Seeking
Several questions have been raised about: what circumstances led to my realization that the individual I had been calling a shaykh was a charlatan, along with questions about whether this realization also casts the fraudulent person's predecessor in a spiritually jaundiced light as well, and whether, or not, the curious behavior of such a 'shaykh' might be written off as just a kind of paradoxical teaching technique which cannot be fathomed by the 'normal', spiritually unrealized individual. Finally, some issues concerning spiritual knowledge were queried.
The behaviors or issues which led me to
realize that the shaykh was a charlatan
were the plethora of lies which began to
surface. A person can lie, manipulate, re-frame,
and misdirect only so much before it begins
to catch up with one, but, almost always,
such discoveries depend on people overcoming
their trepidations about disclosing the
truth with respect to what is actually going
on - something which most individuals are
very reluctant to do because they believe
they will be condemned to hell for speaking
such truths about one of the alleged
'friends' of God, or they have been trained
to suppose that whatever is inconsistent
or hypocritical is just another paradoxical
teaching tool of the shaykh in which the
teacher intentionally arranges things to
appear to discredit himself/herself only
to serve a deeper, altruistic purpose through
the self-sacrificial character of various,
apparently incongruous acts.
The teaching relationship between a shaykh and the mureed flows in two directions. It is the dance of nisbath which involves a series of reciprocal movements, and, among other things, this means that the guide must earn the trust of the mureed just as much as the mureed must earn the trust of his or her spiritual teacher. Consequently, there are no carte blanche checks involving trust on the spiritual path, and this is why the mystical journey is guarded by spiritual contracts which must be honored, an adab which must be observed, and a love which must not be betrayed -- both in relation to the seeker, as well as the guide.
The individual whom, for eleven years, I called a shaykh did not fulfill his spiritual contracts, and he did not observe the conditions of adab, and he betrayed the responsibibilities inherent in love. When an alleged guide's counsel can no longer be trusted because nisbath has been poisoned through the telling of lies, then, such an individual can no longer serve as a credible shaykh since the essential channel-way of communication for spiritual transformation has been corrupted and, as a result, is not a reliable source of understanding and wisdom concerning the many intricacies and subtleties of tasawwuf.
In Shari'ah, once a person has been proven to be a liar, that person can no longer serve as a witness in any ensuing proceedings. When the individual whom I considered to be a shaykh proved himself to be a liar, again and again, not only in relation to me, but with respect to others as well, then, in accordance with principles of Shari'ah, the man can no longer serve as a credible, reliable, trustworthy witness in any matter of spiritual importance.
If the aforementioned individual had a sense of honor, integrity, decency, or adab, he would recuse himself from acting as a spiritual guide. Unfortunately, to date, the man seems bereft of any sense of honor, integrity, decency or adab with respect to the requirements of either tasawwuf or Shari'ah.
I've read the literature of the authentic
shaykhs - from: Rumi, to: al-Muhasibi, Dada
Ganj Baksh, Hamid al-Ghazali, Qadir Gilani,
Mu'in ud-Din Chishti, Nizam ad-Din Awliya,
Hafiz, ibn al-'Arabi, Ibrahim Gazur-I-Ilahi,
Farid-ud-Din 'Attar, Abu'l-Qasim al-Qushayri,
Ahmad Sirhindi, Sayyid Haydar Amuli, Shah
Waliyullah, Maneri, Ahmad al-Alawi, Muhammad
Khadim Gudri Shah Baba, and many others (may
Allah be pleased with them all). None of these
individuals advocated lying, sexually exploiting
people, harming human beings (or any of creation),
or pursuing any course of action which was
in violation of Shari'ah - yet, the person whom I thought
of as my 'shaykh' did all of these things.
Sometimes people refer to the idea of 'malamat'
- that is, the path of blame, and try to use this
concept - usually erroneously - in an attempt to
defend the inexcusable. There are three forms of
'malamat' behavior: (1) malamat-i rast raftan,
(2) malamat-i qasd kardan, and (3) malamat-i
tark kardan.
The first form of malamati behavior is in
reference to people, such as the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him), who,
through observing the truth, brought
criticism upon themselves. Thus, the
Prophet (peace be upon him) was known
as a madman, a soothsayer, a liar, a teller
of folk tales, and so on. In a similar vein,
a shaykh once addressed one of his mureeds
and said: "I like what I hear being said
against you."
The second group of individuals to whom the
term of malamati might be applied are those who
love God and wish to devote themselves to Divinity,
but are being interfered with by individuals who
seek to flatter the 'abd Allah, or to associate with
such people of faith for self-serving purposes. As
a result, these friends of Allah will do certain things
in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, so
to speak.
For instance, there was a certain shaykh who
used to travel from town to town inviting people
to Islam and its mystical dimension. Everywhere
he went, people said they loved him and wanted
nothing more, supposedly, than to be with him
and serve him but there were problems with the
sincerity of the intention of such individuals.
One day a throng of people were following the
shaykh, and as he walked up a sand dune at
the edge of the town he was visiting, he
proceeded to urinate as he went up the hill,
and the people who were behind him all
left in horror. After the shaykh finished
the call of nature, he turned around and noted
that all the people had left and said: "Your
love for me is not worth even one stream
of urine."
The shaykh had not violated any principles
of Shari'ah in doing this. He never exposed
himself to the people because he was turned
away from them as he answered the call of
nature.
The third group of malamati are those who
have abandoned sound spiritual judgment
and the Shari'ah. These individuals engage
in all manner of outrageous behavior and,
then, try to justify what they are doing as
treading the 'path of blame' - which they
maintain places them among the first group
of individuals mentioned earlier, but which,
in truth, identifies them as misguided fools.
Many people love to cite the paradoxical,
the counter-intuitive, the puzzling, the
inexplicable, as the way of mystical
teachings, when, in truth, mysticism is
very straight-forward. However, due to
the bent nature of our consciousness,
the truth always seems counter-intuitive,
mysterious, puzzling, and paradoxical
when it is shown to us.
Issac Asimov once wrote in his Foundation
Series that: 'violence is the last refuge of
incompetence.' One might add, that from
a mystical perspective, resorting to the
paradoxical as a teaching technique is the
last refuge of ignorance - it is the stuff of
cocktail conversation.
What is mysterious about mysticism is not
the methodology, the adab, the techniques,
or the principles of life. What is mysterious
is the nature of consciousness and understanding
which is realized by the traveler of the Path,
through the Grace of Allah, and which is oblique
and opaque to the 'outsider' - that is, one who
does not share in such spiritual states or stations.
You have raised the issue that if the person whom
I considered my shaykh is a spiritual fraud, doesn't
this make his shaykh a fraud, as well, and, in
addition, doesn't this invalidate the silsilah.
Although what you say is, up to a certain point,
quite possible, there are a number of uncertainties
which still envelop this issue.
A shaykh is not responsible for what a mureed
does out of the latter's own foolishness, ignorance
and arrogance. There are a number of historical
movements which have begun within the Muslim
community that were the result of some mureed
having certain experiences and, then, starting a
spiritual philosophy based on those experiences
and disregarding the warnings which were given that
such understandings and interpretations were flawed
and problematic.
Knowing, as a result of kashf, that this would
happen, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
said: "There are 71 different sects in Judaism, and
only one of them is correct, and there are 72 different
sects within Christianity and only one of them is correct,
and there are 73 different sects within Islam, and only
one of them is correct.' The fact the Prophet (peace be
upon him) knew what was coming in the way of
fragmentation didn't make him the author of such
fragmentation, and such knowledge did not make him
responsible for the wrong paths pursued by later
generations - indeed, quite the contrary, he tried to
warn people, but, unfortunately, few people take
heed.
When Allah was creating the form of Adam
(peace be upon him), the angels objected because
they could see some of the qualities which were
being embedded within mankind, and they asked:
'Art Thou fashioning one who will spread bloodshed
and corruption in the land?' Allah's answer was an
enigmatic: "I know that which ye do not."
God didn't make any mistakes, but we, the creation,
are responsible for the mistakes of niyat which permit,
by God's leave, bloodshed and corruption to walk upon
the face of the Earth - a permission which is given to
further advance the Divine Purpose and Himma.
Sometimes, even though a shaykh knows that a mureed
will go astray - either permanently or temporarily -
nevertheless, due to issues of etiquette, duty, not
interfering with the Divine Plan, insight into rizq
(Divine apportionment), and so on, a shaykh will
set certain processes in motion, knowing what the
result will be even though, from the perspective of
the shaykh, everything is done with the purest of
niyat or intention. Consequently, the fact that the
person to whom I referred as a shaykh has gone
astray - either temporarily or permanently - does
not necessarily say anything about, or have any
implications for, the spiritual quality and integrity of
the shaykh of the spiritual miscreant whom I called
my spiritual guide.
Was Rumi or Shams (may Allah be pleased with
them) responsible for what some of the mureeds
of Rumi may have done in relation to Shams (may
Allah be pleased with him)? Yes, the meetings
of the two lovers of God set certain events in
motion, but someone else bears the blame for
what may have led to the disappearance - even
if either - or both - of the two knew beforehand
what might ensue.
Was Farid-ud-Din 'Attar responsible for the
fact that he was murdered by someone who
misunderstood this friend of Allah? Should
'Attar have stood for something other or spoke
something other than the truth so that his assassin
would not do what he did?
No, but the saint, via Allah's leave, set in motion
the behaviors which would induce his murder, and
which, in turn would result, by God's Grace and
Mercy, to the killer's repenting his misdeeds and
becoming the care-taker of the shrine where 'Attar
(may Allah be pleased with him) lies buried.
Conceivably, the person whom I thought was an
authentic shaykh was never an actual shaykh but
leveraged his association with an authentic shaykh
to create the illusion in the minds and hearts of
others that the former had been appointed an
official khalifah of a silsilah. Conceivably, the
person whom I thought was a shaykh, was, at
some point, an actual shaykh and has gone astray -
a deviance for which allowances were already
built into the Divine Plan. Conceivably, the
individual who passed himself off as a shaykh
did have certain responsibilities within the silsilah
but these responsibilities were strictly circumscribed
and he exceeded his authority in any number
of ways - including trying to usurp that which
did not belong to him and was intended for
others.
Part of the problem in unraveling the puzzle and
ascertaining the truth with respect to the current
situation is due to the inveterate nature of the
so-called shaykh's proclivity to lie - sometimes
quite gratuitously, and, thus, with no apparent
rhyme nor reason to it, and with nothing to be
gained thereby. How much of what he told me
is the truth, and how much of it is a lie and
invented.
Complicating all of the foregoing issues
is the fact that the shaykh of the person whom,
for eleven years, I thought was an authentic
shaykh, has passed away and, as such, is not
directly accessible to answer my questions.
Moreover, the people who knew the shaykh of
my 'shaykh' have been told stories about me by
the spiritual fraud, and, consequently, I cannot
approach them to make the appropriate inquiries
because the well has been poisoned, so to speak,
with respect to my drawing useful information.
As with Iblis, it is not that the truth is never
told. One simply can't be sure when this
will be so, and, therefore, there are many
questions concerning reliability and
accuracy of information which has been
transmitted through him.
The man claimed that it was his shaykh who
told him about me. He maintained it was
his shaykh who wanted me to be initiated,
to be made a shaykh, and to be given certain
spiritual responsibilities.
Was he telling me the truth, or was he lying?
It is hard to know.
Information has been communicated to
me. My problem is to try to determine if
any of it is true.
The essential issue here is not whether
I am or am not a shaykh. The central
issue is to determine the truth - whatever
it may be - and act accordingly.
I have received certain spiritual indications
which suggest that having patience may be
the best course of action vis-a-vis the mess
created by the individual whom I used to
consider my shaykh. God has his own
time-table for the truth to be made known
about any number of things - this situation
included.
Spiritual indications often tend to be directed
fragments. That is, while such indications may
require further elaboration of a spiritual and/or
experiential nature to be made clear, nonetheless,
in the meantime, they provide one with limited
guidance with respect to how to proceed in
a general sort of way.
This individual whom I considered to be my
guide for eleven years has something to teach
me. After all, that individual is a tool of Divinity
which God uses to serve His purpose, even while
the person in question - that is, the so-called
shaykh - is acting in a self-serving, reprehensible
manner.
However, I am still working on the assignment.
Consequently, I am not ready to write my final
report about the spiritual significance of the last
eleven years - although I have provided a variety
of people some interim, tentative assessments
concerning certain facets of the situation.
Finally, with respect to your queries concerning
the status of my knowledge in the light of current
circumstances, I should begin with a correction.
I never said that the silsilah at issue was inauthentic.
In fact, in reality, the silsilah - with the possible
exception of several of the last listed names in the
Sejrah - is quite verifiable and authentic, but the
questions of authenticity that are swirling about
these last few individuals is at the heart of part
of my problem.
The other problem, of course, is even if those few,
remaining names are legitimate, where does the
wayward 'shaykh' fit into all of this? More
importantly, is there any essential connection
between me and the rest of the silsilah or was
it all manufactured by an individual who became
entangled in his own spiritual fantasies - namely,
the so-called shaykh who was, in reality, a spiritual
fraud?
In any event, your assumption that I learned
most of what I know - whatever that may be -
at the hands of the spiritual charlatan is
quite incorrect. For seventeen years, I worked
in close proximity to an authentic shaykh.
The vast majority of what I know is due to that
association, together with the chillas I have done,
the night vigils I have observed, the fasts I have
kept, the Fatiha sessions I have attended, the
processes of contemplation and mediation in
which I have engaged, along with my study
of the Qur'an and Hadith, as well as the years
of zikr which I have performed. One can, as
well, throw in the many mystical treatises which
I have read, reflected upon, and digested, according
to my spiritual capacity to do so.
The nine or ten books which I have written were
done without consulting this so-called shaykh. While
I have no doubt that these books enjoyed Divine
assistance in order for them to be completed, such
assistance did not come through that so-called
teacher, even if, at times, I may have been mistaken
to think this might be so.
I knew what I knew before he came along. And,
I know what I know now, quite irrespective of the
fact that the man has departed from my life. My
knowledge is not dependent on him but, rather,
on what God, in His own ways, has vouchsafed
to my mind, heart, soul, and spirit.
Knowledge is not information. The former is
permanent and does not, as is the case with the
latter, alter its character depending on source,
circumstance, or motivation.
'Knowledge' which comes from someone else,
is not knowledge. It is information which may,
or may not be true.
Knowledge is a function of what has been
made deep-rooted in the heart through the
blessings of Allah. Knowledge is the face of
faith translated into specific understandings
and insights.
Does this mean that, therefore, I am finding
my own way. No, it doesn't. I am very dependent
on Divine favor, and a great deal of barakah has
come to me via my first shaykh, and, I believe,
continues to come to me through my nisbath and
love for my first shaykh.
As far as questioning my understanding of
things is concerned, I do this all the time. I am
constantly occupied with self-examination -
searching for flaws, lacunae, problematic
assumptions, hypocrisies, and unanswered
questions, while also critically exploring weaknesses,
doubts, understandings, and the significance
of on-going experience.
Hazrat 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)
is reported to have said that, for him, one of
the proofs of God's existence resides in the
fact that life does not unfold in accordance
with his wishes. He finds it comforting that
he is not in charge of the universe.
I agree with him, and, I too, am happy that
I am not in charge of the universe. I too find
it comforting that there is a Divinity Who
actually does know what He is doing, even if
the way things are done is problematic for me,
or frustrating, or confusing, or a constant struggle -
I have faith in the intelligence and justice of the
Divine Plan, even as I flounder about, gasping for
air because I am still trying to learn to swim in the
Divine Ocean.
No matter what, things are always interesting,
always changing, even as they stay the same.
Life is, indeed, a challenge and it was meant to
be so, and, therefore, the last eleven years are
but a few ripples on the surface of on-going
Being which is constantly disclosing the Names
and Attributes of Divinity in unique and
bewildering ways for the edification of
humanity - myself included.
