| 10 - The Meaning of 'Sufi' |
Page 2 - Chapter One:
"If we look at the Arabic original of the word Sufism (sufi), we see that the term is
already problematic in Islamic civilization. Although it was widely used in several
languages, it usually did not have the broad meaning that it now has acquired. Its current
high profile owes itself mainly to the writings of Western scholars. As Carl Ernst has
pointed out in his excellent introduction to the study of Sufism, the word was given
prominence not by the Islamic texts, but rather the British Orientalists, who wanted a
term that would refer to various sides of Islamic civilization that they found attractive
and congenial and that would avoid the negative stereotypes associated with the religion
of Islam - stereotypes they themselves had often propagated.
"In the Islamic
texts, there is no agreement as to what the word sufi means, and authors commonly
argued about both its meaning and its legitimacy. Those who used the word in a positive
sense connected it with a broad range of ideas and concepts having to do with achieving
human perfection by following the model of the prophet Muhammad. Those who used it in a
negative sense associated it with various distortions of Islamic teachings. Most Muslim
authors who mentioned the word took a more nuanced stand, neither accepting it
wholeheartedly nor condemning it."
Commentary:
Although the author indicates toward the beginning of the above quote that: "if we
look at the Arabic original of the word Sufism (sufi), we see that the term is already
problematic in Islamic civilization", he doesn’t bother to say anything about
what the Arabic original of this word is. In truth, since the precise origins of this word
are shrouded in something of a mystery, there is no "Arabic original", per se,
at which to look.
To be sure, there are
several linguistic/etymological candidates which have been advanced by various early
authors [e.g., al-Hujwiri (may Allah be pleased with him) in Kashf al-Mahjub]
that provide something of a context through which one might approach the term
"sufi". However, to claim, as the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction
does, that the introducing of such possibilities makes the term "problematic"
does seem warranted.
In fact, when Sufi
masters like al-Hujwiri (may Allah be pleased with him) run through some of the
linguistic/etymological candidates - such as safa (purity) and suf (wool - a
reference to the garments of coarse wool worn by some of those who were said to be
pursuing the ‘reality without a name’), these exercises are used to introduce
the reader to important dimensions of the mystical/spiritual/esoteric Path connected to
the ‘reality without a name’. Consequently, irrespective of what the actual
origins of this term are, the occasion of raising the question of linguistic/etymological
origins is used constructively by such authors and not at all in the problematic fashion
alluded to, but left unexplained, by the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction.
After admitting that the
meanings which have been attached to the ‘sufi’ term in modern times are much
broader than when this term first began to appear in Arabic and Persian, and after
indicating that the term "sufi" owes much of its current high profile to Western
Orientalists (see the quote with which this present Commentary began), the
author goes on to assert that: "in the Islamic texts, there is no agreement as to
what the word sufi means, and authors commonly argued about both its meaning and
its legitimacy". The author does not specify what "Islamic texts" he is
talking about, nor does he specify any authors who supposedly "commonly argued about
both" the meaning and legitimacy of this term.
Blanket assertions devoid
of evidence are relatively useless, but even if the author could bring forth a certain
amount of information indicating there were some Muslim (not necessarily
‘Islamic’) texts and authors who may have commonly engaged in arguments about
such matters, genuine Sufi masters are unlikely to have wasted much time in such
endeavors. For instance, al-Hujwiri (may Allah be pleased with him), in the aforementioned
Kashf al-Mahjub, one of the oldest extant treatises exploring different
facets of the mystical Path leading to the ‘reality without a name’, said the
following:
"To a Sufi, the
meaning of Sufism is clearer than the sun and does not need any explanation or indication.
Since "Sufi" admits of no explanation, all the world are interpreters thereof,
whether they recognize the dignity of the name or not at the time when they learn its
meaning." (Page 34 of the Nicholson translation)
According to the author
of Sufism - A Short Introduction, "most Muslim authors who mentioned
the word took a more nuanced stand, neither accepting it wholeheartedly nor condemning
it". In reality, most Muslim authors had little understanding of the ‘reality
without a name’. Consequently, one might suppose that discretion is the better part
of valor in such cases and that a "nuanced stand" which neither accepts nor
condemns the term is entirely appropriate when dealing with subject matter on which one is
not qualified to offer an opinion.
More importantly, if most
Muslim authors were inclined to remain neutral about the term due to their ignorance
concerning that to which the term "sufi" made identifying reference, then, it is
really misleading, as the author has done in the quote with which this Commentary
began, to try to give the impression there were, from the beginning, problems swirling
about the use of this term. Among Sufi shaykhs whatever differences may have existed
concerning the origins of this term are likely to have been minor, peripheral, as well as
not worth arguing about, and the opinions of everyone else were irrelevant since they
really didn’t know what they were talking about in this context.
Therefore, to claim, as
the author does, that "in the Islamic texts, there is no agreement as to what the
word sufi means, and authors commonly argued about both its meaning and its
legitimacy" is really misleading in several ways. First, to try to give the
impression that all "Islamic texts" (that is, texts written by Muslims on issues
which may or may not pertain to Islam) are of the same quality when it comes to
understanding the significance of the term "sufi" and, therefore, presumably
worthy of being considered equally authoritative in such matters is simply not tenable. At
the very least, such a claim lacks discernment.
Secondly, to contend that
"authors commonly argued about both its meaning and its legitimacy" makes it
sound like Sufi shaykhs were a bunch of bickering children who were, like all too many
academics, more concerned with terminology and definitions rather than the ‘reality
without a name’. In truth, whichever, if any, authors were "commonly"
arguing about the meaning and legitimacy of this term, these authors were not likely to be
Sufi shaykhs since the vast majority of Sufi shaykhs never wrote anything at all, and of
those shaykhs who did write, they had much more important issues to explore than arguing
about the meaning and legitimacy of the term "sufi".
|
