The Hidden Conversation
There is a fascinating post on Mary Magdalene and the ‘Is Sufism Islamic’ debate (July 22nd) on Mushtaq Ali’s blog Traceless Warrior.
The Mary Magdalene aspect is fascinating but I will focus on the wider debate because I have a great interest in this question as I am working on topics which impinge on this area with my dissertation which is concerned with the antecedents of the Sufi Malamati tradition and its possible evolution from Syriac Christianity as well as earlier parallels in the Greek school of the Cynics. Clearly, in an academic sense, it is beyond doubt (as Ali concedes) that these parallels exist and that something very similar to Sufism existed before Islam - albeit not recognized by that name. Indeed, Classical Sufi Masters are frequently on record as stating as much.
It is difficult to agree with one point he seems (according to my present understanding) to be making: that Islam rescued all previous mystical systems due to their denigration and coalesced them into one paradigm that is now a kind of benchmark. Sure, systems denigrate but my issue with this suggestion would be twofold:
1) There are numerous mystical paths in the world and this fact is acknowledged by the Classical Sufi Masters. To my understanding this would imply that paths such as Zen, Kaballah etc could at one time or another lead one to realization. To be fair, there are several problems with this view - many such systems (including the foregoing two I mentioned) can arguably be traced to Islamic/Sufic origins to some degree and so could conceivably be classed as Islamic and thus make the point moot.
Again, the Masters do not stipulate actual systems by name so they could possibly be referring to different (Islamic) Sufi paths when discussing the paths that are ‘numerous as the souls of men’. Clearly some of the Islamic Sufi tariqas can be viewed as antithetical from certain perspectives - the Silent/moderate Naqshbandis and the more exhibitionist Rifa’i for example.
2) The second objection is more serious. If it is accepted that a genuine mystical tradition that was essentially Sufism under another name - ie Jesus’s teaching in Mushtaq’s view - can actually deteriorate or turn into its polar opposite (and I believe it can) then why can it not happen again? Even if the theory is true (perhaps especially if) then why should such a state of affairs not reoccur?
I personally believe it has and I think it is this factor which confuses the ‘pre-Islamic Sufism’ debate. I agree with Mushtaq’s theory of the corruption of previous systems leading to the gathering of all the valuable remainder in the new dispensation of Islam (although I would not go as far as to say there were absolutely no other valid mystical systems operational at the time - rather I would see it as a geographical enterprise limited to the near and middle east, there were clearly extant and valid methodologies in the Buddhist and Hindu traditions for example) but I cannot agree that this fact (if indeed it is a fact) that this implies that the Islamic Sufi Tradition is therefore inviolate from that time and forever onwards - it too must be subject to the same decay. It is merely the same path salvaged and re-presented - it is not (and cannot be) superior or ‘better’, yet such a view seems to me to be the basis behind such assertions.
If such is the case then Islamic Sufism is in the same boat now as ‘Christian Sufism’ (for want of a better word) was at the dawn of Islam. There is no threat in this. God (if such path are ‘true’ or valid) will arrange for the Tradition to be recast yet again as it always has been, Nothing has changed. The process where the disciples and potential disciples of a teacher turn from ‘learners’ into mere ‘believers’ and hence cut off their potential route to knowledge, settling instead for the inferior substitute of belief, is well documented in Mushtaq’s post.
It is a process that can be also observed in the ‘real world’ by close scrutiny of many Dervish ‘orders’ and it seems to me that a similar process is now underway in relation to the teachings and personality of Idries Shah. The real important question for me is: ‘what is the new form’ and perhaps crucially (and worryingly) ‘will I be able to recognize it?’
Shah himself described the process in great depth in his numerous works so he was obviously aware of the mechanism and the Prophet Muhammad (saws) also described in detail the deterioration of Islam in the latter times. It’s unfortunate and sad but it seems very much to be the way things are - as such it must be faced.
Traceless Warrior is well worth a read and there is also an interesting series of posts on the topic of the ‘Hidden Conversation’ in Sufism and the distinction between “Al lasun an Nafs” and “Al Lasun al Dhat” - respectively the language of the ego and the language of the essence (hence the title of this post which I know is misleading - but in justification I kind of preferred it to Mary Magdalene and I was going to write about it in greater depth, plus after all I am trying to say something and not say it at the same time!). Ali rightly cites Gurdjieff as describing this doctrine but it is also outlined in numerous places in the Shah ‘hagiography’ Journeys with a Sufi Master, particularly chapter 9, but I have not time to blog on it now. Everyone interested in this aspect of Sufism should read Mushtaq Ali’s post though, it is very thought-provoking.
