shaykh, pīr

The Arabic term “shaykh” and the Persian term pīr both have the principal meaning of a person of advanced age, generally older than 50 years. This primary meaning has been extended to a secondary meaning of “master,” and especially “spiritual master,” by virtue of the fact that one may become a master only after a lifetime of work. It is also an honorific title given to one’s teacher or mentor. The most common social context of both shaykh and pīr is in the hierarchy of Sufism. In this case, the shaykh/pīr is one who has traveled the mystical path (ṭarīqa) and mastered its various states (aḥwāl) and stations (maqāmāt). Once an individual has mastered the path and is qualified to teach the doctrines of Sufism to novices and train them, he or she takes on the title shaykh/pīr (shaykha in the case of women).

The training of novices may take many forms. The shaykh/pīr might assign the novice spiritual exercises, litanies, prayers, or chants to be performed under the shaykh’s guidance. In other instances, the shaykh/pīr may assign the novice seemingly degrading tasks in order to inculcate humility in the novice and conquer the ego-self. In all cases the novice is meant to follow the directives of his or her shaykh/pīr without question and bind himself or herself to the master. This is exemplified in the well-known Sufi aphorism, “The novice should be in the hands of the shaykh as a corpse in the hands of the mortician.” This master–disciple relationship became one of the more distinctive elements of Sufism, the importance of which can be gleaned from another aphorism, “One who does not have a shaykh takes Satan for his shaykh.” As Sufi practices became increasingly institutionalized after the 11th century, Sufis began to differentiate between shaykh al-ta‘līm and shaykh al-tarbiya. The former refers to “the teaching shaykh,” or a master who conveys general knowledge of the Sufi path to many individuals, while the latter refers to “the training shaykh,” a master who takes on disciples and personally trains them in the Sufi way.

The institutionalization and organization of Sufism after the 11th century would have significant consequences for the Sufi shaykh/pīr. With the emergence of formal, organized brotherhoods, the shaykh/pīr became the spiritual leader of large groups of people, which attracted the attention of political rulers. While most shaykhs and pīrs were not directly involved in politics, a number of examples highlight the political potential of the shaykh/pīr.

By the 11th century, Seljuq authorities were patronizing and supporting influential Sufi shaykhs by building and endowing hospices (khawāniq, sing. khānaqāh) for them and their students. The Ayyubid and Mamluk sultans after them continued this practice in Egypt and greater Syria, creating the office of shaykh al-shuyūkh, or the “master of masters.” The shaykh al-shuyūkh was appointed, usually for life, to oversee all the Sufi activities under the ruling authorities’ jurisdiction. This patronage has continued up to the present day, and a number of governments have full-time positions for Sufi shaykhs, including Egypt, Syria, and Sudan, among others.

Sufi shaykhs and pīrs may also serve important roles as advisors to political figures. It is often related that the Seljuq vizier Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092) sought counsel with a number of Sufi shaykhs, including Abu Sa‘id b. Abi al-Khayr (d. 1049). While the Chishtis in South Asia were generally politically quietist, Suhrawardi shaykhs were prominent political advisors at the court of the Delhi Sultanate. Likewise, the Ottoman Janissaries were often affiliated with the Bektashi order, and their shaykhs were prominent members of the Ottoman court in Istanbul.

In addition to their roles as political counselors, a number of shaykhs/pīrs have been influential in bringing Islam to new regions. The wali songo, or nine Sufi saints, were supposed to have brought Islam to Indonesia from South Asia and converted the population of Java in the 15th century, although much of this is legend. In the 19th century, Sanusi shaykhs in Cyrenaica and Sahili shaykhs in Somalia were instrumental in bringing Islam to those regions. Various subbranches of the Qadiris in sub-Saharan Africa during the 19th century were the vehicles for a number of charismatic shaykhs to proselytize and propagate Islam in Nigeria, Mali, and Senegal. In South Asia pīrs of the Chishti, Suhrawardi, and Naqshbandi orders trained their disciples to act as missionaries to the local non-Muslim population and are widely credited with bringing Islam to much of the Indian subcontinent. In Central Asia and the Caucasus, Sufi shaykhs, particularly of the Qadiris and Naqshbandis, traveled into mountainous and isolated regions to spread Islam and teach Sufism.

In some cases the shaykh/pīr becomes a political leader in his own right. As the hereditary pīrs of a Sufi order, the Safavid shahs, such as Isma‘il I (1501–24), were simultaneously rulers and spiritual masters. This was a potent combination, as the Safavid troops, a federation of Turkic tribes termed collectively the Qizilbash (Redheads) because of the distinctive red headgear they wore, were bound to obey their shah/pīr, to whom they had sworn multiple allegiances. This was a significant factor in the success of the Safavid armies in conquering much of present-day Iran. Between 1824 and 1859, Imam ‘Ali Shamil (d. 1871), a Daghestani Naqshbandi, commanded an Islamic state in the area that was the center of the anti-Russian struggle. While Shamil was not the primary Naqshbandi shaykh, his followers saw him as their temporal guide and would chant the dhikr (invocation of God’s name) in their marches into battle. The Sammani order played an important role in the founding of the Mahdist state in Sudan, led by the shaykh Muhammad Ahmad b. ‘Abdallah (d. 1885). ‘Abdallah was granted authority to initiate others into the Sammani brotherhood in 1861. In 1881 once he had gathered a sufficiently large number of disciples, he declared himself the Mahdi (savior) and, with an army of loyal disciples, launched a successful offensive against the Egyptian-British occupation of Sudan.

See also brotherhoods; Sufism

Further Reading

Arthur Buehler, “Overlapping Currents in Early Islam: The Sufi Shaykh and the Shī‘ī Imam,” Journal of the History of Sufism 3 (2001–2): 279–97, 355; S. Digby, “The Sufi Shaykh and the Sultan: A Conflict of Claims to Authority in Medieval India,” Iran 28 (1990): 71–81; Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, vol. 2, 1974; Ahmet Karamustafa, Sufism: The Formative Period, 2007; Margaret Malamud, “Gender and Spiritual Self-Fashioning: The Master-Disciple Relationship in Classical Sufism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64 (1996): 89–117.

NATHAN HOFER