Transcriber's note: Italic font is indicated by _underscores_.
  Bolded and underlined words are indicated by =equals=.

  The following two characters may not display as intended on certain
  devices:

  The Arabic letter _ayn_ or _ayin_ is here represented by the
  character ʿ (MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING).

  The Arabic letter _hamza_ is here represented by the
  character ʾ (MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING).




  The Quest Series
  Edited by G. R. S. Mead


  THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM




  THE QUEST SERIES

  Edited by G. R. S. MEAD,
  EDITOR OF ‘THE QUEST.’

  _Crown 8vo.  2s. 6d. net each._


  FIRST LIST OF VOLUMES.

  PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AND SURVIVAL. By James H. Hyslop, Ph.D., LL.D.,
  Secretary of the Psychical Research Society of America.

  THE QUEST OF THE HOLY GRAIL. By Jessie L. Weston, Author of ‘The
  Legend of Sir Perceval.’

  JEWISH MYSTICISM. By J. Abelson, M.A., D.Lit., Principal of Aria
  College, Portsmouth.

  BUDDHIST PSYCHOLOGY. By C. A. F. Rhys Davids, M.A., F.B.A., Lecturer
  on Indian Philosophy, Manchester University.

  THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM. By Reynold A. Nicholson, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D.,
  Lecturer on Persian, Cambridge University.


  London: G. BELL & SONS LTD.




  THE
  MYSTICS OF ISLAM

  BY
  REYNOLD A. NICHOLSON
  M.A., Litt.D., Hon. LL.D. (Aberdeen)
  LECTURER ON PERSIAN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
  FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE

[Illustration]

  LONDON
  G. BELL AND SONS LTD.
  1914




  EDITOR’S NOTE


If Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no little in common in spite
of their deep dogmatic differences, the spiritual content of that
common element can best be appreciated in Jewish, Christian and
Islamic mysticism, which bears equal testimony to that ever-deepening
experience of the soul when the spiritual worshipper, whether he be
follower of Moses or Jesus or Mohammed, turns whole-heartedly to God.
As the Quest Series has already supplied for the first time those
interested in such matters with a simple general introduction to Jewish
mysticism, so it now provides an easy approach to the study of Islamic
mysticism on which in English there exists no separate introduction.
But not only have we in the following pages all that the general reader
requires to be told at first about Sūfism; we have also a large amount
of material that will be new even to professional Orientalists. Dr.
Nicholson sets before us the results of twenty years’ unremitting
labour, and that, too, with remarkable simplicity and clarity for
such a subject; at the same time he lets the mystics mostly speak for
themselves and mainly in his own fine versions from the original Arabic
and Persian.




  CONTENTS


                                   PAGE
       Introduction                   1

  CHAP.
    I. The Path                      28

   II. Illumination and Ecstasy      50

  III. The Gnosis                    68

   IV. Divine Love                  102

    V. Saints and Miracles          120

   VI. The Unitive State            148

       Bibliography                 169

       Index                        173




  THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM




  INTRODUCTION


The title of this book sufficiently explains why it is included in a
Series ‘exemplifying the adventures and labours of individual seekers
or groups of seekers in quest of reality.’ Sūfism, the religious
philosophy of Islam, is described in the oldest extant definition
as ‘the apprehension of divine realities,’ and Mohammedan mystics
are fond of calling themselves _Ahl al-Haqq_, ‘the followers of the
Real.’[1] In attempting to set forth their central doctrines from
this point of view, I shall draw to some extent on materials which
I have collected during the last twenty years for a general history
of Islamic mysticism--a subject so vast and many-sided that several
large volumes would be required to do it anything like justice. Here
I can only sketch in broad outline certain principles, methods, and
characteristic features of the inner life as it has been lived by
Moslems of every class and condition from the eighth century of our
era to the present day. Difficult are the paths which they threaded,
dark and bewildering the pathless heights beyond; but even if we
may not hope to accompany the travellers to their journey’s end,
any information that we have gathered concerning their religious
environment and spiritual history will help us to understand the
strange experiences of which they write.

[1] _Al-Haqq_ is the term generally used by Sūfīs when they refer to
God.

In the first place, therefore, I propose to offer a few remarks on the
origin and historical development of Sūfism, its relation to Islam,
and its general character. Not only are these matters interesting
to the student of comparative religion; some knowledge of them is
indispensable to any serious student of Sūfism itself. It may be said,
truly enough, that all mystical experiences ultimately meet in a single
point; but that point assumes widely different aspects according to the
mystic’s religion, race, and temperament, while the converging lines
of approach admit of almost infinite variety. Though all the great
types of mysticism have something in common, each is marked by peculiar
characteristics resulting from the circumstances in which it arose and
flourished. Just as the Christian type cannot be understood without
reference to Christianity, so the Mohammedan type must be viewed in
connexion with the outward and inward development of Islam.

The word ‘mystic,’ which has passed from Greek religion into European
literature, is represented in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, the three
chief languages of Islam, by ‘Sūfī.’ The terms, however, are not
precisely synonymous, for ‘Sūfī’ has a specific religious connotation,
and is restricted by usage to those mystics who profess the Mohammedan
faith. And the Arabic word, although in course of time it appropriated
the high significance of the Greek--lips sealed by holy mysteries,
eyes closed in visionary rapture--bore a humbler meaning when it
first gained currency (about 800 A.D.). Until recently its derivation
was in dispute. Most Sūfīs, flying in the face of etymology, have
derived it from an Arabic root which conveys the notion of ‘purity’;
this would make ‘Sūfī’ mean ‘one who is pure in heart’ or ‘one of the
elect.’ Some European scholars identified it with σοφός in the sense
of ‘theosophist.’ But Nöldeke, in an article written twenty years ago,
showed conclusively that the name was derived from _sūf_ (wool), and
was originally applied to those Moslem ascetics who, in imitation of
Christian hermits, clad themselves in coarse woollen garb as a sign of
penitence and renunciation of worldly vanities.

The earliest Sūfīs were, in fact, ascetics and quietists rather
than mystics. An overwhelming consciousness of sin, combined with a
dread--which it is hard for us to realise--of Judgment Day and the
torments of Hell-fire, so vividly painted in the Koran, drove them to
seek salvation in flight from the world. On the other hand, the Koran
warned them that salvation depended entirely on the inscrutable will of
Allah, who guides aright the good and leads astray the wicked. Their
fate was inscribed on the eternal tables of His providence, nothing
could alter it. Only this was sure, that if they were destined to be
saved by fasting and praying and pious works--then they would be saved.
Such a belief ends naturally in quietism, complete and unquestioning
submission to the divine will, an attitude characteristic of Sūfism in
its oldest form. The mainspring of Moslem religious life during the
eighth century was fear--fear of God, fear of Hell, fear of death, fear
of sin--but the opposite motive had already begun to make its influence
felt, and produced in the saintly woman Rābiʿa at least one conspicuous
example of truly mystical self-abandonment.

So far, there was no great difference between the Sūfī and the orthodox
Mohammedan zealot, except that the Sūfīs attached extraordinary
importance to certain Koranic doctrines, and developed them at the
expense of others which many Moslems might consider equally essential.
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. In a famous sentence the Prophet
denounced monkish austerities and bade his people devote themselves
to the holy war against unbelievers; and he gave, as is well known,
the most convincing testimony in favour of marriage. Although his
condemnation of celibacy did not remain without effect, the conquest
of Persia, Syria, and Egypt by his successors brought the Moslems into
contact with ideas which profoundly modified their outlook on life and
religion. European readers of the Koran cannot fail to be struck by its
author’s vacillation and inconsistency in dealing with the greatest
problems. He himself was not aware of these contradictions, nor were
they a stumbling-block to his devout followers, whose simple faith
accepted the Koran as the Word of God. But the rift was there, and soon
produced far-reaching results.

Hence arose the Murjites, who set faith above works and emphasised
the divine love and goodness; the Qadarites who affirmed, and the
Jabarites who denied, that men are responsible for their actions;
the Muʿtazilites, who built a theology on the basis of reason,
rejecting the qualities of Allah as incompatible with His unity,
and predestinarianism as contrary to His justice; and finally the
Ashʿarites, the scholastic theologians of Islam, who formulated the
rigid metaphysical and doctrinal system that underlies the creed of
orthodox Mohammedans at the present time. All these speculations,
influenced as they were by Greek theology and philosophy, reacted
powerfully upon Sūfism. Early in the third century of the Hegira--the
ninth after Christ--we find manifest signs of the new leaven stirring
within it. Not that Sūfīs ceased to mortify the flesh and take pride
in their poverty, but they now began to regard asceticism as only the
first stage of a long journey, the preliminary training for a larger
spiritual life than the mere ascetic is able to conceive. The nature
of the change may be illustrated by quoting a few sentences which have
come down to us from the mystics of this period.

        “Love is not to be learned from men: it is one of God’s gifts
    and comes of His grace.”

        “None refrains from the lusts of this world save him in whose
    heart there is a light that keeps him always busied with the next
    world.”

        “When the gnostic’s spiritual eye is opened, his bodily eye is
    shut: he sees nothing but God.”

        “If gnosis were to take visible shape all who looked thereon
    would die at the sight of its beauty and loveliness and goodness
    and grace, and every brightness would become dark beside the
    splendour thereof.”[2]

        “Gnosis is nearer to silence than to speech.”

        “When the heart weeps because it has lost, the spirit laughs
    because it has found.”

        “Nothing sees God and dies, even as nothing sees God and lives,
    because His life is everlasting: whoever sees it is thereby made
    everlasting.”

        “O God, I never listen to the cry of animals or to the
    quivering of trees or to the murmuring of water or to the warbling
    of birds or to the rustling wind or to the crashing thunder without
    feeling them to be an evidence of Thy unity and a proof that there
    is nothing like unto Thee.”

        “O my God, I invoke Thee in public as lords are invoked, but in
    private as loved ones are invoked. Publicly I say, ‘O my God!’ but
    privately I say, ‘O my Beloved!’”

[2] Compare Plato, _Phædrus_ (Jowett’s translation): “For sight is the
keenest of our bodily senses; though not by that is wisdom seen; her
loveliness would have been transporting if there had been a visible
image of her.”

These ideas--Light, Knowledge, and Love--form, as it were, the keynotes
of the new Sūfism, and in the following chapters I shall endeavour to
show how they were developed. Ultimately they rest upon a pantheistic
faith which deposed the One transcendent God of Islam and worshipped
in His stead One Real Being who dwells and works everywhere, and whose
throne is not less, but more, in the human heart than in the heaven
of heavens. Before going further, it will be convenient to answer
a question which the reader may have asked himself--Whence did the
Moslems of the ninth century derive this doctrine?

Modern research has proved that the origin of Sūfism cannot be
traced back to a single definite cause, and has thereby discredited
the sweeping generalisations which represent it, for instance, as a
reaction of the Aryan mind against a conquering Semitic religion, and
as the product, essentially, of Indian or Persian thought. Statements
of this kind, even when they are partially true, ignore the principle
that in order to establish an historical connexion between A and B,
it is not enough to bring forward evidence of their likeness to one
another, without showing at the same time (1) that the actual relation
of B to A was such as to render the assumed filiation possible, and
(2) that the possible hypothesis fits in with all the ascertained
and relevant facts. Now, the theories which I have mentioned do not
satisfy these conditions. If Sūfism was nothing but a revolt of the
Aryan spirit, how are we to explain the undoubted fact that some of
the leading pioneers of Mohammedan mysticism were natives of Syria and
Egypt, and Arabs by race? Similarly, the advocates of a Buddhistic
or Vedāntic origin forget that the main current of Indian influence
upon Islamic civilisation belongs to a later epoch, whereas Moslem
theology, philosophy, and science put forth their first luxuriant
shoots on a soil that was saturated with Hellenistic culture. The truth
is that Sūfism is a complex thing, and therefore no simple answer can
be given to the question how it originated. We shall have gone far,
however, towards answering that question when we have distinguished the
various movements and forces which moulded Sūfism, and determined what
direction it should take in the early stages of its growth.

Let us first consider the most important external, _i.e._ non-Islamic,
influences.


  I. CHRISTIANITY

It is obvious that the ascetic and quietistic tendencies to which
I have referred were in harmony with Christian theory and drew
nourishment therefrom. Many Gospel texts and apocryphal sayings of
Jesus are cited in the oldest Sūfī biographies, and the Christian
anchorite (_rāhib_) often appears in the _rôle_ of a teacher giving
instruction and advice to wandering Moslem ascetics. We have seen
that the woollen dress, from which the name ‘Sūfī’ is derived, is
of Christian origin: vows of silence, litanies (_dhikr_), and other
ascetic practices may be traced to the same source. As regards the
doctrine of divine love, the following extracts speak for themselves:

        “Jesus passed by three men. Their bodies were lean and their
    faces pale. He asked them, saying, ‘What hath brought you to this
    plight?’ They answered, ‘Fear of the Fire.’ Jesus said, ‘Ye fear
    a thing created, and it behoves God that He should save those who
    fear.’ Then he left them and passed by three others, whose faces
    were paler and their bodies leaner, and asked them, saying, ‘What
    hath brought you to this plight?’ They answered, ‘Longing for
    Paradise.’ He said, ‘Ye desire a thing created, and it behoves God
    that He should give you that which ye hope for.’ Then he went on
    and passed by three others of exceeding paleness and leanness, so
    that their faces were as mirrors of light, and he said, ‘What hath
    brought you to this?’ They answered, ‘Our love of God.’ Jesus said,
    ‘Ye are the nearest to Him, ye are the nearest to Him.’”

The Syrian mystic, Ahmad ibn al-Hawārī, once asked a Christian hermit:

        “‘What is the strongest command that ye find in your
    Scriptures?’ The hermit replied: ‘We find none stronger than this:
    “Love thy Creator with all thy power and might.”’”

Another hermit was asked by some Moslem ascetics:

        “‘When is a man most persevering in devotion?’ ‘When love takes
    possession of his heart,’ was the reply; ‘for then he hath no joy
    or pleasure but in continual devotion.’”

The influence of Christianity through its hermits, monks, and heretical
sects (_e.g._ the Messalians or Euchitæ) was twofold: ascetic and
mystical. Oriental Christian mysticism, however, contained a Pagan
element: it had long ago absorbed the ideas and adopted the language of
Plotinus and the Neoplatonic school.


  II. NEOPLATONISM

Aristotle, not Plato, is the dominant figure in Moslem philosophy,
and few Mohammedans are familiar with the name of Plotinus, who was
more commonly called ‘the Greek Master’ (_al-Sheykh al-Yaunānī_). But
since the Arabs gained their first knowledge of Aristotle from his
Neoplatonist commentators, the system with which they became imbued
was that of Porphyry and Proclus. Thus the so-called _Theology of
Aristotle_, of which an Arabic version appeared in the ninth century,
is actually a manual of Neoplatonism.

Another work of this school deserves particular notice: I mean the
writings falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, the convert of
St. Paul. The pseudo-Dionysius--he may have been a Syrian monk--names
as his teacher a certain Hierotheus, whom Frothingham has identified
with Stephen Bar Sudaili, a prominent Syrian gnostic and a contemporary
of Jacob of Sarūj (451-521 A.D.). Dionysius quotes some fragments
of erotic hymns by this Stephen, and a complete work, the _Book of
Hierotheus on the Hidden Mysteries of the Divinity_, has come down
to us in a unique manuscript which is now in the British Museum. The
Dionysian writings, turned into Latin by John Scotus Erigena, founded
medieval Christian mysticism in Western Europe. Their influence in
the East was hardly less vital. They were translated from Greek into
Syriac almost immediately on their appearance, and their doctrine was
vigorously propagated by commentaries in the same tongue. “About 850
A.D. Dionysius was known from the Tigris to the Atlantic.”

Besides literary tradition, there were other channels by which the
doctrines of emanation, illumination, gnosis, and ecstasy were
transmitted, but enough has been said to convince the reader that
Greek mystical ideas were in the air and easily accessible to the
Moslem inhabitants of Western Asia and Egypt, where the Sūfī theosophy
first took shape. One of those who bore the chief part in its
development, Dhu ’l-Nūn the Egyptian, is described as a philosopher
and alchemist--in other words, a student of Hellenistic science. When
it is added that much of his speculation agrees with what we find, for
example, in the writings of Dionysius, we are drawn irresistibly to the
conclusion (which, as I have pointed out, is highly probable on general
grounds) that Neoplatonism poured into Islam a large tincture of the
same mystical element in which Christianity was already steeped.


  III. GNOSTICISM[3]

[3] Cf. Goldziher, “Neuplatonische und gnostische Elemente im Hadīt,”
in _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xxii. 317 ff.

Though little direct evidence is available, the conspicuous place
occupied by the theory of gnosis in early Sūfī speculation suggests
contact with Christian Gnosticism, and it is worth noting that the
parents of Maʿrūf al-Karkhī, whose definition of Sūfism, as ‘the
apprehension of divine realities’ was quoted on the first page of this
Introduction, are said to have been Sābians, _i.e._ Mandæans, dwelling
in the Babylonian fenland between Basra and Wāsit. Other Moslem saints
had learned ‘the mystery of the Great Name.’ It was communicated to
Ibrāhīm ibn Adham by a man whom he met while travelling in the desert,
and as soon as he pronounced it he saw the prophet Khadir (Elias). The
ancient Sūfīs borrowed from the Manichæans the term _siddīq_, which
they apply to their own spiritual adepts, and a later school, returning
to the dualism of Mānī, held the view that the diversity of phenomena
arises from the admixture of light and darkness.

        “The ideal of human action is freedom from the taint of
    darkness; and the freedom of light from darkness means the
    self-consciousness of light as light.”[4]

[4] Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal, _The Development of Metaphysics in Persia_
(1908), p. 150.

The following version of the doctrine of the seventy thousand veils as
explained by a modern Rifāʿī dervish shows clear traces of Gnosticism
and is so interesting that I cannot refrain from quoting it here:

        “Seventy Thousand Veils separate Allah, the One Reality, from
    the world of matter and of sense. And every soul passes before
    his birth through these seventy thousand. The inner half of these
    are veils of light: the outer half, veils of darkness. For every
    one of the veils of light passed through, in this journey towards
    birth, the soul puts _off_ a divine quality: and for every one of
    the dark veils, it puts _on_ an earthly quality. Thus the child is
    born _weeping_, for the soul knows its separation from Allah, the
    One Reality. And when the child cries in its sleep, it is because
    the soul remembers something of what it has lost. Otherwise,
    the passage through the veils has brought with it forgetfulness
    (_nisyān_): and for this reason man is called _insān_. He is
    now, as it were, in prison in his body, separated by these thick
    curtains from Allah.

        “But the whole purpose of Sūfism, the Way of the dervish,
    is to give him an escape from this prison, an apocalypse of the
    Seventy Thousand Veils, a recovery of the original unity with The
    One, _while still in this body_. The body is not to be put off; it
    is to be refined and made spiritual--a help and not a hindrance
    to the spirit. It is like a metal that has to be refined by fire
    and transmuted. And the sheikh tells the aspirant that he has the
    secret of this transmutation. ‘We shall throw you into the fire of
    Spiritual Passion,’ he says, ‘and you will emerge refined.’”[5]

[5] _“The Way” of a Mohammedan Mystic_, by W. H. T. Gairdner (Leipzig,
1912), pp. 9 f.


  IV. BUDDHISM

Before the Mohammedan conquest of India in the eleventh century, the
teaching of Buddha exerted considerable influence in Eastern Persia
and Transoxania. We hear of flourishing Buddhist monasteries in Balkh,
the metropolis of ancient Bactria, a city famous for the number of
Sūfīs who resided in it. Professor Goldziher has called attention
to the significant circumstance that the Sūfī ascetic, Ibrāhīm ibn
Adham, appears in Moslem legend as a prince of Balkh who abandoned
his throne and became a wandering dervish--the story of Buddha over
again. The Sūfīs learned the use of rosaries from Buddhist monks, and,
without entering into details, it may be safely asserted that the
method of Sūfism, so far as it is one of ethical self-culture, ascetic
meditation, and intellectual abstraction, owes a good deal to Buddhism.
But the features which the two systems have in common only accentuate
the fundamental difference between them. In spirit they are poles
apart. The Buddhist moralises himself, the Sūfī becomes moral only
through knowing and loving God.

The Sūfī conception of the passing-away (_fanā_) of individual self
in Universal Being is certainly, I think, of Indian origin. Its first
great exponent was the Persian mystic, Bāyazīd of Bistām, who may have
received it from his teacher, Abū ʿAlī of Sind (Scinde). Here are some
of his sayings:

        “Creatures are subject to changing ‘states,’ but the gnostic
    has no ‘state,’ because his vestiges are effaced and his essence
    annihilated by the essence of another, and his traces are lost in
    another’s traces.”

        “Thirty years the high God was my mirror, now I am my own
    mirror,” _i.e._ according to the explanation given by his
    biographer, “that which I was I am no more, for ‘I’ and ‘God’ is a
    denial of the unity of God. Since I am no more, the high God is
    His own mirror.”

        “I went from God to God, until they cried from me in me, ‘O
    Thou I!’”


This, it will be observed, is not Buddhism, but the pantheism of the
Vedānta. We cannot identify _fanā_ with Nirvāṇa unconditionally. Both
terms imply the passing-away of individuality, but while Nirvāṇa
is purely negative, _fanā_ is accompanied by _baqā_, everlasting
life in God. The rapture of the Sūfī who has lost himself in
ecstatic contemplation of the divine beauty is entirely opposed to
the passionless intellectual serenity of the Arahat. I emphasise
this contrast because, in my opinion, the influence of Buddhism on
Mohammedan thought has been exaggerated. Much is attributed to Buddhism
that is Indian rather than specifically Buddhistic: the _fanā_ theory
of the Sūfīs is a case in point. Ordinary Moslems held the followers of
Buddha in abhorrence, regarding them as idolaters, and were not likely
to seek personal intercourse with them. On the other hand, for nearly
a thousand years before the Mohammedan conquest, Buddhism had been
powerful in Bactria and Eastern Persia generally: it must, therefore,
have affected the development of Sūfism in these regions.

While _fanā_ in its pantheistic form is radically different from
Nirvāṇa, the terms coincide so closely in other ways that we cannot
regard them as being altogether unconnected. _Fanā_ has an ethical
aspect: it involves the extinction of all passions and desires.
The passing-away of evil qualities and of the evil actions which
they produce is said to be brought about by the continuance of the
corresponding good qualities and actions. Compare this with the
definition of Nirvāṇa given by Professor Rhys Davids:

        “The extinction of that sinful, grasping condition of mind
    and heart, which would otherwise, according to the great mystery
    of Karma, be the cause of renewed individual existence. That
    extinction is to be brought about by, and runs parallel with, the
    growth of the opposite condition of mind and heart; and it is
    complete when that opposite condition is reached.”

Apart from the doctrine of Karma, which is alien to Sūfism, these
definitions of _fanā_ (viewed as a moral state) and Nirvāṇa agree
almost word for word. It would be out of place to pursue the comparison
further, but I think we may conclude that the Sūfī theory of _fanā_
was influenced to some extent by Buddhism as well as by Perso-Indian
pantheism.

The receptivity of Islam to foreign ideas has been recognised by
every unbiassed inquirer, and the history of Sūfism is only a single
instance of the general rule. But this fact should not lead us to
seek in such ideas an explanation of the whole question which I am
now discussing, or to identify Sūfism itself with the extraneous
ingredients which it absorbed and assimilated in the course of its
development. Even if Islam had been miraculously shut off from contact
with foreign religions and philosophies, some form of mysticism would
have arisen within it, for the seeds were already there. Of course, we
cannot isolate the internal forces working in this direction, since
they were subject to the law of spiritual gravitation. The powerful
currents of thought discharged through the Mohammedan world by the
great non-Islamic systems above mentioned gave a stimulus to various
tendencies within Islam which affected Sūfism either positively or
negatively. As we have seen, its oldest type is an ascetic revolt
against luxury and worldliness; later on, the prevailing rationalism
and scepticism provoked counter-movements towards intuitive knowledge
and emotional faith, and also an orthodox reaction which in its turn
drove many earnest Moslems into the ranks of the mystics.

How, it may be asked, could a religion founded on the simple and
austere monotheism of Mohammed tolerate these new doctrines, much
less make terms with them? It would seem impossible to reconcile the
transcendent personality of Allah with an immanent Reality which is the
very life and soul of the universe. Yet Islam has accepted Sūfism. The
Sūfīs, instead of being excommunicated, are securely established in the
Mohammedan church, and the _Legend of the Moslem Saints_ records the
wildest excesses of Oriental pantheism.

Let us return for a moment to the Koran, that infallible touchstone
by which every Mohammedan theory and practice must be proved. Are any
germs of mysticism to be found there? The Koran, as I have said, starts
with the notion of Allah, the One, Eternal, and Almighty God, far above
human feelings and aspirations--the Lord of His slaves, not the Father
of His children; a judge meting out stern justice to sinners, and
extending His mercy only to those who avert His wrath by repentance,
humility, and unceasing works of devotion; a God of fear rather than
of love. This is one side, and certainly the most prominent side, of
Mohammed’s teaching; but while he set an impassable gulf between the
world and Allah, his deeper instinct craved a direct revelation from
God to the soul. There are no contradictions in the logic of feeling.
Mohammed, who had in him something of the mystic, felt God both as far
and near, both as transcendent and immanent. In the latter aspect,
Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth, a Being who works in
the world and in the soul of man.

        “If My servants ask thee about Me, lo, I am near” (Kor. =2=.
    182); “We (God) are nearer to him than his own neck-vein” (=50.=
    15); “And in the earth are signs to those of real faith, and in
    yourselves. What! do ye not see?” (=51.= 20-21).

It was a long time ere they saw. The Moslem consciousness, haunted by
terrible visions of the wrath to come, slowly and painfully awoke to
the significance of those liberating ideas.

The verses which I have quoted do not stand alone, and however
unfavourable to mysticism the Koran as a whole may be, I cannot assent
to the view that it supplies no basis for a mystical interpretation
of Islam. This was worked out in detail by the Sūfīs, who dealt with
the Koran in very much the same way as Philo treated the Pentateuch.
But they would not have succeeded so thoroughly in bringing over the
mass of religious Moslems to their side, unless the champions of
orthodoxy had set about constructing a system of scholastic philosophy
that reduced the divine nature to a purely formal, changeless, and
absolute unity, a bare will devoid of all affections and emotions, a
tremendous and incalculable power with which no human creature could
have any communion or personal intercourse whatsoever. That is the God
of Mohammedan theology. That was the alternative to Sūfism. Therefore,
“all thinking, religious Moslems are mystics,” as Professor D. B.
Macdonald, one of our best authorities on the subject, has remarked.
And he adds: “All, too, are pantheists, but some do not know it.”

The relation of individual Sūfīs to Islam varies from more or less
entire conformity to a merely nominal profession of belief in Allah
and His Prophet. While the Koran and the Traditions are generally
acknowledged to be the unalterable standard of religious truth, this
acknowledgment does not include the recognition of any external
authority which shall decide what is orthodox and what is heretical.
Creeds and catechisms count for nothing in the Sūfī’s estimation. Why
should he concern himself with these when he possesses a doctrine
derived immediately from God? As he reads the Koran with studious
meditation and rapt attention, lo, the hidden meanings--infinite,
inexhaustible--of the Holy Word flash upon his inward eye. This is
what the Sūfīs call _istinbāt_, a sort of intuitive deduction; the
mysterious inflow of divinely revealed knowledge into hearts made pure
by repentance and filled with the thought of God, and the outflow of
that knowledge upon the interpreting tongue. Naturally, the doctrines
elicited by means of _istinbāt_ do not agree very well either with
Mohammedan theology or with each other, but the discord is easily
explained. Theologians, who interpret the letter, cannot be expected to
reach the same conclusions as mystics, who interpret the spirit; and if
both classes differ amongst themselves, that is a merciful dispensation
of divine wisdom, since theological controversy serves to extinguish
religious error, while the variety of mystical truth corresponds to the
manifold degrees and modes of mystical experience.

In the chapter on the gnosis I shall enter more fully into the attitude
of the Sūfīs towards positive religion. It is only a rough-and-ready
account of the matter to say that many of them have been good Moslems,
many scarcely Moslems at all, and a third party, perhaps the largest,
Moslems after a fashion. During the early Middle Ages Islam was a
growing organism, and gradually became transformed under the influence
of diverse movements, of which Sūfism itself was one. Mohammedan
orthodoxy in its present shape owes much to Ghazālī, and Ghazālī was
a Sūfī. Through his work and example the Sūfistic interpretation of
Islam has in no small measure been harmonised with the rival claims of
reason and tradition, but just because of this he is less valuable than
mystics of a purer type to the student who wishes to know what Sūfism
essentially is.

Although the numerous definitions of Sūfism which occur in Arabic and
Persian books on the subject are historically interesting, their chief
importance lies in showing that Sūfism is undefinable. Jalāluddīn Rūmī
in his _Masnavī_ tells a story about an elephant which some Hindoos
were exhibiting in a dark room. Many people gathered to see it, but,
as the place was too dark to permit them to see the elephant, they
all felt it with their hands, to gain an idea of what it was like.
One felt its trunk, and said that the animal resembled a water-pipe;
another felt its ear, and said it must be a large fan; another its leg,
and thought it must be a pillar; another felt its back, and declared
that the beast must be like an immense throne. So it is with those who
define Sūfism: they can only attempt to express what they themselves
have felt, and there is no conceivable formula that will comprise every
shade of personal and intimate religious feeling. Since, however, these
definitions illustrate with convenient brevity certain aspects and
characteristics of Sūfism, a few specimens may be given.

        “Sūfism is this: that actions should be passing over the Sūfī
    (_i.e._ being done upon him) which are known to God only, and that
    he should always be with God in a way that is known to God only.”

        “Sūfism is wholly self-discipline.”

        “Sūfism is, to possess nothing and to be possessed by nothing.”

        “Sūfism is not a system composed of rules or sciences but a
    moral disposition; _i.e._ if it were a rule, it could be made one’s
    own by strenuous exertion, and if it were a science, it could be
    acquired by instruction; but on the contrary it is a disposition,
    according to the saying, ‘Form yourselves on the moral nature of
    God’; and the moral nature of God cannot be attained either by
    means of rules or by means of sciences.”

        “Sūfism is freedom and generosity and absence of
    self-constraint.”

        “It is this: that God should make thee die to thyself and
    should make thee live in Him.”

        “To behold the imperfection of the phenomenal world, nay, to
    close the eye to everything imperfect in contemplation of Him who
    is remote from all imperfection--that is Sūfism.”

        “Sūfism is control of the faculties and observance of the
    breaths.”

        “It is Sūfism to put away what thou hast in thy head, to give
    what thou hast in thy hand, and not to recoil from whatsoever
    befalls thee.”

The reader will perceive that Sūfism is a word uniting many divergent
meanings, and that in sketching its main features one is obliged
to make a sort of composite portrait, which does not represent any
particular type exclusively. The Sūfīs are not a sect, they have no
dogmatic system, the _tarīqas_ or paths by which they seek God “are
in number as the souls of men” and vary infinitely, though a family
likeness may be traced in them all. Descriptions of such a Protean
phenomenon must differ widely from one another, and the impression
produced in each case will depend on the choice of materials and the
prominence given to this or that aspect of the many-sided whole. Now,
the essence of Sūfism is best displayed in its extreme type, which
is pantheistic and speculative rather than ascetic or devotional.
This type, therefore, I have purposely placed in the foreground. The
advantage of limiting the field is obvious enough, but entails some
loss of proportion. In order to form a fair judgment of Mohammedan
mysticism, the following chapters should be supplemented by a companion
picture drawn especially from those moderate types which, for want of
space, I have unduly neglected.




  CHAPTER I

  THE PATH


Mystics of every race and creed have described the progress of the
spiritual life as a journey or a pilgrimage. Other symbols have been
used for the same purpose, but this one appears to be almost universal
in its range. The Sūfī who sets out to seek God calls himself a
‘traveller’ (_sālik_); he advances by slow ‘stages’ (_maqāmāt_) along
a ‘path’ (_tarīqat_) to the goal of union with Reality (_fanā fi
’l-Haqq_). Should he venture to make a map of this interior ascent,
it will not correspond exactly with any of those made by previous
explorers. Such maps or scales of perfection were elaborated by
Sūfī teachers at an early period, and the unlucky Moslem habit of
systematising has produced an enormous aftercrop. The ‘path’ expounded
by the author of the _Kitāb al-Lumaʿ_, perhaps the oldest comprehensive
treatise on Sūfism that we now possess, consists of the following seven
‘stages,’ each of which (except the first member of the series) is the
result of the ‘stages’ immediately preceding it--(1) Repentance, (2)
abstinence, (3) renunciation, (4) poverty, (5) patience, (6) trust
in God, (7) satisfaction. The ‘stages’ constitute the _ascetic and
ethical_ discipline of the Sūfī, and must be carefully distinguished
from the so-called ‘states’ (_ahwāl_, plural of _hāl_), which form
a similar _psychological_ chain. The writer whom I have just quoted
enumerates ten ‘states’--Meditation, nearness to God, love, fear, hope,
longing, intimacy, tranquillity, contemplation, and certainty. While
the ‘stages’ can be acquired and mastered by one’s own efforts, the
‘states’ are spiritual feelings and dispositions over which a man has
no control:

        “They descend from God into his heart, without his being able
    to repel them when they come or to retain them when they go.”

The Sūfī’s ‘path’ is not finished until he has traversed all the
‘stages,’ making himself perfect in every one of them before advancing
to the next, and has also experienced whatever ‘states’ it pleases
God to bestow upon him. Then, and only then, is he permanently raised
to the higher planes of consciousness which Sūfīs call ‘the Gnosis’
(_maʿrifat_) and ‘the Truth’ (_haqīqat_), where the ‘seeker’ (_tālib_)
becomes the ‘knower’ or ‘gnostic’ (_ʿārif_), and realises that
knowledge, knower, and known are One.

Having sketched, as briefly as possible, the external framework of the
method by which the Sūfī approaches his goal, I shall now try to give
some account of its inner workings. The present chapter deals with the
first portion of the threefold journey--the Path, the Gnosis, and the
Truth--by which the quest of Reality is often symbolised.

[Sidenote: Repentance.]

The first place in every list of ‘stages’ is occupied by repentance
(_tawbat_). This is the Moslem term for ‘conversion,’ and marks the
beginning of a new life. In the biographies of eminent Sūfīs the
dreams, visions, auditions, and other experiences which caused them
to enter on the Path are usually related. Trivial as they may seem,
these records have a psychological basis, and, if authentic, would be
worth studying in detail. Repentance is described as the awakening of
the soul from the slumber of heedlessness, so that the sinner becomes
aware of his evil ways and feels contrition for past disobedience. He
is not truly penitent, however, unless (1) he at once abandons the sin
or sins of which he is conscious, and (2) firmly resolves that he will
never return to these sins in the future. It he should fail to keep
his vow, he must again turn to God, whose mercy is infinite. A certain
well-known Sūfī repented seventy times and fell back into sin seventy
times before he made a lasting repentance. The convert must also, as
far as lies in his power, satisfy all those whom he has injured. Many
examples of such restitution might be culled from the _Legend of the
Moslem Saints_.

According to the high mystical theory, repentance is purely an act of
divine grace, coming from God to man, not from man to God. Some one
said to Rābiʿa:

        “I have committed many sins; if I turn in penitence towards
    God, will He turn in mercy towards me?” “Nay,” she replied, “but if
    He shall turn towards thee, thou wilt turn towards Him.”

The question whether sins ought to be remembered after repentance or
forgotten illustrates a fundamental point in Sūfī ethics: I mean the
difference between what is taught to novices and disciples and what
is held as an esoteric doctrine by adepts. Any Mohammedan director
of souls would tell his pupils that to think humbly and remorsefully
of one’s sins is a sovereign remedy against spiritual pride, but he
himself might very well believe that real repentance consists in
forgetting everything except God.

        “The penitent,” says Hujwīrī, “is a lover of God, and the lover
    of God is in contemplation of God: in contemplation it is wrong to
    remember sin, for recollection of sin is a veil between God and
    the contemplative.”

Sin appertains to self-existence, which itself is the greatest of all
sins. To forget sin is to forget self.

This is only one application of a principle which, as I have said,
runs through the whole ethical system of Sūfism and will be more fully
explained in a subsequent chapter. Its dangers are evident, but we must
in fairness allow that the same theory of conduct may not be equally
suitable to those who have made themselves perfect in moral discipline
and to those who are still striving after perfection.

Over the gate of repentance it is written:

    “All _self_ abandon ye who enter here!”

[Sidenote: The Sheykh.]

The convert now begins what is called by Christian mystics the
Purgative Way. If he follows the general rule, he will take a director
(Sheykh, Pīr, Murshid), _i.e._ a holy man of ripe experience and
profound knowledge, whose least word is absolute law to his disciples.
A ‘seeker’ who attempts to traverse the ‘Path’ without assistance
receives little sympathy. Of such a one it is said that ‘his guide is
Satan,’ and he is likened to a tree that for want of the gardener’s
care brings forth ‘none or bitter fruit.’ Speaking of the Sūfī Sheykhs,
Hujwīrī says:

        “When a novice joins them, with the purpose of renouncing the
    world, they subject him to spiritual discipline for the space of
    three years. If he fulfil the requirements of this discipline, well
    and good; otherwise, they declare that he cannot be admitted to the
    ‘Path.’ The first year is devoted to service of the people, the
    second year to service of God, and the third year to watching over
    his own heart. He can serve the people, only when he places himself
    in the rank of servants and all others in the rank of masters,
    _i.e._ he must regard all, without exception, as being better than
    himself, and must deem it his duty to serve all alike. And he can
    serve God, only when he cuts off all his selfish interests relating
    either to the present or to the future life, and worships God for
    God’s sake alone, inasmuch as whoever worships God for any thing’s
    sake worships himself, not God. And he can watch over his heart,
    only when his thoughts are collected and every care is dismissed,
    so that in communion with God he guards his heart from the assaults
    of heedlessness. When these qualifications are possessed by the
    novice, he may wear the _muraqqaʿat_ (the patched frock worn by
    dervishes) as a true mystic, not merely as an imitator of others.”

Shiblī was a pupil of the famous theosophist Junayd of Baghdād. On his
conversion, he came to Junayd, saying:

        “They tell me that you possess the pearl of divine knowledge:
    either give it me or sell it.” Junayd answered: “I cannot sell it,
    for you have not the price thereof; and if I give it you, you will
    have gained it cheaply. You do not know its value. Cast yourself
    headlong, like me, into this ocean, in order that you may win the
    pearl by waiting patiently.”

Shiblī asked what he must do.

        “Go,” said Junayd, “and sell sulphur.”

At the end of a year he said to Shiblī:

        “This trading makes you well known. Become a dervish and occupy
    yourself solely with begging.”

During a whole year Shiblī wandered through the streets of Baghdād,
begging of the passers-by, but no one heeded him. Then he returned to
Junayd, who exclaimed:

        “See now! You are nothing in people’s eyes. Never set your
    mind on them or take any account of them at all. For some time”
    (he continued) “you were a chamberlain and acted as governor of a
    province. Go to that country and ask pardon of all those whom you
    have wronged.”

Shiblī obeyed and spent four years in going from door to door, until
he had obtained an acquittance from every person except one, whom he
failed to trace. On his return, Junayd said to him:

        “You still have some regard to reputation. Go and be a beggar
    for one year more.”

Every day Shiblī used to bring the alms that were given him to Junayd,
who bestowed them on the poor and kept Shiblī without food until the
next morning. When a year had passed in this way, Junayd accepted him
as one of his disciples on condition that he should perform the duties
of a servant to the others. After a year’s service, Junayd asked him:

        “What think you of yourself now?” Shiblī replied: “I deem
    myself the meanest of God’s creatures.” “Now,” said the master,
    “your faith is firm.”

I need not dwell on the details of this training--the fasts and vigils,
the vows of silence, the long days and nights of solitary meditation,
all the weapons and tactics, in short, of that battle against one’s
self which the Prophet declared to be more painful and meritorious
than the Holy War. On the other hand, my readers will expect me to
describe in a general way the characteristic theories and practices
for which the ‘Path’ is a convenient designation. These may be treated
under the following heads: Poverty, Mortification, Trust in God,
and Recollection. Whereas poverty is negative in nature, involving
detachment from all that is worldly and unreal, the three remaining
terms denote the positive counterpart of that process, namely, the
ethical discipline by which the soul is brought into harmonious
relations with Reality.

[Sidenote: Poverty.]

The fatalistic spirit which brooded darkly over the childhood of
Islam--the feeling that all human actions are determined by an unseen
Power, and in themselves are worthless and vain--caused renunciation to
become the watchword of early Moslem asceticism. Every true believer
is bound to abstain from unlawful pleasures, but the ascetic acquires
merit by abstaining from those which are lawful. At first, renunciation
was understood almost exclusively in a material sense. To have as few
worldly goods as possible seemed the surest means of gaining salvation.
Dāwud al-Tāʾī owned nothing except a mat of rushes, a brick which he
used as a pillow, and a leathern vessel which served him for drinking
and washing. A certain man dreamed that he saw Mālik ibn Dīnār and
Mohammed ibn Wāsiʿ being led into Paradise, and that Mālik was
admitted before his companion. He cried out in astonishment, for he
thought Mohammed ibn Wāsiʿ had a superior claim to the honour. “Yes,”
came the answer, “but Mohammed ibn Wāsiʿ possessed two shirts, and
Mālik only one. That is the reason why Mālik is preferred.”

The Sūfī ideal of poverty goes far beyond this. True poverty is not
merely lack of wealth, but lack of desire for wealth: the empty heart
as well as the empty hand. The ‘poor man’ (_faqīr_) and the ‘mendicant’
(_dervīsh_) are names by which the Mohammedan mystic is proud to be
known, because they imply that he is stripped of every thought or wish
that would divert his mind from God. “To be severed entirely from both
the present life and the future life, and to want nothing besides the
Lord of the present life and the future life--that is to be truly
poor.” Such a _faqīr_ is denuded of individual existence, so that he
does not attribute to himself any action, feeling, or quality. He may
even be rich, in the common meaning of the word, though spiritually he
is the poorest of the poor; for, sometimes, God endows His saints with
an outward show of wealth and worldliness in order to hide them from
the profane.

No one familiar with the mystical writers will need to be informed that
their terminology is ambiguous, and that the same word frequently
covers a group, if not a multitude, of significations diverging more
or less widely according to the aspect from which it is viewed. Hence
the confusion that is apparent in Sūfī text-books. When ‘poverty,’ for
example, is explained by one interpreter as a transcendental theory
and by another as a practical rule of religious life, the meanings
cannot coincide. Regarded from the latter standpoint, poverty is only
the beginning of Sūfism. _Faqīrs_, Jāmī says, renounce all worldly
things for the sake of pleasing God. They are urged to this sacrifice
by one of three motives: (_a_) Hope of an easy reckoning on the Day of
Judgment, or fear of being punished; (_b_) desire of Paradise; (_c_)
longing for spiritual peace and inward composure. Thus, inasmuch as
they are not disinterested but seek to benefit themselves, they rank
below the Sūfī, who has no will of his own and depends absolutely on
the will of God. It is the absence of ‘self’ that distinguishes the
Sūfī from the _faqīr_.

Here are some maxims for dervishes:

        “Do not beg unless you are starving. The Caliph Omar flogged a
    man who begged after having satisfied his hunger. When compelled to
    beg, do not accept more than you need.”

        “Be good-natured and uncomplaining and thank God for your
    poverty.”

        “Do not flatter the rich for giving, nor blame them for
    withholding.”

        “Dread the loss of poverty more than the rich man dreads the
    loss of wealth.”

        “Take what is voluntarily offered: it is the daily bread which
    God sends to you: do not refuse God’s gift.”

        “Let no thought of the morrow enter your mind, else you will
    incur everlasting perdition.”

        “Do not make God a springe to catch alms.”


[Sidenote: The _nafs_.]

The Sūfī teachers gradually built up a system of asceticism and moral
culture which is founded on the fact that there is in man an element of
evil--the lower or appetitive soul. This evil self, the seat of passion
and lust, is called _nafs_; it may be considered broadly equivalent
to ‘the flesh,’ and with its allies, the world and the devil, it
constitutes the great obstacle to the attainment of union with God.
The Prophet said: “Thy worst enemy is thy _nafs_, which is between thy
two sides.” I do not intend to discuss the various opinions as to its
nature, but the proof of its materiality is too curious to be omitted.
Mohammed ibn ʿUlyān, an eminent Sūfī, relates that one day something
like a young fox came forth from his throat, and God caused him to know
that it was his _nafs_. He trod on it, but it grew bigger at every
kick that he gave it. He said:

        “Other things are destroyed by pain and blows: why dost thou
    increase?” “Because I was created perverse,” it replied; “what is
    pain to other things is pleasure to me, and their pleasure is my
    pain.”

The _nafs_ of Hallāj was seen running behind him in the shape of a dog;
and other cases are recorded in which it appeared as a snake or a mouse.

[Sidenote: Mortification.]

Mortification of the _nafs_ is the chief work of devotion, and leads,
directly or indirectly, to the contemplative life. All the Sheykhs are
agreed that no disciple who neglects this duty will ever learn the
rudiments of Sūfism. The principle of mortification is that the _nafs_
should be weaned from those things to which it is accustomed, that it
should be encouraged to resist its passions, that its pride should be
broken, and that it should be brought through suffering and tribulation
to recognise the vileness of its original nature and the impurity of
its actions. Concerning the outward methods of mortification, such as
fasting, silence, and solitude, a great deal might be written, but we
must now pass on to the higher ethical discipline which completes the
Path.

Self-mortification, as advanced Sūfīs understand it, is a moral
transmutation of the inner man. When they say, “Die before ye die,”
they do not mean to assert that the lower self can be essentially
destroyed, but that it can and should be purged of its attributes,
which are wholly evil. These attributes--ignorance, pride, envy,
uncharitableness, etc.--are extinguished, and replaced by the opposite
qualities, when the will is surrendered to God and when the mind is
concentrated on Him. Therefore ‘dying to self’ is really ‘living in
God.’ The mystical aspects of the doctrine thus stated will occupy
a considerable part of the following chapters; here we are mainly
interested in its ethical import.

The Sūfī who has eradicated self-will is said, in technical language,
to have reached the ‘stages’ of ‘acquiescence’ or ‘satisfaction’
(_ridā_) and ‘trust in God’ (_tawakkul_).

        A dervish fell into the Tigris. Seeing that he could not swim,
    a man on the bank cried out, “Shall I tell some one to bring you
    ashore?” “No,” said the dervish. “Then do you wish to be drowned?”
    “No.” “What, then, do you wish?” The dervish replied, “God’s will
    be done! What have I to do with wishing?”

[Sidenote: Trust in God.]

‘Trust in God,’ in its extreme form, involves the renunciation of
every personal initiative and volition; total passivity like that
of a corpse in the hands of the washer who prepares it for burial;
perfect indifference towards anything that is even remotely connected
with one’s self. A special class of the ancient Sūfīs took their name
from this ‘trust,’ which they applied, so far as they were able, to
matters of everyday life. For instance, they would not seek food, work
for hire, practise any trade, or allow medicine to be given them when
they were ill. Quietly they committed themselves to God’s care, never
doubting that He, to whom belong the treasures of earth and heaven,
would provide for their wants, and that their allotted portion would
come to them as surely as it comes to the birds, which neither sow nor
reap, and to the fish in the sea, and to the child in the womb.

These principles depend ultimately on the Sūfistic theory of the divine
unity, as is shown by Shaqīq of Balkh in the following passage:

        “There are three things which a man is bound to practise.
    Whosoever neglects any one of them must needs neglect them all, and
    whosoever cleaves to any one of them must needs cleave to them all.
    Strive, therefore, to understand, and consider heedfully.

        “The _first_ is this, that with your mind and your tongue and
    your actions you declare God to be One; and that, having declared
    Him to be One, and having declared that none benefits you or
    harms you except Him, you devote all your actions to Him alone.
    If you act a single jot of your actions for the sake of another,
    your thought and speech are corrupt, since your motive in acting
    for another’s sake must be hope or fear; and when you act from
    hope or fear of other than God, who is the lord and sustainer of
    all things, you have taken to yourself another god to honour and
    venerate.

        “_Secondly_, that while you speak and act in the sincere belief
    that there is no God except Him, you should trust Him more than the
    world or money or uncle or father or mother or any one on the face
    of the earth.

        “_Thirdly_, when you have established these two things, namely,
    sincere belief in the unity of God and trust in Him, it behoves you
    to be satisfied with Him and not to be angry on account of anything
    that vexes you. Beware of anger! Let your heart be with Him always,
    let it not be withdrawn from Him for a single moment.”

The ‘trusting’ Sūfī has no thought beyond the present hour. On one
occasion Shaqīq asked those who sat listening to his discourse:

        “If God causes you to die to-day, think ye that He will demand
    from you the prayers of to-morrow?” They answered: “No; how should
    He demand from us the prayers of a day on which we are not alive?”
    Shaqīq said: “Even as He will not demand from you the prayers of
    to-morrow, so do ye not seek from Him the provender of to-morrow.
    It may be that ye will not live so long.”

In view of the practical consequences of attempting to live ‘on
trust,’ it is not surprising to read the advice given to those who
would perfectly fulfil the doctrine: “Let them dig a grave and bury
themselves.” Later Sūfīs hold that active exertion for the purpose of
obtaining the means of subsistence is quite compatible with ‘trust,’
according to the saying of the Prophet, “Trust in God and tie the
camel’s leg.” They define _tawakkul_ as an habitual state of mind,
which is impaired only by self-pleasing thoughts; _e.g._ it was
accounted a breach of ‘trust’ to think Paradise a more desirable place
than Hell.

What type of character is such a theory likely to produce? At the
worst, a useless drone and hypocrite preying upon his fellow-creatures;
at the best, a harmless dervish who remains unmoved in the midst of
sorrow, meets praise and blame with equal indifference, and accepts
insults, blows, torture, and death as mere incidents in the eternal
drama of destiny. This cold morality, however, is not the highest of
which Sūfism is capable. The highest morality springs from nothing but
love, when self-surrender becomes self-devotion. Of that I shall have
something to say in due time.

[Sidenote: Recollection.]

Among the positive elements in the Sūfī discipline there is one
that Moslem mystics unanimously regard as the keystone of practical
religion. I refer to the _dhikr_, an exercise well known to Western
readers from the careful description given by Edward Lane in his
_Modern Egyptians_, and by Professor D. B. Macdonald in his recently
published _Aspects of Islam_. The term _dhikr_--‘recollection’
seems to me the most appropriate equivalent in English--signifies
‘mentioning,’ ‘remembering,’ or simply ‘thinking of’; in the Koran
the Faithful are commanded to “remember God often,” a plain act of
worship without any mystical savour. But the Sūfīs made a practice of
repeating the name of God or some religious formula, _e.g._ “Glory
to Allah” (_subhān Allah_), “There is no god but Allah” (_lā ilāha
illa ’llah_), accompanying the mechanical intonation with an intense
concentration of every faculty upon the single word or phrase; and they
attach greater value to this irregular litany, which enables them to
enjoy uninterrupted communion with God, than to the five services of
prayer performed, at fixed hours of the day and night, by all Moslems.
Recollection may be either spoken or silent, but it is best, according
to the usual opinion, that tongue and mind should co-operate. Sahl ibn
ʿAbdallah bade one of his disciples endeavour to say “Allah! Allah!”
the whole day without intermission. When he had acquired the habit
of doing so, Sahl instructed him to repeat the same words during the
night, until they came forth from his lips even while he was asleep.
“Now,” said he, “be silent and occupy yourself with recollecting them.”
At last the disciple’s whole being was absorbed by the thought of
Allah. One day a log fell on his head, and the words “Allah, Allah”
were seen written in the blood that trickled from the wound.

Ghazālī describes the method and effects of _dhikr_ in a passage which
Macdonald has summarised as follows:

        “Let him reduce his heart to a state in which the existence of
    anything and its non-existence are the same to him. Then let him
    sit alone in some corner, limiting his religious duties to what
    is absolutely necessary, and not occupying himself either with
    reciting the Koran or considering its meaning or with books of
    religious traditions or with anything of the sort. And let him see
    to it that nothing save God most High enters his mind. Then, as he
    sits in solitude, let him not cease saying continuously with his
    tongue, ‘_Allah, Allah_,’ keeping his thought on it. At last he
    will reach a state when the motion of his tongue will cease, and it
    will seem as though the word flowed from it. Let him persevere in
    this until all trace of motion is removed from his tongue, and he
    finds his heart persevering in the thought. Let him still persevere
    until the form of the word, its letters and shape, is removed from
    his heart, and there remains the idea alone, as though clinging to
    his heart, inseparable from it. So far, all is dependent on his
    will and choice; but to bring the mercy of God does not stand in
    his will or choice. He has now laid himself bare to the breathings
    of that mercy, and nothing remains but to await what God will open
    to him, as God has done after this manner to prophets and saints.
    If he follows the above course, he may be sure that the light of
    the Real will shine out in his heart. At first unstable, like a
    flash of lightning, it turns and returns; though sometimes it hangs
    back. And if it returns, sometimes it abides and sometimes it is
    momentary. And if it abides, sometimes its abiding is long, and
    sometimes short.”

Another Sūfī puts the gist of the matter in a sentence, thus:

        “The first stage of _dhikr_ is to forget self, and the last
    stage is the effacement of the worshipper in the act of worship,
    without consciousness of worship, and such absorption in the object
    of worship as precludes return to the subject thereof.”

Recollection can be aided in various ways. When Shiblī was a novice,
he went daily into a cellar, taking with him a bundle of sticks. If
his attention flagged, he would beat himself until the sticks broke,
and sometimes the whole bundle would be finished before evening; then
he would dash his hands and feet against the wall. The Indian practice
of inhaling and exhaling the breath was known to the Sūfīs of the
ninth century and was much used afterwards. Among the Dervish Orders
music, singing, and dancing are favourite means of inducing the state
of trance called ‘passing-away’ (_fanā_), which, as appears from the
definition quoted above, is the climax and _raison d’être_ of the
method.

[Sidenote: Meditation.]

In ‘meditation’ (_murāqabat_) we recognise a form of self-concentration
similar to the Buddhistic _dhyāna_ and _samādhi_. This is what the
Prophet meant when he said, “Worship God as though thou sawest Him,
for if thou seest Him not, yet He sees thee.” Any one who feels sure
that God is always watching over him will devote himself to meditating
on God, and no evil thoughts or diabolic suggestions will find their
way into his heart. Nūrī used to meditate so intently that not a hair
on his body stirred. He declared that he had learned this habit from a
cat which was observing a mouse-hole, and that she was far more quiet
than he. Abū Saʿīd ibn Abi ’l-Khayr kept his eyes fixed on his navel.
It is said that the Devil is smitten with epilepsy when he approaches
a man thus occupied, just as happens to other men when the Devil takes
possession of them.

This chapter will have served its purpose if it has brought before
my readers a clear view of the main lines on which the preparatory
training of the Sūfī is conducted. We must now imagine him to have
been invested by his Sheykh with the patched frock (_muraqqaʿat_ or
_khirqat_), which is an outward sign that he has successfully emerged
from the discipline of the ‘Path,’ and is now advancing with uncertain
steps towards the Light, as when toil-worn travellers, having gained
the summit of a deep gorge, suddenly catch glimpses of the sun and
cover their eyes.




  CHAPTER II

  ILLUMINATION AND ECSTASY


God, who is described in the Koran as “the Light of the heavens and the
earth,” cannot be seen by the bodily eye. He is visible only to the
inward sight of the ‘heart.’ In the next chapter we shall return to
this spiritual organ, but I am not going to enter into the intricacies
of Sūfī psychology any further than is necessary. The ‘vision of the
heart’ (_ruʾyat al-qalb_) is defined as “the heart’s beholding by the
light of certainty that which is hidden in the unseen world.” This
is what ʿAlī meant when he was asked, “Do you see God?” and replied:
“How should we worship One whom we do not see?” The light of intuitive
certainty (_yaqīn_) by which the heart sees God is a beam of God’s own
light cast therein by Himself; else no vision of Him were possible.

    “’Tis the sun’s self that lets the sun be seen.”

According to a mystical interpretation of the famous passage in the
Koran where the light of Allah is compared to a candle burning in a
lantern of transparent glass, which is placed in a niche in the wall,
the niche is the true believer’s heart; therefore his speech is light
and his works are light and he moves in light. “He who discourses of
eternity,” said Bāyazīd, “must have within him the lamp of eternity.”

The light which gleams in the heart of the illuminated mystic endows
him with a supernatural power of discernment (_firāsat_). Although the
Sūfīs, like all other Moslems, acknowledge Mohammed to be the last of
the prophets (as, from a different point of view, he is the Logos or
first of created beings), they really claim to possess a minor form
of inspiration. When Nūrī was questioned concerning the origin of
mystical _firāsat_, he answered by quoting the Koranic verse in which
God says that He breathed His spirit into Adam; but the more orthodox
Sūfīs, who strenuously combat the doctrine that the human spirit is
uncreated and eternal, affirm that _firāsat_ is the result of knowledge
and insight, metaphorically called ‘light’ or ‘inspiration,’ which God
creates and bestows upon His favourites. The Tradition, “Beware of the
discernment of the true believer, for he sees by the light of Allah,”
is exemplified in such anecdotes as these:

Abū ʿAbdallah al-Rāzī said:

        “Ibn al-Anbārī presented me with a woollen frock, and seeing
    on the head of Shiblī a bonnet that would just match it, I
    conceived the wish that they were both mine. When Shiblī rose to
    depart, he looked at me, as he was in the habit of doing when he
    desired me to follow him. So I followed him to his house, and when
    we had gone in, he bade me put off the frock and took it from me
    and folded it and threw his bonnet on the top. Then he called for a
    fire and burnt both frock and bonnet.”

Sarī al-Saqatī frequently urged Junayd to speak in public, but Junayd
was unwilling to consent, for he doubted whether he was worthy of such
an honour. One Friday night he dreamed that the Prophet appeared and
commanded him to speak to the people. He awoke and went to Sarī’s house
before daybreak, and knocked at the door. Sarī opened the door and
said: “You would not believe me until the Prophet came and told you.”

Sahl ibn ʿAbdallah was sitting in the congregational mosque when a
pigeon, overcome by the intense heat, dropped on the floor. Sahl
exclaimed: “Please God, Shāh al-Kirmānī has just died.” They wrote it
down, and it was found to be true.

When the heart is purged of sin and evil thoughts, the light of
certainty strikes upon it and makes it a shining mirror, so that the
Devil cannot approach it without being observed. Hence the saying of
some gnostic: “If I disobey my heart, I disobey God.” It was a man thus
illuminated to whom the Prophet said: “Consult thy heart, and thou
wilt hear the secret ordinance of God proclaimed by the heart’s inward
knowledge, which is real faith and divinity”--something much better
than the learning of divines. I need not anticipate here the question,
which will be discussed in the following chapter, how far the claims
of an infallible conscience are reconcilable with external religion
and morality. The Prophet, too, prayed that God would put a light into
his ear and into his eye; and after mentioning the different members
of his body, he concluded, “and make the whole of me one light.”[6]
From illumination of gradually increasing splendour, the mystic rises
to contemplation of the divine attributes, and ultimately, when his
consciousness is wholly melted away, he becomes transubstantiated
(_tajawhara_) in the radiance of the divine essence. This is the
‘station’ of well-doing (_ihsān_)--for “God is with the well-doers”
(Kor. =29.= 69), and we have Prophetic authority for the statement
that “well-doing consists in worshipping God as though thou wert seeing
Him.”

[6] The reader should be reminded that most, if not all, mystical
Traditions ascribed to Mohammed were forged and fathered upon him by
the Sūfīs, who represent themselves as the true interpreters of his
esoteric teaching.

I will not waste the time and abuse the patience of my readers
by endeavouring to classify and describe these various grades of
illumination, which may be depicted symbolically but cannot be
explained in scientific language. We must allow the mystics to
speak for themselves. Granted that their teaching is often hard to
understand, it conveys more of the truth than we can ever hope to
obtain from analysis and dissection.

Here are two passages from the oldest Persian treatise on Sūfism, the
_Kashf al-Mahjūb_ of Hujwīrī:

        “It is related that Sarī al-Saqatī said, ‘O God, whatever
    punishment thou mayst inflict upon me, do not punish me with the
    humiliation of being veiled from Thee,’ because, if I am not veiled
    from Thee, my torment and affliction will be lightened by the
    recollection and contemplation of Thee; but if I am veiled from
    Thee, even Thy bounty will be deadly to me. There is no punishment
    in Hell more painful and hard to bear than that of being veiled. If
    God were revealed in Hell to the people of Hell, sinful believers
    would never think of Paradise, since the sight of God would so
    fill them with joy that they would not feel bodily pain. And in
    Paradise there is no pleasure more perfect than unveiledness. If
    the people there enjoyed all the pleasures of that place and other
    pleasures a hundredfold, but were veiled from God, their hearts
    would be utterly broken. Therefore it is the way of God to let
    the hearts of those who love Him have vision of Him always, in
    order that the delight thereof may enable them to endure every
    tribulation; and they say in their visions, ‘We deem all torments
    more desirable than to be veiled from Thee. When Thy beauty is
    revealed to our hearts, we take no thought of affliction.’”

        “There are really two kinds of contemplation. The former is the
    result of perfect faith, the latter of rapturous love, for in the
    rapture of love a man attains to such a degree that his whole being
    is absorbed in the thought of his Beloved and he sees nothing else.
    Muhammad ibn Wāsiʿ said: ‘I never saw anything without seeing God
    therein,’ _i.e._ through perfect faith. Shiblī said: ‘I never saw
    anything except God,’ _i.e._ in the rapture of love and the fervour
    of contemplation. One mystic sees the act with his bodily eye,
    and, as he looks, beholds the Agent with his spiritual eye; another
    is rapt by love of the Agent from all things else, so that he sees
    only the Agent. The one method is demonstrative, the other is
    ecstatic. In the former case, a manifest proof is derived from the
    evidences of God; in the latter case, the seer is enraptured and
    transported by desire: evidences are a veil to him, because he who
    knows a thing does not care for aught besides, and he who loves a
    thing does not regard aught besides, but renounces contention with
    God and interference with Him in His decrees and acts. When the
    lover turns his eye away from created things, he will inevitably
    see the Creator with his heart. God hath said, ‘Tell the believers
    to close their eyes’ (Kor. =24.= 30), _i.e._ to close their bodily
    eyes to lusts and their spiritual eyes to created things. He who
    is most sincere in self-mortification is most firmly grounded in
    contemplation. Sahl ibn ʿAbdallah of Tustar said: ‘If any one shuts
    his eye to God for a single moment, he will never be rightly guided
    all his life long,’ because to regard other than God is to be
    handed over to other than God, and one who is left at the mercy of
    other than God is lost. Therefore the life of contemplatives is the
    time during which they enjoy contemplation; time spent in ocular
    vision they do not reckon as life, for that to them is really
    death. Thus, when Bāyazīd was asked how old he was, he replied,
    ‘Four years.’ They said to him, ‘How can that be?’ He answered, ‘I
    have been veiled from God by this world for seventy years, but I
    have seen Him during the last four years: the period in which one
    is veiled does not belong to one’s life.’”

I take the following quotation from the _Mawāqif_ of Niffarī, an author
with whom we shall become better acquainted as we proceed:

        “God said to me, ‘The least of the sciences of nearness is that
    you should see in everything the effects of beholding Me, and that
    this vision should prevail over you more than your gnosis of Me.’”

Explanation by the commentator:

        “He means that the least of the sciences of nearness
    (proximity to God) is that when you look at anything, sensibly or
    intellectually or otherwise, you should be conscious of beholding
    God with a vision clearer than your vision of that thing. There
    are diverse degrees in this matter. Some mystics say that they
    never see anything without seeing God before it. Others say,
    ‘without seeing God after it,’ or ‘with it’; or they say that they
    see nothing but God. A certain Sūfī said, ‘I made the pilgrimage
    and saw the Kaʿba, but not the Lord of the Kaʿba.’ This is the
    perception of one who is veiled. Then he said, ‘I made the
    pilgrimage again, and I saw both the Kaʿba and the Lord of the
    Kaʿba.’ This is contemplation of the Self-subsistence through which
    everything subsists, _i.e._ he saw the Kaʿba subsisting through the
    Lord of the Kaʿba. Then he said, ‘I made the pilgrimage a third
    time, and I saw the Lord of the Kaʿba, but not the Kaʿba.’ This
    is the ‘station’ of _waqfat_ (passing-away in the essence). In
    the present case the author is referring to contemplation of the
    Self-subsistence.”

So much concerning the theory of illumination. But, as Mephistopheles
says, “_grau ist alle Theorie_”; and though to most of us the living
experience is denied, we can hear its loudest echoes and feel its
warmest afterglow in the poetry which it has created. Let me translate
part of a Persian ode by the dervish-poet, Bābā Kūhī of Shīrāz, who
died in 1050 A.D.

    “In the market, in the cloister--only God I saw.
    In the valley and on the mountain--only God I saw.
    Him I have seen beside me oft in tribulation;
    In favour and in fortune--only God I saw.
    In prayer and fasting, in praise and contemplation,
    In the religion of the Prophet--only God I saw.
    Neither soul nor body, accident nor substance,
    Qualities nor causes--only God I saw.
    I oped mine eyes and by the light of His face around me
    In all the eye discovered--only God I saw.
    Like a candle I was melting in His fire:
    Amidst the flames outflashing--only God I saw.
    Myself with mine own eyes I saw most clearly,
    But when I looked with God’s eyes--only God I saw.
    I passed away into nothingness, I vanished,
    And lo, I was the All-living--only God I saw.”

The whole of Sūfism rests on the belief that when the individual self
is lost, the Universal Self is found, or, in religious language,
that ecstasy affords the only means by which the soul can directly
communicate and become united with God. Asceticism, purification, love,
gnosis, saintship--all the leading ideas of Sūfism--are developed from
this cardinal principle.

Among the metaphorical terms commonly employed by the Sūfīs as, more
or less, equivalent to ‘ecstasy’ are _fanā_ (passing-away), _wajd_
(feeling), _samāʿ_ (hearing), _dhawq_ (taste), _shirb_ (drinking),
_ghaybat_ (absence from self), _jadhbat_ (attraction), _sukr_
(intoxication), and _hāl_ (emotion). It would be tedious and not, I
think, specially instructive to examine in detail the definitions
of those terms and of many others akin to them which occur in Sūfī
text-books. We are not brought appreciably nearer to understanding
the nature of ecstasy when it is described as “a divine mystery which
God communicates to true believers who behold Him with the eye of
certainty,” or as “a flame which moves in the ground of the soul and is
produced by love-desire.” The Mohammedan theory of ecstasy, however,
can hardly be discussed without reference to two of the above-mentioned
technical expressions, namely, _fanā_ and _samāʿ_.

As I have remarked in the Introduction (pp. 17-19), the term _fanā_
includes different stages, aspects, and meanings. These may be
summarised as follows:

1. A moral transformation of the soul through the extinction of all its
passions and desires.

2. A mental abstraction or passing-away of the mind from all objects of
perception, thoughts, actions, and feelings through its concentration
upon the thought of God. Here the thought of God signifies
contemplation of the divine attributes.

3. The cessation of all conscious thought. The highest stage of
_fanā_ is reached when even the consciousness of having attained
_fanā_ disappears. This is what the Sūfīs call ‘the passing-away
of passing-away’ (_fanā al-fanā_). The mystic is now rapt in
contemplation of the divine essence.

The final stage of _fanā_, the complete passing-away from self, forms
the prelude to _baqā_, ‘continuance’ or ‘abiding’ in God, and will be
treated with greater fullness in Chapter VI.

The first stage closely resembles the Buddhistic Nirvāṇa. It is a
‘passing-away’ of evil qualities and states of mind, which involves the
simultaneous ‘continuance’ of good qualities and states of mind. This
is necessarily an ecstatic process, inasmuch as all the attributes of
‘self’ are evil in relation to God. No one can make himself perfectly
moral, _i.e._ perfectly ‘selfless.’ This must be done for him, through
‘a flash of the divine beauty’ in his heart.

While the first stage refers to the moral ‘self,’ the second refers
to the percipient and intellectual ‘self.’ Using the classification
generally adopted by Christian mystics, we may regard the former as the
consummation of the Purgative Life, and the latter as the goal of the
Illuminative Life. The third and last stage constitutes the highest
level of the Contemplative Life.

Often, though not invariably, _fanā_ is accompanied by loss of
sensation. Sarī al-Saqatī, a famous Sūfī of the third century,
expressed the opinion that if a man in this state were struck on the
face with a sword, he would not feel the blow. Abu ’l-Khayr al-Aqtaʿ
had a gangrene in his foot. The physicians declared that his foot must
be amputated, but he would not allow this to be done. His disciples
said, “Cut it off while he is praying, for he is then unconscious.” The
physicians acted on their advice, and when Abu ’l-Khayr finished his
prayers he found that the amputation had taken place. It is difficult
to see how any one far advanced in _fanā_ could be capable of keeping
the religious law--a point on which the orthodox mystics lay great
emphasis. Here the doctrine of saintship comes in. God takes care to
preserve His elect from disobedience to His commands. We are told
that Bāyazīd, Shiblī, and other saints were continually in a state
of rapture until the hour of prayer arrived; then they returned to
consciousness, and after performing their prayers became enraptured
again.

In theory, the ecstatic trance is involuntary, although certain
conditions are recognised as being specially favourable to its
occurrence. “It comes to a man through vision of the majesty of God and
through revelation of the divine omnipotence to his heart.” Such, for
instance, was the case of Abū Hamza, who, while walking in the streets
of Baghdād and meditating on the nearness of God, suddenly fell into
an ecstasy and went on his way, neither seeing nor hearing, until he
recovered his senses and found himself in the desert. Trances of this
kind sometimes lasted many weeks. It is recorded of Sahl ibn ʿAbdallah
that he used to remain in ecstasy twenty-five days at a time, eating
no food; yet he would answer questions put to him by the doctors of
theology, and even in winter his shirt would be damp with sweat. But
the Sūfīs soon discovered that ecstasy might be induced artificially,
not only by concentration of thought, recollection (_dhikr_), and other
innocent methods of autohypnosis, but also by music, singing, and
dancing. These are included in the term _samāʿ_, which properly means
nothing more than audition.

That Moslems are extraordinarily susceptible to the sweet influences of
sound will not be doubted by any one who remembers how, in the _Arabian
Nights_, heroes and heroines alike swoon upon the slightest provocation
afforded by a singing-girl touching her lute and trilling a few lines
of passionate verse. The fiction is true to life. When Sūfī writers
discuss the analogous phenomena of ecstasy, they commonly do so in a
chapter entitled ‘Concerning the _Samāʿ_.’ Under this heading Hujwīrī,
in the final chapter of his _Kashf al-Mahjūb_, gives us an excellent
summary of his own and other Mohammedan theories, together with
numerous anecdotes of persons who were thrown into ecstasy on hearing a
verse of the Koran or a heavenly voice (_hātif_) or poetry or music.
Many are said to have died from the emotion thus aroused. I may add by
way of explanation that, according to a well-known mystical belief, God
has inspired every created thing to praise Him in its own language, so
that all the sounds in the universe form, as it were, one vast choral
hymn by which He glorifies Himself. Consequently those whose hearts
He has opened and endowed with spiritual perception hear His voice
everywhere, and ecstasy overcomes them as they listen to the rhythmic
chant of the muezzin, or the street cry of the saqqā shouldering his
water-skin, or, perchance, to the noise of wind or the bleating of a
sheep or the piping of a bird.

Pythagoras and Plato are responsible for another theory, to which the
Sūfī poets frequently allude, that music awakens in the soul a memory
of celestial harmonies heard in a state of pre-existence, before the
soul was separated from God. Thus Jalāluddīn Rūmī:

    “The song of the spheres in their revolutions
    Is what men sing with lute and voice.
    As we all are members of Adam,
    We have heard these melodies in Paradise.
    Though earth and water have cast their veil upon us,
    We retain faint reminiscences of these heavenly songs;
    But while we are thus shrouded by gross earthly veils,
    How can the tones of the dancing spheres reach us?”[7]

[7] E. H. Whinfield, abridged translation of the _Masnavī_, p. 182.

The formal practice of _samāʿ_ quickly spread amongst the Sūfīs and
produced an acute cleavage of opinion, some holding it to be lawful and
praiseworthy, whilst others condemned it as an abominable innovation
and incitement to vice. Hujwīrī adopts the middle view expressed in a
saying of Dhu ’l-Nūn the Egyptian:

        “Music is a divine influence which stirs the heart to seek God:
    those who listen to it spiritually attain unto God, and those who
    listen to it sensually fall into unbelief.”

He declares, in effect, that audition is neither good nor bad, and must
be judged by its results.

        “When an anchorite goes into a tavern, the tavern becomes his
    cell, but when a wine-bibber goes into a cell, that cell becomes
    his tavern.”

One whose heart is absorbed in the thought of God cannot be corrupted
by hearing musical instruments. So with dancing.

        “When the heart throbs and rapture grows intense, and the
    agitation of ecstasy is manifested and conventional forms are gone,
    this is not dancing nor bodily indulgence, but a dissolution of the
    soul.”

Hujwīrī, however, lays down several precautionary rules for those who
engage in audition, and he confesses that the public concerts given by
dervishes are extremely demoralising. Novices, he thinks, should not be
permitted to attend them. In modern times these orgiastic scenes have
frequently been described by eye-witnesses. I will now translate from
Jāmī’s _Lives of the Saints_ the account of a similar performance which
took place about seven hundred years ago.

        “There was a certain dervish, a negro called Zangī Bashgirdī,
    who had attained to such a high degree of spirituality that the
    mystic dance could not be started until he came out and joined
    in it. One day, in the course of the _samāʿ_, he was seized with
    ecstasy, and rising into the air seated himself on a lofty arch
    which overlooked the dancers. In descending he leaped on to
    Majduddīn of Baghdād, and encircled with his legs the neck of the
    Sheykh, who nevertheless continued to spin round in the dance,
    though he was a very frail and slender man, whereas the negro
    was tall and heavy. When the dance was finished, Majduddīn said,
    ‘I did not know whether it was a negro or a sparrow on my neck.’
    On getting off the Sheykh’s shoulders, the negro bit his cheek
    so severely that the scar remained visible ever after. Majduddīn
    often used to say that on the Day of Judgment he would not boast of
    anything except that he bore the mark of this negro’s teeth on his
    face.”

Grotesque and ignoble features--not to speak of grosser
deformities--must appear in any faithful delineation of the ecstatic
life of Islam. Nothing is gained by concealing their existence or by
minimising their importance. If, as Jalāluddīn Rūmī says:

    “Men incur the reproach of wine and drugs
    That they may escape for a while from self-consciousness,
    Since all know this life to be a snare,
    Volitional memory and thought to be a hell,”

let us acknowledge that the transports of spiritual intoxication are
not always sublime, and that human nature has a trick of avenging
itself on those who would cast it off.




  CHAPTER III

  THE GNOSIS


The Sūfīs distinguish three organs of spiritual communication: the
heart (_qalb_), which knows God; the spirit (_rūh_), which loves Him;
and the inmost ground of the soul (_sirr_), which contemplates Him. It
would take us into deep waters if we were to embark upon a discussion
of these terms and their relation to each other. A few words concerning
the first of the three will suffice. The _qalb_, though connected
in some mysterious way with the physical heart, is not a thing of
flesh and blood. Unlike the English ‘heart,’ its nature is rather
intellectual than emotional, but whereas the intellect cannot gain real
knowledge of God, the _qalb_ is capable of knowing the essences of all
things, and when illumined by faith and knowledge reflects the whole
content of the divine mind; hence the Prophet said, “My earth and My
heaven contain Me not, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth
Me.” This revelation, however, is a comparatively rare experience.
Normally, the heart is ‘veiled,’ blackened by sin, tarnished by sensual
impressions and images, pulled to and fro between reason and passion:
a battlefield on which the armies of God and the Devil contend for
victory. Through one gate, the heart receives immediate knowledge
of God; through another, it lets in the illusions of sense. “Here a
world and there a world,” says Jalāluddīn Rūmī. “I am seated on the
threshold.” Therefore man is potentially lower than the brutes and
higher than the angels.

    “Angel and brute man’s wondrous leaven compose;
    To these inclining, less than these he grows,
    But if he means the angel, more than those.”

Less than the brutes, because they lack the knowledge that would enable
them to rise; more than the angels, because they are not subject to
passion and so cannot fall.

How shall a man know God? Not by the senses, for He is immaterial; nor
by the intellect, for He is unthinkable. Logic never gets beyond the
finite; philosophy sees double; book-learning fosters self-conceit and
obscures the idea of the Truth with clouds of empty words. Jalāluddīn
Rūmī, addressing the scholastic theologian, asks scornfully:

    “Do you know a name without a thing answering to it?
    Have you ever plucked a rose from R, O, S, E?
    You name His name; go, seek the reality named by it!
    Look for the moon in the sky, not in the water!
    If you desire to rise above mere names and letters,
    Make yourself free from self at one stroke.
    Become pure from all attributes of self,
    That you may see your own bright essence,
    Yea, see in your own heart the knowledge of the Prophet,
    Without book, without tutor, without preceptor.”

This knowledge comes by illumination, revelation, inspiration.

“Look in your own heart,” says the Sūfī, “for the kingdom of God is
within you.” He who truly knows himself knows God, for the heart is a
mirror in which every divine quality is reflected. But just as a steel
mirror when coated with rust loses its power of reflexion, so the
inward spiritual sense, which Sūfīs call the eye of the heart, is blind
to the celestial glory until the dark obstruction of the phenomenal
self, with all its sensual contaminations, has been wholly cleared
away. The clearance, if it is to be done effectively, must be the work
of God, though it demands a certain inward co-operation on the part of
man. “Whosoever shall strive for Our sake, We will guide him into Our
ways” (Kor. =29.= 69). Action is false and vain, if it is thought to
proceed from one’s self, but the enlightened mystic regards God as the
real agent in every act, and therefore takes no credit for his good
works nor desires to be recompensed for them.

While ordinary knowledge is denoted by the term _ʿilm_, the mystic
knowledge peculiar to the Sūfīs is called _maʿrifat_ or _ʿirfān_. As I
have indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, _maʿrifat_ is fundamentally
different from _ʿilm_, and a different word must be used to translate
it. We need not look far for a suitable equivalent. The _maʿrifat_
of the Sūfīs is the ‘gnosis’ of Hellenistic theosophy, _i.e._ direct
knowledge of God based on revelation or apocalyptic vision. It is not
the result of any mental process, but depends entirely on the will and
favour of God, who bestows it as a gift from Himself upon those whom He
has created with the capacity for receiving it. It is a light of divine
grace that flashes into the heart and overwhelms every human faculty in
its dazzling beams. “He who knows God is dumb.”

The relation of gnosis to positive religion is discussed in a very
remarkable treatise on speculative mysticism by Niffarī, an unknown
wandering dervish who died in Egypt in the latter half of the tenth
century. His work, consisting of a series of revelations in which God
addresses the writer and instructs him concerning the theory of gnosis,
is couched in abstruse language and would scarcely be intelligible
without the commentary which accompanies it; but its value as an
original exposition of advanced Sūfism will sufficiently appear from
the excerpts given in this chapter.[8]

[8] I am now engaged in preparing an edition of the Arabic text,
together with an English translation and commentary.

Those who seek God, says Niffarī, are of three kinds: _firstly_, the
worshippers to whom God makes Himself known by means of bounty, _i.e._
they worship Him in the hope of winning Paradise or some spiritual
recompense such as dreams and miracles; _secondly_, the philosophers
and scholastic theologians, to whom God makes Himself known by means
of glory, _i.e._ they can never find the glorious God whom they seek,
wherefore they assert that His essence is unknowable, saying, “We
know that we know Him not, and that is our knowledge”; _thirdly_, the
gnostics, to whom God makes Himself known by means of ecstasy, _i.e._
they are possessed and controlled by a rapture that deprives them of
the consciousness of individual existence.

Niffarī bids the gnostic perform only such acts of worship as are
in accordance with his vision of God, though in so doing he will
necessarily disobey the religious law which was made for the vulgar.
His inward feeling must decide how far the external forms of religion
are good for him.

        “God said to me, Ask Me and say, ‘O Lord, how shall I cleave
    to Thee, so that when my day (of judgment) comes, Thou wilt not
    punish me nor avert Thy face from me?’ Then I will answer thee
    and say, ‘Cleave in thy outward theory and practice to the Sunna
    (the rule of the Prophet), and cleave in thy inward feeling to the
    gnosis which I have given thee; and know that when I make Myself
    known to thee, I will not accept from thee anything of the Sunna
    but what My gnosis brings to thee, because thou art one of those to
    whom I speak: thou hearest Me and knowest that thou hearest Me, and
    thou seest that I am the source of all things.’”

The commentator observes that the Sunna, being general in scope, makes
no distinction between individuals, _e.g._ seekers of Paradise and
seekers of God, but that in reality it contains exactly what each
person requires. The portion specially appropriate in every case is
discerned either by means of gnosis, which God communicates to the
heart, or by means of guidance imparted by a spiritual director.

        “And He said to me, ‘My exoteric revelation does not support My
    esoteric revelation.’”

This means that the gnostic need not be dismayed if his inner
experience conflicts with the religious law. The contradiction is only
apparent. Religion addresses itself to the common herd of men who
are veiled by their minds, by logic, tradition, and so on; whereas
gnosis belongs to the elect, whose bodies and spirits are bathed in the
eternal Light. Religion sees things from the aspect of plurality, but
gnosis regards the all-embracing Unity. Hence the same act is good in
religion, but evil in gnosis--a truth which is briefly stated thus:

        “The good deeds of the pious are the ill deeds of the
    favourites of God.”

Although works of devotion are not incompatible with gnosis, no one
who connects them in the slightest degree with himself is a gnostic.
This is the theme of the following allegory. Niffarī seldom writes so
lucidly as he does here, yet I fancy that few of my readers will find
the explanations printed within square brackets altogether superfluous.


  THE REVELATION OF THE SEA

        “God bade me behold the Sea, and I saw the ships sinking and
    the planks floating; then the planks too were submerged.”

        [The Sea denotes the spiritual experiences through which the
    mystic passes in his journey to God. The point at issue is this:
    whether he should prefer the religious law or disinterested
    love. Here he is warned not to rely on his good works, which are
    no better than sinking ships and will never bring him safely to
    port. No; if he would attain to God, he must rely on God alone. If
    he does not rely entirely on God, but lets himself trust ever so
    little in anything else, he is still clinging to a plank. Though
    his trust in God is greater than before, it is not yet complete.]

        “And He said to me, ‘Those who voyage are not saved.’”

        [The voyager uses the ship as a means of crossing the sea:
    therefore he relies, not on the First Cause, but on secondary
    causes.]

        “And He said to me, ‘Those who instead of voyaging cast
    themselves into the Sea take a risk.’”

        [To abandon all secondary causes is like plunging in the sea.
    The mystic who makes this venture is in jeopardy, for two reasons:
    he may regard himself, not God, as initiating and carrying out
    the action of abandonment,--and one who renounces a thing through
    ‘self’ is in worse case than if he had not renounced it,--or he may
    abandon secondary causes (good works, hope of Paradise, etc.), not
    for God’s sake, but from sheer indifference and lack of spiritual
    feeling.]

        “And He said to me, ‘Those who voyage and take no risk shall
    perish.’”

        [Notwithstanding the dangers referred to, he must make God his
    sole object or fail.]

        “And He said to me, ‘In taking the risk there is a part of
    salvation.’”

        [Only a part of salvation, because perfect selflessness has
    not yet been attained. The whole of salvation consists in the
    effacement of all secondary causes, all phenomena, through the
    rapture which results from vision of God. But this is gnosis, and
    the present revelation is addressed to mystics of a lower grade.
    The gnostic takes no risk, for he has nothing to lose.]

        “And the wave came and lifted those beneath it and overran the
    shore.”

        [Those beneath the wave are they who voyage in ships and
    consequently suffer shipwreck. Their reliance on secondary causes
    casts them ashore, _i.e._ brings them back to the world of
    phenomena whereby they are veiled from God.]

        “And He said to me, ‘The surface of the Sea is a gleam that
    cannot be reached.’”

        [Any one who depends on external rites of worship to lead him
    to God is following a will-o’-the-wisp.]

        “And its bottom is a darkness impenetrable.”

        [To discard positive religion, root and branch, is to wander in
    a pathless maze.]

        “And between the two are fishes which are to be feared.”

        [He refers to the middle way between pure exotericism and pure
    esotericism. The ‘fishes’ are its perils and obstacles.]

        “Do not voyage on the Sea, lest I cause thee to be veiled by
    the vehicle.”

        [The ‘vehicle’ signifies the ‘ship,’ _i.e._ reliance on
    something other than God.]

        “And do not cast thyself into the Sea, lest I cause thee to be
    veiled by thy casting thyself.”

        [Whoever regards any act as his own act and attributes it to
    himself is far from God.]

        “And He said to me, ‘In the Sea are boundaries: which of them
    will bear thee on?’”

        [The ‘boundaries’ are the various degrees of spiritual
    experience. The mystic ought not to rely on any of these, for they
    are all imperfect.]

        “And He said to me, ‘If thou givest thyself to the Sea and
    sinkest therein, thou wilt fall a prey to one of its beasts.’”

        [If the mystic either relies on secondary causes or abandons
    them by his own act, he will go astray.]

        “And He said to me, ‘I deceive thee if I direct thee to aught
    save Myself.’”

        [If the mystic’s inward voice bids him turn to anything except
    God, it deceives him.]

        “And He said to me, ‘If thou perishest for the sake of other
    than Me, thou wilt belong to that for which thou hast perished.’

        “And He said to me, ‘This world belongs to him whom I have
    turned away from it and from whom I have turned it away; and the
    next world belongs to him towards whom I have brought it and whom I
    have brought towards Myself.’”

        [He means to say that everlasting joy is the portion of those
    whose hearts are turned away from this world and who have no
    worldly possessions. They really enjoy this world, because it
    cannot separate them from God. Similarly, the true owners of the
    next world are those who do not seek it, inasmuch as it is not the
    real object of their desire, but contemplate God alone.]


The gnostic descries the element of reality in positive religion, but
his gnosis is not derived from religion or from any sort of human
knowledge: it is properly concerned with the divine attributes, and God
Himself reveals the knowledge of these to His saints who contemplate
Him. Dhu ’l-Nūn of Egypt, whose mystical speculations mark him out as
the father of Moslem theosophy, said that gnostics are not themselves,
and do not subsist through themselves, but so far as they subsist, they
subsist through God.

        “They move as God causes them to move, and their words are the
    words of God which roll upon their tongues, and their sight is the
    sight of God which has entered their eyes.”

The gnostic contemplates the attributes of God, not His essence, for
even in gnosis a small trace of duality remains: this disappears only
in _fanā al-fanā_, the total passing-away in the undifferentiated
Godhead. The cardinal attribute of God is unity, and the divine unity
is the first and last principle of gnosis.[9]

[9] According to some mystics, the gnosis of unity constitutes a higher
stage which is called ‘the Truth’ (_haqīqat_). See above, p. 29.

Both Moslem and Sūfī declare that God is One, but the statement bears
a different meaning in each instance. The Moslem means that God is
unique in His essence, qualities, and acts; that He is absolutely
unlike all other beings. The Sūfī means that God is the One Real
Being which underlies all phenomena. This principle is carried to its
extreme consequences, as we shall see. If nothing except God exists,
then the whole universe, including man, is essentially one with God,
whether it is regarded as an emanation which proceeds from Him, without
impairing His unity, like sunbeams from the sun, or whether it is
conceived as a mirror in which the divine attributes are reflected. But
surely a God who is all in all can have no reason for thus revealing
Himself: why should the One pass over into the Many? The Sūfīs
answer--a philosopher would say that they evade the difficulty--by
quoting the famous Tradition: “I was a hidden treasure and I desired
to be known; therefore I created the creation in order that I might be
known.” In other words, God is the eternal Beauty, and it lies in the
nature of beauty to desire love. The mystic poets have described the
self-manifestation of the One with a profusion of splendid imagery.
Jāmī says, for example:

    “From all eternity the Beloved unveiled His beauty in the solitude
        of the unseen;
    He held up the mirror to His own face, He displayed His loveliness
        to Himself.
    He was both the spectator and the spectacle; no eye but His had
        surveyed the Universe.
    All was One, there was no duality, no pretence of ‘mine’ or ‘thine.’
    The vast orb of Heaven, with its myriad incomings and outgoings,
        was concealed in a single point.
    The Creation lay cradled in the sleep of non-existence, like a child
        ere it has breathed.
    The eye of the Beloved, seeing what was not, regarded nonentity
        as existent.
    Although He beheld His attributes and qualities as a perfect whole
        in His own essence,
    Yet He desired that they should be displayed to Him in another
        mirror,
    And that each one of His eternal attributes should become manifest
        accordingly in a diverse form.
    Therefore He created the verdant fields of Time and Space and the
        life-giving garden of the world,
    That every branch and leaf and fruit might show forth His various
        perfections.
    The cypress gave a hint of His comely stature, the rose gave tidings
        of His beauteous countenance.
    Wherever Beauty peeped out, Love appeared beside it; wherever Beauty
        shone in a rosy cheek, Love lit his torch from that flame.
    Wherever Beauty dwelt in dark tresses, Love came and found a heart
        entangled in their coils.
    Beauty and Love are as body and soul; Beauty is the mine and Love
        the precious stone.
    They have always been together from the very first; never have they
        travelled but in each other’s company.”

In another work Jāmī sets forth the relation of God to the world more
philosophically, as follows:

        “The unique Substance, viewed as Absolute and void of
    all phenomena, all limitations and all multiplicity, is the
    Real (_al-Haqq_). On the other hand, viewed in His aspect of
    multiplicity and plurality, under which He displays Himself when
    clothed with phenomena, He is the whole created universe. Therefore
    the universe is the outward visible expression of the Real, and
    the Real is the inner unseen reality of the universe. The universe
    before it was evolved to outward view was identical with the Real;
    and the Real after this evolution is identical with the universe.”

Phenomena, as such, are not-being and only derive a contingent
existence from the qualities of Absolute Being by which they are
irradiated. The sensible world resembles the fiery circle made by a
single spark whirling round rapidly.

Man is the crown and final cause of the universe. Though last in the
order of creation he is first in the process of divine thought, for
the essential part of him is the primal Intelligence or universal
Reason which emanates immediately from the Godhead. This corresponds
to the Logos--the animating principle of all things--and is identified
with the Prophet Mohammed. An interesting parallel might be drawn
here between the Christian and Sūfī doctrines. The same expressions
are applied to the founder of Islam which are used by St. John, St.
Paul, and later mystical theologians concerning Christ. Thus, Mohammed
is called the Light of God, he is said to have existed before the
creation of the world, he is adored as the source of all life, actual
and possible, he is the Perfect Man in whom all the divine attributes
are manifested, and a Sūfī tradition ascribes to him the saying “He
that hath seen me hath seen Allah.” In the Moslem scheme, however,
the Logos doctrine occupies a subordinate place, as it obviously must
when the whole duty of man is believed to consist in realising the
unity of God. The most distinctive feature of Oriental as opposed to
European mysticism is its profound consciousness of an omnipresent,
all-pervading unity in which every vestige of individuality is
swallowed up. Not to become _like_ God or _personally_ to participate
in the divine nature is the Sūfī’s aim, but to escape from the bondage
of his unreal selfhood and thereby to be reunited with the One infinite
Being.

According to Jāmī, Unification consists in making the heart
single--that is, in purifying and divesting it of attachment to aught
except God, both in respect of desire and will and also as regards
knowledge and gnosis. The mystic’s desire and will should be severed
from all things which are desired and willed; all objects of knowledge
and understanding should be removed from his intellectual vision.
His thoughts should be directed solely towards God, he should not be
conscious of anything besides.

So long as he is a captive in the snare of passion and lust, it is hard
for him to maintain this relation to God, but when the subtle influence
of that attraction becomes manifest in him, expelling preoccupation
with objects of sense and cognition from his inward being, delight in
that divine communion prevails over bodily pleasures and spiritual
joys; the painful task of self-mortification is ended, and the
sweetness of contemplation enravishes his soul.

When the sincere aspirant perceives in himself the beginning of this
attraction, which is delight in the recollection of God, let him fix
his whole mind on fostering and strengthening it, let him keep himself
aloof from whatsoever is incompatible with it, and deem that even
though he were to devote an eternity to cultivating that communion, he
would have done nothing and would not have discharged his duty as he
ought.

    “Love thrilled the chord of love in my soul’s lute,
    And changed me all to love from head to foot.
    ’Twas but a moment’s touch, yet shall Time ever
    To me the debt of thanksgiving impute.”

It is an axiom of the Sūfīs that what is not _in_ a man he cannot
know. The gnostic--Man _par excellence_--could not know God and all
the mysteries of the universe, unless he found them in himself. He is
the microcosm, ‘a copy made in the image of God,’ ‘the eye of the
world whereby God sees His own works.’ In knowing himself as he really
is, he knows God, and he knows himself through God, who is nearer to
everything than its knowledge of itself. Knowledge of God precedes, and
is the cause of, self-knowledge.

Gnosis, then, is unification, realisation of the fact that the
appearance of ‘otherness’ beside Oneness is a false and deluding dream.
Gnosis lays this spectre, which haunts unenlightened men all their
lives; which rises, like a wall of utter darkness, between them and
God. Gnosis proclaims that ‘I’ is a figure of speech, and that one
cannot truly refer any will, feeling, thought, or action to one’s self.

Niffarī heard the divine voice saying to him:

        “When thou regardest thyself as existent and dost not regard Me
    as the Cause of thy existence, I veil My face and thine own face
    appears to thee. Therefore consider what is displayed to thee, and
    what is hidden from thee!”

        [If a man regards himself as existing through God, that which
    is of God in him predominates over the phenomenal element and
    makes it pass away, so that he sees nothing but God. If, on the
    contrary, he regards himself as having an independent existence,
    his unreal egoism is displayed to him and the reality of God
    becomes hidden from him.]

        “Regard neither My displaying nor that which is displayed, else
    thou wilt laugh and weep; and when thou laughest and weepest, thou
    art thine, not Mine.”

        [He who regards the act of divine revelation is guilty of
    polytheism, since revelation involves both a revealing subject and
    a revealed object; and he who regards the revealed object which
    is part of the created universe, regards something other than
    God. Laughter signifies joy for what you have gained, and weeping
    denotes grief for what you have lost. Both are selfish actions. The
    gnostic neither laughs nor weeps.]

        “If thou dost not put behind thee all that I have displayed and
    am displaying, thou wilt not prosper; and unless thou prosper, thou
    wilt not become concentrated upon Me.”

        [Prosperity is true belief in God, which requires complete
    abstraction from created things.]

Logically, these doctrines annul every moral and religious law. In the
gnostic’s vision there are no divine rewards and punishments, no human
standards of right and wrong. For him, the written word of God has
been abrogated by a direct and intimate revelation.

        “I do not say,” exclaimed Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī, “that Paradise
    and Hell are non-existent, but I say that they are nothing to me,
    because God created them both, and there is no room for any created
    object in the place where I am.”

From this standpoint all types of religion are equal, and Islam is no
better than idolatry. It does not matter what creed a man professes or
what rites he performs.

    “The true mosque in a pure and holy heart
    Is builded: there let all men worship God;
    For there He dwells, not in a mosque of stone.”

Amidst all the variety of creeds and worshippers the gnostic sees but
one real object of worship.

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

And Hafiz sings, more in the spirit of the freethinker, perhaps, than
of the mystic:

    “Love is where the glory falls
    Of Thy face--on convent walls
    Or on tavern floors, the same
    Unextinguishable flame.

    Where the turbaned anchorite
    Chanteth Allah day and night,
    Church bells ring the call to prayer
    And the Cross of Christ is there.”

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

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

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

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

    “This world and that world are the egg, and the bird within it
    Is in darkness and broken-winged and scorned and despised.
    Regard unbelief and faith as the white and the yolk in this egg,
    Between them, joining and dividing, a barrier which they shall
        not pass.
    When He hath graciously fostered the egg under His wing,
    Infidelity and religion disappear: the bird of Unity spreads
        its pinions.”

The great Persian mystic, Abū Saʿīd ibn Abi ’l-Khayr, speaking in
the name of the Calendars or wandering dervishes, expresses their
iconoclastic principles with astonishing boldness:

    “Not until every mosque beneath the sun
    Lies ruined, will our holy work be done;
    And never will true Musalmān appear
    Till faith and infidelity are one.”

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

A man who had just returned from the pilgrimage came to Junayd. Junayd
said:

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

This anecdote contrasts the outer religious law of theology with the
inner spiritual truth of mysticism, and shows that they should not be
divorced from each other.

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

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

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

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

    “The man of God is made wise by the Truth,
    The man of God is not learned from book.
    The man of God is beyond infidelity and faith,
    To the man of God right and wrong are alike.”

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

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

    “I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
    One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.
    I am intoxicated with Love’s cup, the two worlds have passed out
        of my ken;
    I have no business save carouse and revelry.”

But in his _Masnavī_--a work so famous and venerated that it has
been styled ‘The Koran of Persia’--we find him in a more sober mood
expounding the Sūfī doctrines and justifying the ways of God to man.
Here, though he is a convinced optimist and agrees with Ghazālī that
this is the best of all possible worlds, he does not airily dismiss
the problem of evil as something outside reality, but endeavours to
show that evil, or what seems evil to us, is part of the divine order
and harmony. I will quote some passages of his argument and leave my
readers to judge how far it is successful or, at any rate, suggestive.

The Sūfīs, it will be remembered, conceive the universe as a projected
and reflected image of God. The divine light, streaming forth in a
series of emanations, falls at last upon the darkness of not-being,
every atom of which reflects some attribute of Deity. For instance,
the beautiful attributes of love and mercy are reflected in the form
of heaven and the angels, while the terrible attributes of wrath
and vengeance are reflected in the form of hell and the devils. Man
reflects all the attributes, the terrible as well as the beautiful: he
is an epitome of heaven and hell. Omar Khayyām alludes to this theory
when he says:

    “Hell is a spark from our fruitless pain,
    Heaven a breath from our time of joy”

--a couplet which FitzGerald moulded into the magnificent stanza:

    “Heav’n but the Vision of fulfilled Desire,
    And Hell the Shadow from a Soul on fire,
      Cast on the Darkness into which Ourselves
    So late emerged from, shall so soon expire.”

Jalāluddīn, therefore, does in a sense make God the author of evil,
but at the same time he makes evil intrinsically good in relation to
God--for it is the reflexion of certain divine attributes which in
themselves are absolutely good. So far as evil is really evil, it
springs from not-being. The poet assigns a different value to this
term in its relation to God and in its relation to man. In respect of
God not-being is nothing, for God is real Being, but in man it is the
principle of evil which constitutes half of human nature. In the one
case it is a pure negation, in the other it is positively and actively
pernicious. We need not quarrel with the poet for coming to grief in
his logic. There are some occasions when intense moral feeling is worth
any amount of accurate thinking.

It is evident that the doctrine of divine unity implies predestination.
Where God is and naught beside Him, there can be no other agent than
He, no act but His. “Thou didst not throw, when thou threwest, but God
threw” (Kor. =8.= 17). Compulsion is felt only by those who do not
love. To know God is to love Him; and the gnostic may answer, like the
dervish who was asked how he fared:

    “I fare as one by whose majestic will
    The world revolves, floods rise and rivers flow,
    Stars in their courses move; yea, death and life
    Hang on his nod and fly to the ends of earth,
    His ministers of mourning or of joy.”

This is the Truth; but for the benefit of such as cannot bear it,
Jalāluddīn vindicates the justice of God by asserting that men have
the power to choose how they will act, although their freedom is
subordinate to the divine will. Approaching the question, “Why does God
ordain and create evil?” he points out that things are known through
their opposites, and that the existence of evil is necessary for the
manifestation of good.

    “Not-being and defect, wherever seen,
    Are mirrors of the beauty of all that is.
    The bone-setter, where should he try his skill
    But on the patient lying with broken leg?
    Were no base copper in the crucible,
    How could the alchemist his craft display?”

Moreover, the divine omnipotence would not be completely realised if
evil had remained uncreated.

    “He is the source of evil, as thou sayest,
    Yet evil hurts Him not. To make that evil
    Denotes in Him perfection. Hear from me
    A parable. The heavenly Artist paints
    Beautiful shapes and ugly: in one picture
    The loveliest women in the land of Egypt
    Gazing on youthful Joseph amorously;
    And lo, another scene by the same hand,
    Hell-fire and Iblīs with his hideous crew:
    Both master-works, created for good ends,
    To show His perfect wisdom and confound
    The sceptics who deny His mastery.
    Could He not evil make, He would lack skill;
    Therefore He fashions infidel alike
    And Moslem true, that both may witness bear
    To Him, and worship One Almighty Lord.”

In reply to the objection that a God who creates evil must Himself be
evil, Jalāluddīn, pursuing the analogy drawn from Art, remarks that
ugliness in the picture is no evidence of ugliness in the painter.

Again, without evil it would be impossible to win the proved virtue
which is the reward of self-conquest. Bread must be broken before
it can serve as food, and grapes will not yield wine till they are
crushed. Many men are led through tribulation to happiness. As evil
ebbs, good flows. Finally, much evil is only apparent. What seems a
curse to one may be a blessing to another; nay, evil itself is turned
to good for the righteous. Jalāluddīn will not admit that anything is
absolutely bad.

    “Fools buy false coins because they are like the true.
    If in the world no genuine minted coin
    Were current, how would forgers pass the false?
    Falsehood were nothing unless truth were there,
    To make it specious. ’Tis the love of right
    Lures men to wrong. Let poison but be mixed
    With sugar, they will cram it into their mouths.
    Oh, cry not that all creeds are vain! Some scent
    Of truth they have, else they would not beguile.
    Say not, ‘How utterly fantastical!’
    No fancy in the world is all untrue.
    Amongst the crowd of dervishes hides one,
    One true fakīr. Search well and thou wilt find!”

Surely this is a noteworthy doctrine. Jalāluddīn died only a few years
after the birth of Dante, but the Christian poet falls far below the
level of charity and tolerance reached by his Moslem contemporary.

How is it possible to discern the soul of goodness in things evil? By
means of love, says Jalāluddīn, and the knowledge which love alone can
give, according to the word of God in the holy Tradition:

        “My servant draws nigh unto Me, and 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.”

Although it will be convenient to treat of mystical love in a separate
chapter, the reader must not fancy that a new subject is opening before
him. Gnosis and love are spiritually identical; they teach the same
truths in different language.




  CHAPTER IV

  DIVINE LOVE


Any one acquainted, however slightly, with the mystical poetry of Islam
must have remarked that the aspiration of the soul towards God is
expressed, as a rule, in almost the same terms which might be used by
an Oriental Anacreon or Herrick. The resemblance, indeed, is often so
close that, unless we have some clue to the poet’s intention, we are
left in doubt as to his meaning. In some cases, perhaps, the ambiguity
serves an artistic purpose, as in the odes of Hafiz, but even when
the poet is not deliberately keeping his readers suspended between
earth and heaven, it is quite easy to mistake a mystical hymn for a
drinking-song or a serenade. Ibn al-ʿArabī, the greatest theosophist
whom the Arabs have produced, found himself obliged to write a
commentary on some of his poems in order to refute the scandalous
charge that they were designed to celebrate the charms of his mistress.
Here are a few lines:

    “Oh, her beauty--the tender maid! Its brilliance gives light like
        lamps to one travelling in the dark.
    She is a pearl hidden in a shell of hair as black as jet,
    A pearl for which Thought dives and remains unceasingly in the
        deeps of that ocean.
    He who looks upon her deems her to be a gazelle of the sand-hills,
        because of her shapely neck and the loveliness of her gestures.”

It has been said that the Sūfīs invented this figurative style as a
mask for mysteries which they desired to keep secret. That desire
was natural in those who proudly claimed to possess an esoteric
doctrine known only to themselves; moreover, a plain statement of
what they believed might have endangered their liberties, if not
their lives. But, apart from any such motives, the Sūfīs adopt the
symbolic style because there is no other possible way of interpreting
mystical experience. So little does knowledge of the infinite revealed
in ecstatic vision need an artificial disguise that it cannot be
communicated at all except through types and emblems drawn from the
sensible world, which, imperfect as they are, may suggest and shadow
forth a deeper meaning than appears on the surface. “Gnostics,” says
Ibn al-ʿArabī, “cannot impart their feelings to other men; they can
only indicate them symbolically to those who have begun to experience
the like.” What kind of symbolism each mystic will prefer depends
on his temperament and character. If he be a religious artist, a
spiritual poet, his ideas of reality are likely to clothe themselves
instinctively in forms of beauty and glowing images of human love.
To him the rosy cheek of the beloved represents the divine essence
manifested through its attributes; her dark curls signify the One
veiled by the Many; when he says, “Drink wine that it may set you free
from yourself,” he means, “Lose your phenomenal self in the rapture of
divine contemplation.” I might fill pages with further examples.

This erotic and bacchanalian symbolism is not, of course, peculiar
to the mystical poetry of Islam, but nowhere else is it displayed so
opulently and in such perfection. It has often been misunderstood by
European critics, one of whom even now can describe the ecstasies
of the Sūfīs as “inspired partly by wine and strongly tinged with
sensuality.” As regards the whole body of Sūfīs, the charge is
altogether false. No intelligent and unprejudiced student of their
writings could have made it, and we ought to have been informed on what
sort of evidence it is based. There are black sheep in every flock, and
amongst the Sūfīs we find many hypocrites, debauchees, and drunkards
who bring discredit on the pure brethren. But it is just as unfair to
judge Sūfism in general by the excesses of these impostors as it would
be to condemn all Christian mysticism on the ground that certain sects
and individuals are immoral.

    “God is the Sāqī[10] and the Wine:
    He knows what manner of love is mine,”

said Jalāluddīn. Ibn al-ʿArabī declares that no religion is more
sublime than a religion of love and longing for God. Love is the
essence of all creeds: the true mystic welcomes it whatever guise it
may assume.

[10] Cupbearer.

    “My heart has become capable of every form: it is a pasture for
        gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
    And a temple for idols, and the pilgrim’s Kaʿba, and the tables
        of the Tora and the book of the Koran.
    I follow the religion of Love, whichever way his camels take. My
        religion and my faith is the true religion.
    We have a pattern in Bishr, the lover of Hind and her sister, and
        in Qays and Lubnā, and in Mayya and Ghaylān.”

Commenting on the last verse, the poet writes:

        “Love, _quâ_ love, is one and the same reality to those Arab
    lovers and to me; but the objects of our love are different,
    for they loved a phenomenon, whereas I love the Real. They are
    a pattern to us, because God only afflicted them with love for
    human beings in order that He might show, by means of them, the
    falseness of those who pretend to love Him, and yet feel no such
    transport and rapture in loving Him as deprived those enamoured men
    of their reason, and made them unconscious of themselves.”

Most of the great medieval Sūfīs lived saintly lives, dreaming of God,
intoxicated with God. When they tried to tell their dreams, being men,
they used the language of men. If they were also literary artists,
they naturally wrote in the style of their own day and generation. In
mystical poetry the Arabs yield the palm to the Persians. Any one who
would read the secret of Sūfism, no longer encumbered with theological
articles nor obscured by metaphysical subtleties--let him turn to
ʿAttār, Jalāluddīn Rūmī, and Jāmī, whose works are partially accessible
in English and other European languages. To translate these wonderful
hymns is to break their melody and bring their soaring passion down to
earth, but not even a prose translation can quite conceal the love of
Truth and the vision of Beauty which inspired them. Listen again to
Jalāluddīn:

    “He comes, a moon whose like the sky ne’er saw, awake or dreaming,
      Crowned with eternal flame no flood can lay.
    Lo, from the flagon of Thy love, O Lord, my soul is swimming,
      And ruined all my body’s house of clay.
    When first the Giver of the grape my lonely heart befriended,
      Wine fired my bosom and my veins filled up,
    But when His image all mine eye possessed, a voice descended,
      ‘Well done, O sovereign Wine and peerless Cup!’”

The love thus symbolised is the emotional element in religion, the
rapture of the seer, the courage of the martyr, the faith of the
saint, the only basis of moral perfection and spiritual knowledge.
Practically, it is self-renunciation and self-sacrifice, the giving up
of all possessions--wealth, honour, will, life, and whatever else men
value--for the Beloved’s sake without any thought of reward. I have
already referred to love as the supreme principle in Sūfī ethics, and
now let me give some illustrations.

        “Love,” says Jalāluddīn, “is the remedy of our pride and
    self-conceit, the physician of all our infirmities. Only he whose
    garment is rent by love becomes entirely unselfish.”

Nūrī, Raqqām, and other Sūfīs were accused of heresy and sentenced to
death.

        “When the executioner approached Raqqām, Nūrī rose and offered
    himself in his friend’s place with the utmost cheerfulness and
    submission. All the spectators were astounded. The executioner
    said, ‘Young man, the sword is not a thing that people are so eager
    to meet; and your turn has not yet arrived.’ Nūrī answered, ‘My
    religion is founded on unselfishness. Life is the most precious
    thing in the world: I wish to sacrifice for my brethren’s sake the
    few moments which remain.’”

On another occasion Nūrī was overheard praying as follows:

        “O Lord, in Thy eternal knowledge and power and will Thou dost
    punish the people of Hell whom Thou hast created; and if it be Thy
    inexorable will to make Hell full of mankind, Thou art able to fill
    it with me alone, and to send them to Paradise.”

In proportion as the Sūfī loves God, he sees God in all His creatures,
and goes forth to them in acts of charity. Pious works are naught
without love.

    “Cheer one sad heart: thy loving deed will be
    More than a thousand temples raised by thee.
    One freeman whom thy kindness hath enslaved
    Outweighs by far a thousand slaves set free.”

The Moslem _Legend of the Saints_ abounds in tales of pity shown to
animals (including the despised dog), birds, and even insects. It is
related that Bāyazīd purchased some cardamom seed at Hamadhān, and
before departing put into his gaberdine a small quantity which was left
over. On reaching Bistām and recollecting what he had done, he took out
the seed and found that it contained a number of ants. Saying, “I have
carried the poor creatures away from their home,” he immediately set
off and journeyed back to Hamadhān--a distance of several hundred miles.

This universal charity is one of the fruits of pantheism. The ascetic
view of the world which prevailed amongst the early Sūfīs, and their
vivid consciousness of God as a transcendent Personality rather than
as an immanent Spirit, caused them to crush their human affections
relentlessly. Here is a short story from the life of Fudayl ibn ʿIyād.
It would be touching if it were not so edifying.

        “One day he had in his lap a child four years old, and chanced
    to give it a kiss, as is the way of fathers. The child said,
    ‘Father, do you love me?’ ‘Yes,’ said Fudayl. ‘Do you love God?’
    ‘Yes.’ ‘How many hearts have you?’ ‘One.’ ‘Then,’ asked the child,
    ‘how can you love two with one heart?’ Fudayl perceived that the
    child’s words were a divine admonition. In his zeal for God he
    began to beat his head and repented of his love for the child, and
    gave his heart wholly to God.”

The higher Sūfī mysticism, as represented by Jalāluddīn Rūmī, teaches
that the phenomenal is a bridge to the Real.

    “Whether it be of this world or of that,
    Thy love will lead thee yonder at the last.”

And Jāmī says, in a passage which has been translated by Professor
Browne:

    “Even from earthly love thy face avert not,
    Since to the Real it may serve to raise thee.
    Ere A, B, C are rightly apprehended,
    How canst thou con the pages of thy Koran?
    A sage (so heard I), unto whom a student
    Came craving counsel on the course before him,
    Said, ‘If thy steps be strangers to love’s pathways,
    Depart, learn love, and then return before me!
    For, shouldst thou fear to drink wine from Form’s flagon,
    Thou canst not drain the draught of the Ideal.
    But yet beware! Be not by Form belated:
    Strive rather with all speed the bridge to traverse.
    If to the bourne thou fain wouldst bear thy baggage,
    Upon the bridge let not thy footsteps linger.’”

Emerson sums up the meaning of this where he says:

        “Beholding in many souls the traits of the divine beauty, and
    separating in each soul that which is divine from the taint which
    it has contracted in the world, the lover ascends to the highest
    beauty, to the love and knowledge of the Divinity, by steps on this
    ladder of created souls.”

        “Man’s love of God,” says Hujwīrī, “is a quality which
    manifests itself, in the heart of the pious believer, in the form
    of veneration and magnification, so that he seeks to satisfy his
    Beloved and becomes impatient and restless in his desire for
    vision of Him, and cannot rest with any one except Him, and grows
    familiar with the recollection of Him, and abjures the recollection
    of everything besides. Repose becomes unlawful to him, and rest
    flees from him. He is cut off from all habits and associations, and
    renounces sensual passion, and turns towards the court of love,
    and submits to the law of love, and knows God by His attributes of
    perfection.”

Inevitably such a man will love his fellow-men. Whatever cruelty they
inflict upon him, he will perceive only the chastening hand of God,
“whose bitters are very sweets to the soul.” Bāyazīd said that when
God loves a man, He endows him with three qualities in token thereof:
a bounty like that of the sea, a sympathy like that of the sun, and
a humility like that of the earth. No suffering can be too great, no
devotion too high, for the piercing insight and burning faith of a true
lover.

Ibn al-ʿArabī claims that Islam is peculiarly the religion of love,
inasmuch as the Prophet Mohammed is called God’s beloved (_Habīb_),
but though some traces of this doctrine occur in the Koran, its main
impulse was unquestionably derived from Christianity. While the oldest
Sūfī literature, which is written in Arabic and unfortunately has come
down to us in a fragmentary state, is still dominated by the Koranic
insistence on fear of Allah, it also bears conspicuous marks of the
opposing Christian tradition. As in Christianity, through Dionysius
and other writers of the Neoplatonic school, so in Islam, and probably
under the same influence, the devotional and mystical love of God soon
developed into ecstasy and enthusiasm which finds in the sensuous
imagery of human love the most suggestive medium for its expression.
Dr. Inge observes that the Sūfīs “appear, like true Asiatics, to
have attempted to give a sacramental and symbolic character to the
indulgence of their passions.” I need not again point out that such a
view of genuine Sūfism is both superficial and incorrect.

Love, like gnosis, is in its essence a divine gift, not anything that
can be acquired. “If the whole world wished to attract love, they could
not; and if they made the utmost efforts to repel it, they could not.”
Those who love God are those whom God loves. “I fancied that I loved
Him,” said Bāyazīd, “but on consideration I saw that His love preceded
mine.” Junayd defined love as the substitution of the qualities of the
Beloved for the qualities of the lover. In other words, love signifies
the passing-away of the individual self; it is an uncontrollable
rapture, a God-sent grace which must be sought by ardent prayer and
aspiration.

    “O Thou in whose bat well-curved my heart like a ball is laid,
    Nor ever a hairbreadth swerved from Thy bidding nor disobeyed,
    I have washed mine outward clean, the water I drew and poured;
    Mine inward is Thy demesne--do Thou keep it stainless, Lord!”

Jalāluddīn teaches that man’s love is really the effect of God’s love
by means of an apologue. One night a certain devotee was praying aloud,
when Satan appeared to him and said:

        “How long wilt thou cry, ‘O Allah’? Be quiet, for thou wilt get
    no answer.” The devotee hung his head in silence. After a little
    while he had a vision of the prophet Khadir, who said to him, “Ah,
    why hast thou ceased to call on God?” “Because the answer ‘Here am
    I’ came not,” he replied. Khadir said, “God hath ordered me to go
    to thee and say this:

    “‘Was it not I that summoned thee to service?
    Did not I make thee busy with My name?
    Thy calling “Allah!” _was_ My “Here am I,”
    Thy yearning pain My messenger to thee.
    Of all those tears and cries and supplications
    I was the magnet, and I gave them wings.’”

Divine love is beyond description, yet its signs are manifest. Sarī
al-Saqatī questioned Junayd concerning the nature of love.

        “Some say,” he answered, “that it is a state of concord, and
    some say that it is altruism, and some say that it is so-and-so.”
    Sarī took hold of the skin on his forearm and pulled it, but it
    would not stretch; then he said, “I swear by the glory of God, were
    I to say that this skin hath shrivelled on this bone for love of
    Him, I should be telling the truth.” Thereupon he fainted away, and
    his face became like a shining moon.

Love, ‘the astrolabe of heavenly mysteries,’ inspires all religion
worthy of the name, and brings with it, not reasoned belief, but
the intense conviction arising from immediate intuition. This inner
light is its own evidence; he who sees it has real knowledge, and
nothing can increase or diminish his certainty. Hence the Sūfīs never
weary of exposing the futility of a faith which supports itself on
intellectual proofs, external authority, self-interest, or self-regard
of any kind. The barren dialectic of the theologian; the canting
righteousness of the Pharisee rooted in forms and ceremonies; the
less crude but equally undisinterested worship of which the motive
is desire to gain everlasting happiness in the life hereafter; the
relatively pure devotion of the mystic who, although he loves God, yet
thinks of himself as loving, and whose heart is not wholly emptied of
‘otherness’--all these are ‘veils’ to be removed.

A few sayings by those who know will be more instructive than further
explanation.

        “O God! whatever share of this world Thou hast allotted to me,
    bestow it on Thine enemies; and whatever share of the next world
    Thou hast allotted to me, bestow it on Thy friends. Thou art enough
    for me.”    (Rābiʿa.)

        “O God! if I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and
    if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise;
    but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine
    everlasting beauty!”    (Rābiʿa.)

        “Notwithstanding that the lovers of God are separated from Him
    by their love, they have the essential thing, for whether they
    sleep or wake, they seek and are sought, and are not occupied with
    their own seeking and loving, but are enraptured in contemplation
    of the Beloved. It is a crime in the lover to regard his love, and
    an outrage in love to look at one’s own seeking while one is face
    to face with the Sought.”    (Bāyazīd.)

        “His love entered and removed all besides Him and left no
    trace of anything else, so that it remained single even as He is
    single.”    (Bāyazīd.)

        “To feel at one with God for a moment is better than all
    men’s acts of worship from the beginning to the end of the
    world.”    (Shiblī.)

        “Fear of the Fire, in comparison with fear of being parted
    from the Beloved, is like a drop of water cast into the mightiest
    ocean.”    (Dhu ’l-Nūn.)

    “Unless I have the face of my heart towards Thee,
    I deem prayer unworthy to be reckoned as prayer.
    If I turn my face to the Kaʿba, ’tis for love of Thine;
    Otherwise I am quit both of prayer and Kaʿba.”
                                           (Jalāluddīn Rūmī.)

Love, again, is the divine instinct of the soul impelling it to realise
its nature and destiny. The soul is the first-born of God: before the
creation of the universe it lived and moved and had its being in Him,
and during its earthly manifestation it is a stranger in exile, ever
pining to return to its home.

    “This is Love: to fly heavenward,
    To rend, every instant, a hundred veils;
    The first moment, to renounce life;
    The last step, to fare without feet;
    To regard this world as invisible,
    Not to see what appears to one’s self.”

All the love-romances and allegories of Sūfī poetry--the tales of Laylā
and Majnūn, Yūsuf (Joseph) and Zulaykhā, Salāmān and Absāl, the Moth
and the Candle, the Nightingale and the Rose--are shadow-pictures
of the soul’s passionate longing to be reunited with God. It is
impossible, in the brief space at my command, to give the reader more
than a passing glimpse of the treasures which the exuberant fancy of
the East has heaped together in every room of this enchanted palace.
The soul is likened to a moaning dove that has lost her mate; to a reed
torn from its bed and made into a flute whose plaintive music fills the
eye with tears; to a falcon summoned by the fowler’s whistle to perch
again upon his wrist; to snow melting in the sun and mounting as vapour
to the sky; to a frenzied camel swiftly plunging through the desert
by night; to a caged parrot, a fish on dry land, a pawn that seeks to
become a king.

These figures imply that God is conceived as transcendent, and that the
soul cannot reach Him without taking what Plotinus in a splendid phrase
calls “the flight of the Alone to the Alone.” Jalāluddīn says:

    “The motion of every atom is towards its origin;
    A man comes to be the thing on which he is bent.
    By the attraction of fondness and yearning, the soul and the heart
    Assume the qualities of the Beloved, who is the Soul of souls.”

‘A man comes to be the thing on which he is bent’: what, then, does the
Sūfī become? Eckhart in one of his sermons quotes the saying of St.
Augustine that Man _is_ what he loves, and adds this comment:

        “If he loves a stone, he is a stone; if he loves a man, he is
    a man; if he loves God--I dare not say more, for if I said that he
    would then be God, ye might stone me.”

The Moslem mystics enjoyed greater freedom of speech than their
Christian brethren who owed allegiance to the medieval Catholic Church,
and if they went too far the plea of ecstasy was generally accepted as
a sufficient excuse. Whether they emphasise the outward or the inward
aspect of unification, the transcendence or the immanence of God, their
expressions are bold and uncompromising. Thus Abū Saʿīd:

    “In my heart Thou dwellest--else with blood I’ll drench it;
    In mine eye Thou glowest--else with tears I’ll quench it.
    Only to be one with Thee my soul desireth--
    Else from out my body, by hook or crook, I’ll wrench it!”

Jalāluddīn Rūmī proclaims that the soul’s love of God is God’s love of
the soul, and that in loving the soul God loves Himself, for He draws
home to Himself that which in its essence is divine.

“Our copper,” says the poet, “has been transmuted by this rare
alchemy,” meaning that the base alloy of self has been purified and
spiritualised. In another ode he says:

    “O my soul, I searched from end to end: I saw in thee naught save
        the Beloved;
    Call me not infidel, O my soul, if I say that thou thyself art He.”

And yet more plainly:

    “Ye who in search of God, of God, pursue,
    Ye need not search for God is you, is you!
    Why seek ye something that was missing ne’er?
    Save you none is, but you are--where, oh, where?”

Where is the lover when the Beloved has displayed Himself? Nowhere and
everywhere: his individuality has passed away from him. In the bridal
chamber of Unity God celebrates the mystical marriage of the soul.




  CHAPTER V

  SAINTS AND MIRACLES


Let us suppose that the average Moslem could read English, and that
we placed in his hands one of those admirable volumes published by
the Society for Psychical Research. In order to sympathise with his
feelings on such an occasion, we have only to imagine what our own
would be if a scientific friend invited us to study a treatise setting
forth the evidence in favour of telegraphy and recording well-attested
instances of telegraphic communication. The Moslem would probably see
in the telegraph some kind of spirit--an _afreet_ or _jinnī_. Telepathy
and similar occult phenomena he takes for granted as self-evident
facts. It would never occur to him to investigate them. There is
something in the constitution of his mind that makes it impervious to
the idea that the supernatural may be subject to law. He believes,
because he cannot help believing, in the reality of an unseen world
which ‘lies about us,’ not in our infancy alone, but always and
everywhere; a world from which we are in no wise excluded, accessible
and in some measure revealed to all, though free and open intercourse
with it is a privilege enjoyed by few. Many are called but few chosen.

    “Spirits every night from the body’s snare
    Thou freest, and makest the tablets clean.[11]
    Spirits are set free every night from this cage,
    Independent, neither ruled nor ruling.
    At night prisoners forget their prison,
    At night kings forget their power:
    No sorrow, no brooding over gain and loss,
    No thought of this person or that person.
    This is the state of the gnostic, even when he is awake;
    God hath said, ‘Thou wouldst deem them awake while they slept.’[12]
    He is asleep, day and night, to the affairs of the world,
    Like a pen in the controlling hand of the Lord.”

[11] By erasing all the sensuous impressions which form a veil between
the soul and the world of reality.

[12] Kor. =18.= 17.

The Sūfīs have always declared and believed themselves to be God’s
chosen people. The Koran refers in several places to His elect.
According to the author of the _Kitāb al-Lumaʿ_, this title belongs,
firstly, to the prophets, elect in virtue of their sinlessness,
their inspiration, and their apostolic mission; and secondly, to
certain Moslems, elect in virtue of their sincere devotion and
self-mortification and firm attachment to the eternal realities:
in a word, the saints. While the Sūfīs are the elect of the Moslem
community, the saints are the elect of the Sūfīs.

The Mohammedan saint is commonly known as a _walī_ (plural, _awliyā_).
This word is used in various senses derived from its root-meaning
of ‘nearness’; _e.g._ next of kin, patron, protector, friend. It is
applied in the Koran to God as the protector of the Faithful, to angels
or idols who are supposed to protect their worshippers, and to men who
are regarded as being specially under divine protection. Mohammed twits
the Jews with professing to be _protégés_ of God (_awliyā lillāh_).
Notwithstanding its somewhat equivocal associations, the term was
taken over by the Sūfīs and became the ordinary designation of persons
whose holiness brings them near to God, and who receive from Him, as
tokens of His peculiar favour, miraculous gifts (_karāmāt_, χαρίσματα);
they are His friends, on whom “no fear shall come and they shall not
grieve”;[13] any injury done to them is an act of hostility against Him.

[13] Kor. =10.= 63.

The inspiration of the Islamic saints, though verbally distinguished
from that of the prophets and inferior in degree, is of the same kind.
In consequence of their intimate relation to God, the veil shrouding
the supernatural, or, as a Moslem would say, the unseen world, from
their perceptions is withdrawn at intervals, and in their fits of
ecstasy they rise to the prophetic level. Neither deep learning in
divinity, nor devotion to good works, nor asceticism, nor moral purity
makes the Mohammedan a saint; he may have all or none of these things,
but the only indispensable qualification is that ecstasy and rapture
which is the outward sign of ‘passing-away’ from the phenomenal self.
Any one thus enraptured (_majdhūb_) is a _walī_,[14] and when such
persons are recognised through their power of working miracles, they
are venerated as saints not only after death but also during their
lives. Often, however, they live and die in obscurity. Hujwīrī tells
us that amongst the saints “there are four thousand who are concealed
and do not know one another and are not aware of the excellence of
their state, being in all circumstances hidden from themselves and from
mankind.”

[14] _Waliyyat_, if the saint is a woman.

The saints form an invisible hierarchy, on which the order of the
world is thought to depend. Its supreme head is entitled the _Qutb_
(Axis). He is the most eminent Sūfī of his age, and presides over the
meetings regularly held by this august parliament, whose members are
not hampered in their attendance by the inconvenient fictions of
time and space, but come together from all parts of the earth in the
twinkling of an eye, traversing seas and mountains and deserts as
easily as common mortals step across a road. Below the _Qutb_ stand
various classes and grades of sanctity. Hujwīrī enumerates them, in
ascending series, as follows: three hundred _Akhyār_ (Good), forty
_Abdāl_ (Substitutes), seven _Abrār_ (Pious), four _Awtād_ (Supports),
and three _Nuqabā_ (Overseers).

        “All these know one another and cannot act save by mutual
    consent. It is the task of the _Awtād_ to go round the whole world
    every night, and if there should be any place on which their eyes
    have not fallen, next day some flaw will appear in that place,
    and they must then inform the _Qutb_ in order that he may direct
    his attention to the weak spot and that by his blessing the
    imperfection may be remedied.”

We are studying in this book the mystical life of the individual
Moslem, and it is necessary to keep the subject within the narrowest
bounds. Otherwise, I should have liked to dwell on the external and
historical organisation of Sūfism as a school for saints, and to
describe the process of evolution through which the _walī_ privately
conversing with a small circle of friends became, first, a teacher
and spiritual guide gathering disciples around him during his
lifetime, and finally the head of a perpetual religious order which
bore his name. The earliest of these great fraternities date from
the twelfth century. In addition to their own members--the so-called
‘dervishes’--each order has a large number of lay brethren attached
to it, so that their influence pervades all ranks of Moslem society.
They are “independent and self-developing. There is rivalry between
them; but no one rules over the other. In faith and practice each goes
its own way, limited only by the universal conscience of Islam. Thus
strange doctrines and grave moral defects easily develop unheeded,
but freedom is saved.”[15] Of course, the typical _walī_ is incapable
of founding an order, but Islam has produced no less frequently
than Christendom men who combine intense spiritual illumination
with creative energy and aptitude for affairs on a grand scale. The
Mohammedan notion of the saint as a person possessed by God allows a
very wide application of the term: in popular usage it extends from the
greatest Sūfī theosophists, like Jalāluddīn Rūmī and Ibn al-ʿArabī,
down to those who have gained sanctity only by losing sanity--victims
of epilepsy and hysteria, half-witted idiots and harmless lunatics.

[15] D. B. Macdonald, _The Religious Life and Attitude in Islam_, p.
164.

Both Qushayrī[16] and Hujwīrī discuss the question whether a saint can
be conscious of his saintship, and answer it in the affirmative. Their
opponents argue that consciousness of saintship involves assurance of
salvation, which is impossible, since no one can know with certainty
that he shall be among the saved on the Day of Judgment. In reply it
was urged that God may miraculously assure the saint of his predestined
salvation, while maintaining him in a state of spiritual soundness and
preserving him from disobedience. The saint is not immaculate, as the
prophets are, but the divine protection which he enjoys is a guarantee
that he will not persevere in evil courses, though he may temporarily
be led astray. According to the view generally held, saintship depends
on faith, not on conduct, so that no sin except infidelity can cause
it to be forfeited. This perilous theory, which opens the door to
antinomianism, was mitigated by the emphasis laid on fulfilment of the
religious law. The following anecdote of Bāyazīd al-Bistāmī shows the
official attitude of all the leading Sūfīs who are cited as authorities
in the Moslem text-books.

[16] Author of a famous work designed to close the breach between
Sūfism and Islam. He died in 1074 A.D.

        “I was told (he said) that a saint of God was living in
    such-and-such a town, and I set out to visit him. When I entered
    the mosque, he came forth from his chamber and spat on the floor.
    I turned back without saluting him, saying to myself, ‘A saint
    must keep the religious law in order that God may keep him in his
    spiritual state. Had this man been a saint, his respect for the law
    would have prevented him from spitting on the floor, or God would
    have saved him from marring the grace vouchsafed to him.’”

Many _walīs_, however, regard the law as a curb that is indeed
necessary so long as one remains in the disciplinary stage, but may be
discarded by the saint. Such a person, they declare, stands on a higher
plane than ordinary men, and is not to be condemned for actions which
outwardly seem irreligious. While the older Sūfīs insist that a _walī_
who breaks the law is thereby shown to be an impostor, the popular
belief in the saints and the rapid growth of saint-worship tended to
aggrandise the _walī_ at the expense of the law, and to foster the
conviction that a divinely gifted man can do no wrong, or at least that
his actions must not be judged by appearances. The classical instance
of this _jus divinum_ vested in the friends of God is the story of
Moses and Khadir, which is related in the Koran (18. 64-80). Khadir
or Khizr--the Koran does not mention him by name--is a mysterious
sage endowed with immortality, who is said to enter into conversation
with wandering Sūfīs and impart to them his God-given knowledge. Moses
desired to accompany him on a journey that he might profit by his
teaching, and Khadir consented, only stipulating that Moses should ask
no questions of him.

        “So they both went on, till they embarked in a boat and he
    (Khadir) staved it in. ‘What!’ cried Moses, ‘hast thou staved it in
    that thou mayst drown its crew? Verily, a strange thing hast thou
    done.’

        “He said, ‘Did not I tell thee that thou couldst no way have
    patience with me?’

        “Then they went on until they met a youth, and he slew him.
    Said Moses, ‘Hast thou slain him who is free from guilt of blood?
    Surely now thou hast wrought an unheard-of thing!’”

After Moses had broken his promise of silence for the third time,
Khadir resolved to leave him.

        “But first,” he said, “I will tell thee the meaning of that
    with which thou couldst not have patience. As to the boat, it
    belonged to poor men, toilers on the sea, and I was minded to
    damage it, for in their rear was a king who seized on every boat
    by force. And as to the youth, his parents were believers, and I
    feared lest he should trouble them by error and unbelief.”

The Sūfīs are fond of quoting this unimpeachable testimony that the
_walī_ is above human criticism, and that his hand, as Jalāluddīn
asserts, is even as the hand of God. Most Moslems admit the claim to be
valid in so far as they shrink from applying conventional standards of
morality to holy men. I have explained its metaphysical justification
in an earlier chapter.

A miracle performed by a saint is termed _karāmāt_, _i.e._ a ‘favour’
which God bestows upon him, whereas a miracle performed by a prophet is
called _muʿjizat_, _i.e._ an act which cannot be imitated by any one.
The distinction originated in controversy, and was used to answer those
who held the miraculous powers of the saints to be a grave encroachment
on the prerogative of the Prophet. Sūfī apologists, while confessing
that both kinds of miracle are substantially the same, take pains to
differentiate the characteristics of each; they declare, moreover, that
the saints are the Prophet’s witnesses, and that all their miracles
(like ‘a drop trickling from a full skin of honey’) are in reality
derived from him. This is the orthodox view and is supported by those
Mohammedan mystics who acknowledge the Law as well as the Truth,
though in some cases it may have amounted to little more than a pious
opinion. We have often noticed the difficulty in which the Sūfīs find
themselves when they try to make a logical compromise with Islam. But
the word ‘logic’ is very misleading in this connexion. The beginning
of wisdom, for European students of Oriental religion, lies in the
discovery that incongruous beliefs--I mean, of course, beliefs which
_our_ minds cannot harmonise--dwell peacefully together in the Oriental
brain; that their owner is quite unconscious of their incongruity; and
that, as a rule, he is absolutely sincere. Contradictions which seem
glaring to us do not trouble him at all.

The thaumaturgic element in ancient Sūfism was not so important as it
afterwards became in the fully developed saint-worship associated with
the Dervish Orders. “A saint would be none the less a saint,” says
Qushayrī, “if no miracles were wrought by him in this world.” In early
Mohammedan _Vitæ Sanctorum_ it is not uncommon to meet with sayings to
the effect that miraculous powers are comparatively of small account.
It was finely said by Sahl ibn ʿAbdallah that the greatest miracle
is the substitution of a good quality for a bad one; and the _Kitāb
al-Lumaʿ_ gives many examples of holy men who disliked miracles and
regarded them as a temptation. “During my novitiate,” said Bāyazīd,
“God used to bring before me wonders and miracles, but I paid no
heed to them; and when He saw that I did so, He gave me the means of
attaining to knowledge of Himself.” Junayd observed that reliance on
miracles is one of the ‘veils’ which hinder the elect from penetrating
to the inmost shrine of the Truth. This was too high doctrine for the
great mass of Moslems, and in the end the vulgar idea of saintship
triumphed over the mystical and theosophical conception. All such
warnings and scruples were swept aside by the same irresistible
instinct which rendered vain the solemn asseverations of Mohammed that
there was nothing supernatural about him, and which transformed the
human Prophet of history into an omnipotent hierophant and magician.
The popular demand for miracles far exceeded the supply, but where the
_walīs_ failed, a vivid and credulous imagination came to their rescue
and represented them, not as they were, but as they ought to be. Year
by year the _Legend of the Saints_ grew more glorious and wonderful
as it continued to draw fresh tribute from the unfathomable ocean of
Oriental romance. The pretensions made by the _walīs_, or on their
behalf, steadily increased, and the stories told of them were ever
becoming more fantastic and extravagant. I will devote the remainder
of this chapter to a sketch of the _walī_ as he appears in the vast
medieval literature on the subject.

The Moslem saint does not say that he has wrought a miracle; he says,
“a miracle was granted or manifested to me.” According to one view,
he may be fully conscious at the time, but many Sūfīs hold that such
‘manifestation’ cannot take place except in ecstasy, when the saint is
entirely under divine control. His own personality is then in abeyance,
and those who interfere with him oppose the Almighty Power which
speaks with his lips and smites with his hand. Jalāluddīn (who uses
incidentally the rather double-edged analogy of a man possessed by a
peri[17]) relates the following anecdote concerning Bāyazīd of Bistām,
a celebrated Persian saint who several times declared in ecstatic
frenzy that he was no other than God.

[17] One of the spirits called collectively Jinn.

After coming to himself on one of these occasions and learning what
blasphemous language he had uttered, Bāyazīd ordered his disciples to
stab him with their knives if he should offend again. Let me quote the
sequel, from Mr. Whinfield’s abridged translation of the _Masnavī_ (p.
196):

    “The torrent of madness bore away his reason
    And he spoke more impiously than before:
    ‘Within my vesture is naught but God,
    Whether you seek Him on earth or in heaven.’
    His disciples all became mad with horror,
    And struck with their knives at his holy body.
    Each one who aimed at the body of the Sheykh--
    His stroke was reversed and wounded the striker.
    No stroke took effect on that man of spiritual gifts,
    But the disciples were wounded and drowned in blood.”

Here is the poet’s conclusion:

    “Ah! you who smite with your sword him beside himself,
    You smite yourself therewith. Beware!
    For he that is beside himself is annihilated and safe;
    Yea, he dwells in security for ever.
    His form is vanished, he is a mere mirror;
    Nothing is seen in him but the reflexion of another.
    If you spit at it, you spit at your own face,
    And if you hit that mirror, you hit yourself.
    If you see an ugly face in it, ’tis your own,
    And if you see a Jesus there, you are its mother Mary.
    He is neither this nor that--he is void of form;
    ’Tis your own form which is reflected back to you.”

The life of Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī, another Persian Sūfī who died in
1033 A.D., gives us a complete picture of the Oriental pantheist,
and exhibits the mingled arrogance and sublimity of the character as
clearly as could be desired. Since the original text covers fifty
pages, I can translate only a small portion of it here.

        “Once the Sheykh said, ‘This night a great many persons (he
    mentioned the exact number) have been wounded by brigands in
    such-and-such a desert.’ On making inquiry, they found that his
    statement was perfectly true. Strange to relate, on the same night
    his son’s head was cut off and laid upon the threshold of his
    house, yet he knew nothing of it. His wife, who disbelieved in him,
    cried, ‘What think you of a man who can tell things which happen
    many leagues away, but does not know that his own son’s head has
    been cut off and is lying at his very door?’ ‘Yes,’ the Sheykh
    answered, ‘when I saw that, the veil had been lifted, but when my
    son was killed, it had been let down again.’”

        “One day Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī clenched his fist and extended
    the little finger and said, ‘Here is the _qibla_,[18] if any one
    desires to become a Sūfī.’ These words were reported to the Grand
    Sheykh, who, deeming the co-existence of two _qiblas_ an insult to
    the divine Unity, exclaimed, ‘Since a second _qibla_ has appeared,
    I will cancel the former one.’ After that, no pilgrims were able to
    reach Mecca. Some perished on the way, others fell into the hands
    of robbers, or were prevented by various causes from accomplishing
    their journey. Next year a certain dervish said to the Grand
    Sheykh, ‘What sense is there in keeping the folk away from the
    House of God?’ Thereupon the Grand Sheykh made a sign, and the road
    became open once more. The dervish asked, ‘Whose fault is it that
    all these people have perished?’ The Grand Sheykh replied, ‘When
    elephants jostle each other, who cares if a few wretched birds are
    crushed to death?’”

[18] The _qibla_ is the point to which Moslems turn their faces when
praying, _i.e._ the Kaʿba.

        “Some persons who were setting forth on a journey begged
    Khurqānī to teach them a prayer that would keep them safe from the
    perils of the road. He said, ‘If any misfortune should befall you,
    mention my name.’ This answer was not agreeable to them; they set
    off, however, and while travelling were attacked by brigands. One
    of the party mentioned the saint’s name and immediately became
    invisible, to the great astonishment of the brigands, who could
    not find either his camel or his bales of merchandise; the others
    lost all their clothes and goods. On returning home, they asked the
    Sheykh to explain the mystery. ‘We all invoked God,’ they said,
    ‘and without success; but the one man who invoked you vanished from
    before the eyes of the robbers.’ ‘You invoke God formally,’ said
    the Sheykh, ‘whereas I invoke Him really. Hence, if you invoke me
    and I then invoke God on your behalf, your prayers are granted; but
    it is useless for you to invoke God formally and by rote.’”

        “One night, while he was praying, he heard a voice cry, ‘Ha!
    Abu ’l-Hasan! Dost thou wish Me to tell the people what I know of
    thee, that they may stone thee to death?’ ‘O Lord God,’ he replied,
    ‘dost Thou wish me to tell the people what I know of Thy mercy and
    what I perceive of Thy grace, that none of them may ever again bow
    to Thee in prayer?’ The voice answered, ‘Keep thy secret, and I
    will keep Mine.’”

        “He said, ‘O God, do not send to me the Angel of Death, for I
    will not give up my soul to him. How should I restore it to him,
    from whom I did not receive it? I received my soul from Thee, and I
    will not give it up to any one but Thee.’”

        “He said, ‘After I shall have passed away, the Angel of Death
    will come to one of my descendants and set about taking his soul,
    and will deal hardly with him. Then will I raise my hands from the
    tomb and shed the grace of God upon his lips.’”

        “He said, ‘If I bade the empyrean move, it would obey, and if
    I told the sun to stop, it would cease from rolling on its course.’”

        “He said, ‘I am not a devotee nor an ascetic nor a theologian
    nor a Sūfī. O God, Thou art One, and through Thy Oneness I am One.’”

        “He said, ‘The skull of my head is the empyrean, and my feet
    are under the earth, and my two hands are East and West.’”

        “He said, ‘If any one does not believe that I shall stand up at
    the Resurrection and that he shall not enter Paradise until I lead
    him forward, let him not come here to salute me.’”

        “He said, ‘Since God brought me forth from myself, Paradise
    is in quest of me and Hell is in fear of me; and if Paradise and
    Hell were to pass by this place where I am, both would become
    annihilated in me, together with all the people whom they contain.’”

        “He said, ‘I was lying on my back, asleep. From a corner of
    the Throne of God something trickled into my mouth, and I felt a
    sweetness in my inward being.’”

        “He said, ‘If a few drops of that which is under the skin of
    a saint should come forth between his lips, all the creatures of
    heaven and earth would fall into panic.’”

        “He said, ‘Through prayer the saints are able to stop the fish
    from swimming in the sea and to make the earth tremble, so that
    people think it is an earthquake.’”

        “He said, ‘If the love of God in the hearts of His friends were
    made manifest, it would fill the world with flood and fire.’”

        “He said, ‘He that lives with God hath seen all things visible,
    and heard all things audible, and done all that is to be done, and
    known all that is to be known.’”

        “He said, ‘All things are contained in me, but there is no room
    for myself in me.’”

        “He said, ‘Miracles are only the first of the thousand stages
    of the Way to God.’”

        “He said, ‘Do not seek until thou art sought, for when thou
    findest that which thou seekest, it will resemble thee.’”

        “He said, ‘Thou must daily die a thousand deaths and come to
    life again, that thou mayst win the life immortal.’”

        “He said, ‘When thou givest to God thy nothingness, He gives to
    thee His All.’”

It would be an almost endless task to enumerate and exemplify the
different classes of miracles which are related in the lives of the
Mohammedan saints--for instance, walking on water, flying in the air
(with or without a passenger), rain-making, appearing in various
places at the same time, healing by the breath, bringing the dead to
life, knowledge and prediction of future events, thought-reading,
telekinesis, paralysing or beheading an obnoxious person by a word or
gesture, conversing with animals or plants, turning earth into gold or
precious stones, producing food and drink, etc. To the Moslem, who has
no sense of natural law, all these ‘violations of custom,’ as he calls
them, seem equally credible. We, on the other hand, feel ourselves
obliged to distinguish phenomena which we regard as irrational and
impossible from those for which we can find some sort of ‘natural’
explanation. Modern theories of psychical influence, faith-healing,
telepathy, veridical hallucination, hypnotic suggestion and the like,
have thrown open to us a wide avenue of approach to this dark continent
in the Eastern mind. I will not, however, pursue the subject far at
present, full of interest as it is. In the higher Sūfī teaching the
miraculous powers of the saints play a more or less insignificant
part, and the excessive importance which they assume in the organised
mysticism of the Dervish Orders is one of the clearest marks of its
degeneracy.

The following passage, which I have slightly modified, gives a fair
summary of the hypnotic process through which a dervish attains to
union with God:

        “The disciple must, mystically, always bear his Murshid
    (spiritual director) in mind, and become mentally absorbed in
    him through a constant meditation and contemplation of him. The
    teacher must be his shield against all evil thoughts. The spirit
    of the teacher follows him in all his efforts, and accompanies him
    wherever he may be, quite as a guardian spirit. To such a degree is
    this carried that he sees the master in all men and in all things,
    just as a willing subject is under the influence of the magnetiser.
    This condition is called ‘self-annihilation’ in the Murshid or
    Sheykh. The latter finds, in his own visionary dreams, the degree
    which the disciple has reached, and whether or not his spirit has
    become bound to his own.

        “At this stage the Sheykh passes him over to the spiritual
    influence of the long-deceased Pīr or original founder of the
    Order, and he sees the latter only by the spiritual aid of the
    Sheykh. This is called ‘self-annihilation’ in the Pīr. He now
    becomes so much a part of the Pīr as to possess all his spiritual
    powers.

        “The third grade leads him, also through the spiritual aid of
    the Sheykh, up to the Prophet himself, whom he now sees in all
    things. This state is called ‘self-annihilation’ in the Prophet.

        “The fourth degree leads him even to God. He becomes united
    with the Deity and sees Him in all things.”[19]

[19] J. P. Brown, _The Dervishes, or Oriental Spiritualism_ (1868), p.
298.

An excellent concrete illustration of the process here described will
be found in the well-known case of Tawakkul Beg, who passed through all
these experiences under the control of Mollā-Shāh. His account is too
long to quote in full; moreover, it has recently been translated by
Professor D. B. Macdonald in his _Religious Life and Attitude in Islam_
(pp. 197 ff.). I copy from this version one paragraph describing the
first of the four stages mentioned above.

        “Thereupon he made me sit before him, my senses being as
    though intoxicated, and ordered me to reproduce my own image
    within myself; and, after having bandaged my eyes, he asked me to
    concentrate all my mental faculties on my heart. I obeyed, and in
    an instant, by the divine favour and by the spiritual assistance of
    the Sheykh, my heart opened. I saw, then, that there was something
    like an overturned cup within me. This having been set upright, a
    sensation of unbounded happiness filled my being. I said to the
    master, ‘This cell where I am seated before you--I see a faithful
    reproduction of it within me, and it appears to me as though
    another Tawakkul Beg were seated before another Mollā-Shāh.’ He
    replied, ‘Very good! the first apparition which appears to thee is
    the image of the master.’ He then ordered me to uncover my eyes;
    and I saw him, with the physical organ of vision, seated before me.
    He then made me bind my eyes again, and I perceived him with my
    spiritual sight, seated similarly before me. Full of astonishment,
    I cried out, ‘O Master! whether I look with my physical organs or
    with my spiritual sight, always it is you that I see!’”

Here is a case of autohypnotism, witnessed and recorded by the poet
Jāmī:

        “Mawlānā Saʿduddīn of Kāshghar, after a little concentration of
    thought (_tawajjuh_), used to exhibit signs of unconsciousness. Any
    one ignorant of this circumstance would have fancied that he was
    falling asleep. When I first entered into companionship with him,
    I happened one day to be seated before him in the congregational
    mosque. According to his custom, he fell into a trance. I supposed
    that he was going to sleep, and I said to him, ‘If you desire to
    rest for a short time, you will not seem to me to be far off.’
    He smiled and said, ‘Apparently you do not believe that this is
    something different from sleep.’”

The following anecdote presents greater difficulties:

        “Mawlānā Nizāmuddīn Khāmūsh relates that one day his master,
    ʿAlāʾuddīn ʿAttār, started to visit the tomb of the celebrated
    saint Mohammed ibn ʿAlī Hakīm, at Tirmidh. ‘I did not accompany
    him,’ said Nizāmuddīn, ‘but stayed at home, and by concentrating
    my mind (_tawajjuh_) I succeeded in bringing the spirituality of
    the saint before me, so that when the master arrived at the tomb
    he found it empty. He must have known the cause, for on his return
    he set to work in order to bring me under his control. I, too,
    concentrated my mind, but I found myself like a dove and the master
    like a hawk flying in chase of me. Wherever I turned, he was always
    close behind. At last, despairing of escape, I took refuge with the
    spirituality of the Prophet (on whom be peace) and became effaced
    in its infinite radiance. The master could not exercise any further
    control. He fell ill in consequence of his chagrin, and no one
    except myself knew the reason.’”

ʿAlāʾuddīn’s son, Khwāja Hasan ʿAttār, possessed such powers of
‘control’ that he could at will throw any one into the state of
trance and cause them to experience the ‘passing-away’ (_fanā_) to
which some mystics attain only on rare occasions and after prolonged
self-mortification. It is related that the disciples and visitors who
were admitted to the honour of kissing his hand always fell unconscious
to the ground.

Certain saints are believed to have the power of assuming whatever
shape they please. One of the most famous was Abū ʿAbdallah of Mosul,
better known by the name of Qadīb al-Bān. One day the Cadi of Mosul,
who regarded him as a detestable heretic, saw him in a street of the
town, approaching from the opposite direction. He resolved to seize
him and lay a charge against him before the governor, in order that
he might be punished. All at once he perceived that Qadīb al-Bān had
taken the form of a Kurd; and as the saint advanced towards him,
his appearance changed again, this time into an Arab of the desert.
Finally, on coming still nearer, he assumed the guise and dress of
a doctor of theology, and cried, “O Cadi! which Qadīb al-Bān will
you hale before the governor and punish?” The Cadi repented of his
hostility and became one of the saint’s disciples.

In conclusion, let me give two alleged instances of ‘the obedience of
inanimate objects,’ _i.e._ telekinesis:

        “Whilst Dhu ’l-Nūn was conversing on this topic with some
    friends, he said, ‘Here is a sofa. It will move round the room, if
    I tell it to do so.’ No sooner had he uttered the word ‘move’ than
    the sofa made a circuit of the room and returned to its place. One
    of the spectators, a young man, burst into tears and gave up the
    ghost. They laid him on that sofa and washed him for burial.”

        “Avicenna paid a visit to Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī and immediately
    plunged into a long and abstruse discussion. After a time the
    saint, who was an illiterate person, felt tired, so he got up and
    said, ‘Excuse me; I must go and mend the garden wall’; and off he
    went, taking a hatchet with him. As soon as he had climbed on to
    the top of the wall, the hatchet dropped from his hand. Avicenna
    ran to pick it up, but before he reached it the hatchet rose of
    itself and came back into the saint’s hand. Avicenna lost all his
    self-command, and the enthusiastic belief in Sūfism which then took
    possession of him continued until, at a later period of his life,
    he abandoned mysticism for philosophy.”


I am well aware that in this chapter scanty justice has been done to
a great subject. The historian of Sūfism must acknowledge, however
deeply he may deplore, the fundamental position occupied by the
doctrine of saintship and the tremendous influence which it has exerted
in its practical results--grovelling submission to the authority of
an ecstatic class of men, dependence on their favour, pilgrimage to
their shrines, adoration of their relics, devotion of every mental and
spiritual faculty to their service. It may be dangerous to worship God
by one’s own inner light, but it is far more deadly to seek Him by the
inner light of another. Vicarious holiness has no compensations. This
truth is expressed by the mystical writers in many an eloquent passage,
but I will content myself with quoting a few lines from the life of
ʿAlāʾuddīn ʿAttār, the same saint who, as we have seen, vainly tried
to hypnotise his pupil in revenge for a disrespectful trick which the
latter had played on him. His biographer relates that he said, “It is
more right and worthy to dwell beside God than to dwell beside God’s
creatures,” and that the following verse was often on his blessed
tongue:

    “How long will you worship at the tombs of holy men?
    Busy yourself with the _works_ of holy men, and you are saved!”

        (“_tu tā kay gūr-i mardān-rā parastī_
        _bi-gird-i kār-i mardān gard u rastī._”)




  CHAPTER VI

  THE UNITIVE STATE

    “The story admits of being told up to this point,
    But what follows is hidden, and inexpressible in words.
    If you should speak and try a hundred ways to express it,
    ’Tis useless; the mystery becomes no clearer.
    You can ride on saddle and horse to the sea-coast,
    But then you must use a horse of wood (_i.e._ a boat).
    A horse of wood is useless on dry land,
    It is the special vehicle of voyagers by sea.
    Silence is this horse of wood,
    Silence is the guide and support of men at sea.”[20]

[20] The _Masnavī_ of Jalāluddīn Rūmī. Abridged translation by E. H.
Whinfield, p. 326.


No one can approach the subject of this chapter--the state of the
mystic who has reached his journey’s end--without feeling that all
symbolical descriptions of union with God and theories concerning its
nature are little better than leaps in the dark. How shall we form any
conception of that which is declared to be ineffable by those who have
actually experienced it? I can only reply that the same difficulty
confronts us in dealing with all mystical phenomena, though it appears
less formidable at lower levels, and that the poet’s counsel of silence
has not prevented him from interpreting the deepest mysteries of Sūfism
with unrivalled insight and power.

Whatever terms may be used to describe it, the unitive state is the
culmination of the simplifying process by which the soul is gradually
isolated from all that is foreign to itself, from all that is not God.
Unlike Nirvāṇa, which is merely the cessation of individuality, _fanā_,
the passing-away of the Sūfī from his phenomenal existence, involves
_baqā_, the continuance of his real existence. He who dies to self
lives in God, and _fanā_, the consummation of this death, marks the
attainment of _baqā_, or union with the divine life. Deification, in
short, is the Moslem mystic’s _ultima Thule_.

In the early part of the tenth century Husayn ibn Mansūr, known to
fame as al-Hallāj (the wool-carder), was barbarously done to death
at Baghdād. His execution seems to have been dictated by political
motives, but with these we are not concerned. Amongst the crowd
assembled round the scaffold, a few, perhaps, believed him to be what
he said he was; the rest witnessed with exultation or stern approval
the punishment of a blasphemous heretic. He had uttered in two words
a sentence which Islam has, on the whole, forgiven but has never
forgotten: “_Ana ’l-Haqq_”--“I am God.”

The recently published researches of M. Louis Massignon[21] make it
possible, for the first time, to indicate the meaning which Hallāj
himself attached to this celebrated formula, and to assert definitely
that it does not agree with the more orthodox interpretations offered
at a later epoch by Sūfīs belonging to various schools. According to
Hallāj, man is essentially divine. God created Adam in His own image.
He projected from Himself that image of His eternal love, that He might
behold Himself as in a mirror. Hence He bade the angels worship Adam
(Kor. =2.= 32), in whom, as in Jesus, He became incarnate.

[21] _Kitāb al-Tawāsīn_ (Paris, 1913). See especially pp. 129-141.

    “Glory to Him who revealed in His humanity (_i.e._ in Adam)
        the secret of His radiant divinity,
    And then appeared to His creatures visibly in the shape of one
        who ate and drank (Jesus).”

Since the ‘humanity’ (_nāsūt_) of God comprises the whole bodily and
spiritual nature of man, the ‘divinity’ (_lāhūt_) of God cannot unite
with that nature except by means of an incarnation or, to adopt the
term employed by Massignon, an infusion (_hulūl_) of the divine Spirit,
such as takes place when the human spirit enters the body.[22] Thus
Hallāj says in one of his poems:

    “Thy Spirit is mingled in my spirit even as wine is mingled with
        pure water.
    When anything touches Thee, it touches me. Lo, in every case
        Thou art I!”

And again:

    “I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I:
    We are two spirits dwelling in one body.
    If thou seest me, thou seest Him,
    And if thou seest Him, thou seest us both.”

[22] Massignon appears to be right in identifying the Divine Spirit
with the Active Reason (_intellectus agens_), which, according to
Alexander of Aphrodisias, is not a part or faculty of our soul, but
comes to us from without. See Inge, _Christian Mysticism_, pp. 360,
361. The doctrine of Hallāj may be compared with that of Tauler,
Ruysbroeck, and others concerning the birth of God in the soul.

This doctrine of personal deification, in the peculiar form which was
impressed upon it by Hallāj, is obviously akin to the central doctrine
of Christianity, and therefore, from the Moslem standpoint, a heresy of
the worst kind. It survived unadulterated only amongst his immediate
followers. The Hulūlīs, _i.e._ those who believe in incarnation, are
repudiated by Sūfīs in general quite as vehemently as by orthodox
Moslems. But while the former have unhesitatingly condemned the
doctrine of _hulūl_, they have also done their best to clear Hallāj
from the suspicion of having taught it. Three main lines of defence are
followed: (1) Hallāj did not sin against the Truth, but he was justly
punished in so far as he committed a grave offence against the Law. He
“betrayed the secret of his Lord” by proclaiming to all and sundry the
supreme mystery which ought to be reserved for the elect. (2) Hallāj
spoke under the intoxicating influence of ecstasy. He imagined himself
to be united with the divine essence, when in fact he was only united
with one of the divine attributes. (3) Hallāj meant to declare that
there is no essential difference or separation between God and His
creatures, inasmuch as the divine unity includes all being. A man who
has entirely passed away from his phenomenal self exists _quâ_ his real
self, which is God.

    “In that glory is no ‘I’ or ‘We’ or ‘Thou.’
    ‘I,’ ‘We,’ ‘Thou,’ and ‘He’ are all one thing.”

It was not Hallāj who cried “_Ana ’l-Haqq_,” but God Himself, speaking,
as it were, by the mouth of the selfless Hallāj, just as He spoke to
Moses through the medium of the burning bush (Kor. =20.= 8-14).

The last explanation, which converts _Ana ’l-Haqq_ into an impersonal
monistic axiom, is accepted by most Sūfīs as representing the true
Hallājian teaching. In a magnificent ode Jalāluddīn Rūmī describes how
the One Light shines in myriad forms through the whole universe, and
how the One Essence, remaining ever the same, clothes itself from age
to age in the prophets and saints who are its witnesses to mankind.

    “Every moment the robber Beauty rises in a different shape,
        ravishes the soul, and disappears.
    Every instant that Loved One assumes a new garment, now of eld,
        now of youth.
    Now He plunged into the heart of the substance of the potter’s
        clay--the Spirit plunged, like a diver.
    Anon He rose from the depths of mud that is moulded and baked,
        then He appeared in the world.
    He became Noah, and at His prayer the world was flooded while He
        went into the Ark.
    He became Abraham and appeared in the midst of the fire, which
        turned to roses for His sake.
    For a while He was roaming on the earth to pleasure Himself,
    Then He became Jesus and ascended to the dome of Heaven and began
        to glorify God.
    In brief, it was He that was coming and going in every generation
        thou hast seen,
    Until at last He appeared in the form of an Arab and gained the
        empire of the world.
    What is it that is transferred? What is transmigration in reality?
        The lovely winner of hearts
    Became a sword and appeared in the hand of ʿAlī and became the
        Slayer of the time.
    No! no! for ’twas even He that was crying in human shape,
        ‘_Ana ’l-Haqq_.’
    That one who mounted the scaffold was not Mansūr,[23] though the
        foolish imagined it.
    Rūmī hath not spoken and will not speak words of infidelity:
        do not disbelieve him!
    Whosoever shows disbelief is an infidel and one of those who
        have been doomed to Hell.”

[23] Hallāj is often called Mansūr, which is properly the name of his
father.

Although in Western and Central Asia--where the Persian kings were
regarded by their subjects as gods, and where the doctrines of
incarnation, anthropomorphism, and metempsychosis are indigenous--the
idea of the God-man was neither so unfamiliar nor unnatural as to
shock the public conscience very profoundly, Hallāj had formulated
that idea in such a way that no mysticism calling itself Mohammedan
could tolerate, much less adopt it. To assert that the divine and human
natures may be interfused and commingled,[24] would have been to deny
the principle of unity on which Islam is based. The subsequent history
of Sūfism shows how deification was identified with unification. The
antithesis--God, Man--melted away in the pantheistic theory which has
been explained above.[25] There is no real existence apart from God.
Man is an emanation or a reflexion or a mode of Absolute Being. What
he thinks of as individuality is in truth not-being; it cannot be
separated or united, for it does not exist. Man _is_ God, yet with
a difference. According to Ibn al-ʿArabī,[26] the eternal and the
phenomenal are two complementary aspects of the One, each of which is
necessary to the other. The creatures are the external manifestation
of the Creator, and Man is God’s consciousness (_sirr_) as revealed in
creation. But since Man, owing to the limitations of his mind, cannot
think all objects of thought simultaneously, and therefore expresses
only a part of the divine consciousness, he is not entitled to say
_Ana ’l-Haqq_, “I am God.” He is _a_ reality, but not _the_ Reality.
We shall see that other Sūfīs--Jalāluddīn Rūmī, for example--in their
ecstatic moments, at any rate, ignore this rather subtle distinction.

[24] _Hulūl_ was not understood in this sense by Hallāj (Massignon,
_op. cit._, p. 199), though the verses quoted on p. 151 readily suggest
such an interpretation. Hallāj, I think, would have agreed with Eckhart
(who said, “The word _I am_ none can truly speak but God alone”) that
the personality in which the Eternal is immanent has itself a part in
eternity (Inge, _Christian Mysticism_, p. 149, note).

[25] See pp. 79 ff.

[26] Massignon, _op. cit._, p. 183.

The statement that in realising the nonentity of his individual
self the Sūfī realises his essential oneness with God, sums up the
Mohammedan theory of deification in terms with which my readers are
now familiar. I will endeavour to show what more precise meaning may
be assigned to it, partly in my own words and partly by means of
illustrative extracts from various authors.

Several aspects of _fanā_ have already been distinguished.[27]
The highest of these--the passing-away in the divine essence--is
fully described by Niffarī, who employs instead of fanā and fānī
(self-naughted) the terms _waqfat_, signifying cessation from search,
and _wāqif_, _i.e._ one who desists from seeking and passes away in the
Object Sought. Here are some of the chief points that occur in the text
and commentary.

[27] See pp. 60, 61.

_Waqfat_ is luminous: it expels the dark thoughts of ‘otherness,’ just
as light banishes darkness; it changes the phenomenal values of all
existent things into their real and eternal values.

Hence the _wāqif_ transcends time and place. “He enters every house and
it contains him not; he drinks from every well but is not satisfied;
then he reaches Me, and I am his home, and his abode is with Me”--that
is to say, he comprehends all the divine attributes and embraces all
mystical experiences. He is not satisfied with the names (attributes),
but seeks the Named. He contemplates the essence of God and finds it
identical with his own. He does not pray. Prayer is from man to God,
but in _waqfat_ there is nothing but God.

The _wāqif_ leaves not a rack behind him, nor any heir except God. When
even the phenomenon of _waqfat_ has disappeared from his consciousness,
he becomes the very Light. Then his praise of God proceeds from God,
and his knowledge is God’s knowledge, who beholds Himself alone as He
was in the beginning.

We need not expect to discover how this essentialisation,
substitution, or transmutation is effected. It is the grand paradox of
Sūfism--the _Magnum Opus_ wrought somehow _in_ created man by a Being
whose nature is eternally devoid of the least taint of creatureliness.
As I have remarked above, the change, however it may be conceived, does
not involve infusion of the divine essence (_hulūl_) or identification
of the divine and human natures (_ittihād_). Both these doctrines are
generally condemned. Abū Nasr al-Sarrāj criticises them in two passages
of his _Kitāb al-Lumaʿ_, as follows:

        “Some mystics of Baghdād have erred in their doctrine that
    when they pass away from their qualities they enter into the
    qualities of God. This leads to incarnation (_hulūl_) or to the
    Christian belief concerning Jesus. The doctrine in question has
    been attributed to some of the ancients, but its true meaning is
    this, that when a man goes forth from his own qualities and enters
    into the qualities of God, he goes forth from his own will and
    enters into the will of God, knowing that his will is given to him
    by God and that by virtue of this gift he is severed from regarding
    himself, so that he becomes entirely devoted to God; and this is
    one of the stages of Unitarians. Those who have erred in this
    doctrine have failed to observe that the qualities of God are not
    God. To make God identical with His qualities is to be guilty of
    infidelity, because God does not descend into the heart, but that
    which descends into the heart is faith in God and belief in His
    unity and reverence for the thought of Him.”

In the second passage he makes use of a similar argument in order to
refute the doctrine of _ittihād_.

        “Some have abstained from food and drink, fancying that
    when a man’s body is weakened it is possible that he may lose
    his humanity and be invested with the attributes of divinity.
    The ignorant persons who hold this erroneous doctrine cannot
    distinguish between humanity and the inborn qualities of humanity.
    Humanity does not depart from man any more than blackness departs
    from that which is black or whiteness from that which is white,
    but the inborn qualities of humanity are changed and transmuted
    by the all-powerful radiance that is shed upon them from the
    divine Realities. The attributes of humanity are not the essence
    of humanity. Those who inculcate the doctrine of _fanā_ mean the
    passing-away of regarding one’s own actions and works of devotion
    through the continuance of regarding God as the doer of these
    actions on behalf of His servant.”

Hujwīrī characterises as absurd the belief that passing-away (_fanā_)
signifies loss of essence and destruction of corporeal substance, and
that ‘abiding’ (_baqā_) indicates the indwelling of God in man. Real
passing-away from anything, he says, implies consciousness of its
imperfection and absence of desire for it. Whoever passes away from his
own perishable will abides in the everlasting will of God, but human
attributes cannot become divine attributes or _vice versa_.

        “The power of fire transforms to its own quality anything that
    falls into it, and surely the power of God’s will is greater than
    that of fire; yet fire affects only the quality of iron without
    changing its substance, for iron can never become fire.”

In another part of his work Hujwīrī defines ‘union’ (_jamʿ_) as
concentration of thought upon the desired object. Thus Majnūn, the
Orlando Furioso of Islam, concentrated his thoughts on Laylā, so that
he saw only her in the whole world, and all created things assumed the
form of Laylā in his eyes. Some one came to the cell of Bāyazīd and
asked, “Is Bāyazīd here?” He answered, “Is any one here but God?” The
principle in all such cases, Hujwīrī adds, is the same, namely:

        “That God divides the one substance of His love and bestows a
    particle thereof, as a peculiar gift, upon every one of His friends
    in proportion to their enravishment with Him; then he lets down
    upon that particle the shrouds of fleshliness and human nature
    and temperament and spirit, in order that by its powerful working
    it may transmute to its own quality all the particles that are
    attached to it, until the lover’s clay is wholly converted into
    love and all his acts and looks become so many properties of love.
    This state is named ‘union’ alike by those who regard the inward
    sense and the outward expression.”

Then he quotes these verses of Hallāj:

    “Thy will be done, O my Lord and Master!
    Thy will be done, O my purpose and meaning!
    O essence of my being, O goal of my desire,
    O my speech and my hints and my gestures!
    O all of my all, O my hearing and my sight,
    O my whole and my element and my particles!”

The enraptured Sūfī who has passed beyond the illusion of subject
and object and broken through to the Oneness can either deny that he
is anything or affirm that he is all things. As an example of ‘the
negative way,’ take the opening lines of an ode by Jalāluddīn which I
have rendered into verse, imitating the metrical form of the Persian as
closely as the genius of our language will permit:

    “Lo, for I to myself am unknown, now in God’s name what must I do?
    I adore not the Cross nor the Crescent, I am not a Giaour nor a Jew.
    East nor West, land nor sea is my home, I have kin nor with angel
        nor gnome,
    I am wrought not of fire nor of foam, I am shaped not of dust
        nor of dew.
    I was born not in China afar, not in Saqsīn and not in Bulghār;
    Not in India, where five rivers are, nor ʿIrāq nor Khorāsān I grew.
    Not in this world nor that world I dwell, not in Paradise, neither
        in Hell;
    Not from Eden and Rizwān I fell, not from Adam my lineage I drew.
    In a place beyond uttermost Place, in a tract without shadow
        of trace,
    Soul and body transcending I live in the soul of my Loved One anew!”

The following poem, also by Jalāluddīn, expresses the positive aspect
of the cosmic consciousness:

    “If there be any lover in the world, O Moslems, ’tis I.
    If there be any believer, infidel, or Christian hermit, ’tis I.
    The wine-dregs, the cupbearer, the minstrel, the harp, and
        the music,
    The beloved, the candle, the drink and the joy of the
        drunken--’tis I.
    The two-and-seventy creeds and sects in the world
    Do not really exist: I swear by God that every creed and
        sect--’tis I.
    Earth and air and water and fire--knowest thou what they are?
    Earth and air and water and fire, nay, body and soul too--’tis I.
    Truth and falsehood, good and evil, ease and difficulty from first
        to last,
    Knowledge and learning and asceticism and piety and faith--’tis I.
    The fire of Hell, be assured, with its flaming limbos,
    Yes, and Paradise and Eden and the Houris--’tis I.
    This earth and heaven with all that they hold,
    Angels, Peris, Genies, and Mankind--’tis I.”

What Jalāluddīn utters in a moment of ecstatic vision Henry More
describes as a past experience:

        “How lovely” (he says), “how magnificent a state is the soul
    of man in, when the life of God inactuating her shoots her along
    with Himself through heaven and earth; makes her unite with, and
    after a sort feel herself animate, the whole world. He that is here
    looks upon all things as One, and on himself, if he can then mind
    himself, as a part of the Whole.”

For some Sūfīs, absorption in the ecstasy of _fanā_ is the end of their
pilgrimage. Thenceforth no relation exists between them and the world.
Nothing of themselves is left in them; as individuals, they are dead.
Immersed in Unity, they know neither law nor religion nor any form
of phenomenal being. But those God-intoxicated devotees who never
return to sobriety have fallen short of the highest perfection. The
full circle of deification must comprehend both the inward and outward
aspects of Deity--the One and the Many, the Truth and the Law. It is
not enough to escape from all that is creaturely, without entering into
the eternal life of God the Creator as manifested in His works. To
abide in God (_baqā_) after having passed-away from selfhood (_fanā_)
is the mark of the Perfect Man, who not only journeys _to_ God, _i.e._
passes from plurality to unity, but _in_ and _with_ God, _i.e._
continuing in the unitive state, he returns with God to the phenomenal
world from which he set out, and manifests unity in plurality. In this
descent

    “He makes the Law his upper garment
    And the mystic Path his inner garment,”

for he brings down and displays the Truth to mankind while fulfilling
the duties of the religious law. Of him it may be said, in the words of
a great Christian mystic:

        “He goes _towards_ God by inward love, in eternal work, and he
    goes _in_ God by his fruitive inclination, in eternal rest. And
    he dwells in God; and yet he goes out towards created things in a
    spirit of love towards all things, in the virtues and in works of
    righteousness. And this is the most exalted summit of the inner
    life.”[28]

[28] Ruysbroeck, quoted in E. Underhill’s _Introduction to Mysticism_,
p. 522.

ʿAfīfuddīn Tilimsānī, in his commentary on Niffarī, describes four
mystical journeys:

The _first_ begins with gnosis and ends with complete passing-away
(_fanā_).

The _second_ begins at the moment when passing-away is succeeded by
‘abiding’ (_baqā_).

He who has attained to this station journeys in the Real, by the Real,
to the Real, and he then is a reality (_haqq_).[29] Thus travelling
onward, he arrives at the station of the _Qutb_,[30] which is the
station of Perfect Manhood. He becomes the centre of the spiritual
universe, so that every point and limit reached by individual human
beings is equally distant from his station, whether they be near or
far; since all stations revolve round his, and in relation to the
_Qutb_ there is no difference between nearness and farness. To one who
has gained this supreme position, knowledge and gnosis and passing-away
are as rivers of his ocean, whereby he replenishes whomsoever he will.
He has the right to guide others to God, and seeks permission to do so
from none but himself. Before the gate of Apostleship was closed,[31]
he would have deserved the title of Apostle, but in our day his due
title is Director of Souls, and he is a blessing to those who invoke
his aid, because he comprehends the innate capacities of all mankind
and, like a camel-driver, speeds every one to his home.

[29] See p. 155 above.

[30] See p. 123.

[31] _I.e._ before the time of Mohammed, who is the Seal of the
Prophets.

In the _third_ journey this Perfect Man turns his attention to God’s
creatures, either as an Apostle or as a Spiritual Director (Sheykh),
and reveals himself to those who would fain be released from their
faculties, to each according to his degree: to the adherent of positive
religion as a theologian; to the contemplative, who has not yet enjoyed
full contemplation, as a gnostic; to the gnostic as one who has
entirely passed-away from individuality (_wāqif_); to the _wāqif_ as a
_Qutb_. He is the horizon of every mystical station and transcends the
furthest range of experience known to each grade of seekers.

The _fourth_ journey is usually associated with physical death. The
Prophet was referring to it when he cried on his deathbed, “I choose
the highest companions.” In this journey, to judge from the obscure
verses in which ʿAfīfuddīn describes it, the Perfect Man, having been
invested with all the divine attributes, becomes, so to speak, the
mirror which displays God to Himself.

    “When my Beloved appears,
    With what eye do I see Him?
    With His eye, not with mine,
    For none sees Him except Himself.”
                             (Ibn al-ʿArabī.)

The light in the soul, the eye by which it sees, and the object of its
vision, all are One.


We have followed the Sūfī in his quest of Reality to a point where
language fails. His progress will seldom be so smooth and unbroken as
it appears in these pages. The proverbial headache after intoxication
supplies a parallel to the periods of intense aridity and acute
suffering that sometimes fill the interval between lower and higher
states of ecstasy. Descriptions of this experience--the Dark Night of
the Soul, as it is called by Christian authors--may be found in almost
any biography of Mohammedan saints. Thus Jāmī relates in his _Nafahāt
al-Uns_ that a certain dervish, a disciple of the famous Shihābuddīn
Suhrawardī,

        “Was endowed with a great ecstasy in the contemplation of Unity
    and in the station of passing-away (_fanā_). One day he began to
    weep and lament. On being asked by the Sheykh Shihābuddīn what
    ailed him, he answered, ‘Lo, I am debarred by plurality from the
    vision of Unity. I am rejected, and my former state--I cannot find
    it!’ The Sheykh remarked that this was the prelude to the station
    of ‘abiding’ (_baqā_), and that his present state was higher and
    more sublime than the one which he was in before.”

Does personality survive in the ultimate union with God? If personality
means a conscious existence distinct, though not separate, from God,
the majority of advanced Moslem mystics say “No!” As the rain-drop
absorbed in the ocean is not annihilated but ceases to exist
individually, so the disembodied soul becomes indistinguishable from
the universal Deity. It is true that when Sūfī writers translate
mystical union into terms of love and marriage, they do not, indeed
they cannot, expunge the notion of personality, but such metaphorical
phrases are not necessarily inconsistent with a pantheism which
excludes all difference. To be united, here and now, with the
World-Soul is the utmost imaginable bliss for souls that love each
other on earth.

    “Happy the moment when we are seated in the Palace, thou and I,
    With two forms and with two figures but with one soul, thou and I.
    The colours of the grove and the voice of the birds will bestow
        immortality
    At the time when we come into the garden, thou and I.
    The stars of heaven will come to gaze upon us;
    We shall show them the Moon itself, thou and I.
    Thou and I, individuals no more, shall be mingled in ecstasy,
    Joyful and secure from foolish babble, thou and I.
    All the bright-plumed birds of heaven will devour their hearts
        with envy
    In the place where we shall laugh in such a fashion, thou and I.
    This is the greatest wonder, that thou and I, sitting here in the
        same nook,
    Are at this moment both in ʿIrāq and Khorāsān, thou and I.”
                                     (Jalāluddīn Rūmī.)

Strange as it may seem to our Western egoism, the prospect of sharing
in the general, impersonal immortality of the human soul kindles in the
Sūfī an enthusiasm as deep and triumphant as that of the most ardent
believer in a personal life continuing beyond the grave. Jalāluddīn,
after describing the evolution of man in the material world and
anticipating his further growth in the spiritual universe, utters a
heartfelt prayer--for what?--for self-annihilation in the ocean of the
Godhead.

    “I died as mineral and became a plant,
    I died as plant and rose to animal,
    I died as animal and I was man.
    Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
    Yet once more I shall die as man, to soar
    With angels blest; but even from angelhood
    I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
    When I have sacrificed my angel soul,
    I shall become what no mind e’er conceived.
    Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
    Proclaims in organ tones, ‘To Him we shall return.’”




  BIBLIOGRAPHY


  _A._ GENERAL

Tholuck, F. A. G., _Ssufismus sive Theosophia Persarum pantheistica_
    (Berlin, 1821).

      In Latin. Out of date in some respects, but still worth reading.

Palmer, E. H., _Oriental Mysticism_ (Cambridge, 1867).

      A treatise on Persian theosophy, based on a work by Nasafī.

Von Kremer, A., _Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams_
    (Leipzig, 1868), pp. 52-121.

      A brilliant sketch of the origin and development of Sūfism.

Goldziher, I., _Vorlesungen über den Islam_ (Heidelberg, 1910), pp.
    139-200.

      An account of Sūfī asceticism and mysticism by the greatest
    living authority on Islam.

Goldziher, I., _Muhammedanische Studien_ (Halle, 1888-90), Part ii.,
    pp. 277-378.

      Gives full details concerning the worship of Moslem saints.

Macdonald, D. B., _The Religious Life and Attitude in Islam_ (Chicago,
    1909).

      A valuable introduction to the study of the moderate type of
    Sūfism represented by Ghazālī. The chapters on psychology are
    particularly helpful.

Iqbal, Shaikh Muhammad, _The Development of Metaphysics in Persia_
    (London, 1908), pp. 96 ff.

Gibb, E. J. W., _History of Turkish Poetry_ (London, 1900-1909), vol.
    i. pp. 15-69.

      Outlines of Persian philosophic mysticism.

Browne, E. G., _Literary History of Persia_ (London, 1902), vol. i. pp.
    416-444.

Brown, J. P., _The Dervishes, or Oriental Spiritualism_ (London, 1868).

      Unscientific, but contains much interesting material.

Depont, O., and Coppolani, X., _Les Confréries religieuses musulmanes_
    (Algiers, 1897).

      A standard work on the Dervish Orders.


  _B._ TRANSLATIONS

Hujwīrī, _Kashf al-Mahjūb_, translated by R. A. Nicholson (London,
    1911).

      The oldest Persian treatise on Sūfism.

ʿAttār, _Le Manticu ’ttair ou le Langage des Oiseaux_, translated, with
    an essay on the philosophical and religious poetry of Persia, by
    Garcin de Tassy (Paris, 1864).

Jalāluddīn Rūmī, _Masnavī_, abridged translation by E. H. Whinfield,
    2nd ed. (London, 1898).

  _Masnavī_, Book i., translated by Sir James Redhouse (London, 1881).

  _Masnavī_, Book ii., translated with commentary by C. E. Wilson
    (London, 1910).

  _Selected Odes from the Dīvāni Shamsi Tabrīz_, Persian text with
    English translation, introduction, and notes by R. A. Nicholson
    (Cambridge, 1898).

Mahmūd Shabistarī, _Gulshani Rāz_, Persian text with English
    translation, introduction, and notes by E. H. Whinfield (London,
    1880).

      A versified exposition of the chief Sūfī doctrines. It should be
    read by every one who is seriously interested in the subject.

Jāmī, _Lawāʾih_, Persian text with translation by E. H. Whinfield and
    Mīrzā Muhammad Kazvīnī (London, 1906).

      A prose treatise on Sūfī theosophy.

  _Yūsuf and Zulaikha_, translated into verse by R. T. H. Griffith
    (London, 1882).

      One of the most famous mystical love-romances in Persian
    literature.

Ibn al-ʿArabī, _Tarjumān al-Ashwāq_, a collection of mystical odes.
    Arabic text with translation and commentary by R. A. Nicholson
    (London, 1911).




  INDEX

(Titles of books, as well as Arabic and Persian technical terms, are
printed in italics.)


  _Abdāl_, 124.

  ʿAbdallah Ansārī, 89.

  ʿAbd al-Rahīm ibn al-Sabbāgh, 89.

  Abraham, 153.

  _Abrār_, 124.

  Absāl, 116.

  Abū ʿAbdallah of Mosul, 144.

  Abū ʿAbdallah al-Rāzī, 51.

  Abū ʿAlī of Sind, 17.

  Abū Hamza, 62.

  Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī, 87, 133 ff., 145.

  Abu ’l-Khayr al-Aqtaʿ, 61.

  Abū Nasr al-Sarrāj, 157.

  Abū Saʿīd ibn Abi ’l-Khayr, 49, 90, 118.

  Adam, 64, 150, 161.

  ʿAfīfuddīn al-Tilimsānī, 93, 164, 165. _See_ Niffarī.

  _Ahl al-Haqq_, 1.

  Ahmad ibn al-Hawārī, 11.

  _ahwāl_, 29.

  _Akhyār_, 124.

  ʿAlāʾuddīn Attār, 143, 144, 146.

  Alexander of Aphrodisias, 151.

  _Al-Haqq._ See _Haqq_.

  ʿAlī, the Caliph, 50, 89, 153.

  _Ana ’l-Haqq_, 150 ff.

  _Arabian Nights_, the, 63.

  ʿArafāt, 91.

  _ʿārif_, 29.

  Aristotle, 12.

  Asceticism, 4, 5, 6, 10, 28 ff., 109.

  Ashʿarites, the, 6.

  ʿAttār, Farīduddīn, 106.

  Audition, 63 ff. See _samāʿ_.

  Augustine, St., 118.

  Avicenna, 145, 146.

  _awliyā_, 122.

  _Awtād_, 124.


  Bābā Kūhī, 58.

  Bābism, 89.

  Bactria, 16, 18.

  Baghdād, 149, 157.

  Balkh, 16.

  _baqā_, 18, 61, 149, 159, 163, 164, 167.

  Basra, 14.

  Bāyazīd of Bistām, 17, 51, 57, 62, 108, 111, 112, 115, 126, 131, 132,
        159.

  Bektāshīs, the, 95.

  Bishr, 105.

  Breath, practice of inhaling and exhaling the, 48.

  Brown, J. P., 141.

  Browne, Professor E. G., 110.

  Buddha, 16, 17.

  Buddhism, 16 ff., 48. _See_ Nirvāṇa.

  Bulghār, 161.


  Calendars, the, 90.

  Celibacy, condemned by Mohammed, 5.

  China, 161.

  Christ, 82, 88. _See_ Jesus.

  Christianity, 4, 5, 10 f., 82, 111, 112, 151, 157.

  Contemplation, 18, 31, 32, 53, 54 ff., 68.


  Dancing, 63, 65, 66.

  Dante, 100.

  Dark Night of the Soul, the, 166.

  Davids, Professor T. W. Rhys, 19.

  Dāwud al-Tāʾī, 36.

  Deification, 149 ff., 163.

  _dervīsh_, 37.

  Dervish Orders, the, 48, 95, 125, 130, 140 ff.

  Dervishes, maxims for, 38, 39.

  Devil, the, 49, 53, 69. _See_ Iblīs _and_ Satan.

  _dhawq_, 59.

  _dhikr_, 10, 45 ff., 63.

  Dhu ’l-Nūn the Egyptian, 13, 65, 79, 116, 145.

  Dionysius the Areopagite, 12 f., 112.

  Directors, spiritual, 31, 32 ff., 89, 140 ff., 165.

  _Dīvān of Shamsi Tabrīz_, 95.


  Eckhart, 118, 154.

  Ecstasy, 59 ff., 118, 132, 133, 166. See _fanā_.

  Eden, 161.

  Elias, 14.

  Emanation, the theory of, 80, 96.

  Emerson, 110.

  Euchitæ, the, 11.

  Evil, the unreality of, 94.

  Evil, part of the divine order, 96 ff.

  Evolution, of Man, 168.


  _fanā_, 17 ff., 28, 48, 59, 60 ff., 144, 149, 155 ff., 164, 165, 166.

  _fanā al-fanā_, 61, 79.

  _fānī_, 155.

  _faqīr_, 37, 38.

  _firāsat_, 51.

  FitzGerald, Edward, 97.

  Frothingham, A. L., 12.

  Fudayl ibn ʿIyād, 109.


  Gairdner, W. H. T., 16.

  _ghaybat_, 59.

  Ghaylān, 105.

  Ghazālī, 24, 46, 96.

  Gnosis, the, 7, 14, 29, 30, 68 ff., 121, 164.

  Gnosticism, 14 ff.

  Goldziher, Professor I., 14, 16.

  Gospel, the, 10.


  Hafiz, 88, 102.

  _hāl_, 29, 59.

  Hallāj, 40, 149 ff., 160.

  Hamadhān, 108, 109.

  _haqīqat_, 29, 79. _See_ Truth, the.

  _Haqq_ = God, 1, 81. See _Ana ’l-Haqq_.

  _haqq_, 164.

  Hasan ʿAttār, Khwāja, 144.

  _hātif_, 63.

  Heart, the, a spiritual organ, 50, 68 ff.

  Heaven and Hell, subjective, 97, 162.

  Hierotheus, 12.

  Hind, 105.

  Hujwīrī, 31, 32, 54, 63, 65, 92, 110, 123, 124, 126, 159, 160.

  _hulūl_, 150, 151, 154, 157.

  Hulūlīs, the, 151.

  Husayn ibn Mansūr, 149. _See_ Hallāj.

  Hypnotism, 139 ff.


  Iblīs, 99. _See_ Devil, the.

  Ibn al-Anbārī, 51.

  Ibn al-ʿArabī, 87, 102, 103, 105, 111, 125, 155, 166.

  Ibrāhīm ibn Adham, 14, 16.

  _ihsān_, 53.

  Illumination, 7, 50 ff., 70.

  _ʿilm_, 71.

  Immortality, impersonal, 167, 168.

  Incarnation, 150, 151, 157. See _hulūl_.

  India, 16, 161.

  Inge, Dr. W. R., 112, 151, 154.

  Iqbal, Shaikh Muhammad, 15.

  ʿIrāq, 161, 168.

  Islam, relation of Sūfism to, 19 ff., 71 ff., 86 ff., 159, 160.

  _istinbāt_, 23, 24.

  _ittihād_, 157, 158.


  Jabarites, the, 6.

  Jacob of Sarūj, 12.

  _jadhbat_, 59.

  Jalāluddīn Rūmī, 25, 64, 67, 69, 95 ff., 105, 106, 107, 109, 113,
        116, 117, 118, 119, 125, 129, 132, 148, 152, 155, 161, 162, 168.

  _jamʿ_, 159.

  Jāmī, 38, 66, 80, 81, 83, 106, 110, 142, 166.

  Jesus, 10, 133, 150, 153, 157. _See_ Christ.

  Jews, the, 122.

  Jinn, the, 132.

  John, St., 82.

  John Scotus Erigena, 12.

  Joseph, 99, 116.

  Journeys, mystical, 163, 164. _See_ Path, the.

  Junayd of Baghdād, 34, 35, 52, 88, 91, 112, 113, 131.


  Kaʿba, the, 58, 91, 92, 105, 116, 134.

  _karāmāt_, 122, 129.

  Karma, the doctrine of, 19.

  _Kashf al-Mahjūb_, 54, 63. _See_ Hujwīrī.

  Khadir, 14, 113, 127 ff.

  _khirqat_, 49.

  Khizr, 127. _See_ Khadir.

  Khorāsān, 161, 168.

  Khurqānī. _See_ Abu ’l-Hasan Khurqānī.

  _Kitāb al-Lumaʿ_, 28, 121, 130.

  _Kitāb al-Tawāsīn_, 150.

  Knowledge of God. _See_ Gnosis, the.

  Knowledge, religious opposed to mystical, 71.

  _Koran_, the, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 46, 50, 63, 93, 105, 111, 121, 122,
        127.

  _Koran_, the, quotations from, 22, 45, 50, 51, 53, 56, 70, 88, 98,
        121, 122, 128, 129, 150, 152.

  _Koran_, germs of mysticism in the, 21 f.


  _lāhūt_, 150.

  Lane, Edward, 45.

  Law, the religious, 62, 86, 92 ff., 126, 127, 152, 163.

  Laylā, 116, 159.

  _Legend of the Moslem Saints_, the, 21, 31, 108, 131.

  _Lives of the Saints_, by Jāmī, 66. See _Nafahāt al-Uns_.

  Logos, the, 51, 82, 83.

  Love, divine, 6, 8, 10, 45, 55, 80, 81, 84, 88, 101, 102 ff., 151,
        160.

  Lubnā, 105.


  Macdonald, Professor D. B., 23, 45, 46, 125, 141.

  _majdhūb_, 123.

  Majduddīn of Baghdād, 66.

  Majnūn, 116, 159.

  Mālik ibn Dīnār, 36, 37.

  Man, the final cause of the universe, 82.

  Man, higher than the angels, 69.

  Man, the microcosm, 84, 85, 97.

  Man, the Perfect, 83, 163, 164, 165.

  Mandæans, the, 14.

  Mānī, 14.

  Manichæans, the, 14.

  Mansūr, 153. _See_ Hallāj.

  _maqāmāt_, 28.

  _maʿrifat_, 29, 71. _See_ Gnosis, the.

  Maʿrūf al-Karkhī, 14.

  Marwa, 92.

  Mary, 133.

  _Masnavī_, the, 25, 64, 96, 132, 148. _See_ Jalāluddīn Rūmī.

  Massignon, L., 150, 151, 154, 155.

  _Mawāqif_, the, 57. _See_ Niffarī.

  Mayya, 105.

  Mecca, 134.

  Meditation, 48 f.

  Mephistopheles, 58.

  Messalians, the, 11.

  Minā, 92.

  Miracles, 122, 123, 129 ff., 138, 139 ff.

  Mohammed, the Prophet, 5, 20, 21, 35, 39, 44, 49, 51, 52, 53, 68,
        70, 73, 82, 90, 93, 111, 129, 131, 141, 144, 164, 165. _See_
        Traditions of the Prophet.

  Mohammed ibn ʿAlī Hakīm, 143.

  Mohammed ibn ʿUlyān, 39.

  Mohammed ibn Wāsiʿ, 36, 37, 55.

  Mollā-Shāh, 141, 142.

  More, Henry, 162.

  Mortification, 36, 40 f.

  Moses, 127 ff., 152.

  _muʿjizat_, 129.

  _murāqabat_, 48.

  _muraqqaʿat_, 33, 49.

  Murjites, the, 5.

  _murshid_, 32, 140.

  Music, 48, 63 ff.

  Muʿtazilites, the, 6.

  Muzdalifa, 91.


  _Nafahāt al-Uns_, 166. See _Lives of the Saints_.

  _nafs_, 39, 40.

  Name, the Great, 14.

  _nāsūt_, 150.

  Neoplatonism, 12 f., 112.

  Niffarī, 57, 71, 72, 74, 85, 93, 155, 164.

  Nirvāṇa, 18 ff., 61, 149.

  Nizāmuddīn Khāmūsh, Mawlānā, 143.

  Noah, 153.

  Nöldeke, Th., 3.

  Not-being, the principle of evil, 94, 97.

  _Nuqabā_, 124.

  Nūrī, 49, 51, 94, 107, 108.


  Omar, the Caliph, 38.

  Omar Khayyām, 97.


  Pantheism, 8, 18, 21, 23, 79 ff., 109, 133 ff., 148 ff. _See_ Unity,
        the divine.

  Path, the, 28 ff., 163.

  Paul, St., 12, 82.

  Pentateuch, the, 22.

  Personality, survival of, 167.

  Phenomena, the nature of, 82.

  Phenomena, a bridge to Reality, 109 f.

  Philo, 22.

  Pilgrimage, allegorical interpretation of the, 91.

  _pīr_, 32, 140.

  Plato, 7, 12, 64.

  Plotinus, 11, 12, 117.

  Porphyry, 12.

  Poverty, 36 ff.

  Predestination, 4, 6, 36, 98.

  Pre-existence of the soul, 15, 64, 116.

  Proclus, 12.

  Prophet, the. _See_ Mohammed, the Prophet.

  Prophets, the, 121, 122, 126, 129, 164.

  Purgative Way, the, 32.

  Pythagoras, 64.


  Qadarites, the, 6.

  Qadīb al-Bān, 144.

  _qalb_, 50, 68.

  Qays, 105.

  _qibla_, 134.

  Quietism, 4. _See_ Trust in God.

  Qushayrī, 126, 130.

  _Qutb_, 123, 124, 164, 165.


  Rābiʿa, 4, 31, 115.

  _rāhib_, 10.

  Raqqām, 107.

  Reason, the Active, 151.

  Recollection, 36, 45. See _dhikr_.

  Religion, all types of, are equal, 87.

  Religion, positive, its relation to mysticism, 24, 71 ff. _See_
        Islam, relation of Sūfism to.

  Repentance, 30 ff.

  _ridā_, 41.

  Rizwān, 161.

  Rosaries, used by Sūfīs, 17.

  _rūh_, 68.

  Rūmī, 153. _See_ Jalāluddīn Rūmī.

  Ruysbroeck, 151, 164.


  Sābians, the, 14.

  Saʿduddīn of Kāshghar, Mawlānā, 142.

  Safā, 92.

  Sahl ibn ʿAbdallah of Tustar, 46, 52, 56, 63, 130.

  Saints, the Moslem, 120 ff.

  Saintship, the doctrine of, 62, 120 ff.

  Salāmān, 116.

  _sālik_, 28.

  _samāʿ_, 59, 60, 63 ff.

  Saqsīn, 161.

  Sarī al-Saqatī, 52, 54, 61, 113.

  Satan, 32, 113. _See_ Devil, the.

  _Sea, the Revelation of the_, by Niffarī, 74.

  Self-annihilation, 140, 141, 168. See _fanā_.

  Shāh al-Kirmānī, 52.

  Shaqīq of Balkh, 42, 43, 44.

  Sheykh, the, 32 ff., 49, 140, 141. _See_ Directors, spiritual.

  Shiblī, 34, 35, 48, 52, 55, 62, 116.

  Shihābuddīn Suhrawardī, 166.

  Shīʿites, the, 89.

  _shirb_, 59.

  _siddīq_, 14.

  Sin, 30 ff.

  Singing, 63 ff.

  _sirr_, 68, 155.

  Soul, the lower or appetitive. See _nafs_.

  Spirit, the divine, 150, 151.

  Spirit, the human, 51, 68.

  Stages, mystical, 28 f., 41.

  States, mystical, 29.

  Stephen Bar Sudaili, 12.

  Sūfī, meaning and derivation of, 3.

  Sūfism, definitions of, 1, 14, 25 ff.

  Sūfism, the oldest form of, 4 f.

  Sūfism, the origin of, 8 ff.

  Sūfism, its relation to Islam, 19 ff., 71 ff., 86 ff., 159, 160.

  _sukr_, 59.

  Sunna, the, 73.

  Symbolism, mystical, 28, 102 ff., 116, 117.


  _tālib_, 29.

  _tarīqat_, 27, 28.

  Tauler, 151.

  _tawajjuh_, 142, 143.

  _tawakkul_, 41.

  Tawakkul Beg, 141, 142.

  Telekinesis, 145.

  Telepathy, 120. See _firāsat_.

  _Theology of Aristotle_, the so-called, 12.

  Tirmidh, 143.

  Tora, the, 105.

  Traditions of the Prophet, 23, 39, 44, 49, 51, 53, 54, 68, 80, 83,
        100.

  Transoxania, 16.

  Trust in God, 36, 41 ff.

  Truth, the, 29, 30, 79, 92 ff., 152, 163.


  Underhill, E., 164.

  Union with God, 39, 159, 160. _See_ Unitive State, the, and _fanā_.

  Unitive State, the, 148 ff.

  Unity, the divine, Sūfistic theory of, 42, 79 ff., 98, 152, 154, 155.


  Vedānta, the, 18.

  Veils, the seventy thousand, doctrine of, 15 f.

  Vision, spiritual, 50.


  _wajd_, 59.

  _walī_, 122, 123. _See_ Saints, the Moslem.

  _waliyyat_, 123.

  _waqfat_, 58, 156.

  _wāqif_, 156, 165.

  Wāsit, 14.

  Whinfield, E. H., 64, 132, 148.


  _yaqīn_, 50.

  Yūsuf, 116. _See_ Joseph.


  Zangī Bashgirdī, 66.

  Zulaykhā, 116.


  _Printed by_ Morrison & Gibb Limited, _Edinburgh_




  THE
  QUEST SERIES

  Edited by G. R. S. MEAD,

  President of the Quest Society.

  =_Crown 8vo.   2s. 6d. net each volume._=


  =NOW READY.=

=Psychical Research.= By James H. Hyslop, Ph.D., LL.D., Secretary of
    the Psychical Research Society of America.

=The Quest of the Holy Grail.= By Jessie L. Weston, Author of ‘The
    Legend of Sir Perceval,’ ‘Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle,’ etc.

=Jewish Mysticism.= By J. Abelson, Lit.D., Principal of Aria College,
    Portsmouth.

=Mystics of Islam.= By Reynold A. Nicholson, M.A., Litt.D., Lecturer on
    Persian, Cambridge University.


  =READY SPRING, 1914.=

=Buddhist Psychology.= By Mrs. Rhys Davids, M.A., F.B.A., Lecturer on
    Indian Philosophy, Manchester University.


  =IN PREPARATION.=

=The Ethical and Social Significance of Personality.= By William Brown,
    M.A., D.Sc., Lecturer on Psychology, King’s College.

=Catholic Mysticism.= By Baron Friedrich Von Hügel, Author of ‘The
    Mystical Element of Religion.’

=The Interpretation of Nature from Aristotle to Bergson.= By J. Arthur
    Thomson, M.A., Regius Professor of Natural History, Aberdeen
    University.

=Ruysbroeck.= By Evelyn Underhill, Author of ‘Mysticism’ and ‘The
    Mystic Way,’ etc.




  _Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net._

  QUESTS
  OLD AND NEW

  By G. R. S. MEAD

  EDITOR OF ‘THE QUEST SERIES’

  AUTHOR OF ‘THRICE-GREATEST HERMES,’ ‘FRAGMENTS
  OF A FAITH FORGOTTEN,’ ETC. ETC.


  _CONTENTS_

The Way of the Spirit in Ancient China.

The Doctrine of the True Man in Ancient Chinese Mystical Philosophy.

Spiritual Reality in Progressive Buddhism.

The Ideal Life in Progressive Buddhism.

Some Features of Buddhist Psychology.

The Doctrine of Reincarnation Ethically Considered.

Some Mystical Experiments on the Frontiers of Early Christendom.

The Meaning of Gnosis in the Higher Forms of Hellenistic Religion.

‘The Book of the Hidden Mysteries,’ by Hierotheos.

The Rising Psychic Tide.

Vaihinger’s Philosophy of the ‘As If.’

Bergson’s Intuitionism.

Eucken’s Activism.


  THE MISSING GODDESS,
  AND OTHER LEGENDS

  BY
  MINNIE B. THEOBALD.

  =_Crown 8vo.   3s. net._=

These allegorical stories, written by a musician, form a distinct
contribution to the literature of experimental psychology. The
authoress claims that they were actually written in a state of
exaltation induced by long and intense concentration on musical
exercises. Fresh in style, graphic and original in character, they
deal with those problems in this world and the next which are of vital
interest to all, and will make special appeal to students of the
psychology of different phases of consciousness.


  RALPH WALDO TRINE’S
  NEW BOOK

  THE NEW ALINEMENT
  OF LIFE

  =_Post 8vo.   3s. 6d. net._=

The author’s main object in this new volume is to sift out the
fundamental truths of =real Christianity=. He separates them from the
many half-truths and errors which nowadays so often overlay them. It
will appeal to all thoughtful readers, expressing as it does the very
ideas so many of us have tried to express. Like all Mr. Trine’s books,
it will inspire to better living and better thinking, and shows what
a little wholesome philosophy will do toward the attainment of true
happiness.




  OTHER BOOKS BY RALPH WALDO TRINE.

  Mr. TRINE’S GREATEST WORK:
  IN TUNE with THE INFINITE
  OR, THE FULNESS OF PEACE, POWER, AND PLENTY.

  =_Post 8vo.  340th Thousand.  3s. 6d. net._=


ALSO A POCKET EDITION.--Printed on Japon paper, with a portrait of Mr.
    Trine, and specially designed binding and end-papers. 3s. 6d. net.

‘Nothing I have ever read so lifts my soul up to the Divine, so
amazes me, creating new and better thoughts, greater aspirations
and a determination to live up to its teachings. It is so grand, so
elevating, yet so plain.’--Mrs. J. A. J.

‘That book will carry blessings to multitudes. I congratulate the
author on putting so profound a theme in so simple a way that the
people can get it.’--Rev. W. H. M.


What all the World’s A-Seeking; or, The Vital Law of True Life, True
    Greatness, Power and Happiness. 85th Thousand. Post 8vo. 3s. 6d.
    net.

This Mystical Life of Ours. A Book of Suggestive Thoughts for each week
    throughout the year. Selected from the Works of R. W. Trine. 22nd
    Thousand. Post 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.

The Land of Living Men. 20th Thousand. Post 8vo. 4s. 6d. net.
    Dealing with political and social subjects, and the individual’s
    relationship towards the state and the nation.

The Wayfarer on the Open Road. Some Thoughts and a little Creed of
    Wholesome Living. 35th Thousand. Crown 8vo. 1s. net.

The Winning of the Best. 7th Thousand. Daintily bound. 2s. net.

_Prettily bound in White Covers._  1s. each net.

The Greatest Thing ever Known. 110th Thousand.

Every Living Creature. 60th Thousand.

Character-Building: Thought Power. 80th Thousand.


  LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS LTD.




  Bohn’s Popular Library


_Fcap. 8vo. With designed title-page, binding,
and end-papers.   1s. net each_

  Vols. 1-60 Now Ready.

    1. SWIFT (Jonathan). GULLIVER’S TRAVELS.

  2-4. MOTLEY (J. L.). RISE OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC. 3 vols.

  5-6. EMERSON (R. W.). WORKS. A new edition in 5 volumes.
          Vol. I. Essays (1st and 2nd Series), and Representative Men.
          Vol. II. English Texts, Nature, and Conduct of Life.

  7-8. BURTON (Sir Richard). PILGRIMAGE TO ALMADINAH AND
          MECCAH. 2 vols.

    9. LAMB (Charles). ESSAYS. Including the Essays
          of Elia, Last Essays of Elia, and Eliana.

   10. HOOPER (George). WATERLOO: THE DOWNFALL OF THE
          FIRST NAPOLEON.

   11. FIELDING (Henry). JOSEPH ANDREWS.

12-13. CERVANTES. DON QUIXOTE. 2 vols.

   14. CALVERLEY (C. S.). THE IDYLLS OF THEOCRITUS, with
          the ECLOGUES OF VIRGIL. English Verse Translation.

   15. BURNEY (Fanny). EVELINA.

   16. COLERIDGE (S. T.). AIDS TO REFLECTION.

17-18. GOETHE. POETRY AND TRUTH FROM MY OWN LIFE. 2 vols.

   19. EBERS (George). AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS.

   20. YOUNG (Arthur). TRAVELS IN FRANCE, during the
          years 1787, 1788, and 1789.

21-22. BURNEY (Fanny). THE EARLY DIARY OF FRANCES BURNEY (Madame
          D’Arblay), 1768-1778. 2 vols.

23-25. CARLYLE. HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. With Introduction
          and Notes, by J. Holland Rose, Litt.D. 3 vols.

26-27. EMERSON (R. W.). WORKS. Vol. III. Society and
          Solitude--Letters and Social Aims--Addresses. Vol. IV.
          Miscellaneous Pieces.

28-29. FIELDING (Henry). TOM JONES. 2 vols.

   30. JAMESON (Mrs.). SHAKESPEARE’S HEROINES.

   31. MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS, THE THOUGHTS OF.

   32. MIGNET. HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, from
          1789 to 1814.

33-35. MONTAIGNE. ESSAYS. 3 vols.

36-38. RANKE. HISTORY OF THE POPES. 3 vols.

   39. TROLLOPE (Anthony). THE WARDEN. With an
          Introduction by Frederic Harrison.

   40. ---- BARCHESTER TOWERS.

   41. ---- DR. THORNE.

   42. ---- FRAMLEY PARSONAGE.

43-44. ---- SMALL HOUSE AT ALLINGTON. 2 vols.

45-46. ---- THE LAST CHRONICLE OF BARSET. 2 vols.

   47. EMERSON (R. W.). WORKS. A new edition. Vol. V.
          Poems.

48-49. THE ARABIAN NIGHTS’ ENTERTAINMENTS. Vols. I.-II.

   50. PLOTINUS, SELECT WORKS OF.

   51. MACAULAY. ESSAYS FROM THE “ENCYCLOPÆDIA
          BRITANNICA.” Edited by R. H. Gretton, M.A.

   52. HOOPER (G.). THE CAMPAIGN OF SEDAN: The Downfall
          of the Second Empire, August-September, 1870. New edition.

   53. BLAKE. POETICAL WORKS.

   54. VAUGHAN. POETICAL WORKS.

   55. GOETHE. FAUST.

56-57. TRELAWNEY. ADVENTURES OF A YOUNGER SON. 2 vols.

   58. POUSHKIN. PROSE TALES. The Captain’s
          Daughter--Doubrovsky--The Queen of Spades--An Amateur Peasant
          Girl--The Shot--The Snowstorm--The Postmaster--The Coffin
          Maker--Kirdjali--The Egyptian Nights--Peter the Great’s
          Negro. Translated by T. Keane.

59-60. MANZONI. THE BETROTHED. 2 vols.


_Other volumes will be published at regular intervals._




Transcriber's Notes


The following changes have been made to the text as printed:

1. Footnotes have been placed immediately below the paragraph within
which they occur, and marked numerically.

2. A period has been removed following the subheading "Gnosticism"
(Page 14), for consistency with other subheadings.

3. "strenously" (Page 51) has been corrected to "strenuously".

4. The missing word "I" has been inserted in the passage "the next
world belongs to him towards whom I have brought it" (Page 78).

5. The name printed as Fitz Gerald (Page 97) has been rendered as
FitzGerald (the usual form for this writer).

6. A single close-quote mark has been inserted after "vouchsafed to
him" (Page 127).

7. _karāmat_ (Page 129) has been changed to _karāmāt_.

8. The line beginning "Then he quotes" (Page 160) has had its
indentation reduced, as it is part of the main text and not (as
printed) part of the preceding quotation.

9. Index: The character ʿ has been added in the words Abu ’l-Khayr
al-Aqtaʿ, ʿAlāʾuddīn, _muʿjizat_, Muʿtazilites, and Rābiʿa.

10. Apparent inconsistencies in whether hyphens occur in the word pairs
"well known", "passed away", and "above mentioned" are judged to be due
to differences in sense, and no amendments have been made.