The Americanization of Sufism

There are two aspects to this post, the first (as usual) a bit on the cynical side, the other a different perspective.

I've written on the Americanization of Rumi in several other posts. This is when Rumi is ripped from his Islamic context and promoted as the poet of love which thus sanitizes him and leaves open his poetry to any version of love we bring to it.

One of my favorite movies is Baraka. However, as I've gotten a little older and a little wiser and realize that every movie (and song and book and news report, etc.) is selling a point of view, I have seen through much of the propaganda of this film as well. If you're interested you can read some earlier posts on the subject.

There is a scene in Baraka featuring the whirling dervishes (the Melevi Order of Sufism founded by the followers of Rumi) so familiar to many a student of religion. It's a beautiful scene:

However, in reality, here is what it looks like:

Notice the folks in the background.

I have an old VHS tape of mystical Iran and it shows another side of Sufism, this one of dervishes in Kurdistan.

It's a powerful scene but certainly isn't one that your average Western tourist gets to see.  Don't see this one in too many Sufi/Rumi books.  This too is mild compared to some of the deeper aspects of their tradition:

This is not a critique in any way, shape or form of those participants in the ritual. I cannot speak for them nor can I judge their frame of mind and depth of experience. That isn't the point of the post.

My wife was moved by the intensity of the participants in the second video shown above.  She appreciated the cultural difference.

Not that I don't (which is why I have the tape in the first place) but there is something destructive in the "prettification" of everything (video one) that is somehow 'other' to traditional American culture. Too often beauty is shallow.

However, rather than appreciating the differences, there is a tendency to ignore those things we don't like (video two and three) and mix it into a homogeneous soup that offends no one. Too often those things that offend are demonized.

Religion without offense is neutered (and I need to work on my cynicism...).

European scholars and "mystical" Islam...

I've really been reading deeply into Henry Corbin's works now for a number of years.  I find his views of mystical Islam as found in Shi'ite/Isma'ili "gnosis" very curious and very spiritually enlightening.

I've read the works of many other scholars who fall under the Traditionalist/Perennilaist banner, the majority of whom are of European descent.  Some became Muslims, usually in an attenuated version, others did not but found their work to enrich their own spiritual life (usually, in some fashion or other, Christian).

I recently stumbled across a recent book called Pathways to an Inner Islam by Patrick Laude which focuses on Massignon, Corbin, Guenon and Schuon, names which should all be familiar to anyone dealing with a more "mystical" Islam.

While the book is dense and difficult in places, especially if unfamiliar with the works of the authors, it draws out some essentials necessary to putting the authors' understanding of Islam in proper perspective.  Of all the authors focused on it is Corbin with whom I am most familiar.  I've read some Schuon and Guenon but very little Massignon, though he's on the list.

There was a little nugget, however, that gave me that 'aha!' moment about Corbin's works.  Lately I've been feeling that, in many ways, the Christianity in much of the modern church often falls in line with the alternate Christianity he points out ultimately manifested in the particular form of Shi'ite mysticism found in Isma'ilism. 

In the modern church (i.e. in charismatic/Pentecostal circles) the "Trinity" is paid lip service but the deeper theological underpinnings are often missing and "Jesus is God" is all that is taken from it.  You may find various books on spelling out the Trinity but usually it comes down to quotes from the Bible and maybe even the Church Fathers (often out of context) as if proof texts mean something in and of themselves.  Such is the nature of the worship of the book post scientific revolution.

But this has led to a distorted or disregarded view of what Jesus means in light of the Trinity.  The Incarnation is watered down and the "God Man" starts to sound like some kind of superhero.  In this, I understand Corbin's desire though, I admit, most of my nourishment on the Trinity came through reading Orthodox theology. 

According to Laude, Corbin considered himself a "Protestant" or "Evangelical" Christian.  I'm not quite sure what this means exactly but if you read Corbin's works you realize that he is not your traditional Christian.  He gravitates to a more "personalized" Christianity which he, in this case, found in his studies of Islam.  His view tends to be that the trajectory from the Christian gnosis that was shunned by the institutional church did not disappear but ultimately manifested in Shi'ite/Isma'ili mysticism. 

The "True Prophet" is not the human prophet, as such, but is that particular essence that seeks his "place of repose".  It is this essence that is understood in the saying attributed to Muhammad: "I was a Prophet while Adam was between water and clay."  In many ways, this bears a striking parallel to Jesus' statement that "Before Abraham was, I am." While traditionally understood to refer to his pre-existence, it can also be understand that the "I" is paralle to the idea of the "True Prophet" which found his place of repose in the person of Jesus.

Laude contrasts view of Massignon that Islam is lacking and incomplete to that of Corbin who shares a different view:

"While the incompleteness of the Prophet is reflected, according to Massignon, in the incompleteness of Islam, this incompleteness - or rather the incompleteness of prophethood as such, does not result, for Corbin, in any sense of lack in the spiritual economy of Islam taken as a whole.  For Henry Corbin, the incompleteness of prophethood is confined to the domain of Sunni Islam, but brought to a resolution in the context of Shi'ism." (p. 76)

While Massignon certainly respects Islam and owes a great deal of his spiritual certitude to the study of it, ultimately he finds it lacking in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and Christianity's essence of love.  For Corbin, however, there is no such judgment of Islam as a whole.

Much like Corbin takes issue with the institutional Christian church, so too does he take issue with the Sunni "institutional" encapsulation of Islam.  Corbin sought spiritual freedom and could not find it within traditional Christianity and, through his study of an Islam outside of the "institution" he sought to free up the spirituality found in Islam and, by so doing, freeing himself from the fetters of a "confined" Christianity.

Another quote from the book explains this in some detail:

"What had to be 'imported' by Massignon into Islam through the mediation, or rather the substitution, of a Christic, if not Christian, apotropaism, beside the Prophetic mission...was to be found by Corbin in a Shi'ite imamology that completes the prophetology...without...implying...a...deficiency of the Islamic tradition itself...nor narrowing the scope of the Prophet himself..." (p. 86)

The apotropaism (I had to look it up...) is a sort of ritual or magical charm to ward of evil.  Interesting choice of words.

The point of this, and the reason for my continued interested, is that Christians (and, perhaps, Muslims) today are seeking similar things.  Tired of the confines of dogma and the drudgery of theological minutiae, people want something personal, unmediated, unfiltered and untainted.  God, no chaser.

While there is certainly no substitute for reading the actual works of the authors, Laude has shown himself to be an excellent guide to their backgrounds.  I look forwad to digging further into the book.  May be one for the shelves.

Henry Corbin, Ibn 'Arabi and modern Christianity...

"I was a Treasure unknown then I desired to be known so I created a creation which to which I made Myself known, then they knew Me."

This a saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad.  For notes on the soundness of the tradition go here.

I'm reading Corbin's Creative Imagination In The Sufism of Ibn 'Arabi (also retitled Alone with the Alone) and am astounded by some of the parallels to modern Christianity (at least in the circles in which I have run lately).  Corbin's presentation is a contrast not only with orthodox Islam but with "incarnationist" Christianity.  There may be an agenda behind his writings but I can't help but feel in many ways that the view of many of today's Christians veer more toward how he presents the Isma'ili Shi'ite Islam, the idea that there is an "intermediary" world in which the believer finds the "Imam of his own being" that carries him ever upward to his true self, his paredros/fravarti/Daena/Angel. 

"But in Ibn 'Arabi's own terminology Al-Lah is the Name which designates the divine Essence qualified and invested with the sum of His attributes, whereas al-Rabb, the Lord, is the personified and particularized Divine in one of its attributes (hence the divine Names designated as so many "lords," arbab)." (p. 122)

In many ways, this is how Jesus is viewed by the Christian.  He is called "God" but that isn't really a meaningful phrase as "God" remains undefined.  What is defined is "Jesus" so as Jesus is so we tend to view God.  However, based on where we are is how we view Jesus.  So our view of Jesus depends on our mode of perception.

In many ways, this mode of perception, the "Holy Spirit" of Christianity running a somewhat striking parallel to Corbin's presentation of the "Holy Spirit" (i.e. the Angel) as that faculty in man that enables him to perceive the divine figure (mazhar), his "celestial self" in that imaginal world that carries him ever upward.

It could be just me but these two run a very parallel course.  What is most interesting to me is that this is certainly not orthodox Islam but is the Sufi/Shi'ite/Isma'ili strain of Islam.  I can't help but think that there is a need in man for relationship with the divine and that this particualr strain of Islam is the manifestation of this longing.

Of course, the reductionist in me tends to think of "influences" as Islam developed, especially those strains that operated on the fringes that may have certainly had contact with other faiths, in this case more "Christologically" correct Christianity.  Perhaps its development was a response to the claims of the Christian as filtered through an Islamic paradigm.  More accommodating than polemical, the end result is the "theosophy" of which Corbin speaks.

It does, however, pose a possible alternative.  One can remain a Christian and yet gravitate and glean from an Islam such as this as the demarcation between the two tends to blur as we are in the realm of the spirit and not the realm of doctrine.

For the Shi'ite (as far as I can ascertain), the Imam tends to me what Jesus is for Christians.  There are, of course, differences (primary among them being primarily the resurrection of Jesus and the meanings that arise from this claim).  It isn't his divinity as the term "divinity" can be spun in such a way that any meaning it has blurs and not only Jesus but the Imam can be considered "divine" in some fashion. 

May not please the orthodox theologian but there is a realm in which this mode of exegesis finds life and does not strip away the fact that the believer is in fact still a believer in the original revelation.

I lost the point I was getting at...doesn't matter, really.  Even in neo-Protestant circles, with all the doctrinal squabbling, the average Christian believer may be compared phenomenologically to a Shi'ite that Corbin within Islamic tradition that to the traditional Christianity of, say, an Athanasius or Augustine. 

The Trinity tends, if it is considered at all, to be just a belief that comes with the faith.  The subtleties of the Trinity are lost in those who try to reason that "Jesus is God" is the basic tenet of the faith.  Just listen to the lyrics of many modern Christian worship songs and you'll hear that the nuances and subtleties of doctrine are nowhere to be found.

So in reading Corbin and others like him I find more freedom in my Christian walk.  Doesn't mean I've gone Muslim, mind you, but it does mean that I do not find myself bound to the text of the Bible.  My freedom is found in the "Holy Spirit" as the Bible is not the Word...Jesus is.  The Bible may ground us but it is not to the text that we devote our faith.

Any difference between Christianity and any other faith or, for that matter, between Christians, comes down to the answer to the question Jesus asks: "Who do you say that I am?"

Shi'ite, Isma'ili and Christian gnosis...

I must say that the spritual path that has been a constant curiosity to me over the past few years falls under the title of this post.  Most of this comes from the writings of Henry Corbin and Peter Lamborn Wilson and the trails followed in their bibliographies.

A recent article I was linked to which uses frequent references to a recent book by Todd Lawson on The Crucifixion and the Qur'an spells out my understanding of what the Qur'an says on the crucifixion and the way in which the "common" understanding entered Islamic tradition came to be (which, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of what the text says).  If you dig deeply into the tafsir you find a variety of opinions from the scholars of Islam as to what really happened.  There is no one answer. 

This has always been the sticking point for me when it come to Islam.  The Qur'an, to me, is a book of amazing power and beauty (a few verses notwithstanding...).  However, the hadith and tafsir pose great challenges which, to me, require just as much faith as Christians are accused of needing to believe in the vast and varied tradition of Bible transmission.

Anyhow, the point is that the Qur'an does not not deny the crucifixion itself; it denies the power to those who thought they had the power to crucify him.  The idea of a "substitute" is, to put it bluntly, a silly idea.  It would mean that either Jesus lived to a ripe old age and died or resides physically in space somewhere.

So the "angelology" and the "gnosis" of these paths as spelled out by Corbin, Wilson and similar ilk I could easily absorb.  Even the idea of the "hidden" and/or "eternal" Imam (and his hujjat) would not be too difficult for me to accept. 

However, there is one question that lingers: what of the resurrection?  The Crucifixion is not the crux of the Christian faith unless the Resurrection is right there with it.  Both are necessary.  No resurrection, dead Jesus.  End of story.

The Isma'ili view gives an understanding of what this would mean from an Islamic perspective.  However, the deeper question is this: had he been crucified with no resurrection claimed, there would most likely have been no Christian faith.  Faith in what? 

Even gnostics, though obviously with a different interpretation, understand there to have been a "resurrection" of some kind and to a very large extent it would appear that Isma'ilism picked up this thread as filtered through Neoplatonic thought. 

If Christianity had existed without a resurrection what would it have been?  What message would have been so substantial for it to have spread as it did?  Would there have been an Islam?  A Shi'ite or Isma'ili Islam?

So again, the question I have yet to find from a Shi'ite, Isma'ili or Shi'ite Isma'ili viewpoint is their take on the Christian view of the resurrection.  Would the idea of it being a "spiritual" or "esoteric" event have been enough of a message for it to have spread as it did for hundreds of years prior to the advent of Islam?

Henry Corbin, Ismaili Gnosis and Modern Christianity

I am reading Henry Corbin's Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis again (just saw it on Amazon for $25 for a used copy...least expensive I've ever seen it...).

As I'm reading it, I'm listening to my wife's recent fascination with "heaven" after having read Heaven Is For Real and now moving on to Nine Days in Heaven, a "modern" rewrite of a nineteenth century book (at which I quipped "what's next, 30 days in heaven, then 3 months in heaven, each one upping the game?").

She questioned how we know they aren't true. A valid point. Of course, how do we know they are?

At which point I remembered the statement from the Acts of Peter quoted by Corbin in his book:

Talem eum vidi qualem capere potui ("I saw him in such a form as I was able to take in").

And the lightbulb came on...

As for the child who was behind the Heaven Is For Real book, I realized, he, having been raised in a pastor's home, had no doubt heard stories and has experienced images of things he saw. He had a framework through which to filter what he experienced. His openness (his 'capacity' to use Corbin's term) allowed him to have the vision he had.

He lost me here:

“So what did the kids look like? What do people look like in heaven?”

“Everybody’s got wings,” [he] said."

At that point the story lost traction. While the father scours the Scriptures for other of his boy's descriptions, this one gets no such scrutiny. While I certainly can't deny his experience, the idea that humans have wings when they die is not supported by Scripture. This falls in the category of myth/folklore/tradition (or a child's imagination).

However, the idea of 'capacity' explains the different accounts in all the other books (and there are countless...) out there. Each one's capacity is framed within a certain context and it is through that context that these visison are filtered. After all, if they are, as Paul mentioned, beyond words, then we can only express them in the words and images that we know.

Modern Christianity has become, in many ways, Gnostic in this sense. This is not the "Gnostic" as opposed to "real" Christianity (whatever that is) but is a form of gnosticism, personal knowledge, that is present within churches, even, or perhaps especially, of the so-called fundamentalist/evangelical variety.

This drive for the "real" Jesus means many churches rise and fall with the vision of the pastor. It is often "pastor" not "church" centered. Of course these churches emphasize the "Holy Spirit" as their guide but it is peculiar that there are so many churches all claiming to be led by the same spirit and many of them have different litmus tests (Jesus prayer, speaking in tongues, your dress code, zip code, etc.).

We might argue that as long as they preach Jesus and him crucified we're all on the same team.

However, the "modern" church today seems to be quite gnostic in essence. Each Christian experiences "Jesus" according to his/her capacity for the theophanic vision of which Corbin speaks.

Personally, I'm ok with that. This actually helps me make sense of the New Testament (and, with it, the Hebrew Bible) and allows me the freedom to glean from Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant theology, along with books such as Corbin's.

If these things increase my capacity to experience "Jesus" then talem eum vidi qualem capere potui.

A soft spot for Islam?

You may notice if you've read through these posts that Islam takes up a lot of space.  I spend a lot of time defending it in the light of the stereotypes and lack of understanding or willingness to accept any old thing said about it and the unwillingness to investigate any deeper than finding those things that reinforce what we already believe.

But I am not soft on Islam, in general.  In fact, one of my greatest peeves about its missionary work is the ignorance Muslims (intentionally and knowingly or not) spreads about Christianity as viewed through a missionary Muslim's perspective.  The information they often spread is just as bad as the information Christians often spread about Islam. 

Here are some books of this variety.  One is a "Saudi" version of the Qur'an that is given away in mass.  I picked up my copy while contemplating conversion and spending a weekend at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.  These are what are given out to those interested because they are readily available and they are free.  This is one particular translation into English from a very particular point of view.

Two of them are reviews about such information as put out in books by Christians who have converted to Islam.  These are books that spread a particular kind of information.  It is "rooted" in other things published but it often borders on the fringe, at best, and conspirational at worst.  Granted, I too am coming from a particular point of view so take these reviews as well formed opinion but opinions nonetheless.

However, I would certainly not base one's eternal salvation upon what these authors say.   But I do recommend reading them, though, if only to understand. 

The Qur'an - translation by by Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaliq, translated with commentary by Mahmoud Murad.

The Cross & The Crescent - Jerald Dirks

A Muslim Study of the Origins of the Christian Church - Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood

They are authors, all entitled to their views.

I am simply defending education.

If you want opinions on some good, balanced works, drop me a line. 

Revisiting Islam

I was asked to offer up reflections of my article that was published in my local newspaper, to add more depth and lessons learned of the experience. It has taken me right back to that time, perhaps the last time I can truly recall being spiritually on fire.

This isn't to say that I am not working on developing my faith, deeper and more practically in my life. But I miss the adventure, the excitement, the thrill of discovery and the opening up of my heart, mind and soul. For as confusing as that time of my life was, in hindight it was a time of great learning and growth.

I was talking with a guy I work with who was intrigued with my adventure and he made the comment that he was told that Muhammad was angry. Interesting perspective. I suppose we could easily find verses or traditions, isolated in their context, to support that view. We could just as easily find verses that show Muhammad to be quite passive. Context, baby.

I noticed also the fuss about building a mosque around the site of Ground Zero. We have made an idol out of 9/11. This isn't to dismiss the tragedy. This is to put it in a larger context. Other places around the world have experience tragedies to greater degrees.

But a bunch of militants penetrating right into the heart of America and destroying one of its prominent symbols of power or, if you will, hubris. Considering America's place in the world over the past hundred years or so, no murderous event in recent memory has been as symbolic, on many levels. Even the Oklahoma city bombing, by one of America's own, lacks the significance due not only to power of the imagery but to the religious ideology that has been laid on top of the act.

So a mosque at Ground Zero? Religiously, I have no problem with it. This isn't the controversy. The controversy is the politicized nature of the act. On one hand it is an attempt to heal this rift between Islam and the West; on the other hand, it reveals a certain insensitivity to the symbolic nature of what happened and shows a lack of awareness at the seething rage that lies under the surface of many Americans.

I say move it forward, see what happens. America is a free country. We are free to build a mosque at Ground Zero; we are free to debate it and argue against it. Such is the nature of the freedom granted in the ideals of America. If America is going to become a Muslim nation it is going to become Muslim. Whatever happens is going to happen exactly as it is supposed to happen. If it does become a Muslim nation it is because no other ideology is strong enough to unify the citizens of the United States.

Don't blame Islam; look in the mirror.

Obama and the Muslim world

Good for Obama. He is actually doing what he said he'd do. It's gonna ruffle the feathers of some "patriots" in the U.S. For years the policy has been no dialogue. Our way is the best (i.e. only) way and any dialogue hinges upon accepting this fact. Don't like it, we'll drop bombs on you.

Most Americans oppose closing Guantanamo Bay. Guess most Americans haven't seen Taxi to the Dark Side yet.

Sure, we must fight terrorists. But is being a terrorist going to stop terrorism?

And what is the fear of bringing them here? That their buddies will target the U.S.? Or is it that we know our justice system is broken and a fair trial may release them within the U.S.? That they may actually live here, pissed off and jaded by the breach of justice committed upon them?

How many of them might become terrorists because of what has happened to them in the name of "justice" American style?

Didn't Jesus say that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword?

Didn't Jesus also say that blessed are the peacemakers? Can use of war be considered a method of peace? Can we really spin that verse?

Kudos to Obama for trying something different.

Why people dislike organized religion...

I am respectful of others' religious traditions but how do you not get upset watching this? Religious "tradition" interferes with life and ceases to have any real function. I mean I know we all have traditions that appear strange to others but do you live like this? Are these women really ok with it? Not even to eat? What do they really think?

Seattle 1994 Baraka and the World of Illusion

I am listening to the soundtrack for the film Baraka as ripped from the DVD (seems this is heading for obsolence as the Blu-Ray is said to be astonishing...).

In 1994 I was living in Seattle, having found myself there after several months on the road after quitting a "real" job and hitting the road (fueled by confusion, madness and drug use...). It was quite an experience.

One of the memorable moments in the drug-fueled period of my life was the opportunity to see the film Baraka in all it glory on the big screen. I doubt it was in the original 70 mm Todd-AO format though it may have been. All I know is that I was stoned when I went to see it and was mesmerized. In the midst of a spiritual crisis/catharis, the subject matter of the film was right on point. It was where I was at the time; it was also where I wanted to be. I sat in a stupor for about an hour and a half as I asborbed the images and sounds of the film. If you've never see it, you must see it at least once.

One of the pivotal moments, at the height of my buzz no less, was a scene in a trash dump in India where people are rummaging through the trash while Dead Can Dance's "Host of Seraphim" is playing. I was frozen in time. Never had I been so moved during a film; never had I felt a song so powerfully. It was, for that moment, transcendent. Even now as I listen to the song, it takes me there, a perfect memory capsule of a moment frozen in song.

Now, fifteen years later and a bit more worldly wise, I have found that many of the images in the film are based in settings that would be considered the tourist variety and the film itself is structured to "sell" a point. Though profound and moving it is now fairly obvious. Perhaps maturity and experience has shattered the illusion but it doesn't take away from the original experience for which this was a pivotal moment. This is a risk as we age, that we condemn and become cynical about those things that profoundly altered our worldview. But this film educated me and was instrumental in my desire to see the world in context.

One of the scenes which freaked me out at first was early in the film when a group of men, all seated, perform some kind of a dance in the jungle, all led by an older "shamanic" figure, eyes glazed over in a hypnotic trance, arms in unison as the bodies sway back and forth to the rhythm of the chant. A striking visual.

Years later I would learn that this is a staged performance called Kecak, or Ramayana Monkey Chant, a musical drama performed in Bali that celebrates an ancient Sanskrit epic. While it has its roots in sanghyang, a trance-inducing exorcism dance, it has become a "Westernized" version of the original.

A German painter and musician, Walter Spies, became interested in it during the 1930s and transformed it into a performance piece. Spies worked with Wayan Limbak, a Balinese dancer, and Limbak popularized the dance by traveling throughout the world with Balinese performance groups. These travels helped to make the Kecak known throughout the world.

This transformation is an example of what James Clifford describes as part of the "modern art-culture system" in which, "the West or the central power adopts, transforms, and consumes non-Western or peripheral cultural elements, while making 'art' which was once embedded in the culture as a while, into a separate entity."

Here is a more telling photo:

Sounds familiar...

Americanization

To what extent is education exploitation? Too cynical? Is my desire to keep such cultural elements confined to their historical roots a sign of the same "spirit" of Westernization, an elitist version of creating an exotic "other" for voyeuristic purpose?

Speaking of exploitation, tourism and Sufism, this all reminds me of an article from Hakim Bey, one of my favorite anarchist writers, about Overcoming Tourism...

This film was my first exposure to the music of Dead Can Dance and I would, over time, absorb anything related to their music, discovering many artists on the legendary 4AD label. Even today, it is still some of my favorite music.

However, much of this had to do with the mystique I created around their music. I envisioned some mysterious, mystical, exotic group whose music was angelic, ethereal, transcendent. That wasn't the case but the music of Lisa Gerrard, vocalist for Dead Can Dance, is truly amazing. She is perhaps most known for her work in the film score for Gladiator. Like much of my early spirituality, I chose to believe in a myth of my own making, a self-idealized projection that led to living in a world of illusion I created.

Time, age and maturity can often dampen the original joy of an event but this film changed my worldview and instilled a deeper desire for exploring the religious life. With music from around the world buoyed by a score from Michael Stearn (a favorite of Hearts of Space), it's a gem. The music is incredible though I think the weed enhanced the music to an extent I haven't experienced since.

Actually, the last time I watched the film itself I was tripping on LSD and in one of the early scenes of a mountain, I saw the face of Jesus being molded, melting, out of the mountains, a liquid face morphing and changing but still clearly Jesus.

I don't expect you to see Jesus there but I did, plain as could be. It was a charcoal etched vision of him in Fritz Eichenberg or Gustav Dore style (no halo, though) but it was unmistakable. I wanted to stay in that moment forever. Sadly, the crew I was with wanted to trip to something else and ejected the video.

A soundbyte from this film can be found in Jonathan Lisle's incredible Original OS.0_2 mix on John Digweed's Bedrock label and if you watch closely you'll see stills of the film in The Matrix Reloaded when Neo speaks with The Architect.

It's amazing the things that frame our worldview. Because this film so impacted my life (and, obviously, the lives of others) it has become a way of framing my perception of the world and is thus instantly recognizable when placed in various cultural media, a signpost, common ground among a larger tribe, all on the same journey, like product placement (is that irony or cynicism?).

The CD version of the film was too short and left out a lot of the subtle musical gems from the film as was the case with both Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi. Certainly these will be on Blu-Ray soon. What a peculiar twist having paid $75 for a used VHS version of this movie off of ebay after it was pulled from the shelves of Blockbuster when it went out of print. I can't help but think that there is something ugly and sinister about the material product of media proliferation.

It looks as if an "upgrade" to the soundtrack to Koyaanisqatsi is forthcoming as well.

My wife and I saw Koyaanisqatsi performed live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with Philip Glass leading his orchestra as part of an effort to fund the finishing touches on the third piece of the trilogy, Naqoyqatsi (or, as my wife calls it, quite prophetically, Not Quite Qatsi). Having heard this live with the film playing on a movie screen in the background was comparable to my viewing of Baraka, though I was sober this time.

Life without drugs and addictions. Being grateful. No regrets. Enjoying the now. To live without illusion. It really is possible.

WALSTIB...

Americanization of Sufism...

Rather than a specifically Americanized version, there is a larger Western scholarly category called Orientalist which is basically the Western study, often biased or with a specific agenda, of things "Oriental" under which Islam falls.

An article from Carl W. Ernst in Brannon Wheeler's compilation of essays pertaining to Teaching Islam goes more deeply into how Sufism has been isolated from its historical roots. Brannon Wheeler, in several articles on Khidr/Khezr (one of my favorite characters of any religion), radically altered my views in "influence/borrowing" in Islam. On this, I'll post more when I get time.

According to Ernst the term and category Sufism was first coined by British Orientalists in India, particularly Sir William Jones. He notes that the "dervishes", the symbol of Sufism, were known but only as exotic curiosities. The term Sufi was given primarily to the literary phase, particularly the poetry, convinced that the elegant poems of Hafiz and Rumi could have nothing to do with the Islamic (then called "Mahometan") religion. The Sufis (whose character was gleaned from within the literature) were free spirits and thus had little in common with the "stern faith" of Muhammad.

Ernst notes that

the term Sufism was invented at the end of the eighteenth century as an appropriation of those portions of "Oriental" culture that Europeans found attractive.

Ernst seeks to make the point that the nonpolitical image of Sufism is illusory. It's a different angle than merely criticizing Sufism's excision from its Islamic roots which has overtones of a strictly "religious" critique. After all, Islam is a worldview and this includes politics under its umbrella.

There is often a polarity posed between Islam and Sufism, as if Sufism is somehow not Islamic or as if it intentionally freed itself from the grasps of a fundamentalist faith. While historically there have been clashes between the fundamentalist variety of Islam and the more "mystical" strain (which Orientalists have coined "Sufi"), the battle has been for the "control of [Islam's] central religious symbols" (113).

Fundamentalists (in any faith or political worldview, for that matter), who fear any alternative interpretation as threatening, have taken the lead of the Orientalist view and have sought to make Sufism into a subject separable from Islam, even hostile to it, as Ernst points out. This makes the fundamentalists the "sole authentic custodians of tradition" even though such groups constitute only 20 percent of any Muslim population. Sufism is thus not included in the "history" of Islam from this paradigm.

However, many a Sufi order has been actively involved in politics even, ironically, active in resiting colonial rule. Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and Abu al-'Ala' Mawdudi, founder of the Jama'at-i Islami, were admirers of the structure of the Sufi orders. While they may not adopt the spiritual practices, they acted in relation to their followers "with all the charisma of a Sufi master in the company of disciples" (113). So the Sufi "mystique" has a powerful hold over on Muslim society so the fundamentalist reinterpretation of history is a powerful spin.

With differing motives, both Orientalists and fundamentalist have sought, quite successfully, to separate Sufism from its Islamic roots. Those associaetd with that which is now generically called "Sufism" are not called on to make explicit statements regarding their relation to "mainstream" Islam. However, according to Ernst, prior to the nineteenth and twentiety centuries, it was scarcely necessary for a Sufi, "steeped in the Quran and the example of Prophet Muhammad", to have to provide self-definition in terms of Islam. This has been a result of Islam becoming "the eternal other" as opposition to the modern West (115).

Ernst ends his essay discussing mysticism as a category. He notes that it is "often reduced to a bare universalism...and...to the private experience of the individual" (121). In this view, then, military and economic activities inherent in Sufism's past do not fit this picture of mysticism and is disgarded. However, Ernst notes that this is difficult to do with the truth about Sufism's history. Sufis are constantly reminded of this by the model of the Prophet Muhammad, who is, for them, the role of social and political leader, as well as mystical exemplar.

In essence, then, Sufism should be studied in its context for understanding. It is much more than Rumi; it is much more than the "mystical" side of Islam; it is much more than the "real" Islam. All of these are subjective, isolated views which, when not taken as part of a larger whole, become private affairs and cease to have any real application in the world at large. Religion as a solely private thing can be just as dangerous as religion at the institutional level.

In other words, "mysticism", a generic category into which Sufism has been lumped, has come to mean "I'm spiritual, not religious" or "I don't like organized religion" or "All religions are the same" or "All religions lead to the same place", well-meaning slogans that really equate to unwillingness to commit to any form of religious or doctrinal affiliation, Man as the measure of all things. Really, it is nothing more than the Great Em Ee desiring to be the center of all things, including the judge of Truth.

The problem isn't whether "Sufism" is "mystical" or Sufism vs. Islam or Sufism devoid of content as much it is the problem of how few of us are really willing to commit, i.e. surrender self, to any Path requiring genuine sacrifice. Believe me, I only recognize it when I see it because I am just as guilty of this as the next person.

Faith is messy because it changes us.

Henry Corbin and Docetism

Trying to further elaborate on the post on Henry Corbin's discussion on Angelology, he delves further into the gnostic idea and its trajectory. As should be pretty clear, Corbin's writings have had a tremendous impact on me. In terms of comparative religion, he puts to shame the superficiality of many so-called comparative religious studies and gets to a genuine "core", the real crux of where relgions meet, not in doctrine and dogma, which are areas where divisions have been drawn, but in those fringe areas where religions truly intersect and interweave.

The Christ of the Acts of Peter and John has been called Docetic. Corbin notes, however, that Docetism is not a set doctrine but a "tendency" (63). He points out that the Christology of the Qur'an is Docetic as is the Imamology particular to Shi'ite Gnosis and that the "Buddhology" of Mahayana Buddhism is Docetic as well. In terms of a Christian Docetism this is in contrast to the hypostatic union which was "a material fact that entered into history" and became an "external and objective datum" 62). In other words, this is not your "orthodox" variety of Christianity.

This Docetic Christology does not view Christ as a "phantasm" or a spook or a ghost but as a "real apparition" which is "proportionate to the theophanic dimension of the soul, that is, its aptitude for being shown a divine Figure". The soul, therefore, is thus not a witness to an external event but "the medium in which the event takes place" (62).

Peculiar to Ebionite Christianity is the idea of the True Prophet or Prophet of Truth, not the God incarnate or God-man of what would become "orthodox" Christianity.

"Running through the ages since the beginning of the world, he hastens toward the place of his repose".

All that matters to the Ebionites is whether or not Jesus is this Prophet. The first Adam was the first epiphanic Form of the True Prophet, what Corbin calls the Christus aeternus, i.e. Adam-Christos. The True Prophet, having in him the breath of the divine nature, cannot sin. In Ebionism, the True Prophet appeared to Moses and Abraham and in Adam and Jesus the True Prophet was present.

In Jesus, then, the True Prophet finds his "final repose." He is not messianic Lord because his death effects redemption; according to Corbin it is because a community was "waiting for the Epiphany of the...Angelos Christos, the return of him who dispenses Knowledge that delivers and who will thereby establish a supraterrestrial kingdom...of Angels." (71) He is an Illuminator, not a Redeemer.

Now if Adam, the initial Prophet, could not sin, what of the "fall" of man? Providing a unique spin of Satan/Iblis, Adam's "fall" was not sin but of divulging the secret of the end of the Cycle of history, the knowledge of the Last Imam of the Cycle, the Resurrector (Qa'im) and the Resurrection. But this may only be divulged in symbols proportionate to the spiritual adept's "degree of dignity and capacity." (84)

This is where Corbin gets into the meat of his essay. He discusses the hadd, the limit, of each spiritual adept. It is the degree of consciousness, the mode of knowledge proportionate to the mode of being realized by the adept. The next higher hadd is, then, the Lord - that is to say, the Self - of its own mahdud ("limited"), the Self of what which it limits, that whose horizon it is." (85)

Our spiritual journey, in this scheme, is a journey through levels, or horizons or, as Corbin calls them, Angels. Each adept must rely upon his imam who is responsible for leading him up to the next level which thus becomes his hadd and the adept too is responsible for leading the one below him up to his former hadd. Each ascent of degrees, or horizon, is called a qiyamat, a "resurrection." So Adam, as True Prophet, is the repository of all souls, each individual soul on its journey toward the Qiyamat al-Qiyamat, or Grand Resurrection. In Shi'ite Islam this is the advent of the Qa'im, the last Imam. This, according to this schema, is the consummation of all religion.

So where does this leave us besides bewildered? Though this is a weak summation of what is truly a dense distilation of comparative religion in Corbin's work, it is leading somewhere.

Several concepts as generally understood in Christianity are tweaked:

1) Docetism is presented in a different form that is stereotypically understood as mere "appearance" or "phantasm"

2) Jesus is not an incarnate God; he is the repository of the True Prophet and is thus, at least according to Ebionite Christianity, messianic in the sense of bringer of Knowledge

3) Each spiritual adept (i.e. all of us) is where he/she us based on the adept's "horizon" or ability to see

4) The Qiyamat al-Qiyamat (Grand Resurrection) is when the Qa'im (the Final Imam), akin to the parousia of traditional Christianity, will appear to "recapitulte" all souls and religion, the Epiphanic Cycle of this Gnostic vision will be complete.

This connects to another of my favorite writers, Vladimir Lossky and his writings on Eastern Orthodox Theology. The connection between Christianity's "eastern" coloring and its influence on Islam is unmistakable. What is surprising is that in a work as "orthodox" as Lossky's there seems to be a connection, no matter how slight, with Corbin's vision of the Christianity almost lost to the paradise of archetypes.

A great blog about Henry Corbin's works

Here is the link to the blog:

The Legacy of Henry Corbin

A new book is due in August of 2009 which looks quite adventurous and tags right along with Corbin's Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis. Norman O. Brown's The Challenge of Islam: The Prophetic Tradition looks to be an interesting read.

Henry Corbin and Angelology

In Henry Corbin's densely packed book on the trajectory of "gnosticism" from Zoroastrianism through Christianity to its final "resting" place of Shi'ism he discusses the theophanic vision, as I've posted elsewhere quoting the Acts of Peter and Acts of John.

This stuff is heady and my summation is not as clean as I'd like but it's a start. Corbin's stuff is the densest thing I've ever read. But the work is worth it for those nuggets, when they come, make it all worth while.

Here's what he has to say about the theophanic vision:

"There is actual perception of an object, of a concrete person: the figure and the features are sharply defined; this person presents all the "appearances" of a sensuous object, and yet it is not given to the perception of the sense organs. This perception is essentially an event of the soul, taking place in the soul and for the soul. As such its reality is essentially individuated for and with each soul; what the soul really sees, it is in each case alone in seeing." (Henry Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, 60).

And here is the key to this entire essay in the book:

"The field of its vision, its horizon, is in every case defined by the capacity, the dimension of its own being: Talem eum vidi qualem capere potui" (60-61)

Quoting Origen's discussion of the Transfiguration he notes that Jesus appeared in the form in which he was normally seen but also in his transfigured form "he appeared to each one according as each man was worthy."

The core of Corbin's book is in essence the transformation of such a "gnosis" in Islamic, specifically Ismaili, soil. Having traced its origins in Zoroastrianism, Corbin goes on to discuss the connection between Zoroastrianism, Christianity (specifically Ebionite Christianity) and Islam (specifically Shi'ite and, more speficially, Ismaili Shi'ite) in a mindbending trip. Corbin has "no wish to debate the question of historical filiation...nor to determine the 'influences'" which, he says, "reads causality into things" (31). The connection between them is not doctrinal: it is a common angelology.

By angel he is not talking about the winged variety or the Touched By An Angel variety or any of those other media caricatures. For Corbin the "angel" is the "celestial Idea" of all human beings. Writing on Ibn Arabi, he says:

"...that which a human being regains in the mystical experience, is the "celestial pole" of his being, which is to say his "person" whereby and as which, the Divine Being from the very beginning in the origin of origins in the world of Mystery, manifested himself to himself, and made himself known to it in this Form [its own form, the form it was given to assume] which is equally the Form in which he knew himself in it. It is the Idea, or rather the "Angel" of his person whose present self is no more than the terrestrial pole."

And again:

"I am your own Daênâ", -which means: I am, in person, the faith that you professed and that which inspired it in you, she for whom you have answered and she who guided you, she who comforted you and she who now judges you, for I am, in person, the Image proposed to you from the birth of your being and the Image which finally you have yourself wished for ("I was beautiful, you have made me still more beautiful").

These paragraphs draw out the distinctions behind Corbin's aversion to traditional Christianity and its teaching of the singular event of the Incarnation of Christ. Rather than a universal, singular Christ, this Angel of which Corbin speaks is personal, unique to each soul, and is the Image to which the soul longs to unite.

He further breaks down this angelology. Rather than being a "metaphorical luxury" the Angel's significance is twofold, theophanic and soteriological ("salvific"). It can be thought about in several ways. There are angels who have remained in the celestial world, the intermediary between heaven and earth, and other angels who have fallen to Earth. The angels in the celestial world (the pleroma) are "angels in actu" and the angels who are on earth are the "angels in potentia".

Another way of looking at it is that this division may refer to a single being, an unus ambo. The Spirit is the person or Angel who has remained in heaven, the "celestial twin", while the soul is his companion who has fallen to Earth, to whose help he comes and with whom he will be reunited if he issues victorious from the cosmic battle between good and evil. (103)

The human lot is thus, quoting Nasir Khusraw, a transitory status, the "horizon" of which Corbin speaks. Man is a "not-yet": an angel (or demon) in potentia awaiting reunion with his celestial twin, the angel in actu.

Heady? Yeah. And I can't do it justice. But there is a certain logic to it that is quite appealing. Rather than a heavenly Jesus to whom we turn, we all have inherent in us this "Idea" of perfection, this idea of the "Divine" and it is this "Idea" that Corbin terms the Angel with whom we seek union or re-union. It has been placed in us from the very beginning; it is this that guides us and it is to this we seek to return.

Corbin's main thrust is this:

"Man is called, by right of his origin and if he consents, to an angelomorphosis, his acceptance of which precisely regulates his aptitude for theophanic visions." (64)

It is this angelomorphosis (Corbin invents mroe than a few terms in this work) that is the key. Ismailian Gnosis, according to Corbin, in a sense saves a Christianity, specifically of the Ebionite variety, that had long ago been lost to the "paradise of archetypes" (65).

My journey through Islam...

In 1999, having been a "born again" Christian at a Oneness Pentecostal church in the heart of the inner city in Youngstown, I was journeying toward Islam. That is a story in itself. In 2005, having just been interviewed for the CBS Saturday Evening News, I contributed an article to my local newspaper about my experience as a "Muslim" for a weekend.

At some point I will rewrite it through the lens of time and experience. It's pretty airy but if you read between the lines you can get a real point of view. Though it's pretty much as I wrote it, I hated the title and found it interesting to see what was edited ("conflated" in the original was changed to "blended" which completely changed what I was saying).

Even more interesting was the interview on the CBS Saturday Evening News. I was interviewed in my home for about fifteen minutes by an interviewer from New York via phone. The camera man was in my house and I had to look as if I was talking to the interviewer as if he were in front of me. Fascinating the prep and posing we see on the news. Though a great experience, it reinforced my skepticism of the news as selling a point of view.

The questions got to be pretty in depth and the interviewer was genuinely curious as to how a Christian firm in his faith could genuinely study and participate in Islam without feeling threatened and without, in the end, losing faith.

But this wasn't the topic of the piece on the news.

CAIR was giving away a free copy of the Qur'an to anyone who was interested and the news piece covered this. A professor of Islam at my local university who I had gotten fairly well had been contacted by CBS News and asked if he knew of anyone who was a non-Muslim and a non-scholar who had read the Qur'an in its entirety. He gave them my name. Imagine the surprise when CBS News called my house for an interview. I didn't really care so much about that. I was more honored that he thought of me.

Here's a copy of the transcript:

Thousands of Americans Seek Copies of Qur'an

Out of everything I said, they took one snippet, out of context, and highlighted it. I learned a lot about media and how they "sell" a point of view. Though I meant what I said, without the context it is easy to see how soundbytes get misconstrued. Requests for the videotaped interview were denied and the video of the clip from the news (June 5 or 12, 2005) have disappeared from the Web.

The copies they were giving away was the Yusuf Ali translation (which is the "safest" translation to give away to an American audience). They ran out and sent me a copy of Muhammad Asad's translation, The Message of the Qur'an.

I already had a copy of his so kept the one sent from CAIR (it's beautiful) and listed the other copy online. Were I to become a Muslim it would have been Islam as presented in Asad's translation. In fact, Islam as I had come to understand it aligned with his view even before I had found his translation.

I hold an "if only..." nostalgia for his translation and Islam as presented by the Traditionalist school. On occasion I do read it though certainly not as much as during the period of time in which I lived and breathed Islam.

This period of time radically altered my view of both Christianity and Islam for the better.

It comes down to choice...

It is a choice, certainly and I think that is the key. You might say it's a choice to choose. But then commitment to that choice is just as important. In my case, after the initial choice, my sincere desire to know the answers led me down many a winding path. But it always came back to Jesus. Always.

And the Jesus of Islam wasn't the answer (as I've noted in various places in my blog), nor was it the Jesus of the scholars, the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, the Jesus of the New Age or the Jesus of historians. I gorged myself on these works, studying them in great depth and detail, trying to justify and prove that the whole thing was a myth, a charade, a lie. In the end I found, by and large, that the Jesus of these methods turned out to look a lot like the scholars the scholars themselves. In the end, ironically enough, it enhanced my faith.

I had some "visions" that were a turning point for me. I've written about them in the blog. We got away from the circus style church and found a place where true and genuine preaching was heard weekly. Practical, earthly, relevant stuff that, when applied, revealed the Truth greater than any studying could ever do.

And, lately, the healing of my soul. I sourced mine to events when I was around ten years old.

Strangely enough, this healing led to and coincided with intellectual rest and freedom. My intellect was a defense, protection of a wounded soul. Rather than be open and honest, I filtered it through analysis and intellect first. It was just another method of numbing the pain I was hiding. Once my soul began to heal, my intellect, though still on hyperdrive, was no longer my idol. It balanced my soul.

In hindsight, by hiding the pain, I learned that it was more painful to hide it than to feel the actual pain of the pain I was hiding...if that makes sense.

Make a choice and watch that party in your head come along and even support you in your choice. Rather than a cacophony make it a symphony. Start exploring the reasons for not being able to make a choice, to what degree addiction and depression are a front for selfishness and what part of the soul is in need of healing.

I'm not all the way there yet. Sometimes my writing is the conceptual grasp that I have yet to achieve but it's a goal. And I do slip back into depression and self-pity and addictive tendencies are always lurking. But I have a consistent hope these days.

But it's taken me over ten long and adventurous years after "accepting Christ" to begin to find it. I do believe, however, that the wisdom I found in diving into other traditions provided fertile soil and I cherish the wisdom and experiences. I remain open to listening to the whisper of the Spirit from wherever it may come.

Americanization of Rumi...Part Two

As El-Zein notes, one of the major feature of the 'New Sufism' is the fact that the majority of the translations of Rumi's verse comes from English, not the original Persian. The name Jonathan Star, who has also "translated" the Dao De Jing, is listed in the article as one of these adepts. Star is among a seemingly endless group of English speaking authors (e.g. Stephen Mitchell et al) who render a multitude of works from different faith traditions.

For example, Coleman Barks, whose publishing career is Rumi, worked with John Moyne to render the Essential Rumi (of which I have a copy) from A.J. Arberry's scholarly translation. El-Zein quotes Barks:

"John Moyne and I try to be faithful to the images, the tone as we hear it, and the spiritual information coming through. We have not tried to reproduce any of the dense musicality of the Persian originals. It has seemed appropriate to place Rumi in the strong tradition of American free verse." (75)

I've heard his poems expressed in the original Persian. A respected scholar of Islam who teaches where I obtained my BA in Religious Studies, fluent in Persian, recited some of his poems. American free verse melts like butter in comparison. Granted, not everyone can learn or understand Persian. Just as plastic can only be recycled so many times before it loses its strength completely, so too these renderings being removed from their original context one too many times loses any tie to its original and becomes eisegesis, proof-texting to sell the particular viewpoint of the one wielding the words.

El-Zein quotes Deepak Chopra following suit:

"They, (the poems) are not direct translations but 'moods' that we have captured as certain phrases radiated from the original Farsi, giving life to a new creation but retaining the essence of its source." (75)

Rumi has been Americanized. El-Zein states that the basic Islamic element in Rumi's work "has been diluted in the soup of 'New Sufism' to the extent that Islam appears as mainly folkloric" and Rumi himself nothing more than a product for spiritual consumption (76).

Here are some shortcomings of the New Sufism when compared to its Islamic context. The modern renderings do not stress, as in the scholarly works, the idea that human love is transformed into love of the Divine. Rumi's works are filled with allusions to Islamic themes. Without these themes there is no context, no ground, and one can say just about anything. Similarity in comparative religion does not mean sameness. Only by removing context can one sell a viewpoint that all "mysticism" looks the same, "superficial and vulgar" (78), to use El-Zein's expression. Such comparisons become nothing more than generalizations.

As an example, El-Zein takes Andrew Harvey to task. From Rumi's point of view the conception of silence, of emptiness, is interpreted through the first and most important aspsect of the shahadah, la ilaha illa allah (There is no god but God), the silence yielding to listening to the Qur'an. For Harvey, silence is related to the dance of Kali, to 'Shiva Shakti who is peace and energy in One' thus making it seem as if Rumi's verse belongs to the Tao which is not, El-Zein points out, the Tao as spoken of in the I Ching. Rumi's beloved, Shams, is even compared to a Zen master. (80)

If we pay careful attention to these New Agey interpretations, the agenda becomes clear. All bearings are lost and these comparative religions are cast adrift in a sea of endless meaninglessness, the ground of seemingly finding a "spirituality" that conforms to what is already believed, to confirm some utopian vision of the way things should be. This is not necessarily the fault of the listener/reader who is dependent upon the work of the authors nor is it to say that the authors are somehow being deceitful.

But if one really does any in-depth analysis of religious traditions the shallowness of such comparisons become abundantly clear and disconcerting. El-Zein calls this "spiritual elusiveness" (81). When everyone knows good as good, this is not good.

To drive the point home, El-Zein points out that Rumi was deeply rooted in Islamic tradition. Quoting Arberry:

"Before everything, he (Rumi) was a learned theologian after the firmest pattern of medieval Islam, very familiar with the Koran and its exegesis, the traditional sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, the sacred law and its erudite exposition." (81)

Seyyed Hussein Nasr, himself a member of the Traditionalist school, quotes Hadi Ha'iri, a renowned scholar of Rumi in Persia, as saying that some 6,000 verses of Rumi's Diwan and the Mathnawi are practically direct translations of Qur'anic verse into Persian poetry. In other words, "a different Rumi [is] created by Barks and Harvey and other interpreters, a Rumi for the American market." (81-2) To cut, isolate and dissect Rumi from his Islamic roots is to do an injustice not only to Rumi and his faith tradition but to the American public as well who are, in essence, being fed junk food.

Here are Rumi's words as rendered by Harvey:

"I do not know who I am
I am in astounding confusion.
I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I am not a Zoroastrian,
And I am not even a Muslim. (82)

To quote Rumi himself (as translated by Shems Friedlander):

I am the slave of the Koran
While I still have life.
I am the dust on the path of the Prophet Muhammad,
The chosen one,
If anyone interprets my words
in any other way,
I deplore that person,
And I deplore his words. (82)

What more is there to say?

The Americanization of Rumi...Part One

Religion, like most things in America, is a commodity. When someone finds a market for something, it grows and grows as others jump on the bandwagon. Context means little when it comes to the commodification of religion. As with anything "popular" it's about filtering it down to its basic marketing essence and stripping it of anything that may limit its saleability. Popular, in my opinion, is a derogatory term.

A prime example of this commodification is the fascination with Rumi. Look at any bookshelf in Barnes & Noble or Borders under Islam or Eastern Religions. There will be some translations of the Qur'an, a few books dealing with historical Islam, a few works taking Islam to task (which is par for the course as works taking Christianity to task have become quite popular in their own right), a few books on Sufism (frequently Americanized) and the majority of the space filled with books on or about Rumi.

So who is Rumi? Rumi is marketed as the poet of love. To market him in an Islamic context would certainly hinder sales related to his name. Some speak of his universality and present him as a mystical poet who transcends religious bounds.

I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.
I went into the ancient temples of idolatry; no trace of Him was there.
I entered the mountain cave of Hira and then went as far as Qandhar but God I found not.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Caucasus and found there only 'anqa's habitation.
Then I directed my search to the Kaaba, the resort of old and young; God was not here even.
Turning to philosophy I inquired about him from ibn Sina but found Him not within his range.
I fared then to the scene of the Prophet's experience of a great divine manifestation only a "two bow-lengths' distance from him" but God was not there even in that exalted court.
Finally, I looked into my own heart and there I saw Him; He was nowhere else.

I first saw this poem on the liner notes of the cassette (not the CD for some reason) of Enigma's 1990 album MCMXC A.D.. Here is the version contained there:

I tried to find Him on the Christian cross,but He was not there;
I went to the Temple of the Hindus and to the old pagodas, but I could not find a trace of Him anywhere.
I searched on the moutains and in the valleys but neither in the hights nor in the depths was I able to find Him.
I went to the Caaba in Mecca, but He was not there either.
I questioned the scholars and philosophers but He was beyond thair understanding.
I then looked into my heart and it was there where He dwelled that I saw him; he was nowhere else to be found.

I haven't sourced either translation (the second I'm guessing is from Coleman Barks) but which do you think would sell to a popular market, primarily in the U.S.? This is representative of how he is viewed in popular culture. He has been accosted, reinterpreted, sanitized and repackaged as happens in consumer culture.

This doesn't have to be a bad thing. His works are popular for a reason and they certainly spark something positive in people. And the power of his words, even in translation/interpretation, are powerful and deep. There is obviously a hunger in people for truth.

While in the throes of my journey into Islam I picked up a free copy of the March 2000 issue of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations journal published through the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding out of Georgetown University. In it is an article by Amira El-Zein called "Spiritual Consumption in the United States: the Rumi phenomenon" which discusses how Rumi's work is "taken nowadays out of the Muslim Sufi tradition into an elusive spiritual movement [called] the 'New Sufism'" (p. 71).

El-Zein calls those who seek to recontextualize Rumi's works as the "new interpreters" and refers to translations of his works by those involved in this movement as "renderings" of his verse. El-Zein points out that his popularity has resulted in Coleman Barks' plethora of Rumi works selling over a quarter of a million copies, recordings of the works of Rumi entering Billboard's Top Twenty, a compact disc of Rumi's works being produced for a New York fashion show with participating artists including Madonna, Rosa Parks, Goldie Hawn and the one man who truly knows no boundaries when it comes to marketing religion, Deepak Chopra. Poetry readings have even been held at a Disney Store in Glendale, California.

So what is wrong with all this talk about love, trying to break free of the fetters of religion that often divide? If Rumi gives expression to such love, why is it so wrong to quote him? Why can't all religions be one? Why can't we heed the words of John Lennon? Why can't we pick and choose, recontextualize and make the world a better place?

El-Zein does not criticize this notion, as such. El-Zein is simply pointing out that Rumi has been eisegetically interpreted based on the beliefs of the 'New Sufism' movement.

There are academic translations which provide accurate translations and provide the context which is essential in understanding the symbolism of Rumi's poems. These scholarly works are certainly not popular in a mass marketed sense. Works such as Mathnawi of Jalaluddin Rumi (6 Volume Set) and Look! This Is Love (Shambhala Centaur Editions) are examples.

The context is essential to truly grasping and appreciating what Rumi is saying. In the two examples above, the second version has, with the exception of the Caaba, been sanitized of all Islamic references. It is safe and fluid enough to be framed and hung on the wall in the most religious of homes and the most non-religious of homes. This is the essence of New Age thinking. Man is the measure of all things.

The 'New Sufism' renderings follow similar patterns, though those in this movement are often quite critical of the New Age movement. Sufism is thus poised as being the face of "true" Islam while the media version of screaming maniacal gun totin' bearded rebels wrapped in turbans with their woman in burqas the face of the "hijacked" Islam.

It's all about spin, positioning and marketing.