Reforming Sufism

In the Writings of Two Senior Azharites

Sohaib Saeed

Abstract:

Sufism – or Ta╖awwuf – continues to be a highly influential reality in Muslim

societies, yet also a controversial topic in some quarters. While contemporary
Sufism has its passionate supporters, on the other side of the spectrum there are
strident critics. This paper presents writings from two senior scholars from al-Azhar
University – both inside and outside the ╗┴f┘ milieu – who seek to chart a middle
way, a balanced approach that affirms the significance of ╗┴f┘ heritage to individual
and collective spirituality, yet recognises the importance of constructive critique. In
a time of tumultuous change in parts of the Muslim world, ╗┴f┘s and Sufism may
have a significant role to play, and this reform of society requires – as these scholars
describe – inner reforms guided by the Islamic sources. In turn, this programme
must draw upon Islam’s scholarly heritage as expounded by historic and trusted
institutions such as al-Azhar.

The mosque-university of al-Azhar is an institution with a long and illustrious history and abiding
influence not only in its homeland of Egypt, but in the wider Muslim world and beyond. The 2011
revolution has provided fresh impetus to revive al-Azhar’s role as a key reference point for moderate,
balanced, centrist Islamic thought and leadership in the fields of research and education. Distancing
itself from governmental interference will no doubt contribute to repairing its reputation.1 Indeed,
representatives have been keen to assert the pre-eminence of al-Azhar in the face of apparently

1
This paper was originally written prior to July 2013 and the siding of al-Azhar’s Grand Imam, Dr. A╒mad al-║ayyib, with
the military coup which deposed Dr. Mu╒ammad Murs┘, the Egyptian president aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Among the few senior Azhar┘ scholars to declare a critical stance was the Grand Imam’s senior adviser and one of the subjects
of this paper, Dr. ╓asan al-Sh┐fi‘┘. For his part, Dr. Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘ – our other subject, and one of the Brotherhood’s
most influential figures – spoke out strongly against the coup and the stance of al-║ayyib, earning the wrath of the military
regime and its loyal scholars.

1
competing trends on the religious scene. It is thus timely to examine the stances of al-Azhar and its
scholars on a variety of religious questions and other facets of contemporary life.

The purpose of this paper is to explore one such area of enquiry, namely Sufism, through selected
writings of two prominent Azhar┘ scholars. The first is Dr. ╓asan Ma╒m┴d ‘Abd al-La═┘f al-Sh┐fi‘┘,
senior adviser to the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, and former president of the International Islamic
University in Islamabad. The second is Dr. Y┴suf ‘Abdull┐h al-Qara╔┐w┘, president of the International
Union of Muslim Scholars, based in Qatar. Both are widely-respected octogenarian scholars who
continue to be very active in the field, and they were selected in June 2012 as members of the reinstated
Senior Scholars’ Authority (Hay’at kib┐r al-‘ulam┐’) of al-Azhar.

The reason for selecting al-Sh┐fi‘┘ here is his academic expertise in the field of Islamic Ta╖awwuf and
the fact that he was appointed to lead the World Federation of ╗┴f┘ Scholars, which was announced by
al-Azhar in April 2011 with the aims of countering extremism, reforming the ╗┴f┘ orders and combating
innovations that have falsely been associated with Sufism.2 Although the output of this body has been
limited in the turbulent post-revolution period, its formation illustrates the concern of al-Azhar for
preserving and promoting authentic Islamic spirituality, as well as of the prominent role of Dr. ╓asan
al-Sh┐fi‘┘ in this connection. In October 2012, a further announcement was made of the formal launch
of the body.

In addition to this perspective from within the walls of al-Azhar and the structures of Sufism, we will
consider the opinions of another of the most prominent Azharites of the modern age3, namely Dr. Y┴suf
al-Qara╔┐w┘, widely celebrated as a chief architect and leading proponent of Islamic wasa═iyyah
2
The body’s name in Arabic is al-Itti╒┐d al-‘┐lam┘ li-‘ulam┐’ al-╖┴fiyyah and I have based my translation of the name on one
used in some of their publicity materials. For the announcement by al-Azhar, see the report in Masrawy (4/5/2011):
<http://www.masrawy.com/News/Egypt/Politics/2011/april/5/ahmed_tayeb.aspx>. For publicity surrounding its
subsequent launch in 2012, see the following report in Al-Yawm al-S┐bi‘:
<http://www.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=827370> [links accessed 27/4/2013]. Dr. al-Sh┐fi‘┘ is quoted as saying
that the Federation is “not a ╗┴f┘ order to train disciples; nor a missionary body confined to proselytizing, preaching and
guidance; nor a governmental organization bound to the policies of a particular state. Rather, it is an international academic
organization to reform and guide the contemporary Ta╖awwuf movement in its various endeavors, based on our belief in the
pivotal nature of the upright spiritual role of Ta╖awwuf in carrying the Ummah forward and upward.” The articles of
association state that the Federation is an independent body which adopts al-Azhar as its academic reference.
3
There are deep roots connecting al-Qara╔┐w┘ and al-Sh┐fi‘┘ to each other and the university. For example, the former
recounts in his Ris┐lat al-Azhar (Cairo: Wahbah, 2009) that both were among a group of Azhar┘ students who formed a
committee in 1953 aiming to reform the institution and work for broader revival (p. 7). The fall of the Mub┐rak regime
provided Dr. al-Qara╔┐w┘ the opportunity to return to the official prominence in Egypt and al-Azhar which would be
expected for someone of his scholarly output and stature; in November 2012, he delivered the Friday sermon in the al-Azhar
Mosque for the first time in his lengthy career. However, for reasons explained in note 1, that era has certainly ended.

2
(moderation, centrism) through his prolific writings, speeches, rulings and stances, travels and
broadcasts. In a recent work on wasa═iyyah, he explains that this concept is inherent to the creation and
to Islam, and even the term itself has a Qur’┐nic basis: {And thus We have made you a middle nation
(ummatan wasa═an)...} (2: 143). Alternative terms are taw┐zun and i‘tid┐l, both of which indicate taking
aspects of life in due proportion, doing justice to each within a balanced approach. Unlike some notions
of moderation which are supposed to be the answer to ‘too much religion’, the conception that al-
Qara╔┐w┘ expounds in his works is based on balancing between aspects which, if taken in isolation or
allowed to overtake their opposites completely, would constitute an extreme. Thus Islam, in its true
manifestation, is a perfect balance between body and spirit, revelation and reason, individual and
society, rights and duties, this life and the next, and so on.4 This outlook informs al-Qara╔┐w┘’s
approach to all facets of life, such that he says on Sufism: “I am neither excessive in its praise nor do I
exaggerate in criticising it; I thank All┐h for guiding me to the middle way...”5 Following from a
balanced assessment, he attempts to provide guidelines for building a moderate Sufism, or spiritual life,
based on authentic Islamic sources.

The term wasa═iyyah is now widely used on the Islamic scene, and frequently in reference to the
methodology of al-Azhar. At a September 2011 conference entitled Sufism as an Authentic Method for
Reform, Dr. al-Sh┐fi‘┘, one of its organisers, explained that the centrist methodology of al-Azhar – as
shaped by the scholars of Egypt in the past five centuries, particularly al-‘Ir┐q┘, al-Sakh┐w┘, Ibn ╓ajar
and then al-Suy┴═┘ – is based on three pillars. In theology, it adopts the school of al-Ash‘ar┘6. In
jurisprudence, it respects and teaches the famous four schools. As for the aspect of life that deals with
spirit and character, al-Azhar follows “a ╗┴f┘ path which regulates the principles of spiritual
development”.7 If one were to compare this latter statement with the two preceding, it may seem that
Sufism is being adopted as one of numerous schools of spirituality, and that the scholars of al-Azhar are
expected to identify themselves as Sufis. However, it is more fitting to interpret it simply as an
4
Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fiqh al-wasa═iyyah al-isl┐miyyah wa’l-tajd┘d (Cairo: D┐r al-Shur┴q, 2010), pp. 37-38.
5
Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah wa ’l-‘ilm (Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah, 2007), p. 12.
6
He also mentioned “the similar school of al-M┐tur┘d┘”. However, that is not to restrict Sunni Islam to these schools, as
another al-Azhar conference on 24/1/2011 (at which both al-Sh┐fi‘┘ and al-Qara╔┐w┘ spoke) was entitled: “Ahl al-Sunnah wa
’l-Jam┐‘ah: al-Ash┐‘irah - al-M┐tur┘diyyah - Ahl al-╓ad┘th”. This diversity has been enshrined in the articles of association of
the World Federation of ╗┴f┘ Scholars (see the Al-Yawm al-S┐bi‘ report cited under note 2).

See also: ╓asan al-Sh┐fi‘┘, al-Madkhal il┐ dir┐sat ‘ilm al-kal┐m (Cairo: Wahbah, 2001), pp. 82, 89, 121; and Y┴suf al-
Qara╔┐w┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-‘aq┘dah bayna ’l-salaf wa ’l-khalaf (Cairo: Wahbah, 2005), pp. 133-155.
7
The video is available on Youtube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS1MBdByiU8> [accessed 15/4/2012].

3
affirmation of the importance of this dimension of Islamic life as represented by Ta╖awwuf.8 Indeed,
Ta╖awwuf is an academic subject in some of the university’s faculties, and some of its classical texts are
taught to the public in the Azhar Mosque.

It is not our concern here to discuss the numerous definitions and etymological theories concerning
╗┴f┘s and Sufism9, but it is important to distinguish between their various usages in order to grasp what
reforming Sufism would entail. Ta╖awwuf may be considered as the half of religiosity concerned with the
inner dimension; or as the third corresponding to the pursuit of i╒s┐n (excellence) in spirit and
character, alongside the ┘m┐n (faith) of the mind and heart and the isl┐m (submission) of the limbs – as
indicated by the famous “╒ad┘th of Jibr┘l”. There are other names besides Ta╖awwuf, or its anglicised form
Sufism; while generally synonymous, one or the other may be more appropriate depending on the
contextual meaning. Both originate in the term ╗┴f┘, which raises the question: are all Muslims ╗┴f┘s, or
must they be? It is problematic to assert that a Muslim must adopt any label that was unknown to the
earliest generations, but it is fair to point to the Islamic evidences concerning what that label is intended
to encompass. Al-Qara╔┐w┘, for example, is generally not counted among the ╗┴f┘s (nor does he
describe himself as such), but others are content to describe him as a “Salaf┘ ╗┴f┘”10, suggesting that there
is no contradiction between these concepts as many presume. Yet he states explicitly that he found no
need to complement his love for the spiritual and moral dimensions of Ta╖awwuf with a pledge to a
particular shaykh or order (═ar┘qah), because he found the solidarity and guidance he needed in the ranks
and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopted the spirit and even some of the form of
Sufism.11

This formal structure, then, is the meaning of Sufism that is generally intended in the discussion of its
reform, and the ╗┴f┘s in this context are those who are aligned in some way to the known spiritual
guides and orders. The term muta╖awwif is used either to refer to beginners on the path, or to those who
affiliate to ╗┴f┘ culture without necessarily representing its principles. We may also describe Sufism as a

8
See the intriguingly-titled Sufism for Non-Sufis?, Dr. Sherman Jackson’s translation and study of Ibn ‘A═┐’ill┐h al-Sakandar┘’s
T┐j al-‘ar┴s (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 18, note 45.
9
See, for example: ╓asan al-Shafi‘i, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-ta╖awwuf (Cairo: D┐r al-Ba╖┐’ir, 2008), pp. 23-48; and ‘Umar K┐mil, al-
Ta╖awwuf bayna ’l-ifr┐═ wa ’l-tafr┘═ (Beirut: D┐r Ibn ╓azm, 2001) pp. 46-51.
10
Thus said Shaykh R┐shid al-Ghann┴sh┘ in his introduction to al-Qara╔┐w┘’s Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming
Phase (Swansea: Awakening, 2000; translated by S.M.H. al-Banna), p. 17. See also al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, pp.
10-12.
11
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, pp. 9, 11.

4
Muslim subculture with its own features that stem from Islam, while every Muslim is not bound to
adhere to this particular culture12; there is a role for individual preference, as al-Qara╔┐w┘ remarks
about a period in his youth: “I attended some of their ╒a╔rah gatherings but did not continue with them,
because I was unsatisfied with the experience and they did not suit my moderate disposition.”13 Such an
analysis that respects Muslim multiculturalism may provide a solution to many heated disputes taking
place today.

In case there is a temptation to overlook or sidestep the ╗┴f┘ orders in developing and promoting
authentic spirituality in Muslim communities today, the following observation by al-Sh┐fi‘┘ is of
pronounced importance:

I believe that, in terms of its popularity among ordinary people, Sufism continues to be the strongest
institution in the contemporary Muslim world. Anyone who is able to visit different regions and keep up
with Islamic trends is unlikely to dispute this reality, whatever his personal stance on Ta╖awwuf in
general, or his assessment of its condition today. Looking more specifically, a researcher can observe –
despite the scarcity of polling data – that the ╗┴f┘ spirit dominates Islamic culture in certain regions such
as central and western Africa and the Indian subcontinent, while it faces some competition in other
regions from other cultural and political trends. Nevertheless, ╗┴f┘ heritage and its effects on the
individual and society retain a presence in these societies.14

However, he freely acknowledges the problems affecting the ╗┴f┘ milieu and the need for criticism,
whether internal or external.

The accusations by opponents of Sufism that its masses are weak in terms of Islamic knowledge; that
they go to extremes in esteeming their shaykhs, particularly those who have passed from this world; that
they are wont to fall into dispute, and are extremely averse to criticism or advice from outside their
circles – these charges are largely accurate in terms of lived reality, even though this is contrary to the
principles of Ta╖awwuf and the path of its founding figures.15

12
Similar can be said for Salafism as manifested in various parts of the world today. When it translates into adherence to
particular norms – even dress codes – it is more evidently a cultural phenomenon than a theological or juristic methodology.
That is not to deny the principles that gave rise to each ‘subculture’.
13
Ibid., p. 8.
14
Al-Sh┐fi‘┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-ta╖awwuf, p. 205. It should be noted that the copious quotations in the remainder of this paper are
intended to provide an insight into these writings generally not available in English, and additional observations are
deliberately limited in this context.
15
Ibid., p. 206.

5
In an article16 summarising the final section of the Luma‘ of al-Sarr┐j al-║┴si (d. 378 AH) – one of the
earliest works on Ta╖awwuf – al-Sh┐fi‘┘ demonstrates the extent to which the early ╗┴f┘s would engage
in internal critique. He notes that al-║┴s┘’s critique is characterised by justice and moderation17, and
links a number of his points to problems still being faced today18. It follows that criticisms coming from
outside may be fairly considered as echoes of this pioneering ╗┴f┘ scholar. Therefore, says al-Sh┐fi‘┘, the
duty to oppose innovations – especially in matters of creed – is incumbent upon ╗┴f┘s even more than
other sincere Muslims, and it is more pronounced today as “religious knowledge has become weak, and
qualified scholars have become scarce.”19

The role of criticism, then, may be to purify the formal ╗┴f┘ structures, or to develop a healthy
spirituality outside those structures, or a combination of the two. Al-Sh┐fi‘┘ draws a picture of two
opposing camps concerning Sufism today – each further consisting of two sub-groups – and points out
the need for a balanced approach. First, he describes the opponents of Sufism:

One group condemns it, seeing no virtue in its people, warning the Muslims against it, in that it is – in
their view – a primary cause of their weakness and backwardness. Of these, some have developed their
stance for academic reasons after research into the principles and history of Sufism. We respect such
people’s opinions while urging them to observe a greater level of tolerance and moderation in their
approach, so they may see both sides of the issue; they should consider the ╗┴f┘s as a part of the Muslim
nation and treat them accordingly.

Another set of critics is apparently motivated by non-academic factors, such as negative personal
experience of Sufism, or partisanship that conflicts with unbiased assessment, or other practical or
political considerations. Whatever the motivating factors, neither of these sets of critics contributes an
approach to the issue that can assist in objective study and fair assessment.20

He goes on to describe the ardent supporters and critical friends of Sufism:

16
╓asan al-Sh┐fi‘┘, “Naqd al-╖┴fiyyah li ’l-ta╖awwuf”, in Ma╒m┴d ╓amd┘ Zaqz┴q, ed. Maws┴‘at al-ta╖awwuf al-isl┐m┘ (Cairo:
Egyptian Awq┐f Ministry, 2009), pp. 746-775. The article is also found in al-Sh┐fi‘┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-ta╖awwuf (pp. 273-327). It
appears from its introductory remarks that it was intended to be the first of three parts, but the others (discussing external
critique, and statements of early scholars) were not published in either source.
17
Al-Sh┐fi‘┘, “Naqd al-╖┴fiyyah li ’l-ta╖awwuf”, p. 747.
18
Ibid., pp. 752, 758, 767.
19
Ibid., pp. 760, 761.
20
Al-Sh┐fi‘┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-ta╖awwuf, pp. 206-7.

6
 The second group sees Sufism as a valuable academic and practical heritage for our Muslim nation, and
the ╗┴f┘s as some of its most sincere and respectable members in the present time. Thus their assessment
of the questions is in this light. They too consist of two sets of supporters: one defends every aspect of
Sufism, including innovations not known in the early days of the practice; and defends the ╗┴f┘s even if
they act contrary to their stated principles, manners and path. As I see it, this approach fails to serve the
cause of Sufism appropriately, whether today or at any time. It stems from passion and fervour which
can overcome the spirit of fairness and objectivity.

Another set is characterised by sympathy and respect for Sufism and Sufis, but takes a critical stance that
is characterised by praise alongside censure, advice and correction within a balanced framework. These
scholars – with their varying measures of critique – are perhaps the fairest of all the groups, and of most
benefit to our religious life; indeed, the closest to the spirit of Ta╖awwuf itself.21

Among several examples for this latter group – the critical friends – al-Sh┐fi‘┘ points to works by al-
Qara╔┐w┘22 as well as a mutual influence, the Azhar┘ luminary Mu╒ammad al-Ghaz┐l┘ (d. 1996), who
described Sufism as “the emotional dimension of Islam”.23

If al-Qara╔┐w┘’s approach is indeed among the most balanced and constructive, then it is instructive
to take note of both his praise of the ╗┴f┘s and his criticisms. The following is a concise enumeration of
some of Sufism’s positive features, in a book encouraging Islamic workers to derive benefit from the
various branches of Islamic tradition:

First: The ╗┴f┘ heritage gathers together many wise statements of the righteous worshippers and people
of piety and insight. Second: It contains enlightening spiritual perspectives and commentaries on
Quranic verses and ╒ad┘ths, the like of which is not found elsewhere. Third: While the jurists were
concerned with the outward, practical rulings, and the theologians were busy with dry rational
discussions, the ╗┴f┘s turned their attention to internal matters, studying the diseases of the soul and the
methods of treating it and protecting it from the devil. There is a great deal of practical experience and
expertise unique to them. Fourth: Their words are full of life, passion and sincerity clear to any reader,
as a result of their intense spiritual striving.

21
Ibid., pp. 207-8.
22
Specifically, the discussion of Sufism in al-Imam al-Ghazz┐li bayna madi╒┘h wa n┐qid┘h (Mansoura: D┐r al-Waf┐’, 1988), p.
128 ff. The points made there are expanded in other books by Dr. al-Qara╔┐w┘ discussed in this paper.
23
Thus says the title of one of his books, al-J┐nib al-‘┐═if┘ min al-isl┐m (Alexandria: D┐r al-Da‘wah, 1999). In interviews
conducted late in his life, he described himself as “╗┴f┘ in the depths of my heart”, yet “more inclined to rationality than
ta╖awwuf”. He also opined that the people of ╗┴f┘ orders are not the true Sufis. See Jam┐l al-D┘n ‘A═iyyah, ed. ╓iw┐r┐t al-
shaykh al-Ghaz┐l┘ (Cairo: D┐r al-Sal┐m & IIIT, 2012), pp. 17-20.

7
 Fifth: The earliest Sufis, who laid down the principles of the discipline and prepared the path for others,
refused any attempt to depart from the law, and insisted on binding Sufism to the Qur’┐n and Sunnah.
Their leader al-Junayd said: “Whoever does not recite the Qur’┐n and write the ╓ad┘th is not to be
followed in this affair, because our knowledge is bound to the Qur’┐n and Sunnah.” Similar was
reported from Ab┴ ╓af╖, al-D┐r┐n┘, Ibn Ab┘ ’l-╓aw┐r┘, al-Sar┘ al-Saqa═┘ and others, as recorded by al-
Qushayr┘ and others.24

Sixth: A number of leading figures of the Salaf┘ call have spoken and written on the subject, refuting its
errors while praising the truths it contains. Such can be seen in the short works of Shaykh al-Isl┐m Ibn
Taymiyah such as al-‘Ub┴diyyah, al-Tu╒fah al-‘ir┐qiyyah f┘ ’l-a‘m┐l al-qalbiyyah and al-Fuqar┐’, as well as a
section of his Fat┐w┐ that comprises two volumes, one entitled al-Ta╖awwuf and the other al-Sul┴k.
Similarly, his student, the brilliant scholar Ibn al-Qayyim has many works on the subject, such as ║ar┘q
al-hijratayn, ‘Uddat al-╖┐bir┘n wa dhakh┘rat al-sh┐kir┘n and al-D┐’ wa ’l-daw┐’. The greatest of these is
Mad┐rij al-s┐lik┘n (commentary on Man┐zil al-s┐’ir┘n), in which he weighed the Sufis’ knowledge in the
scales of the Qur’┐n and Sunnah.25

Al-Qara╔┐w┘ places considerable emphasis on the statements of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim
concerning Sufism26, not only for the inherent value of their balanced assessment, but because much of
the exaggerated condemnation comes from Muslims who claim to follow the Salaf (early generations) in
the manner advocated by these scholars, who are, in reality, innocent of the generalisations propagated
in their name. Despite the problems he acknowledges and to which he draws attention, al-Qara╔┐w┘ is
unwilling to discard the ╗┴f┘ tradition altogether, as that would mean losing all these positive aspects.
Moreover, such an approach – ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ – is highly likely to damage
the spiritual practice of Islam altogether, and that is something that cannot be accepted. For this reason,
he has issued several books in a series entitled The Spiritual Path Made Easy in the Light of the Qur’┐n and
Sunnah, and explained in its introduction:

It has become clear to me through my academic life and practice in the field alongside the general public
and educated classes, among the non-practising Muslims as well as those active in various Islamic groups,
that all of these are in dire need of authentic spiritual guidance to cleanse their hearts of materialism and
love of self, and lead them to Almighty All┐h, freeing them from servitude to objects, desires and
illusions so they may hold firmly to the worship of All┐h alone. Thus they will purify their minds of

24
For more on this theme, see al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah wa ’l-‘ilm, p. 141.
25
Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘, Thaq┐fat al-d┐‘iyah (Cairo: Wahbah, 2004), pp. 82-83.
26
See for example: al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, pp. 13-15.

8
 partners with God; their hearts of hypocrisy; their tongues of falsehood; their eyes of treachery; their
speech of idleness; their worship of ostentation; their dealings of dishonesty; and their lives of
inconsistency. In other words, they are in need of ‘purification of the soul’, which is a condition of
ultimate success, as the Qur’┐n teaches...

The people are in need of ‘Being true to the True (God) and dealing rightly with the creation’, which is
the essence of Ta╖awwuf... We are seeking a ‘pure rabb┐niyyah (godliness)’ with a clear path and
destination, uprightly observant of the command of All┐h and the way of His Messenger (on whom be
peace), following the method of the Salaf, far from innovation in speech or deeds, and deviancy in belief
or behaviour. Thus it will uplift the spirit, purify the soul, awaken the conscience, refresh the faith,
rectify the actions, refine the character and develop the true meaning of humanity. What we do not
want is deviant dervishism, extreme monasticism, appearances without substance, or philosophical
theories far from the moderate spirit of Islam.27

When discussing problems facing Sufism today28, he points out that Islamic Ta╖awwuf, though pure
in its origins, was affected by external influences – including Christian, Hindu, Persian and Greek –
which resulted in a number of alien ideas becoming widespread, such as divine incarnation (╒ul┴l),
mystical unification (itti╒┐d) and pantheism (wa╒dat al-wuj┴d)29. Other concepts owing to foreign
influence include the “eternal Mu╒ammadan light” or the “Mu╒ammadan reality” and exaggeration
concerning saintly figures (awliy┐’)30. The following elaboration of the problems and their causes is
compiled from two of his works:

a) “Adopting Judeo-Christian reports (isr┐’┘liyy┐t) brought by Muslim converts from the People of
Scripture, despite many of these being absent from their recognised books, which indicates that they are
simply folk tales.”31

b) “An uncritical approach to narrations from the Prophet (peace be upon him), failing to distinguish the
acceptable from the rejected, due to the notion that weak ╒ad┘ths may be acted upon with respect to
virtuous deeds, guidance and admonishment. In reality, this is not a matter of consensus, and those who

27
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, pp. 18,20.
28
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, Thaq┐fat al-d┐‘iyah, p. 81.
29
Although frequently equated with pantheism, the doctrine of “unity of creation” can be interpreted in various ways. See for
example: Mohammed Rustom, “Is Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Ontology Pantheistic?”, Journal of Islamic Philosophy 2 (2006), pp. 53-67.
30
For more by al-Qara╔┐w┘ on this topic, and the related issue of supernatural occurrences (kar┐m┐t) at the hands of the
pious, see Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-‘aq┘dah, pp. 181-226.
31
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, p. 23.

9
 stated this principle insisted on various conditions which are not generally applied by the ╗┴f┘ masses.
Hence they have propagated extremely weak or even spurious reports, as is widespread and well
known.”32

c) “Total trust in their subjective mystical experiences and the results of visions and inspiration, such that
they refer to it along with the Shar┘‘ah or even prior to it! This is despite the fact that such mystical
experiences are not assured or infallible, and All┐h has granted us sufficiency in the perfect divine
revelation.”33 “Some went so far as to say ‘My heart narrated to me from my Lord...’ in contrast to the
╒ad┘th scholars’ saying, ‘So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so, from the Messenger of All┐h...’”34

d) “Not content with worship, remembrance and other acts provided by the Shar┘‘ah, they have taken
litanies composed by their shaykhs in place of those narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Moreover, they have invented or adopted forms of worship not prescribed by the Qur’┐n or the Sunnah
– but all innovations are misguidance which lead to Hellfire.”35

e) “Differentiating between the religious law (shar┘‘ah) and the spiritual reality (╒aq┘qah), and saying:
‘Whoever looks to the people with the eye of shar┘‘ah will detest them, but whoever looks at them with
the eye of ╒aq┘qah will excuse them.’ It follows from this perspective that the disbelievers and
wrongdoers should not be opposed.”36

f) “Contempt for this worldly life in a manner contrary to the Qur’┐n, which says: {Our Lord, grant us
goodness in the duny┐ and goodness in the ┐khirah...} (2: 201); and contrary to the Sunnah, which
teaches: ‘O All┐h, make right my religion which is my protection, and make right my worldly life which
is my abode.’”37

32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fat┐w┐ mu‘┐╖irah (Kuwait: D┐r al-Qalam, 2011), vol.1, p. 741. See also: al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-
rabb┐niyyah, pp. 145-156, in which he states that the condition for giving consideration to the results of mystical experience
is that they “do not violate an established religious principle or agreed-upon rule”. See his more extensive treatment of this
topic in: Y┴suf al-Qara╔┐w┘, Mawqif al-isl┐m min al-ilh┐m wa ’l-kashf (Cairo: Wahbah, 1994), pp. 9-134.
35
al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fat┐w┐ mu‘┐╖irah, vol.1, p. 741. For discussion pertaining to innovation in forms of remembrance (dhikr), see
‘Abd al-Fatt┐╒ Ab┴ Ghuddah, ed. Ris┐lat al-mustarshid┘n li ’l-╓┐rith al-Mu╒┐sib┘ (Cairo: D┐r al-Sal┐m, 2000), footnotes pp.
112-116. The latter was published in English as The Sunnah Way of the ╗┴f┘s (Karachi: Zam Zam Publishers, 2007; trans.
Mahomed Mahomedy), pp. 146-157.
36
Ibid. See Ibn al-Qayyim’s refutation of this notion in al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, pp. 139-40.
37
Ibid.

10
 g) “The grip of passive and fatalist attitudes upon most of them in latter centuries, which has in turn
affected the psyche of the Muslims in general such that they have come to believe that the human being
has no control over his fate. It follows that there is no benefit in resisting corruption or opposing
falsehood, because the state of mankind is in accordance with the will of God, as in their popular saying:
‘Leave the kingdom to the King, and leave the creation to the Creator.’ All this has led to an
overwhelming spirit of defeat and retreat among the Muslim masses.”38

In addition to these problems, al-Qara╔┐w┘ discusses the danger of absolute trust in one’s teachers and
spiritual guides, to the extent of granting their word priority over scripture and revealed law.39 In his
subsequent work on Islamic centrism, he outlines the proper approach and manners of a seeker and
guide in the process of spiritual training:

The true murabb┘ (trainer) must treat his disciples with the balanced Quranic and Prophetic approach in
belief, worship and manners, in their relations with themselves, their families, neighbours and
communities, their global nation and its enemies. This begins with the guide’s own relationship with the
seekers and students: he ought not to dissolve their individuality or forbid them from questions and
discussion, let alone objections. In this connection we hear from some of the Sufis: ‘Whoever asks his
shaykh why, will never prosper!’ Similarly: ‘The seeker before the shaykh is like the corpse in the hands
of the washer,’ and ‘Whoever objects is cast out, and whoever divulges secrets must go!’ The fact is that
the Companions used to discuss matters with their noble Prophet (peace be upon him), even objecting
to certain actions and suggesting ideas contrary to his own. Indeed, he would sometimes leave his
opinion in preference for theirs... On the other hand, the students should not be so free as to disrespect
the position of the teacher and dispute with bad manners.40

Turning to define the approach to Sufism he advocates for the masses and activists among the
Muslims, al-Qara╔┐w┘ says:

Philosophical Sufism – meaning that which is based on the concepts of ╒ul┴l and wa╒dat al-wuj┴d – is to
be rejected outright, and only studied for the purpose of refuting it and demonstrating its un-Islamic
nature. The aspect of Sufism that matters to us is what pertains to character and development, as
indicated by the words of Ibn al-Qayyim in the Mad┐rij: ‘The people of this science are united on saying
that Ta╖awwuf equals character (khuluq).’ This same meaning was expressed by al-Katt┐n┘: ‘Sufism is

38
Regarding ╗┴f┘ social and military struggle, see ╓asan al-Sh┐fi‘┘, “Dawr al-ta╖awwuf f┘ ’l-jih┐d”, in Ma╒m┴d ╓amd┘ Zaqz┴q,
ed. Maws┴‘at al-ta╖awwuf al-isl┐m┘ (Cairo: Egyptian Awq┐f Ministry, 2009), pp. 388-398.
39
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, al-╓ay┐t al-rabb┐niyyah, p. 23.
40
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fiqh al-wasa═iyyah wa ’l-tajd┘d, pp. 156-7.

11
 character: so whoever surpasses you in character has surpassed you in Sufism.’ We must select from
Sufism whatever serves the cause of Islamic belief and ethics, leaving aside the problematic or
questionable aspects. In this, we can benefit from those who have critiqued the Sufis, such as Ibn al-
Jawz┘ in Talb┘s ibl┘s.41

Moreover, he advocates not only tolerance between different Muslim subcultures, but mutual benefit
from the best aspects of each:

Nowadays we observe a heated and widespread dispute between people known as Salaf┘s and others
known as ╗┴f┘s. The stance of the centrists is to bring the sides together in a truce, and adorn each with
the best aspects of the other. Thus Salafism is to be mixed with Sufism that is far removed from
innovation and association in worship. Likewise, Sufism is to be mixed with Salafism that avoids
extremes of labelling Muslims as unbelievers, sinners and innovators. The result will be a harmonious
fusion between the firmness of Salafism and the tenderness of Sufism, just as the bees which eat from a
variety of fruits bring forth healing and multi-faceted honey. I recall speaking about this issue with
Mu╒ammad Mub┐rak, the noted Syrian Muslim intellectual. He said: ‘We need to agree on salafizing the
╗┴f┘s and sufizing the Salaf┘s!’ I concurred that this is the need of our times, for ╗┴f┘s lack the Salaf┘s’
rigour concerning the essentials of religious law and its core texts, which they need lest they fall into
shirk in creed, innovation in worship or superstition in thought. Meanwhile, the Salaf┘s are in need of the
╗┴f┘s’ spirituality and softness to avoid hardness of heart and to balance the literalist approach to Islamic
practice.42

If these may be categorised as rhetorical generalisations, it is noteworthy that al-Qara╔┐w┘ has avoided
other generalisations which may be more inflammatory. For example, in this context he has not given
examples of problems in creed or worship, such as the widespread practice of seeking help from the
dead in their graves, even though many opponents – indeed, some supporters – consider these practices
as representative of Sufism. When he does elaborate on that topic, and other innovations concerning the
graves, he does not mention ╗┴f┘s directly,43 perhaps fearing that it would distract from the task of
clarifying the teachings of Islam and advocating the middle way.

Al-Sh┐fi‘┘, for his part, addresses the steps that must be taken in order to reform contemporary
Sufism and make it a means for reforming society.

41
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, Thaq┐fat al-d┐‘iyah, p. 82.
42
Al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fiqh al-wasa═iyyah wa ’l-tajd┘d, p. 148.
43
See al-Qara╔┐w┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-‘aq┘dah, pp. 233-253.

12
 To give importance to spreading religious understanding (fiqh) among the ╗┴f┘ populations, to rectify
their creed and purify their actions.

To focus efforts on spiritual and moral training, rather than gatherings, celebrations and administrative
procedures.

To be aloof from superficial matters, preferring asceticism and chastity, and to keep away from the
doors of the rulers unless for a religious duty or civic right.

To oppose innovations contrary to the Sunnah and Shar┘‘ah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) without
equivocation, but with wisdom and fair preaching.

To cultivate love and compassion for all the Muslims, supplicate on their behalf and come to their aid
wherever they may be. This follows from love for Almighty God, His Messenger (peace be upon him)
and His upright religion.44

Pointing to the significance of certain Muslim intellectuals to the desired revival of ╗┴f┘ thought and
culture, al-Sh┐fi‘┘ cites Mu╒ammad Iqb┐l’s Javed Nama and The Reconstruction of Religious Thought, as well
as Western thinkers who embraced Islam, namely René Guénon, Martin Lings and Roger Garaudy. 45
However, if the aforementioned problem with “philosophical Sufism” is not limited to its pantheistic
expressions, then the association of Guénon and Lings with Perennialism – with such controversial
theses as “transcendental unity of religions” – would weaken their standing as exponents of authentic
Islamic Ta╖awwuf. Nevertheless, al-Sh┐fi‘┘ advocates taking benefit even from fair-minded Orientalists
who have contributed to the publication of works in Islamic mysticism. Alongside a list of Arab and
Muslim academics whose works have contributed significantly to the critical study, development and
promotion of ╗┴f┘ thought in the modern age – some from al-Azhar and many outside – he praises “the
╗┴f┘ shaykhs who have had intellectual and creative output alongside their spiritual and educational
roles”:

In Egypt, such include al-╓┐fi╘ al-T┘j┐n┘, ‘Abd al-╓al┘m Ma╒m┴d, Ab┴ ’l-Fay╔ al-Mun┴f┘, Mu╒ammad
Zak┘ Ibr┐h┘m, Mu╒ammad M┐╔┘ Ab┴ ’l-‘Az┐’im, Sal┐mah al-‘Azz┐m┘, and numerous others whose works
are widely available and have contributed to renewing and promoting ╗┴f┘ thought... It seems that the
balanced, tolerant approach planted by Jam┐l al-D┘n [al-Afgh┐n┘] and Mu╒ammad ‘Abduh in the Egyptian
environment and modern Islamic thought continued to flourish – with a more spiritual flavour – in the

44
Al-Sh┐fi‘┘, Fu╖┴l f┘ ’l-ta╖awwuf, pp. 212-3.
45
Ibid., p. 209.

13
 likes of ╓asan al-Bann┐, ‘Abd al-╓al┘m Ma╒m┴d, Mu╒ammad Mutawall┘ al-Sha‘r┐w┘, Mu╒ammad Sa‘┘d
al-B┴═┘, al-Makk┘ al-M┐lik┘, Ab┴ ’l-╓asan al-Nadw┘, Mu╒ammad Taq┘ ‘Uthm┐n┘, the students of al-
Shaykh al-‘Alaw┘ al-Sh┐dhil┘, and many others who have contributed – and continue to contribute –
great services to the Muslim nation in this field.46

This paper has presented selected writings of two influential scholars, ╓asan al-Sh┐fi‘┘ and Y┴suf al-
Qara╔┐w┘, contributing towards a programme of revival of Sufism based on a middle-way analysis:
neither abandoning it completely, nor shying away from criticising whatever deserves it. The task of
cultivating individual faith and social spirituality – whatever we may call this – is not specific to a certain
group among the Muslims; this task, in turn, requires a balanced approach based on the authentic
sources of Islam, coupled with an appreciation of tradition and cooperation between Muslims of
disparate points of view. In this way, the task of reforming Sufism may be achieved, such that those
structures and that heritage will play their part in uplifting the Muslim nation.

46
Ibid., pp. 210, 212.

14