In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

12 Farghån¥ on Oneness and Manyness When we look at those Muslims who have been called Sufis, we see that their role in Islam has often been understood by placing them on one side of a dichotomy . Thus, for example, we are told that the Sufis take one position, while the jurists and proponents of Kalam take the opposite position. The Shariah is one thing, whereas the Tariqah is something else. The Sufis look at the inward meaning, while the jurists look at the outward form. The Sufis have an esoteric perspective on things, whereas the mullahs have an exoteric perspective. The Sufis are spiritualizing and nondogmatic mystics, whereas the jurists are literalminded and dogmatic legalists. Setting up sharp dichotomies between Sufism and legalistic Islam has certainly made life easier for many historians. But as long as scholars persist in taking one side or the other as “orthodox” Islam, they will not necessarily provide helpful models for understanding what has actually been going on in Islamic history . Of course, dichotomies and divergences do exist and are constantly stressed in many of the original texts. We have to be aware of these dichotomies and take them seriously, but we also have to keep in mind the rhetorical usefulness of stressing differences. When we get to the task of describing what was actually being said, it may prove to be more helpful to picture the differing positions in terms of spectrums of differing shades and hues, rather than sharply defined dualities. When one is faced with an issue in Islamic thought, one could then suggest what the two extremes of the spectrum might be, and analyze the various positions in terms of the relative stress placed on particular points. In any given issue, some authors will fall on the red side of things, some on the violet side, and the vast majority will take up positions in between. On the next issue, the various authors might well take up different colors of the spectrum, not corresponding to their relative place in the previous issue. This sort of analysis would mean that we can no longer make the sweeping generalizations that many of us have long indulged in without adding numerous qualifications. By taking this approach, we can also help dispel the still-current 133 134 / In Search of the Lost Heart myths about Islam as a monolithic system with little historical and regional variation. Not that it is necessary to go as far as some anthropologists, claiming, in effect, that there has been nothing but a series of local Islams with practically no unifying factors. Rather, we may be able to provide a more accurate picture of the unity and diversity of Islamic civilization. One of the more interesting sets of dichotomies discussed in both the original texts and the secondary literature has to do precisely with those factors that differentiate the Sufis from the jurists and theologians, consequently providing a good example of a spectrum of positions.1 Before modern times, a certain balance between the outward and inward, or the “exoteric” and the “esoteric” was the general rule, although this would not necessarily be obvious if we were to limit ourselves to reading those authors who are critical of positions supposedly taken by their opponents. In fact, Islam has witnessed a constant creative tension between those who stress one side of an issue and those who stress the other. The discussions do frequently degenerate into polemics, but the upshot has been to make available to Muslims a vast range of approaches to the basic teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah. The Sufis sometimes cite hadiths and sayings that seem to allude to the positive results of this diversity of opinion: “There are as many ways to God as there are human souls,” and “The divergence of the ulama is a mercy.” One of the best-known cases of divergent interpretations among Muslim thinkers arose in the wake of Ibn al-ʿArab¥’s grand synthesis of Islamic teachings. But, if anything characterizes the great masters of Sufism, and especially Ibn al-ʿArab¥, it is certainly not that they consider their own position to mark one of the extremes. Quite the contrary, they usually view themselves as taking up an intermediate stance among the conflicting perspectives of Islamic thought and practice. Typically, they recognize and even validate the fact that there are deep dichotomies in approaches to various issues. Then they attempt to overcome not the dichotomies themselves, but the...

Share