Our Master Jallaludin Rumi

Jafri has written a beautiful piece. There is something that needs clarification though.
He says, ``Mavlana Rumi probably never believed in Shams death and therefore went two times to Damascus in search of him. It is said that once a person came to Mavlana and told him that he had seen Shams. Mavlana gave away his cloak to him upon which his son said that this man is lying only to make you happy. At which Mavlana said, “I have given away my robe for a lie, I would give my life for the truth.”
Well, Mevlana did in fact believe in Shams` death. Had he not believed that, why would have he said so to his son. He knew very well that Shams was no more alive. But his love for Shams did not allow Rumi to imagine him dead. That is the only reason that made him give away his cloak.
As for sending men to Damascus, it was not after Shams had been killed. He found out that Rumi`s disciples were extremely unhappy with him for having changed their master, a religous scholar of high standing, into a dervish who spet his time in singing and dancing like a mad man. Shams was forced to disappear for quite a while, which made Rumi miserable. On hearing that Shams had been seen in Damascus, he sent people to bring him back. Shams returned and again the two great Sufis were together only to be separated by Shams` death.

urstruly #42 I see you fell for it: I slipped that bit in about the verse to see how serious you are about understanding the Quran. Since if you were serious, you would not have replied this post which essentially says ``aha! you cant find the verse, so come back and talk to me when you find it``. Rather you would have tried to find it for yourself (since you have a copy of the Quran at home I am sure, and since I have no reason to spend my time providing you with adult education on the Quran), or at least focussed on the substance of what I wrote. But you took the loophole out rather than face the reality, which is that you and naqshbandhi have no clue what the Quran is all about even though you may have recited it a zillion times in Arabic.

: I am quite sure that there is a verse to this effect in the Quran

Thank you for your reply. Whenever you find time please find that verse. I will keep on reminding you.

urstruly #39 You said that what I wrote may be ``opinions and not reason`` and you ask me to show how it is based on the Quran. Fair enough. I will cut and paste what I wrote on #31 and show how it follows directly from the Quran:
I wrote : ``Your distinction between hadith qudsi and hadith nabawi challenges the integrity of the Quran.``
The reasoning here is as follows: If the Quran needs to be supplemented by the word of ``walis`` and suchlikes, then clearly it represents only a part of what was revealed to the Holy Prophet. And yet the Quran claims to reflect all that was revealed to the Prophet: I am quite sure that there is a verse to this effect in the Quran, but to locate the exact verse I would have to look it up which I am not inclined to do right now. Also, nowhere does the Quran provide even a hint that there may be other parts of the divine message that were conveyed to the Prophet that it (the Quran) does not contain.
I also wrote was: ``I as a muslim (that is, based on my reading of the Quran) believe that the Holy Prophet faithfully communicated what everything that was divinely revealed to him.``
The reasoning here is as follows: A messenger is expected to deliver the complete message. If for any reason he fragments the message, he would be expected to at least indicates where the remaining fragments are to be found.
I wont even get into the question of ``walis`` and pirs and maulvis and their followers. Suffice it to say: The Quran says that on the Judgement Day God will ask each individual ``Where are those men you look up to for guidance?`` (or words to this affect). The walis and maulvis wont be around to save their pious followers, per our muslim belief. They will be too busy saving their own hides.

What utter nonsense!!
This Talha Jafri should be stoned to death!! for making such blasphmous remarks.

++After Mavlana Rumi’s meeting with Shams, Mavlana said this about him “Today I have seen the God I have worshipped all my life in human form” and at another place he said that Shams was no ordinary beggar he looked, he was an educated and well off Chemist who had left his profession in search of the divine truth.++

NO ONE CAN SEE GOD!! Only our beloved Prophet (PBUH) saw him, after that no one else saw him.

This Jafri character is a hindu fashist who is trying to confuse our people.
Do not listen or pay attention to him. You will all burn in hell if you do. I command all true Muslims on Chowk.com to banish this infidel. He is a shaitan coming to confuse our people. He deserved death by stoning!!

I believe he is probably a hindu brahmin (BJP-RSS) in disguise. Go back to india you scoundrel!! We will certainly get you there!!

We do not believe you Sufi scoundrel!!!

Aise shaitan ko to hum bina bhoone hee kha jaaenge!!

tahmad32

I apologize for my harsh tone but I really did not understand your logic in post # 31. What you are saying in that post may be regarded as your opinions and not reason . Since you said in that post that you formed your opinion based on the study of Qura`n, I asked you to show me the reasoning through Qura`n. And if your reasoning is not based on Qura`n then you must say so. And if it is only an opinion then you should also say so without bringing the Qura`n in. As for opinions I can opine without spending a dime that earth is flat or Roman Empire never existed - my opinion might be of immense value to myself but without reason it amounts to nothing to anyone else. I am looking forward to your reply.

``So, if by ``Truth``, you mean insights then I am with you. But I will not go any further and I reject any man`s (or his followers) claim to have special mystical knowledge of things``

yup thats kinda like what i meant, though probably there is much more to what i am thinking
. and the point where u wont accept any man`s claim for mystical knowledge is ure point of view. WE differ only here.
Diverse opinions, are good for us as a whole. ;)

I have not said anything about anyone living in sin - that is not my business, nor of any interest to me. Our muslim belief (per the Quran, not per some Wali or Maulvi) is that it is for God, not man, to decide on such matters on the Judgement Day. Nor am I generalizing anything about 1 billion muslims - i am not in the business of generalizing anything about any community.
What I am saying relates to those who believe in hadith, and I have presented my reasoning on how belief in hadith by definition indicates a lack of faith in the integrity of the Quran and a questioning of the diligence with which the Holy Prophet carried out his task of conveying the divine message in a coherent manner via the Quran. You, like Naqshbandi, have avoided the reasoning presented there. You can avert your eyes to reality and to logic. You can run and seek refuge in the fact that there are many, many more people like you who believe in hadith. However, no one said that there is a shortage of irrational, slavish-minded, and/or hero-worshipping individuals among muslims. You can take refuge in their ranks, or you can use the mind God gave you and think for yourself.

talha #32 I am with you when you say we should respect men of learning. I should add that this is true not just for muslims (as you indicate) but for all progressive societies throughout history (Plato`s name still rings a bell through the millenia, and yet the rulers of his day are forgotten).
I disagree when you say that some men know the ``Truth``. Only God knows the ultimate Truth, and any man who claims otherwise is claiming divinity, and any man who accepts this claim is accepting this claim of divinity. So, if by ``Truth``, you mean insights then I am with you. But I will not go any further and I reject any man`s (or his followers) claim to have special mystical knowledge of things.

Tahmad32.... I am sorry but my reading of the Quran makes it clear that all that was to be revealed to the holy prophet is there in the Quran. And this point makes perfectly good sense when one understands exactly what it is that is revealed in the Quran: the Quran indicates (to those of us who believe in it) that one should have faith in one`s own eyes and ears ...............So, the Quranic message clearly calls for me to have faith in my God given faculties, in my common sense, and to thus go about living my life.
Those who believe in hadith seek to replace this message with relying upon the words of ordinary men. .

Please enlighten us how you have reached to that conclusion, with proper refernces to Qura`n, we, all 1 billion of us, might all be living a life of sin; you can save us.

Naqshbandi #33 I see that you avoid the serious issues I had raised with your line of thinking in my post #31, and instead try to steamroll your way through with more of the same, sprinkles liberally with ``Allahhu`s`` and other incantations. You are only deluding yourself, not impressing me. Islam is a code of conduct and character building, not a set of mindless magical incantations.

Status of Hadith and the Importance of Hadith
All things which Allah revealed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) are of two types. The first is through the Mala’ik, meaning Jibreel (AS) which we call Wahi-Jalee . Jalee means open (revelation) through the Angel. And these revelations together are called Qur’an Majeed. The second type is when Allah speaks directly to the qalb (heart) of His Rasul (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) without the Angel and it is called Wahi-Khafee and this is the form of the Hadiths. Whatever Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) said was, in fact, from Allah, because Allah says in Holy Qur’an:

``He does not speak from his hawaa (desire); it is nothing except Wahee revealed to him.``
[Surah an-Najm 3-4]
Tafsir - This means that whatever comes on the tongue of Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) whether speaking to his wives, the Sahabi, or others, all is from Allah. Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (Radhi Allahu Anh) used to record every word of Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam). Some people advised him that he should not record everything that he said because Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) may say this in a state of happiness or sadness and they should not be recorded. But, Hazrat Ibni Umar (Radhi Allahu Anh) did take their advice and he ceased to record everything that Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) said in his presence by pen and paper. So, he went to Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) and told him that people had suggested to him to stop writing everything that the Rasul (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) had said, so he asked if he should continue. And his answer was that Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) pointed with his finger to his mouth and said, ``I swear by the One who gave me life that whatever comes from my mouth is nothing but Haqq, no matter what state I am in.`` Hadith Sharif is very important because Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) gave permission to record the Hadiths. This means that he gave an order to Ibni Umar (Radhi Allahu Anh) and the order of the Holy Nabi (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) is Fardh. This Hadith is in the Sahih Ibni Dawud. [Arabic p. 514]

Hazrat ‘Ali bin Abu Taleb (Karam Allah Wajhu) had a book in which a few Hadiths of Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam) were recorded in which there were a few examples of diyat (compensation) (If a man kills someone deliberately, Qisas can be required [Fardh]. If they request money, this is Badila Suhas, or blood money. If someone is accidentally killed, Qisas is nor Fardh, but diyat becomes Fardh. Diyat is a fixed amount; 100 camels for a male and 50 camels for a female or a monetary equivalent. But can be remitted). This book (Sufu Waraqa) was kept in the sheath of his (Radhi Allahu Anh) sword; This was only a few pieces of paper, not like the books today; so in that book, he wrote that if a person has a lot of credit and he has not returned the money to the creditor and the creditor insists on getting his money, then if a Muslim assists him, it explains the reward he will receive. It was also written in this book that if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, then Qisas is not due. From this, we have proof that the Sahabi Ikram (Radhi Allahu Anh) used to record Hadith of Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam). [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. I, p. 21]

Al-Hadith is the commentary and explanation of Al-Qur’an al-Majeed. From the Holy Qur’an, which says:


``We have revealed the Qur’an to you that you may comment on it an explain it.``
(This ayat explains the necessity for al-Hadith). For this reason, the Sahaba found it important to narrate Hadiths as they are the explanation of the Holy Qur’an.
...the Hadith have been recorded in all periods of the Sahaba (Radhi Allahu Anh), Tabi’een, and Tabat-Tabi’een. And to believe in the Holy Qur’an without accepting the Hadiths makes one a Kafir, because Allah says you should explain the Holy Qur’an to the people. And if the Hadith is not the explanation of the Holy Qur’an, then where is the explanation? All Hadiths given were from Sahih al-Bukhari.

In the Qur’an al-Majeed, Allah Ta’ala says that we must perform Hajj, Salaat, and so forth, but it is not mentioned HOW to do these acts. This if found in Al-Hadiths. That person who does not believe in Hadiths, but believes in Holy Qur’an will find it impossible for him to practice the ‘Ilm in the Holy Qur’an without the guidance of the Hadiths.


http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hadith/ilm_hadith.html

#28 by tahmed32
Every man is not a Sufi, but yes it can be said that every seeker of the ``Truth`` is a sufi.

``By all means learn from sufis, but dont think that they are infallible or in possession of any more knowledge than you have at your fingertips``

I learnt my maths from a maths teacher not from my French teacher. Likewise a Buddhist doesnt go to MIT or Waterloo to learn his ``subject`` he goes to a teacher/guide who knows the esoteric aspects of Buddhism, who has gone through that spirituality and has NOT merely talked of it.
Dont tell me u were born with ure knowledge. Everyone acquires it from someone.From whom and how do u learn to achieve Divine nearness ?
I know of a Sufi who was a student of Dalai Lama and many other traditional teachers, they all learn from one another. The aim is to learn the Truth, its a hadith (not quoting exact words here) that knowledge is like a lost camel for a believer, reclaim it where ever u find it.
The point is to recieve the Knowldge from where ever it comes, provided its the Truth.
Yeah but all this doesnt mean that u and I are in anyway lower beings. We all have the capabilty to become ``teachers``.
Why people like Rumi are shown respect is only because its a mulsim tradition from the times of the Prophet(PBUH) to show respect to the learned. Why wouldnt i respect a person who loves all humans and their Creator? A person with whom if i sit only for a moment brings peace to my mind, this is just one minor reason people love their Spiritual guides.
Its not only Rumi who should be respected but also scholars and Scientists(we harldy have any these days). Unfortunately this tradition is forgotten in most Islamic societies.
Peace

urstruly #29 you write ``Hadis-e-Qudsi by definition are revelations just as Qura`nic verses``
I am sorry but my reading of the Quran makes it clear that all that was to be revealed to the holy prophet is there in the Quran. And this point makes perfectly good sense when one understands exactly what it is that is revealed in the Quran: the Quran indicates (to those of us who believe in it) that one should have faith in one`s own eyes and ears and common sense; to remember why God created man (i.e. to learn about His creation, in other words to gain knowledge); to treat all men as equals and to avoid hero-worship of any kind; and certain important values like living in peace and with forgiveness, being honest and just.
So, the Quranic message clearly calls for me to have faith in my God given faculties, in my common sense, and to thus go about living my life.
Those who believe in hadith seek to replace this message with relying upon the words of ordinary men. Too often I have heard the followers of hadith tell me ``I know it does not make much sense, but that is hadith, so what can I do?`` To these people I say: if you do something that does not make sense, or something that violates your sense of right and wrong, or indicates lack of compassion, or lack of respect for life, then by definition you are violating the message of the Quran. You are using the hadith as an excuse to avoid standing up to conventional wisdom that has been drilled in your mind since childhood.
So, you are welcome to believe in hadith. That is your choice. I consider it a violation of the integrity of the basic message of the Quran to substitute my common sense with hadith of any kind. It is this substitution of common sense with hadith that promotes the lack of rational thinking that has made muslims the world over among the most backward on earth in terms of education, political and social development.
Naqshbandi #30 Your distinction between hadith qudsi and hadith nabawi challenges the integrity of the Quran. I as a muslim (that is, based on my reading of the Quran) believe that the Holy Prophet faithfully communicated what everything that was divinely revealed to him. If I accept your distinction, then the implication is that the Holy Prophet did not faithfully do his job as messenger, and so the Quran is deficient. And requires the assistance of walis and suchlikes who claim the Prophet fragmented his communication and told them some things he did not put down in the Quran.
Please reflect upon this. I know it will be hard for you to accept this since you are so deeply steeped in hadith and walis and so forth. But perhaps one day many years from now you will understand what I am trying to explain to you.

Thanks Urstruly bhai :-)

***
tahmad: this is for you:

``The difference between Hadith Qudsi and Hadith Nabawi is that while Hadith Nabawi are sayings of the blessed Prophet Sallallahu `alaihi wa Sallam, Hadith Qudsi is what Allah has communicated to him through revelation, inspiration, or in a dream, and the beloved Prophet has then communicated it in his own words. The Qur`an is of course superior to Hadith Qudsi because besides being revealed, it is Allah`s own Word.``

(http://www.iqra.net/Salawaat/majmuah/majmuah5.html

tahmad # 27

You have selectively quoted Naqshbandi to twist the meanings of what he means. You selected Like Allah says in the hadith to spin, whereas what Naqshbandi has written is Like Allah says in the hadith ``qudsi`` . There is hell lot of difference between two statements. Hadis-e-Qudsi by definition are revelations just as Qura`nic verses but when editing and collating of Qura`n and Hadith were being done under the supervision of Holy prophet (pbuh) he instructed to keep certain verses separate from Qura`n and include them in Hadith. A collection of such Ahadith is called Ahadith-e-Qudsi.

Now with this information you might be able to appreciate what he has written. Please at least read history of compilation of both Qura`n and Hadith before issuing your fatwas like jahil mullahs whom you abhore so much.

Naqshbanki #26 you write ``Allah says in the hadith``. As muslims, we believe that Allah speaks in the Quran. Not in the hadith. This focus on the hadith rather than the Quran has served to dilute the simple, peaceful message of the Quran, and replace it with a ``religion`` that you may call Islam but has nothing to do with the Quran and everything to do with superstition and jehaliat (savagery and backwardness).
you write ``Whoseover shows enmity to my wali``: the Quran condemns in the strongest of terms those who claim to have some special link to God. And for good reason, knowing the ease with which a unthinking, insecure, men start worshipping other men.
You write ``It was related by al-Bukhari.`` Al-Bukhari is not a prophet and what he relates has no standing. I have read some of what he writes, and found his writings to be so disgusting and downright stupid.

talha #25 Sufis may have learnt great things even from dogs, as you say. You seem to imply that ordinary men cannot do the same. If I am right in thinking this is what you mean, then I think you need to have more respect for the mind God gave you, and to use it, and to not simply rely on ``borrowed wisdom`` (or ``foreign aid``) from sufis. If I am wrong in thinking that this is what you mean, then by definition every man is a sufi.
By all means learn from sufis, but dont think that they are infallible or in possession of any more knowledge than you have at your fingertips (indeed, a few centuries ago the frontiers of knowledge were very limited anyway).

I did not mean that Rumi was Divine as in God! Astaghfirullah! BUT the saints of Allah are so much in love with God that they are a manifestation of his Attributes--not in a physical sense of of course as that is kufr.

They act as vehicles through which God acts. Like Allah says in the hadith qudsi, ``‘Whosoever shows enmity to my wali, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.’``
It was related by al-Bukhari.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tahmed32 #24 Certainly we need to learn from all that happens around us and comes to us. ``A mystic sees in everything a divine message,`` There have been tales of Sufis who learnt great things from animals, such as dogs.
Not all of us can learn on our own, that is why we need a guide who can guide us and correct us before we fall, who has already travelled the Path. Thats the role Rumi played during his life.After all not many people can distinguish between their ego`s desires and inspirations.

Zeejah #23 Having settled the discussion on Rumi`s divinity, we can indeed admire and learn from his writings. One verse that sticks in my head is something like this:
``Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent as a guide from beyond``
Like all great works, many of Rumi`s verses need to be not just recited, but chewed and mulled upon and discussed and hopefully digested. Thus: to take the above verse. To me this means that each individual we come across - in real life, and nowadays on the internet and on chowk - is ``a guide from beyond``. What a wonderful way to think of other people on earth!!
In my earlier post to Naqshbandi, I had said how I was inspired not just by great writers like Rumi, but also by everyday folk. I was inspired by aged pathan gentleman, with nothing but the clothes on his back, a shovel, AND his dignity, as I mentioned in that post. Indeed he was a ``guide from beyond``, a reminder that even when one has nothing else in life, one still has one`s dignity which no one can take away. And I could discuss each one of the other people I mentioned in that post and how I was inspired by them. And add many more people to the list. And keep on adding...and adding... to that list of ``guides from beyond`` until I come to the bottom of the barrel and find Jay stuck there :-)

Yes, Rumi was a man...but what a man! ...reading his words make one transcendental,
how much more Love must have been in the soul of the man who wrote those words!
Sufism/mysticism is the spirit of all religions, and all religions lead us to God fulfilling Man`s eternal quest.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#17 by tahmed32 on January 22, 2003 8:28am PT

At times you make compelling arguments I must admit..

Sufism is not islam - Tariqat has been proved from quraan but it usually gets confused it with sufism / qawali etc

Naqshbandi #16 The ``reality of the Divine`` you refer to should, per our muslim belief, be restricted only to the Supreme Being. You protest that I do not extend this concept of divinity to a man, and you seek to have me understand why you venerate this man (Rumi). I am afraid I cannot oblige. In fact I cannot place Rumi on a higher pedestal than any other man - the cycle rickshaw drivers of Bangal whom I saw working hard to get dinner for their families, the aged pathan gentleman I saw in Islamabad sitting under the hot sun with a shovel waiting to be asked to do some odd job by some stranger, the college professor in the US who put his heart and soul in the subject that he taught, the old woman leading her emancipated AIDs patient son to a hospital in Uganda that I saw,

THE JUST BALANCE

It is my understanding that human being as an entity has duality in its composition. That is how God made us. On one side of the split we are ethereal or spiritual and on the other hand we have a temporal self, which serves as a vehicle to carry our ethereal self. According to our belief system (and almost any other) the former component, our ethereal self is permanent whereas our temporal self is only transitory and temporary. The Sufi tradition, no matter which order, recognizes this split and concentrate and teaches to develop the ethereal part of ourselves.

Sufi traditions propagate the idea that this ethereal part of us is the primordial state of being, and it is the state of being when it was closest to the Creator. According to the beliefs and ethics of Naqshbandi order this may be summarized as ``All humanity carries deep within its innermost being the flavor and memory of this primordial nearness. This creates a tremendous longing: men and women long to return to the state in which they were before they were. ``

So this is the Sufi quest – to seek the nearness to the Creator – the primordial state when we existed only in ethereal self. I think idea is correct because when we look at the spiritual aspect of other religions the basic idea revolves around the same concept. Even the non-revealed agnostic religions as Buddhism propagates to follow the same path to discover ``the ethereal self`` as that of revealed religions. And that path according to Naqshbandi code of ethics is Dhiker (Ziker) or Jaap (in Hindi). The Naqshbandi order suggests ``This latent memory is revived through the practice of dhikr: the remembrance of the Beloved…..the dhikr is practiced in silence. The silent dhikr produces in the heart an intense and imperishable impression (naqsh = ``impression, print``; band = ``to bind, to fasten``).
.

But in my opinion that was never the message of Islam. Islam is a religion of balance and Muslims are the Ummat-ul-Wast - according to the words of Qura`n – the nation of moderation and balance. Islam places an equal emphasis on our temporal self as well, and that is the way our Holy Prophet (pbuh) showed us by his actions. If we look at the life of the Prophet we see that he marries women, have children, raises his children, earns his daily bread, fights wars, establishes order and law in the society and creates a constitutional government also. On the other hand he prays, he fasts, and tells us how to re-connect our ethereal self to the Creator. This is the life of perfect balance. He neither himself sacrificed his ethereal self over temporal self nor he taught us to do so. It is true that according to his words this world is like a field where we sow what we are going to reap in hereafter but he also made a distinction between Rights of God (Haqooq – Ullah) and the Rights of Men (Haqooq – ul – Ibad) among themselves. Our task is to strike a just balance between the two. And God himself has told us that His rights cannot be delivered unless man first delivers the rights of other men. This is only possible when we create a world that is just and only then we can sow here the right seeds to reap the sweet fruit in the next life.

Sufism is counter to that balance and tilts it totally towards uplifting our ethereal self and only that. But we as Muslim nation are given the task that no nation had been given before. There is no Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and the further revelation has stopped until after the End of the Days. According to Qura`n the message for humanity has completed (Inna Akmalta kum deenakum) and we as Muslim nation are tasked with what Prophets were tasked before, that is to propagate this message to coming generations of all humanity. And it is not possible if we only indulge ourselves in our ethereal self only.

NOTE: Please ignore the note I just sent accidentally before completing.
Naqshbandi #16 The ``reality of the Divine`` you refer to should, per our muslim belief, be restricted only to the Supreme Being. You protest that I do not extend this concept of divinity to a man, and you seek to have me understand why you venerate this man (Rumi). I am afraid I cannot oblige. In fact I cannot place Rumi on a higher pedestal than any other man - the cycle rickshaw drivers of Bangal whom I saw working hard to get dinner for their families, the aged pathan gentleman I saw in Islamabad sitting under the hot sun with a shovel waiting to be asked to do some odd job by some stranger, the college professor in the US who put his heart and soul in the subject that he taught, the old African woman leading her emancipated AIDs patient son to a hospital in Uganda that I saw, the Mexican farmer who proudly showed me his newly planted vegetable fields. All these people, and many more, have inspired me as much as Rumi or any other great writer. So do I declare all of them to be divine? Or do I follow my understanding of Islam which is that all men (muslims and nonmuslims) are equal and we should neither look up to any man nor look down upon any man.
I agree fully with Umar Murtaza #114 when he writes that instead of declaring people to be saints, we should simply consider them to be extraordinary human beings. In fact I would go a step further and say that these people - including Mother Teresa, including Rumi - are ordinary human beings who have done extraordinary things.
Ghalib Zaman #13 Agreed about love for the prophet. But this love can be no greater than we would have for any other human being, muslim or nonmuslim. And granted that this love sometimes wears thin at times on chowk and in real life, but that is our own shortcoming as emotional human beings that we realize in due course (sometimes years after our association with a person has ended.

#12: TAhmed
The heart has its own reasons.

Every sufi was a staunch subscriber to shariat, tariquat, rituals and above all excuded a glowing love for the prophet (pbuh). Rumi was Iqbal`s murshid as well.

Most of us are too uneducated to even pronounce such names.

PS:
The current pop-ing of Rumi by the riff-raff like madonna & junoon have suddenly given some ideas to certain bare-alls and pot-rolls to sidle & mosey up their butts among the sacred & the sacrosanct to look respectable.
Such behaviour is certainly profane and almost blasphemous.

Awesome little article, Talha.

Asif,
Many thanks for the link!!!


Tahmed,

Sir, I agree with you 120%. I wish we could simply learn from these people as opposed to following them. The first step, in my opinion, is to take these people off the pedestal of sainthood and leave them at being extraordinary humans. On a slightly different note, this is the reason why I think people like Mother Teresa should not be sainted because then they become unreachable. As `saints` and children of God, their mistakes are overlooked (hanging around with dictators) and the actual qualities that are becoming increasingly relevent to societies as a whole, especially societies like those belonging to the Muslims, that of sacrifice and hard work, will be shelved into an unreachable shelf.

Umer M.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed--i must protest your refusal to look beyond the ordinary and to refuse to accept the reality of the Divine! If you were ever to meet a wali in person I am sure you will understand why we venerate him (Rumi) and others like him!

He himself says:
The man of God is drunken without wine,
The man of God is full without meat.
The man of God is distraught and bewildered,
The man of God has no food or sleep.
The man of God is a king ``neath dervish-cloak,
The man of God is a treasure in a ruin.
The man of God is not of air and earth,
The man of God is not of fire and water.
The man of God is a boundless sea,
The man of God rains pearls without a cloud.
The man of God has hundred moons and skies,
The man of God has hundred suns.
The man of God is made wise by the Truth,
The man of God is not learned from book.
The man of God is beyond infidelity and religion,
To the man of God right and wrong are alike.
The man of God has ridden away from Not-being,
The man of God is gloriously attended.
The man of God is concealed, Shamsi Din;
The man of God do you seek and find!
--Rumi, Divan i Shams Tabrizi, trans. by Nicholson

And he says:
What can I say about the stations of those who have attained union except that they are infinite, while the stations of the travelers have a limit? The limit of the travelers is union. But what could be the limit of those in union? -- that is, that union which cannot be marred by separation. No ripe grape ever again becomes green, and no mature fruit ever again becomes raw.
(The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings
of Rumi)

And Our Master Rumi says:

Try not to understand the work of the pure saints by comparing them with yourself ... By such comparisons all the world`s inhabitants have gone astray... They hold themselves up as equal to the prophets, imagining that the saints are just like themselves. They say, ``Look: We are human and they are human, both of us must eat and sleep.`` Out of blindness they do not know that between them is an infinite difference... This person eats food and gives out filth; the other also eats, but his food is transformed entirely into the Light of God. This one eats and gives birth to avarice and envy; the other eats and gives birth only to love for the One.
(The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi, p. 144)

Rumi is indeed a wonderful writer. I too went through his book of verses and enjoyed it thoroghly.
However, I must protest your veneration of Rumi. This is an unfortunate tradition among many backward muslims (veneration of other humans), and whereby they become less like men and more like unthinking morons.
Read Rumi as you would read any other great writer. Internalize some ideas from his works if you wish. But please dont become his ``follower`` of Rumi (as you proudly proclaim). Only pet dogs follow other men, not self-respecting men. And please do not give make a divine being out of an ordinary man (as you do with Shams). Be a follower of your own good senses.

Hey brother mbenzenglish Iqbal also said

``I am but as the spark that gleams for a moment,
His burning candle consumed me - the moth;
His wine overwhelmed my goblet,
The master of Rum transmuted my earth to gold
And set my ashes aflame.`` master of Rum is Rumi here. and heres more from Iqbal whom u have quoted so enthusiastically

In the heat of the fire of Rum is your remedy,
On your intellect the Franks have cast their spell;
My eye is illumined by his grace,
By his munificence Jaihun(river in turkistan) is contained in my ewer

The Saga of Rum, an enlightened mentor,
Leader of the caravan of Love and ecstasy.
In the company of the Saga of Rum have I learnt,
One fearless heart is worth a thousand wise heads muffled in a sack.

From the Flower beds of Ajam no new Rumi arose,
Though the soil and water of Iran is the same, Oh Saqi
, and so is Tabrez.
Of his desolate sowing field Iqbal shall not despair,
A little rain and the soil is most fertile, Oh Saqi.

AND about measuring Islam scientifically is the most impossible thing u can ever say. You got to understand that science is an objective and experimental study, how can you bring spirituality under a microscope? or for that matter God

And about Sufism, in order to learn about anyone you have to first remove all ure prejudices and all. That goes for all religions even when ure studying about Hinduism, u study it from a neutral point of view.
The question who spread Islam? From Africa to the Islands of Indonesia Sufi brotherhoods have played an immense role in it. BUT they arent the only ones ofcourse. Here is an article you can read, if u can get over wiht the prejudices
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/sufi.html

u said that
``Sufism although is being practiced , but love for the prophet in the
sufism sense is forbidden to the extent that no one is allowed to bow
to the grave of the prophet``

This is as baseless as Pope Urban (during the crusades) calling Muslims pagans !

Peace

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The following article is v. interesting and shows how Rumi has often been completely mistranslated and the Islamic elements of his work removed to make him more palatable to a Western audience by his ``translators``.

THE POPULARIZATION OF RUMI

It is an astonishing fact that, after more than 700 years, Jalaluddin
Rumi is the most popular poet in America. This is largely due to
American authors, such as the poet Coleman Barks who has
rendered literal translations of Rumi into free verse ``American
spiritual poetry`` in a manner which has reached so many different
sectors of American society. One finds Rumi quotes following the
titles of newsletters, on the bottom lines of e-mails, and in many
different kinds of published articles. Many people have memorized
their favorite lines -- usually those rendered by Coleman Barks,
because his versions communicate far more successfully than
literal translations. The reasons for such a response are unclear, but
it likely has to do with a certain ``spiritual hunger`` in America
(perhaps due to an absence of a mystical and ecstatic dimension in
general American spirituality).

Yet this popularization has had a price, and the price is a frequent
distortion of Rumi`s words and teachings which permeate such
well-selling books. The English ``creative versions`` rarely sound
like Rumi to someone who can read the poems in the original
Persian, and they are often shockingly altered-- but few know this,
and the vast majority of readers cannot but believe that such
versions are faithful renderings into English of Rumi`s thoughts
and teachings when they are not.

The public has been deceived by the publishers of many of the
popular books, who proclaim their authors as ``translators`` of
Rumi-- when, in fact, very few of them can read Persian. Coleman
Barks, from the very beginning, called his renderings ``versions.``1
And he has consistently clarified, in both his books and poetry
readings, that he doesn`t know Persian and works from the literal
translations of others.2 However, subsequent book covers and title
pages proclaim, ``Translations by Coleman Barks.`` And he has
been (and allows himself to be) promoted as ``widely regarded as
the world`s premier translator of Rumi`s writings...``3 Sometimes
the title pages within his books give some further information
about the translators whose work he depended on: ``Translations by
Coleman Barks with John Moyne, A. J. Arberry, Reynold
Nicholson.``4 However, the general reader would tend to recognize
Barks as the ``translator`` and not pay attention to ``small print``
statements explaining that he used literal translations made by John
Abel Moyne (an Iranian formerly named Javaad Mo`een), Arberry
and Nicholson (both British scholars at Cambridge University).

Where did the idea come from that poets could ``translate`` spiritual
poetry into English without knowing the original language?
According to Professor Franklin Lewis, ``The idea that poets can
`translate` without knowing the source language seems to have
originated with Ezra Pound and his circle Pound took Ernest
Fenellosa`s scholarly translations of Li Po`s Chinese poems and
Japanese Noh plays and worked them into a startlingly new kind of
English poem.``5




THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

It is therefore necessary to clarify the difference between true
translations of Rumi`s verses (made directly from Persian) and
versions (falsely advertised or claimed as ``translations``).

Accurate translations of Rumi`s poetry have been made by such
scholars as R. A. Nicholson, A. J. Arberry, Annemarie Schimmel,
William Chittick, and Franklin Lewis. Iranian authors who have
made popular translations into English from Persian (which are of
variable reliability due to unfamiliarity with classical Persian,
religious terms and references, and compromises with
popularization) are Shahram Shiva and Nader Khalili. Translations
from secondary languages into English (of variable reliability)
have been made by Nevit Ergin (from translations into Turkish
from Persian by Golpinarli). And reliable translations have been
made by Simone Fattal (from translations into French from Persian
by Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch) and Muriel Maufroy (from de
Vitray-Meyerovitch`s French translations).

Among version-makers, the most responsible are Kabir and
Camille Helminski (versions of Masnavi and Ghazals, based on
translations by Nicholson and Arberry, but only indirectly
acknowledged). Others are Coleman Barks (based on translations
by John Moyne, the translations of Nicholson, Arberry, and Nevit
Ergin); Daniel Liebert (no source translations mentioned, but some
are based on those by Nicholson); Andrew Harvey (no source
translations mentioned, but some are based on those by de Vitray-
Meyerovitch); James Cowan (based on translations by Nicholson,
but not acknowledged); Jonathan Star (based on translations by
Shahram Shiva); Muriel Maufroy (based on the French translations
by de Vitray-Meyerovitch); Deepak Chopra (based on translations
by Fereydoun Kia in his first book, no sources listed in his recent
book); Azima Melita Kolin (based on translations by Maryam
Mafi); Raficq Abdulla (based on translations by Arberry, but not
acknowledged); Kabir and Camille Helminski (quatrain versions
based on translations by Lida Saedian).

One would think that, in the case of collaboration between a gifted
American poet and a competent translator of Persian, that the two
would work together in such a way that the poet would render
Persian idioms into suitable American ones, soften overly literal
translation words into more pleasant-sounding equivalents, etc. and
that the Persian translator would review such renderings and be
responsible for overall faithfulness to the original by pointing out
instances where the English renderings had gone seriously astray
from the original text. Unfortunately, this rarely seems to have
been the case, and one can only conclude that the version-makers
used literal translations with a ``free hand`` to interpret however
they wished (often according to how they imagined they would
like Rumi to speak) and that their ``creative`` renderings were the
final ones.

The following critique of version-makers is not intended to utterly
``dismiss`` their work. After all, it is almost entirely due to their
books that Rumi has become so extraordinarily popular-- and they
deserve much gratitude for this. Rather, the intent of giving
examples of defective interpretations (which include some of their
most glaring errors) is to show how badly Rumi`s verses have been
mangled by well-meaning individuals who tried to make dry,
academic, and old-fashioned-sounding literal translations more
poetic and attractive. Many readers who are devoted to the
versions care little for what has been distorted or left out. Others
become shocked to find out how badly the poems have been
altered and feel that the ``magic`` of the versions is completely gone
for them. Of these, the ones who remain ``lovers of Rumi`` are those
who become seriously interested in studying accurate translations
of Rumi and exploring his teachings at a greater depth. They find
that authentic translations provide a vastly more rich, wise, and
profound understanding of Rumi`s greatness as a mystic than did
the versions.

In the sections below, it is highly recommended that the reader
read the first footnotes immediately following each selected
version This is because the footnote contains explanations about
how the versioner made the particular mistaken interpretation.
These footnotes are easily accessed online by clicking on the
particular footnote number (and if this number is remembered, then
it is easy to return to where one has left off in the main text).

The second footnotes (following accurate translations of the
particular passages) may be of interest to the general reader who
has access to the books mentioned as having alternative
translations and versions to a particular quatrain. The listings in
this section refer to the original Persian text involved (using ghazal
and quatrain numbers from Foruzanfar`s authentic 10-volume
edition-- not those from the one-volume commercial edition), plus
a transliteration of the original Persian words.


FEXAMPLES OF DISTORTED VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS



FROM VERSIONS BY COLEMAN BARKS

``Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.``6
[accurate translation: ``There are a hundred kinds of prayer,
bowing, and prostration For the one whose prayer-niche is the
beauty of the Beloved.``]7

``Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu,
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion
or cultural system.``8
[This is not an authentic Rumi poem. This version was based on
Nicholson`s translation: ``What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do
not recognise myself. I am neither Christian nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor
Moslem.``]9

``You say you have no sexual longing any more.
You`re one with the one you love.``10
[accurate translation: ``You say, `With the body, I am far and with
the heart, with the Beloved```].11

``Love puts away the instruments, and takes off the silk robes. Our
nakedness together changes me completely``12
[accurate translation: ``He put harp and (strings of) silk on (his) lap,
(and) kept playing this song: `I am happy and ecstatic```].13

``They try to say what you are, spiritual or sexual? They wonder
about Solomon and all his wives``14
[accurate translation: ``O Love, you are known by the fairies and
humans. You are more known than the seal-ring of Solomon``].15

``This night . . . is not a night but a marriage, a couple whispering
in bed in unison the same words. Darkness simply lets down a
curtain for that``16
[accurate translation: ``Tonight . . . is not a `night,` Rather, it is a
wedding (festival) for those who seek God. It is an elegant
companion for those who testify to (God`s) Unity. Tonight is a
lovely veil of happiness for those with beautiful faces``].17

``I know it`s tempting to stay and meet those blonde women. I know
it`s even more sensible to spend the night here with them, but I
want to be home. . . . Let`s leave grazing to cows and go where we
know what everyone really intends, where we can walk around
without clothes on``18
[based on Arberry`s accurate translation: ``Bright-hearted
companions, haste, despite all the blond (sic) [= typographical
error for ``blind ones``] ones, to home, to home! You reasonable,
sober, full of sorrow, do not disturb our hearts! To home, to home!
.... Make not how and why; friend, leave grazing to cattle, to home,
to home: In that house is the concert of the circumcision feast, with
the ritually pure, to home, to home! Shams-al-dîn-é Tabrîz has
built a home for the naked; to home, to home!``].19

``You must wait until you and I are living together. In the
conversation we`ll have then. . . be patient. . . then``20
[based on Arberry`s mostly accurate rhymed translation: ``Wait,
then, wait patiently/ Until the time shall be/ We will together
dwell,/ Thou hearken, the while I tell.``21

``Listen and obey the hushed language./ Go naked``22
[based on Arberry`s rhymed translation: ``Unto his hushed lament/
Attend thou obedient;/ `Go not without the veil`--/So runs his
whispered tale``]23

``If you don`t have a woman that lives with you,
why aren`t you looking? If you have one, why aren`t you
satisfied?``24
[based on Arberry`s accurate translation: ``If you have no beloved,
why do you not seek one. And if you have attained the Beloved,
why do you not rejoice?]25

``If anyone asks you
how the perfect satisfaction
of all our sexual wanting
will look, lift your face
and say,
Like this.``26

[based on Arberry`s accurate translation: ``Whoever asks you about
the Houris [= the virgins of Paradise], show (your) face (and say)
`Like this`; if any man speaks to you of the moon, get up onto the
roof-- `Like this.```27

``During the day I was singing with you.
At night we slept in the same bed.
I wasn`t conscious day or night.
I thought I knew who I was,
But I was you.``28
[This is not an authentic Rumi poem. A more accurate translation:
``I was praising You during the day, and I didn`t know (it). I was
sleeping next to You at night, and I didn`t know (it). I had held the
opinion about myself that I was me. (But) I was entirely You, and I
didn`t know (it).``]29

``Out beyond the ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
There is a field. I`ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase `each other`
doesn`t make any sense.``30
[accurate translation: ``Beyond Islam and unbelief there is a `desert
plain.` For us, there is a `passion` in the midst of that expanse. The
knower [of God] who reaches there will prostrate [in prayer],/
(For) there is neither Islam nor unbelief, nor any `where` (in) that
place.``]31

``My love wanders the rooms, melodious
flute notes, plucked wires,
full of a wine the Magi drank
on the way to Bethlehem.

We are three. The moon comes
from its quiet corner, puts a pitcher of water
down in the center.
. . . . . . .
One watches the gathering,

and says to any cold onlookers,

`This dance is the joy of existence.```32
[accurate translation by Arberry: ``I saw my sweetheart wandering
about the house; he had taken a rebec and was playing a melody.
With a plectrum like fire he was playing a sweet melody, drunken
and dissolute and charming from the Magian wine. He was
invoking the sâqî in the air of Iraq; the wine was his object, the
sâqî was his excuse. The moonfaced sâqî, pitcher in his hand,
entered from a corner and set it in the middle....
He was beholding his own beauty, and saying to the evil eye,
`Never has there been, nor shall there come in this age, another like
me.```]33


(copied from http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/corrections_popular.html where you can read the rest of this important article.)

Excellent news for lovers of Mawlana:

Read his entire work Fihi Ma Fihi ``Discourse of Rumi`` (lit. In it what is in it) online as an ebook athttp://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/intro/discour.html

where you can also read selections from his Masnavi Sharif

:-)

Excllent choice of subject Talha! Our Master Jalaluddin is a brilliant topic to write on! I enjoyed your article immensely although I would caution you against interpreting Hazrat Rumi in a perrenialist fashion: I have read/studied Mawlana a lot and he is no doubt full of love towards all--as a Saint he radiated Love--but he never ever abandoned or left his traditional Sunni Islam either; even at the height of his ecstasies he never gave up saying his prayers or fasting. Indeed he became a wali because of the extent of his austerities and nawaafil worships.


He said:
I am the servant of the Qur’an, for as long as I have a soul.
I am the dust on the road of Muhammad, the Chosen One.
If someone interprets my words in any other way,
That person I deplore, and I deplore his words.’ --Maulana Rumi


I do agree with you 100% that it is his type of Islam which we have to return to: not many of us can become Rumi but we can at least try! He was a wali and we must love and follow him. There are so many wonderful anecdotes from his life it could fill volumes!

As Allah says: Verily, upon the Saints (awliya) there is no fear and nor do they grieve (Quran)

He said:

Yak zamaana ba sohbat e awliya
Behtar ast az hazaar saal-haa taa`at e bay-riya

One moment in the company of the Friends of Allah
Is better than a thousand years of sincere worship!

He said:

Dast e pir az ghaibaaN kotaH neest
Dast e U juz qabza e Allah neest!

The hand of the saint (pir) can reach near and far!
His hand is naught but the grasp of Allah!

This poem and others are loved and sung in the mehfils of the Sunni Barelvis all the time!





The best online source for Rumi is http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org and the best books are those by Schimmel, Chittick, Afzaal Iqbal and S H Nasr. Avoid those of Barks etc.

In his biographical note on Rumi in the Nafaahat al Uns min Hadarat al Quds, Mawlana Jami, another great wali, writes that Rumi was a saint even from birth and as a young boy he exhibited signs of sainthood! He loved fasting even when young and was always of a cheerful mien...it is a remarkable entry which I might translate insha Allah as it is not too long...


His whole life was spent in the Love of Allah and he desired nothing else but He! Thus it was that he went to His Beloved, smiling!
The ephemereal nature of this life and the reality of the Next life and the worthlessness of both of them compared to the Reality of Allah are the themes of his works!

May Allah perfume his resting place, sanctify his secret and forgive us for his sake! ameen!

``Plan in the way of Service, untill you achieve Prophethood among the Ummah.`` - Rumi (Masnavi, Part 1, Page 53)

According to the article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the above belief renders Rumi a Kafir

*Rolling on the floor, laughing!*

To call Rumi a Maulana today would be difficult.

To seek the divine/truth is a journey that few embark on armed with the

mastery of poetry that Rumi posessed.

Rumi`s journey is probably the most artfully described one in the West.

A True Master.

Ras

#1
well said `Islam was quite boring` - that`s the semi-wahabi face of Islam presented to the world in this age. This sternness of creed has done us more harm than good, despite all the Saudi petro-dollars spent in promoting it. Btw..for us shiites there`s plenty of `non-boring` stuff in our tradition, so atleast our kids don`t feel left out in the matters of culture ;-)

Faisaluno:
Thank you for the post.
Since this part got left out--and it is an important intro---I reprint it here.

How Muhammad Migrated to America
On Translating Mythologies
By OMAR AL-QATTAN

Vilified by the now-predictably rabid Daniel Pipes, criticised by Time Magazine and the New York Times as too soft on its subject, Muhammad ­ Legacy of a Prophet, shown on December 18th on PBS, was nonetheless widely praised by most commentators and has attracted huge support from the US public. In the essay below, Palestinian-British director Omar Al-Qattan offers his own account of the making of the film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cultural islam vs. religious islam. will probably offend both islamist as well secularist. (background to pbs documentary on islam)

http://www.counterpunch.org/qattan01112003.html

_ _ _Then there was my father`s hero, a brilliant, eloquent and brave businessman turned political and religious leader of the Arabs, the Prophet Muhammad. My father never prayed or fasted but he clung and still clings to a Muslim identity that is less to do with ritual or belief and more to do with language, history and political example. A successful businessman and exile himself, living in an Arab world in conflict and turmoil, and having lost his homeland as a young man, it is easy to understand why a practical and secular man like him identifies so closely with Muhammad`s successful political career, much more so I suspect than with Muhammad`s spiritual message.

My mother always jokes that Muhammad must invariably crop up at their dinner parties, usually after the meal. There are my father`s set pieces ­ how Muhammad dealt with the skeptical Bedouins, how he neutralized the Jewish tribes, how he always made the right strategic decisions and so on. She sits silently through these anecdotes ­ sometimes relishing his story-telling talents, sometimes betraying her skepticism with a wry smile.

But unfortunately, political circumstances in the Middle East in the last thirty years were to force Muhammad and Islam out of the imaginary world of my father`s stories to a much harsher, more complex and turbulent reality. First, there was the Lebanese Civil War, which was to explode both my happy childhood in Beirut and to dispel any illusions of secular co-existence in the region. Then the Iranian Revolution, which suddenly pitted religious and secular groups and regimes against each other and culminated in the deadly Iran-Iraq War and the rise of modern political Islam all over the Middle East.

In 1975, I was sent to boarding school in England following the outbreak of civil war in Lebanon. In my newly adopted culture, I could of course have gradually shed my cultural inheritance and disengaged from the Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, as a teenager in a London school, I did, for a while, turn my back on all things from back home. I wanted to be nothing but a normal English public school boy, whatever that notion meant. But somehow ­ I still don`t really know why ­ I left school and spent my year off studying Arabic and the Qur`an with a sympathetic sheikh in Cairo. It was 1982 ­ the year of General Sharon`s invasion and devastation of my home town, Beirut, the year also when the Sabra and Shatilla massacres made it impossible for anyone with the most tenuous bond to the Arab world to turn away from its people`s predicaments.

At home, Muhammad seemed to loom ever larger. Indeed, never more did we all seem so desperate for the kind of leadership that Muhammad provided to his people in the 7th century. At the same time, the prospect of an Iranian or Afghani-imported political Islam horrified us, stripped, as it seemed to us at the time, of its cultural or linguistic heritage. But we were wrong: this had less to do with Iran and Afghanistan, more to do with the modern world, oil politics and the Cold War. Muhammad was now an Afghani mujahid, an Iranian mystic, an Egyptian soldier foolhardy enough to assassinate Anwar Sadat ­ no longer my childhood hero, but a firmly modern and determined contemporary. In my mind, he had now entered history as I knew it.

Around us in Europe, another phenomenon also began to appear ­ the immigrant mujahid or radical. My first encounter with one was through an Algerian girl friend in Paris, in reality a liberated French woman who nonetheless did not find it strange that her uncle had left France to join the mujahideen in Afghanistan. I had always found immigrant Islam uncomfortable. American Muslim converts, even today, are often looked upon by many Arabs as endearing eccentrics though this is changing rapidly with the overwhelming majority of them now originating from the Muslim world. I would call this a kind of cultural territorialism: if you were not culturally Muslim, then you could not be Muslim at all. I still marvel at London girls who wear mini-skirts, speak nothing but English, drink wine and sleep with men, yet observe the fast during Ramadan, or their equally promiscuous male counterparts who perform their Friday prayers and insist on marrying virgins!

_ _ _ This alliance of puritanical Wahabism and liberal American imperialism should, with hindsight, not be surprising. Anthropologically, the strongest common element is perhaps to be found in their attitude to history and popular culture ­ in the case of the Wahabis, a one-dimensional, moralistic vision of their religious heritage and in the case of Islam as it is exported to America, a desire to ignore the history and ethnographic manifestations of alien cultures in order to better absorb them into the American way of life. There is also the tendency of all empires to penetrate and overwhelm the cultures of those countries which they either invade or with which they have unequal alliances

_ _ _Of course, the Muhammad of my father`s imagination also virtually disappears in the film. I am left wondering whether this is really such a bad thing, though I try to imagine the feelings of those Palestinian or Egyptian peasants who saw their Christian heritage absorbed by the Byzantine Empire in the 4th century and changed beyond recognition! But I am nonetheless left with a strong feeling of cultural bereavement, and the need to fight for an alternative historical scholarship of Islam and its history ­ based on research, excavation and proper enquiry, rather than the abstract, telescopic and soulless rigor of the Wahabi-American version.

It is good to be reminded of Rumi now. My own discovery was a bit circuitous. Envious of seeing the Hindu gods (at least the celluloid versions) shown performing magical tricks, I once told my mother that Islam was quite boring. She asked me to find out about Shams Tabrez. And that is how I found Rumi.

To call Sufism a religion would not be quite right, for the god it seeks can be ephemeral, not the omnipotent, omniscient one we are supposed to seek. Sufi poets, and Bhakti poets like Meerabai, Surdas and Kabir, were essentially seekers, not finders. All these chicken soup for the soul wallas probably learned their lessons from them. People like Kahlil Gibran and Omar Khayyam celebrated the small lessons of life, which is what made them all big people.