Light Within Me [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Light Within Me

An
Introduction to Irfan

Shaheed Murtada Mutahhari

This short introduction to irfan is a part of the
author's book Ashnai ba ulum e Islami (An Introduction to the
Islamic Sciences) written in seven parts, 1) logic, 2) philosophy, 3)
kalam, 4) irfan, 5) fiqh, 6) usul al fiqh,
7) hikmat e amali (ethics).

'Irfan is one of the disciplines that originated
within the realm of Islamic culture and developed there to attain a high
level of sophistication. But before we can begin to discuss 'irfan,
we must realize that it can be approached from two viewpoints: the social
and the academic. Unlike the scholars of other Islamic disciplines - such
as the Quranic commentators (mufassirun), the scholars of
hadith (muhaddithun), the jurisprudents (fuqaha'),
the theologians (mutakallimun), the philosophers, the men of
literature, and the poets - the 'urafa' are a group of scholars who
have not only developed their own science, 'irfan, producing great
scholars and important books, but have also given rise within the Islamic
world to a distinct social grouping. In this the 'urafa' are
unique; for the scholars of the other Islamic disciplines - such as the
jurisprudents, for instance - form solely academic groupings and are not
viewed as a social group distinct from the rest of society.

In view of this distinction the gnostics, when referred
to as belonging to a certain academic discipline, are called
'urafa' and when referred to as a social group are generally called
Sufis (mutasawwifah).

The 'urafa' and sufis are not regarded as
forming a separate sect in Islam, nor do they claim themselves to be such.
They are to be found within every Islamic school and sect, yet, at the
same time, they coalesce to form a distinct social group. The factors that
set them apart from the rest of Islamic society are a distinctive chain of
ideas and opinions, a special code governing their social intercourse,
dress and even, sometimes, the way they wear their hair and beards, and
their living communally in their hospices. (Pers. Khaniqah;
Ar-ribat, zawiyah; Turk. tekkiye)

Of course, there are and have always been 'urafa'
- particularly amongst the Shi'ah - who bear none of these external
signs to distinguish them socially from others; yet, at the same time,
they have been profoundly involved in the spiritual methodology of
'irfan (sayr wa suluk). It is these who are the real
gnostics; not those who have invented for themselves hundreds of special
mannerisms and customs and have brought innovations into being.

In this series of lectures, in which we are taking a
general look at Islamic sciences and disciplines, we will not be dealing
with the social and sectarian aspect of gnosis, that is to say,
tasawwuf (sufism). We will limit ourselves to an examination of
'irfan as a discipline and branch amongst the branches of Islam's
scientific culture. To look thoroughly at the social aspects of sufism
would require us to examine its causes and origins, the effects - positive
and negative, beneficial and detrimental - it has and has had upon Islamic
society, the nature of the relations between the sufis and other
Islamic groups, the hue it has given to the whole of Islamic teachings,
and the role it has played in the diffusion of Islam throughout the world.
This is far beyond the range of these lectures, and here we will consider
the tradition of 'irfan only as a science and as one of the
academic disciplines of Islam.

'Irfan, as a scientific and academic discipline,
itself has two branches: the practical and the theoretical. The practical
aspect of 'irfan describes and explains the relationship and
responsibilities the human being bears towards itself, towards the world
and towards God. Here, 'irfan is similar to ethics (akhlaq),
both of them being practical sciences. There do exist differences,
however, and later we will explain them.

The practical teaching of 'irfan is also called
the itinerary of the spiritual path (sayr wa suluk; lit. 'traveling
and journeying'). Here, the wayfarer (salik) who desires to reach
the goal of the sublime peak of humanness - that is to say, tawhid
- is told where to set off, the ordered stages and stations that he must
traverse, the states and conditions he will undergo at these stations, and
the events that will befall him. Needless to say, all these stages and
stations must be passed under the guidance and supervision of a mature and
perfect example of humanity who, having traveled this path, is aware of
the manners and ways of each station. If not, and there is no perfect
human being to guide him on his path, he is in danger of going
astray.

The perfect man, the master, who must necessarily
accompany the novice on the spiritual journey according to the
'urafa', has been called in their vocabulary as Ta'ir
al-quds (the Holy Bird) and Khidr:
Accompany my zeal on the path, O Ta'ir al-Quds,

The path to the goal is long, and I new to the journey.

Leave not this stage without the company of Khidr,

There is darkness ahead; be afraid of losing the way.

Of course, there is a world of difference between the
tawhid of the 'arif and the general view of tawhid.
For the 'arif, tawhid is the sublime peak of humanness and
the final goal of his spiritual journey, while for the ordinary people,
and even the philosophers, tawhid means the essential Unity of the
Necessary Being. For the 'arif, tawhid means that the
ultimate reality is only God, and everything other than God is mere
appearance, not reality. The 'arif's tawhid means that
'other than God there is nothing'. For the 'arif, tawhid
means following a path and arriving at the stage when he sees nothing but
God. However, this view of tawhid is not accepted by the opponents
of the 'urafa', and some of them have declared such a view to be
heretic. Yet the 'urafa' are convinced that this is the only true
tawhid, and that the other stages of it cannot be said to be free
of polytheism (shirk).

The 'urafa' do not see the attainment of the ideal
stage of tawhid to be the function of reason and reflection. Rather
they consider it to be the work of the heart, and attained through
struggle, through the journeying, and through purifying and disciplining
the self.

This, however, is the practical aspect of 'irfan,
which is not unlike ethics in this respect, for both discuss a series of
things that 'ought to be done'. However, there are differences, and the
first of these is that 'irfan discusses the human being's
relationship with itself, with the world and with God, and its primal
concern is man's relationship with God. Systems of ethics, on the other
hand, do not all consider it necessary for the relationship between man
and God to be discussed; it is only the religious ethical systems that
give importance and attention to this matter.

The second difference is that the methodology of
spiritual progression, sayr wa suluk, as the words sayr
(traveling) and suluk (journeying) imply, is a dynamic one,
while ethics is static. That is, 'irfan speaks about a point of
departure, a destination, and the stages and stations which, in their
correct order, the wayfarer must traverse in order to arrive at the final
destination. In the 'arif's view, there really is a path before the
human being - a path that is actual and not in the least a metaphor - and
this path must be followed stage by stage, station by station; to arrive
at any station without having traversed the preceding one is, in the
'arif's view, impossible. Thus the 'arif views the human
soul to be a living organism, like a seedling or like a child, whose
perfection lies in growth and maturation in accordance with a particular
system and order.

In ethics, however, the subjects are handled solely as a
series of virtues, such as righteousness, honesty, sincerity, chastity,
generosity, justice, and preferring others over oneself (ithar), to
name but a few, with which the soul must be adorned. In the view of
ethics, the human soul is rather like a house to be furnished with a
series of beautiful objects, pictures and decorations, and no importance
is attached to a particular sequence. It is not important where one begins
or where one ends. It is of no consequence whether one starts at the
ceiling or at the walls, at the top of a wall or at the bottom and so on.
On the contrary, in 'irfan the ethical elements are discussed in a
dynamic perspective.

The third difference between these two disciplines is
that the spiritual elements of ethics are limited to concepts and ideas
that are generally commonplace, while the spiritual elements of
'irfan are much more profound and expansive. In the spiritual
methodology of 'irfan, much mention is made of the heart and the
states and happenings it will experience, and these experiences are known
only to the wayfarer of the path during the course of his struggles and
his journey on the path, while other people have no idea of these states
and happenings.

The other branch of 'irfan is related to
interpretation of being, that is, God, the universe, and the human being.
Here 'irfan resembles philosophy, for both seek to understand
existence, whereas practical 'irfan seeks, like ethics, to change
the human being. However, just as there are differences between practical
'irfan and ethics, so also there exist differences between
theoretical 'irfan and philosophy, and in the following section we
will explain these differences.

Theoretical Irfan:

Theoretical 'irfan, as said before, is concerned
with ontology, and discusses God, the world, and the human being. This
aspect of 'irfan resembles theological philosophy (falsafeh-ye
ilahi), which also seeks to describe being. Like theological
philosophy, 'irfan also defines its subject, essential principles
and problems, but whereas philosophy relies solely upon rational
principles for its arguments, 'irfan bases its deductions on
principles discovered through mystic experience (kashf) and then
reverts to the language of reason to explain them.

The rationalistic deductions of philosophy can be likened
to studying a passage written originally in the same language; the
arguments of 'irfan, on the other hand, are like studying something
that has been translated from some other language in which it was
originally written. To be more precise, the 'arif wishes to explain
those things which he claims to have witnessed with his heart and his
entire being by using the language of reason.

The ontology of 'irfan is in several ways
profoundly different from the ontology of philosophers. In the
philosopher's view, both God and other things have reality, with the
difference that while God is the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud)
and Existing-By-Himself, things other than God are only possible existents
(mumkin al-wujud), existing- through-another, and are effects of
the Necessary Being. However, the 'arif's ontology has no place for
things other than God as existing alongside Him, even if they are effects
of which He is the cause; rather, the Divine Being embraces and
encompasses all things. That is to say, all things are names, qualities,
and manifestations of God, not existents alongside Him.

The aim of the philosopher also differs from that of the
'arif. The philosopher wishes to understand the world; he wishes to
form in his mind a correct and relatively complete picture of the realm of
existence. The philosopher considers the highest mark of human perfection
to lie in perceiving, by way of reason, the exact nature of existence, so
that the macrocosm finds a reflection within his mind while he in turn
becomes a rational microcosm. Thus it is said when defining philosophy
that: [Philosophy is] the (final) development of a rational knower
('alim) into an actual world ('alam).

This means that philosophy is a study whereby a human
being becomes a rational microcosm similar to the actual macrocosm. But
the 'arif, on the other hand, would have nothing to do with reason
and understanding; he wishes to reach the very kernel and reality of
existence, God, to become connected to it and witness it.

In the 'arif's view, human perfection does not
mean having a picture of the realm of existence in one's mind; rather it
is to return, by means of treading the spiritual path of progression, to
the origin from which one has come, to overcome the separation of distance
between oneself and the Divine Essence, and, in the realm of nearness, to
obliterate one's finite self to abide in Divine Infinitude.

The tools of the philosopher are reason, logic and
deduction, while the tools of the 'arif are the heart, spiritual
struggle, purification and disciplining of the self, and an inner
dynamism.

Later, when we come to the world-view of 'irfan,
we shall also discuss how it differs from the world-view of
philosophy.

'Irfan, both practical and theoretical, is closely
connected with the holy religion of Islam. Like every other religion - in
fact more than any other religion - Islam has explained the relationships
of man with God, with the world, and with himself; and it has also given
attention to describing and explaining existence.

Now, the question inevitably arises here about the
relation between the ideas of 'irfan and the teachings of Islam. Of
course, the 'urafa' never claim that they have something to say
that is above or beyond Islam, and they are earnest in their denials of
any such imputations. In fact, they claim to have discovered more of the
realities of Islam, and that they are the true Muslims. Whether in the
practical teaching of 'irfan or the theoretical, the 'urafa'
always support their views by referral to the Quran, the Sunnah of the
Prophet and the Imams, and the practice of the eminent amongst the
Prophet's Companions.

However, others have held different views about the
'urafa', and these may be mentioned:

(a)

A group of muhaddithun and
jurisprudents has been of the view that the 'urafa' are not
practically bound to Islam, and that their referrals to the Quran and the
Sunnah are merely a ruse to deceive the simple-minded people and to draw
to themselves the hearts of the Muslims. This group is of the view that
'irfan, basically, has no connection with Islam.

(b)

A group of modernists who do not have
favourable relations with Islam and are ready to give a tumultuous welcome
to anything that gives the appearance of freedom from the observances
prescribed by the Shari'ah (ibahah) and which can be interpreted as
a movement or uprising in the past against Islam and its laws, like the
first group, believe that in practice the 'urafa' had no faith or
belief in Islam, and that 'irfan and tasawwuf was a movement
of the non-Arab peoples against Islam and the Arabs, disguised under the
robes of spirituality.

This group and the first are united in their view that
the 'urafa' are opposed to Islam. The difference between them is
that the first group considers Islam to be sacred and, by banking on the
Islamic sentiments of the Muslim masses, wishes to condemn the
'urafa' and, in this way, to hoot them off from the stage of the
Islamic sciences. The second group, however, by leaning on the great
personalities of the 'urafa'- some of whom are of world-renown -
wishes to use them as a means of propaganda against Islam. They detract
Islam on the grounds that the subtle and sublime ideas of 'irfan
found in Islamic culture are in fact alien to Islam. They consider that
these elements entered Islamic culture from outside, for, they say, Islam
and its ideas thrive on a far lower level. This group also claims that the
'urafa's citations of the Quran and hadith were solely due
to dissimulation and fear of the masses. This, they claim, was a means for
them to save their lives.

(c)

Besides the above two, there is also a third
group which takes a rather neutral view of 'irfan. The view of this
group is that 'irfan and sufism contain many innovations and
deviations that do not accord with the Quran and the traditions; that this
is more true of the practical teaching of 'irfan than its
theoretical ideas, especially where it takes a sectarian aspect. Yet, they
say, the 'urafa', like the Islamic scholars of other ranks and the
majority of Islamic sects, have had the most sincere intentions towards
Islam, never wishing to make any assertions contrary to its teachings. It
is quite possible that they have made mistakes, in the same way as the
other types of scholars - theologians, philosophers, Quranic commentators,
and jurisprudents - have made mistakes, but this has never been due to an
evil intention towards Islam.

In the view of this group, the issue of the
'urafa's supposed opposition to Islam was raised by those who
harbored a special prejudice either against 'irfan or against
Islam. If a person were to disinterestedly study the books of the
'urafa', provided that he is acquainted with their terminology and
language, although he might come across many a mistake, he will not doubt
the sincerity of their complete devotion to Islam.

Of the three views, I prefer the third. I do not believe
that the 'urafa' have had evil intentions towards Islam. At the
same time I believe that it is necessary for those having specialized
knowledge of 'irfan and of the profound teachings of Islam to
undertake an objective research and disinterested study of the conformity
of the issues of 'irfan with Islamic teachings.

Shari'ah, Tariqah and Haqiqah:

One of the important points of contention between the
'urafa' and the non-'urafa', especially the jurisprudents,
is the particular teaching of 'irfan regarding the Shari'ah, the
Tariqah (the Way) and the Haqiqah (the Reality). Both agree in saying that
the Shari'ah, the body of Islamic laws, is based upon a series of