The Mystics of Islam

“Those who adore God in the sun” (says Ibn al-ʿArabī) “behold the sun, and those who adore Him in living things see a living thing, and those who adore Him in lifeless things see a lifeless thing, and those who adore Him as a Being unique and unparalleled see that which has no like. Do not attach yourself” (he continues) “to any particular creed exclusively, so that you disbelieve in all the rest; otherwise, you will lose much good, nay, you will fail to recognise the real truth of the matter. God, the omnipresent and omnipotent, is not limited by any one creed, for He says (Kor. 2. 109), ‘Wheresoever ye turn, there is the face of Allah.’ Every one praises what he believes; his god is his own creature, and in praising it he praises himself. Consequently he blames the beliefs of others, which he would not do if he were just, but his dislike is based on ignorance. If he knew Junayd’s saying, ‘The water takes its colour from the vessel containing it,’ he would not interfere with other men’s beliefs, but would perceive God in every form of belief.”

Sūfism may join hands with freethought—it has often done so—but hardly ever with sectarianism. This explains why the vast majority of Sūfīs have been, at least nominally, attached to the catholic body of the Moslem community. ʿAbdallah Ansārī declared that of two thousand Sūfī Sheykhs with whom he was acquainted only two were Shīʿites. A certain man who was a descendant of the Caliph ʿAlī, and a fanatical Shīʿite, tells the following story:

“For five years,” he said, “my father sent me daily to a spiritual director. I learned one useful lesson from him: he told me that I should never know anything at all about Sūfism until I got completely rid of the pride which I felt on account of my lineage.”

Superficial observers have described Bābism as an offshoot of Sūfism, but the dogmatism of the one is naturally opposed to the broad eclecticism of the other. In proportion as the Sūfī gains more knowledge of God, his religious prejudices are diminished. Sheykh ʿAbd al-Rahīm ibn al-Sabbāgh, who at first disliked living in Upper Egypt, with its large Jewish and Christian population, said in his old age that he would as readily embrace a Jew or Christian as one of his own faith.

While the innumerable forms of creed and ritual may be regarded as having a certain relative value in so far as the inward feeling which inspires them is ever one and the same, from another aspect they seem to be veils of the Truth, barriers which the zealous Unitarian must strive to abolish and destroy.

Such open declarations of war against the Mohammedan religion are exceptional. Notwithstanding the breadth and depth of the gulf between full-blown Sūfism and orthodox Islam, many, if not most, Sūfīs have paid homage to the Prophet and have observed the outward forms of devotion which are incumbent on all Moslems. They have invested these rites and ceremonies with a new meaning; they have allegorised them, but they have not abandoned them. Take the pilgrimage, for example. In the eyes of the genuine Sūfī it is null and void unless each of the successive religious acts which it involves is accompanied by corresponding ‘movements of the heart.’

“From the hour when you first journeyed from your home have you also been journeying away from all sins?” He said “No.” “Then,” said Junayd, “you have made no journey. At every stage where you halted for the night did you traverse a station on the way to God?” “No,” he replied. “Then,” said Junayd, “you have not trodden the road, stage by stage. When you put on the pilgrim’s garb at the proper place, did you discard the qualities of human nature as you cast off your clothes?” “No.” “Then you have not put on the pilgrim’s garb. When you stood at ʿArafāt, did you stand one moment in contemplation of God?” “No.” “Then you have not stood at ʿArafāt. When you went to Muzdalifa and achieved your desire, did you renounce all sensual desires?” “No.” “Then you have not gone to Muzdalifa. When you circumambulated the Kaʿba, did you behold the immaterial beauty of God in the abode of purification?” “No.” “Then you have not circumambulated the Kaʿba. When you ran between Safā and Marwa, did you attain to purity (safā) and virtue (muruwwat)?” “No.” “Then you have not run. When you came to Minā, did all your wishes (munā) cease?” “No.” “Then you have not yet visited Minā. When you reached the slaughter-place and offered sacrifice, did you sacrifice the objects of worldly desire?” “No.” “Then you have not sacrificed. When you threw the pebbles, did you throw away whatever sensual thoughts were accompanying you?” “No.” “Then you have not yet thrown the pebbles, and you have not yet performed the pilgrimage.”

“The Law without the Truth,” says Hujwīrī, “is ostentation, and the Truth without the Law is hypocrisy. Their mutual relation may be compared to that of body and spirit: when the spirit departs from the body, the living body becomes a corpse, and the spirit vanishes like wind. The Moslem profession of faith includes both: the words, ‘There is no god but Allah,’ are the Truth, and the words, ‘Mohammed is the apostle of Allah,’ are the Law; any one who denies the Truth is an infidel, and any one who rejects the Law is a heretic.”

Middle ways, though proverbially safe, are difficult to walk in; and only by a tour de force can the Koran be brought into line with the esoteric doctrine which the Sūfīs derive from it. Undoubtedly they have done a great work for Islam. They have deepened and enriched the lives of millions by ruthlessly stripping off the husk of religion and insisting that its kernel must be sought, not in any formal act, but in cultivation of spiritual feelings and in purification of the inward man. This was a legitimate and most fruitful development of the Prophet’s teaching. But the Prophet was a strict monotheist, while the Sūfīs, whatever they may pretend or imagine, are theosophists, pantheists, or monists. When they speak and write as believers in the dogmas of positive religion, they use language which cannot be reconciled with such a theory of unity as we are now examining. ʿAfīfuddīn al-Tilimsānī, from whose commentary on Niffarī I have given some extracts in this chapter, said roundly that the whole Koran is polytheism—a perfectly just statement from the monistic point of view, though few Sūfīs have dared to be so explicit.

The mystic Unitarians admit the appearance of contradiction, but deny its reality. “The Law and the Truth” (they might say) “are the same thing in different aspects. The Law is for you, the Truth for us. In addressing you we speak according to the measure of your understanding, since what is meat for gnostics is poison to the uninitiated, and the highest mysteries ought to be jealously guarded from profane ears. It is only human reason that sees the single as double, and balances the Law against the Truth. Pass away from the world of opposites and become one with God, who has no opposite.”

The gnostic recognises that the Law is valid and necessary in the moral sphere. While good and evil remain, the Law stands over both, commanding and forbidding, rewarding and punishing. He knows, on the other hand, that only God really exists and acts: therefore, if evil really exists, it must be divine, and if evil things are really done, God must be the doer of them. The conclusion is false because the hypothesis is false. Evil has no real existence; it is not-being, which is the privation and absence of being, just as darkness is the absence of light. “Once,” said Nūrī, “I beheld the Light, and I fixed my gaze upon it until I became the Light.” No wonder that such illuminated souls, supremely indifferent to the shadow-shows of religion and morality in a phantom world, are ready to cry with Jalāluddīn:

It must be borne in mind that this is a theory of perfection, and that those whom it exalts above the Law are saints, spiritual guides, and profound theosophists who enjoy the special favour of God and presumably do not need to be restrained, coerced, or punished. In practice, of course, it leads in many instances to antinomianism and libertinism, as among the Bektāshīs and other orders of the so-called ‘lawless’ dervishes. The same theories produced the same results in Europe during the Middle Ages, and the impartial historian cannot ignore the corruptions to which a purely subjective mysticism is liable; but on the present occasion we are concerned with the rose itself, not with its cankers.

Not all Sūfīs are gnostics; and, as I have mentioned before, those who are not yet ripe for the gnosis receive from their gnostic teachers the ethical instruction suitable to their needs. Jalāluddīn Rūmī, in his collection of lyrical poems entitled The Dīvān of Shamsi Tabrīz, gives free rein to a pantheistic enthusiasm which sees all things under the form of eternity.