|

Demystifying the Sufis

SufisHistory testifies the fact that most of the Sufi “saints” came to India either accompanying the invading armies of Islamic marauders or just followed them in their sweeping conquests. Hazrat Shaikh Khwaja Syed Muhammad Mu’īnuddīn Chishtī was accompanied to Ajmer and Khwaja Qutubuddin to Delhi by Muḥammad Shahābuddīn Ghorī, famously known as Muḥammad of Ghor. Hazrat Bābā Farīduddīn Mas’ūd Ganjshakar aka Baba Fareed came to Pakpattan (now in Pakistan) and Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazarat Nizamuddin came to Delhi accompanying a contingent of the Muslim invaders. [Ref: Islamization of India by the Sufis by Purushottam, Hindu Writers Forum, New Delhi]

History testifies the fact that most of the Sufi “saints” came to India either accompanying the invading armies of Islamic marauders or just followed them in their sweeping conquests. Hazrat Shaikh Khwaja Syed Muhammad Mu’īnuddīn Chishtī was accompanied to Ajmer and Khwaja Qutubuddin to Delhi by Muḥammad Shahābuddīn Ghorī, famously known as Muḥammad of Ghor. Hazrat Bābā Farīduddīn Mas’ūd Ganjshakar aka Baba Fareed came to Pakpattan (now in Pakistan) and Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazarat Nizamuddin came to Delhi accompanying a contingent of the Muslim invaders.

These Sufi masters taught a faith, which though may appear different in practice, was in tune with Koran and Hadis. The “great” Sufi Saint Al-Hujuri had said that “’There is no god other than Allah and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah’ is ultimate and indisputable truth.” Also Sufi’s obsession to convert India to Islam was no less than those Islamic murderers whom they had followed or accompanied.

Throughout the Islamic rule, all Sufis have enjoyed full confidence, royal favour and support of the Islamist rulers. Distinguished historian Prof Abdul Karim in his book Social History of Muslims in Bengal (Pp 136-138) states that: “Hand in hand with the proselytizing efforts of the rulers was the work of Sufis and Maulvis. From the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1326-1351) to that of Akbar (1556-1605); Bengal had attracted rebels, refugees, Sufi Mashaikh, disgruntled nobles and adventurers from North India.” Besides, he has also referred to militant Sufi conversion practices.

Professor KR Qanungo has noted that the conversion of Bengal was mainly the work of Barah-Auliyas. [Ref: “Bengal was not conquered by seventeen Turkish cavaliers (of Bakhtiyar Khalji); but by the barah-auliyas, or twelve legendary Muslim militant saints, the Pirs who cropped up after the seed of Islam had been broadcast in the plains of Bengal.” K.R. Qanungo, op. cit., p. 151.]

In the very same context, Dr IH Qureshi, who in his work The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (610-1947) writes: “Fourteenth century happened to be a period of expansion of Muslim authority in Bengal and adjoining territories. A significant part was played in this process by the warrior saints who were eager to take up the cause of any persecuted community. This often resulted [in clash] with the native authority, followed by, almost invariably by annexation.”

Saiyyad Muhammad bin Nasiruddin Jafar Makki al-Husaini

Saiyyad Muhammad bin Nasiruddin Jafar Makki al-Husaini, the Khalifa of Nasiruddin Chiragh-i-Delhi “held that there were five reasons which led the people to embrace Islam:

1.    Fear of death,
2.    Fear of their families being enslaved,
3.    Propagation (of Islam) on the part of Muslims,
4.    The lust for obtaining mawajib (pensions or rewards) ghanaim (booty), and
5.    Tassub (bigotry or superstition).”

[Ref: Rizvi, op. cit., p.46 citing Sijzi, Akhbar-ul-Akhiyar, p.136]

Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalaluddin Khilji (1290-96) “Whenever a live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king he was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants…” [Ref: KS Lal; Legacy of Muslim Rule in India, p-120]

Amir Khusrau writes that under Jalaluddin Khilji (1290-96) “Whenever a live Hindu fell into the hands of the victorious king he was pounded to bits under the feet of the elephants…”

Because it was impractical to behead the entire Hindu population which stubbornly refused to convert they were given the alternative of living as Dhimmis (or Zimmis) on payment of a tax called Jazia – which was generally an alternative offered to Christians and Jews only. By imposing this tax Hindus were turned into a second class citizen in their very own land!

Says KS Lal in Legacy of Muslim Rule in India (p–119) “The main objective of levying the Jazia is the subjugation of infidels to humiliation; and during the process of payments, the Dhimmi is seized by the collar and vigorously shaken and pulled about in order to show degradation.” adding, “Death awaited them at every corner, because, being idolaters they could be given a choice only between Islam and death. Hindu peasants, unable to pay heavy taxes, were driven away as slaves and sold to recover the tax. It was not uncommon to see the families crying and wailing during their march to the salve market. All such salves were sooner or later sold only to Muslim buyers.”

“Death awaited them at every corner, because, being idolaters they could be given a choice only between Islam and death. Hindu peasants, unable to pay heavy taxes, were driven away as slaves and sold to recover the tax. It was not uncommon to see the families crying and wailing during their march to the salve market. All such salves were sooner or later sold only to Muslim buyers.”

“According to 14th and 15th century legends, Ismaili propagandist evolved a belief for Hindu converts that Ali, the husband of Fatima, daughter of Prophet Muhammad, was the 10th incarnation of Vishnu, that Adam was another aspect of Siva and that Muhammad was in fact Brahma.” [Ref: S Athar Abbas Rizvi, A History of Sufism in India, Volume 2, p-110]

Sufi literally means a person clad in woollen cloth. They were so called because they dressed themselves in this way, said to be the way of prophet and his companions.

In principle, Sufis believed in attaining God by meditation, fasts and singing his praises to achieve a state of ecstasy just like Hindu Saints. Thus, several scholars find a “great similarity” between these practices of Sufis and the advocacy by some of them of exercise of breath control (Pranyama) so highly praised in Hindu Yoga Shastras. They ascribe this similarity to the fact that ancient Hindu thought and ideas on mysticism had continually aroused interest in the Khurasan region and these naturally fused with the mystical experiences of the Muslim Sufis there.

All Sufis are ardent Muslims having absolute faith in the Prophet his traditions, Quran and Shariah. Thus, although their form and conduct of recollection (Jap) and Meditation (Dhyan) were often different, there was no hostility among them, and they adhered strictly to the basic tenets and frame work of Islam, which, of course, held proselytisation a very “meritorious” and “pious” work.

Muhammad of Ghazni repeatedly invaded India from 1001 to 1025 AD. During these raids and after, many talented and adventurous Sunni Sufis came to India and settled here. By middle of the century, Sufis had well penetrated until Punjab and spread their tentacles there and in the adjoining areas. Stories of “miracle” of these Sufis were spread by the gullible Hindus themselves.

Muhammad of Ghazni repeatedly invaded India from 1001 to 1025 AD. During these raids and after, many talented and adventurous Sunni Sufis came to India and settled here. By middle of the century, Sufis had well penetrated until Punjab and spread their tentacles there and in the adjoining areas. Stories of “miracle” of these Sufis were spread by the gullible Hindus themselves.

Between the 16th and 18th century, conversion of Hindus to Islam occurred in a considerable scale due to the successful proselytizing techniques used by the new Sufic orders which had considerable experience in this kind of work in Persia, Iraq and Central Asia. A large number of conversions that are taking place in India today are also due to the activities of these the Sufis – dead and alive. Music maestro AR Rehman is just one among those several converts to Islam through this means.

Chronicle of Shahid Salar Masood Ghazi

Amongst the Sufi saints who wielded the sword the name of Shahid Salar Masood Ghazi tops the list. He was Mohammad Ghazni’s sister’s son and had persuaded him to destroy the Somnath temple.

He entered India from the North-West with his father and a few hundred thousand cavalry. From the first day he offered to Hindus – ‘Sword or Koran’. His forces swelled as local recruits joined him; and he marched as far as Bahraich (UP). The route he took is littered with tombs and graves of his Soldiers and offers who were slain fighting the Hindu forces. These can be recognized by the word Shaheed (martyr) or Ghazi (Slayer of Kafirs) attached with their names.

Interestingly, two of such graves in Lucknow have recently (post-partition) became famous and now attract thousands of Hindu devotees who have contributed most of the money for their expansion and decoration.

Hazrat Shaikh Khwaja Syed Muhammad Mu’īnuddīn Chishtī

Hazrat Shaikh Khwaja Syed Muhammad Mu’īnuddīn Chishtī of Ajmer is a hallowed name amongst Sufi saints of India. He is generally known as Gharib Nawaz (the friend of the poor beseechers). Mughal Emperor Akbar is said to have made several visits to his shrine many times starting and ending his journey on foot.

He is projected as an example of “Sufi saintliness” and “secularism”, tending to all needy persons irrespective of their faith. However, little is known (or told?) about the major role that he played in Islamization of India.

The following is excerpt from “Siya-al-aqtab” compiled in the mid-seventeenth century as quoted in P M Curie’s book “The shrine and cult of Mu’īnuddīn Chishtī of Ajmer”: ‘’It is told that once when he went to perform the pilgrimage to the holy tomb of the Prophet Muhammad, one day from the inside of the pure and blessed tomb a cry came: ‘’Send for Muinuddin.’’ When Muinuddin came to the door he stood there and he saw that presence speak to him. ‘’Muinuddin, you are the essence of my faith; but must go to Hindustan. There is a place called Ajmer, to which one of my sons (descendants) went for a holy war, and now he has become a martyr, and the place has passed again into the hands of infidels. By the grace of your footsteps there, once more shall Islam be made manifest, and the Kafirs be punished by God’s wrath.’’

“Accordingly Muinuddin reached Ajmer in Hindustan. There he said: ‘Praise be to God, May he be exalted, for I have gained possession of the property of my brother. Although, at that time there were many temples of idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol-temples.’”

This is followed by tales of Khwaja coming over those Hindu deities and teachers who were strongly opposed to his settling down there. Amongst such people was a disgruntled employee of Rai Pithaura (as Prithvi Raj Chauhan was also known).

It appears that shorn of miracles the story simply suggests that Khwaja came to India determined to eradicated idolatry and paganism and establish Islam in its place. He met with a lot of resistance from the local governor of Rai Pithaura besides resistance from Rai Pithaura himself. With the help of the immense treasure at his disposal and having converted many gullible Hindus to his faith, he became strong enough to invite Rai Pithaura to convert to Islam. Having failed to persuade him, Khwaja sent a message inviting Sultan Shihabuddin Ghori to attack India. Shihabuddin made unsuccessful invasions. Rai Pithaura always allowed him to go back unmolested after his defeat. Ultimately, however, he defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan and killed him.

The ‘Siyar al-’arifin’ says about Khwaja Muinuddin: “All were ignorant of Allah and his prophet. None had seen the Kaba. None had heard of the greatness of Allah. After Muinuddin arrived in India, “Because of his sword, instead of idols and temples, there are Mosques, Mimbars and Mihrabs in the land of unbelief. In the land where the sayings of the idolaters were heard, there is now the sound of Allah-O-Akbar.”

The ‘Siyar al-’arifin’ says about Khwaja Muinuddin: “All were ignorant of Allah and his prophet. None had seen the Kaba. None had heard of the greatness of Allah. After Muinuddin arrived in India, “Because of his sword, instead of idols and temples, there are Mosques, Mimbars and Mihrabs in the land of unbelief. In the land where the sayings of the idolaters were heard, there is now the sound of Allah-O-Akbar.”

Sufis in Kashmir

Kashmir is a typical example of Islamization both by sword and by the Sufis. Amongst the Sultans who used force to Islamize Kashmir the most notorious is Sikandar Butshikan (1389-1431). About this Sultan Kalhana in his “Rajatarangini” says: “The Sultan forgetting all his royal duties took pleasure day and night in destroying idols. He destroyed idols of Martand, Vishnu, Ishan, Chakravarthy and Tripureshwar. Not a forest, a village or a city escaped where the Turushk and his minister Suha passed…”

But this is just a small tip of iceberg. The real credit of Islamizing Kashmir goes to Sufis. Sikandar was a passing phase having lived only 42 years. Conversion by Sufis was a continuous process almost imperceptible which lasted for centuries. Sikandar’s conversions were caused by utter terror. Sufis created conditions where Hindus voluntarily came to them and got converted.

On the night of 10th May 1995 Sheikh Nuruddin’s mausoleum known as “Charare Sharief” was burnt down, very interesting, by Muslim terrorists. The Indian Press described it as “the sacred Dargah of Sufi Saint Nuruddin Nurani” (India Today), “Symbol of Secularism, a most valuable symbol of cultural identity” (Frontline) and “Adobe of Rishis” (The Economic Times) without having any idea of the person’s historical facts.

It is imperative to note that amongst the Sufis who played a major role in converting Hindus of Kashmir to Islam Sheikh Nuruddin popularly known as “Rishi Nur” holds a very high place. His way of conversion was through deceit.

Such is the story of Sufism that which is considered as the epitome of secular fabric of this nation.

Author is Founder & Editor-in-chief of Folks Magazine & Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, UK.

Throughout the Islamic rule, all Sufis have enjoyed full confidence, royal favour and support of the Islamist rulers. Distinguished historian Prof Abdul Karim in his book Social History of Muslims in Bengal (Pp 136-138) states that: “Hand in hand with the proselytizing efforts of the rulers was the work of Sufis and Maulvis. From the time of Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1326-1351) to that of Akbar (1556-1605); Bengal had attracted rebels, refugees, Sufi Mashaikh, disgruntled nobles and adventurers from North India.” Besides, he has also referred to militant Sufi conversion practices.

Professor KR Qanungo has noted that the conversion of Bengal was mainly the work of Barah-Auliyas. [Ref: “Bengal was not conquered by seventeen Turkish cavaliers (of Bakhtiyar Khalji); but by the barah-auliyas, or twelve legendary Muslim militant saints, the Pirs who cropped up after the seed of Islam had been broadcast in the plains of Bengal.” K.R. Qanungo, op. cit., p. 151.]

In the very same context, Dr IH Qureshi, who in his work The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (610-1947) writes: “Fourteenth century happened to be a period of expansion of Muslim authority in Bengal and adjoining territories. A significant part was played in this process by the warrior saints who were eager to take up the cause of any persecuted community. This often resulted [in clash] with the native authority, followed by, almost invariably by annexation.”

10 Responses for “Demystifying the Sufis”

  1. Yousuf Saeed says:

    Dear Mahesh Prabhu
    There is always a flip side to everything in life. If you present only one side of picture what you get at the end is a distorted or incomplete image. This is the biggest risk in history writing. The arguments you present against Sufis, although many of them are correct, but mostly one-sided, and completely ignore the more constructive role of Sufis and mystics in India. Your sources are secondary and without contexts of the larger texts, which means that you haven’t read the original sources and you are not aware of the context in which these were written and compiled. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations such as “Shaikh Nuruddin’s way of conversion was through deceit”, without giving any argument or fact.
    I am not denying the negative aspects of Sufism – I agree that a lot of conversion did take place in the hands of Sufis. But was it all under the fear of sword? I doubt. Secondly, who were the people converting to Islam throughout India’s medieval history? It was the low-caste Hindus who had been so severely exploited and persecuted under the high-caste Brahmins that there was no choice for them but to convert. But in any case, if Muslims rulers and Sufis were to convert everyone in India, then why didn’t the entire India become Muslim? Why are Hindus still in the majority? In historiography, every thing depends on who wrote a particular fact, when, and for what reason. Any lie can be made a truth by a selective quotation of texts. Some of your facts are also wrong. For instance, let me correct you that Nizamuddin Aulia never came as part of an invading contingent. He was born in a UP town called Badayun and came to Delhi to make a career as a qazi (I can provide you the correct reference if you need). He, like many other Sufis, also distanced himself from the kings and all people of power (unlike your claim that “all Sufis have enjoyed…support of Islamic rulers). Many Sufis like Nizamuddin Aulia and Baba Farid were in constant touch with yogis, nathpanthis and other Hindu ascetics to learn meditation techniques and so on. Entire literatures are full of such references. What you have ignored mostly is the music, poetry and Sufi literature composed by the Sufis that rebels against the bigotry of religious rituals and the rulers. In such literature you can also see how much in love with India these people were, and how their poetry and music appealed to the common man rather than the elite.
    My request to you is to stop the negative campaign, which is only going to make further rift between the two communities. Let us join hands to present a more holistic and constructive picture of history that can make a more peaceful and strong India.
    Yousuf Saeed

    • Team Folks says:

      Dear Yousuf Sayeed,

      Thanks for your patience to write such a lengthy comment. But we fear that you have grossly mistaken the article by our Editor-in-chief. As you can see there is not much of an adjective. It’s simply presentation of facts with quotes from respective books. We don’t belong to any religious or political organization. Thus WE DON’T HAVE ANY PROPAGANDA TO MAKE. We speak nothing but the truth. Truth is bitter. If it hurts you we can apologize but that won’t change the truth.

      Best Wishes for New year 2010 and beyond.

      May you be blessed with peace, prosperity and wisdom.

      All the Best

      Team Folks

  2. Yousuf Saeed says:

    Thanks for your good wishes, and happy new year to you too.
    Well, it is very easy to say that you present nothing but the truth. But, can the truth ever be presented in black & white terms? Who decides what the truth is. No historian can ever claim that he/she is presenting the truth. They only present an interpretation of facts, which is always open to subjective bias as well a debate. And as I said in the very beginning: there are two sides to every coin, and you are presenting sort of only one side of the coin. I am not hurt by your “truth” – I said I agree with your facts, but they are selective facts being presented to simplify the history in a certain way. I am not hurt – I am only concerned about your insistence that yours is the only truth. I also mentioned that some of your facts are wrong, and I can provide references for them. I am just a layman, but on the internet blogs I doubt if any real historian will ever read and respond to your essay. It will be a real challenge for this if they did.

    To cut the story short, let me make you an offer. If I write and contribute to Folks.co.in an article with my version of the truth about Sufis, will you publish it. I can assure you that it will be supported by enough authentic historical references which anyone could verify from anywhere.

    Thanks

    Yousuf

    • Team Folks says:

      Dear Yousuf,

      We don’t argue for the sake of arguments. We have presented something and readers are wise to take the right way.

      Let’s assure you that Folks as an organization has no vicious propaganda. Thus if you have to say something good about Sufis – please do write an article and send it across and given its interesting we will publish it. You can send in your contributions to submissions@folks.co.in

      Thanks again for your interest in Folks Magazine.

      With best wishes

      Team Folks

  3. This is a very fine article. It is also historically factual. The popular belief that Sufi ism was or is a benign and peaceful religious system is pure humbug. All Sufis demanded that their followers convert to Islam and accept the basic tenets of Islam. Quite the opposite of the Hindu guru who either ignores the seekers religion or tells him to stay in the religion he was born into.

    It is really time that the truth of the Sufi’s militaristic mindset has got exposed. All of them followed and worked hand-in-glove with the foreign Muslim invaders. In fact, there would be very few Muslims in India today if the had not been for the Sufis to convert them from their Hindu roots and culture to Islam.

  4. Chris says:

    Thank you for this informative article which was republished on the FaithFreedomInternational website. As a Western observer who is neither Muslim nor Hindu, I believe one of the more deceptive myths that Muslims use to burnish their shameful image is arguing that Sufis represent the peaceful, humanitarian side of Islam. The problem with this myth is that not only is it not true, based on your article, but Sufis represent only a minuscule one percent of Muslims. If the ideology of Islam is causing bloodshed and terror at all corners of the earth, Muslims can’t deflect the wrath they are incurring for themselves by saying, Oh, but Sufi Muslims would never engage in terrorism. The moral response, rather, would be to condemn the Islamic ideology that is the root cause of the violence and work to make significant reforms in that ideology. Until that happens, all the talk about Sufi’s is just blowing smoke.

  5. azad says:

    As we all know in islam singing and dancing or music is strictly prohibited (punishment is death penalty). now the question THEN HOW COME SUFIS SING AND DANCE IN INDIA????. MOHMED preached his fellow muslims. if you cannot win over kuffars by war deceive them. hence sufism is a deception to convert innocent hindus. hindus usually sing hymns, songs and dance to please their peace preaching gods. sufis made use of this technique to deceive and convert the kuffer. In islam deception is not a sin but it is a step closer to heaven to get 72 virgins. Are our hindu brothers listening??? or they visit sufi burials….. spread the message and stop visiting cold blooded murderers burials.

  6. Joe Alex says:

    First of all visiting burial site is haram in Islam. Ask any Wahabi or Deobandi, he can give a clear explanation.
    Infact Sufis are Kafirs under the vision of Wahabis. Given this fact there is no wonder when a kafir visits a dead kafir’s tomb.

  7. [...] detail. I strenuously object to your portrayal of Hz. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in your article “Demystifying the Sufis”. The existence of alleged “facts to suggest that Sufism, too, though indirectly” is [...]

  8. [...] he is by extension an enemy of radical Islam quite forgetting the many historical instances where Sufis have engaged in aggressive proselytism as instruments of some of the most radical Islamists . This is *not* to say that Imam Rauf is a radical Islamist but claiming that he is not one simply [...]

Leave a Reply