Tasawwuf, Sufi, and Sufism
Someone
inquired by e-mail whether or not Sufi was the same thing as Sufism. Possibly, this
question may have been asked in jest, I am not sure.
However,
serious or not, there is actually an important issue which arises out of this query. The
issue has to do with the fact that although the "S" words - Sufi and Sufism -
have widespread currency as a part of the western mystical idiom, in point of fact,
neither term is the proper one.
The following is a response to the foregoing question.
The generally accepted technical term among many, if not most,
Sufi shaykhs for the mystical dimension of Islam is "tasawwuf". Unfortunately,
for a variety of reasons - some historical, some cultural, and some linguistic, the
"S- words" (i.e., Sufi and Sufism) have gained ascendancy in the West, and even
in some parts of the East, to the almost total exclusion of the term "tasawwuf".
Nevertheless, because the "S" words are better known in
the West than the "T-word", I have used one of the two "S-word"
possibilities in the Web Page name (The Sufi Path: A Mystical Journey of Self-realization)
as a means of providing potential visitors to the Web site with some relatively familiar
wording that could indicate what the Page might be about. If I had called the page:
Tasawwuf's Approach to Self-realization, I doubt many people would have entered 'tasawwuf' in as a keyword in any of the Search
Engines which they might have used.
Having said the foregoing, I ought to point out that from the
perspective out of which we - that is the silsilah (a Sufi order) to which I belong -
operate, the term "Sufi" actually is more defensible to use than is the other
'S-word' "Sufism". Although there is some discussion which still goes on in
certain circles, most people who have the minimal requisite degree of knowledge about this
area of study tend to agree that, etymologically, the word "Sufi" is likely to
have been derived from the Arabic word "Suf"(in its transliterated form).
It is believed by some (e.g., al-Hujwiri) that the use of the term
Sufi arose as a way of linguistically referring to those faqirs or ascetics who, among
other practices, wore coarse woolen garments as a means of helping to undermine the body's
desire for comfortable garments. In addition, the wearing of these woolen garments helped
put a lid on the ego's inclination to wear fancy clothes as a means of gaining approval and acceptance in the eyes of other people as a person of standing in the community.
In the early days of Islam, there were few terms that had common
currency within the Muslim community which seemed capable of embracing the spectrum of
types of people who were drawn to the Sufi path. For instance the terms "faqir"
and "dervish" were often
associated with particular kinds of practices and cultures but these usages tended,
rightly or wrongly, to be too narrowly conceived in the minds of many people to be used as
a more generic, more inclusive term.
Through a complex mingling of historical, cultural and linguistic
influences, the term "Sufi" seemed to catch on across a number of linguistic and
cultural regions as the word to use when talking about those who were interested in, or
practitioners of, the mystical dimension of Islam. Yet, among the followers of this path,
the term "Sufi" generally would be used only while communicating with people
from outside the mystical path since it was the term with which the latter (i.e., the
outsiders) were familiar, whereas among the practitioners themselves (the
"insiders" as it were) the term "tasawwuf" frequently was used to refer to the mystical path of Islam.
In contrast to the foregoing, the term "Sufism" really
is misleading in a variety of ways, some more crucial than others. First of all, the
mystical tradition of Islam is not an "ism" like, say, capitalism, communism, socialism, idealism, realism,
fundamentalism, surrealism, and so on.
The Reality
to which mystical language and practice alludes is not the invention of some human being
or group of people. At the same time, one must admit that there are those who do invent
their own particular hermeneutic, or theory of interpretation, concerning the nature,
meaning and purpose of what the aforementioned Reality is supposedly all about.
The true mystics are those who become absent to themselves (that
is, there ego) and present to their Lord. The "inventors" of mystical hermeneutics, on the other
hand - that is, those who impose a theory onto the nature of Reality - insist on becoming
present to themselves (i.e., their false sense of self) and absent from the Reality of
Divinity for which human beings have the God-given potential of realizing.
Actually,
true mystics are scientists in the best sense of the word. The pseudo-mystics are merely
philosophers who have projected their speculative meanderings onto the Face of Reality
and, thereby, veiled themselves from the actual nature of existence in the process.
To be a scientist in the mystical sense of the word, one must be
willing, if necessary, to put one's physical life (but not the lives of others) on the
line in one's quest for the true character of issues involving, among other possibilities,
being, identity, purpose, meaning, justice, knowledge, integrity, and love. And, even if
one is not called upon to sacrifice one's physical life, one must seek to sacrifice one's ego or false self on the altar of
submission to Reality. In short, in one way or another, one must be prepared to die to
oneself.
Contrary to
the opinion of many, the statements of the true mystics can be empirically tested.
However, one has to go through an appropriate process of supervised training in order to
become a competent and qualified participant, God willing, in the discipline of mystical
science.
If a person called oneself a physicist, a chemist, a medical
doctor, or an engineer without having gone through the necessary education and training,
few would accept his or her statements concerning the reality of these disciplines, and
even fewer people would entrust one's
technical problems to such people. Although anybody has the right to voice an opinion, not
all opinions are informed, insightful or qualified in the required minimal manner and,
thereby, renders those opinions worthy of being listened to as coming from someone who
knows, within varying limits, whereof she or he speaks.
For example, one doesn't come in off the streets and begin doing physics and, and as a result,
immediately grasp the breadth and depth of the relationship between, say, experiments in
particle physics and the theory of quantum mechanics. A great deal of time and study is
required to be able to reach a point of understanding why and how various experimental
outcomes do, in fact, help verify various aspects of quantum theory.
Unfortunately,
when it comes to the mystical sciences, many physicists, chemists, doctors and engineers
do not see the irony of their proffering opinions on various facets of mystical science
despite not having gone through even step one of the long training and learning process
which is necessary to become, God willing, a bonafide, qualified mystic - someone who
knows something about the issues entailed by mystical sciences. Many of the same people
who would reject, out of hand, the pronouncements of people who did not possess the
appropriate sort of credentials of expertise in their respective fields, somehow seem to
feel that all this should change when it comes to their own pronouncements about a
discipline like mystical science in which they have no expertise, training, education or
credentials.
At the very least, such people are being very inconsistent, if not
hypocritical, in their use of ideas such as 'expertise', 'competence' and 'mastery' with respect to a given discipline. A
more problematic ramification is when such people attempt to use their authority as
scientist of one kind to cast aspersions on scientists of a kind with which they are
unfamiliar. It is as if a non-mathematician were to ridicule mathematics simply because
such an individual had no idea what the field actually involved due to a lack of
education, experience and understanding.
Of course,
this very same kind of argument can be, and often is, used by spiritual or mystical frauds
in an attempt try to cover up their spurious deeds and pronouncements. Precisely because
true mystical science lies beyond the horizons of most people, almost anyone can come
along and say something and claim that what they have said is the truth.
If someone were to express skepticism in relation to such behavior
or statements, the come-back of the pseudo-mystic can always be: "You just don't understand. Unfortunately, there have
been so many of these charlatans, the whole area of mysticism - and in what follows I am
taking poetic license with a statement made by Winston Churchill in a much different
context - is something of a mystery, wrapped up in an enigma, surrounded by a seemingly
impenetrable cloud of unknowing.
One of the
ramifications of this muddying of the waters has been to lead many people to confuse the
occult, magic, astrology and spiritism with the mystical path. The latter has absolutely
nothing to do with the former four areas of study, and vice versa.
Furthermore,
most people are not prepared to take the time which is required to be able to begin to
sift out the true from the false when it comes to mystical issues and questions.
Consequently, many people withdraw in utter frustration from the whole area and consider
these matters to be mere figments of the imagination.
In some
cases these people would be correct. In other cases they would be quite wrong. The ability
to distinguish which is which is a function of Divine guidance.
The mystical
path is not irrational, but it does have trans-rational dimensions at its core which
extend beyond the handling capacities of linguistic and rational modalities of logic.
These trans-rational dimensions can inform rational processes, and, thereby, help
generate, God willing, spiritual insight and personal transformation, but rational
analysis has no access to these realms.
The mind can
either work in concert with these dimensions and, thereby, be in a position to make use of
the numerous treasures which can be brought back from the realm of the Unseen for the
betterment of all creation. Or, the mind can act in opposition to the trans-rational
dimensions alluded to earlier and, as a result, enter into a mind-set of oppression,
denial, and antagonism in relation to mystical issues.
In any
event, because of the trans-rational, ineffable, relatively inaccessible qualities which
are associated with the esoteric dimension of Islam, some people - unilaterally, and,
frequently, quite arbitrarily - have taken it upon themselves to contend that if they do
not understand what the mystical tradition is all about, then it must be the invention of
some overly active imagination.
As a result, in the minds and hearts of such people, the mystical
realm tends to be reduced to an "ism", like so many other conceptually invented
'isms'. Whether we like it or not,
words have the capacity, both connotatively and denotatively, to influence the way we
think about a variety of issues - from religion, to politics, to society, justice and the
nature of life.
The term "Sufi' has an actual historical root which attempts
to make identifying reference to a specific kind of rigorous perspective, whereas, in many
respects, the word "sufism" has become divorced from the historical and
ontological realities out of which the word "Sufi" originally arose.
Consequently, all too frequently in our times, "sufism" has come to mean whatever any given
person wants it to mean, and, in the process, tends to becomes conflated with the occult,
the vague, the magical, the mythical, the strange, and the wishful.
The best term is "tasawwuf". After that, the word 'Sufi'
is more given to misunderstanding than is tasawwuf, but is less problematic than the term
"sufism", and, moreover, the word "Sufi" is historically and
etymologically, more defensible than is "sufism".
"Sufism" carries the connotation of all isms - that is,
of being made by human beings. Furthermore, "sufism" is a derivation of a derivation and, therefore, twice removed
from the original situation. In being twice removed, it has accumulated some questionable
philosophical baggage.
Unfortunately, the term "Sufi" is, by association",
becoming increasingly undermined in its meaning by the problems surrounding many of the
current usages to which "sufism" is applied. Nonetheless, it is better, in many
respects from the other "S-word".
Nevertheless, until such time as the word "tasawwuf"
becomes more prominent, if it ever does, then one is kind of stuck with the lesser of two
evils, so to speak. For reasons outlined in the foregoing, one can use the term
"Sufi" rather than "Sufism" in order to engage western vocabularies,
and, in the mean time, whenever one has the opportunity, such as right now, one can
indicate that "tasawwuf"
is the proper word to use.
| Return to People Ask Menu |
|
