Nile Green’s Sufism: A Global History is a four-chapter survey of the history,
influence, and spread of Sufism. The introduction gives the author’s arguments
as to why another survey of the history of Sufism is needed. He points out that
the prominent perspective of most of the histories of Sufism have relied on the
Christian Intellectual Protestant view of “mysticism,” which emphasizes the
antinomian and anti-political character of the tradition (2). The author convincingly
argues that this perspective artificially limits and marginalizes Sufism and
pushes the Sufis into the background of the political and economic history of
Islam; that, in fact, the Sufis were, in many ways, the shapers and supporters
of the Islamic establishment; that Sufism was a tradition of “powerful
knowledge, practices and persons;” and that the tradition of Sufism was rooted
in the wider Islamic model of authority (3 – 9).
Chapters
one and two cover the years from 850 to 1400 C.E. In these chapters the author
admits to relying on previous scholarship and that his purpose in these
chapters is to provide a historical foundation for the more difficult task of
the development of Sufism after 1400. The author asserts that Sufism existed prior
to the general use of the term “Sufi” as we understand it (16). He identifies
one of the primary problems with the previous historical perspective as “vertical
process,” which, he asserts, views the received past as “an irresistible agent.”
He argues for a “horizontal process,” which understands the received past as a
“set of cultural resources to be continued, adapted or abandoned at will.” This
is to say that a full understanding of the “why” of the history and influence
of the developing tradition of Sufism requires an understanding of both the
past, which was drawn upon to provide legitimacy and authority, and the
present, which provided resources for innovation and the securing of power (17).
Green
traces the origins of Sufism to the same group of scholars who worked to raise
the prominence of the “thousands of reports of the sayings and deeds of
Muhammad known as the Hadith,” as well as Quranic scholars and popular
preachers in eighth century Iraq (24 – 25). The author places the concept of
wilaya or “friendship with God” at the core of the Islamic concept of
sainthood, which repeatedly plays a central role in the Sufi tradition. He also
emphasizes that the developing tradition had to compete with and eventually
incorporated the pietistic asceticism and mysticism of such groups as the
Karramiyya, the Malamatiyya, and the Hakimiyya of Khurasan and Central Asia (44
– 54).
The
author further connects the Shafi’i legal scholars to the evolving Sufi
tradition. He points out that the majority of Sufis in Khurasan were also
members of the Shafi’i school. He asserts that the intellectual efficiency and
formality of the Shafi’i school contributed to the doctrinal and structural
development of the Sufis in the region. This link also reasserts his
proposition that the Sufis were part of the mainstream since the Shafi’i was
part of the “urban legal and property-owning establishment (51).” The author
spends some effort illustrating the influence of major Sufi thinkers such as
Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, who continues to influence Islamic thinkers to this day
and who supports the author’s assertion that Sufis were not anti-establishment
individualists. Green then focuses on the rise of the Cult of Saints and the
emergence of the Sufi brotherhoods, which he terms as “vernacularization of
Sufi teaching.” According to the author, the Cult of Saints provided a bridge
between the esoteric methods of the Sufis, which would have an inevitably
limited audience, and the everyday life of the common Muslim. The Saints were venerated
in architecture, art, ritual, and story, providing a narrative that would teach
principles and practices of Sufism and transform Sufi teachers, past and
present, into “Friends of God.” This contributed to the growing social status
of Sufis. As Friends of God, they possessed the very powers of creation, and
many miracles were attributed to them. These powers led to a number of Sufis
rising to positions of authority as counselors and even viziers as well as
increasing their influence in the countryside. According to the author, to the
rural Muslim, Sufism was Islam. The Cult of Saints also helped to legitimate
Sufism’s chain of authenticity, which was necessary both for the self-image of
the Sufis and for their claim to authority. This chain connected the teachers
of Sufism to the Saints of the past back to Muhammad. (71 – 102).
The
author illustrates the often ambiguous relationship between the Sufi
brotherhoods and the State in chapter three. Sufi elites drew upon the
integrity provided by their illustrious lineages and miraculous powers to
establish themselves in positions of authority within the state or to establish
states of their own. However, during the colonial era, many of these bastions
of power and influence crumbled under the pressures of the European powers, and
the Sufis found themselves on the forefront of colonial expansion. The author
argues that the early modern period drove Sufism in two directions. The first
direction saw the tradition co-opted by a series of people who selectively used
the loyalty and authority of affiliation with the tradition to meet the demands
of their situations. The second direction saw the consolidation of the
disparate symbols into brotherhoods that provided a networking mechanism rather
than a mechanism to reproduce tradition. These networking mechanisms throughout
Central Asia served as “surrogate states” as the Islamic community grew up
around the Sufis (124 – 167).
In
Chapter four, the author follows the spread of Sufism through Southeast Asia,
Europe and the United States where support of the networking mechanism of the
Sufi brotherhoods served as a support for the evolution of the tradition in new
directions. The author points to the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries as a period that saw the rise of several pseudo-Sufi organizations
which coopted the teachings and integrity of the Sufi tradition for personal
fame and prestige. As the author moves into the middle years of the twentieth
century, he points out that many scholars of the time believed that the
intellectual pressures of modernity would spell the end of the Sufi tradition. For
some branches of the tradition, in response to the changing religious
marketplace, this evolution included a move away from identification with
Islam. For others it meant a progressive vision of Sufism as an international
Islamic movement. Green uses Fethullah Gulen and the Gulen Movement to
illustrate this move as a new direction of integrity and authority for Sufism
(187 – 227).
Nile
Green convincingly makes his point about the need for a horizontal perspective in
understanding the topic. Through the geographical and cultural scope of the
book, the author makes good on the claimed scope as a “global” history. There
are several areas, however, where the author needed to provide more evidence
for his argument. For example, his juxtaposition of Sufism and asceticism is
too extreme to be a given. He needed to provide more evidence for this
conclusion. Another example of a need for more information is the treatment of
the Sufis role in the holy war against Russia in the nineteenth century. A
third example is the relative lack of information on the relationship between
Sufism and the anti-Sufi Wahhabism, which made such an international mark in
the twenty-first century. Even with these complaints, Nile Green’s work proves
to be a valuable resource for the non-specialist’s search for reliable
information on Sufism as well as for the student looking for a good
introduction to the subject. The book is well structured, well written, and
enjoyable.
