THE MOUNTAIN PATH JANUARY 1864

[Guest guest]

Is Sufism Islamic?

 

By Abdullah Qutbuddin

 

When a young Muslim seeks initiation into a Sufi order he will be shown the silsilah, that is the 'chain' or genealogical tree of the order, going back from sheikh to sheikh in unbroken line to the Prophet himself. True, many of these orders bear the names of the great Sufi saints of the 11th and 12th centuries of the Christian era - Abdu'l Qadir Jilani, Mulinuddin Chishti, Ibn Arabi and others; but although these great builders impressed their own character on them, they had themselves been initiated into them and were re-adapting them, not creating new ones.

 

If, however, he then takes a book on Islamic history and culture from the library he will probably read that Sufism is an adaptation of neo-Platonism and came into Islam several centuries after the Prophet. These two apparently contradictory statements may come as a great shock to him. Which is he to believe? The armchair historian, who probably has an anti-spiritual bias in any case, will see no problem; he will simply brush aside the testimony of the silsilah as forgery. But one who has felt the intense fervour of the Sufi quest for truth will not believe that it is based on falsehood; nor could he follow it if he did.

 

Actually the problem melts away as soon as one remembers that Sufism is not a philosophy but a path, which is something very different. A philosopher who studies neo-Platonic and Sufi philosophy does not thereby become a Sufi, is not even training to be a Sufi, does not think of himself as a Sufi, while on the other hand a Sufi murid or disciple is not called upon to study neo-Platonic or any other philosophy. He can if he has a bent that way, but there is no obligation. It is important for him to understand the basic doctrine of tawhid, Oneness, which, as interpreted by the Sufis, is the same as Identity or Advaita, but that is all. After that it is practice not theory that is needed.

 

Even if philosophers had never formulated their theories at all, if there were no texts, no books, no theories, the basic meaning is contained in the shahada itself: 'There is no god but God', none worshipful but the One, no being but the Being, no self but the Self. It is the same as that tremendous sentence in the Bhagavad Gita: "There is no existence of the unreal and no non-existence of the Real," (Ch. II, v. 16) and according to Islamic tradition it has been used with full understanding as a weapon for fighting the 'greater holy war' from the beginning. Its implications were developed more specifically later - the burgeoning into voluptuous form of what was latent is a stage in the growth of every religion - philosophers were delighted to find its essential truths elaborated by the Greeks, poets began to write rapturously about it, it became widely known where at first it had eschewed publicity, but all this concerns the salik or spiritual wayfarer very little. His task is not to theorise about it but to use it.

 

>From another angle also this question may be asked, whether Sufism is Islamic; for there are groups in the West today which propagate, under the name of Sufism, a sort of vague inter-religious mysticism. To call this Sufism is a simple misuse of language. The term 'Sufism' has always been used, and is therefore correctly used, to indicate 'tasawwuf ', the traditional esoteric aspect of Islam transmitted down the centuries in regular schools by direct descent from teacher to disciple. Some of the Sufi saints may have spoken or behaved in a way to shock the orthodox, but a saint often does feel that society is too smug and needs shock treatment. Some of the orthodox, from their side, may have been blind to the esoteric teachings of Islam and denied their orthodoxy, but that too is a phenomenon common to all religions. Plenty of Christians are blind to Christian mysticism, and there have been Hindu dualists who have rejected Advaita and attacked Shankaracharya; but that does not mean that the via purgativa is not Christian or Vedanta not Hindu or Sufism not Islamic. They may all lead to the same goal, but they are separate paths till they get there.

 

A new path independent of the religions has indeed been laid down in our age, but it required Bhagavan, that is God Incarnate, to establish it. That does not mean that groups of men can produce a composite path; nor does it justify them in calling what they produce by an Islamic name and then denying that it is Islamic.

[Guest guest]

one of the great sufi sheikhs said, centuries

ago: "formerly sufism was reality without a

name; now it became a name without reality".

sufism, sanatana dharma, cabala etc are

expressions of the same timeless, nameless

and formless teaching, which existed 'before

the flood', before any concepts of religions

and creeds were formed. it uses the religious

forms according to the demands of time and

peoples, and since islam is the youngest and

most dynamic of main world religions, it is

apparently manifesting in a most comprehensiwe

form within it, as "sufi"; but in truth it has

never been bound, nor it can ever be, by any

one form, system or creed.

 

yosy

 

 

, "Michael Bindel"

<michael.bindel wrote:

>

> Is Sufism Islamic?

>

> By Abdullah Qutbuddin

>

> When a young Muslim seeks initiation into a Sufi order he will be

shown the silsilah, that is the 'chain' or genealogical tree of the

order, going back from sheikh to sheikh in unbroken line to the

Prophet himself. True, many of these orders bear the names of the

great Sufi saints of the 11th and 12th centuries of the Christian

era - Abdu'l Qadir Jilani, Mulinuddin Chishti, Ibn Arabi and others;

but although these great builders impressed their own character on

them, they had themselves been initiated into them and were re-

adapting them, not creating new ones.

>

> If, however, he then takes a book on Islamic history and culture

from the library he will probably read that Sufism is an adaptation

of neo-Platonism and came into Islam several centuries after the

Prophet. These two apparently contradictory statements may come as a

great shock to him. Which is he to believe? The armchair historian,

who probably has an anti-spiritual bias in any case, will see no

problem; he will simply brush aside the testimony of the silsilah as

forgery. But one who has felt the intense fervour of the Sufi quest

for truth will not believe that it is based on falsehood; nor could

he follow it if he did.

>

> Actually the problem melts away as soon as one remembers that

Sufism is not a philosophy but a path, which is something very

different. A philosopher who studies neo-Platonic and Sufi philosophy

does not thereby become a Sufi, is not even training to be a Sufi,

does not think of himself as a Sufi, while on the other hand a Sufi

murid or disciple is not called upon to study neo-Platonic or any

other philosophy. He can if he has a bent that way, but there is no

obligation. It is important for him to understand the basic doctrine

of tawhid, Oneness, which, as interpreted by the Sufis, is the same

as Identity or Advaita, but that is all. After that it is practice

not theory that is needed.

>

> Even if philosophers had never formulated their theories at all, if

there were no texts, no books, no theories, the basic meaning is

contained in the shahada itself: 'There is no god but God', none

worshipful but the One, no being but the Being, no self but the Self.

It is the same as that tremendous sentence in the Bhagavad

Gita: "There is no existence of the unreal and no non-existence of

the Real," (Ch. II, v. 16) and according to Islamic tradition it has

been used with full understanding as a weapon for fighting

the 'greater holy war' from the beginning. Its implications were

developed more specifically later - the burgeoning into voluptuous

form of what was latent is a stage in the growth of every religion -

philosophers were delighted to find its essential truths elaborated

by the Greeks, poets began to write rapturously about it, it became

widely known where at first it had eschewed publicity, but all this

concerns the salik or spiritual wayfarer very little. His task is not

to theorise about it but to use it.

>

> From another angle also this question may be asked, whether Sufism

is Islamic; for there are groups in the West today which propagate,

under the name of Sufism, a sort of vague inter-religious mysticism.

To call this Sufism is a simple misuse of language. The term 'Sufism'

has always been used, and is therefore correctly used, to

indicate 'tasawwuf ', the traditional esoteric aspect of Islam

transmitted down the centuries in regular schools by direct descent

from teacher to disciple. Some of the Sufi saints may have spoken or

behaved in a way to shock the orthodox, but a saint often does feel

that society is too smug and needs shock treatment. Some of the

orthodox, from their side, may have been blind to the esoteric

teachings of Islam and denied their orthodoxy, but that too is a

phenomenon common to all religions. Plenty of Christians are blind to

Christian mysticism, and there have been Hindu dualists who have

rejected Advaita and attacked Shankaracharya; but that does not mean

that the via purgativa is not Christian or Vedanta not Hindu or

Sufism not Islamic. They may all lead to the same goal, but they are

separate paths till they get there.

>

> A new path independent of the religions has indeed been laid down

in our age, but it required Bhagavan, that is God Incarnate, to

establish it. That does not mean that groups of men can produce a

composite path; nor does it justify them in calling what they produce

by an Islamic name and then denying that it is Islamic.

>