Page vii - Preface:
"The great surge in books on Sufism over the past few years has made a large amount
of information available, but in certain ways it has added to the confusion. The academic
books are too specialized and technical to be useful for beginners, and the much greater
number of books written by enthusiasts or Sufi teachers present radically different views
about Sufism’s reality. The scholars impose their own conceptual schemes from the
outside, and the enthusiasts look at the tradition from the privileged position of
insiders, but limited to specific contemporary branches of Sufism. In this book I have
tried to find a middle way between academic obscurity and enthusiast advocacy."
Commentary: If
"scholars impose their own conceptual schemes from the outside", then,
irrespective of the ‘specialized’, ‘technical’ or ‘obscure’
nature of these schemes, one needs to raise the question of whether academics have
anything useful to say about the Sufi Path. At heart, the Sufi Path is not a conceptual
scheme, and, consequently, the academics have two strikes against them before they even
begin - namely, they are trying to conceptualize something which cannot, in any essential
way, be conceptualized, and to add possible insult to possible injury, they may be doing
so from the outside - which means independently of any essential understanding of the Sufi
Path as the expert practitioners of that Path (i.e., authentic shaykhs) understand this
process.
Secondly, the fact that
someone is an "enthusiast" of something - in this case, the Sufi Path,
doesn’t automatically make such an individual qualified to speak authoritatively
about the ‘something’ in question. Moreover, one cannot assume, as the author
does, that an ‘enthusiast’ looks at the subject matter from the "privileged
standpoint" of an insider.
In addition, not everyone
who claims to be a Sufi teacher, or on behalf of whom such claims are made, is authentic.
On the other hand, while every authentic Sufi teacher or shaykh does have a deep, abiding
love for the Sufi Path, the author does them a great disservice to refer to them, or lump
them in with, mere enthusiasts, as if the whole thing were some kind of hobby or
interesting past time.
The author claims that
"books written by enthusiasts or Sufi teachers present radically different views
about Sufism’s reality". The author goes on to add that while these people look
at this spiritual path from "the privileged standpoint of insiders",
nevertheless, this ‘privileged standpoint’ is "limited to specific
contemporary branches of Sufism".
If one throws out the
writings of unqualified enthusiasts or inauthentic teachers, both of whom certainly do not
write from the privileged standpoint of insiders and, therefore, are quite irrelevant to
the discussion, then, one wonders what the author means by the idea of there being
"radically different views about Sufism’s reality" among qualified,
authentic shaykhs. One also wonders what could be meant by the author’s passing,
unelaborated comment that the teachings of such shaykhs is "limited to specific
contemporary branches of Sufism".
Since every human being,
including shaykhs, are unique creations of Divinity, then one would not be surprised to
hear there might be differences, of understanding, of one sort or another, among shaykhs.
Furthermore, because different shaykhs have different spiritual capacities and/or may be
writing out of different spiritual states and stations, one also would expect to
encounter, from time to time, certain differences of description among these shaykhs.
However, to conclude that
the underlying understandings concerning the reality of Sufism are radically different
just because there are differences among some Sufi shaykhs, does not necessarily follow. A
lot would depend on the cases in question, and a lot also would depend on what is meant by
"radically different" - a term which is nowhere clearly expounded by the author.
Furthermore, to suggest,
as the author does, that because the teachings of a shaykh may be from a specific branch
of the Sufi Path, then, this fact somehow makes those teachings "limited" is not
really warranted. While there may be differences of emphasis and methodology from branch
to branch or Order to Order, there is nothing limited about the underlying essence of what
is being taught - teachings which are shared and agreed upon across branches and Orders,
however differently the teachings may be expressed in linguistic terms.
Finally, the author
claims he has "tried to find a middle way between academic obscurity and enthusiast
advocacy". Since the author seems to have lumped Sufi teachers and enthusiasts in
togther (he certainly does not clarify this situation at all in his Preface), the author
appears to be setting himself up as someone who is going to do what Sufi teachers - who,
‘apparently’, are engaged only in "enthusiast advocacy" cannot do -
that is, get to the reality of the Sufi Path.
The author has described
enthusiasts and Sufi teachers as not only people who radically differ with one another
about the nature of the Sufi reality, but the author also has depicted them as those who
speak out from a perspective which is "limited to specific contemporary branches of
Sufism", as if being a "contemporary" branch were, somehow, a
disqualification. Notwithstanding what already has been said about the question of
authenticity with respect to ‘enthusiasts’ or ‘teachers’, and,
therefore, the total irrelevancy of what unqualified people have to say about the Sufi
Path, nevertheless, if a contemporary branch of a Sufi Order enjoys a valid chain of
spiritual transmission or barakah going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him), then, the aspect of being "contemporary" is really neither here nor
there.
Truth is neither ancient
nor contemporary. The truth of a point of view is a matter of correctness and accuracy
concerning the capacity of that perspective to reflect some dimension of "what
is", irrespective of when a perspective may be espoused.
The author of the quotes,
for which commentary is currently being given, is an academic. As such, one would assume
he is speaking - to use the author’s own words - ‘from outside’ the Sufi
tradition and, therefore, seeking to impose his conceptual schemes on this tradition. On
the other hand, the author might be an insider - someone whose view (according to the
author), though "privileged", is radically different from other enthusiasts and
Sufi teachers and who speaks from a point of view which is "limited to specific
contemporary branches of Sufism.
We don’t know which,
if any, of the foregoing two possibilities applies because the author never reveals what
the basis of his claim is for trying to negotiate the middle path between "academic
obscurity and enthusiast advocacy". If he is neither an outsider, nor an insider ,
then, what is he?
This question is not an
idle one. As indicated previously, the author claims a great deal of confusion and
misunderstanding is, and has been for some time, swirling about the nature of the Sufi
Path, and he has set as his goal an elimination of such confusion and misunderstanding.
Consequently, one would like to know from precisely what vantage point the author intends
to achieve his purpose, and one needs to raise the question of whether, or not, that
"vantage point" is capable of delivering what the author says he would like to
try to accomplish.
|
