A History of the Muslim World to 1405

by Vernon O Egger

  Thus, Islam had no Vatican, synod, or rabbinate to determine orthodoxy or orthopraxy. The scholarly consensus served as a remarkably effective method for obtaining cohesion among large groups of Muslims across a vast swath of the planet. The achievement is all the more impressive when one remembers that the vast majority of Muslims were illiterate. Just as it is impossible to appreciate Luther’s accomplishments in the years after 1517 without realizing that most contemporary Europeans were illiterate and lightly Christianized, one cannot appreciate the fact that “Islam” exists today without understanding the far-flung, multiethnic, decentralized, and largely illiterate society in which the small group of private scholars labored to conserve the heritage of the Prophet.

  Cohesion and a common sense of identity did not mean homogeneity, of course: Muslims developed distinctive differences in the expression of their faith. Sunnis, Shi‘ites, and Kharijites formed three quite distinct groupings. Subsects formed within each of these traditions, and yet were regarded to be within the bounds of acceptable doctrine and practice. Some Muslims were persuaded that a scrupulous performance of ritual was the height of piety; others felt that ritual had to be balanced by a spiritual communion with God; and yet others regarded ritual as the mere outward expression of piety, placing emphasis on a mystical experience. The Qur’an and the Hadith (Sunni or Shi‘ite) remained central, however.

  The Proliferation of Sufi Groups

  Historians assume a linkage between the upheavals of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries on the one hand and the rise of Sufi lodges and orders during those centuries, on the other. In the face of the sufferings and uncertainties of the period, the small communities established by Sufis provided spiritual and material support, as well as the possibility of common defense. The subsequent disasters of the Mongol era from the mid-thirteenth century to the end of the fourteenth century were accompanied by a rapid increase in the number of Sufi organizations and an even larger increase in the percentage of Muslims who identified with Sufism. Once again, it appears that Sufism responded to a deep need. In damaged and leaderless societies, the new Sufi orders (tariqas) satisfied social and religious needs that were not being met in any other way. The lodges (variously known as ribats, zawiyas, khanaqas, and tekkes), became centers of local worship, teaching and healing, and politics.

  Sufism Triumphant

  Sufism first appeared in the Muslim East (Iraq and Iran) in the eighth century. By the beginning of the tenth century, it was established in Andalus, and a century later it had secured a foothold in Morocco. By the fourteenth century, Sufism had become integrated into the everyday religious life of many—if not most—Muslims. Believers performed the ritual and moral duties of the Shari‘a obediently and willingly and understood these to be the public expression of their faith and commitment. The Sufi dimension was the inner, emotional, personal relationship that they sought with their Creator God. “Sufism” could assume a wide range of expressions: Some adherents lived permanently in a lodge following the teachings of the founder of the order, and others were wandering mendicants, but most lived ordinary lives at home with their families and occasionally attended meetings of the local chapter of an order in order to recite mystical litanies.

  Along with the work of intellectuals and artists and the consensus of the Shari’a, Sufism was one of the critical universal features that held the Umma together in the absence of a central authority. Each order had its own distinct devotional practices and ethical system that were used in lodges and mosques wherever the order was found. A given order’s common tradition, authoritative texts, network of lodges, and distinctive lifestyle became elements that the culturally and ethnically diverse societies of Islam shared in common.

  Sufism was also important because it provided women an acceptable avenue of both religious expression and religious leadership. Over the centuries, mosques had practically become preserves of males. The increasing exclusion of women from urban public spaces, coupled with the requirements of modesty during the ritual of the prescribed prayers, resulted in a consensus in most parts of the Muslim world that the community was better served if women performed their prayers at home. The expression of women’s religious needs therefore frequently took the form of maintaining folk cults and performing pilgrimages to local shrines. Certain pious women themselves became the objects of intense veneration: In Cairo, both al-Sayyida Nafisa (great-granddaughter of Hasan, celebrated for her learning and piety) and al-Sayyida Zaynab (daughter of Ali) are revered in magnificent tomb–mosques. (Sayyida is an Arabic word normally meaning “lady” or “Mrs”; here, it implies both lineal descent from the Prophet and the status of sainthood.)

  Sufism did not shatter any gender barriers, but in most locales it did encourage women’s participation in Islamic rituals. Some Sufi preachers ministered primarily to women; a few lodges that served a largely male clientele were staffed primarily by women; women held their own Sufi meetings; some women became preachers; and other women were accorded the status of saint. It is clear that a number of women were initiated into Sufi orders. One young fourteenth-century male even received from his grandmother a khirqa, the robe that a Sufi novice received from his mentor.

  Sufi masters—the heads of lodges and the teachers of the mystical path—rarely limited their services to their formal disciples. Usually known as shaykh in the Arabic-speaking communities and pir in Persian-speaking regions, they served the entire community, whether it be urban or rural. They provided spiritual guidance, mediation, and medical cures. Their primary function was to serve as a religious specialist, teaching their students how to achieve the mystical experience. For local residents, however, they also served as spiritual counselors, led prayers in mosques, and helped as needed at times of special rites, such as circumcision, marriage, and funerals. Some of the shaykhs, particularly in Morocco, were well versed in the Shari‘a, and were able to give definitive rulings on legal matters and trought.

  Sufi shaykhs also mediated disputes. They provided arbitration in disputes among local residents and between local residents and the conquerors who came and went with dizzying frequency. Their zawiyas would become busy centers where disciples would live and learn; local inhabitants would come for religious services, spiritual counsel, and food; and local tribesmen would come to settle conflicts. The lodge would often be located at an intersection of trade routes or near water sources, making the site easily accessible to as many people in the area as possible. In rural areas it was usually fortified, in order to provide a refuge for local residents from raiders.

  Religious specialists throughout history have often been called upon to provide aid to those in need of medical attention, since they are believed to be able to intercede with God. That was particularly true in the premodern period, when modern medicines were not available. Sufi shaykhs were believed to have the power to heal persons and animals and to bestow blessings that enabled petitioners to become prosperous, bear children, and restore affection in a marriage relationship.

  A Sufi shaykh with outstanding spiritual gifts might become revered as a “saint.” The status of saint, or “friend of God,” was accorded to notable martyrs, Shi‘ite Imams, companions of the Prophet, and noteworthy ascetics. Sufi shaykhs achieved the distinction by their combination of exceptional piety, ecstatic states, the power of intercession, and extraordinary miracles. Most saints were credited with the gifts of clairvoyance and telepathy. Some were said to be able to fly, to be in two places at once, to ride rainbows, and to end droughts.

  People far and near sought out saints in order to share in the power of their spiritual gifts. Their authority was enhanced even further when they combined evidence of spiritual power with an esteemed genealogical descent, either from a notable local family or, especially, from the Prophet’s family. Saints were thus in a good position to provide an alternative source of authority in the absence of a strong central government. By virtue of their personal qualities and, perhaps, their family lineage, they poss
essed an authority that enabled them to keep the peace within an impressive radius of their zawiya, intercede for the poor with the wealthy landowner, and assure that travelers could enjoy both hospitality and safety.

  A saint’s service to his community did not end with his death. He was usually buried at the site of his zawiya, and his tomb would typically become the object of pilgrimages, as individuals continued to look to him as a source of aid. The shrine was regarded to be the repository of the spiritual power (baraka) that inhered in the saint in death as in life. Pilgrims came to shrines to ask for healing and the other blessings that the saint had provided during his lifetime. There they touched or kissed the tomb, made small gifts or sacrifices, attached written requests to the shrine, celebrated the major religious festivals of the year, and observed the death day of the saint.

  A Sufi saint’s tomb in Morocco.

  After the saint’s death, the zawiya complex might actually increase in importance, for it boasted the attraction of the shrine in addition to the services of the saint’s successor and his disciples. Its influence would typically spread into an even wider radius, providing the services of a market, religious education, the settling of tribal disputes, and the distribution of food to the poor. Over time, the shrine would typically become the recipient of gifts from grateful local residents and develop a wealthy endowment, able to exercise power at the spiritual, political, and economic levels.

  Sufism as Social Critique

  The practice of pilgrimage to shrines did not attract much controversy before the eighteenth century. The veneration of holy men and women—or of sacred places and objects—is a phenomenon common to all the major religious traditions and should be seen as a normal aspect of premodern Islam. It was the Muslim parallel to the contemporary Western Christian traffic in relics and visits to shrines such as Canterbury, Santiago de Compostela, and Jerusalem. The practice was validated by mainstream Sufism and sanctioned by most jurists, who cited passages from the Qur’an and the Hadith supporting the doctrine that some individuals have superior spiritual power. A handful of religious scholars opposed the veneration of saints, however: Ibn Taymiya vehemently attacked the practice as a flagrant violation of the Shari‘a. The great Hanbali scholar practiced Sufi meditation techniques himself and did not oppose Sufi spirituality. On the other hand, he regarded shrine visits to be a remnant of pre-Islamic idolatry, and he accused supplicants at shrines of being “grave worshipers.” His diatribes had no impact on the practice, and only landed him in jail. The masses, the majority of religious scholars, and government officials (throughout the Muslim world, not just the Mamlukes) agreed that the veneration of living and dead saints was a valid Islamic practice.

  The veneration of saints drew the ire of Ibn Taymiya because he thought it compromised features of Islamic monotheism. Other critics of Sufism focused on the fact that some of the movement’s features had taken on the trappings of a fully mature social institution. Indeed, the more elaborate shrines were eloquent testimony to the power, wealth, and systematization that had come to characterize much of the Sufi experience by the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This development was criticized by some individuals who were aware that Sufism had begun as a critique of the material and institutional elements of society, and that ascetic tendencies were always latent within the movement. In the thirteenth century, a rejection of mainstream Sufism appeared in the form of “Sufi deviancy.” It was characterized by mendicancy, celibacy, asceticism, and the deliberate tweaking of what today would be called middle class sensibilities.

  Forms of deviancy had manifested themselves throughout most of Sufi history. From at least as early as the tenth century, individuals known as the malamatiya (“those who draw blame upon themselves”) were Sufis who were so concerned not to parade their virtue that they deliberately invited the contempt of their neighbors by committing unseemly, and even unlawful, acts. Most other Sufis, however, recognized that, while the malamatiya might be overzealous and overly conscientious in obeying the precept to avoid trying to impress the world of one’s purity, they were sincere and pure of heart.

  During the thirteenth century, Sufi deviancy became a much larger movement and was viewed with hostility by much of society. Several groups emerged, including the Qalandars, Haydaris, Abdals, Bektashis, and Madaris. Their individual members were usually called “dervishes.” “Dervish” is the Turkish pronunciation of the Persian word “darvish,” which suggests “wandering mendicant.” Dervishes first appeared in Syria and Egypt in the thirteenth century, but soon became more characteristic of the region that includes Anatolia, Iran, and India.

  In some ways, the life styles of dervishes suggest parallels with the Cynics, who became notorious in the Hellenistic world of the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the fourth century B.C.E. Typically, dervishes showed their contempt for social conventions by rejecting family life and choosing celibacy; rarely bathing; wearing unusual clothing (such as turbans with horns) or abandoning clothing altogether and going nude; shaving all bodily and facial hair (a practice that went contrary to the Shari’a); and using forbidden hallucinogens and intoxicants.

  Beyond the obvious characteristics shared by many of the dervishes lay differences in their attitudes toward communal life. Some were solitary mendicants, who tended to exhibit the more extreme of the unconventional traits we have described. It is these individuals that European travelers and novelists of the nineteenth century made famous as “wild-eyed dervishes.” Others also wandered across the countryside, but did so as a group of disciples who followed their shaykh. Still others maintained a permanent community, but their lodge was distinctively decorated and they themselves were clearly marked off from their fellow townsmen by their clothing and behavior.

  The cultural elite of Muslim societies consistently identified the dervishes as the riffraff of society, and frequently accused them of being impostors and frauds. In fact, a considerable number of the dervishes were the sons of the elite. They rejected the comfortable and staid world of their fathers, and engaged in behavior that scandalized and disappointed their families. Like the Cynics (and hippies), they were engaged in a countercultural critique of dominant social norms. Unlike those two groups, most of the dervishes were also sincerely seeking a close spiritual relationship with God. They thought that establishing a relationship with God required severing their ties with the world of conventional morality.

  Sufism, Syncretism, and Shi‘ism

  During the Mongol period, Sufi deviancy was most likely to be found in Anatolia, northern Iran, and northern India. The arc that stretched from Anatolia across northern Iran was also the primary setting for the rise of some Sufi groups that would exercise much more influence on subsequent Muslim history than did the Sufi deviants. Their story is the result of the Turkish migrations into the era.

  During the century of Mongol rule of Iran, the composition of the population underwent a significant change. Under the Il-khanate, Iran was opened to the migration of large numbers of Turkish and Mongol peoples. Many of them made the long journey all the way into western Anatolia, where they played important roles in the early history of the Ottoman Sultanate. Most of those who entered the Iranian cultural area, however, settled in Transoxiana and in the region that comprises both Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia. In both Transoxiana and Azerbaijan/eastern Anatolia, the Turkish-speaking peoples gradually came to outnumber the speakers of Persian. One result of this change in the ethnic composition of the area was a significant modification of the economy. Because many of the Turkish immigrants continued their nomadic existence, large areas of Iran, Azerbaijan, and eastern Anatolia were converted from agriculture into grazing areas for the service of a pastoral economy. In order to adjust, many erstwhile villagers began to practice semipastoralism: They cultivated the valleys that remained under cultivation and took herds of sheep into the mountain highlands during the summer for grazing. Other than the short-lived reforms of Ghazan (1295–1304), the agricultural economy
of the region from the Amu Darya River to the headwaters of the Euphrates River suffered alternate bouts of destruction and neglect for several centuries.

  The decline of urban life and the long-term absence of state security institutions also encouraged the development of new forms of social and religious organization in the region. With the decline of central governments in the region, the traditional social organization that the Turks brought with them from Central Asia remained important for purposes of security. This structure was based on what has been called a household state: A chief ruled over a large group of people related by kinship ties or alliances. He was aided by his family and by lesser chiefs and their followers, whose support was won by leadership ability and martial skills. The system was financed by raiding and by extorting revenues from nomads, peasants, and towns under its control. It was very unstable, however, for the authority of the chief was constantly challenged by ambitious subordinates. Rebellions were common, and the ensuing violence wreaked havoc among defenseless subject populations.