Unveiling the Truth: Sufism between Influences and Purity

Islam is a din rendered into English as religion. But different perspective as to what religion is between Islam and Western civilization undoubtedly results in misunderstandings retained for centuries. It follows that those who are used to see things from Western understanding and viewpoint would consider Sufism as the alien part of Islam. From their viewpoint it is understandable to do so, for they lack the complete comprehension of teachings of Islam.
They work behind their distorted presuppositions held for centuries of hatred toward Islam. Although the situation now is growing better, there remain misunderstandings of several concepts formulated by the Sufis of old, since they are seen outwardly, i.e., not understood within Islamic worldview. To equal, for example, wahdatul wujud understood by Sufis, with pantheism known to Western civilization is one of the consequence following from such situation, where, in fact, both are of very different nature.
In this paper I will first examine mysticism generally understood in its wide context. Next, I will try to trace the origin of word Sufi. As it will be soon discovered that this word was current even in the pre-Islamic days. I will try to show that, in the case of Sufism, the mere similarity is not sufficient to support theories of influence. It will be also proven that Islamic teaching itself is already full of Sufism, so to speak, both pratical or theoritical. Thus, it does not make sense to relate the appearance of Sufism within Islam only with something external to it.


UNDERSTANDING MYSTICISM
To talk about tasawuf in wider context means to talk of special sort of mysticism that belongs to Islam or Islamic tradition. Mysticism is derived from mystic originating from Greek mustikos, from mustēs which means “initiated person”, from muein which means “close the eyes or lips”, and “initiate”. From the very original Greek meaning we can infer that mysticism is related with something beyond the senses, that is, not able to to be understood by average approaches. And it is quite surprising that the Greek original also signifies initiated person which later in the context of sufism is comparable to the necessity of the spiritual guide (sheikh).
The other origin closely related to mysticism is mystery which is also of Greek origin, that is, mustērion which means simply “a revealed secret”. This means that mustērion, from which word mystery originates, is not something incomprehensible at all; it is a secret yet able to be comprehended if revealed.
Another definition offered to explain mysticism is given by a leading author on mysticism Evelyn Underhill. She describes it as “the art of union with Reality”, and, thus the mystic is “a person who has attained that union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such attainment”. The idea of the limitless Reality is not a concern of rational understanding, since its many shortcomings to prevent the perfect knowledge. It is rather of feeling and consciousness, which have fuller ability to grasp it. But this description does not make the way to understand mysticism easy, since the goal to which all the ways lead cannot be easily apprehended by “any normal mode of perception”, as Schimmel expresses it. It can only properly comprehended by spiritual experience that depends neither to sensual nor rational methods.
Spiritual experience can only be attained by disciplines of self-purifying (takhalli/via purgativa) from all other than Him. Then it leads a mystic to higher state of beautifying his heart, self, and soul resulting in divine love and gnosis (tahalli/via illuminativa). Upon completing this, a mystic’s journey will be entirely different, for, in this stage, there is nothing other than Him (tajalli/unio mystica).
There are two types of mysticism; that of infinity and of personality. The first type speaks of the infinite being which is conceived as limitless, spaceless, and even not being; since it does not belong to the same category to which human being is classified. Th e purest form of this type can be found in the Upanishads and the system of Plotinus. This kind is often forbidden for many people as it seemed to trivialize human values and, therefore, resulting in monism and pantheism which constitute great threat to human being taken as a whole. The idea of continuing creation held by this mysticism does not seem reconcilable with creatio ex-nihilo doctrine.
In opposite to the the first type the mysticism of personality stresses on human personality as understood from the name. God in this mysticism is perceived as Creator, Lord, and Beloved whereas human being is creature, slave, and lover. Both types hardly become separated independently not connected in each purest form. The contrary is the most cases. The modern historian classify these two types as mystic and prophetic. Such classification is not proper with the case of Islam, as seen later.
With regarding to Islam there is less distinction between two approaches or rather both are integrated. This fact makes the clear grouping between the two seems to be difficult or even impossible without falling into traps which make both not be correctly understood. In Islam both are equally strong.
Some modern scholars try to explain the nature of mysticism. William James gives an explanation that mysticism can be described by four things. Firstly, that it is the state of mental perception (noetic) rather than discursive knowledge. It is like revelations of direct experience. Secondly, the ineffability of explanating such mental perception, since it is a feeling state which cannot be exactly explained by words. Thirdly, the transiency of that mental insight. But the effect of it somehow can still be recovered. Fourthly, its passivity, that is, the mystic’s being passive while acquiring that insight. Another attempt to identify the natures of mysticism is done by R. M. Bucke. He asserts that mysticism has seven characteristics; the subjective light, moral elevation, intellectual illumination, sense of immortality, loss of fear of death, loss of sense of sin, and suddeness. And although these aspects exist undeniably in most types of mysticism, yet these two attempts are not fully comprehensive to determine the whole elements of mysticism. Since there remains many aspects of it have not been explained in these two yet.

ON LEXICAL ORIGIN OF SUFI
With regard to Islam, tasawuf has been the generally accepted name for mysticism. However, some writers use tasawuf, which is derivative of sufi, as translation of English mysticism. This rendering, though loosely understandable, is not the correct one; for it is from Islamic Tradition that word tasawuf owes its existence, and hence should be grasped in Islamic context. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent historical and semantical meaning contained in word mysticism as understood in Western history when talking about Islamic mysticism, tasawuf, or, later in the early 19th century, sufism. The last has now become the common word in English-using literatures for denoting mysticism in Islam.
Scholars on Sufism, and so did the Sufi of old, have different opinions as to from what root this word originates. Some assert that it comes from safa which means purity, “the sufis was so named because the purity of their inmost ground and the cleanness of their traces”. Others say that it has its origin from al-saff al-awwal which means the first rank signifying that they are in the first rank before God. Others would say it is derived from ahl al-suffah, which originally signifies the people of the Bench, Prophet’s Companions living poverty life and always attached to spend their time in worshiping God.
It is worth noting that there is an attempt from European scholar to ascribe the origin of word sufi to Greek sophos relating with teosophist. But this, as supposed, can no longer be maintained, since it seems to be impossible philologically.
But of these origins, the most acceptable morphologically is that it is from suf, which means woolen garment. Although the last signifies only to the external aspect of sufism, it is common at the time when this term came to exist to refer to men by their outer appearance rather than their attributes and traits, just like al-Quran referring to the Companions of the Jesus Christ by al-hawariyyin alluding to their white garb rather than their virtues.
This does not necessarily mean to decrease spiritual significance of this word and to disregard other three words’ meaning, since:
“Those who relate them to the Bench and to wool express the outward aspect of their conditions: for they were people who had left this world, departed from their homes, fled from their compaions. They wandered about the land, mortifying the carnal desires, and making naked the body; they took of this world’s good only so much as is indispensable for covering the nakedness and allaying hunger.”
Furthermore, al-Kalabadhi clarifies that, although these words seem to be different, their meanings indicate the same. For, he adds, “If the term is taken from al-safa (purity) and al-safwah (tha choosen), then it would be safawiyah; if it is connected to al-saff (rank) or al-suffah (bench), it would be saffiyah or suffiyah; and it is possible that preceding of wawu over ya’ in the word sufiyah and its addition in words saffiyah and suffiyah is because of passing from mouth to mouth (tadawul al-alsun)”.
Abu Nasr al-Sarraj, one of the earliest writers on sufism, reports that the word sufi was common in the pre-Islamic days (ashr jahily), that is, by implication, already known in the Prophet’s life. To support his view on this matter he quotes from the History of Mecca by Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar that there were times in Mecca in which everybody left and no one left there to honor the Ka’bah and in these times a Sufi used to come from another place to the Ka’bah in prescribed manner. Thus the term Sufi at that time had the similar significance as the word hanif who is one practicing the religion of Abraham.
If it is so, then why is it not prevalent in the days of Prophet and his Companions? Al-Sarraj argues that it is because the honor of being Prophet’s Companions is the highest honor that no body would ever think to call them other than their being so. In spite of that, their spirituality is of high rank to be the inspiration for next people.

INFLUENCES ON SUFISM
So far as influences toward sufism is concerned, there are several theories. E. H. Palmer considers that sufism is a developed form of primeval religion of the Aryan race. Sufism, thus, is merely considered as a sort Iranian development within Islamic spirituality. And so is the case with Thoulk who identifies the origin of sufism to Zoroastrian with the argument that many of Zoroastrians living in the northern Iran from which early Sufi leaders came and some of the Sufi path founder was of Zoroastrian origin. In spite of these arguments they argue with, we still cannot say that sufism is simply of Iranian sort of spirituality dressed in Arabic, since there were many sufi leaders who lived in Syria, Egypt, and other parts of Islamic world, even some of them are more influential.
Some are convinced that sufism is of Christian origin. This opinion is held even by seemingly moderate Western scholar on sufism, R. A. Nicholson. He writes: “We have seen that the woollen dress, from which the name 'Sufi' is derived, is of Christian origin: vows of silence, litanies (dhikr), and other ascetic practices may be traced to the same source”, and “It must also be allowed that the ascetic movement was inspired by Christian ideals, and contrasted sharply with the active and pleasure-loving spirit of Islam.” But this similarity by which Nicholson maintains his view is no longer valid if we read verses from al-Quran which lucidly elucidates that: “And nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say: ‘We are Christians’. because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant”, “And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth; they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.” Besides, there is a number of Quranic Verses and Prophetic Traditions which command to live in this world while remembering its transience and forbid from fully absorbed in the worldly life.
Scholars, like Goldziher who is a Jew, are convinced that sufism has been influenced to the great extent by jewish teachings. One of the arguments they propose to establish their view is that many Jews who converted to Islam fabricated many sayings later known as israiliyyat. The other argument they employ to assure their opinion is that incarnation theory of sufism is similar to the antropomorphism tendency within Jew tradition. But, again, the mere similarity does not prove that there is influence. The so-called sufism theory is alien to the core teachings of true sufism, and therefore cannot show any influence toward it.
One more theory is given to trace the origin of sufism. It traces origin of sufism back to Indian Civilization, that is to say that elements of Hindu and Budha had been absorbed into sufism. They argue that annihilation (fana’) in sufi tradition is comparable to the concept of nirvana within Buddhism and Hinduism. And so is the thought of incarnation (hulul) and union (ittihad) ascribed to sufism with reincarnation of souls (tanasukh) of Indian belief. From these resemblances we cannot arbitrarily infer that sufism has been affected by Hinduism or Buddhism.
Another influence from which sufism is identified to be developed is neoplatonism. This so-called influence of neoplatonism is detected by the prominence of literary tradition, containing mystical ideas, translated into Syrian from Greek through which the doctrines of emanation, illumination, gnosis, and ecstasy were transmitted. In addition to his opinion about Christian origin of sufism, he assuredly writes that “Neoplatonism poured into Islam a large tincture of the same mystical element in which Christianity was already steeped”. That Greek thought had permeated some aspects of theosophical sufism is undeniable. However, it should be noticed that it does not necessarily mean that the so-called theosophist merely adopted Greek concepts without appropriating them into their own system of thought; and it is also possible, viewing the conceptual possibilities contained within al-Quran and Prophet’s Tradition, that they just borrow Greek terms to give an explanation of concepts already included in the Two Sources.

ISLAM AND SUFISM
For some, it sounds somewhat strange to question relationship between sufism and Islam. But it is incumbent upon us to clarify this issue, since there are many misunderstandings on sufism from our muslim brothers. Read, for example, Abdurrahman al-Wakil’s book entitled Hadzihi Hiya al-Sufiyyahin which he writes:
“It is an obligation for Sheikh to invite his followers back to Islam; believing in al-Quran and the Prophet’s Tradition; disbelieving the Sufis and their idolatrous legacy. And if their followers do not accept Allah swt as the only God, His book as the only guide, His messenger as the only model, then he must go to Allah swt. and leave this position and its idols; the curse of Allah is upon them”
First of all it is essential to state that sufism is an integral part of Islam. It is no more than an interiorization of Islam, as Schimmel rightly puts it, or practice of the shari’ah at the station of ihsan, as formulated by al-Attas. It is very easy to trace the Sufi’s thought and practices back to the Sources of Islam, that is, al-Quran and Hadith of the Prophet. And, once again, Schimmel correctly notes that “In fact, the quintessence of the long history of Sufism is to express anew, in different formulation, the overwhelming truth that ‘there is no deity but Allah’ and to realize that He alone can be the object of worship”. Keeping this in mind, we should be able to see the position of tasawuf within Islamic context. It is just like fiqh; while the latter is concerned with outer aspect of Islam, the former is concerned with the inner aspect of it. Both are, so to speak, dynamic. Denying one of them means rejecting half of Islam. As alluded to in al-Quran: “Eschew all sin, open or secret” , there are two kind of sins; open or outer sin and secret or inner sin. The first-mentioned is of fiqh matter, so is the latter of tasawuf matter.
As far as the measurement by which Sufis judge their insights, it is a fact that they draw theirs first and foremost from al-Quran and Prophet’s tradition. Both constitute guides par excellence for every Sufi. If the ma’rifah is the highest goal toward which a Sufi should walk, then al-Quran is the only means by which he can know Him and has formed the cornerstone for all mystical doctrines. Sufis also are also inspired by the Prophet through whom al-Quran was revealed. He is the first link in the spiritual chain of sufism.
Al-Attas guidedly states:
“Tasawuf is none other than the intensification of shari’ah upon one’s self; it is the expression of ihsan in the ‘abd; it is ‘ibadah fortified and enlightened by intellectual discernment leading to spiritual apprehension of realities; it is the practice of the shari’ah at the station of ihsan; it is established upon certainty as it is based upon hikmah and al-ilm al-ladunniyy—wisdom and spiritual knowledge which God grants to whomsoever He pleases of the elect among His servants. ... Its technical vocabulary is derived from its chief Source, the Holy Qur’an, and its interpretation and practice is grounded upon the Sunnah.”
The core concept upon which tasawuf is based is concept of covenant sealed between God and pre-existent human being, in which human being acknowledged Allah swt. as their Lord as referred to in al-Quran:
“When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam--from their loins--their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"--They said: "Yea! we do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "of this we were never mindful."
This, too, is related with the very essential purpose for which human being and jinn are created. Allah swt. says in al-Quran: “I have only created the Jinn and Man that they may serve Me” . Ibadah in its profoundest sense ultimately means ma’rifah (knowledge), so that His purpose of creation is for the creature to know Him, as He says in Holy Tradition (hadith qudsiyy): “I was a Hidden treasure, and I desired to be known, so I created creation that I might be known”. Such knowledge can only be obtain by the ways commanded in the shari’ah; both obligatory and supererogation. Of this, He sayas in Holy Tradition:
“My Servant ceases not to draw nigh unto Me by supererogatory worship until I love him; and when I love him I am his ear, so that he hears by Me, and his eye, so that he sees by Me, and his tongue, so that he speaks by Me, and his hand so that he takes by Me.”
Observing these facts, i.e., al-Quran and Hadith talking of these so-called theosophical concepts, we should be aware that the very essential of Two Sources is pregnant with such teachings, and thus avoid us from being unduly influenced by theories of influences conveyed by orientalists and their followers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, Sayyid Nur bin Sayyid. al-Tasawuf al-Syar’i Alladzi Yajhaluhu Katsirun min Mudda’iihi wa Munataqidiih. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 2000.
al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naquib. Islam and Secularism. ISTAC: Kuala Lumpur. 1993.
-----, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam. ISTAC: Kuala Lumpur. 2001.
al-Baalbaki, Rohi. Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary. Dar el-Ilm Lilmalayin: Beirut. 1995.
Delafield, John. Mysticism and Its Results Being an Inquiry into the Uses and Abuses of Secrecy. Edwards and Blushnell: New York. 1857.
Dictionary version 1.0.2. Oxford American Dictionary. Apple Computer Inc.
Field, Claud. Mystics and Saints of Islam. Francis Griffiths: London. 1910.
Hamiduddin, M. Early Sufis: Doctrine, in A History of Muslim Philosophy. Edited by M. M. Sharif. vol I. Adam Publisher: New Delhi. 2001.
al-Kalabadhi, Abu Bakr. al-Ta’arruf li Madhhab Ahl al-Tasawwuf. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 1993.
Nicholson, Reynold A. The Mystics of Islam. Routledge Keegan Paul: London. 1914.
Qasim, Abdul Hakim Abdul Ghani. Al-Madhahib Al-Sufiyyah wa Madarisuha. Maktabah Madbuli: Cairo. 1999.
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimension of Islam. Yoda Press: New Delhi.
al-Taftazani, Abu al-Wafa. Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf al-Islami. Dar al-Thaqafah: Cairo. 1979.
Underhill, Evelyn. Pratical Mysticism: A Little Book for Normal People. E.P. Dutton and Company: New York. 1915.
al-Wakil, Abdurrahman. Hadzihi Hiya al-Sufiyyah. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 1979.

Read More...

On Origin and Earliest Usage of Term Sufi

There have been many written on Sufism. And from its very nature, it is understandable to see this subject understood differently and, even, in contradictory manner. To write on this subject is, as Schimmel puts it, an almost impossible task. Therefore, this very short essay merely tries to search the origin of word sufism and to trace its earliest usage.
Of three words—tasawuf, Sufi, and Sufiyah—the seconds seem to exist earlier. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that it is the most appropriate word from which we can derive the other. Scholars on Sufism have different opinions as to from what root this word originates. Some assert that it originates from الصفو which means purity, others that it originates from الصف which refers to their being's first rank before God, others says that this name comes from اهل الصفة which means the people of the bench referring to those pious poor living in Medina. Even some Western scholars strangely try to relate this word to the Greek sophos which, I argue, must not be known to the earliest Sufis. These so-called roots of tasawuf soon cannot be defended in morphological structure of Arabic. If we are to trace the origin of these opinions we can read, for example, al-Kalabadhi's al-Ta'arruf, one of the earliest sources on tasawuf, which mentions, in first chapter concerning Sufiyyah and why they are so named, some sayings of Sufis; each tries to convey Sufi according to their own preferences. And this does not necessarily mean that they were conveying the morphological root of Sufi.

There remains one word widely considered as morphological origin of Sufi which is, it is argued, the most appropriate words to be the root of word Sufi. This word is الصوف which means woolen garment worn originally by those living an ascetic life. Although the word الصوف only express the outward aspect of Sufi's life, but this very word originally relates strongly to those people of the bench who were:
“People who had left this world, departed from their homes, fled from their companions. They wandered about the land, mortifying the carnal desires, and making naked the body; they took of this world's good only so much as is indispensable for covering the nakedness and allaying hunger.”
The tendency to refer to men by their specific conventional garb rather than by specific attributes and traits is also evident in Holy Quran itself. After quoting from Holy Quran: “wa qal al-hawariyyun”, al-Sarraj says that Holy Quran emphasizes that the Companions of Jesus Christ were referred to by their white garb rather than their virtous traits.
So far as to when word Sufi dates back, there are many views. Considering the fact that the earliest sources of Sufism do not go beyond the fourth/tenth century, some scholars maintains that this word was only apparent after this century or, at best, second/eighth century. But, this word, though not as widely used as in the later centuries, was current in the pre-Islamic days. Abu Nasr al-Sarraj, quoting Ibn Ishaq's History of Mecca and others, insists that there was a period in the history of Mecca when everybody had gone away from Mecca so that nobody was left there to pay homage to the Ka'bah and to go round it. During these days a Sufi used to come from a distant place in order to go round the Ka'bah in the prescribed manner. If this story is true then it is evident that the word sufi was current in the pre-Islamic days, and was used for men of excellence and virtue.
In spite of these various opinions about its origin and earliest usage, Sufism, by spirit, was present at the time of revelation and then practiced by the Companions. Sufism is of spirit more than just a name or clothing a woolen garment.
References:
Ibn Taymiyah, Ahmad. Al-Sufiyyah wa al-Fuqara'. Jeddah: Dar al-Madani.
Kalabadhi, Abu Bakr Muhammad al-. Al-Ta'aruf li Madhhabi Ahl al-Tasawwuf. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al- Ilmiyah. 1993.
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimension of Islam. New Delhi: Yoda Press.
Sharif, M. M (ed). A History of Muslim Philosophy. Delhi: Adam Publishers. 2001.
Taftazani, Abu al-Wafa al-. Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf al-Islami. Cairo: Dar al-Thaqafah. 1979.

Read More...

What Parents Do Here

In Indonesia, larger part of population lives in rural area. Consequently most of them live their life traditionally. Yet, it's undeniable that information technology has brought about big change in some aspect of their life.
As far as parent-and-children relationship is concerned, relatively, there are no dramatic differences. This we can divide into two extreme positions and from which then to draw some types of such relationship.
These two extremes are parents who are fully totalitarian in their relationship with their children and parents who are extremely liberal in their way conducting their relationship with them. Of course, we'll feel difficult to find such extreme kinds.
Typically, traditional family- like such of Javanese and Madurese-will demand from their young people to respect everyone older then them, with special emphasize on someone who births you. This in itself is good and, I think, no parent would deny that they hope their children to respect them. And this is very natural inclination of human being. Everyone who has good character will do it.
This had happened for long time and, to some extent, is still happening these days. To respect our parents, for religious people, is to obey one of the most highlighted commands in the Scripture, regardless of what our faith may be, I'm sure that every religion will stress this matter. Even, when you have no religious alliance, you will naturally find-or more precisely feel-that somehow to respect your parents is your obligation. It is our natural tendency to feel it, sown by God out of His bounty for the believer or misunderstably existed within us for the atheist.

But then, when their children grow up and start to have ability to understand this world sometime differently from their parents' way of thinking, and then to choose their own choices, something will happen; conflict, either openly or secretly.
And this, it seems to me so, will occur more often in Indonesian traditional society which there is almost no limitation for information coming from 'outside'. There will be clash of cultures, that is, between traditional culture and modern culture brought by information technology. However, this is not the case in many traditional families, moreover in families living in city, town, or suburb. This is because, I think, they are less traditional. By traditional families I mean those who bear their traditional norms as unchangeable things and no one should try to change, moreover their children. The more inclined they are to their tradition, the more traditional they are.
For families living in urban area to give more tolerance to their children is considerably easy. This might be due to openness of information they and their children can gain. For, someone who knows more will become more tolerance, this at least in many cases. This freedom is a wise to choose if accompanied with consultative function from parents.
On the contrary, freedom to choose is somewhat luxurious stuff for many children originating from rural and traditional family. For them, in many cases, it's not easy to make their own decisions. In most instances, they can't decide many things relating to theirselves. Their parents do it all, for their good, they would say. However for some people to decide by their selves makes them more comfort. They don't have to always rely on their parents to decide something and this, in effect, will get them more prepared in facing future. Nevertheless we can hardly find parents from traditional family-in the sense we mention above-to give their children more freedom. This attitude is because parents traditionally intuitively want to see their children happy but, sadly, from their version of happiness. They almost won't, in some cases, even listen to their children what happiness for them is. It’s all about monologue, while the dialog is always the best. The other reason might be that children-until they get married-in traditional family is more dependent economically to their parents resulting in other dependences. That's why children being independent from their parents have freer choice.
Actually, this time in which informations flood us and it's seemingly impossible to control and sort them for our children, it seems the best for parents to let their children make their own choice while listening, talking each other and advising. This will make them more responsible and independent. Added to this, if they make choices they need, they will be mentally healthier and don't need to find out their identity along their life. For, as Candy Natazia said, the choices you made in life define who you are and what you stand for.

Read More...