Blurb:

This chapter explores the role that Sufis have played in validating, providing and challenging political leadership in Islamic contexts. On the one hand, Sufis are widely perceived as politically quietest, as disengaged from temporal affairs. On the other hand, there is a long tradition, influenced by Iranian ideas of authority, of Sufi masters legitimizing and opposing political leaders. The origins of the Safavid dynasty lie in this Sufi tradition. In India, successive rulers looked to Chishti sheiks, not to a distant or non-existent caliph, to validate their rule. Also, as Charles Lindholm’s work demonstrates, thriving Sufi orders effectively functioned as micro-states, as viable alternatives to the larger Islamic polity, whose values Sufis rejected, in which participation was considered compromising. In contexts where proselytization was led by Sufis, who fused Islamic and local traditions, the Muslim-majority societies that evolved tend to affirm pluralism; several such contexts have seen democracy begin to flourish. Today, in these contexts, Sufis – sometimes supporting secular parties, sometimes forming their own –arguably help moderate leaders retain power. Some nineteenth century European writers depicted Sufis in colonial settings as militant, and there are stories in circulation of zealous, sword wielding, Temple destroying Sufis. The latter appear to be apocryphal; the former can be analyzed, if true, as wholly justified opposition to foreign domination. Perhaps ironically, on a less optimistic concluding note, some prominent Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, owe their own existence to Sufi patterns of organization and discipline. Can Sufis continue to influence political culture, or will less democratic inclined alternatives emerge as dominant?