists rather than true mystics. These early Sufis were inspired by Christian ideals, seeking salvation by shunning the meretricious delights of this world. Eventually, asceticism was seen as only the first stage of a long journey whose ultimate aim was a deep and intimate knowledge of God. Light, Knowledge, and Love were the main ideas of this new Sufism. “Ultimately they rest upon a pantheistic faith which deposed the One transcendent God of Islam and worshipped in His stead One Real Being who dwells and works everywhere, and whose throne is not less, but more, in the human heart than in the heaven of heavens.”554
Sufis were undoubtedly influenced by certain passages in the Koran, but the historical development of Sufism owes as much or more to the influence of Christianity, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Buddhism (the Sufis learned the use of the rosary from Buddhist monks, among other more substantial matters).
For us, in this chapter, what is interesting is the way that later Sufis “made a complete break with the formal system of Islamic law, asserting that the shackles of the law do not bind those who have attained knowledge.” This was true of individuals as much as whole orders of dervishes. Many Sufis were good Muslims, but some were only nominally Muslim, while a third group were “Muslim after a fashion.” One of the most important figures in the history of Sufism, Abu Said (d. 1049), had nothing but contempt for Islam and all positive religion, forbidding his disciples to go on pilgrimage to Mecca, and so on. Bayazid (d. ca. 1581) also set little value on the observance of the precepts of the sharia.
The Bektashi order seems to have come into existence around about the beginning of the sixteenth century. Heavily influenced by Christian and Gnostic ideas, the Bektashis rejected as worthless all external ceremonies of Islam and all other religions.
There was even a group of dervishes, collectively known as the malamatiya, who committed the most outrageous acts possible to draw upon themselves deliberately the contempt of the populace. This in turn enabled them to show their own contempt for the contempt that others had of them.
The great achievement of the Sufis was their insistence that true religion had nothing to do with the doctrinal and legal system of orthodoxy, which only restricted man’s religious horizon. In the mystic’s vision there were no heavenly rewards and hellish punishments, the written word of God was abrogated by a direct and intimate revelation. Instead of being ruled by fear, the mystic is more concerned with the love and knowledge of God, detachment from the self, and “the divine service is regarded as a service of hearts,” rather than the observance of external rules that had to be obeyed blindly.
The more Sufism moved toward pantheism the more it produced
a series of works, which, under pretense of orthodoxy and devoutness, in reality substituted for the personal God and the future life of Islam notions that were irreconciliable with either and were supported by an interpretation of the Quran so far-fetched as to be ludicrous and irreverent. The most famous of these are the poem of Ibn al-Farid [1161-1235]... and the treatise of Ibn Arabi [1155- 1240]... “Gems of Maxims.” Both these works at different times brought their owners into danger, and were the cause of riots (see Ibn Iyas, History of Egypt,... where the latter book is described as the work of a worse unbeliever than Jew, Christian, or Idolater). Of the comments on the Quran which this work contains it is sufficient to cite that on the story of the Golden Calf; according to Ibn Arabi.... Moses found fault with his brother for not approving of the worship of the Calf, since Aaron should have known that nothing but God could ever be worshipped, and therefore the Calf was (like everything else) God.555
Sufi philosophy had the consequence of erasing the boundaries between the different creeds—Islam is no better than idolatry, or as one student of Ibn Arabi put it, “The Koran is polytheism pure and simple.” Ibn Arabi himself wrote that his heart was a temple for idols, a Kaaba for pilgrims, the tables of the Torah and the Koran; love alone was his religion.
“I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Muslim,” sings another mystic. The Sufis did not lay much store by the different creeds and their particulars. As Abu Said wrote, “Until mosque and madrasa are quite effaced, the work of the dervishes will not be accomplished; until belief and unbelief are quite alike, no man will be a true Muslim.” And, to quote Nicholson,
Hafiz sings more in the spirit of the freethinker, perhaps than of the mystic
“Love is where the glory falls
of thy face—on convent walls
Or on tavern floors, the same
Unextinguishable flame
Where the turbaned anchorite
Chanteth Allah day and night
Church bells ring the call to prayer
And the Cross of Christ is there.”556
Several famous Sufis were, in the words of Goldziher, “subjected to cruel inquisition.” The early Sufis aroused considerable suspicion in the authorities and the orthodox as can be seen from the history of the Sufi Dhu ’1 Nun (d. 860). This Sufi had many disciples, and such influence over the people that he was denounced as a zindiq by the envious. The caliph Mutawakkil had him put into prison but later released him seeing his moral qualities.
Perhaps the most famous mystic put to death for what were considered blasphemous utterances was al-Hallaj557 (executed 922). He spent many years in prison before being flogged, mutilated, exposed on a gibbet, and finally decapitated and burned, all because he advocated personal piety rather than dry legalism and because he tried to bring “dogma into harmony with Greek philosophy on a basis of mystic experience.” Twelve years later, al-Shalmaghani was also put to death on charges of blasphemy.
Al-Suhrawardi (executed 1191) was at first patronized by the viceroy at Aleppo, but his mysticism aroused much suspicion among the orthodox who eventually demanded his execution. The viceroy dared not oppose the “true believers,” and so had Suhrawardi executed.
Badr al-Din, the eminent jurist, was “converted” to Sufism after his meeting with a Sufi, Shaikh Husain Akhtali. He got involved with an underground communist movement, was arrested, tried, and hanged as a traitor in 1416. He had openly developed his heretical ideas based on the views of the mystic Ibn al-Arabi.
Is Islam Tolerant of Hereby?
Early Islam developed the idea of bida—innovation—and according to a famous hadith, every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell. Innovation was the opposite of sunna. Some early theologians went so far as to demand the death penalty for anyone introducing an innovation. Fortunately, this attitude did not last when the need to introduce new practices arose, henceforth, a distinction was drawn between good and bad bida (innovation). In the words of al-Shafi’i: “An innovation which contradicts the Koran, a sunna, ... or ijma is a heretical bida, if however, something new is introduced which is not evil in itself and does not contradict the above-mentioned authorities of religious life, then it is a praiseworthy, unobjectionable innovation.”This convenient device enabled Muslims to accept as good bida things that in theory were absolutely contrary to Islam. Goldziher has emphazised a very important point:
There is no parallel between dogma in Islam and dogma in the religious system of any Christian church. In Islam there are no councils and synods that, after vigorous debate, fix the formulas that henceforth must be regarded as sound belief. There is no ecclesiastic office that provides a standard of orthodoxy. There is no exclusively authorized exegesis of the sacred texts, upon which the doctrines of a church, and the manner of their inculcation, might be based. The consensus is the highest authority in all questions of religious theory and practice, but it is a vague authority, and its judgment can scarcely be precisely determined. Its very concept is variously defined. In theological questions it is especially difficult to reach unanimity about what is to be accepted without dispute, as the verdict of consensus. Where one party sees consensus, another may be far from seeing anything of the sort.558
Despite Goldziher’s insights in the above passage, it gives a misleading picture of an Islam of doctrinal free-for-all where anything goes—you can believe and think what you like. If this were the case, what would justify us in calling it Islam at all? Contrary to the idea of a fluid, slippery Islam, Schacht poses before us the notion of, for instance, Islamic law that became “increasingly rigid and set in its final mold.” True, there was, as always, enormous discrepancy between theory and practice, but Islamic law did succeed in imposing itself on the practice, especially on the law of family.
There may not have been a single church body to fix the dogma of the faithful, but in reality throughout Islamic history certain doctrines were definitely adopted in certain areas of the Islamic world. For instance, about 1048-1049, the doctrines of the school of Malik were adopted in the Maghrib. “The triumph of these doctrines caused the abandonment of all efforts to seek an allegorical interpretation for those verses of the Koran for which there was no satisfactory literal interpretation. Had not Malik b. Anas for instance said ‘we know that Allah is seated on his throne, but not how this word is to be understood.’ To believe it is a duty; asking questions about it is heresy”! In other words a certain doctrine was adopted and put into practice and represented the orthodoxy—there was no question of a doctrinal free-for-all or liberalism.
A little later, in 1130 the Almohad state was founded in North Africa and Spain and was based on definite principles derived from the authoritarian teachings of Ibn Tumart. There was no need for a church body to establish the dogma; the rulers of the new state did that.
Many apologists of Islam who wish to argue for the thesis that Islam was very tolerant of dissent and heresy quote the works of Ibn Taymiyya and al-Ghazali who are supposed to have stretched “the limits of Islam to the utmost.” The minimum belief that was required to be counted as a Muslim was the unity of God and the prophethood of Muhammad. But even this minimum is not as liberal as it sounds and was enough to exclude the dualists (the real zindiqs), the Sufis who did not have much regard for prophets, and the freethinkers (al-Razi, Ibn Rawandi) who found all prophets charlatans. Furthermore, as we saw earlier, al-Ghazali, far from being tolerant, banished from Islam those who believed in the eternity of the world and who denied the resurrection of the body, considering them unbelievers, and even asked for their execution. By al-Ghazali’s criteria, some of the greatest philosophers and poets in Islam were fit for the gallows. And, as always, the unbeliever is never somehow considered when any final assessment of Islam’s tolerance is discussed. Infidelity is the greatest of all sins, more serious than murder, and carries with it the death penalty. Finally, what evidence is there that the works of al-Ghazali or Ibn Taymiyya had any influence on practice? These same apologists, quite rightly, point out the discrepancy between theory and practice, and yet are quite happy to quote the views of the two theologians without ascertaining whether their theories were ever applied in practice. In fact, we know that in the Islamic West the writings of al-Ghazali were burned as they were considered dangerous and contrary to the true faith.
Was Islam, nonetheless, tolerant in practice? The short answer is no.
The preceding passage from Goldziher also gives the impression that Islam was free of persecution of heretics. I hope this chapter will have disabused readers of this myth. Even the great Goldziher has to admit that “the spirit of tolerance prevailed only in the early period.... The evil spirit of intolerance first appeared on both sides... as a result of the cultivation of scholastic dogmatic theology.” It was left to Sufism to reject confessional distinctions and spread the balm of tolerance.
Since the distinction between religion and politics was blurred, especially under the Abbasids, every dangerous doctrine had its religious and political aspect. The political authorities did persecute what they saw as subversive sects, holding them responsible for civil instability.
The Abbasids ruthlessly persecuted the Shiites, many of whom were imprisoned, hanged, or poisoned. But the Umayyads were not entirely without their witch hunts—witness the burning, in 737, of Bayan al-Tamimi the Shiite along with al-Mughira b. Sa’d and some of his followers who regarded him as divine. Nor must we forget the ruthless and cruel elimination of the Kharijites under the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, in the early years of Umayyad rule.
We have already mentioned the two inquisitions under the Abbasids. They ended with the accession to power of Caliph Mutawakkil, who reversed the situation by declaring the Mu’tazilite doctrines to be heretical and by returning to the traditional faith. Severe measures were taken against those seen as heretics. In the words of Nicholson, “henceforth there was little room in Islam for independent thought. The populace regarded philosophy and natural science as a species of infidelity. Authors of works on these subjects ran a serious risk unless they disguised their true opinions and brought the results of their investigations into apparent conformity with the text of the Koran.”559
The situation undoubtedly varied from country to country, ruler to ruler, period to period. In general, the Umayyads are seen as more tolerant than the Abbasids precisely because they did not yet define themselves as Muslims. This tolerance often had odd consequences: “It is characteristic of the anti-Islamic spirit which appears so strongly in the Umayyads that their chosen laureate and champion should have been a Christian who was in truth a lineal descendant of the pagan bards.”560 Al-Akhtal who is considered one of the three greatest poets of the Umayyad period was a Christian who was liable to turn up at court unannounced coming into the presence of the caliph reeking of wine and wearing a gold cross. Even more than that al-Akhtal had written some mischievous verses against Islam. This tolerance was proof for Henri Lammens that the Umayyads were more Arabs than Muslims.561
This example brings out one important point, namely, as long as one had royal patronage, protection, and talent, then one could get away with blasphemy, heresy, and even unbelief. For instance, the Persian family of the Barmakids were advisers to several Abbasid caliphs even though they were often accused of unbelief, or at least of secretly harboring anti-Islamic sentiments. When the royal favor was withdrawn, this influential family fell from grace.
An indication that heresy was not tolerated under Islam is the fact that anyone wanting to eliminate a rival often had recourse to accusing that person of heresy. For example, Abu Ubaid made a great name for himself at the Abbasid court and was rapidly promoted. Jealous officials resentful of his success accused Abu Ubaid’s son of heresy. His son was summoned before the caliph and asked to read from the Koran placed in front him. Being practically illiterate, he stumbled through some lines. This was taken to be proof that he was a freethinker and he was therefore executed. The fear of being labeled a heretic was all-pervasive. A famous story relates the first time the philosopher Averroes was presented to the Almohad ruler Abu Yaqub Yusuf. The latter asked Averroes how philosophers viewed heaven: was it an eternal substance or did it have a beginning. Averroes was so terrified by this dangerous question that he could not speak. Yusuf put him at ease and Averroes began to show the extent of his learning. Had there not been a climate of fear, it is unlikely Averroes would have behaved in this manner.
We might also mention the constant persecution of the Ismailis. Abbas, the lord of the city of al-Rai, is said to have exterminated over 100,000 Ismailis. Another heretical sect was the Khubmesihis, who taught that Jesus was superior to Muhammad and seem to have been centered in Istanbul in the seventeenth century. Adherence to this sect was liable to lead to imprisonment and execution. The sect was said to be inspired by the heretic Kabid who held similar views and was executed in 1527.
Thus we had the spectacle of periodic persecution of various groups (Kharijite, Shiite, Ismailis, etc.) considered either doctrinally suspect or politically subversive; individuals (philosophers, poets, theologians, scientists, rationalists, dualists, freethinkers, and mystics) were imprisoned, tortured, crucified, mutilated, and hanged; their writings burned (e.g., the writings of Averroes, Ibn Hazm, al-Ghazali, al-Haitham, and al-Kindi). Significantly, none of the heretical works of Ibn Rawandi, Ibn Warraq, Ibn al-Muqaffa, and al-Razi has survived. Other individuals are forced to flee from one ruler to another more tolerant ruler (e.g., al-Amidi). Some were exiled or banished (Averroes). Many were forced to disguise their true views and opinions by difficult or ambiguous language. Those who managed to get away with blasphemy were those protected by the powerful and influential.