The Search for Authenticity
A person wrote and expressed a certain amount of confusion about
how a fraudulent shaykh, with whom the former individual spent many years as a mureed, could exist in the midst of a certain, esteemed silsila of the Sufi path. The person who wrote in also was uncertain about how to proceed, now that the realization of having been spiritually abused by a so-called shaykh had arisen in the individual's understanding. Should the individual stay with her present silsilah - but avoid contact with the alleged shaykh - or go in search of something else which has spiritual authenticity.
Mixed in with the foregoing issues was the concern of how to go about finding an authentic shaykh. In this conjunction, the person asked a question about the possible authenticity of another silsila different from the one with which the person had been associated previously.
While I agree that the tariqa you mention is a
very noble esoteric tradition, the fact of
the matter is, this may (and I emphasize
"may" here) have little to do with your
present situation. A lot depends on who,
really, is the person whom you have been
calling a shaykh for much of your life.
There are people who have spent time with
a Sufi silsilah - who may, or may not, have
been initiated - and, then, these people go
on to set up shop on their own. Sometimes
these people do so on the basis of some
non-ordinary kind of experience (which could
be Satanically inspired or the work of
nafs, or both together) which they interpret
as a sign from God that what they are doing,
or about to do, is spiritually appropriate.
It used to be that one of the signs of
spiritual authenticity was the existence
of a sejrah or document listing the chain
of spiritual transmission. Unfortunately,
such documents are very easy to counterfeit
and invent these days.
The questions which are roaming about in
your consciousness are similar to the ones
which still haunt the corridors of my own
consciousness. You spent more years with
your guy than I did with mine, but, in
general, the situations are, in certain
respects, very similar.
I don't know how much time you spent in the
presence of your alleged shaykh, but I spent a
fair amount of time in the presence of the
person to whom I referred as a shaykh for
twelve years, or so ... although nowhere as
much time as I spent with my first teacher
who was, by the Grace of Allah, an authentic
teacher. In any event, based on my interaction
with the spiritual charlatan - at least what I
was permitted to see, and there were a lot of
things which, in time, I came to find were
hidden from me - the individual to whom I
referred to as a shaykh knew a great deal
about Islam, the Qur'an, Hadith, and the
history of the Sufi path.
I have seen him in action with people who
are virulently anti-Sufi and he has them
eating out of his hands inside of an hour.
Through direct experience, I know something
about the Path, and, as well, I have read
relatively extensively, and I never knew him
to make a mistake - according to my understanding -
about any of the "facts" of Sufi teachings ... plus,
he had a way of putting information and ideas
together which was quite captivating.
In addition, I have no doubt he possessed
worldly kashf to some degree. He was capable -
within certain limits - of reading people's
minds or projecting thoughts and, maybe, even
had a certain capacity to see 'future' events,
and I have been witness to a fair number of
such instances in my own life, as well as in
conjunction with things others have told me.
Such abilities lend a certain credibility to
the aura of being known as a spiritual master.
However, worldly kashf is not spiritual kashf,
and real tasawwuf depends on the latter, not
the former ... and the questions which need to
be raised involve the latter.
I don't know what the actual relationship was
between the person I called a shaykh and the
person he called his shaykh. In fact, I don't
really know the spiritual status of the person
my "teacher" referred to as his "teacher".
The spiritual pedigree of the silsilah can be
verified as authentic only prior to the last
three individuals. The actual status of these
three individuals is uncertain.
It is possible that the two people prior to
the individual I called "shaykh" may have
been authentic and only the person with whom
I interacted is a false teacher. It is possible
that only one of the other two is authentic,
or, conceivably, none of them are.
Another consideration is that the person whom
I called "shaykh" was, at one point, authentic,
but - to borrow a phrase from Star Wars - got
seduced by the dark side. Such things have been
known to happen ... there are no guarantees on
the path ... as the paradigmatic exemplar of
Iblis demonstrates, one can be raised to great
spiritual heights, and one can, just as quickly,
if not more so, be lowered to the depths of a
spiritual abyss which lies at the feet of every
being - whether human or jinn - who has been
saddled with the responsibility of seeking, and
acting upon, the truth.
In the face of all these possibilities, there is
a reasonable question to ask myself. Do I have
any actual relationship with the silsilah in
question?
If the person with whom I took ba'yat is not now, nor
has never been, an authentic shaykh, then, I really
don't have a spiritual connection with the silsilah
in question - that is, the part which is authentic -
because the individual who initiated me had no
authority to do so. And, if this is the case, then,
what, exactly, is the nature of the obligation of
that silsilah toward me?
Other than the duties which one Muslim owes to
another - that is, to treat one another with
decency and to provide assistance wherever one
can - the fact of the matter is, such a silsilah
owes me nothing and is not, as far as I can see,
under any obligation to provide me with guidance
or seek blessings for me just because someone
invoked their name inappropriately. (I am not
saying the grand shaykhs of such a silsilah wouldn't
do this - only that they are under no obligation to
do so because, in truth, there is no real spiritual
connection or nisbath between us.)
If false shaykhs can place authentic silsilahs under
some sort of obligation just by invoking the names
of the latter, then, really, we can dispense with
the idea of ba'yat, silsilahs, and teachers altogether.
All anyone has to do is think warm thoughts about
this or that spiritual personage and - bam - one
is on the Sufi path, enjoying the guidance and
blessings of whomsoever one had warm thoughts about.
Your friends have encouraged you to stay with the
tariqa so that you can continue to enjoy the
blessings of association. Yet, not only is the
whole issue of precisely what kind of association
- if any - there is, up in the air, but if one doesn't
need an authentic shaykh through which to link to a
silsilah, then, why does one have to stay with a
group of people who refer to themselves as a tariqa
in order to enjoy the blessings of association - since
the blessings come from God through particular
spiritual personalities and not through a group, per
se.
It is one thing to stay with a group of people if
one derives spiritual benefit from one's interaction
with such a group. Unfortunately, just this issue is
at question because no one can definitively answer
if the group is being guided by an authentic chain
of spiritual transmission.
What you do know is there is at least one missing link -
namely, the person who is referred to as the current
shaykh of the silsilah. The questions facing you with
respect to this person are the following: was the person
ever an authentic shaykh? If not, what implications does
this carry with respect to the alleged relationship of
that individual with the person who, allegedly, immediately
preceded him in the sejrah of the silsilah? Was his
predecessor authentic and how does one verify this
independently of what one's so-called shaykh claims is
the case? If, on the other hand, the person was, at some
point, authentic, then, this raises a whole set of further
questions ... among these is the issue of whether anything
can be done to constructively alter the situation, and, this
is a very slippery and delicate issue, with many pitfalls
all the way around.
You have alluded to many things which your so-called shaykh
has done. Some of this may be known by you directly and
other things may be known only via sources which you
consider to be credible witnesses who have no vested interest
or axe to grind which might cast doubt on their claims.
All of this has to be sorted out. This is part of what
debriefing with a compassionate witness involves.
Yes, I realize there are concerns such as keeping
these kind of matters private, issues of backbiting,
and similar prohibitions which help maintain the
silence. However, I do know that Hazrat Imam Ghazzali
(may Allah be pleased with him) indicated that, within
limits, establishing the truth takes precedence over
such matters. I also know that my first shaykh did
permit, within reason, discussion of such matters if
the end result would be to establish the truth and
permit people to be better off spiritually than they
would have been without such a discussion. I do know
that none of the collections of Hadith would have
been possible if the people who made those collections
did not ask questions about the integrity, honesty,
and reliability of the people in the isnad of a given
tradition. I also know that court trials within Muslim
jurisdictions would not be possible if such questions could
not be raised and discussed. I do know that the nature of
one's niyat makes a huge difference in the permissibility
of such matters. I do know that God is a forgiving God
and that if Divinity sees that the intention of an action
is to discover the truth and through the truth to serve
God better, then, I do have faith that even if certain
mistakes are made along the way, these mistakes are
not a matter of major shirk ... which is said to be the
one unforgivable sin a person can commit.
To have taqwa is not to be afraid of God's power and
capacity to chastise - although, surely, God does
have such power. To have taqwa is to be aware that,
indeed, God is present and knows all that we do, think,
feel, or intend - and, on the basis of this awareness,
one proceeds with caution to aspire to act in accordance
with this understanding and consciousness.
If one harbors doubts, questions, and criticisms in
one's mind and heart, how is this different than if
one explores these issues with another human being? Is
not the reason for mulling things over in one's mind
to try to reach the truth of things, and is not the
reason for talking about problems with one's shaykh
to try to reach the truth of things, and is not the
reason for discussing such matters with a compassionate
witness to try to reach the truth of things -- is not
reaching the truth, but doing so within limits, and doing
so as an expression of a niyat or himma which aspires to
the truth, the deciding matter here?
Hazrat Uthman Harooni Makki (may Allah be pleased with
him), the teacher of Hazrat Mu'in-ud-din Chisti Ajmeri
(may Allah be pleased with him), once wrote to the
latter and indicated that one of the tasks of the
Sufi path is to not only to not speak ill of others, but,
as well, to not think ill of others. One of the sayings
for which Hazrat Mu'in ud-din Chisti (may Allah be pleased
with him) is famous is: "Malice toward none, Love toward
all."
However, there are several things to note in relation to
the foregoing. Both of the aforementioned saints are talking
about lofty spiritual stations ... something to work toward
and not something which most of us are capable of doing
right now. Secondly, seeking the truth need not be about
bearing malice toward anyone, and, moreover, the fact of the
matter is that we cannot love without the truth for it is
through the truth that love is given expression - love is
not blind but is rooted in awareness ... the more spiritual
awareness one has, the more love, God willing, for which
one becomes open to serving as a locus of manifestation.
One should not linger on the past, but one does have to come
to terms with it. This can only be done through the truth,
and if we could all establish the truth on our own, then,
there would be no need for guidance, or spiritual guides,
or, in line with a tradition of the Prophet, to seek counsel
from one another and to discuss matters among ourselves in
order to reach the best result, God willing, possible.
For more than a year, I had the opportunity - the blessing
really - to discuss with one person the controversies surrounding
the person to whom I had referred to as a shaykh for 12 years. The
person with whom I discussed these matters was my compassionate
witness, and I was that individual's compassionate witness - for, we
both had been betrayed and lied to and exploited by one and
the same so-called spiritual guide.
I know, by the grace of Allah, that my condition is far
better today as a result of this debriefing process with
a compassionate witness than it would have been otherwise.
The statistics and clinical findings on spiritual abuse across
different spiritual traditions bears this out - those people who
are able to talk with a compassionate witness concerning such
abuse do much better - physically, socially, emotionally,
psychologically, and spiritually - than do those individuals
who try to go it alone.
Balance, flexibility, reasonableness, fairness, honesty,
and appropriate intentions are the hallmarks of adab,
not rigidity, dogmatism, and blindness. The Muslim
community has sought to bury its problems beneath a
burqa of silence, and, then, they have tried to raise such
a burqa to the status of a virtue.
We see all around us - both in North America and abroad -
the destructive consequences of such a policy. Without
attempting to say that gossip or backbiting or rumor-
mongering should be the adab of the day, one does not
have to endorse such license in order to provide the
degrees of freedom that are necessary to discuss
problems openly, intelligently, justly, and
constructively.
The Sufi community is facing a huge problem today
which no one wants to talk about. This problem
is the existence of a plethora of false teachers
all across the world.
False teachers are not just an inconvenience and
avocational hazard, they are spiritual terrorists who
spread as much, if not more, chaos, bitterness, destruction,
fear, heartache, and uncertainty across communities
as do those terrorists who wield bombs and guns. No
one who opposes physical terrorism - and this is something
we all ought to condemn - should remain indifferent to the
brand of terrorism which is being introduced into communities
through spiritual agents of evil such as Satan, dunya, and the
nafs - whether these agents be so-called Sufi shaykhs or mullahs, imams,
and theologians ... the only difference is the choice of weapons,
and I believe far more damage has been done over the years
through the shaykhs and imams of spiritual abuse than has been
accomplished by all of the fanatical ideologues who arrogate to
themselves the right to kill innocent people.
Many people have been abused and exploited by
such charlatans, and this abuse is continuing
because most people are afraid to discuss this
matter. People are afraid not because of taqwa
or adab, they are afraid about what they might
lose - namely, Divine favor. Ra'bia of Basra
(may Allah be pleased with her) had a prayer
with which you, probably, are quite familiar
that is appropriate here: "O Lord, if I worship
Thee out of desire of heaven, then, deny me
heaven, and if I worship Thee out of fear of
Hell, then, throw me into Hell fire, but I worship
Thee out of love for Thee and Thee alone, then,
grant me Thy vision."
We should be motivated not by the benefits of
doing something or by the fear of personal
loss if we do do something (or fail to do it),
but, rather, by our himma for Divinity, and
seeking truth is at the heart of this himma.
Searching for the truth is a risky business,
and many would-be explorers have been lost
on such expeditions, but it is not possible
to make progress on the spiritual path without
taking risks ... one of the purposes of
guidance is to ensure that the risks one takes
are reasonable and justified.
However, people like you and me are in a situation
where we have to take certain risks in the
absence of any overt, direct physically present
guidance. We have to engage in ijtihad and
take our best shot at seeking the truth
when the answers which we need are not readily
apparent in either the Qur'an or the Hadith -
and I would maintain that the questions which
are staring each of us in the face do not have
plainly visible answers in either the Qur'an
or the Hadith - but, rather, we must struggle
to find the less readily apparent truths which
are there through the exercise of ijtihad - which
is not a matter of interpreting the Qur'an and
Hadith, as much as it is a matter of trying to
open ourselves up to being led back, by Allah,
to the root principles which are present (which
is the real meaning of ta'wil).
Spiritual principles are not rules. Reflection,
contemplation, meditation, and discussion are
necessary to work toward understanding the
non-linear degrees of freedom which are present
in principles, but which are not present in
the structural character of rules that are
engaged as linear phenomena.
Unfortunately, all too many people in both the
general Muslim community, as well as the Sufi
community, do not seem to understand the
difference between rules and principles. And,
even when this distinction is appreciated, all
too many people - whether exoterically or
esoterically inclined - take degrees of freedom
to mean license rather than a matter of determining
the truth about how to give everything its due,
and, thereby, do justice, as best we are able, to
creation and Divinity.
As far as your question about the authenticity of the
'such and such' tariqa is concerned, the problems which
you and I are facing remain the same. Both the devil
and Divinity are in the details, and, unfortunately, there are some
strains of the tariqa being alluded to - and in such cases one can even
raise the question of whether one is talking about an
actual tariqa any more, or something which carries
such a name but, in truth, has abandoned tasawwuf -
which are bedeviled by individuals claiming to be
shaykhs who, in my opinion, are not. However,
notwithstanding this contention, one must try to remember
that in the case of all alleged tariqas, one must go on a case
by case basis ... and, the problem here is that we both have
seen how easy it is for sincerity to encounter those who
are not sincere, but discovering the presence of insincerity can - as each
of us has discovered - take many years.
To say one should trust one’s heart and
how it feels when one comes into contact
with a candidate is a risky business because,
among other things, if our hearts were sound
to begin with, we wouldn’t be in need of a
teacher. There is a reason why certain
manifestations of the heart are known as qalb
- or, that which turns - for it is in the heart
- not the mind - that the battle for truth takes
place. It is in the heart that the decision is
made to align oneself with one set of forces
rather than another, and, sometimes, despite
the best of intentions, the heart can be fooled
because it is vulnerable when it is a state of
relative ignorance - not everything which glitters
is gold. And, the spiritual condition of a seeker
is that of one who is in relative ignorance and,
on one level, this marks the difference between
mureed (the seeker) and murad (that which is
sought) - both within ourselves as well as
without.
| Return to Menu |
|
