Subject: Sufism and Islam (again)
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Haramullah)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940823
Alaikum dinakum waleyah din.
My kin, Noori, writes:
|yes but the question is can you really be a sufi and not be a
|muslim.
I refer all those interested in the very long discussion of this point
to the files via ftp on ftp.lysator.liu.se /pub/religion/sufism. Between
taher and I alone we were able to quite chase away very many people with
our radically different perspectives on this controversial question.
Alternatively, I gather (though I have yet to read it) that 'Gnosis'
magazine has a back-issue centering on Sufism and it may deal somewhat with
the question of sufism without Islam. Perhaps Jay Kinney could confirm
and/or argue this point.
I think that whenever we get into the question of 'really's then we begin
to appeal to levels of knowledge which transcend our ability ot ascertain
outside of direct communication from Allah Al-Alim. My own experience
indicates that this differs for *each and every person* (thus my greeting
line of 'Alaikum dinakum waleyah din', which, as I understand it, means:
'To you your way, to me mine').
|or if you would like it put another way is there any
|possiblity of sufism wihtout islam.
My impression is that aside from positions for or against, the only
justification I've ever seen to deny the possibility came from the
religious texts themselves, which is a specious argument, since those
who do not participate in the religion of Islam do not necessarily
recognize them as authoritative. Even if they do, this does not mean
that the quoted text must be interpreted in a particular way.
Beyond this there are surely countless Muslim Sufis (and I distinguish
between the religious Muslims and the righteous muslims who may or may
not reside within the religion) who will claim to know that there cannot
be a possibility such as you ask about above. Leaving aside for the
moment the translation into English (and therefore interpretation), I
am not aware that any particular reference (religous or no) may be said
to constitute 'the correct and primal truth' on the matter, though I
would love to hear others provide their arguments to the contrary (with
quotes from these individuals, though I'd prefer not from Al Qur'an).
|i am of the schoolk that
|believes that there is no sufism without islam or if there is a
|sufism without islam it might be thought of as a cut rose.
Do you have reason behind this belief? If so, what is it? I hope you
know that some might consider it an insult to be told that what they
are doing isn't 'real sufism'.
|buatiful still with a certain redolence but without roots and
|ultimately sterile.
How do you assess this? Have you sampled the various paths which do
or do not claim to be sufism which do not call themselves 'Muslim'?
If not, is it possible that your sources are biased? If the roots are
in Allah, what more is the need?
La ilaha illa 'Llah, my kin, and Muhammadun rasulu'Llah.
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 22:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hugh Talat Halman
Subject: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Let's remember that some of the most important Sufis and Muslims lived
before the most important Sufi and Muslim Rasul Allah Muhammad (S). If as
many have taught, tasawwuf was propagated by Adam, Seth, Idris (Hermes
Trismegistus), Ibrahim, Isma'il, Musa, Dawud, Ilyas (Elijah) al-Khidr,
'Isa (Jesus), and others, then Sufism and Islam are intertwined indeed,
but not exclusively in a formal sense; i.e. the Sufism and Islam of the
prophets, Messengers, and awliya' I have mentioned above was not formal,
but actual. There is no true reason to segregate non-Muslims from a list.
Invite the People of the Book(s) to participate; let Allah determine who
are Sufis, Muslims, or otherwise. Meanwhile let each of us strive for the
truth s/he is called to. Remember, Muhammad (S) Ibn 'Arabi, Rumi and so
many others dialogued in cooperative harmony.
As-Salaam 'Alaikum
Hugh Talat Halman
Dept. Religion
118 Gray Bldg.
Duke University/Durham/NC/27708
===
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 14:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
I would like to respond to this. Messengers prior to Muhammad, peace and
blessings be upon him, brought Islam. Sufism is merely a name of the
inward aspects of Islam of whatever age which arose because people forgot
about the inward aspects of the teaching and it needed reaffirmation. Many
people have the mistaken idea that there is something called "sufism"
without Islam. The outward of Islam is the prerequsite to inward of Islam
(called sufism). Without the outward aspect there is no inward. There is
only something else which has been artificially created by orientalists
in order to confuse people.
Since all previous versions of Islam have been superceeded by the Sharia
of the Prophet Muhammad then those who do not accept this first have no
genuine access to the inward it protects. Perhaps they have access to
other spiritual paths but they are just fooling themselves if they mix up
lots of different spiritual traditions including sufism and think they
have something other than a mess. This is my opinion supported by the
great spirtual leaders among the Muslims who always called to Islam
first. I in turn call you all to become Muslims and then follow what ever
tariqa you like to enter the genuine spiritual tradition within Islam. If
you accept that Islamic sharia and sunnah is the prerequsite to
understanding the spiritual dimension of that practice then you are
invited to the Muslim Sufi email list. Otherwise you would probably not
find anything of interest there because as I said previously those who
accept Islam first have a totally different take on sufism -- it is the
completion of the deen -- not something else other than the deen.
Kent (abd al-Alim)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Wed, 24 Aug 1994, Hugh Talat Halman wrote:
>
> Let's remember that some of the most important Sufis and Muslims lived
> before the most important Sufi and Muslim Rasul Allah Muhammad (S). If as
> many have taught, tasawwuf was propagated by Adam, Seth, Idris (Hermes
> Trismegistus), Ibrahim, Isma'il, Musa, Dawud, Ilyas (Elijah) al-Khidr,
> 'Isa (Jesus), and others, then Sufism and Islam are intertwined indeed,
> but not exclusively in a formal sense; i.e. the Sufism and Islam of the
> prophets, Messengers, and awliya' I have mentioned above was not formal,
> but actual. There is no true reason to segregate non-Muslims from a list.
> Invite the People of the Book(s) to participate; let Allah determine who
> are Sufis, Muslims, or otherwise. Meanwhile let each of us strive for the
> truth s/he is called to. Remember, Muhammad (S) Ibn 'Arabi, Rumi and so
> many others dialogued in cooperative harmony.
> As-Salaam 'Alaikum
> Hugh Talat Halman
> Dept. Religion
> 118 Gray Bldg.
> Duke University/Durham/NC/27708
>
===
From: Qutub@aol.com
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 18:07:30 EDT
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
All paths lead to the same source.
I believe it was Omar Kyayyam who said that religion is like looking through
a stained glass lamp. The light will look different depending on which stain
you look through, but the flame remains the same. Sufism can be experienced
by anybody that practices inner perception, you become one with the ultimate
reality and see the truth in the essance of all religions. It is the flame
that is importent not the color of the glass. Zen mystics experience the
same enlightinment as Sufis. The only differences are in how they come to the
ultimate reality. Whichever method works best for you is what you should
follow. You do not need to be a Muslim to experience it, just open minded.
Peace to EVERYBODY!!!
===
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello--
I do not want to press this point too far but this is an assumption on
your part. I believe that the Islamic position is that reality is the
same for everyone muslim or non-muslim but not all paths arrive there.
All other paths were abrogated with the advent of the Prophet Muhammad,
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. It is interesting in this
respect that Hui-Neng lived about the same time as the Prophet Muhammad
and he said his transmission stopped with him. I personally am interested
in other paths because sufism is best understood in this context.
However, I think it is quite clear that different paths may end up
different places, different spiritual states. I do not denigrate these
other endpoints or their ways. But i find that those who mix paths
tend to merely get lost because they fail to realize the basic prerequsit
of any path which is self-effacement. However to each his own. I merely
am interested in providing a forum for discussing sufism for those who
have satisfied its prerequsites which is the embracing of islam. Before
this it is merely an intellectual exercise with no real experiential content.
Kent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Mon, 29 Aug 1994 Qutub@aol.com wrote:
> All paths lead to the same source.
> I believe it was Omar Kyayyam who said that religion is like looking through
> a stained glass lamp. The light will look different depending on which stain
> you look through, but the flame remains the same. Sufism can be experienced
> by anybody that practices inner perception, you become one with the ultimate
> reality and see the truth in the essance of all religions. It is the flame
> that is importent not the color of the glass. Zen mystics experience the
> same enlightinment as Sufis. The only differences are in how they come to the
> ultimate reality. Whichever method works best for you is what you should
> follow. You do not need to be a Muslim to experience it, just open minded.
>
> Peace to EVERYBODY!!!
>
>
===
From: Mohsen Abdel-Hadi
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
On Mon, 29 Aug 1994 Qutub@aol.com wrote:
> All paths lead to the same source.
> I believe it was Omar Kyayyam who said that religion is like looking through
> a stained glass lamp. The light will look different depending on which stain
> you look through, but the flame remains the same. Sufism can be experienced
> by anybody that practices inner perception, you become one with the ultimate
> reality and see the truth in the essance of all religions. It is the flame
> that is importent not the color of the glass. Zen mystics experience the
> same enlightinment as Sufis. The only differences are in how they come to the
> ultimate reality. Whichever method works best for you is what you should
> follow. You do not need to be a Muslim to experience it, just open minded.
>
>
I don't agree that all paths lead to the same source. The Quran says it
clearly:
"and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at
their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard
(against evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be
careful (of your duty) to Allah, that you may be
successful."(2:189)
So we see here the two conditions :
1. enter through the door
2. observe your duties to God.
That is, following the shariaa is a must.
The "enlightenment" that people reach by practicing Zen or other sorts of
meditation is not the same thing experienced by following Islamic ways.
A person can "see" the light by emptying the mind. This could be achieved
by staring at an object, repeating a word for a long period of time or if
possible just closing the eyes and seeing total darkness, that is stop
thinking (it was said that doing that for few seconds is good enough).
Sufism -as far as I understand it- is seeking The One. And the only way to
reach Him is that revealed to us by Him.
The difference between what Sufis reach and what others reach is told to
us in the Quran (Surat Al-Anaam) in the story of Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) :
{When the night covered him over,
He saw a star; he said: "This is my Lord",
But when it set, he said: "I love not those that set".} (6:76)
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said that Allah has 70 (or 70000) veils of light;
and Imam El-Ghazali (in the book IHYAA 'LUM ELDEEN) explained
that these veils vary in brightness in the sense that the first
one resembles a star, the second represents the Moon, etc..
So where the pagans stopped, Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) refused to
accept as a god. Verses in the same Surat subsequent to this one
tell how he was taken from one veil to the next (the star, the Moon
then the Sun) until he said:
" O my people! I am indeed free from your guilt of ascribing
partners to Allah".
Meaning that his people liked the "lights" they saw; but God led
him to the Truth.
The same path has been followed by all Prophets, Sahaba, Awleyaa
as well as some of the followers of Islamic Sufism who -according to the
Quran- are all Muslims.
And God knows best.
mohsen
===
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 10:00:46 WET DST
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: gbraakman@knoware.nl (gert braakman)
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
On Wednesday,30 Aug 1994 Mohsen wrote:
>I don't agree that all paths lead to the same source. The Quran says it
>clearly:
>
>"and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at
>their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard
>(against evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be
>careful (of your duty) to Allah, that you may be
>successful."(2:189)
>So we see here the two conditions :
>1. enter through the door
>2. observe your duties to God.
>That is, following the shariaa is a must.
Dear Mohsen,
I am somewhat shocked by your dogmatic approach to sufism. Although most
people would consider me a sufi (Iam initiated in a silsilae and practiced
meditation, ziks etc for over 20 years) Yet the term sufi to me remains
only a label for other to recognize what i'm doing. It's not a label
intended to define others as non-sufies.
I consider myself a sufi, but not a moslim. I am often repelled by blind
literal interpretatation of the koran by most moslims.Maybe that's because
I am a westener and have seen to what hatred, fear and killings dogmatic
religion lead.
In my vieuw the "message of prophets, whatever their name, is intended to
draw people closer to God, open them up to God's love and blessings.
I see sufism as a deeply human way of understanding that transcends Islam
and at the same time expresses the innermost core of Islam and many other
religions.
>Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said that Allah has 70 (or 70000) veils of light;
>and Imam El-Ghazali (in the book IHYAA 'LUM ELDEEN) explained
>that these veils vary in brightness in the sense that the first
>one resembles a star, the second represents the Moon, etc..
I could not possibly take such a statement literally. "I have now seen
through 56500 veils, 13500 veils to go, and then I will see Allah".
70000 to me is a methaphore that expresses never ending layers of insight
or rather, increasing love.
I once believed that there would be a point where my journey would end. 20
years of meditation and ziks later, I believe that there is no end to the
journey. Even "enlightment" is an ongoing process. Allah is an ongoing
process, He/She/It continues to create and change every day.
With respect to your opinions:
To discuss the nature of ALLAH to me is missing the point. That sort of
knowledge does not add to my love for him. It only creates a "my Allah"
that different from "your Allah".
With respect,
Gert
===
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello--
This point of view is generally called pseudo-sufism and is rampant in
the West. I myself feel that it is an artifact of orientalism. The whole
concept of doing dhikr without the basic practices of Islam I would liken
to going into a nuclear reactor without the proper shielded clothing.
However it is clear that commercially selling sufism devoid of islam has
had some marketability, but I would venture that it is a worthless
product. Better to be a Buddhist or follow some other path than dabble
with sufism but not accept its prerequsites. However, just saying that it
is ridiculous will not stop people from doing such things as they
construct their own paths out of the shoppin list of practices from all
over the world. In my opinion this has nothing to do with spirituality
but only is a strange form of self agrandizement. If you read the Quran
it says quite plainly that the prerequsite for doing anything is
establishing the prayer and paying zakt. The path of sufism only exists
within the broad road of the sharia of Islam. Shocking or not this is the
way it is. This is not a fundamentalist interpretation of Quran but
something that can be clearly read there by anyone who takes time to
see what it is really saying. Anything else is a perversion of
Sufism because it raises sufism over the thing that it is meant to serve.
If you look at the histroy of sufism you will find that no accepted
master of this path ever did that. It is only through the twisted
interpreations of Orientalists from the West that this strange approach
to Sufism was concocted. Look at Ibn al-Arabi for example, He was a
fanatic about Sharia as were all the other masters of this way.
Orietalists have found a few counter examples, people rejected by the
tradition of the way within Islam, who they hold up as if they were
paradigmatic cases. The real question is what is to be gained by
separating sufism from islam? It is like separating the heart from the
body, it destroys teh victim. IT is to be seen as the dual of the Wahabi
(Salifi) attack on the sufi's within Islam. An islam without sufism is no
longer dangerous to the Western worldview, it is just another new age
fantasy religion. But when you combine sufism with islam you get a
powerful transforming force that gives a real alternative to the way of
life of the West which is now being labled the last enemy by the pundits
that feel that we must always have an enemy. The muslims for the most
part have not tapped this resource because many of them have been fooled
into rejecting sufism, i.e. rejecting the heart of islam. But there are
more and more muslim sufis all the time and especially many Westerners
that have beccome interested in really finding out what this path is all
about. I am one of those. I am looking for others like me who are
interested in the inward aspects of Islam, what ever you call that.
Anyway this is the reason there is another list called
sufi@world.std.com. I myself found shocking many of the things that
appeared on this list in the past. Muslims who are sufis just have a
completely different take on what Sufism is. The interesting thing is not
sufism but Islam itself and how it transforms your life. Sufism is just a
name for the transformative effect of Islam when it is practiced with its
meaning in mind and with Allah as the constand goal of that practice.
I do not think it is worth arguing these points cause one either sees
this connection or one does not. But it is incumbant on Muslims who know
to point out the fact that Islam is primary and Sufism secondary when
ever that issue comes up. Those who are trying to market something called
"Sufism" tend to play down this fact and I think lead people astray.
There is no "Sufism , only Islam with or without the inward aspects
emphasized. This path does not take you the same place as Buddhism or
Taoism even though we do not deny that they are ways to approach aspects
of the same Reality.
Abd al-Alim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, gert braakman wrote:
> On Wednesday,30 Aug 1994 Mohsen wrote:
>
> >I don't agree that all paths lead to the same source. The Quran says it
> >clearly:
> >
> >"and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at
> >their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard
> >(against evil); and go into the houses by their doors and be
> >careful (of your duty) to Allah, that you may be
> >successful."(2:189)
> >So we see here the two conditions :
> >1. enter through the door
> >2. observe your duties to God.
> >That is, following the shariaa is a must.
>
> Dear Mohsen,
>
> I am somewhat shocked by your dogmatic approach to sufism. Although most
> people would consider me a sufi (Iam initiated in a silsilae and practiced
> meditation, ziks etc for over 20 years) Yet the term sufi to me remains
> only a label for other to recognize what i'm doing. It's not a label
> intended to define others as non-sufies.
> I consider myself a sufi, but not a moslim. I am often repelled by blind
> literal interpretatation of the koran by most moslims.Maybe that's because
> I am a westener and have seen to what hatred, fear and killings dogmatic
> religion lead.
> In my vieuw the "message of prophets, whatever their name, is intended to
> draw people closer to God, open them up to God's love and blessings.
>
>
> I see sufism as a deeply human way of understanding that transcends Islam
> and at the same time expresses the innermost core of Islam and many other
> religions.
>
> >Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said that Allah has 70 (or 70000) veils of light;
> >and Imam El-Ghazali (in the book IHYAA 'LUM ELDEEN) explained
> >that these veils vary in brightness in the sense that the first
> >one resembles a star, the second represents the Moon, etc..
>
> I could not possibly take such a statement literally. "I have now seen
> through 56500 veils, 13500 veils to go, and then I will see Allah".
>
> 70000 to me is a methaphore that expresses never ending layers of insight
> or rather, increasing love.
>
> I once believed that there would be a point where my journey would end. 20
> years of meditation and ziks later, I believe that there is no end to the
> journey. Even "enlightment" is an ongoing process. Allah is an ongoing
> process, He/She/It continues to create and change every day.
>
> With respect to your opinions:
> To discuss the nature of ALLAH to me is missing the point. That sort of
> knowledge does not add to my love for him. It only creates a "my Allah"
> that different from "your Allah".
>
>
> With respect,
>
> Gert
>
>
>
===
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 16:21:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohsen Abdel-Hadi
Subject: Re: Sufism & Islam
To: tariqas
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Dear Gert
I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else with my posting (definitely
it's not my intention)
What I've posted is simply the way I understand Sufism, that is -as Mr
Palmer mentioned- Islam is a prerequisite to Sufism.
It does not mean that others should see it this way.
I never had the intention of discussing or even thinking about the nature
of Allah (SWT). All I know about His nature is said in three words in the
Quran "Nothing is like Him" (Layssa kamethlehee shay`)
As far as I understand (and believe), the Quran and the Sunna are
complete and need not be complemented by revelations (keshoufat) that
Sufis experience.
My interest in Sufis work is their interpretation of the Quran verses and
not to follow their ways unless I'm positive that it does not contradict
the Quran and Sunna. That's why I believe that Sufism is related to
Islam.
I do not consider literal interpretation of the Quran to be blind. In fact
that's what Muslims are required to believe.
If people kill and hate in the name of religions that doesn't mean that
the religions are flawed, but people are.
There is nothing in the Quran or the sunna that tell people to kill or hate.
In fact if you read the stories of the prophets will find the opposite.
Allegorical meanings are only known to Allah (as He says in the Quran)
and He reveils them as He wishes to His servants.
I am not a Sufi (yet). I am not planning to follow a recipe other than
what's in the Quran and the Sunna.
"Karamat" and "keshoufat" are not what I am after.
I'm not looking for anything that transcends Islam. If you read it carefully
you'll find that it's a "deeply human way of understanding" that need not
be transcended.
I see "the message" to be from God and He reveiled it to us through His
prophets. I don't see it as "the message of the prophets".
I see everything in the Quran as orders to those who are first Muslims and
after that "believers". I don't look at them as advices or "options".
All I meant by the examples I referred to from the Quran is that not all
the ways lead to the same thing.
Obviously, the way you are following is different from the one I chose,
I think you agreed with me in this respect by saying that our disagreement
creates "my Allah different for your Allah".
Again, I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right, or that you
are not a Sufi and someone else is -I do not judge anyone- I'm just
presenting what I believe.
May He guide us all to the straight path
mohsen
(BTW: Allah (SWT) refers to Himself as HE. We have no right to call Him
She/It)
===
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 15:08:29 -0700
From: Samuel Goldberger
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Dr Palmer writes (excerpted):
> The whole concept of doing dhikr without the basic
> practices of Islam I would liken to going into a nuclear
> reactor without the proper shielded clothing. However
> it is clear that commercially selling sufism devoid of
> islam has had some marketability, but I would venture
> that it is a worthless product.
> The path of sufism only exists within the broad road of the
> sharia of Islam.
> But it is incumbant on Muslims who know to point out the
> fact that Islam is primary and Sufism secondary when ever
> that issue comes up.
Ibn 'Arabi (Fusus al-Hikam, The Word of Seth, trans. T. Burkhardt) writes:
"Some of us imply ingorance in their knoweldge and cite in this
respecct the word (of Calif Abu Bakr): 'To realize that one is
powerless to know the Knowledge is already knowledge'. But amongst us
there is one who knows and does not say these words; his knowledge
does not imply a powerlessness to know, it implies the inexpressible;
it is this latter that has the most perfect concsciousness of God.
"Now, this knowledge is given only to the Seal of God's Messengers;
and to the Seal of the Saints; none of the prophets and messengers
imbibe it anywhere else than in the tabernacle of the messenger who is
their seal. Again, none of the saints imbibes it elsewhere than in the
tabernacle of the saint who is their seal; so that the messengers also
imbibe this knowledge, in so far as they imbibe it, in the tabernacles
of the Seal of the Saints; for the function of the messenger of God
and that of the prophet--I mean the prophetic function in so far as it
brings about the promulgation of a sacred law--ceases, whereas
saintliness never ceases; so, the messengers only receive this
knowledge because they are also saints, and solely from the tabernacle
of the Seal of Saints.
"...And this is true, although the Seal of the Saints conforms himself
to the sacred Law given by the Seal of the Prophets; that does not
prejudice his spiritual rank and takes away nothing from that which we
have just said; for it is possible that it is inferior from a certain
point of view, at the same time being superior from another point of
view."
===
From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 15:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940901
'Laikum dinukum waley-ah din. (hope I got it right this time, apologies for
previous ineptitude :>)
I know I said that I would not involve myself with this never-ending and
poorly thought-out debate, so I will just ask a few clarifying questions,
not arguing anything that isn't asked of me directly....
Kent Palmer writes:
|However it is clear that commercially selling sufism devoid of islam has
|had some marketability, but I would venture that it is a worthless
|product. Better to be a Buddhist or follow some other path than dabble
|with sufism but not accept its prerequsites.
Why isn't it possible for individuals to have a personal relationship
with Allah and develop 'alternate' forms of sufism which do not require
a connection to the religious tradition?
|is ridiculous will not stop people from doing such things as they
|construct their own paths out of the shoppin list of practices from all
|over the world.
What is it about experimentation outside religion that you don't like and
why don't you like it? Why cannot 'constructing one's own path' be a
part of sufism?
|In my opinion this has nothing to do with spirituality but only is a
|strange form of self agrandizement.
I'm not sure I understand. If it isn't marketed, if it is shown to the
aspirant by Allah, and it does not necessarily involve the Middle East,
then why isn't this spirituality? How is it self-aggrandizement? How
many people who fall into this category have you known well? How careful
and thorough a study of this issue have you done?
|The real question is what is to be gained by separating sufism from
|islam?
I agree with you. What do the 'Orientalists' say is to be gained by
doing this? Why do you feel they are mistaken?
|An islam without sufism is no longer dangerous to the Western
|worldview, it is just another new age fantasy religion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you explain this clearly? What falls into this category?
Christianity? Bob and the Church of the Subgenius? Hermetics?
Neobuddhism? Nichiren Shoshu of America (defunct)? Mormonism?
|But when you combine sufism with islam you get a
|powerful transforming force that gives a real alternative to the way of
|life of the West which is now being labled the last enemy by the pundits
|that feel that we must always have an enemy.
Could you expand on what this 'real alternative' is? Does it offer a more
benevolent view of nature and of women? Does it offer less potential to
violence and more acceptance of other, controversial alternatives?
|that have beccome interested in really finding out what this path is all
|about. I am one of those. I am looking for others like me who are
|interested in the inward aspects of Islam, what ever you call that.
|
|Anyway this is the reason there is another list called sufi@world.std.com.
Hey, that's what *I* said, but Habib and Jay said I was being extreme.
Ah well.
|Sufism is just a name for the transformative effect of Islam when it
|is practiced with its meaning in mind and with Allah as the constand
|goal of that practice.
Thank you for this perspective. Why do you feel it is the One True
Perspective (i.e. that it applies beyond just your life)? Was it revealed
to you through the Qur'an? From friends? Is it possible that you are
somewhat biased by your conversion?
|There is no "Sufism , only Islam with or without the inward aspects
|emphasized. This path does not take you the same place as Buddhism or
|Taoism even though we do not deny that they are ways to approach aspects
|of the same Reality.
Where do you think these 'other paths' take people, then? From a Muslim
perspective, now, do they take people to the realm of the Evil One? Or
to some pleasant but not salvaged place? I'm sincerely interested.
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 20:59:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohsen Abdel-Hadi
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, tyagi mordred nagasiva wrote:
> Why isn't it possible for individuals to have a personal relationship
> with Allah and develop 'alternate' forms of sufism which do not require
> a connection to the religious tradition?
I apologize for interfering, but the fact that you started your posting
with a verse from the Quran made me wonder about "lakum deenukum" which is
exactly referring to the "alternative forms" and "wa lyah deen" which
refers to Islam.
It seems to me that you typed the answer before typing the question (?)
>
> What is it about experimentation outside religion that you don't like and
> why don't you like it? Why cannot 'constructing one's own path' be a
> part of sufism?
>
Experimentation is exactly what all this "new age" stuff is about.
Although if you think of it, there is nothing really new about it. It's
the same old thing of emptying the mind through a mantra or visualization
which is older than Judaism (except that now it cost $$ instead of
whatever they used to charge back then)
If the purpose is to indulge in fantasies, then there is nothing
wrong with constructing ones path.
If the purpose is to go to the Creator, then the way is the one He prescribed.
If I want to visit you and you don't like smoking or drinking, I can't
bring a case of beer and a box of cigars and come to your home.
If you tell me to follow a certain road because this is the clean one, I
can't follow a muddy road, come to you with dirty feet and expect you
to admit me.
If I am sick, I go to a doctor, and follow whatever he prescribes to me.
It is dangerous to experiment with drugs without knowing what I'm doing,
because by the time I get to the right prescription it'll be too late!
And God knows best.
mohsen
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 00:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hi--
Interesting quote.
Ibn al-Arabi said lots of outrageous things which taken out of
context might be construed in many ways. But if you look at his life and
his overall teaching you will see clearly that he accepted Islam and
bound himself by it's law. He did not divest himself of that law, how
could he if he was the expression of a Muhammadin reality. Those who use
his works as the pretext for "forgetting" islam are in my opinion
themselves forgotten. Just as christians made the mistake of calling
Jesus, the son of God, there are apparent followers of Ibn al-Arabi who
divorce his teaching from its source which is Islam. Ibn al-Arabi became
perfected when he was young and ignorant and then went on to study
Quaran, Hadith, and other traditional sciences and master them one by
one. In all this he did nothing but affirm the reality of Islam which
informed his practice for his whole life. He went on to affirm the
Muhammadan Law in his function as seal of the saints because sainthood
within islam is an expression of the inner realities of islam not
something extra or added. Ibn al-Arabi's brilliance is in seeing the
depth in all the different aspects of Islam that probably no one else has
ever seen. He earned his right to call himself the seal of the saints by
perfecting himself within the bounds of Islam and he was generally
recognized in his time as an extrarodinary person, even in his youth. But
we see him as a person who tested the limits within the form of islam and
by doing that tasted its equisite depths. Unless you are in that form all
those possibilities are closed. Perhaps others are open but these
particular possibilities such as those that Ibn al-Arabi explored are
closed. A few remarks that are meant to wake up the muslims to the
vastness of the form of islam taken out of context do not change the
existential fact that Ibn al-Arabi lived his life as a muslim by the laws
of Islam and could not have been who he was without that form to fill
with his rich spirit.
It is easy for us to follow fantasy paths that we make up ourselves. It
is hard to follow real ones like remarkable people such as Ibn al-Arabi
who dedicated himself to mastering Islam inwardly and outwardly.
Islam goes against eveything that the Westen worldview stands for. It is
easy to make up reasons to "forget" islam these days. But when you do
that you have lost the essential and replaced it with the a poor
idealized replica of the Sufism devoid of its existential body.
Abd al-Alim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, Samuel Goldberger wrote:
> Dr Palmer writes (excerpted):
> > The whole concept of doing dhikr without the basic
> > practices of Islam I would liken to going into a nuclear
> > reactor without the proper shielded clothing. However
> > it is clear that commercially selling sufism devoid of
> > islam has had some marketability, but I would venture
> > that it is a worthless product.
> > The path of sufism only exists within the broad road of the
> > sharia of Islam.
> > But it is incumbant on Muslims who know to point out the
> > fact that Islam is primary and Sufism secondary when ever
> > that issue comes up.
> Ibn 'Arabi (Fusus al-Hikam, The Word of Seth, trans. T. Burkhardt)
> writes: "Some of us imply ingorance in their knoweldge and cite in
> this respecct the word (of Calif Abu Bakr): 'To realize that one is
> powerless to know the Knowledge is already knowledge'. But amongst
> us there is one who knows and does not say these words; his
> knowledge does not imply a powerlessness to know, it implies the
> inexpressible; it is this latter that has the most perfect
> concsciousness of God. "Now, this knowledge is given only to the
> Seal of God's Messengers; and to the Seal of the Saints; none of the
> prophets and messengers imbibe it anywhere else than in the
> tabernacle of the messenger who is their seal. Again, none of the
> saints imbibes it elsewhere than in the tabernacle of the saint who
> is their seal; so that the messengers also imbibe this knowledge, in
> so far as they imbibe it, in the tabernacles of the Seal of the
> Saints; for the function of the messenger of God and that of the
> prophet--I mean the prophetic function in so far as it brings about
> the promulgation of a sacred law--ceases, whereas saintliness never
> ceases; so, the messengers only receive this knowledge because they
> are also saints, and solely from the tabernacle of the Seal of
> Saints. "...And this is true, although the Seal of the Saints
> conforms himself to the sacred Law given by the Seal of the
> Prophets; that does not prejudice his spiritual rank and takes away
> nothing from that which we have just said; for it is possible that
> it is inferior from a certain point of view, at the same time being
> superior from another point of view."
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 01:06:14 -0700
From: Samuel Goldberger
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Dr. Palmer writes:
> Interesting quote.
> Ibn al-Arabi said lots of outrageous things which taken out of
> context might be construed in many ways. But if you look at his life
> and his overall teaching you will see clearly that he accepted Islam
> and bound himself by it's law. He did not divest himself of that
> law, how could he if he was the expression of a Muhammadin
> reality. Those who use his works as the pretext for "forgetting"
> islam are in my opinion themselves forgotten. Just as christians
> made the mistake of calling Jesus, the son of God, there are
> apparent followers of Ibn al-Arabi who divorce his teaching from its
> source which is Islam.
Ibn 'Arabi continues (Fusus al-Hikam, The Wisdom of Seth, trans. T. Burkhardt)
"It is not necessary that the perfect surpasses the others in every
respect; but spiritual men consider only the superiority with regard
to the Knowledge of God; as for ephemeral existences, their mind does
not at all dwell on it. --Realize then, that which we have just
revealed.
"When the Prophet compared the prophetic function to a brick wall
almost finished and which needed only one more brick, he identified
himself with this last brick. He saw, then, as he said, only the place
for a single brick to fill. But, the Seal of the Saints will have an
analogous vision; only, he will perceive, in that which the Prophet
symbolized by the unfinished wall, the place for two bricks to fill;
the bricks from which the wall is built will appear to him of gold and
silver, and the two bricks still needed to complete the construction
will be a brick of gold and a brick of silver; and the Seal of the
Saints will see himself corresponding to the place which these two
bricks are needed to fill. The reason that he sees himself in the form
of two bricks is that he adheres externally to the law given by the
Seal of the Messengers--that which corresponds to the silver
brick--and that he imbibes internally in God exactly that which,
according to his apparent form, presents itself as an adhesion to the
law which proceeded him; for he sees necessarily the Divine Order as
it is--and it is that which corresponds to the golden brick, symbol of
his internal nature--since the Seal of the Saints imbibes at the same
source as that from which the Angel imbibed, who inspired the
Messenger of God. --If thou understandeth that to which I allude, thou
has reached the fully efficacious knowledge...
"The Seal of the Messengers is connected, then, in respect of his
saintliness, to the Seal of the Saints, in the same way as the other
messengers and prophets are connected to him. For he is himself
simultaneously the saint, the messenger, and the prophet. As for the
Seal of the Saints, he is the saint, the heir who imbibes in the
origin, the one who contemplates all ranks..."
And God knows the truth.
---
Samuel M. Goldberger
smg@orb.com
===
From: "Asha B. Greer"
Subject: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 11:16:45 EDT
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
According to Hugh Talat Halman:
> Let's remember that some of the most important Sufis and Muslims lived
> before the most important Sufi and Muslim Rasul Allah Muhammad (S). If as
> many have taught, tasawwuf was propagated by Adam, Seth, Idris (Hermes
> Trismegistus), Ibrahim, Isma'il, Musa, Dawud, Ilyas (Elijah) al-Khidr,
> 'Isa (Jesus), and others, then Sufism and Islam are intertwined indeed,
> but not exclusively in a formal sense; i.e. the Sufism and Islam of the
> prophets, Messengers, and awliya' I have mentioned above was not formal,
> but actual. There is no true reason to segregate non-Muslims from a list.
> Invite the People of the Book(s) to participate; let Allah determine who
> are Sufis, Muslims, or otherwise. Meanwhile let each of us strive for the
> truth s/he is called to. Remember, Muhammad (S) Ibn 'Arabi, Rumi and so
> many others dialogued in cooperative harmony.
> As-Salaam 'Alaikum
> Hugh Talat Halman
> Dept. Religion
> 118 Gray Bldg.
> Duke University/Durham/NC/27708
you are talking about mystics not sufis. sufism is not generic
mysticism but is a particular type having its own flavour and
taste as do all genuine 'schools' which live in the heart of
all the major traditions. you don't simply lump them all
together for to do so is to bertreay a basic mis-understanding
of what is involved as well as a lack of discrimination.>
--
wa salam
Noori
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:40:32 -0400
From: Walter Eisenbeis
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
p> It is only through the twisted
p> interpreations of Orientalists from the West that this strange
p> approach to Sufism was concocted.
In general your remarks are quite correct. You have a vehicle,
Islam, and within that vehicle there is a place where Sufism can be
found. However, your comment about Orientalists seems wrong to me.
Orientalists, assuming we mean serious scholars trying to understand
Islam, are less likely to separate Sufism from Islam. It goes against
the facts. The people who are doing this are more likely to be
uninformed or deliberately misinformed people using Sufism, or should I
say the name of Sufism, to promote their own cult and themselves. This
is obviously unacceptable.
---
~ KWQ/2 1.2g NR ~ In love there is no superiority
===
From: Albert Huizinga
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 09:53:48 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Why is this becoming a form for discussing Islamic fundamentalism?
Are there not other places to do that? I thought this was a form
for people to discuss what they experience, not what they beleive.
Albert Huizinga
albert@ee.ualberta.ca
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 10:14:02 -0800
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: jay@well.sf.ca.us (Jay Kinney)
Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Albert Huizinga writes
>Why is this becoming a form for discussing Islamic fundamentalism?
>Are there not other places to do that? I thought this was a form
>for people to discuss what they experience, not what they beleive.
While I appreciate Albert's impatience with what may seem like
interminable bickering over who is a Muslim and who is a Sufi, I
personally believe that this is an important issue worth discussing,
and worth discussing in this mailing list. Obviously it is on several
people's minds because it keeps arising. If you are bored by it,
just stick around. This list goes thru flurries of intense activity
and then periods of nothing and then other flurries on other topics.
I don't believe that exiling this discussion to somewhere else would
help anything.
And, in any event, I don't think it is exactly a
discussion of Islamic fundamentalism. Rather it is a multilogue
between several different definitions of Islam/Muslim/Sufism. Several
months ago I posted a somewhat lengthy summary of what I thought (;-))
was the heart of the matter in such wrangling. At the time it seemed
to cap the earlier version of this discussion. At least it managed to
silence the discussion, although that was not my intention. If people
would like I could post it again! :->
My abbreviated thots:
1 - Sufism without Islam is absurd. Sufi discourse and practice is
thoroughly intertwined with Islam, the Prophet, and the Quran.
2 - It would thus make no sense to pursue Sufism if one didn't
accept the basic validity of Islam, the Prophet, and the Quran.
3 - Thus it would appear that one should be a Muslim if one is to
pursue Sufism. However much of the issue at hand is over what
constitutes being a Muslim.
4 - A learned friend of mine has noted that following the 5 pillars
of Islam is not what makes a Muslim. What makes a Muslim is
believing in the 6 point credo of Islam:
"I believe that God is One
" " " Muhammad is his Messenger
" " " There are Angels
" " " God has sent Prophets
" " " God has sent Holy Books
" " " There is an Afterlife."
(forgive me if this is not precise. I am writing this off the top of
my head...)
Believing this is what makes you a Muslim. After that your relation
to the 5 pillars is between you and God. Not following them exactly,
such as not praying 5 times a day, may make you a sinful Muslim or a
lax Muslim, but following the 5 pillars is not what defines a Muslim
per se.
5 - However if you truly believe the credo, you are likely to want to
come into as good an alignment with God as you is capable of. But again
this is one's own business not that of self-appointed definers of Islam.
6 - Sufism *is* ultimately concerned with experience more than belief.
The study of Sufism should be able to render the credo as experience
in one's own life, taking it out of the realm of (mere) belief.
7 - Thus if you can ascribe to the credo and wish to pursue Sufism,
that would seem to negate the possibility of simultaneously following
another belief system such as Thelema which is based on the belief that
Aleister Crowley was the herald of a New Aeon and that his Book of the
Law is a new scripture. Whatever else one might say about Crowley or
Thelema it would seem obvious that Crowley was not a Muslim and his
system is not Islamic.
8 - So I would conclude, that yes it makes sense to say that one must
be a Muslim to become a Sufi (or at least a serious student of Sufism).
But that the definition of who is a Muslim is at the heart of the
disagreements.
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello--
You may be right. I am afraid I am rather negative toward orientalism
which I see as distorting Islam for the purpooses of subversion. If it
was not the orientalists who had the idea of separating sufism from the
body of islam, where did it come from?
Abd al-Alim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Fri, 2 Sep 1994, Walter Eisenbeis wrote:
> p> It is only through the twisted
> p> interpreations of Orientalists from the West that this strange
> p> approach to Sufism was concocted.
>
> In general your remarks are quite correct. You have a vehicle,
> Islam, and within that vehicle there is a place where Sufism can be
> found. However, your comment about Orientalists seems wrong to me.
> Orientalists, assuming we mean serious scholars trying to understand
> Islam, are less likely to separate Sufism from Islam. It goes against
> the facts. The people who are doing this are more likely to be
> uninformed or deliberately misinformed people using Sufism, or should I
> say the name of Sufism, to promote their own cult and themselves. This
> is obviously unacceptable.
>
> ---
> ~ KWQ/2 1.2g NR ~ In love there is no superiority
>
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission)
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello---
This post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of islam. Islam is not
like christianity, just a belief system where what you do is not
important but only what you believe in. Islam is an action system so that
it is all about experience. Experiences not founded in action are
ephemeral and of dubious worth. Islam give one an action base which
grounds experience and also gives a references point for distinguishing
experiences that are from oneself and from beyond ones self. Thus if we
want to talk about experience instead of belief it is the muslims that
have a real basis for talking.
To me it is fasicinating that people can express an interest in Sufism
and not want to know about Islam, it's foundation and reason for being.
This to me expresses a schizophrenic split that exemplifies the many
splits endemic to Western culture. The fact that western culture has
succeeded in forcing this split on the unity of islam shows just how far
their colonial victory over islam has gone in destroying the fabric of islam.
People are definitely deluded about the nature of islam. One of the
reasons is that even the muslims have forgotten that Allah, the high and
exhalted, should be the real center of our concern and that islam in
merely a way toward Him. But without that way that is from Him to us we
would be utterly lost.
However, I have made the points I have wanted to make and so I will
withdraw again to observe the tariqas list. Thank you for listening to my
point of view.
Abd al-Alim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Fri, 2 Sep 1994, Albert Huizinga wrote:
> Why is this becoming a form for discussing Islamic fundamentalism?
> Are there not other places to do that? I thought this was a form
> for people to discuss what they experience, not what they beleive.
> Albert Huizinga
> albert@ee.ualberta.ca
>
===
From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Tariqas Topics: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940902
To you your din and to me mine. (better? :>)
Albert Huizinga writes:
|Why is this becoming a form for discussing Islamic fundamentalism?
I think that it always has included such discussion, though I've attempted
to curtail it. My impression is that Jay and Habib and others wish to see
the issue discussed, though I had thought that there were many complaints
about it before on the list. I am willing to participate in the discussion
if it continues, though I don't think it will lead to resolution.
|Are there not other places to do that?
There is sufi@world.std.com (write to Kent Palmer), though I understand
that only Muslims subscribe to that list, so perhaps there would not arise
this type of controversy there.
|I thought this was a form for people to discuss what they experience,
|not what they beleive.
I don't think such limitation has ever been placed upon Tariqas, and
I, for one, am glad of it. My feeling is that while many do indeed
prefer to emphasize the need for particular beliefs, some of us prefer
to dwell more often on an analysis of the various belief systems and
a resolution among them. I cannot say why people resist this, though
I suspect it may come as a result of different cultural backgrounds
and/or experiences.
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission)
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hi--
One point is that to be a Muslim you must make shahada in front of
witnesses. In other words it is a social contract like marriage. Beyond
that I agree that practice is between oneself and God, but clearly not
practicing cuts off the action foundation of Islam and limits experience
of all Islam has to offer. Sufi's generally are obsessed with correct
practive because they have some insight into its meaning.
I do not want to press my opinions if they are generally not welcome. But
I am gratified by the resoning that his post exemplifies. I think it is
similar to my own reasoning in the matter and I think anyone who resons
in this way will end up with a position that is acceptable generally.
Because sufism in interested in the meanings of things those who practice it
tend to be lax with others and hard on ones self. It seems that those who
think that sufism is not intimately connected to the practice of Islam
reverse this traditional set of sufic values. They are easy on
themselves, saying the prerequsites do not apply to them because they are
special spiritula people, but they are hard on others because they do not
give the outward its due. Those who follow the practives of Islam are
merely doing what God asked them to do without questioning it. To call
such people fundamentalists and say that they are doing something extreme
is to my way of thinking unjust. I mean what are we talking about here?
We are talking about praying to god regularly as He instructed us to
pray. We are talking about giving a certain amound of ones excess wealth
to the poor. We are talking about recognizing the unity of Allah and his
Messenger, We are talking about fasting for a month. We are talking about
going on pilgramage. People wo do this kind of stuff merely because God
asks them to do it are humble people. People who do not do it, who claim
to be spiritual, well we must ask what they do do because all spiritual
states that are true must be reflected on the outside if they are real.
And we must ask about their humility, who are they that they claim that
Gods orders do not apply to them?
To my way of thinking there are other of paths out there that have exalted
histories like the Buddhist path. If you are going to follow a path then
one should do it all the way, otherwise how are you going to get
anywhere. Taking sufism without Islam is half-hearted. If you cannot
accept Islam then it seems that one should go and follow some other path
that you can do all the way.
Anyway, this is my way of looking at it. Do you want to continue this
discussion or not. I am happy to withdraw if it is not of interest. I
have made my essential point.
Abd al-Alim al-Ashari (aka Kent)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Fri, 2 Sep 1994, Jay Kinney wrote:
> Albert Huizinga writes
>
> >Why is this becoming a form for discussing Islamic fundamentalism?
> >Are there not other places to do that? I thought this was a form
> >for people to discuss what they experience, not what they beleive.
>
> While I appreciate Albert's impatience with what may seem like
> interminable bickering over who is a Muslim and who is a Sufi, I
> personally believe that this is an important issue worth discussing,
> and worth discussing in this mailing list. Obviously it is on several
> people's minds because it keeps arising. If you are bored by it,
> just stick around. This list goes thru flurries of intense activity
> and then periods of nothing and then other flurries on other topics.
> I don't believe that exiling this discussion to somewhere else would
> help anything.
>
> And, in any event, I don't think it is exactly a
> discussion of Islamic fundamentalism. Rather it is a multilogue
> between several different definitions of Islam/Muslim/Sufism. Several
> months ago I posted a somewhat lengthy summary of what I thought (;-))
> was the heart of the matter in such wrangling. At the time it seemed
> to cap the earlier version of this discussion. At least it managed to
> silence the discussion, although that was not my intention. If people
> would like I could post it again! :->
>
> My abbreviated thots:
> 1 - Sufism without Islam is absurd. Sufi discourse and practice is
> thoroughly intertwined with Islam, the Prophet, and the Quran.
>
> 2 - It would thus make no sense to pursue Sufism if one didn't
> accept the basic validity of Islam, the Prophet, and the Quran.
>
> 3 - Thus it would appear that one should be a Muslim if one is to
> pursue Sufism. However much of the issue at hand is over what
> constitutes being a Muslim.
>
> 4 - A learned friend of mine has noted that following the 5 pillars
> of Islam is not what makes a Muslim. What makes a Muslim is
> believing in the 6 point credo of Islam:
> "I believe that God is One
> " " " Muhammad is his Messenger
> " " " There are Angels
> " " " God has sent Prophets
> " " " God has sent Holy Books
> " " " There is an Afterlife."
> (forgive me if this is not precise. I am writing this off the top of
> my head...)
> Believing this is what makes you a Muslim. After that your relation
> to the 5 pillars is between you and God. Not following them exactly,
> such as not praying 5 times a day, may make you a sinful Muslim or a
> lax Muslim, but following the 5 pillars is not what defines a Muslim
> per se.
>
> 5 - However if you truly believe the credo, you are likely to want to
> come into as good an alignment with God as you is capable of. But again
> this is one's own business not that of self-appointed definers of Islam.
>
> 6 - Sufism *is* ultimately concerned with experience more than belief.
> The study of Sufism should be able to render the credo as experience
> in one's own life, taking it out of the realm of (mere) belief.
>
> 7 - Thus if you can ascribe to the credo and wish to pursue Sufism,
> that would seem to negate the possibility of simultaneously following
> another belief system such as Thelema which is based on the belief that
> Aleister Crowley was the herald of a New Aeon and that his Book of the
> Law is a new scripture. Whatever else one might say about Crowley or
> Thelema it would seem obvious that Crowley was not a Muslim and his
> system is not Islamic.
>
> 8 - So I would conclude, that yes it makes sense to say that one must
> be a Muslim to become a Sufi (or at least a serious student of Sufism).
> But that the definition of who is a Muslim is at the heart of the
> disagreements.
===
From: Albert Huizinga
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 15:58:09 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
According to Webster, this is the definition of Fundamentalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
fun7da7men7tal7ism \-el-,iz-em\ n
(1922)
1a often cap: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the
literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and
teaching
b: the beliefs of this movement
c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a
set of basic principles
P fun7da7men7tal7ist \-el-est\ n
P fundamentalist or fun7da7men7tal7is7tic\-,ment-el-'is-tik\ adj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what part of this definition are you having trouble with?
Albert Huizinga
albert@ee.ualberta.ca
===
From: RHMH@aol.com
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 19:45:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Dear ones...
I am probably getting in way over my head with this animated discussion...
however... Does anyone (especially you scholars) of a reference by a
Zoroastrian Priest during the time of Cyrus the Great (500 bc?) who referred
to himself as a "Zoroastrian Sufi"? This is supposed to be the oldest known
referance to the word itself. Perhaps, the connection between Sufism and
Islam comes from the Sufis at the time of Mohammed recognizing his station...
but it would seem that Sufis preceeded the life of Mohammed by more than a
thousand years. If anyone finds more details of this referance, I would
greatly appreciate the information.
With all respect, Ramabai
===
From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 01:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940903
'Laikum dinukum waley-ah din.
'Abd al-'Alim writes:
|...Islam is an action system so that it is all about experience.
|Experiences not founded in action are ephemeral and of dubious worth.
True, for they can too easily lead to quietism and stagnation.
|The fact that western culture has succeeded in forcing this split on
|the unity of islam shows just how far their colonial victory over islam
|has gone in destroying the fabric of islam.
I doubt that any culture shall ever force any split upon the majesty
which is islam. My meager understanding (with only scant glimpses at
the Message of the Prophet (pbuh)) is that Allah shall not allow the
woven unity which is islam to be destroyed. Isn't there a principle
called 'Kilafah' which shall prevent this?
|People are definitely deluded about the nature of islam. One of the
|reasons is that even the muslims have forgotten that Allah, the high and
|exhalted, should be the real center of our concern and that islam [is]
|merely a way toward Him. But without that way that is from Him to us we
|would be utterly lost.
My impression is that sufism is the way from Him to us, but I could be
mistaken. Could you instruct me on this point?
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940903
You have brought me out of my hole.
Jay Kinney writes:
|I don't think it is exactly a discussion of Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree with this whole-heartedly, while I think most people who have
posted on the matter are proceeding from a thoroughly fundamentalist
perspective (and I don't mean the term in a pejorative way - see the
recent dictionary definition posted here).
|Rather it is a multilogue between several different definitions of
|Islam/Muslim/Sufism.
This makes a lot of sense to me. I will now attempt to respect all
paths.
|If people would like I could post it again! :->
I think it might be nice to do a repost of the polished theory papers
that have come up. I know I offered one and I think you did too.
|1 - Sufism without Islam is absurd. Sufi discourse and practice is
|thoroughly intertwined with Islam, the Prophet, and the Quran.
Agreed. Without the Way there is no possibility of Return. The Source
speaks to us, and this comes through Manifestation.
|...However much of the issue at hand is over what constitutes
|being a Muslim.
This seems simple enough, though I'll engage your statements below.
|4 - A learned friend of mine has noted that following the 5 pillars
|of Islam is not what makes a Muslim.
I agree with this though perhaps not for the same reasons, since I
think what makes a muslim is a mystery only Allah can know.
|What makes a Muslim is believing in the 6 point credo of Islam:
[credo omitted]
There are many within Christianity for whom credos are quite
important. I think even some fundamentalists disagree on this
point, and while I would not wish to say that any Muslim is
wrong, especially about their own path, I must admit that I do
not hold to credos and am not sure whether I am muslim. I
figure that only Allah knows if I qualify for that.
|After that your relation to the 5 pillars is between you and God.
|Not following them exactly, such as not praying 5 times a day,
|may make you a sinful Muslim or a lax Muslim, but following the
|5 pillars is not what defines a Muslim per se.
That is not my understanding. I tend to think that the 5 Pillars
(perhaps plus jihad) are not only the prerequisite for being
muslim, but also the basic foundation from which sufism arises.
|5 - However if you truly believe the credo, you are likely to want to
|come into as good an alignment with God as you is capable of.
It is the 5 Pillars which constitute 'good alignment', I think.
|this is one's own business not that of self-appointed definers of Islam.
I think that there is no alternative but to practice the 5 Pillars in
order to play out the muslim path.
|6 - Sufism *is* ultimately concerned with experience more than belief.
|The study of Sufism should be able to render the credo as experience
|in one's own life, taking it out of the realm of (mere) belief.
This is of course true. The sufi is one who moves the breath of God
and sails a course of deep experience. I think this may be why I do
not hold to credos, yet I am not qualified to say.
|7 - Thus if you can ascribe to the credo and wish to pursue Sufism,
|that would seem to negate the possibility of simultaneously following
|another belief system such as Thelema which is based on the belief that
|Aleister Crowley was the herald of a New Aeon and that his Book of the
|Law is a new scripture. Whatever else one might say about Crowley or
|Thelema it would seem obvious that Crowley was not a Muslim and his
|system is not Islamic.
Given your presumptions above, I agree completely. The Thelemic religion
is not at all compatible with islam in any way. Accepting that AC was
perforce all of the things he says he was is ludicrous and in doing this
one surely places oneself outside the din of Allah.
|8 - So I would conclude, that yes it makes sense to say that one must
|be a Muslim to become a Sufi (or at least a serious student of Sufism).
Exactly!
|But that the definition of who is a Muslim is at the heart of the
|disagreements.
Definitely, and I am not one to decide the matter. I shall leave it
to Allah.
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 01:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
49940903
'Laikum dinukum waley-ah din.
'Abd al-'Alim al-Ashari (aka Kent) writes:
|One point is that to be a Muslim you must make shahada in front of
|witnesses. In other words it is a social contract like marriage.
Not only witnesses, but before the sheikh or imam, no? Without the
Sacred Oath I think that no progress along the Path of paths may ever
come.
|not practicing cuts off the action foundation of Islam and limits experience
|of all Islam has to offer. Sufi's generally are obsessed with correct
|[practice] because they have some insight into its meaning.
I would greatly love to hear what you have to say about the meaning of the
practices. I gather you speak of the 5 Pillars and I think that each of
them is very beautiful. If you have such insight, please reflect a little
here. Thanks.
|...It seems that those who think that sufism is not intimately connected
|to the practice of Islam reverse this traditional set of sufic values.
|They are easy on themselves, saying the prerequsites do not apply to them
|because they are special [spiritual] people, but they are hard on others
|because they do not give the outward its due.
I cannot agree with this more. The path of sufism involves greater
and greater self-discipline as one comes to a more firm and lasting
relationship with Allah.
|Those who follow the [practices] of Islam are merely doing what God asked
|them to do without questioning it. To call such people fundamentalists
|and say that they are doing something extreme is to my way of thinking
|unjust.
I don't think that it is necessarily the case that a 'fundamentalist' is
the same as an 'extremist'. In popular terminology this has perhaps
become the case, yet the secular world is accustomed to calling anything
which does not participate in laziness and amorality 'extreme'.
|I mean what are we talking about here?
|We are talking about praying to god regularly as He instructed us to
|pray. We are talking about giving a certain amound of ones excess wealth
|to the poor. We are talking about recognizing the unity of Allah and his
|Messenger, We are talking about fasting for a month. We are talking about
|going on pilgramage.
These are the traditional Pillars as I understand them, yes. They are a
very beauteous teaching.
|People [who] do this kind of stuff merely because God asks them to do it
|are humble people.
And righteous besides! They are who I would call the most dedicated of
muslims, yet Allah would know best.
|People who do not do it, who claim to be spiritual, well we must ask what
|[do they] do because all spiritual states that are true must be reflected
|on the outside if they are real.
And do not forget those who do the practices because it is told to them
that they must, that they will get something from Allah for it, or that
they will be cast out of the family, etc. I think there must be a great
range of motive involved in being muslim, yet my comprehension is still
quite small.
|And we must ask about their humility, who are they that they claim that
|Gods orders do not apply to them?
Yes, or that they are spiritual at all! The humble only do what they
know to be the request of Allah, without compensation, without promise,
and some without sign that they tread the straight path for long periods.
|To my way of thinking there are other ...paths out there that have exalted
|histories like the Buddhist path.
Yes, the 4 Noble Truths and 8-fold Path are very beautiful also. Surely
the Buddha was a prophet of some insight.
|If you are going to follow a path then one should do it all the way,
|otherwise how are you going to get anywhere.
I enjoy the Japanese 'Bonzai!' when I think of the dedicated saint of
islam, diving into the unknown path set before hir.
|Taking sufism without Islam is half-hearted. If you cannot accept Islam
|then it seems that one should go and follow some other path that you can
|do all the way.
Perhaps I am less familiar with the paths than you. My impression is
that islam is the basis of the Buddha's teaching else it would not be an
effective path either. In this way I do not think that one may follow
any path all the way, even Buddhism, unless one accept islam.
Thank you for your wisdom, my brother.
Haramullah
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
===
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 08:30:10 -0400
From: Walter Eisenbeis
Message-Id: <199409031230.IAA01439@io.org>
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
palmer@netcom.com
tariqas@world.std.com
Re: RE: Sufis & Muslims
said:
p> If it
p> was not the orientalists who had the idea of separating sufism from
p> the body of islam, where did it come from?
This is a good question. You must admit that in studying something
there is a tendency to take certain aspects and look at them more
closely. In Islam this could be Qur'an, hadith, fiqh, usul, dynasties
or sufism. At first glance these would appear to be isolated from
Islam and/or each other. This is not the case. I am of the opinion
that Sufism without Islam is derived from the pseudo-mystical
movements in the West. There are people who have a couple of ideas
but don't like the whole thing. They take some of it and use it. In
some cases we discover that there is a mish-mash of ideas, religions,
mystical paths passing itself off as a new source of enlightenment.
This, I submit, is the source of Sufism without Islam. I would not be
surprised to discover the Gurdjieff might be responsible for some of
this. Didn't he promote ideas that were supposed to be Sufi ideas, yet
never talked about Sufism and Islam?
---
~ KWQ/2 1.2g NR ~ In love there is no superiority
===
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 18:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: sufi@world.std.com
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hi again ---
See below. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. editor Thinknet philosophy newsletter
Software Engineering Technologist administrator Thinknet philosophy lists
Philosopher at large without portfolio system operator Thinknet BBS 714-638-0876
palmer@world.std.com or @netcom.com autopoietic social systems theorist
On Sat, 3 Sep 1994, tyagi mordred nagasiva wrote:
> 49940903
>
> 'Laikum dinukum waley-ah din.
>
>
> 'Abd al-'Alim writes:
>
> |...Islam is an action system so that it is all about experience.
> |Experiences not founded in action are ephemeral and of dubious worth.
>
> True, for they can too easily lead to quietism and stagnation.
>
>
> |The fact that western culture has succeeded in forcing this split on
> |the unity of islam shows just how far their colonial victory over islam
> |has gone in destroying the fabric of islam.
>
> I doubt that any culture shall ever force any split upon the majesty
> which is islam. My meager understanding (with only scant glimpses at
> the Message of the Prophet (pbuh)) is that Allah shall not allow the
> woven unity which is islam to be destroyed. Isn't there a principle
> called 'Kilafah' which shall prevent this?
>
I do not know about this.
>
> |People are definitely deluded about the nature of islam. One of the
> |reasons is that even the muslims have forgotten that Allah, the high and
> |exhalted, should be the real center of our concern and that islam [is]
> |merely a way toward Him. But without that way that is from Him to us we
> |would be utterly lost.
>
> My impression is that sufism is the way from Him to us, but I could be
> mistaken. Could you instruct me on this point?
>
Without a way from Him to us we could never reach knowledge of ourselves.
We cannot reach knowledge of ourselves except through His unveiling to us
of our inner secret -- the secret is that we are non-existant and that
there exists only Himself and nothing else. The way he takes toward us is
through the gift of the prophets to us. They come to us in human form to
show us the reality. This is proof of His mercy. Had the reality come to
us in other than human form how would we have comprehended it? The
rejection of the Prophet and his way is in fact the rejection of the
means of comprehending the reality. It is in fact self-rejection since it
is only though the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him,
that we can understand ourselves in our deepest human reality. Sufism is
nothing other than following the Prophet Muhammad in everything to the
limits of our capacity. Different people have different capacities. By
following him we learn who he was and who we are and our essential
(non-)relation to the Real, al-Haqq.
I don't pretend to be a teacher myself, but here are some words to dwell
on if you like, Allah knows best.
Abd al-Alim al-Ashari
===
From: Albert Huizinga
Subject: sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 00:27:32 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Flame on
In my opinion this discussion is taking a bad turn. We have now used
the term "pseudo mystical movements in the west", and named one of
them "Gurdjieff". Are we now going to list the others? Only those
who take the "whole thing" will be called "real Sufies" and the rest
will be called "Pseudo western pretend sufies" with a small "s".
We could realy take up a lot of bandwith when we decide
where Idries Shah fits. Is he a true follower of Islam? Does he
pray 5 times a day. Does he adhere to all the beliefs. And then once we
have decided who the true Sufies are we could get into "My teacher is
better than your teacher".
Flame off
I was raised as a fundamentalist Calvinist in the Christian
tradition. Twentyfive years ago a book by E.F. Schumaker called "Small
is Beautiful" led me to the works of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. Because
some of the exercises discribed in the books worked for me, and gave
me a glimps of a much larger self I wanted more and I dug into the
source of their teaching (Much but not all of it Sufi). I have since
then been involved with a number Sufi traditions, each one of them
coutinueing to open up my life.
One of the things that Gurdjieff said was that any spritual
path must evolve to meet changing conditions, times and needs. If
this does not happen the path will become corrupt.
One example of this might be the Mevlevis in Turky, whose
tariqas were were forced to close, and the turn forbidden by the
government, because of corruption. This year a number of western
Sufi men women and childern went to Turky and did the turn there
in public. All praises to Allah. To me this is a case of the teaching
being brought back from the west to the east. Many of these western
Sufies do not speek Arabic, or go to the Mosque or follow the outer form o
Islam, yet they understand it's heart, and that it's heart is the same in
all religions because they have experienced it. Think of it. Men Wemon
and childern all doing the Mevlevi turn together in public in a middle-
eastern country. If this is not the work of Allah, whose is it?
So tell me what your practices are, what you experience when you
do them, what your teachers have to teach you, how you got to this place,
and what your hopes are for the future. In this way let me learn with
you,and I can share with you my own struggles and small insights and
together we can grow. If you tell me "I can only be a Sufi if I such
and such"then I can only learn in how to deal with a narrow vission.
I left the church of my upbringing because that process was just too
painful for me.
Albert Huizinga
albert@ee.ualberta.ca
===
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 94 11:42:44 WET DST
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: gbraakman@knoware.nl (gert braakman)
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello all,
I been reading the responses to my original statement with growing
amazment. A lot of pain also. It's a great shock to discover how strong and
dogmatic the views of many people in this group are.
English is not my first language, I am not always certain that I express
exactly what I want to express. Please keep that in mind....
There seems to be an very wide gap between the group that believes that
Sufism and islam are inseparable and the people that believe otherwise.
Again to me personal that came as a great shock. I am especially hurt by
the irreversable condamnation of the possibility of sufism without islam.
It confirms my prejudice that Islam is a very intolerant religion. I will
never ever consider a conversion to Islam. The depth and strenght of this
anti islam feeling come as great surprise to me.I guess this feeling it is
present in many westerners. I fear the worst for the futere when the
influence of islam will grow, and anti islam feelings in the west will
surface.
Another thing that shocked me was the notion that in the koran everthing
has been said and that nothing can be added to it. That can only be true in
a society that is completely stagnant and dead. To make that truth true a
society must be made stagnant, as happens in many conservative islam
states.
In a world that changes the truth must be understood, felt, experienced
over an over again.I want go even further and say that the truth died with
the previous generation. Our generation has to rediscover the (same) truth
again in a another form. With each new human being the truth must be born
again.
I am not an expert on islam but this conflict seems to have emerged in
Islamic history as well. The soennies do not recognize spiritual leadership
after mohammed. Nothing can be added to his message. According to the
Sji'ah the fountain of spirital wisdom has not dried up (completely) It is
still possible that new wisdom is added to what we know. If I remember
correctly here are soenni and sji'ah Sufi orders.
I belong to the Silsileh of Inayat Khan. He left india in 1910 to bring
sufism to the west. The view in our silsileh is that Soefism is a universal
consiousness, it does not belong to islam only, it must be free of it. It
existed before islam and it will continue to exist after islam.
I believe this is true.
If this discussion continues,it may continue to create a lot of damage. I
personally accept wholehartely that sufism and islam are powerfull allies.
If someone else believes they are inseparable that's ok with me.
It might be a better idea to create a listserver for "western" (sufism
without islam) sufies only. Just as there exists a server for
sufies>
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Re: Your Flame
I see that I am partially responsible for your reaction. I made my
comments in the general belief that if someone becomes a yogi
they are Hindu, if someone become a Franciscan they are Catholic etc.
It seems reasonable, doesn't it, that an Islamic mystical school,
khanqah, silsilah or tariqah would also assume that members be
Muslims?
My understanding of Gurdjieff, who did not claim to be a Sufi, was
that he presented ideas that were apparently from Sufis he had
met. The fact that there are many people who may have benefited from
his ideas is good. Also, there are those who went to Islam and Sufism
from G's teachings. I don't deny these things. The discussion here
has been along the line of Sufism and being Muslim. I agree that
there could be a real problem with this. You are correct to point out
that Sufism in the West is going to be different from Sufism in Muslim
countries. However, I stand by my comment of "pseudo mystical
movements in the west" as we all know they exist. However, the real
issue is mystical awareness. Sufism, since it has not yet suffered
too greatly from over-zealous popularity that some have, is still
finding its new legs in a western and predominantly non-Muslim
environment. If the objective of all this is to come closer to God,
become aware of God etc., then you are quite correct in posting a
warning about discussing everyone's credentials. I have a friend with
whom heated discussions are the norm any time Idries Shah's name comes
up. We get nowhere and this is probably what will happen in these types
of discussion here. How does one actually get into Sufism? What is the
main objective of it? I submit that there is no reason to assume that a
Sufi shaikh, pir, or otherwise spiritual guide, would refuse to teach
and guide a non-Muslim. If anyone asks for help, then they would get
it. I would suggest that Sufis are not only colour blind they are
religious blind.
Any sincere seeker could get guidance from them. Can we do any less?
I support you in your request to deal with the path and what it does.
If we are on any path, then we can only encourage others. In closing, I
would like to narrate a story I heard: An earnest young seeker entered
a town. The people, seeing that he was naive, thought to make a fool
out of him. They told him if he hung from the abandoned castle tower by
his feet for one night he would be enlightened. Believing this, he
spent the night as suggested. The next morning as he walked through the
town people laughed at him. He understood what they had done and
thanked them. Because of his own sincerity and integrity he had become
enlightened. Sincerity is the minimum requirement on this quest.
---
~ KWQ/2 1.2g NR ~ In love there is no superiority
===
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 12:29:22 +0100 (CET)
From: "Oliver Obst"
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
In message Sun, 4 Sep 94 11:42:44 WET DST,
gbraakman@knoware.nl (gert braakman) writes:
[del.]
> I belong to the Silsileh of Inayat Khan. He left india in 1910 to bring
> sufism to the west. The view in our silsileh is that Soefism is a
> universal consiousness, it does not belong to islam only, it must be free
> of it. It existed before islam and it will continue to exist after islam.
I'm a follower of a naqshbandiyyah sheikh, who met the successor of Inayat
Khan, Pir Vilayat Khan, in 1991/1992 in the States. There is a video from
this very interesting and powerful meeting. Many followers of both were
present and listening in awe. During his speech, my Sheikh stopped and said
wholehearted and with great expression to the audience:
"You are muslims, you are muslims!, you are muslims!!"
I don't know why he was saying this, but for me as educated in an
unreligious way it was a great and overwhelming enlightment to
recognize, that there is a lord, whom I have to serve (whom - not
me selfish ego), and that this is the first step on the spiritual path.
Claiming to be on whatever kind of spiritual way without this very
relationship seems to me to support rather than fight the own selfishness.
My target is to become a "devoted one" not a selfish one, and that is
called in arabic words: "a muslim".
We saw this video together with a follower of Pir Vilayat Khan and we both
respected each other, each others way, and each others Sheikh.
Must be! Because I have to respect the ways of my Lord.
Who can say that he is perfect? I can learn from them too (and also from
your mail, of course).
Thank you, Omar Oliver
===
From: Qutub@aol.com
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 94 12:26:36 EDT
Subject: To each their own
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: To each their own
Date: 94-09-05 12:23:18 EDT
From: Qutub
To: tariqas@world.st
The true meaning of God can not be understood completly. God encompasses
everything and therefor no one book or person can give us the complete story.
Each person must come to God themselves, reading the koran or following the
ways of Muhammed is only a small part of it. I feel all religions show us a
different aspect of God. Perhaps I am being idealistic but I feel the only
way to see a more complete picture of God is to look at all religions and be
tolerant of all beliefs for God had a hand in each of them. When a person is
advanced enough to see through the veil of organized religion then they are
ready to see God. Perhaps it was set up this way to bring people of
different faiths together. If you are not ready to discard your past beliefs
then perhaps you are not ready to see there totality of God. Then again none
of us know anything and are incapable of knowing anything.
Peace for everyone.
===
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 22:37:36 -0800
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: jay@well.sf.ca.us (Jay Kinney)
Subject: Re: sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Albert Huizinga wrote:
>Flame on
>In my opinion this discussion is taking a bad turn. We have now used
>the term "pseudo mystical movements in the west", and named one of
>them "Gurdjieff". Are we now going to list the others? Only those
>who take the "whole thing" will be called "real Sufies" and the rest
>will be called "Pseudo western pretend sufies" with a small "s".
> We could realy take up a lot of bandwith when we decide
>where Idries Shah fits. Is he a true follower of Islam? Does he
>pray 5 times a day. Does he adhere to all the beliefs. And then once we
>have decided who the true Sufies are we could get into "My teacher is
>better than your teacher".
>Flame off
I agree that tring to divide people up into "real" Sufis and "pseudo"
Sufis is not helpful. It has been my observation, however, that this
occupation is engaged in by all sorts of Sufis, alas. Certainly Shah's work
and that of his followers is riddled with the implication that most
Sufis not somehow aligned with him are pseudo. He tends to overtly
distance his version of Sufism from religion in general. The Sufi Order
in the West is universalist and all-embracing which, ironically,
sometimes seems to breed a distancing from the specific following of
any single religion (including Islam). I know of a leader in the
Sufi Order who was raised in a Sufi Order family and has said that it
wasn't until she was in her forties that she came to realize that
Sufism had something to do with Islam. (!) I still don't know quite what
to make of that!
Because these versions of Sufism have distanced themselves from an
explicitly Islamic context and understanding, they are often looked at
with some suspicion by overtly Islamic Sufis. In other words, the
distancing seems to work in both directions.
This is unfortunate. My hunch is that the evolution of Sufism in
North America will include that distancing being reduced. Hopefully
this mailing list can be a part of that. Perhaps thrashing out
different viewpoints and understandings here, as painful as it may
be sometimes, is part of that process...
> One of the things that Gurdjieff said was that any spritual
>path must evolve to meet changing conditions, times and needs. If
>this does not happen the path will become corrupt.
> One example of this might be the Mevlevis in Turky, whose
>tariqas were were forced to close, and the turn forbidden by the
>government, because of corruption. This year a number of western
>Sufi men women and childern went to Turky and did the turn there
>in public. All praises to Allah. To me this is a case of the teaching
>being brought back from the west to the east. Many of these western
>Sufies do not speek Arabic, or go to the Mosque or follow the outer form o
>Islam, yet they understand it's heart, and that it's heart is the same in
>all religions because they have experienced it. Think of it. Men Wemon
>and childern all doing the Mevlevi turn together in public in a middle-
>eastern country. If this is not the work of Allah, whose is it?
I am happy for the folks who went to Turkey and performed the turn.
However, it is somewhat misleading to suggest that the Mevlevis in
Turkey were suppressed because of corruption and that now true
Mevlevism is being brought back by Americans. Ataturk outlawed all
Sufi tekkes for largely political reasons, but nearly all the orders
continued to exist in private. Although clearly the Mevlevis have
seen better days in terms of strength and influence, there are still
authentic Mevlevi sheikhs in Turkey working with students and this
has continued to the present. Moreover, in recent times they have
begun to include women in the Turn there, in semi-public zhikr settings.
Such changes occured prior to the Americans' trip earlier this year.
It is unfortunate that the Americans were not able to meet their
Turkish counterparts while there and see that Mevlevihood is, in fact,
still alive there.
However your point about the heart of religion has validity. While in
Turkey I've heard Sheikhs from three different orders underscore that
there have been members of their orders who were Christian. This is
a historical fact. So, even leaders in traditional orders in an
Islamic culture/country appear to emphasize that it is the sincerity
of the seeker and the love of God that are foremost requirements for
a student of Sufism. My point a few days ago in logically linking
Sufism and Islam was not to be dogmatic, but to simply point out that
if one is drawn to Sufism then one is, invariably, also going to be
engaged in coming to terms with Islam, the Quran, etc. Under the
guidance of a Sheikh, that "coming to terms" may or may not involve
explicit public embrace of Islam and may or may not involve an
immediate and full embrace of Shariah. Those things get worked out
in time. Finding a Sheikh (or attained teacher) whom one can love and trust
is the best first step for many.
Peace.
jay kinney
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:29:57 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA12866; Wed, 7 Sep 1994 13:53:21 GMT
Received: from potomac.wash.inmet.com by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA12856; Wed, 7 Sep 1994 09:53:18 -0400
Received: by potomac.wash.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA27096; Wed, 7 Sep 94 09:53:22 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 09:53:22 EDT
From: dlb@potomac.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Message-Id: <9409071353.AA27096@potomac.wash.inmet.com>
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Cc: tariqas@world.std.com
In-Reply-To: <199409060537.WAA10455@well.sf.ca.us> (jay@well.sf.ca.us)
Subject: Re: sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Jay Kinney writes:
I agree that tring to divide people up into "real" Sufis and
"pseudo" Sufis is not helpful. It has been my observation, however,
that this occupation is engaged in by all sorts of Sufis,
alas. Certainly Shah's work and that of his followers is riddled
with the implication that most Sufis not somehow aligned with him
are pseudo.
Hmmm. I thought I had read all of Shah's works, and I have yet to
find this implication. It is true that some of the works written
*about* Shah that are published by Octagon Press explicitly refer to
him as (paraphrasing from memory, but I think close) the acknowledged
leader of Sufis in the world. He himself has never claimed this, and
his attitude towards these claims has seemed to me to be a mixture of
amusement and resignation. He has stated explicitly that real Sufis
*have* no head, or leader; therefore, he is not one. He has also
stated explicitly that many Sufis operate independently as far as any
outward indications are concerned, and some completely secretly. I am
therefore at a loss to figure out how he could be said to imply that
most Sufis not somehow aligned with him are pseudo.
Shah certainly does have a great deal to say about pseudo-Sufis (he
does not use the term; I am infering that this is what is meant). In
particular, he gives a number of characteristics that will be shared
by almost all pseudo-Sufi organizations. If some of these
characteristics fit a specific organization, however, this is *still*
not definitive; Shah also explicitly states that real Sufis will take
on such characteristics to expose their results, to allow students to
perceive the differences between them, and for other reasons that he
does not list.
He tends to overtly distance his version of Sufism from religion in
general.
Hmmm. He explicitly distances Sufism (which I suppose is "his version
of Sufism") from organized religions of all sorts, and from almost any
kind of specific ritual or practice, universally applied. I am not
sure this consititutes "religion in general"; however, to the extent
that the two are identified, I guess I agree with this.
The Sufi Order in the West is universalist and all-embracing which,
ironically, sometimes seems to breed a distancing from the specific
following of any single religion (including Islam).
Is the Sufi Order in the West Shah's group? If so, I have not heard
of it under this name; I need to go back to that issue of Gnosis (kept
at home).
All of this is not to defend Shah or his "group" (neither of which
needs any defense from *me*, certainly); rather, it presents my own
understanding from my readings. Thus, all the above should be
prefaced with "IMHO". I have read little, and understand less;
however, what I *do* think I understand is given above. If incorrect,
I would appreciate correction.
Dave Barton
dlb@wash.inmet.com
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:31:04 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA26712; Thu, 8 Sep 1994 08:57:13 GMT
Received: from ioe.ac.uk ([144.82.31.3]) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA26705; Thu, 8 Sep 1994 04:57:12 -0400
Received: by ioe.ac.uk (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00749; Thu, 8 Sep 1994 09:55:52 +0000
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 09:55:52 +0000
From: teesmjk@ioe.ac.uk (MR MOHAMMED KHAN)
Message-Id: <9409080855.AA00749@ioe.ac.uk>
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Subject: To each their own
Content-Length: 1365
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Assalamu Alaikum,
Qutub's remark that " ....no one book or person can
give us the complete story" about God, and "koran and
Muhammed are only small part for understanding God are
contrary to Muslim faith. We believe that the Qur'an is the
last and complete Word of God, and the Quran and
Mohammed is the ONLY COMPLETE way for God-realisa-
tion. We believe in it and we adhere to it. Similarly, other
religions have different view of God and their followers stick
to their beliefs. As integration of different faiths is out of
question and unthinkable, so atleast we should show telerance
to other religions. Tariqa forum is not for persuading people to
discard their "past" and present beliefs, but to create atmosphere
of tolerance to other faiths which aspire for the same goal.
Inayeth Khan and other Muslim sufis tried Yoga and
Music - to promote their understanding of some aspects of
God - but such deviations are intolerable to orthodox muslims.
However, "orthodoxy and mysticism are frequently
at odds: the dogmatist reasons; the mystic experiences; the
one obeys; the other finds out for himself." Murshid Madani
always blessed Inayeth Khan with these words: " May your
faith be strengthened." What did it mean? It meant that the
disciple had to be absolutely certain of himself and his aim.
Respectfully yours,
Junaid Khan
M.KHAN@ioe.ac.uk
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:36:44 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA14072; Fri, 9 Sep 1994 02:28:45 GMT
Received: from knoware.nl by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA14043; Thu, 8 Sep 1994 22:28:44 -0400
Received: from indy.knoware.nl by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQxgnc03724; Thu, 8 Sep 1994 17:13:09 -0400
Received: from braakman2.knoware.nl by indy.knoware.nl (5.64/A/UX-3.00)
id AA24918; Thu, 8 Sep 94 23:13:15 WET DST
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 23:13:15 WET DST
Message-Id: <9409082213.AA24918@indy.knoware.nl>
X-Sender: gbraakman@pop.knoware.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: gbraakman@knoware.nl (gert braakman)
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
Hello Omar,
>I'm a follower of a naqshbandiyyah sheikh, who met the successor of Inayat
>Khan, Pir Vilayat Khan, in 1991/1992 in the States. There is a video from
>this very interesting and powerful meeting. Many followers of both were
>present and listening in awe. During his speech, my Sheikh stopped and said
>wholehearted and with great expression to the audience:
>
>"You are muslims, you are muslims!, you are muslims!!"
>
>I don't know why he was saying this, but for me as educated in an
>unreligious way it was a great and overwhelming enlightment to
>recognize, that there is a lord, whom I have to serve (whom - not
>me selfish ego), and that this is the first step on the spiritual path.
Thanks for your response. It was encouraging to read your story about pir
vilayat and the sheikh. It expresses everything I wanted to say in my last
posting.
Can you tell some more about the naqshbandiyyah sheikh, does he initiate
westerners?. What are your personal experiences with sufism?
Gert
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:38:06 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA12417; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 01:10:06 GMT
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA12406; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:10:05 -0400
Received: from galen.med.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20380;
10 Sep 94 21:10 EDT
Received: (from abg3k@localhost) by galen.med.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA32417 for tariqas@world.std.com; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:10:02 -0400
From: "Asha B. Greer"
Message-Id: <199409110110.VAA32417@galen.med.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 21:10:02 EDT
In-Reply-To: <199409040627.AA00909@world.std.com>; from "Albert Huizinga" at Sep 4, 94 12:27 am
X-Mailer: PENELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
vis a vis psuedo sufis etc. usually they are referred to as
goofy sufis which saves a lot of time and gets to the point.
--
wa salam
Noori
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:38:17 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA13229; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 01:13:35 GMT
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA13217; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:13:34 -0400
Received: from galen.med.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20628;
10 Sep 94 21:13 EDT
Received: (from abg3k@localhost) by galen.med.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA35443 for tariqas@world.std.com; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:13:33 -0400
From: "Asha B. Greer"
Message-Id: <199409110113.VAA35443@galen.med.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 21:13:32 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9409041042.AA08946@indy.knoware.nl>; from "gert braakman" at Sep 4, 94 11:42 am
X-Mailer: PENELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
allah is the lord of the east and the west, the north and the
south. thee is no such thing as 'western' sufis as opposed to
say northern sufis or eastern sufis. there are, alhamdulillah,
real sufis and the real sufis are always real muslims for there
is no sufism is reality without islam.
there are also goofy sufis but thaey are something else
altogether. they are usually of the 'farnk sinatra school' .
you know. i'll do it ,my way
--
wa salam
Noori
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:38:24 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA17407; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 01:21:58 GMT
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA17399; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:21:57 -0400
Received: from galen.med.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa21383;
10 Sep 94 21:21 EDT
Received: (from abg3k@localhost) by galen.med.Virginia.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA103739 for tariqas@world.std.com; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:21:55 -0400
From: "Asha B. Greer"
Message-Id: <199409110121.VAA103739@galen.med.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sufism and Islam
To: tariqas@world.std.com
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 21:21:55 EDT
In-Reply-To: <44985.obsto@wwupop.uni-muenster.de>; from "Oliver Obst" at Sep 5, 94 12:29 pm
X-Mailer: PENELM [version 2.3.1 PL11]
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
innayat khan and his son vilayat khan may call themselves sufis
but and even claim to belong to a genuine tariqah.
if however you go back through that tariqah you will note that
every one of those listed in the silsilah was a practicing
muslim and that the final source of the tariqa is the prophet
muhammad, blessings of allah and peace be upon him.
check page 677 of the first edition of twoard the one.
if then the source and the ultimate basis of all legitimacy is
the prophet muhammad, blessings of allah and peace be upon him,
how then can inayat and his son vilayat {not to mention others
in that line like same lewis, rabia martin et al} presume to
offer something called sufism which deviates from the original
source teaching.
if they want to call this teaching, 'universal worship' or
anything else then that is their business but when they, and
their ilk, pretend that what they are transmitting is sufism
then they must be corrected.
--
wa salam
Noori
From habib@world.std.com Tue Sep 13 18:39:15 1994
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA27273; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 04:03:41 GMT
Received: from well.sf.ca.us by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA27261; Sun, 11 Sep 1994 00:03:39 -0400
Received: from DialupEudora (jay@well.sf.ca.us [198.93.4.10]) by well.sf.ca.us (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA25056 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:04:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199409110404.VAA25056@well.sf.ca.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:03:56 -0800
To: tariqas@world.std.com
From: jay@well.sf.ca.us (Jay Kinney)
Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tariqas@world.std.com
For those who may have missed this summary when I
circulated it through this list earlier this year,
I am resending it again. [All peace and blessings
and other expressions of respect should be inserted
where appropriate when referring to Prophets and Saints.]
>>
It is my belief that the recent "debates" in this mailing
list would benefit from all participants and observers taking
a step back and reconsidering a few basic premises about
Sufism, Islam, and gnosis (marifah or irfan). I offer the
following as one possible set of observations based on my
researches and experiences of recent years. I do not expect
everyone to accept my conclusions, however I believe that
they are at least worth considering. For the sake of
simplicity I will list them as a series of statements or
assertions. However, I view them as a set of hypotheses that
can change as I learn more or reach new realizations.
1) The term Islam has multiple meanings. It both refers to
the primordial religion of submission to the One God
stretching back to Adam and to the specific religion and way
of life established by the Prophet Muhammad. One can
also distinguish between the essential Islam of the Prophet's
own time and circle and the more sociological Islam(s) that
developed in different cultures, influenced by different
schools of law (fiqh), different interpretations of proper
religious leadership, and different local environments.
Broadly speaking these can all be called Islam, but
proponents of each variant often assume that their Islam is
the *real* Islam and all others are defective or misguided.
2) Similarly, the term Muslim can refer simply to one who
submits to God or, more commonly, to a follower of the formal
religion of Islam. In Islamic countries, many people are born
into Islam and consider themselves Muslim, but have reached
various compromises with Shariah regarding their sexuality,
drinking, adherence to prayer obligations, etc. This is
similar to the accommodation to religious requirements that
all societies make on the level of "everyday life" | | |
