DanielS said:
After reading this is it correct to assume that Sufiism was a branch of Islam that formed its own path based upon the ability to integrate different aspects into it - ever evolving and changing maybe? And that's why the Conservatives and Orthodoxy came down so hard on the new practice, because it wasn't as rigid, or formalized in it's thinking, but possibly more fluid in it's growth.
Unfortunately, nobody has an answer to that question exactly. Some Sufis believe they are seperate, some believe they are Islamic. Some Islamic scholars accept them and some don't. Considering how the same understanding developped in different parts of the world(Sufis at East and Cathars at West) and considering the similarities between those teachings, I don't think it is a branch of Islam, but rather a strategic enclosure as I explained in this thread. Of course there are those who call themselves Sufis and highly Islamic today and maybe also in the past.
You know the words esoteric and exoteric. In the East there are two words that could be considered as equivalent to them. There is "zahir" which means appearant, and there is "batin" which means hidden. All Sufi schools claim that Islamic Orthodoxy interprets Quran with a "zahiri" perception, meaning they don't understand the hidden meanings in it. They claim to know this hidden meaning and it may be interesting to note that this "hidden meaning" changes according to each school of thought.
If you attribute a hidden meaning to something, your possibilities are limitless. I see this as a form of buffering, Muslims do that too. When you ask: "How do you reconcile the fact that Muhammed attack the tribes around him to spread Islam?" they say: "Well he had no choice, what better way to send his message?" So he is sending the "message of peace" by fighting, very illuminating. Same can be applied to Sufis. Quran says Allah is one, Sufis say we are Him, like Arabi claimed, they claim Unity of Being. So the question comes down to "what did Quran meant by Allah is the one?"
Another example is praying, most of the Muslims turn to Kabaa and repeat certain movements at five times each day. Now isn't this a ritual? What do Sufis, for example lets say Alevis do? They form a circle, not facing Kabaa. When someone ask them, "why don't you turn to Kabaa?" they will answer: "We believe the Kabaa of a human being is another human being so we face with each other." Do you see the interpretation here? The direct order of "Allah" demands facing Kabaa, but they think this isn't the Kabaa Qu'ran meant. We know Muhammed didn't do that, he faced actual Kabaa so can we say this is Islam? Or Alevis don't pray but play music and say poems about certain things. They claim Quran doesn't give specific details about praying and this is the hidden meaning they extract from it.
You can make endless interpretations by following that logic. And you may find correlations between Islam and Sufism. If you couldn't find, then today Sufism would be a long gone heresy like Catharism. What I learned from Laura's work is that the message and messenger are closely tied to each other and the context is everything. Based on a look at the life of Muhammed, the claims that he has about himself, the bloodshed in the history from the recipient of the message and his closest, most beloved followers, I can't believe that the deeper meaning in Quran is benevolent and it is the starting point of Sufis.
There is a new fashion in Turkey, people merge Quran with New Age according to their beliefs. Personally I see those things far from obective reality and nothing but a projection of your thinking into a book. I did it many times in the past and I know the feeling "it fits". For my case, it was nothing but an illusion and wishful thinking.
I understand you though, after reading Jafar al Sadiq, he gives the impression of Sufism at first glance, mainly he too was affected by Greek philoposhers and tried to incorporate the teachings of his ancestors into that form to some extent. Many Sufi schools claimed to obtain their knowledge from him. Considering how different their knowledge were, either they are lying to save themselves from prosecution or Jafar al Sadiq made a sick joke to all of them. And you know from wikipedia entry that he teached to the best schloars of Orthodox Islam. How can one person teach with both of those conflicting world views, I have no idea.
The philosophy of my familiy's esoteric branch says somebody that we call sacred may do or say something that contradicts our belief, but he just did that to lead others astray so that few chosen people can understand the Truth. I followed that logic in the past and it doesn't produce objective understandings because our minds can't stop projection and see the real situation. Thankfully there are people who made and objective look at the Islamic history and show how Quran is contradictory and how it improved Muhammed's life style.
Turan Dursun was one of them in Turkey, yet he was assasinated because of his objective understanding. If you could read what he wrote about Muhammed by using Islamic sources you would be surprised and stop searching for any hidden meaning in Quran. It is purely sick, sexist, narcissistic and even psychopathic at times. I can't help remembering what an Alevi poet, Harabi said: "It is an inspiration from God, we are reading it, we have the Book. His book, his knowledge was inside him, not hidden inside a book and I believe this is what REAL Sufism is all about, not hidden meanings inside a book, but knowledge as a result of Work on the self in an ancient form.
I may be a little emotionally clouded about the subject, so I am open to any input.
and when I look back I don't recognise myself :/.