Page 22 - Chapter
Two:"Moreover, even though the great Sufi authorities set down guidelines
for keeping Sufism squarely at the heart of the Islamic tradition, popular religious
movements sometimes appeared that were aimed at intensifying religious experience with
little concern for Islamic forms, and these frequently became associated with Sufism, and
grew out of certain sorts of Sufi teaching and practices. Whether or not the members of
these movements considered themselves Sufis, opponents of Sufism were happy to claim that
their excesses represented Sufism’s true nature. Sufi teachers themselves frequently
criticized false Sufis, and the dangers connected with loss of contact with the living
core of Islam could only increase when much of Sufism became institutionalized through the
Sufi orders."
Commentary: The
author is incorrect when he contends that "the great Sufi authorities set down
guidelines for keeping Sufism squarely at the heart of the Islamic tradition". The
‘great Sufi authorities’, along with the lesser Sufi authorities, did not teach
anything that was not in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah
(conduct) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Whatever guidelines these people
set down, they did so as expressions of principles, values, guidelines, and teachings
which already were inherent in the Qur’an and the conduct of the Prophet.
Hazrat Junayd (may Allah
be pleased with him), who often is identified with the so-called ‘sober’ approach
to the Sufi Path (in contrast with the outwardly intoxicated ecstatic modality), once
said: "This knowledge of ours is delimited by the Book (i.e., Qur’an) and the
Sunnah", and another Sufi master has written: "Every unveiling not borne witness
to by the Book and the Sunnah is nothing."
No one has to keep
"Sufism squarely at the heart of the Islamic tradition" because the former Way
already is centered and could not be otherwise for it gives expression to the very essence
of the purpose and nature of Islam. If one finds some set of principles and practices
which are not "at the heart of the Islamic tradition", then, this set of values
is not part of the Sufi Path.
The author continues on
by claiming that despite the supposed efforts of Sufi teachers to set down guidelines
which allegedly were designed to keep "Sufism squarely at the heart of the Islamic
tradition", nonetheless, "popular religious movements sometimes appeared that
were aimed at intensifying religious experience with little concern for Islamic
forms." The author does not identify what these "popular religious
movements" were, nor what made them popular, nor what sorts of ‘religious
experiences’ these movements were "aimed at intensifying" nor how they
proposed to do this, nor why. In addition, the author does not give any of the details of
how such movements displayed "little concern for Islamic forms".
Everything being said is
vague and unsubstantiated. In fact, we don’t even know what, if any, connection there
is between Sufi shaykhs and such "popular religious movements" - although,
certainly, the author’s manner of placing the two (i.e., Sufi teachers and
"popular religious movements") in juxtaposition to one another, creates the
impression that Sufi teachers somehow failed to control these movements - as if the
teachers were the ones who not only were responsible for unleashing these movements but
responsible, as well, for keeping them in check once they arose.
The author contends that
the aforementioned popular religious movements "frequently became associated with
Sufism, and grew out of certain sorts of Sufi teaching and practices ."
Unfortunately, he fails to explain just how these links of association came into being or
who was responsible for the forging of such links.
Furthermore, he does not
bother to elaborate precisely how such movements supposedly "grew out of certain
sorts of Sufi teaching and practices". He makes it all sound - this is, after all,
the implication of the term "grew out of"- like an organic process of
development in which the practices and teachings of these "popular religious
movements" were natural continuations of "Sufi teaching and practices",
rather than illicit attempts to try to graft on teachings, practices, and values that were
not indigenous to the Sufi Path.
The author does qualify
things somewhat when he adds: "Whether or not the members of these movements
considered themselves Sufis, opponents of Sufism were happy to claim that their excesses
represented Sufism’s true nature (again, all of this is far too vague and removed
from evidential considerations - a few specific examples would have helped a great deal).
However, this qualification is problematic on several counts.
First of all, the issue
is quite independent of "whether or not the members of these movements considered
themselves Sufis". People can consider themselves whatever they like, but this does
not make them Sufi, nor authorized members of a Sufi Path.
The author’s entire
discussion at this point is so lacking in specificity that one has no means by which to
differentiate fact from fiction. Everything being said is expressed in generalities of an
unsubstantiated and undocumented nature.
The author claims that
"opponents of Sufism were happy to claim that their [i.e., the religious movements in
question] excesses represented Sufism’s true nature" irrespective of
"whether or not the members of these movements considered themselves Sufis",
thereby giving the impression that these "opponents of Sufism" were quite
willing to run fast and loose with the truth if it suited their purposes to do so. This
kind of innuendo is no more acceptable than were the previously cited innuendoes
associated with the Sufi Path - and, for many of the same reasons - lack of facts,
evidence, documentation and specificity.
In addition, there is
another source of potential confusion created in the minds of unwitting readers because of
an implicit allegation inherent in the author’s foregoing statement. More precisely,
the author leaves open the possibility that there were, in fact, some members of these
"popular religious movements" who called, or considered, themselves Sufi and
who, nevertheless, were ‘guilty’ of various kinds of "excesses" - the
very excesses with which various opponents of the Sufi Path were concerned.
However, since we
don’t know to what kind of "excesses" the author allegedly is alluding, or,
whether, in fact, the people who called themselves Sufi were actually members of some
authentic Sufi Order, or even if, at some point, those individuals had been initiated into
such an Order , whether or not, subsequently, they had experienced the misfortune of going
astray from the Path, therefore, one really has no way to sort the whole mess out. All one
has is a bunch of generalities, allegations, and an artificially constructed link of
association between the two.
According to the author
of Sufism - A Short Introduction: "Sufi teachers themselves frequently
criticized false Sufis...." The author has a footnote connected to this section in
which he mentions one individual - ‘Abd al-Wahhab - an Egyptian living in the period
of the early Ottaman Empire (post-1300 A.D.), who wrote some criticisms of "popular
Sufism".
While one of the
functions of a footnote is to cite material which supports the point one is trying to
make, as well as provides a reference point for those who wish to study the matter
further, in truth, few people - especially those for whom a book like Sufism - A
Short Introduction is intended - will ever bother to pursue such a
‘lead’. After all, the primary audience for this sort of book does not, for the
most part, consist of scholars.
As a result, the general
reader - even if she or he bothered to take the time to even read the footnote (which,
itself, is questionable) - still is left without any idea of who ‘Abd al-Wahhab was,
or what it is that he wrote, or the accuracy of what was written, or against whom the
writing was directed. Furthermore, one has difficulty understanding how - footnote or not
- anyone can take one individual - namely, the aforementioned ‘Abd
al-Wahhab, and derive the adverb "frequently" from a single footnote reference
as the author of Sufism - A Short Introduction has done in the quote given
earlier.
The author continues on
with: "and the dangers connected with loss of contact with the living core of Islam
could only increase when much of Sufism became institutionalized through the Sufi
orders." Although this issue of the supposed ‘institutionalization’ of the
Sufi tradition by means of various Orders was touched on in a previous Commentary,
a few additional remarks are warranted.
What, exactly, is this
process of institutionalization to which the author is referring? On a number of
occasions, he has introduced the concept of ‘institution’, and, in the process,
he made critical allegations concerning the Sufi Orders as an institution, but we are
never given a definition or characterization or explanation of what he has in mind when
using this word in conjunction with Sufi Orders.
Moreover, even if one
were to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that Sufi Orders were some sort of
institution, one still is left in the dark by the author as to just how being an
institution increases the likelihood of loss of contact with the living core of Islam.
There are all kinds of institutions, and there are all kinds of institutional structures.
Some institutions are
functional and others are dysfunctional. Why automatically assume that if a
given Order was, at some point, institutionalized, it must have been dysfunctional and,
therefore, necessarily, would have led to loss of contact with the "living core of
Islam"?
Finally, the author has
said "when much (my emphasis) of Sufism became institutionalized
through the Sufi Orders." However, absolutely no evidence is offered by the author to
justify his use of the word "much" - even if we did understand what he means by
the notion of institution or how this term applies to Sufi Orders ... which we don’t.
|
