Isn’t there a distinction between the Malamati and the Kalandar - it’s the Kalandar (I am not sure about the correct spelling) that break the rules - moral or legal or religious - on purpose. Idries Shah once wrote that some become Kalandar only to be able to break the rules. Malamati will conform to outward norms of behavior, if only so as to not draw undue attention to themselves.
-----

Yes, I think that is right. The two are quite distinct groups - basically the malamatiyya hid their devotion to God from people lest it inflame the nafs and hinder their progress through pride, while the qalandaris (which were a later group arising in a different area actively engaged in licentious or socially unacceptable actions and justified it through notions of a ‘spiritual path’. Really Qalandars were often miscreants with no real spiritual agenda or insight.

Personally I do not believe there is a connection between the two although some argue there is. The classic work on the Qalandars is Karamustafa’s God’s Unruly Friendshttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=anulios-20&l=ur2&o=1. Bit pricey though.

According to the Turkish scholar, Abdulbaki Golpinarli, there were “three waves” of malamati activity, the first being in Ninth Century Nishapur (a town in the province of Khorosan, the second being a revival that occured in Fourteenth Century Anatolia (present--day Turkey), and the third being a school initiated by Pir Nur al-Arabi in the Balkans and Anatolia in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.  (This school continues to this day). 

Most historians would agree with Segovius that the sufiyya, qalandariyya and malamtiyya (alt. malamiyya) were all separate tendancies or expressions of Islamic mysticism.  However, they all influenced each other, and the term “malamati” takes on different meanings in different periods of Islamic history. 

In the earliest period (Nishapur), the accent was placed on self-abnegation, as Segovius indicates.  Later, in the Ottoman period, the malamati off-shoot of the Bayrami Order, were often accused of being “extremists of wahdad al-wujud” (the school of Ibn al-Arabi).  They also absorbed a number of other influences, including those that can be characterized as “Hallajian.” Because of this, they were also considered “blame-worthy,” if not antinomian, by many leading ulama (i.e. “clerics") of the Ottoman establishment—and thus, they became a largely underground movement.

So, here, in the “second wave,” the malamatiyya took on a character that was often, also, assigned to qalandars (or “wandering anti-nomian Sufis"). This broader concept of the malamiyya was refined by Pir Nur al-Arabi (d. 1878 CE) who was (intially at least) a Naqshbandi Shaykh and who re-aligned the mainstream of the malamatiyya with the less extravagant doctrines of Ibn al-Arabi.  The school of Nur al-Arabi, named in Turkish the Nuriyye-Melamiyye, has a few adherents today, and a few modern scholars like Alexandre Popovic, Nathalie Clayer, and Thierry Zarcone have detailed the later manifestations of the malamatiyya (unfortunately, mainly in French).  To those with access, I would also recommend the entry on “Malamatiyya” in the Encyclopedia of Islam, although it says precious little about Nur al-Arabi.

It is now known that Hasan Lutfi Sushud, the last teacher of J.G. Bennett, was a qualified murshid of the Nuriyye-Melamiyye, although Sushud’s own method, “Itlak Yolu” (the “Path of Liberation") was only loosely drawn from either the Malamatiyya or the Naqshbandiyya.  (Suhud inherited the lineage of both schools of Sufism).

To my knowledge, very little is published (in any language) about the present-day workings of the spiritual descendents of Pir Nur al-Arabi, although I hope to make up for the shortage in my own book (in progress) And it will be authorized as an accurate rendering by a leading, surviving Murshid of the Nuriyye-Melamiyye—God-willing.

As for the qalandariyya, I respectfully differ with Segovius.  He is absolutely right in stating that the qalandars were diffentiated from malamatis (see, for example, Karamustapha), yet the qalandar trope is frequently found in the writings of Sana’i, Attar, Rumi, and many other classical Sufis.  This trope (if not the Qalandari Order) is an important aspect of Sufism, and it indicates the necessity of breaking with convention (if not the actual shariah).  This, too, is found in the malamatiyya, but in a more careful and precise manner than often found among so-called qalandars.  Both Segovius and Karamustapha are correct that itinerant devishes could often become simply—and hypocritcally—licentious, but this should not be taken to mean that all Sufis (or malamatis) who take on the mannerisms or behaviors of a qalandar are actually bi-shar (outside the shariah).  This is a far more complex issue than can be adequately addressed on a forum such as this one.

Hi Yasin

many thanks for this excellent post. I would be most interested in hearing more of your research - as you rightly say, this is a very under-researched area and, in my opinion, there is much light remains to be shed on these issues.

Actually, this post has quite an element of synchronicity for me - only yesterday I was thinking along some of the lines you suggest. How one might have to ‘descend’ from righteousness in order to move on again.

I was thinking specifically of Rasputin (again a descendant of the ‘sinner saint’ model) and his idea of ‘casting out sin by sinning’. Basically the idea was that one rejects piety by committing some sin that one want in reality to do anyway...if this is done enough then conscience will kick-in and REAL repentance will be the result.

Perhaps this is similar to the idea of the Beshara movements but I had never quite thought of it like that.

You are right about the Classical Masters using the term qalandar though sometimes they seem to use it interchangeably with the malamatiyya and sometimes as a perjorative. Then again they also seem to use it as a token of purity in some cases.