Pakistan: State-sponsored Sufism

Last updated on: June 24, 2009 at 5:00 am by Guest Contributor

Pakistan: State-sponsored Sufism 2009-06-24T05:00:40-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Officially Muslim

Once certain ideas go mainstream, it often takes a pretty big flop to disprove them. The United States was supposed to be hailed as the liberator of Iraq, just as it was going to be easy to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. Well now, according to commentators from the BBC to the Economist to the Boston Globe, Sufism, being defined as Islam’s moderate or mystical side, is apparently just the thing we need to deal with violent Muslim extremists. Sufis are the best allies to the West, these authors say; support them, and countries as diverse as Pakistan and Somalia could turn around.

The Sufi theory has a lot of variations, but at its core, it’s pretty simple: Violent Muslim extremism, rather than having material and political bases, is caused by certain belligerent readings of Islam usually associated with Salafism, a movement that attempts to resurrect the Islam of the prophet Mohammed’s time, and Wahhabism, a similarly conservative branch. If Muslims can be indoctrinated with another, softer, interpretation of Islam, then the militants, insurgents, and guerrilla fighters will melt away.

Well, these pundits have gotten their wish. Pakistan just announced the creation of a seven-member Sufi Advisory Council (SAC) that is meant to combat the Taliban insurgency by spreading Sufi “thoughts and teachings.” The SAC’s predecessor was a Musharraf-era PR stunt called the National Sufi Council that was headed by a rather feudal Punjabi politician — the group did little more than print a few calendars and hold a musical gala in Lahore. It is not yet clear whether the seven-member SAC, which met for the first time June 9, will be independent of the country’s Council of Islamic Ideology, a body outlined in Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution that advises whether laws are consistent with sharia. But if the SAC does become an official organ, it will add yet another layer of religious governance to a country wracked by religious conflict.

The creation of the SAC is not good news. It signals an increase in the politicization of Islam in Pakistan — if a higher level is even possible. Now, even the pietist and welfare-oriented groups that have traditionally abstained from overindulging in government affairs will be tempted to become mouthpieces for corrupt political actors. For evidence, look no further than the SAC’s new head, a former minister from the regime of ultra-Wahhabi dictator Zia ul-Haq, whose promotion probably has nothing to do with mysticism and more to do with the fact that he has called for Sufi Mohammed of Swat to be tried on charges of mutiny. It is exactly the sort of politicization of religion that has led to so many problems in Pakistan since independence in 1947.

The usual response by supporters of the Sufi solution is that thanks to the extremists, Islam has already been politicized, and therefore propagandist measures promoting Sufism are the only way to fight back. But that’s precisely the problem: Propaganda is inherently discrediting. Besides, state-sponsored Sufism (which the SAC is) gets everything backward: In an environment where demagogues are using religion to conceal their true political and material ambitions, establishing another official, “preferred” theological ideology won’t roll back their influence. Minimizing the role of all religion in government would be a better idea. Only then could people begin to speak about rights and liberty.

The opposite is now happening in Pakistan, fomenting an ongoing religious civil war. The SAC will undoubtedly embolden extremists by giving them ideological motivation: They now have evidence to provide young recruits and foot soldiers that the “war” they are fighting is, in fact, about the integrity of Islam. Far from reducing extremists’ influence, the SAC is doing them a favor.

This is quite apparent in the types of cases — or rather, spats — that the Sufi Advisory Council will now adjudicate. Take for example a recent accusation by Syed Munawar Hassan, the head of the fundamentalist organization Jamat-e-Islami, that Sufi Mohammed, the man behind the recent imposition of sharia law in Swat, is “a little infidel.” Substance is hardly at the heart of this debate.

It’s not that Sufism in and of itself can’t help. In the private sphere, it is welcome, laudable, and indeed quite beautiful to behold. But the SAC did not spring out of an internal debate among religious scholars in Pakistan. It came instead from American think tanks — like Rand and Heritage Foundation — intent on exploiting sectarian divisions in various Muslim countries, because they insist on addressing the war on terror in religious terms.

Interestingly enough, another early advocate of this approach was none other than Benazir Bhutto. Despite having a Shiite heritage, she became a member of a traditionally Sufi — and Sunni — Pakistani organization called Minhaj ul-Quran (check out this YouTube video of her meeting with Minhaj leaders, in which she doesn’t have enough cash on her to cover the fees). I believe that her reasons for joining Minhaj were part of a larger plan — laid out in her book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West — to use religious forces to her political advantage. After all, that impulse is precisely what led Bhutto to give the stamp of approval to the Taliban in the mid-1990s — and led her father to declare Islam the state religion of Pakistan in 1973. Today is no different. As Ayesha Siddiqa, a leading Pakistani commentator, has presciently noted, beginning a “faith war” between Sufi and Salafi in Pakistan would simply drive more youth toward fundamentalism.

In short, after years of bemoaning official Saudi sponsorship of Wahhabism, and condemning official Iranian sponsorship of milleniarian Islam, we are now being asked to celebrate a state-sponsored brand of Islam in Pakistan. We are asked to believe this is “different” from those other cases solely because it’s a version of the religion that looks benign. But not only is this unprincipled — it is going to backfire, leaving Sufism discredited and more religious resentment among the numerous peaceful Salafis in the world.
(Photo: Olaf Kellerhoff)

Ali Eteraz was an outstanding scholar at the U.S. Department of Justice and later worked in corporate litigation in Manhattan. He is the author of a forthcoming book about Pakistan and Islam titled Children of Dust. This article was previously published in Foreign Policy and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Ali Eteraz

Commentary

Previous Post

June 22, 2009

Iran crisis: Leave Iran alone

Next Post

June 24, 2009 Play "The Domestic Crusaders": Join in a domestic crusade

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams in Egypt?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joseph Daniel Aaron Moses