Short cuts and grades

Question: I have been warned of frauds who purport to be Sufis but, in fact, present confusion at best and, at worst, lead us away from the Deen of Islam by purporting to present “short cuts” to the teaching. This be done by superficially mixing together ideas from different mystical traditions (for example, Islamic, Hindu, Native American Indian) to present a “Universalist” Sufism. Or it might even be done by presenting lines from a true Sufi Sheikh (such as Sheikh ibn al Arabi), but out of context and at a time when the student is not ready or prepared to grasp the ideas.

I have been advised to join a “proper”, Islamic Sufi school, that emphasizes, first and foremost, complete embodiment of exoteric aspects of the religion and provides, perhaps over years, a course of exercises, each building upon the other (and upon the foundation of the Shariah and Sunnah), eventually reaching the stage where the pupil can dive to the depths of the esoteric — to read ibn Arabi, for example. The “readiness” of the pupil here is determined by the teacher — not by the student’s whims. The idea here is that someone who isn’t prepared to process these ideas might do themselves serious harm.

The Tailor: There are, of course, parallels in other traditions — for example, particular Hasidic schools also prefer to keep schtum about detailed Kabbalah until the exoteric aspects of the law are grasped in detail.

You might be surprised to hear that I’ve come around to this perspective — but with a perverse qualification.

That is to say

  • Anyone who sees the process of reading Qur’an/Revelation as a kind of grade ranking schema (primary school certificate, junior high certificate, senior, BSc, PhD etc) is, in fact, still in primary school.
  • It’s not a question of being able to walk before running. It’s a question of adapting to fly (from here to Jerusalem) before you even know the meaning of what “legs” are.
  • There is a graduation System. But it is not composed of what we commonly think of as “grades” or “stations”: because these terms are taken within a misconceived, rather capitalist sense of “valuation”. The grades of the System are not concrete, fixed certificates of graduation for the seeker-as-student. Rather, the True grades and stations of our System are functors, mappings, transformative movements of change between categories of perception. And grasping this point is what is necessary to graduate from primary school into secondary school. Within our System, there are no values — values are illusion — there are only movements that produce valuation as a side-effect. To take a concrete example, we have shown before that the 7 levels of the nafs characterise movements of change, functions over relational functions.
  • Over the past few years, peddling my wares in the City of profits and losses, I have observed that if people aren’t “ready” for the Solution (any Solution!) — if they are still in primary school — they will either disagree violently without considering component sign of the Solution offered or else emotionally attach themselves to a fetishized, capitalist reading of the Solution as a valuative ranking system. They will either disagree or agree — ascribing value — rather than Reading, obeying the command to iqra, failing to enact the Ritual/Eucharist of Reading (true Ritual is, after all, another name for transformative process here, one that turns water into wine).

    And that previous paragraph could itself so easily be taken the wrong way, and be interpreted as a valuative categorization of an undesirable mentality. The previous paragraph, taken in such a way, might be reacted to as again in agreement or disagreement. But it is not meant to be agreed with or disagreed with! I’m talking to you about “primary school”, “people”, “City”, “agreement” and “disagreement” — but these terms themselves are not fixed valuative signs — they are luminous trajectories, instantaneous enactments of transformation (whose velocities admittedly are a valuative side-effect). When these signs are configured and Read in the right way, they together constitute the means — the System — to graduate from the “primary” to “secondary”.

    Advertisements

    Shariah and Science

    A true brother on the path said: “To follow the Shariah is to be a good Muslim. To study the Science of Tasawwuf (Sufism) is to become a true human being. The Shariah is a precondition to engaging with that Science. It’s like learning to walk before we can run.”

    The Tailor thought:

    But surely the Shariah, God’s most direct communication, is above any science, including the Science of the Body. And surely it is a communication sent to human beings, not to wild things. The Law is written for human beings alone. Therefore Science precedes the Law.

    Prophetic becoming is a crowning line of flight from Mecca to Medina. From Love to Law.

    To engage with this crowning of Love by Law: how can we engage with this crowning? By means of the Law itself! The Law encloses the Science, because its sole purpose is to define, self-reflexively, this crowning. The Real nature of the Shariah goes far beyond mundane (and ultimately Imaginary) socio-politics, in fact there is little to link them apart from a family resemblance. The Shariah is for the Cosmos itself: its nature is more akin to subatomic physics. It is precisely the Logic of Life. A logic and meta-logic is built into each article of law: their jurisdiction is the very act of attempting to read the Divine Communication, including the communication of Shariah. An act of reading that is, in essence, this crowning of the human being.

    But we must become human first, before we read too deeply. Perhaps those who are not interested in reading, should simply be content to be humans, elevated above all creation anyway (who could ask for anything more?) in the knowledge that Life comes from Love and Love is the meaning of Life.

    All lawyers, however, should be human. This is the first principle of the Verandah Vanguard. A wild man cannot study law, he will eat skin and not fruit. A wild man cannot judge, least possibly serious miscarriages of justice occur.

    A woman’s right

    Born back-to-back: four witnesses are a serious matter, but neglect is grounds for divorce.
    Born back-to-back: four witnesses are a serious matter, but neglect is grounds for divorce.
    The sisters’ circle were discussing the marriage problems of one of their number, a very traditional eastern Muslima. Her husband was living apart from her for the most part on business and, when he did return home, absolutely refused intimacy. This had been their situation for the past three years: she had made several attempts at discussion and reconciliation, but he would always find a way to avoid this. Recently, her misery had been brought to a head when she had found a blond hair on one of his shirts and suspected an affair.

    The majority of the sisters recommended divorce. The Tailor’s Uzbek wife concurred: “Dump him. You have made every effort to repair your relationship and are now within your rights by the shariah.”

    She continued thus:

    Continue reading “A woman’s right”