As previously noted, the
author of Sufism - A Short Introduction maintains the Sufi view of reality
"provides a map of the cosmos that allows people to understand their situation in
respect to God. It sets down a practice that can lead people from their actual situation
to the final goal of human life, or from imperfection to perfection." These
statements are both problematic and misleading.
The understanding of a
realized Sufi is not a map. A map is a representation of some aspect of reality, but the
goal of the Sufi Path is Reality, Itself, and not some modality of representation.
In addition, the cosmos
is not something ‘out there’ for which one requires a map in order to find
one’s way around. Rather, the entire cosmos can be found ‘within’, and
directly experienced through, our primordial nature or ‘fitra’ when the latter
is fully realized.
Finally, as noted
previously, the goal of life is not necessarily perfection. The goal of human existence is
to realize the spiritual potential of ‘fitra’, for it is through
‘fitra’ that we have the capacity to know the ‘Hidden Treasure’ in the
manner intended by Divinity when Creation was brought forth to fulfill the original Divine
niyat concerning God’s love for the Hidden Treasure to be known.
Is realization of
fitra’s spiritual potential perfection? Only Divinity knows the answer to this
question, but whatever the answer may be in this respect, this is as far as we can go, for
it marks the boundary limits of our God-given capacity.
Rather than aiming for
perfection, which may be beyond human reach, we ought to reach for what is implicit in the
Divine niyat or intention which gives rise to creation. In short, we should strive to know
the ‘Hidden Treasure’ in the manner, and to the extent, which is consonant with
the original wish or desire of Divinity.
In other words, if, by
the Grace of God, one comes to know Divinity in the way that is indicated by Divinity, and
if this turns out to be an expression of perfection - in some sense of this word, then,
all is well and good. If, on the other hand, perfection is not possible, then, coming to
know God in the way for which God has provided with respect to human beings is to fulfill
human purpose irrespective of issues of perfection.
The Sufi Path is not just
a litany of spiritual practices from which one can choose various ‘ingredients’
or practices, as if it were some sort of Spiritual Recipe Book, and, then, proceed to
throw the selected practices together in various combinations in order to achieve
spiritual realization. Practices need to be pursued within an appropriate context if those
practices are to be efficacious for, as well as not injurious to, a given seeker.
Hazrat ‘Ali (May
Allah be pleased with him), who was the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him), once warned that if any person proposed to step onto the Sufi Path
without a teacher, then, such an individual had Iblis or Satan as his or her guide.
Consequently, the appropriate context within which practices should be pursued is under
the guidance of an authentic spiritual teacher.
A seeker does not know
what practices to observe, or when, or how, or where, or under which conditions. A seeker
does not know the meaning or significance of whatever spiritual states or stations may
ensue from the observance of various practices. A seeker does not understand that the
efficacy of a given practice is rooted as much, if not more so, in the way a
teacher’s nisbath concerning the seeker helps, by God’s leave, to support,
focus, strengthen, protect, and nurture such a practice, as its efficacy is based on the
seeker’s observance of that practice.
The author states:
"The first Shahadah - ‘(There is) no god but God’ - discerns between the
Real and the unreal, or between the Absolute and the relative, or between God and
‘everything other than God,’ which is the universe." To begin with, and in
contrast with what the author has said, the first Shahadah involves a ‘bearing
witness’: ‘Ash- hadu-an’, that there is only one Reality, and not just a
statement of ‘(There is) no god but God.’.
Moreover, the first
Shahadah does not so much discern between the Real and the unreal, or between the Absolute
and the relative, or between God and ‘other than God’, as much as the Shahadah
indicates that the ‘unreal’, or the ‘relative’, or ‘other than
God’ have no existence. Being gives expression only to the Real, the Absolute, or
Divinity.
‘Unreality’,
the ‘relative’, and ‘other than God’ all constitute conditions of
being veiled with respect to the nature of Being. These conditions of darkness or
ignorance are possibilities inherent in the ‘Hidden Treasure’ with respect to
the nature of the fixed form of created things, and, consequently, the purpose of making a
declaration of bearing witness with respect to the one Reality is to give expression to a
niyat, intention, or desire that relies on adhering to the Real to keep one from falling
into the sort of error (i.e., conditions of ‘unreality’, the
‘relative’, and ‘other than God’) for which we have a certain
inclination in the form of our nafsi-amaara or carnal soul.
The author of Sufism
- A Short Introduction goes on to contend that: "Traditionally, the Shahadah
is said to be divided into two halves, the negation (‘no god’) and the
affirmation (‘but God’). The first half denies the inherent reality of the world
and the self. The second half affirms the ultimacy of the divine reality. The Shahadah
means that there is ‘no creator but God,’ ‘none merciful but God,’
‘none knowing but God.’ In sum, it means that there is ‘no reality but
God’ and that all the so-called realities of our experience are secondary and
derivative."
If there is ‘no
reality but God’, then, one cannot negate what has no reality. In fact, one cannot
even understand the idea of ‘no god’ or ‘no reality’ except by first
affirming ‘God’ or the ‘Real’. In other words, what looks like a
negation in the first part of the Shahadah, is, in truth, nothing but an affirmation of
the Standard through which all issues are to evaluated and judged.
Secondly, even if one
were to accept the author’s general way of stating things in the foregoing, he still
doesn’t state the matter correctly. More specifically, if one divides the first
Shahadah into two halves - one consisting of negation and the second half consisting of
affirmation, in truth, the affirmation involves not only the starting point of Divinity,
but an affirmation, as well, that includes the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is
the Rasul or Messenger of the Real.
However, if, as the
author argues, the first part of the Shahadah means there is ‘no reality but
God’, then, what meaning can be attached to the second facet of the affirmation being
made during the process of bearing witness? In other words, if there is ‘no reality
but God’, then, who and what is Muhammad (peace be upon him), and what does it mean
to be a Rasul or Messenger of Divinity in such a context?
Toward the end of the
extended quotation with which the present Commentary begins, the author
claims that the Shahadah means "there is ‘no reality but God’ and that all
the so-called realities of our experience are secondary and derivative." However,
this way of saying things raises an important question concerning what it means for
"the so-called realities of our experience" to be "secondary and
derivative" - that is, how does something come to be ‘secondary and
derivative’ given that there is ‘no reality but God’?
The answer to this
question is contained in the relationship between the two facets of the Shahadah which are
being affirmed - one facet which affirms the primacy of Divinity, and the other facet
which affirms that "Muhammad is the Rasul or Messenger of God". The answer to
this question is also contained in the dynamics of the aforementioned Hadith Qudsi which
states: "I (Divinity) was a Hidden Treasure and loved to be known, so I brought forth
Creation", and, in fact, this latter Hadith is really just another way of referring
to the same truths to which the Shahadah is making reference concerning the following
state of affairs - namely, despite there being only the Real or Hidden Treasure,
nonetheless, in some way, Divinity has made ‘space’ for the Messenger or for
creation to be brought forth.
In what other direction
can one plausibly go except to concede that the Prophet is a manifestation (of a
yet-to-be-specified nature) made possible by the One Reality and that this manifestation
is a medium of transmission for a message from Divinity concerning the relationship
between the Real and the manifestation which the Real has made possible? In a sense, the
first Shahadah requires an affirmation which leads to questions concerning the precise
nature of that which is being affirmed.
If an individual is
sincere in bearing witness with respect to God and the Messenger, then, this person also
should be sincere in pursuing the questions which are implicit in what is being affirmed.
As such, the first Shahadah provides one not only with an initial ontological and
hermeneutical stance, but the same Shahadah also confronts an individual with a challenge
that requires one to explore the nature and significance of the ‘dynamic’
involving: (1) Divinity, (2) the Messenger, as well as (3) the one who is affirmatively
bearing witness to Divinity, in conjunction with the Messenger. Moreover, this challenge
must be pursued in a context which specifies ‘there is no reality but God’, and,
therefore, places constraints on what constitutes an acceptable way of responding to the
challenge in question.
According to the author,
"Numerous Koranic verses and Hadiths reiterate the basic discernment contained in the
Shahadah and explain its ramifications. One of the most often cited in Sufi texts is the
verse, ‘Everything is perishing but His face (28:88)."
One can accept, as
given, that "Everything is perishing but His face", but this does not
"reiterate the basic discernment contained in the Shahadah". Instead, it
re-raises the questions which are implicit in the Shahadah.
If "everything is
perishing but His face", then, what purpose is served by referring to the Rasul or
Messenger? If "everything is perishing but His face", then, why require that
which is perishing (namely, the one who is bearing witness through the Shahadah) to affirm
this? If "everything is perishing but His face", then, what is the nature of not
only that which is perishing, but the process of perishing itself, and, furthermore, what
is the relationship between ‘His face’ and that which is perishing?
There is a connection
between the Quranic ayat - "everything is perishing but His face" and the
Shahadah. However, much more is encompassed by this connection than a reiteration
involving the sort of discernment which the author is talking about - a discernment which,
as pointed out in the last several pages, does not really reflect the character or nature
of the Shahadah.
|
