had this to say about Sufism: In contemporary terms, the Sufis can be seen as people who, initially, work against the evils of coercive organized religion and restrictive cults; then try to help expand the understanding of those who are interested: strictly according to the potential of the people and the times... This latter contention is.. unacceptable to the vast majority of people, who cannot feel happy with it at all... because they always need the reassurance of tradition and of the familiar. If they don't know what to reject, they may deify it. He adds that his travelling was done, in part, to carry out missions connected with Sufism, and he describes his attempts to explain to groups in the East and the West that what they imagined to be Sufism was highly inaccurate. As examples, he points out that, according to Sufi experience, random collections of people, indulgence in most of the popular mystical practices of physical and emotional excitement, and amalgamations of all kinds of Eastern ideas without regard for what is useful under prevailing circumstances, would usually not result in real Sufi developments. These explanations and admonitions, while intriguing to some, were often rejected by groups that felt threatened by them. Rushbrook Williams affirms that Ikbal Ali Shah's more public work and activities, such as writing travel books and biographies of major figures, was only a byproduct of his determination to study and promote the value of Sufism as a link between Eastern and Western thought. Reception Ikbal Ali Shah's writings and work received mixed reviews and responses. Westward to Mecca (1928) was described by noted Orientalist H.A.R. Gibb in the Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs as a "well-spiced Eastern review, featuring Afghan raiders, alchemists, enchanted walls, watery blue-eyed Bolshevists, singing dervishes and mysterious caves, relieved by more common-place political and literary interludes. Is it all true? How like the materially-minded West to ask such questions!" In 1930, the Aga Khan III penned a foreword to Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah's book Eastward To Persia, stating that he thought "Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah's books—and especially this latest book on Persia—should be read by those in the West who want to see the East through Oriental eyes." In a review in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, The Golden East (1931) was criticised for its imperfect command of English,