The dangers of authoritarianism in (Sufi) spiritual developtment

[Guest guest]

>

> I am an aspiring Sufi. Recently I was disturbed and confused by the

> article " The Dangers of authoritarianism in spiritual develpment " by

> Abdullah Muzaffer. I quote the most disturbing truth:

>

> " As a general rule, the less the spiritual content, the greater the

> appurtenances. Tall hats, robes, and music; secretiveness and high-

> flown titles are very common. Whole orders are sustained on these

> nutrients. Several groups make much of their Islamic connections,

> and their Western followers delight in adopting Eastern names and

> even titles. Among these the favorites are Sheikh, Pir, Qutub . . .

> outlandish garb is imitative of the past--- something which truly

> representative Sufis warn is an indication of inner spiritual

> bankruptcy. "

>

> Clearly, Shah and Kharaqani are warning the student of Sufism not

> to become trapped into thinking that he or she must dress in a

> certain way, wear only certain aromatic oils, trim (or not trim)

> the beard in a particular fashion, wash the arm down and not up

> during ablution, and so forth. All this takes the Sufi away from

> the purpose of Sufism, which is to reach the Ocean of Oneness. What

> Sheikhs are pleased to call the Way of the Masters is merely the

> record of past method. (end of quote)

>

> What is your opinion and suggestion?

>

> Answer: Silence on your Self (which is the Ocean of Oneness).

>

 

THE DANGERS OF AUTHORITARIANISM IN SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT

 

by Abdullah Muzaffer

©2003 Laurence Galian. All rights reserved.

 

There is a crisis within Sufism. The problem is authoritarianism and

the dangers it poses to spiritual development. In short, certain

Sufis are deifying various aspects of Sufism. A totalitarianism of

the non-essential is being imposed. The ideas put forth in this

article are substantiated, authenticated and upheld by many highly

respected Sufis and Sufi Saints, and quotations from their teachings

are provided. Also, quotations are included from some of the world's

most estimable spiritual guides and conscious individuals.

Sa'adi, the Persian Sufi poet and sage, wrote, " The path is the

service of others, not prayer beads and dervish robes. "

 

The 'trickster figure' of the 20th Century, Idries Shah, humorously

commented, " Follow them [the Sufi Orders of today] and you will

produce, perhaps, an excellent replica of a thirteenth-century man,

and that is all. "

 

I " took hand " (became initiated into a Sufi Order) in 1980 and for

the next three years met several times weekly to study with various

Khalifas of the Order. I realized as early as 1983 that I was

becoming a 17th Century Turk living in 20th Century America!

 

The Prophet Isa (Jesus) A.S. said, " No one sews a patch of unshrunk

cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the

garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old

wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out

and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new

wineskins, and both are preserved. "

 

During the first few years after taking hand, I bought pillows made

from Turkish kilims, purchased an Afghan prayer carpet, brewed and

served tea and coffee in the Turkish style using Turkish cups,

saucers and utensils, and decorated my home with an array of Turkish

and Middle-Eastern ornamentation. This was all in addition to the

elaborate ancient Sufi costume of our Order that I was required to

obtain and to wear in its entirety when we " performed " a Zikrullah

live for the public. The danger in becoming a 17th Century Turk

living in contemporary America is that the student of Sufism confuses

the appendages with the essence, and comes to believe that the true

Sufi recreates 17th Century Turkish culture! What these new students

regard as central aspects of Sufism are merely superficialities!

 

C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter to Arthur Greeves: " It is so fatally

easy to confuse an aesthetic appreciation of the spiritual life with

the life itself - to dream that you have waked, washed, and dressed &

then to find yourself still in bed. "

 

When I first began studying with Sheikh Muzaffer, he welcomed all

those in New York City to come and speak with him and participate in

Zikrullah. I recall quite a number of `spiritual' New Yorkers

disdainfully asking Muzaffer Effendi, " If you are a Sufi, how come

you smoke cigarettes and eat meat? " During an interview Idries Shah

addressed exactly this issue: " A Sufi lifestyle, is it? No, my

friend, not a bit of it. That's what people crave. That's what they

demand. Recently another man came to interview me, and his first

question was, `What do Sufis eat? You're vegetarians, of

course.' `No,' I said. `You amaze me!' he said. I said to him, `Now

if I can be of any use to you, write that down and see what it means.

What it means is that you have been able to elicit from me a reaction

which helps you to describe yourself. `You amaze me.' Why do I amaze

you? I amaze because you think that all metaphysicians must be

vegetarians. Does that tell you anything about me? It tells you

things about yourself! Now when are you going to get out of that, and

learn things about yourself, and not think that you're learning

things about other people? "

 

Kabir Helminski, servant of Mevlana, instructs the wise, " Just as

Sufism took a particular form beginning in the twelfth century in

Khorasan and Anatolia, in the Hejaz and the Maghreb, perhaps it is

taking a new form in these times and in this culture. New methods of

communication, different economic structures, and different levels of

human individuation necessitate change. "

 

Shah echoes Helminski's words, " The challenge now is embodied in the

Sufi tradition that you must teach people in the way that they can

learn. The West has the requirements to learn, but nontraditional

approaches – that is, nonoriental approaches – must be made. "

 

Hadrat Muinudin Chisti (May Allah Sanctify His Soul) confirmed this

many years ago when he said, " After my time, as an example, people

will continue to use parts of what has been carefully attuned as a

means to contact truth, using it as a sort of spell or talisman, to

open a gate. They will play and listen to music, will contemplate

written figures, will collect together, simply because they have seen

all these things done. "

 

It is impossible for anyone to think realistically that he or she can

trace his or her silsilah (Chain of Transmission) anytime before the

13th Century! Sufis as we know them today did not exist before, at

the earliest, the 13th Century.

 

El-Shah Bahaudin Naqshband of Bokhara (d. 1389), in a reverie, cast

himself back in time. He told a group of visiting seekers:

'I have just seen, and had companionship with, the masters of the

most ancient times, thought to be long dead.'

They said to him: 'Please tell us how they appeared to be.'

He said: 'Such is your attitude toward the teaching that they would

have thought you demons.

'Matters are such that, had you seen them, you would have considered

them quite unsuitable for companionship with you. You would not be

asking questions about them.'

 

Many orders have only come into existence in the last 200 to 300

years. There is an authoritarianism of tradition. The faction who

have fallen prey to the dangers of this form of authoritarianism

state that a Sufi needs proof that he or she is part of some unbroken

chain that stretches all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace

Be Upon Him and His Family). Saints and teachers, can (and have) been

initiated by Allah, without any formal recognition by a teacher. The

proof is in the pudding, not in the paper or diploma.

 

These " diplomas " (called ijazet) that Sufi teachers receive giving

them permission to teach, are frequently afforded a " magical "

quality. In fact, these ijazet were also issued after studying such

Liberal Art subjects with a master as calligraphy, painting and

illumination.

 

To quote Rosalie Marsham in " Sufi Orders " :

 

" The `orders' themselves are late (medieval) developments, coming

into being many centuries after the early classical Masters to whom

their members still look as central figures establishing their

legitimacy. In other words, the early Masters did not feel it

necessary to claim a connected chain of spiritual succession from one

Master to another. "

 

Silsilah's are an innovation in Sufism based on the thinking of

people who lived in the Middle Ages (not unlike numerous rules, ex

cathedra official pronouncements from the pope, and catechisms

created by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages that clearly were

the product of patriarchal and institutional belief systems). Ibn el-

Farid (1181-1235) stresses that Sufism lies behind and before

systematization; that 'our' wine existed before what you call the

grape and the vine (the school and the system). To return to Marsham:

 

" The habit of reciting the names of the alleged Masters of the Way in

any particular Order is, however, so deeply ingrained that it is

almost a litany, and yet it is a mark of a hidebound, often

retrogressive, order to find great importance placed upon these

names. "

 

Certain Sheikhs teach that " true " Sheikhs have formal written papers

given them by their Grand Sheikh to " prove " they are true Sheikhs. Do

you think the Abdals, the Qalandars, and the Shemsi-Tabrizes had

teachers who walked around with formal papers? Be serious, and think

clearly. These men barely wore any clothes to begin with . . . in

what briefcase might they be carrying the extensive list of the

silsilah of their " Order " ? Shah writes about this: " A large number

of `orders' make much play of their `spiritual pedigree.' Since the

late Middle Ages, these silsilahs . . . have become a part of the

mythology of virtually all the orders. History shows that this

innovation in Sufism came about in imitation of the scholastic habit

of invoking higher authority in a succession of transmitters, for the

hadith . . . "

 

Mystical vision of deceased saints was not uncommon in the past in

numerous tariqats (although it is pretended by most today to be a

highly rare occurrence). Van Bruinessen comments, " The Qadiris only

mentioned the most important figures, rather like secular Kurdish

genealogies. Sometimes several generations would be missing, but this

would be accounted for by traditions that certain mystics had had

visions of great sheykhs many generations back. A direct spiritual

link was thus created and the intervening generations omitted from

the silsilah. Unrelated sheikhs with particularly good reputations

from the past might also be adopted to enhance the reputation of the

tariqa for holiness or orthodoxy. For example, in one silsilah Junaid

of Baghdad, who was particularly renowned for his sobriety and

orthodoxy, was included, whilst Abu Yazid of Bistam, an ecstatic,

intoxicated mystic, was not included, though the latter was far more

influential in the tariqa. "

 

The Sufi Saint Nur ad-Din Abd ar-Rahman Jami, in his " Alexandrian

Book of Wisdom " , shows that the Sufi esoteric transmission link of

the Asian Khajagan ('Masters') was the same as that used by Western

mystical writers. He cites as teachers in the Sufi transmission such

names as Plato, Hippocrates, Pythagoras and Hermes Trismegistos.

 

Kingsley notes the connections between Sufism and the classical

esoteric tradition, including Hermeticism and alchemy, 'have proved a

major source of embarrassment for those interested in maintaining the

purely Islamic nature of Sufism and denying its links with previous,

non-Arab traditions, but their historical nature can be, and since

the start of this century has been, established'.

 

Therefore, the reader can now understand that frequently several

generations will be missing from an Order's silsilah, but that these

gaps are sometimes filled in by " Uwayssi " type initiations in which

contemporary mystics (not formally invested Sheikhs) had visions of

long-deceased saints (and pre-Islamic wisdom teachers) who passed the

transmission on to them in the spiritual worlds. In addition, it was

not unusual to insert the name of a famous Sufi into the silsilah of

a different Order to lend authority and enhance reputation. Other

saints, we see, were removed if they did not fall into the accepted

and respectable point of view of the tariqat.

 

Around 1200 C.E., Sufism was institutionalized into Sufi orders.

Generally, the political atmosphere from North Africa to India

was " ripe " for the formation of Sufi orders. Under the patronage of

kings and sultans, prominent Sufi masters received financial grants

to build lodges and hospices to house the master, his disciples,

students, novices and even travelers. Sufism became institutionalized

(confined, locked-up, and made similar, mass produced, normalized,

regimented, systematized, and catalogued). Many of the Sufi sects of

today represent a " deterioration " or " cultural elaboration of the

original internal teaching " .

 

The great Iranian Sufi saint, Abu l-Hassan Kharaqani (May Allah

Sanctify His Soul), (d. 425/1034), wrote, " The Sufi is not the one

who is always carrying the prayer rug, nor the one who is wearing

patched clothes, nor the one who keeps certain customs and

appearances; but the Sufi is the one to whom everyone's focus is

drawn, although he is hiding himself. " It is important to note that

Sayyidnâ Abu l-Hassan al-Kharaqani took spiritual guidance and

initiation in the Naqshbandi Order from the spiritual presence (not

the physical presence) of Bayazid Bistami.

 

Shah seems to agree: " As a general rule, the less the spiritual

content, the greater the appurtenances. Tall hats, robes, and music;

secretiveness and high-flown titles are very common. Whole orders are

sustained on these nutrients. Several groups make much of their

Islamic connections, and their Western followers delight in adopting

Eastern names and even titles. Among these the favorites are Sheikh,

Pir, Qutub . . . outlandish garb is imitative of the past---

something which truly representative Sufis warn is an indication of

inner spiritual bankruptcy. "

 

Clearly, Shah and Kharaqani are warning the student of Sufism not to

become trapped into thinking that he or she must dress in a certain

way, wear only certain aromatic oils, trim (or not trim) the beard in

a particular fashion, wash the arm down and not up during ablution,

and so forth. All this takes the Sufi away from the purpose of

Sufism, which is to reach the Ocean of Oneness. What Sheikhs are

pleased to call the Way of the Masters is merely the record of past

method.

 

In addition to the authoritarianism of " appurtenances " as Shah puts

it, there also exists another lurking danger. Many Sheikhs from

foreign lands cultivate a persona of continental sophistication,

and/or have an attractive foreign accent. Sometimes it is just the

exoticness of having a Sheikh from a far-off country that hooks the

spiritual aspirant into giving his or her full submission and trust

to the Sheikh. It is a known psychological phenomenon that an

expert's perceived expertise is in direct proportion to the distance

he or she is traveling to the place of the meeting. If you hear the

expert is " flying in " from somewhere, you automatically consider this

an important event, much more so than if the person drove his or her

car across town. Also, the size of the retinue the expert arrives

with is a powerful psychological inducement to granting him or her

special status. Thus, besides the authoritarianism of appurtenances,

I would include the authoritarianism of " foreign glamor " .

 

Many contemporary Sheikhs are pulling the wool over the eyes of their

dervishes. The Sheikhs tell certain stories about the lives of the

great Sufi Saints, but leave out their " embarrassing " and

" unacceptable " teachings. For example, Al-Hallâj is held up by

many Sheikhs as a paragon of Sufi virtue, yet these same Sheikhs do

not tell us that Al-Hallâj had many clashes with his Sufi Masters. At

one point, he returned to Iran to skirt additional communication with

the Sufis. Ahmad Zarruq, a 15th century Sufi from Morocco, provides a

further illustration. He is widely regarded as a major Saint of the

Shadhiliyya lineage across North Africa. His troubled relationship to

spiritual Masters challenged the idealized descriptions of spiritual

authority. Moreover, as he began to assert his own role as a Saint

and Master, he taught a type of " reform-oriented " Sufism that

seriously questioned the role, and even the absolute necessity, of

the spiritual Master. In this author's opinion, the Guide is

necessary in Sufism. What is not necessary is the " cult of the

personality " in which Guides are turned into infallible Sheikhs.

 

Then we have those who have been directly initiated by Khidr. There

was a great Sufi Saint who was born in 1165 C.E. Besides Shi'a

Muslims, numberless Sunni Ulemas called him " The Greatest Sheikh " (al-

Shaykh al-Akbar). His name was Muyiddin ibn al-`Arabî. Moreover, he

was a disciple of Khidr. There is a strong spiritual connection

between Hermes of Egpt and Khidr. In fact, some consider them one and

the same being. Uwayssi-type initiation was a form of wisdom known to

and practiced by Thrice Great Hermes of Egypt! This is attested to by

Shurawardi.

 

Shurawardi, who was honored as 'the Master of Illumination', taught

that all the sages of the ancient world had preached one doctrine,

originally revealed to Hermes, which had reached him through his

teachers al-Bistami and al-Hallaj. He portrayed the sages Pythagoras

and Empedocles as Sufis. Shurawardi attempted to create a universal

philosophical system which united all spiritual traditions into one.

He made it his life's work to link what he called the 'Oriental'

religion with Islam. He taught that the original single doctrine was

transmitted through Plato and Pythagoras in the Greek world and

through the Zoroastrian Magi in the Middle East. For his noble

endeavors the Islamic Literalists had him put to death.

 

" Khidr {is} experienced simultaneously as a person and as an

archetype . . . To have him as a master and initiand is to be obliged

to be what he himself is. Khidr is the master of all those who are

masterless, because he shows all those whose master he is how to be

what he himself is: he who has attained the Spring of Life . . . he

who has attained haqiqa, the mystic, esoteric truth which dominates

the Law, and frees us from the literal religion. Khidr is the master

of all these, because he shows each one how to attain the spiritual

state which he himself has attained and which he typifies . . . "

writes Henry Corbin in " Creative Imagination in the Sufism of

Ibn `Arabi " .

 

" He . . . who is the disciple of Khidr possesses sufficient inner

strength to seek freely the teaching of all masters. Of this the

biography of Ibn `Arabi, who frequented all the masters of his day

and welcomed their teachings, offers living proof, " again attests

Corbin.

 

The great saint Ibn Idris wrote, " By God, if there is a veil, it is

the tariqa. As soon as a person leaves them, God grants him

illumination. Our brother, Abu `Majdhub, was one of them, then he

left them and God granted him illumination. Our brother, Musa al-

Majdhub, left them and God granted him illumination. "

 

Are Sheikhs even necessary? Maybe they are not necessary for

everyone. To hold this opinion is anathema amongst most Sufis.

However, Abu'l-Hassan Kharaqani left us the following saying: " I am

amazed at those disciples who declare that they require this or that

master. You are perfectly well aware that I have never been taught by

any man. God was my guide, though I have the greatest respect for all

the masters. " I pose the question to those who have fallen victim to

the dangers of the authoritarianism of the Master-Disciple paradigm,

who insist that only the Sheikh can guide and illuminate the path for

the student of Sufism: Does Allah only communicate with officials of

spiritual communities, for example Sheikhs and Saints? The adherents

of the Master-Disciple standard would have us wrongly believe that

Allah is somehow restricted (Astagfirullah) in His communications,

exchanges and interactions with students of Sufism, having to rely on

Sheikhs and Saints to guide and illuminate the path for the student

of Sufism (Astagfirullah).

 

Jay Kinney in " Sufism Comes West: An Introduction to Sufism (Sufism:

The Poles of Love and Knowledge) "

 

" Some Sufi teachers, themselves the product of training within the

traditions of particular tariqas, have come to the conclusion that

the era of the orders is rapidly passing. They point to the

phenomenon of self-aggrandizing sheikhs with hundreds or thousands of

followers — many of whom are lucky to spend ten minutes a year in the

personal company of their master — as evidence of the degeneration of

Sufism. In their view, the organizational hierarchy that such groups

perpetuate nearly eliminates the possibility for the subtle interplay

and guidance between teacher and student which is the crucial

component of Sufi instruction. They suggest that it is better to

forgo the formal role of sheikh and student altogether, to be

replaced by the synergy between " friends, " than to build more

institutional castles in the sky. "

 

Many Sheikhs are fond of repeating, " If you have no living sheikh to

guide you the Shaitan will become your Sheikh. " It concerns me that

this seems to be a convenient way to perpetuate a system by scaring

students into believing that if they leave their Sheikh they will

only have the devil as their guide. I even heard one Sheikh say that

if any of his dervishes left the tariqat, the dervish would cut his

belly open on a sharp corner of a desk and all his intestines would

fall out onto the floor. Reasonable readers will see that this is a

cultic system designed to re-enforce and perpetuate itself through

intimidation. Marsham writes, " The classical writings of such great

Sufis as Ghazzali plainly warn against indoctrination and

conditioning, centuries before these dangerous procedures were

rediscovered in the West. Today there is no `order' in existence in

the East or West which does not in some measure use these

methods . . . Few, if any, modern Sufi heads of `orders' would stand

for half a day the interrogation of modern psychologists. " Hence, the

reader will understand why I am concerned about the dangers of

authoritarianism in spiritual development. Cult leaders will resort

to all sorts of tactics, including quoting from various religious

sources, in order to manipulate the cult members into staying in the

cult and not leaving. I am not saying that all Sufis are members of

cults. I am saying that some Sufi groups are cults.

 

" Why would even the most realized of beings want people to become

reliant on his wisdom instead of their own? " - " The Guru Papers:

Masks of Authoritarian Power " by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad

 

" A teacher is someone who is able to connect instructionally with

you, " Idries Shah says. " He need not be physically present. You don't

even have to know him. He doesn't have to have a white beard and

sandals. In a sense, a teacher need not even be a person. I was once

walking with a group of people including a spiritual teacher, and

someone asked him, `What is a guru?' And he pointed to a stone in the

road and said, `Look, if I fall over that stone and I learn from that

event to look where I'm going that stone is my guru.' The teaching

role should be an instrument, not an opportunity for theater, not a

source of self-gratification. " A humorous Jerrahi dervish friend of

mine once referred to this type of " theater " as " Effendi TV " .

 

For some, it is even easier to accept the restriction of orthodoxy

than to allow themselves to know their full potential. Many teachers

will tell you that you should submit to the teacher-student

relationship. Nevertheless, look around you. What do you see?

Everywhere you see students dependent upon their teachers. Some

students who appear the most devout and submissive are secretly

gloating over their `spirituality'! Many of them develop a superior

attitude. This sort of submission is only veiled egotism. After all,

how can the student become a Complete Human Being if part of him or

herself is still co-dependently attached to a teacher? That fledgling

has not reached complete maturity and eventually must leave the nest.

 

Some Sheikhs will insist that they have earned a sufficient degree of

trust from those who come into contact with them, not unlike a

surgeon whom one trusts completely with one's body during surgery.

Yet, how many countless cases of medical malpractice do you hear

about on the news and read about in the newspapers every year?

Medical malpractice is rampant. Blind faith is simply not the answer.

I recommend that just as when one prepares for a medical operation,

one should thoroughly check out the credentials and references of the

Sheikh, and then only (just like with the surgeon) permit the Sheikh

to operate in specific areas of your life related to his or her

function. In other words, you do not let your surgeon tell you what

car to buy or how to invest your money. This is not his or her area

of expertise, and he is a manipulative and power-hungry individual if

he tries to talk you into accepting his orders regarding aspects of

your life that do not fall into the extent or range of his function.

 

Some students would give their Sheikh an unlimited sphere of

authority. When does the time come for you to accept that Allah has

made it absolutely clear in the Qur'an that you are His vicegerent

upon the earth? How long will you postpone taking up the position

which Allah has Himself given you? Although Allah (Subhanahu wa

ta'ala) has the Supreme authority, He has granted man, His Vicegerent

(deputy or Khalifa) use of a limited authority on earth. Since

accountability presupposes authority, Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala)

equipped man with all the necessary and appropriate faculties to

understand and exercise judgment.

 

Those who believe that their Sheikh is perfect, in the sense of being

infallible, have fallen into shirk. They have also shown that they

would rather live in a fantasy world in which they can pretend that

they have powerful and perfect parent-figures who can do no wrong and

who love them. This is not spirituality. It is pathology. This

attitude reveals more about a person's dysfunctional childhood, lack

of psychological insight, and sense of personal irresponsibility,

than it does about spiritual submission or surrender. Zealots have

problems with one or both parents, so they deify a human being. It is

difficult to transfer the parent onto Allah, as Allah is beyond any

human conception; therefore the spiritual aspirant needs a human

being onto whom he or she can transfer his or her parent. Hence the

need for a " perfect " Sheikh to whom perfect obedience is rendered.

This is the authoritarianism of psychological transference.

 

Many Sheikhs would keep all their chicks in the nest long after the

time has come for them to learn to fly and leave the nest. These are

not Sheikhs; they are cult leaders. Some Grand Sheikhs even have a

coterie of servants.

 

" Don't be deceived by the villas and dresses of dictators, Gardens of

their villas are watered by tears of the oppressed! "

 

Allah's personal relationship with you is just that, personal. It is

your secret. Only Allah and you know the dialogue.

 

All the " parent-child " jargon in Sufism must be done away with. This

kind of language only encourages the student to relate to the Divine

and to the Sheikh as a father figure, when in fact, this disposition

is an obstacle to a Real Experience of the Divine and a hindrance to

being in a proper relationship to the Sheikh. The Sheikh cannot guide

you as long as you insist on making your Sheikh your surrogate

" parent. " A " real " Sheikh is guided to eliminate the student's

dependence quickly. Such a Sheikh does not give the student " meals "

to eat but teaches " how to fish " . Many true Sheikhs do not use the

title " Sheikh " but prefer to be referred to as Brother, Mentor,

Preceptor, or Guide.

 

Love's way is about taking responsibility, not yielding it up to an

authority figure, for unless you find love within, you will never

find it without.

 

We need to consider the authoritarianism of the academic specialist

and the dangers to spiritual development he or she represents. There

is a movement taking place that views only those who have Ph.D.'s in

Islamic Studies, History of Religions, Near Eastern Languages and

Civilizations, Comparative Religion, and so forth, as worthy of

teaching and writing about Sufism. Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee reminds us

that " When Rumi met a wandering dervish in the market place, he fell

at his feet and was swept into the currents of love. The presence of

this ragged mystic, Shams, changed Rumi from a respected professor of

theology into a lover of God, one who summed up his whole life with

the phrase, 'I burnt, and I burnt, and I burnt.' "

 

Rumi wrote in a poem:

 

" Oh no, an intellectual among her lovers?

a beauty like her?

Faugh! Impossible!

Keep the brainy ones far from her door,

keep the bathhouse dung-smoke from the East Wind!

Sorry, no intellectual admitted here . . . but a lover?

Ah, a hundred salaams!

Intellect deliberates,

Intellect reflects -

and meanwhile Love evaporates into the stratosphere.

By the time Intellect finds a camel for the Hajj,

Love has climbed Mt. Sinai.

Love comes and gags me:

`Scribbler! Forget mere verse.

The star-ship departs!' "

 

There is often a lack of humility in academia. Many academicians view

their intellectual-linear paradigms as the one true way to perceive

reality. Molana Salaheddin Ali Nader Shah Angha (Pîr Oveyssi)

writes: " One of the basic principles of Sufism is that you cannot

know anything that is outside of you, because to know something in

its totality requires that you be that entity. Since our recognition

of things is based on contracts and our understanding of those

symbols, and because our feelings keep shifting and our senses are

continuously activated, we cannot know anything outside of ourselves.

Therefore, the best place to look for the answers to our being is

right within the unbounded reality of ourselves. In this context,

each person is the researcher, the laboratory, and the subject of

study. "

 

The academician commonly is more interested in gaining information to

swell his or her bag of facts, than to open him or herself up to

psycho-spiritual transmutation. This wisdom would be wasted on those

whose only interest is to rape wisdom for academic data. Academicians

of the arcane fall prey to the illusion that they can label and

control that which will always be partially unknowable, fluid and

chaotic. To approach spirituality form an academic point of view may

yield valuable information about the framework of the spiritual way,

but never about the alchemical mysteries themselves. El-Ghazali

reveals, " A child has no real knowledge of the attainments of an

adult. An ordinary adult cannot understand the attainments of a

learned man. In the same way a learned man cannot understand the

experiences of enlightened saints or Sufis. "

 

This is because Spirit is as much the Irrational as it is the

Rational. Academicians need to show some humility in the face of what

will always be Irrational. They only see half the picture. Explaining

Sufism to a word-oriented, linear-thinking academician is difficult.

The Way does not consist of gathering more knowledge. Abu Madyan

Shu'ayb Ibn al-Husayn al-Ansârî said: " Worship saves you from the

tyranny of formal knowledge. " And Rumi divulged: " Of this there is no

academic proof in the world; for it is hidden, and hidden, and

hidden. "

 

Idries Shah, the well-known exponent of Sufism to the West never

attended school in the formal sense. He established three successful

electronics firms, a carpet factory and a publishing house and served

as chairperson of each. Does this sound like the Ph.D. specialists on

Sufism that write books today telling us what Sufism is and is not?

In a seeming paradox dealing with intellectuals, the Sufis poet Mirza

Abdul-Qadir Bedil insists that real knowledge is greater than the

mechanical sort – and that even the unregenerate may eventually reach

it – if they find the path:

 

" You are better than anything your intellect has understood And you

are higher than any place your understanding has reached. "

 

There are many Sufis today who bow to the god of authoritarianism in

the form of blind obedience to past practice. Fares de Logres writes

in " Vanity and Imitation " :

 

" Because a certain person did or said something, because a certain

group of people followed a certain path, these things – when blindly

followed or rationalized – are believed to confer sanctity, to be

better than other things, to constitute a `Way'. Few things are

further from the truth. The truth, of course, is that vanity brings

imitation. Imitation is not a way to truth. "

 

Approximately a thousand years ago, Hazrat al-Hujwiri wrote in

his " Kashf al-Mahjub " the following words:

 

" Once Sufism was a reality without a name, and now it is a name

without a reality. "

 

It is as if a man living today were to insist that the woman he is

married to, as well as their children, behave similar to the family

in the 1950's sitcom " Father Knows Best " . If this man were to insist

that this chauvinistic and archaic paradigm was the one true way of

family life because that was the way families behaved for thousands

of years, he would still be wrong. Women are not the servants of men

who must pass over education and career because they are required to

assume the role of cook, housekeeper and head child rearer.

The " Honey, I'm home, " days are over. We recall that the leaders of

the feminism movement were brutally derided, ridiculed and insulted

for many years. The transition to full equality for women has not yet

been entirely accomplished.

 

Right through the times of yore into the present, there has been a

sequence of real mentors, fountains of the living spiritual waters of

Sufism. Always they present a path that is unforeseen, astonishing

and bewildering by those mired in traditionalism (blind obedience to

past practice). They speak to the people of each age, and of each

geographical quarter, in the language and manner that these people

will understand. The true Sufi teacher has this gift. The individuals

caught in the trap of authoritarianism regularly attack and revile

these real mentors, and while I joked above about a contemporary man

trying to recreate the life of a 1950's sitcom, the fact is that many

Sufis have lost their lives to the violence and murderous rage of

those who fall victim to the authoritarianism of past method.

 

Most recently, we are faced with the danger of the authoritarianism

of " feel-good " Sufistic groups. Many versions of Sufism being

practiced in the West are, as Christian Caryl puts it, bowdlerized

versions of the real thing. In large-part, these are the non-Islamic

Sufi organizations. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and

practices but, in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim

world, have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Their schools

are said to exist solely for realizing esoteric truth. There are also

schools that are independent of religion, schools that do not believe

the practice of a religion is important. This is like saying that the

carpenter may dispense with his ladder and hammer when he becomes a

master carpenter. The vine of spiritual training requires a trellis

of religion on which to grow. Structure and framework are necessary

to provide a living vocabulary for spiritual growth. If there's no

vocabulary, then how's the story told? The Path of the Sufi is Islam,

and it is not Islam. It is religion and it is not religion. Because

Sufism is the reality within all religion. How can one distinguish

between one religion and another? You cannot compare the different

kinds of butter by tasting the milk from which they come. But,

nevertheless, you must butter your bread.

 

The adherents of the " feel-good " Sufistic groups " gut " Sufism of its

central organs and foolishly stand up this " taxidermy " work and

expect life to flow from it. True Sufism is a timeless spiritual

stream that continues to be taught in a few places today.

 

Within these " feel good " Sufistic groups, there is an

authoritarianism that results in throwing the baby out with the

bathwater. In a well-intentioned effort to offer a teaching

appropriate to a time and place these teachers mistakenly offer

merely comforting platitudes and " feel good " seminars (however

intriguing in a superficial way the topics of these seminars may be),

and completely neglect the essence of Sufism. The weekend seminar

types are victims of an authoritarianism of emotionalism, in other

words, if it feels good, it is Sufism.

 

The cult of Rumi poetry is one such example. Rumi himself told his

audiences that like a good host he gave them poetry because they

demanded it; providing what was asked for. But, he continued, poetry

was tripe compared with a certain high development of the individual.

Rumi writes, " I am giving people what they want. I am reciting poetry

because people desire it as an entertainment. In my own country,

people do not like poetry. I have long searched for people who want

action, but all they want is words. I am ready to show you action;

but none will patronize this action. So I present you with - words. "

 

Sufism must vary in its outward aspects according to cultural

differences, but it remains essentially the same in it inwardness. As

the saying goes: " The clothes may vary, but the person is the same. "

These " feel good " groups focus more on the varying clothes than the

person inside the clothes. These groups offer a plethora of

vocabularies involving various samplings of practices from the

world's mystical traditions, music, dance, breathing techniques,

Macrobiotics, movement, poetry recitals, and so forth . . . but lack

any unifying framework which guides the student to an experience of

the Ocean of Unicity.

 

There are those, who by virtue of true dedication to a non-religious

framework (not weekend 'samplers'), can still be considered " dough "

to be made into " bread " . Wandering in a patchwork robe, his face

blackened by the sun, a certain dervish arrived at Kufa, where he was

seen by a merchant. The merchant spoke to him, and decided that he

must be a lost slave. 'Because of your mild manner, I will call

you " Khair " [good],' he said. 'Are you not a slave?' 'That I am,'

said Khair. 'I will take you home, and you can work for me until I

find your master.' 'I would like that,' said Khair, 'for I have been

seeking my master for such a long time.' He worked for many years

with this man, who taught him to be a weaver; hence his second

name: 'Nassaj' ('weaver'). After his long services, feeling guilty of

his exploitation, the merchant said to him: 'I do not know who you

are, but you are now free to go.' Khair Nassaj, the great Master of

the Way, traveled onward to Mecca, without regrets, for he had

discovered how to continue his development in spite of having no name

and being treated like a slave. He was the teacher of Shibli, Ibrahim

Khawwas and many more of the great Teachers of the Sufis. He died

over a thousand years ago, at the age of one hundred and twenty.

 

Lastly, we find dangers of authoritarianism lurking amongst those

(usually individuals from the Middle East, but not limited to them)

who deem themselves police or sentries of the Sharî'ah. There may be

an element of cultural chauvinism in their self-appointed roles. They

feel an overwhelming need to correct and interrogate all Muslims with

the goal of correcting any seeming " mistakes " in the Muslims practice

of their religion. Often members of this Sharî'ah police think they

are Sufis themselves, but really they are only pompous fools taking

prideful pleasure in " being good " . Regarding the necessity of

rigorous (read: perfect) adherence to the Sharî'ah, consider the

great Sufi exponent Ibn al' Arabî who writes in " Interpreter of

Desires " :

 

" My heart has become able to take on any form ,

a grazing ground for gazelles,

a Christian monastery of Monks

an idol-house of the pagans,

the Islamic pilgrim's Mecca mosque

the tablets of the Jewish Torah

and the Qur'an's pages

I follow the faith of Love:

wherever its riding-mount face,

That is my religion and my faith. "

 

Therefore strive each day to have a good laugh, to do something

silly, sing a song, and to feel the joy of life. These are hallmarks

of true spirituality. Solemn, gloomy and grim approaches to

spirituality are paths that lead you away from the Glory of the

Presence of Life. In fact, funny Sufi stories are found at the very

core of Sufi teaching.

 

I conclude with a summary of the dangers of authoritarianism in

spiritual development:

 

1. That we accept that Allah does not limit His communication and

work to only Sheikhs and Saints, embracing a new paradigm of

initiation that comprehends that initiation can occur, at times,

without the recognition, intermediation and preparation by a Sheikh.

 

2. That becoming obsessed with silsilahs and Orders leads to a loss

of focus on the essential and a preoccupation with the external

trappings of Middle Eastern culture.

 

3. That in many Sufi Orders (groups), students who had problems with

their parents often project their " parent " onto the Sheikh. There are

also too many Sheikhs consciously or unconsciously participating in

this transference. The solution: a period of rigorous self-

examination (usually referred to as psychotherapy) before setting out

on the Sufi Path with a Sufi mentor.

 

4. That the contemporary Sufis who believe that those with Ph.D.'s

are somehow uniquely qualified to write and lecture (and even teach)

about Sufism is a fallacy that has crept into Sufism and is in direct

contradiction to the teachings of the Greatest Saints. It is only

Allah who bestows wisdom. Those who are primarily interested in

increasing the amount of information their brain contains regarding

the subject of Sufism, may resort to the academic literature on the

subject. However, these academicians should be aware that most of

their research is flawed with regard to the study of Sufism,

presenting it as a cultural relic rather than as a living and fluid

system of spiritual study.

 

5. Acupuncture, affirmations, nutrition, trainers, life coaches,

essential oils, lit scented candles, soaking in energetically

balanced baths, listening to harmonically soothing music, burning

incense, putting magnets under your pillow, wearing amulets around

your necks, reading angel cards - - none of these are Sufism.

 

6. That dressing like someone from the Middle East, and grooming

yourself in various ways (long mustaches, long beards, shaving the

head, etc.) does not make you a Sufi.

 

7. That joy, silliness and laughter are often more potent teaching

tools than gloomy and grim approaches to spirituality. Silliness

helps to dispel pride and pomposity, and teaches humility.

 

8. That " proto-Sufis " , " Islamic mystics " , " antinomian dervishes "

(whatever you wish to call them) existed prior to what we know of as

Sufism today, and they bore little resemblance to Sufism as it is

practiced today. Today's Sufi tariqats are not a refinement, but an

erosion of the original impulse and practice of Sufism. The

Orders " seem very likely to be highly organized derivations from the

originally flexible teachings of the first or other early teachers of

the system. Because we have the writings of Rumi, Saadi, Ghazzali,

Jujwiri and others, we can see the `orders' as nothing more than a

living palimpsest. " - Marsham

 

9. Mystical vision of deceased saints was not uncommon in the past in

numerous tariqats and it is an act of authoritarianism (and a sign of

their own lack of ability as teachers) that most Sheikhs today teach

that mystical vision is a rare occurrence.

 

10. In even orthodox Sufi tariqats today, a kind of " cleaned up "

version of the lives and teachings of the great Sufi Saints is being

disseminated. Only those parts of these Saints' lives and teachings,

which are deemed " respectable " , are related to the students. The

controversial and antinomian aspects are hidden under the kilims

(rugs).

 

11. Khezr is a living presence and a divine archetype who frees the

Sufi from literal religion and delivers the Sufi into the hands of

Haqq. Khezr reveals the Spring of Water hidden inside the dry

Sharî'ah, namely the esoteric truth of Islam which is the Water of

Eternal Life.

 

12. The word " past " is not synonymous with the word " perfect "

or " correct " . Too many Sufis fall prey to the authoritarianism of the

past, believing the record of past method to be superior to present

practice which addresses the needs of an individual living in the

current time and place. The danger lies in following practices that

were specifically designed for another time and place, and which no

longer hold potency for the contemporary Sufi.

 

May Allah forgive me for anything I have written that is wrong or

misleading. I assume responsibility for any mistakes in this article.

Allah knows best!

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~drmljg/id10.html

©2003 Laurence Galian. All rights reserved.