SUFISM.— From the woolen cloak (Ar. *sif*) of camel hair worn by the followers of the movement comes the name *s.* for the “spirituality” of Muslims.
The starting point of *s.* is asceticism (*zuhd*), consisting in the contempt of the world and in mortifications and spiritual exercises directed toward purifying the soul of all its faults, rendering it worthy of drawing near to God. To reach this final goal, it is necessary, after an act of repentance and conversion (*tawbah*), to traverse, under the blindly followed guidance of a spiritual director (*sajj*, *muršid*), a long path (*tarīq*), made up of various stages (*maqāmāt*), the most important of which are abstinence, renunciation, poverty, patience, trust in God, and the joyful acceptance of all the decrees of the Most High. Preeminent, indeed, is trust in God (*tawakkul*), which consists in annihilating one’s own will, entrusting oneself to God as to a procurator who thinks for the *sūfī* and wills for the *sūfī* and desires for the *sūfī*. Everything is informed by the concept of suppressing selfishness, not only in a negative form but also through the active example of altruism and goodness, with the intention of rendering oneself similar to God (or, at least, to Muḥammad), in His perfections.
But the supreme goal, once attained which the ascetic becomes a mystic, a true *sūfī*, is *tawhīd*. *Tawhīd*—the recognition of the unity of God—represents the essence of Muslim dogmatic theology and indeed gives it its name; but in mystical theology this word assumes a new meaning: it denotes a state in which “humanity disappears and only divinity remains”; in which man loses consciousness of the world and even of himself, so that the situation prior to creation is restored, when there was nothing but God.
To the theory of the “stages” (*maqāmāt*), Muslim ascetic-mystical theology couples that of the “states” (*aḥwāl*), which leads onto the proper ground of mysticism. The stages are “acquired”; the states are “given.” The former are the fruit of human industry; the latter are spontaneous gifts of Grace. They are called “states” transient phenomena of emotional life with which God makes His presence felt, alternately infusing fear and hope, confidence and awe, sensations of expansion (*bast*) and contraction (*qabd*) of the soul (the “width” and “narrowness” of St. John of the Cross).
But in the favorite of God, one sentiment predominates that in its Author embraces all creatures: Love (*ishq*). Opposed to “Reason,” which gives of the Supreme Being only a purely abstract notion, Love guides one to the intuition (*mukāshafah*) of God and to gnosis (*ma‘rifah*), which is far more than simple theological knowledge (*‘ilm*). Through a supreme act of love that breathes equally from the Lover and from the Beloved, the mystic enters a state of union (*ittiṣāl*, *ittiḥād*) with God. This occurs in ecstasy, which is called “intoxication,” “absence,” “immersion,” “annihilation,” and above all “annihilation” (*fanā’*): an annihilation that has as its correlative a “remaining” (*baqā’*) in God. Usually temporary, this state becomes permanent in the great saint, who is at once in God and in the world. Holiness (*wilāyah*, i.e., friendship with God) confers the power to exercise acts of dominion (*taqarruf*) over things or to perform miracles (*karāmāt*): indeed, there is the belief that God governs the world through a hidden hierarchy, renewed from generation to generation, of living saints.
In the state of union, every dualism has disappeared on the plane of consciousness; there is no longer an I and a Thou: the Lover identifies with the Beloved. Hence, the “theopathic utterances” (*shataḥāt*) in which the ecstatic subject expresses himself as God Himself would do not scandalize. The common believer says: “Glory to God”; the saint Bāyazīd al-Bistāmī (d. 877–78) exclaims: “Glory to me!”; al-Ḥallāj (d. 922) proclaims: “I am God,” and though for this he was condemned to death, tradition has justified and sanctified him.
But what takes place in the consciousness of the ecstatic—does it correspond, perchance, to Reality itself? Official dogmatic theology affirms that God is the sole Agent; taking one short step further, the theorists of *s.* add that only God possesses *esse borinum*, while the *esse* of creatures is *mutuatum*, so that, properly speaking, they do not exist. From this position, which orthodoxy has no difficulty admitting, one gradually passes to monism, which is found in a tendential state in all Muslim mystics, gaining ever more ground under the influence of Neoplatonic ideas that penetrated the Muslim world and was systematized by the Murcian Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240) and his followers. Thus arises the doctrine of *waḥdat al-wujūd* (unity of being), according to which there is only one Entity. But Being (*wujūd*) is inseparable from manifestation (*ẓuhūr*), and creation, logically posterior to God alone, is precisely a series of gradations of manifestations: from the diffusive Being or “First Intellect,” followed by the Universal Soul, to the lowest forms of being. The First Intellect is then identified with Muḥammad, who, substantially united to God, assumes the function of Logos and is made to appear on earth not only in the historical Muḥammad but also in the persons of all the prophets, beginning with Adam, and of the saints. Holiness restores to man, who possesses it potentially, the function of God’s vicegerent on earth enjoyed by Adam.
As can be seen, the monism of the *sūfīs* is of a Neoplatonic rather than Indian type. Despite the audacity of some of its formulas, it never falls into absolute pantheism. The personality of God is strongly felt in all types and manifestations of *s.*, which remains essentially a practical way of life, tending toward the interiorization of dogma, worship, and works. It aims to substitute for the “thought” God of dogmatic theologians a “felt” God, and not only feared but loved; to integrate ritualism with individual prayer, conceived as an intimate colloquy with God (*munājāt*); to place all acts of life under the sign of selflessness and altruism. The Qur’ān is by no means devoid of hints in this direction; but while official religion had neglected them, drifting toward formalism, *s.* gathers them up and develops them, under the influence of Christian ideas so evident that its adherents take Jesus as their model, wear the woolen cloak and hairshirt, isolate themselves in cells or gather in convents like monks, and even make a defense of monasticism, including celibacy.
Yet *s.* did not attain to a Christian type of monasticism; the numerous brotherhoods (*ṭarīqah*) to which it gave rise are associations of the faithful who practice its celibacy but do not live together, being bound only by a rule (*ṭarīqah*, whence the name), consisting in particular devotions, and only at intervals do they meet at the convent (*zāwiyah*, *tekke*, etc.) for the common celebration of the *dhikr*. This name, corresponding to the *mūḥmūn* of Eastern monks, is given to the recitation of formulas and litanies, to which are added, in some brotherhoods, songs and dances aimed at the artificial production of ecstasy, accompanied by displays of cataleptic insensibility.
The saint had to endure a long struggle before being received into the bosom of orthodoxy, which was alarmed by his Christian-like ideal of a secluded life, by the theory of ecstatic union, which it suspected to be a revival of the offensive Christian dogma of the Incarnation, by his irreverent criticisms of theologians and canonists, and by his propaganda based on strangeness and paradoxes often heretical in sound if not in intention: as when disinterestedness in actions was even recommended in the form of indifference to the rewards of Paradise, and the mosque, the church, the synagogue, and the temple of idolaters were provocatively placed on the same level in proclaiming the heart alone as the sanctuary of God. The theologians were also offended by the theopathic expressions that had become literary exercises, by accusations of polytheism directed at other Muslims, by the abuse of erotic and bacchic songs to depict spiritual nuptials and the intoxication of ecstasy, and by the doctrine of a secret science communicated by God to 'Ali for the use of the elect, simultaneously with the revelation made to Muhammad for the common people. Cases of outright antiritualism and antinomianism, of syncretistic collusions with religions superseded by Islam, and of dealings with heretical and subversive sects often provoked measures of repression. Yet moderate and prudent mystics such as Abū Tālib al-Makkī (d. 996), al-Junayd (d. 909–10), al-Qushayrī (d. 1074), and above all al-Ghazālī (d. 1111), the great synthesizer of Sunnism, succeeded in reconciling mysticism with dogmatics and canon law, to the great benefit of Islam, which emerged from this spiritualized. Ibn 'Arabī and his school seemed to disrupt the balance that had been achieved, yet they too benefited from the broad Sunni tolerance. Irreconcilable adversaries of Sufism remained the Ḥanbalites.