Ajmer Dargah
 
The Sinister Side of Sufism

For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been tom-tommed as great symbols of…

For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been tom-tommed as great symbols of spiritualism and promoters of peace and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. The cleverly marketed concept of Sufi spiritualism has been unquestioningly accepted as the hallmark of Hindu-Muslim unity. As with most such myths, history becomes the first casualty.

It is therefore time we studied the history of Sufis, tried to track the narrative of their coming to India and analyzed their explicit missionary role in promoting conversions to Islam. More importantly, it needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders? Did they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder of Hindu temples and innocent masses? Did the Sufis ever object to the capture of helpless men and women as slaves and the use of the latter as objects of carnal pleasure? These are some of the questions to which answers have to be found by every genuine student of Indian history.

Prominent Sufis in India

Most Sufis came to India either accompanying the invading armies of Islamic marauders, or followed in the wake of the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of Islam. At least the following four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repeatedly invaded India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took recourse to extensive slaughtering of the commoners.

Almost all Sufi masters were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of temples ands cities by the marauding hordes across the subcontinent. Taking advantage of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedraggled and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them to the religion of the victors.

The following well-known Sufi masters came to India along with the invading Muslim armies:

Rare portrait of Moinuddin Chishti prepared by Prithviraj Chouhan’s mother comes to the fore

An old portrait of Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer.

  1. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D.
  2. Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of Islam.
  3. Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
  4. Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin came to Delhi in the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of the Muslim Invaders.

Additionally, the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and his kingdom laid waste after large scale plunder and manslaughter.

Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, or to the destruction neither of temples

Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade them to convert to Islam. Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, or to the destruction neither of temples, nor for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of Ghazni and Baghdad. Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism, they even participated in the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate their authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.

Sufis were Practicing Muslims and were Not Secular

Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preaching of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith. The Sufis did this by using the façade of peace and religious harmony. The Naqashbandi Sufis had very close relations with Jahangir and Aurangzeb. The well known Sufi Saint of Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory. He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of each other and therefore could not co-exist. Even the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent for execution.

Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory.

Al Qushairi

It may be recalled that the great Sufi master of the eleventh century, Al Qushairi (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of the Sharia. The definition given by Al Hujwiri should be able to quell any doubt about the commitment of Sufis in upholding the supremacy of the Islamic faith over all other religions.

Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith

That dogma has been the key component of the philosophy of Sufism not only in India, but across the world – from India to Hispania (i.e., the Spain).  Al Hujwiri laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Laws for all Sufis. In other words, Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims.

The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths are barred, except to him who followeth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e., Prophet Muhammad) [Source: Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101].

Sufis and Muslim Laws

As pointed out by Reynold A. Nicholson in the Preface to the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982). “No Sufis, not even those who have attained the highest degree of holiness, are exempt from the obligation of obeying the religious law”.

In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh, was widely regarded as the grammar of Sufi thought and practice. Most Sufis have invariably drawn on the contents of this treatise for preaching the Sufi thought (also known as Sufi sisals). As already stated, on page 140 of Kashaf al Mahjub Al Hujwiri loudly proclaims “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth, and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law.

Sufism’s View of Hinduism

K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, the Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the Auliya openly used to say that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behavior.”

The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for unquestioned obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi, to the dictates of the ulema. According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote that though he had been associated with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years, “but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ” .

The well known authority on Sufism, S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of Sufism in India’ that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the ulema. As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of Hell. In his khutba he would leave no one in doubt that Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”.

It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New York, 1992) that the Auliya confirmed on the authority of the great Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of the unbelievers is certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if they agreed to confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.

Sufis Against Hindus

In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosophy, Fuwaid al-Fuad, a very interesting instance of enslaving the kaffir Hindus for monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”. And it was confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”. Obviously therefore, neither spiritual ethics nor justice to all, including the infidels, were the strong points of Sufi saints.

When Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer where a number of holy shrines of Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples.

If the narrative of the preaching and acts of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer are taken as indication of his religious philosophy and deeds, he emerges as a Sufi master who nursed a deep hatred against the infidel Hindus and showed utter contempt for their religious beliefs. As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in ‘A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117), there is a reference in the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi, to the fact that when Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer where a number of holy shrines of Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples.

It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the two holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithiviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam”. [Source: Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of ‘A History of Sufism in India’].

Sufis and Patronage of Muslim Rulers

Throughout the protracted Muslim rule of India, all Sufis enjoyed full confidence, royal favor and patronage of the cruel Muslim rulers. Though foolishly accepted as “secular” by most Hindus seeking spiritual solace after being battered, bruised and marginalized, almost all Sufi saints dogmatically followed the commandments contained in the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia.

Historians have recorded that many Sufi saints had accompanied armies of the Muslim invaders to use their spiritual powers in furtherance of Islam’s conquests. Not one of them raised even a little finger to forbid slaughter of the innocents, nor did they question the imposition of jiziya by Muslim rulers. In fact, most of them guided the Muslim rulers in carrying forward their mission of conquest and conversion by furthering their campaigns of plundering the wealth of Hindus, of which many Sufis willingly partook share.

 Sufis were Not pro-Hindu

It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints, to accept a Hindu ascending the throne of any kingdom during the heydays of the Muslim rule. In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of his well researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New Delhi) it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, king Ganesha, captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D.

Nur Qutb Alam Gateway; photo by John Henry Ravenshaw, 1860’s.

Ibrahim Shah Sharqi attacked his kingdom at the request of outraged ulema and numerous Sufis of Bengal. In the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and secured a political agreement to the benefit of the Muslim community and satisfaction of Sufis.

No Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

Under dire threat, King Ganesha was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of his 12 year old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin – to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters. Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of Sufi philosophy, was a die hard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as stated in the same tome, by S.A.A. Rizvi. The Sultan also used to force the Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become outcastes in their own community. And the endgame of the Sultan could as well be that perhaps some of the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.

Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realize that the so-called Sufi philosophy of religious harmony is a one-way street. This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes. That is the crux of the matter.

Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in spirituality and mysticism,  Hindus have developed the custom of visiting dargahs and continue to pray at the tombs of Sufis.  However, no Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. For them it would be an act of grossest sacrilege and an unacceptable violation of the basic tenets of Sufism.

That is the truth about the Sufi saints and their “philosophy” of inter-religious harmony.

Ram Ohri is a former IPS officer and writes regularly on security issues, demographics, and occasionally, on policy.
  • Jahangeer Niyazov

    You lying Hindutva Hindu supremacy dogs. I knew you were lying. Even I can point out some of your lies easily.You claim that Khwaja Chisti slaughtered a cow but the source you cited “History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117)” doesn’t say that anywhere (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=W1jYAAAAMAAJ&dq=history+of+sufism+in+india&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=lake). In fact it c;ear;y says that his servants did it and they didn’t do it for offending Hindus but for food as kebab is common in some Muslim-majority regions. How are the offending you/ By simply eating what you think shouldn’t be eaten? You claim that he ascribed the victory of Ghori to his spiritual prowess. However, the same source you cited clearly states the statement was made before conquest of Ghori and due to the hostile treatment by Pithaura Ra’i on his disciples and his claims of spirituality. Ghori’s invasion is only told of fulfilling the prophesy to Prithviraj of his impending fall, not some imaginary hatred of Hindu rule or Prithviraj whome he tried to maintain rlationship with and impart knowledge. “Pithuara and his officials resented the Shaikh’s presence in the city, but the latter’s eminence and his apparent power to perform miracles, prompted them to refrain from taking action against him. and A disciple of the Khwaja was in the service of Pithuara Ra’i. After the disciple began to receive hostile treatment from the Ra’i, the Khwaja sent a message to Pithuara in the favor of the Muslim. Pithuara refused to accept the recommendation, thus indicating his resentment of the Khwaja’s claims to to understand the secrets of the Unseen. When Khwaja Mu’inu’d-Din (the Spiritual King of Islam) heard this reply he prophesized: ‘We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam.’ About the same time, Sultan Mu’izzu’d-Din Muhammad’s army arrived from Ghazna, attacked Pithuara and defeated them. Pithuara was taken alive, and thus the Khwaja’s prophecy was fulflled.”

    Another of your claim is that Miyan Mir turned his back on the Sikh Guru Ram Das after he was arrested. However, he is recorded as have trying to prevent his execution and claimed innocence on Ram Das’ behalf (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vZFBp89UInUC&pg=PA505&dq=mian+mir+guru+arjan+jahangir&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-p4KQhtXRAhXBEpQKHbx8Be8Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=mian%20mir%20guru%20arjan%20jahangir&f=false).

    ANother false claim is that no Sufi Saints criticized the “Islamic invaders”. However, a very easy and recent example if you ever tried to search with a honest heart is of Sufi saint Bulleh Shah lamented the growing mistrust between the Hindus and Muslims, the rule of Mughals on Punjab (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Hic3XnRU-VgC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA8&source=bl&ots=x4TWbRASji&sig=jyda6WsKcmYmPVwFKoT6veJWJFw&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwimy6mniNXRAhWFrJQKHQoICdAQ6AEIVTAM#v=onepage&f=false) and attacks of the Afghan king Ahmed Shah Abdali and lamenting the destruction wrought by the wars oand invaaders (http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110930&page=16).

    I knew you Hindutva Sanghi spreaders were frequent liars and you have exposed it. You will of course claim that you don’t have any hate against Muslims, but someone making these lies is revealing his own “sinister side”. Your dreams of “Hindu Rashtra” or dreams any Muslim-haters will soon come crashing down.

    • vinsin

      Why Muslims dont dream of Islamic state, partition, love Jihad, baby jihad, welfare and jizya jihad?

      • Jahangeer Niyazov

        The same reason Hindu cowlovers dream of Hindu Rashtra, ghar wapsi, cyber dharmyuddha, lynching for their gau mata, baby dharmyuddha, shudra dharmyuddha, falsely blaming everyone of love jihad, taking eyes of hundreds of Kashmiris, molesting them etc. while shouting about tunnels. Besides what is baby jihad? Don’t worry I know, the fertility rate of Muslims is coming down much faster than you so don’t worry. As for partition, well the partition isn’t happening because Indian forces will blind you with pellet guns and you’ll wish for a torturous death instead which will still be quicker than pellets. Jizya? There is no poll tax any longer. Islamic state? The secular separatists and Islamist parties tried to commit to a a peaceful separation in Kashmir. Instead they were cheated and rigged out by the conspiring Hindus. Even the Hurriyat has been demanding Hindus to return to Kashmir, the cowards are afraid of terrorists. Thousands of Kashmiri Muslims fled from violence and persecution as pro-Indian or simply non-separatist as well, but you Hindus are the only ones who are the poor ones. Your dung-eating state called India will fall and no conspiring of yours will prevent it.

        • Rustum Lakkadwala

          Just shut up muzz idiot your desert camel shit eating mafia had nothing to offer to to this world except killing people and Kashmir is integral part of India no matter how many cousin riding faggots come they will be snuffed out first read the history of Kashmir and then bark bloody inbred idiot.

  • SS

    Deeply obliged to the author for some real eye opening stuff. It is important to expose evil.

  • Maximus Decimus

    That bastard sufi HAZRAT KHWAJA MOINUDDIN CHISTI is the reason Prithiviraj Chauhan was defeated and our motherland got slaved thereafter for 500 years under barbaric muslims , and the worst thing is our leaders shamelessly present a chaddar to this sufi bastard who made Bharat a slave

    please read this post to know what happened to Prithiviraj Chauhan

    THE FIRST SUPARI AND THE TURNING POINT OF INDIAN HISTORY — CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL
    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2010/11/first-supari-and-turning-point-of.html

  • Raman

    For further read on reality of Sufis visit : http://ramansaigal.blogspot.in/2014/12/sufism.html

  • gaurav

    my two bits, islam has a single objective and that is to eliminate all non muslims. islam is against humanity and we need to destroy it in quickly before it engulfs us humans

  • Great information & fact-based analysis. Kudos to the writer.

  • mustafa kazmi

    mr Ram ohri how sad it is to know like any historian you could not comprehend rather could not reach to the root of truth,which is always hidden under distorted history followed by historians following historians blinded by bias or influenced by the reign of their times. I am a humble descendant of a famous sufi saint Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai, the saint who chose music and poetry to bind people and compassion, to live as one and relegion merely a path which leads to the same creator, his poetry in chapters if revolves around beauty nature and folklore and tragedy of karbala, isnt complete with the chapter called Ram kali.
    if his enthusiasm took him to medina he even travels to every far off temples in the indian sub continent with sadhus and pandits. Not even once in his life sipped a drop of water or ate unless served by Madan his hindu companion who was cremated next to his tomb.
    Hence my point is if theres Ram theres Ravan, every inevitable truth faced the falsehood as imposters, using their names and labels to achieve their evil agendas of the rulers they worship. I donot deny if som of the so called sufis joined hands with tyrants of their times, but what we must understand to differentiate between the false prophets and the divine ones,the false sufis and sadhus and the real ones and not generalise and loose the last beacon of hope of mystic sufism which can bring hindus and muslims togather, blinded by mullahs and pandits.
    As for sufis not fighting the tyrant rulers, there are many examples of Bhitai who waged a war on the muslim ruler of his times and how can we forget the famous shrine of Abdullah Shah Ghazi on the shores of Karachi who was martyred fighting against the evil forces of the muslim tyrant of his times Hajaj bin yousaf and Mohammed bin qasim, and in favour of a kind hearteď hindu Raja, Raja Dahir of Sindh

  • vikram

    koran has a lot of satanic verses……………..and it is still unedited & respected by all muslims………..but followed by only JIHADIS

  • vikram

    thanks for saving me…………to be pro suffi/koran/mo.
    i also has doubt about their history and hippocrasy………………but thanks for clearing it all…….

    all kind of Islam…………..is just to promote PAN ISLAMISM by JIHAD ( 80 percent voilent and barbaric, 19 percent under moderate veil , and 1 percent sudo.secular)

  • SuchindranathAiyer

    With Janab Modi cavorting among the Sufis like a Vajpayee, we must recollect what Sufism really is:
    Sufism, you might say, is a collective act of “Muruna” by Islam. In this sense, Owaisi. by declining to say “Bharath Matha ki Jai” might be guilty of apostasy. Unless, going by Siddaramaiah (Dubai Watch) Sultan’s Tipu Sultan Jayanthi, the condonation and cover ups of Thaharoosh Jamiya ( the gang rape of non Moslem women by Moslem rape gangs) by India’s Police, Courts and Governments, the daily violation of the rule of law through illegally amplified Mosque Howling, the enormous rewards granted to the survivors of Moslems who steal the cows of Non Moslems for slaughter and are, occasionaly, themselves slaughtered, and so on have led Owaisi and his Sunni-Taliban brethren to believe that India is ripe for Dar ul Islam and the enforcement of gang rapes, religious tax, genocide, beheadings, enslavement, and other persecution of Non Moslems by Owaisi’s ilk as decreed by his Prophet”

    Note: Here are some injunctions of Mahomet to his followers that have had a profound impact on politicians of democracies ever since:
    1. Taqiyya
    Taqiyya allows Muslims to lie and/or conceal their true faith, feelings, thoughts, plans, and character, for the purpose of protecting themselves. It is fully based on the Koran and is agreed to and practiced by all major sects of Islam.
    “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2 )
    2. Tawriya
    Tawriya allows Muslims to “creatively lie” by being purposely ambiguous about the real meaning of what they are saying.
    3. Kitman
    Kitman is a term that means Muslims are permitted to tell half-truths, or partial truths, while concealing the greater whole truth. Discussion of “jihad” as being only an “inner” or “spiritual” struggle is an example of Kitman, as technically it is true that jihad refers to a spiritual struggle, but conceals the very real physical struggle that is also encompassed by jihad.
    4. Muruna
    Muruna is perhaps the biggest deception practiced by Muslims, as it allows them to be “flexible” regarding the commands of their faith in order to properly blend in with the society around them. Muruna permits Muslims to shave their beards, wear Western clothing, listen to Western music, and even drink alcohol.
    (All of these deceptions go against specific commandments, as well as the overarching commandment against lying itself, that are found in the Koran. But they are allowed so long as their use contributes to a greater goal or serves a greater commandment within the Koran, like spreading Islam among the infidels).

  • RajeevS

    Islam in general is poison and sufi islam is sweet poison.

  • m k chishty

    Salutes to you @Manvinder Singh ji.
    1000 Years ago Great Sufi Fariduddin Attar of Persia told “Kufr kafir raa, din dindar raa, zarra e dardat dil e Attar raa!”
    Means Kafir ko kufr mubarak, Momin ko din mubarak, Muze to tere dard ka ek zarra chahiye!”
    It is not authentic that Gizali is Second rank after Prophet. Gizali was very big Aalim throughout his life. He accepted Sufism in his ending time. Writer referred his old quotes when he was not entered in Sufism.
    Majority of Sufis always keep themselves far from Govt,Political & Worldly System even during time of Prophet e.g. Ashab e Suffa.
    Sufis have proven millions of examples of peace, harmony & humanity. This is why up to today not a single terrorist came from followers of Sufis.
    This Article is very unfortunate.

    • Jai Bharath

      Why will Terrorists come from the By-lane of Sufism, they will come from the Main-road of Islam. Sufism is a Taqiyya created by Islamists to fool non-believers and ensure that they do not become a hurdle in Islamic Jihad. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

  • Pingback: ΔΔΔ The Sinister Side of Sufism — | santzp()

  • Partha

    An excellent article! It logically explains the misdeeds of Sufis with historical evidences. Well done, Sir!

  • tamimisledus

    Some complementary/supplementary information on sufism, particularly with reference to sufi support for waging jihad. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/05/sufi_jihad.html

  • tamimisledus

    When talking about Sufis, many people overlook that they are muslims, and that they worship allah who abhors all non-muslims to the extent of promising their entire annihilation. It is good to see here that fact put into context with their actual behaviour.

  • Pingback: Islamska uppfinningar är assyriska och hinduiska. | Israelintheworld()

  • Pingback: Islamska uppfinningar är assyriska och hinduistiska. | The Golani Spy()

  • William Bush

    .
    Never trust a Muslim!

    Islam is the preferred “religion” of child molesters, rapists, and murderers.

    Islam is the world’s worst terrorist ideology – a racist, sexist, fascist, totalitarian ideology of hatred, lies, violence, and oppression.

    And every mosque is a terrorist training facility!
    .

    • Eloisa Tarff

      Thanks for say it !

  • Sidharth15894

    I wonder if Ram Ohri is a real IPS officer because I can easily point out 2 gross inaccuracies in this article. It is falsely alleged that Mian Mir turned his back on Arjan Dev. In actuality, Mian Mir told Arjan Dev that he could intercede on his behalf and make Jahangir release him. Arjan Dev however himself refused this offer and told Mian Mir that there should be no interference with God’s will. Also Khwaja Moinuddin Chistin didn’t sacrifice the cow. The source used here actually says it was his followers who did it and it was in order to feed the Khwaja and themselves, not to disrespect Hindu religion. As usual communalists are resorting to lies.

    • tamimisledus

      “In actuality …”. Can you please tell us how you know this to be true.
      Also, as you have not identified any other *flaws*, we can assume that you agree that the rest is actually true.

      • Sidharth15894

        I didn’t point out rest of the flaws because I haven’t ever read about the other Sufi saints. In case of Chisti and Mian Mir however I had read a little about them and knew that Ram Ohri was making false claims about them.

        • tamimisledus

          You have indicated that you know nothing about the other saints therefore we have no alternative to accept the author’s version of these events.

        • tamimisledus

          I made two requests with reference to your comment. You have only responded to one. Here is the first request again.

          “In actuality …”. [reference to your statement] Can you please tell us how you know this to be true.
          Can you please answer it now.

    • tamimisledus

      As you seem to have access to the source for Chistin, can you please quote him verbatim, so we can establish whether your paraphrase is true.

      • Sidharth15894

        Here’s a quote from A History of Sufism, Vol 1 page 117 which is available to preview on Google Books:

        “From there the Khwaja went to Ajmer. At Samana, Pithuara’s officials recognised him from the picture and, requested that he stayed in the palace. But the Prophet Muhammad had already warned the Khwaja, during meditation, against the treachery of officials so he left for Ajmer. Reaching there he decided to sit under a tree, but the camel keepers ordered him away as the area belonged to the Ra’i. Khwaja and his followers moved to a place near the Anasagar Lake. His servants killed a cow and cooked kebabs for him. Some members of Khwaja’s party went to Asanagar and some to…”

        After this the preview ends.

        This is direct quotation from the book and is a proof that Ram Ohri has made a false claim that Chisti killed a cow and did this to disrespect Hindu religion. As already proved it was his servants who killed a cow and they did that simply to feed him. Ram Ohri therefore should correct his article.

        • tamimisledus

          Could you please give me a website reference for this book, so I can see anything else it contains of relevance.
          Thank you.

          • Sidharth15894

            The website is Google Books which I’m sure you would have heard of. If not then here’s a link to the small preview of the book and the content of page 117.

            https://books.google.co.in/books?id=W1jYAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Anasagar

          • tamimisledus

            Well this page and your quote from it does not prove that Chisti did not kill the cow to disrespect the Hindu religion.
            Either
            Chisti deliberately ordered his servants to kill the cow for food.
            Or
            Chisti did not let his servants know that they were not to kill the cow.

            In both cases, he either knew or did not know that the cow was sacred to Hindus.
            If he knew, then allowing the cow to be killed showed that he had no respect for the Hindus.
            If he did not know, then he had not bothered to find out the respect Hindus had for the cow, de facto showing his lack of respect for Hindus.
            In fact this is standard for followers of islam. islam tells them that non-muslims are not worthy of respect, so they are totally oblivious to the beliefs of non-muslims.
            And next time you make a claim, directly show the evidence for it with reference, rather than expecting us to take your word for it.

          • Sidharth15894

            Instead of only asking me for directly showing evidence you should also have instead tried to check up the sources this author is giving and whether what he is saying is true or not. This is the standard of foolish communalosts like you who try to falsify the claims of others but do not check whether the claims you are making are right or wrong.

            If Chisti would have ordered to kill the cow or wanted to disrespect the Hindu religion, then the book would have shown that. Instead the book quite clearly says that his servants bought and killed a cow of their own accord to feed him.

            And why does Ram Ohri corrupt the words of the source? He should have simply said that it was the servants who bought and killed the cow. This is what is called a liar.

            Eating an animal just because it is sacred to somebody is not disrespect of that religion. Even I have eaten beef despite being a Hindu. Therefoe the claim of Ram Ohri are false and he ha corrupted the meaning of the book.

  • Raj Ambardar

    Thanks to Ram Ohri spending his own precious time to educate a common person through history which has been distored through out the centuries by invaders and the govts. I seem to see now some people in India have started looking truthfully and honestly on themselves and asked a spiritual question to themselves. What we here for and what we stand for as in past these questions had disappeared in quest of our poverty and now it is time to wake up and that too with birth right consciousness to claim your own respectable space of consciousness.

  • Gautam Sharma

    Absolutely enlightening article,unfortunately some morons (eg DJ,Manvinder Singh, and that Kashmiri Pandit guy ) as usual will refuse to understand the danger posed by so called ‘mystic’ sufism and worshiping at darghas etc is causing Hindu society and cause.It is rightly making Hindu society get its guard down and I see that happening everywhere,lately there have been a great mushrooming of darghas in Punjab and Hindus living in Punjab couldn’t be more clueless as to what this will lead us to.

  • DJ

    The article spews venom in the name of facts and India. Just two examples. (1) “…Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedraggled and traumatized commoners…”. This can be said about every mystic/bhakti saint who addressed the masses and their suffering. (2) “no Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses”. This shows the ignorance of the author. Lingayat saint-poets too did not say anything pleasant about, say, Brahmin saints. And, a poet-saint like Sharifa from Karnataka, wrote about ‘Hindu devas’ regularly.

    • Jai Bharath

      It is a universal fact that most of the Indians were converted using sword by Islamic rulers. The forefathers of the muslim saints, who praised Hindu gods & goddesss, were among the descendants of such converted muslims. As rightly told by Subramanyam Swamy, DNA test is the only solution to find the truth. DJ pls elaborate on what Islam has given to the society till date except for Bloodshed. Pls go and stay in any Muslim country to know the Truth.

  • Manvinder Singh

    this is sad and disgusting. instead of talking about important stuff, you sit here and attack the peaceful people just because “they believe in allah”… well Im sure Mother Theresa also believed highly in Jesus. and Guru Gobind singh ji was also a strict believer in Sikhism. Bringing peace in this world, doesnt mean the sufi’s should accept Hinduism. Its disgusting how you wrote this article to defame a peaceful group, just because they didnt ” wage war against the muslims” thats not the meaning of sufism. and I’m 100% Baba Bulleh Shah ji said ” masjid tahde, mandir tahde, tahde jo tehnda, par Bullea kise da dil na tahvi, Rabb Dil wich rehnda” meaning that masjids and mandirs are only bricked buildings, but dont hurt anyones heart, as god lives inside the heart. So Mr. Ram Ohri you are disgusting person who spread hatred. you and aurangzeb are not too far from each other in your mentalities 🙂

    • Media Radar

      You are one of the last vestiges of a brainwashed Sikh, thankfully disappearing now. You have nothing to comment on the contents, except cast aspersions while Mr Ohri discloses facts, duly referenced, Wallow in your stupidity, till they come for you.

    • Raj Ambardar

      He is not a critic, he is telling you the History.

    • Mukt Vichar

      Foster understanding and build trust in todays world. But it involves KNOWING CORRECT HISTORY and understanding the reasons for feeling of hurt n resentment. Why deny what actually happened ? Read the article again.

    • Sree Charan R

      I think you are mistaken.What finally mattes is truth.What the author is trying to say here is indeed very important to Hindu Dharma.
      This article provides a true perspective—
      THE FIRST SUPARI AND THE TURNING POINT OF INDIAN HISTORY — CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL

    • vikram

      brain washed man………even muslims dont agree with suffis

    • vinsin

      Go and tell the same thing in saudi arabia and ask Muslims to return mecca to Arab Pagans then. How to bring peace? why dont to convert to Islam to prove your point? Arent you a Kafir?

  • suru

    wowowww..so much whale of information about Sufi,Thank you for your excellent researched article.
    I think Hindus know very little about Sufi except about sufi music.
    You have rightly said ” For them it would be an act of grossest sacrilege and an unacceptable violation of the basic tenets of Sufism.
    So far no one has told so much about sufism.
    Thank you once again.

  • Vishal Raj

    This article is as retarded as Zakir Naik’s Brain..!! :

    • Media Radar

      And you sir, are Zakir Naik himself, or one of his chaaplooses, who is eagerly awaiting some trickles of Zakir Naiks recent reward in Saudi?

    • vikram

      its a eye opener

  • Pingback: Divine Abode News | The sinister side of Sufism()

  • Rohit Kaul

    For the sake of discussion, for a moment, even if I agree to what Mr. Ram Ohri is saying but not entirely. I do not agree with the statement i.e “no Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. ”
    Cause I am a Kashmiri Hindu and I know a lot of Muslim sufis who have written and sung songs praising Lord Shiva, Goddess Shakti and many more.
    The question here is did Hindus in the first place allow Muslims to enter Hindu temples, forget pay obeisance. Isnt that the case even now. The question is when would Hindus first of all allow this to happen. Even now we keep on hearing that the so called ‘low castes’ are not allowed in their own temples in many places across India. Till the time, this fix in the Hindu society does not happen, those articles dont make sense.

    • Srik

      Dear Mr. Kashmiri Hindu, I am now convinced that you deserve the state you are in today!

      • vikram

        right

    • kyzylkumkohlrabi

      Kashmiri Hindu eh? Looks like someone has a slight case of Stockholm Syndrome.

    • Veer

      Ya we can see the evidence of the wonderful harmony in which Hindus and Muslims live in Kashmir.

    • Raj Ambardar

      If In your Opinion Sufis in Kashmir sang praising Lord Shiva or any Hindu Goddess song….There was only few, one was from Kishtwar named Dolwal and he did it professionally so did others. You must understand if there was any harmony between Hindus and muslims in kashmir it was only because of Hindus and surely not because of Muslims. I hope you do remember 19th of January 1990 when all Hindus from kashmir was made refugees over night. I was there, seen it all, experienced it all that too as a refugee.
      Truth and History of the truth is what this article is about.
      Hindus land, Hindu temples, Hindu homes, Hindu villages….all gone and replaced with Muslim names in kashmir, some still stand just for the memory sake.

    • Mukt Vichar

      These Kashmiri Muslims were most probably converted (Forced/coerced) Hindus still clinging on to some of their old practices. Conclusions are based on majority behaviour/practice, not on some exceptions.

    • Puyal Ganesh

      You come to Meenatchi temple in Madurai, Tamilnadu. You will see lots of muslims, women in their burkha inside worshipping. In many south Indian temples the same case.

    • vikram

      u r paying for it…noting else to say……………its their Hippocrassy

    • Even today, non-Hindus are not allowed to enter the temples in Bhubaneswar and Puri. And then they complain that Muslims don’t make obeisance before the images of Hindu deities.

  • Politeindian

    Thanks for an excellent and timely article.

    I despair each time I run into some uninformed non muslim who argues in favour of Sufi saints, saying that Sufis were by and large peaceful and their presence brought a lot of cultural diversity to India.

    Imam Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) is widely regarded in the muslim world as the greatest muslim after Mohammad, that ever lived. The following is what he had to say about jihad.

    “One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need.”

    So much for a peaceful Sufi. Unfortunately, it will take a Herculean effort to educate all non muslims to the danger of lowering the guard against Sufism. But it is never too late to make an effort.

    • Sidharth15894

      As usual you communalists make up lies. That was said by him to encourage the Muslims to fight against the Crusaders who were massacring Muslims and Jews. You can check that up anywhere.

      • Politeindian

        Imam Al Ghazzali was born at Tus (or Tous) in Iran and lived his entire life at that place. The first crusade started in 1095 AD and its east/south eastward movement was mostly limited to the holy land, in present day Israel. It possibly affected some parts of present day Iraq, but definitely not Persia (Iran). Moreover, the first crusade was a reaction to the oppressive occupation of Spain by Muslims (from 711 AD, to their final decimation in 1492 AD). In other words, the first crusade was a defensive war, a full 384 years after tolerating muslim invasion and occupation of land of the crusaders and their coreligionists.

        Ghazzali’s statement about jihad (quoted by me) is entirely consistent with what is written in the Koran. I can quote verse after verse and prove how the jihadis try and carry out the Koranic commands to the letter.

        Or are you going to go to the extent of arguing that the offensive/violent verses were inserted into the Koran only AFTER the first crusade?

        Surely you aren’t that stupid, are you?

        • Sidharth15894

          Surely you aren’t that ignorant are you? The Crusades were never in response to Muslims attacking Spain. The Muslim kingdoms that the Crusaders fought didn’t even control Spain and were located thousands of miles away from it. If it was a defensive war why would the Crusaders go thousands of miles away from Spain to fight somebody who didn’t even control Spain and had nothing to do with it? The reason Crusades were launched was that Byzantine Empire was losing its war against Seljuq Turks who according to Pope Urban were destroying churches on the lands they conquered and the attack of Muslim raiders on pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. The Crusades were launched on the Middle East not Spain. Pope Urban II cited these reasons when calling for Crusades and not even once did he ever say anything about Spain. You can go check his speech yourself. The Crusades never had really anything to do with Spain. Not only that thousands ofJews and Muslims were massacred. For eg, during the People’s Crusade more than 1000 Jews were killed by Crusaders after the Jews refused to convert to Christianity at the edge of the sword. The Crusades weren’t ever defensive wars and had nothing to do with Muslim attack on Spain. The Crusades were an offensive massacre. And that’s the truth. Go check it for yourself on any scholarly source.

          • Philbert McNutt

            The muslims have always been the victims – just asked them

            The hundreds of millions of slaughtered and enslaved Christians, Jew, and Hindu were all casualties of the wars persecution against muslims, right? The slaves sold by the muslims were merely out of work folks looking to land any gig they could get……..at least to lame apologists for the most virulent and deadly ideology to ever arise on this earth.

          • tamimisledus

            The scholarly source(s) to which you refer are nothing more than lying propaganda by muslims, or simple minded repetition of that propaganda by gullible non-muslims. The Crusades were a proactive response to the criminal plundering by muslims throughout Europe and the Middle East.

          • Eloisa Tarff

            You are Right !

          • Eloisa Tarff

            LOCO!

          • Jai Bharath

            If Islam is a religion of peace, provide me the name of one country where there is peace and human rights being implemented. You will find none. Isn’t that self-explanatory about peaceful attitude of Islam….

          • “Go check it for yourself on any scholarly source.” Why don’t yo quote reliable sources yourself?

        • Sidharth15894

          Not only that you make false claims athat Al-Ghazalli always stayed in Tous. Ghazalli had stayed outside Tous for more than 10 years. He even had served in the court of Turkish Sultanate of Seljuqs and even taught at a madrasa in Baghdad. In 1095 he abandoned his career and travelled to Damascus and Jerusalem and also went on a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina in 1096, the same year the Crusades began. Not only that it is known that in his writings he had encouraged them to fight against the Crusaders. That proves you don’t know anything about this topic or Al-Ghazalli.

          • Politeindian

            You mean to say that Koran’s violent verses in support of enslaving prisoners of war were only inserted AFTER the crusades, as a defensive measure?

            Do you want me to post verses?

          • Sidharth15894

            Did I ever say “Koran’s violent verses were after the Crusades”? I never even talked about it. I talked about Ghazalli and the Crusades but you seem to be delibaretly diverging from the point.

          • Politeindian

            My original post did not contain a word about Crusades. All it contained was a quote from Imam Al Ghazzali, widely regarded as the second greatest muslim after Mohammad, that ever lived. I would like my fellow Indians to be alert to the dangers of dropping guard against the likes of Sufism, or any such cult which has expansionism as its central doctrine.

            If that makes me a communalist, I am proud to be one.

          • Sidharth15894

            The only reason I even mentioned the Crusades in my first comment was because Al Ghazalli’s comment on jihad was encouraging Arabs to figjt against the Crusaders. It is well known that Ghazalli had encouraged Arabs to fight against the Crusaders and you can check that anywhere. You however were the one who started to go into a lengthy detail about Crusades. Not only that you made several false claims that Crusades were a response to Muslim conquest of Spain and that Al-Ghazalli never went outside his birthplace if Tours. Therefore I corrected your false claims and provided the truth. The only reason I call you a communalist because you make up lies. That’s what communalists do, they make up lies to sow distrust amongst religions. If you had said the truth then I wouldn’t have called you a communalist. However you have lied and have made false claims multiple times.

          • tamimisledus

            Since “… you can check that anywhere …”, it would be so very easy for you to provide us the evidence that this “well known” fact is true. Please do so now. It should be within his works, so provide us with that reference.

        • Sidharth15894

          Surely you aren’t that ignorant are you? The Crusades were never in response to Muslims attacking Spain. The Muslim kingdoms that the Crusaders fought didn’t even control Spain and were located thousands of miles away from it. If it was a defensive war why would the Crusaders go thousands of miles away from Spain to fight somebody who didn’t even control Spain and had nothing to do with it? Not only that non-Christians including Jews and pagans were heavily discriminated against in Europe and were many times even massacred on the official sanction of the Catholic Church itself. The reason Crusades were launched was that Byzantine Empire was losing its war against Seljuq Turks who according to Pope Urban were destroying churches on the lands they conquered and the attack of Muslim raiders on pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. The Crusades were launched on the Middle East not Spain. Pope Urban II cited these reasons when calling for Crusades and not even once did he ever say anything about Spain. You can go check his speech yourself. The Crusades never had really anything to do with Spain. Not only that thousands ofJews and Muslims were massacred. For eg, during the People’s Crusade more than 1000 Jews were killed by Crusaders after the Jews refused to convert to Christianity at the edge of the sword. The Crusades weren’t ever defensive wars and had nothing to do with Muslim attack on Spain. The Crusades were an offensive massacre. And that’s the truth. Go check it for yourself on any scholarly source.

          • Politeindian

            The crusade was fought to take back the Holy land from the control of the muslims, as also the eastern churches from the control of the Turks.

            My original post was not about crusades, it was about how the so called Sufi saints were also acting as the outposts for advancing Islam. I gave the example of Imam Al-Ghazzali. Ghazzali’s views on Jihad were not expressed as a reaction to crusades, and that is the point.

            I don’t endorse the crusades either. Both Islam and Christianity represent supremacism and expansionism, which should be abhorred.

            If you have any proof of Ghazzali having expressed his views on Jihad solely with reference to the crusades, please post it for all to see.

        • tamimisledus

          Perhaps it would be more precise to say that the Crusades were partly a response to the many attacks by muslims on Christian Europe, of which Spain is of course a large part. The main catalyst for the First Crusade was a request for assistance from Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos. The plundering of Europe by the marauding muslims just added further weight to the case for striking against the aggressive muslims.
          Of course there would have been little point in sending support to Spanish in ridding themselves of the muslims who were leeching wealth from the Spanish. They were having the successes which ultimately led to the complete expulsion of the muslims from Spain some 300 hundred years later.

      • tamimisledus

        Could you please provide us with the evidence that al-ghazali was aware of the Crusades, and show how he viewed them.

        • Sidharth15894

          You mean to say that he couldn’t have known about a war that was being fought between many of the Muslim kingdoms and European kingdoms especially considering how he visited Damascus controlled by Seljuks during 1096 when the First Crusade was ongoing and the Seljuks who were the major participant in the First Crusade. How much more idiotic statements can you make?

          • tamimisledus

            What you say is just supposition. It does not show that he knew about the Crusades. And even if he did know about the Crusades, that does not mean he was referring to them.

            When you talk about the Crusades, remember that there were no planes, trains, cars, or newspapers, telephones, smartphones, internet. Most people could not read or write.
            The only way in which we could know that he was referring to the Crusades, was if he actually confirmed that himself.
            So could you please provide us with some actual evidence in his own words that this was a specific reference to the Crusades.

          • Sidharth15894

            There is a thing called word of mputh which has existed throughout human history and that was the source of people coming to know about such events in case you can’t use your own mid. But still I’ll give you an evidence that he knew about the crusades.

      • tamimisledus

        I see you have responded in part to two of my previous concerns.

        You have not responded to the other concern (https://disqus.com/home/discussion/indiafacts/the_sinister_side_of_sufism/#comment-2131378492) I voiced to you, reference your comment above

        Can you let us have your response so that we can clear up all my concerns as soon as possible.
        Thank you.

    • aam

      I am an Independent Researcher in Psychology and I have found that True freedom is freedom from all kinds of conditioning to all versions of knowledge. http://goo.gl/rI9ckS

  • Excellent information and bursting many myths surrounding mystic Sufis.

    I have advice readers do read this blog post, which clearly shows Ajmer Dargah was either built upon Hindu temple or made up of materials of dismantled Hindu temples.

    http://subratneeraj.blogspot.in/2011/09/dhai-din-ka-jhopra-was-hindu-temple.html