Malamati
The Malamatiyya were an ascetic movement that originated in Khurasan in Nishapur in the late third/ninth century and whose origins are traditionally attributed to the teachings of Hamdun al-Kassar (d. 271/884-5) although several later Malamati figures were to claim that their practice derived from the Qur’an . The name of the tradition derives from the Arabic word for “blame” (malama) and signifies “the blameworthy” or “those that draw blame on themselves”.
To this end the individual members of this grouping would often indulge in apparent (or real) reprehensible behaviour in order to incur the censure of society. The reasons behind this do not stem from any desire to indulge in hedonistic activity but rather are to be seen as a a way of taming the self (nafs) or ego by exposing oneself to criticism on a persistent basis.
That the Malamati were actually ‘spiritual’ as opposed to ‘hedonistic’ can be seen by their referencing of their tradition to the Qur’an. Most notably cited is verse 5:54: which mentions those who “strive in the way of Allah, and fear not the blame of any blamer”.
Thus the Malamati doctrine is not based on a systematised philosophy as such but rather is dynamic and evolves in relation to the possibilities of a given situation. In the main, it centres around an emphasis on ikhlas (sincerity) and a core belief that any overt display of piety or public show of religious duty is ostentation and reprehensible.
However, these concepts in their original form do not in themselves seem to suggest a direct link with the issue of blame per se. Indeed, if the avoiding of public show is the foundation of the Malamat? attitude (as opposed to the avoiding of, say, public prayers) then there is little to differentiate the movement at this early point from the prevailing orthodoxy. The Qur’anic justification noted above would seem to confirm this as it clearly applies to believers who might be blamed for their (lawful) actions by non-believers.
Of course the Malamati have a bad reputation - they set out to create one, but the deeper issue is surely the degree to which those interacting with them could perceive the truth of the matter. In most cases they could not. Hence the disrepute in which they were/are held.
This is of relevance even today in contemporary ‘Sufi Studies’. Of course all people who indulge in ‘bad behaviour’, are otherwise suspect or somehow unorthodox are ruled out of contention straight off the bat but there is also a flip-side to this non-apprehension: who can perceive the truth of a situation ? Who today can detect a possible ‘Sufi teacher’ if that alleged individual is not signalling that they are such by writings, talk, uniform or tradition ?
Surely, Sufism as an active living tradition exists in one sense to develop these faculties of discrimination and the Malamati techniques are a key part of that. Unfortunately, many forms of ‘Sufism’ today have replaced active discernment with belief and faith. As such they are more aligned with the orthodox who misunderstood and chastised the early Malamati than they are with the Malamati tradition itself and that is a curious development because, demonstrably, the Malamatiyya and the Sufis were and are the same thing.
