Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and My Year Inside Radical Islam - Part 6

On pages 231 through 233 of My Year Inside Radical Islam, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross writes:

“In church the next Sunday, the sermon was about God's love. For months, I was sure that I couldn't possibly be worthy of God's love. … The sermon had an angle I didn't expect: that we weren't really worthy of God's love.” Nobody deserves salvation,” the preacher said. “We're all tarred with sin; we are all dead in our own sinfulness. None of us is worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment.”

"Long pause. “But He loves us anyway. He loves us with a perfect divine love. The only way we can be worthy of standing before God is through the sacrifice of the perfect embodiment of humankind, the sacrifice of one without sin. That is why God gave us the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice of His only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

“This was the first time that I had considered that God might love me even though it was a love that I didn't deserve. The idea appealed to me deeply on an emotional level. But was it the truth?”

He goes on to write:

“I found that Islam and Christianity had two very different accounts of what became of Jesus. Christianity holds that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead. … Verse 4:157 [of the Qur'an] addressed the crucifixtion: “That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ, therein are full of doubts.” Which one was right?

“What principle could distinguish between the two accounts? I thought of the persecution that Jesus' disciples suffered because of their belief in the crucifixion and resurrection. They didn't die for a set of ideals – it was for a set of facts. Do people die for a set of facts that they know to be false?

“I felt that I was on to something. Slowly, with each layer that I pulled back, I felt my ideas about God shifting.”

I should start by saying that the point of the comments which are to follow has nothing to do with trying to establish who is right and who is wrong with respect to the life of Jesus (peace be upon him). We all have responsibility for the spiritual choices we make concerning beliefs and behaviours, and both Christians and Muslims believe that each of us will be held accountable for such choices on the Day of Judgment.

My focus is, instead, on a style of argument that is being used by Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. In fact, it is almost as if Mr. Gartenstein-Ross doesn't seem to understand that the manner in which he talks in his book about the kind of considerations which led to his conversion to Christianity, that he appears to be committing many of the same kinds of mistakes he made with respect to his interaction with the Salafi-oriented group in Ashland, Oregon.

Other than referring to themselves, respectively, as Christian and Muslim, what is the difference between the Christian preacher to whom Mr. Gartenstein-Ross refers and the Salafi shaykhs or preachers whom he mentioned? They both are espousing their worldviews and seeking to influence the people who are listening to their respective sermons. They both believe themselves to be correct and to have a sound understanding about what the relationship is between God and creation.

According to the Christian preacher whom Mr. Gartenstein-Ross quotes, none of us is worthy of God's love. Well, maybe, but on what empirical evidence is such a claim based? How does one go about proving such a statement?

Isn't it conceivable that precisely because we are God's creation that such a fact, in and of itself, renders us worthy of Divine love not necessarily because of us, per se, but because human beings give expression, in part, to God's handiwork. Creation is worthy of God's love because creation comes from God. Why assume that God would create something which Divinity would find unworthy rather than create something which God loved and cherished?

Indeed, in the Qur'an one finds:

“Behold thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said "Wilt thou place there one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? Whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." (Qur'an 2:30)

Allah has placed within each of us a potential for worthiness – a worthiness which was hidden from the understanding of the angels. Unworthiness is rooted only in the failure to nurture and develop the spiritual potential which God placed within us.

According to the Christian preacher cited by Mr. Gartenstein-Ross: “We're all tarred with sin; we are all dead in our own sinfulness. None of us is worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment.”

One might agree that we are all tarred in sin of one kind or another. Most of us are aware of our individual faults, the mistakes we make, and the people we hurt through our deeds and misdeeds. The empirical proof of such a claim is in our daily lives.

However, the further contention that “we are all dead in our own sinfulness” may be quite another matter. This is an expression of a theological position for which proof is much harder to come by, if one can demonstrate it at all.

One may believe that such is the case. Nevertheless, having such a belief and proving that such a belief is true is not necessarily one and the same thing even though many people do suppose that because they believe something, then, somehow, merely having the belief means that the belief must be true.

Furthermore, when the Christian preacher mentioned by Mr. Gartenstein-Ross also claims that “None of us is worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment,” such a statement tends to generate a sense of dissonance with certain facets of both Christian and Islamic understandings. According to both religious traditions, the Day of Judgment is something which most of us will have to face irrespective of whether we are worthy or not and irrespective of whether we are ready or not. We don't get any choice in the matter.

Then, the Christian preacher goes on to say: “The only way we can be worthy of standing before God is through the sacrifice of the perfect embodiment of human kind, the sacrifice of one without sin. That is why God gave us the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice of His only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ.” First, the preacher says that none of is worthy to stand before God on the Day of Judgment, and, then, it turns out that there is, after all, a way of being worthy of standing before God – namely, through Jesus (peace be upon him) who is described as being one that is without sin and who is the perfect embodiment of human kind.

I am willing to accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a perfect embodiment of human kind, and I am even willing to accept the idea that the life of Jesus (peace be upon him) was without sin. I also am willing to accept the idea that Jesus (peace be upon him) dedicated his whole life to God, and, in this sense sacrificed his life for the sake of God.

However, saying all of the foregoing does not in any way require me to conclude that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the only perfect embodiment of human kind or that he was the only human being who was without sin or that he was the only person who willingly sacrificed his life for the sake of God. There have been many examples of perfection, sinlessness, and sacrifice in the prophetic tradition.

So, if it is the case that what renders one worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgement is because of the perfection, sinlessness, and sacrifice of a servant of God, then, perhaps there are many individuals from among God's prophets and messengers whose quality of life renders their followers worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment. One cannot simply take Jesus (peace be upon him), remove him from the context of spiritual history, and conclude, with any persuasiveness, that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the only one capable of making us worthy.

One also might raise a question about whether, or not, what renders someone worthy to stand before God on the Day of Judgement is a function of what someone else did quite independently of the choices we make as individuals. According to the theological perspective being espoused by the Christian preacher to whom Mr. Gartenstein-Ross alludes, the sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) only renders us worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment if one believes in Jesus (peace be upon him) and the sacrifice that he is alleged to have made.

Therefore, the sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him), in and of itself, is not sufficient to render someone worthy of standing before God on the Day of Judgment. A person must make the decision to accept and believe in that sacrifice, and it is the making of such a choice that is said to be necessary if the sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) is to be effective in the life of that person. According to such a theology, Jesus (peace be upon him) is purported to have done his part, but individuals must also do their part – that is, to accept and believe in Jesus (peace be upon him) in accordance with the dictates of the theology being espoused.

With respect to the foregoing, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says: “This was the first time that I had considered that God might love me even though it was a love that I didn't deserve. The idea appealed to me deeply on an emotional level.”

The fact that an idea appeals to one on a deeply emotional level doesn't necessarily make such an idea true. There were many ideas described by Mr. Gartenstein-Ross in his book which allude to his being touched on a deeply emotional level … ideas which had to do with certain aspects of Islam, including its mystical, Sufi dimension, and, ideas which were sufficiently intense and deep to induce him to become a Muslim, and, yet, which, apparently, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross has decided to cast aside in favour of a certain kind of Christian theological argument. If both positions are rooted in something which touched him on a deeply emotional level, then, obviously, emotional considerations, in and of themselves, are not necessarily capable of settling the matter of what is true and what is not true.

Furthermore, there is certain ambiguity entailed by the perspective which Mr. Gartenstein-Ross is putting forth at this point. If the perfection, sinlessness, and sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) only has efficacy if a person chooses to accept and believe in those dimensions of the life of Jesus (peace be upon him), then, clearly, there is something which renders one worthy of standing before God apart from, but related to, the issue of Jesus (peace be upon him) – namely, the choice or decision one makes concerning Jesus (peace be upon him).

In Islam one is required to make certain choices for which one will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment. In Christianity one is required to make certain choices for which one will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment.

Theologies have arisen among both Muslims and Christians concerning what the nature of such choices should be. There is nothing new in what Mr. Gartenstein-Ross is doing in conjunction with his move toward Christianity that he wasn't previously engaged in when a Muslim – that is, he is caught up in theology, and he is being influenced by what others are saying rather than thinking for himself or examining any of these issues in a critically rigorous manner.

Of course, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross believes there is a huge difference between the two theologies. He believes that the Christian theology is correct and that the Muslim theology is incorrect.

In support of his conclusions he says – as noted previously:

“What principle could distinguish between the two accounts? I thought of the persecution that Jesus' disciples suffered because of their belief in the crucifixion and resurrection. They didn't die for a set of ideals – it was for a set of facts. Do people die for a set of facts that they know to be false?”

This is not a very good argument. It is saturated with problems.

For example, he mentions how the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) suffered because of their willingness to believe the crucifixion and resurrection, but this, in and of itself, proves nothing except that they were committed to their beliefs. There were many Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who suffered, who were tortured, and who lost their lives because of their commitment to their belief in the Prophet and the Qur'an.

If willingness to endure suffering as a result of belief in something is the measure of truth, then, why make reference to only the disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him)? Should one not suppose that if one is to abide by the logic of the argument being put forth by Mr. Gartenstein-Ross at this point, then, the fact that if a person suffers as a result of the beliefs they hold, then, this is an indication that what they believe is true?

Consider the following set of cases. One person believes in the existence of God and undergoes suffering as a result of that belief. Another person does not believe in the existence of God and undergoes suffering as a result of that belief.

Both of the aforementioned cases involve suffering. According to Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, the presence of willingness to suffer for what one believes is an indication that what is believed must be true, and, yet, what the believer in God holds and what the disbeliever in God holds cannot simultaneously be true.

At this juncture, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross asks what he appears to believe is a rhetorical question: “Do people die for a set of facts that they know to be false?” The implied answer is “No! People do not die for a set of facts that they know to be false, and, therefore, according to Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, one must conclude that the set of facts for which the disciples were willing to die were and are true.

However, while one might agree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross that people are not likely to be willing to suffer or die for a set of facts which they know to be false, this is not the situation with which any of us really is confronted. We have beliefs, and one of those beliefs is that there is truth, and we hope that the other beliefs we have accurately reflect the nature of truth or reality, but, the fact of the matter is that in many cases we don't know whether, or not, the beliefs we hold are true.

People may not be willing to suffer or die for something which they know isn't true. Nonetheless, people often are willing to undergo suffering or to die for something which they believe to be true even if, ultimately, what they believe may turn out to be false.

The fact that certain people who claimed to be following Jesus (peace be upon him) were willing to suffer and die for what they believed with respect to the crucifixion and resurrection proves absolutely nothing about the truth of that in which they believed. The fact that certain people of a Salafi-orientation claim to be following the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and are willing to suffer and die for what they believe in this respect proves absolutely nothing about the truth of that in which they believe.

When he was a Muslim, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross ceded his intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority to a group of fundamentalist Muslims who followed Salafi teachings. When he became a Christian, Mr.Gartenstein-Ross ceded his intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority to another set of theological teachings.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross may feel that everything has changed with his rejection of Islam and his conversion to Christianity. And, of course, in certain ways this is true, but in an essential sense, nothing really has changed in his methodological approach to developing a spiritual world view.

In both cases he seems to have made choices on the basis of emotional considerations as well as on the basis of problematic theological thinking, rather than as a result of essential spiritual understanding. In both cases, he had a tendency to cede his intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority to other people rather than try to establish what the truth might be in terms that were rooted in his own spiritual capabilities.

When Mr. Gartenstein-Ross was inclined to ask lots of questions and engage in critical reflections concerning issues of morality, values, and justice, whether with respect to Christianity or Islam, then, in my opinion, he came a lot closer to the truth of things, than when he was inclined to cede away his intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority to others. Moreover, this is so irrespective of whether one is talking about Christian or Muslim theology.

As Mr. Gartenstein-Ross said when he was at an existential point that was sort of in between Islam and Christianity:

“For months, I was sure that I couldn't possibly be worthy of God's love. How could I be? Here I was racked with doubts, unable to trust myself to do the right thing or to follow basic rules.” (page 231)

Earlier in his book, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross said almost exactly the same thing as he hovered, at a sort of spiritual fail safe point, at the edge of the Salafi sphere of influence – namely, “I didn't want to be racked by doubts and uncertainty … I wanted a clear guide for telling right from wrong.” (page 154)

In the latter case, he permitted himself to be drawn into the Salafi theology. In the former case, he permitted himself to be drawn into the sphere of influence of Christian theology. In both cases he abdicated his spiritual responsibilities and ceded his intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority to someone else and permitted those people to establish the criteria for differentiating right from wrong and the true from the false.

Should one infer from the foregoing that I am saying that one should be the decider of truth? The answer to this question is: “No!”

God has given each of us spiritual sensibilities, faculties and capacities. These sensibilities, faculties, and capacities function best when we open ourselves up to be taught directly by God through the truth inherent in authentic revelation, through the truth which is manifested in the lives of the servants of Divinity, through the truth which is inherent in the nature of creation, as well as through the truth which is inherent in our unique spiritual capacity and essential identity.

The process of permitting oneself to be opened up to truth as it is manifested on different levels of being is a long, difficult struggle. During this process one must go through a great deal of purification with respect to the different aspects of the soul and, as well, one must undergo many spiritual transformations across states and stations in order, God willing, to acquire the character traits which tend to be reflective of a mind, heart, soul, and spirit which has committed itself to learning how to let God teach one to travel along the spiritual path.

In this spiritual quest, people who are spiritually knowledgeable can play very important catalytic and supportive roles in assisting one, God willing, to travel along the path. However, at every point along this journey, one has responsibility for properly exercising one's God-given intellectual, moral, and spiritual authority. When this authority is ceded to others, one is extremely likely to encounter significant problems on the spiritual path.

I learned a great deal from my shaykh. However, at no point did he ever ask me cede away my intellectual, moral, or spiritual authority to him. Rather, he focused on helping me learn how to exercise such responsibilities in a way that would lead me toward realizing my own personal relationship with Divinity rather than a relationship which was being mediated through, and filtered by, someone else.

Gardens

Gardens, both wild and cultivated, appear to have an attraction of near universal proportions for human beings. Different races, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious traditions, and eras all have been drawn to gardens.

One might wonder why this should be the case. Why do gardens appeal to us in such a deeply satisfying manner?To be sure, the flowers, shrubs, trees, grass and so on, have both individual, as well as collective, beauty. In addition, the diversity of shapes is intriguing, and the endless combination of flora arrangements is fascinating. Moreover, everything contributes to the wonderful bouquet of aromas which vary in character throughout the day and night.Toss in the mystery of the unfolding of life going on in the garden, and one might suppose all of the foregoing explains why most people are inclined to gardens.

The answer, however, may run deeper still.We find gardens peaceful and restful. Gardens seem to induce us to reflect on life. We find varying degrees of contentment and joy from gardens.We come away from gardens refreshed. There appears to be some kind of energy or source of renewal which we take away with us from gardens.There is almost a timeless quality to gardens. Things do change, but, somehow, time often seems to be suspended. The rest of the world recedes.Our senses are somewhat intoxicated from the effects of the garden. Our minds are massaged.

Gardens tug at our hearts and emotions. Every aspect of our being seems to be connected to, and affected by, gardens.We are captivated by the balance and harmony in gardens. Thoughts and remembrance of God tend to arise naturally in the context of gardens.Sufi masters indicate physical gardens are only one variety in a spectrum of infinite diversity.

In fact, the gardens of the physical world are but a distant reflection of the gardens associated with spiritual possibilities.Whatever contentment, peace, joy, happiness, rest, refreshment, wonder, beauty, fascination, intoxication and satisfaction we may receive from physical gardens is virtually nothing compared to what can be experienced in different kinds of spiritual garden.Indeed, on the basis of experience and not theoretical speculation, the Sufi masters note there is no way to describe the intensity, depth, richness, subtlety and diversity inherent in spiritual gardens. At best, one only can allude, in a very limited way, to a few superficial dimensions of the experiences involving non-physical gardens.

Our senses, mind , heart and soul are drawn to gardens because their many qualities strike a resonance deep within our being. For people of insight and understanding, such as the Sufi masters, the qualities of the gardens of the physical world are but a sign of the existence of other non-physical gardens which have garden-like qualities capable of reaching even further into the possibilities of our essential being.

The meaning of "garden-like qualities" in the foregoing refers to the capacity of non-physical gardens to generate, albeit on a much grander scale of both majesty and beauty, a sense of peace, joy, refreshment, contentment and so on, just as physical gardens do. However, the ultimate character of these non-physical gardens may not have anything in common with the structural forms given expression through physical gardens. In fact, some spiritual gardens are without any form, per se, whatsoever, yet induce in us extremely intense experiences which are somewhat analogous - in a distant sort of way - to those experiences engendered in us in physical gardens.

One does not necessarily have to leave the physical plane in order to get some semblance of taste of a non-physical garden. For example, in the garden of association with one's spiritual guide, one experiences garden-like qualities.When one is with one's shaykh or teacher, one feels at peace. One is happy, joyful, restful. One discovers a contentment in the presence of one's spiritual guide.Time almost seems to be suspended. The rest of the world becomes relatively unimportant.Life seems to have more balance and harmony while in the company of one's teacher. One finds thoughts of God and remembrance of God come more easily in the presence of the shaykh than when one is removed from the teacher. One is more given to spiritual reflection when associating with one's spiritual guide.One is drawn to the inner beauty of one's shaykh. One keeps discovering new facets of wonder and fascination in her or him.One can become extremely intoxicated or ecstatic in the presence of the teacher. One comes away from the spiritual guide refreshed and invigorated. One longs to return to the garden of spiritual association as quickly as possible.

Sufi masters refer to many other kinds of garden. There are, for instance, gardens of remembrance which are accessed through saying, and becoming absorbed in, the Names and Attributes of God.

When, by the grace of God, one is summoned into the reality of these Names and Attributes, as well as opened up to their infinite meanings of overwhelming beauty and majesty, one is transported to gardens unlike any in the physical realm. One is given entrance to gardens beyond all description.There are gardens of forgetfulness in which one is released from the veils of the false self. There are gardens of subsistence in God when one's true, essential self is realized.

There are gardens of gnosis. In these gardens, one has direct, certain, unmediated knowledge of God. In these gardens, God discloses different dimensions or facets of Divinity.There are gardens for every spiritual station. There are gardens of repentance and longing. There are gardens of dependence on God. There are gardens of gratitude, patience and sincerity.

One travels, if God wishes, from gardens of friendship to gardens of exclusive friendship. By the grace of Divinity, one is transported from gardens of passion to gardens of ardent affection.There are gardens of intense love in which the spirit soars in flights of intimacy with Divinity. During such flights, one becomes both enslaved and bewildered by the infinite beauty of the face of the Beloved manifested through these gardens.There are gardens of uniqueness. If God wishes, one is opened up to the mystery which is breathed into one's essential nature by Divinity at the advent of Self-realization.

There are countless other gardens. No two gardens are the same.No two spiritual gardens give the same kind of joy and happiness. No two gardens give the same modality of contentment, peace and satisfaction.No two gardens disclose the same Divine colors. No two gardens share the same wonder and beauty.No two spiritual gardens bring the same flavor of ecstasy. No two gardens show the same kind of breathtaking balance, symmetry and harmony.

The point of embarkation for the possibility of journeying to any and all of the aforementioned gardens is, God willing, in the garden of spiritual association with the shaykh. Without this association and the grace and barakah, or blessings, of Divinity to which it gives expression, the nearest one will come to a first-hand experience of any of these other gardens is a spiritual travelogue such as the one being itemized in this essay.

Authenticity of Sufi shaykhs

There are teachers and, then, there are 'teachers'. A teacher may, or may not, be a spiritual guide. The fact that one can learn from someone does not necessarily make the person from whom one learns either a teacher, a 'teacher', or a spiritual guide, for, among other things, teaching and guidance both depend on the presence of a certain kind of intention.

Although what I 'know', in some sense of this word, about E.J. Gold is limited -- and none of what I 'know' is based on direct experience with him - nonetheless, the dilemma with which he (along with many others) presents a seeker may be instructive. Moreover, all of this can be done without passing judgment on Mr. Gold - either positively or negatively.

Apparently, Mr. Gold is one of those rare individuals who is both multi-talented and quite intelligent. He writes, draws, paints, sculpts, makes jewelry, takes pictures, plays jazz, and does business - and, moreover, he does all of these with a great deal of skill, knowledge, and talent. In addition, he is a consummate speaker, a scholar of considerable resources, and a very insightful and intuitive observer of the human condition.

Jesus (peace be upon him) exhibited few of the foregoing, qualities, and with the exception of, possibly, the realm of business, neither did the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). So, I suppose, the moral of the story is that we should stop listening to such individuals like Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and, instead, follow those individuals who exhibit talent and, as a result, are capable of impressing us in one way or another.

People such as Mr. Gold lead very interesting lives. I am sure that his life experience and the understanding which has arisen out of that life experience are valuable resources for those with whom he comes in contact.

However, neither talent, intelligence, an interesting life, intuition, nor being a valuable resource make someone a spiritual guide, and this is true quite irrespective of whether such people speak, write, or teach about spirituality. A person can write books about spirituality, or go on speaking tours which focus on spirituality, or conduct workshops on spirituality, and none of this, in and of itself, makes someone a spiritual guide - and, this remains so, even if someone who reads a book, or listens to a lecture, or participates in a workshop with such an individual comes away with 'food for thought' which has a spiritual flavor to it.

There is only one factor which can make someone a spiritual guide - that is, someone who serves as a locus of manifestation for the concentrated and consistent transmission of barakah or Divine Grace through which self-realization of essential identity and unique spiritual capacity is, God willing, made possible. This sine qua non of the mystical quest is that the person who serves in the capacity of a spiritual guide has been appointed as such by Divinity.

Divine niyat is the sole key to the issue of someone's being, or not being, a spiritual guide, and the authentic Sufi masters have always alluded to this reality by, among other things, citing the Quranic ayat: "Enter houses by their doors." (2:189). Just as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "I am the city of knowledge, and 'Ali is the gate," so, too, every authentic shaykh (and God determines authenticity, nothing else) becomes a door to the mystical house to which a silsilah gives expression, and becoming such a door is only possible through a Divine decree that is made known via the mouths and actions of authentic shaykhs, just as Hadith Qudsi constitute the unveiling of Divine intentions by means of the agency of the voice of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Someone does not decide to become a spiritual guide. Someone does not take courses on how to be a shaykh, or become a shaykh by receiving a certificate or diploma from having successfully fulfilled the requirements of a given curriculum or program. Becoming a shaykh is not a matter of scholarship, research, intelligence, talent, or even knowledge since there are, by the Grace of Allah, many people who have become Self-realized who do not, thereby, become shaykhs.

There are no elections or balloting associated with becoming a shaykh. Zikr, fasting, seclusion, night vigils, prayers, community service, meditation, contemplation, recitation of the Qur'an, going on hajj, and the giving of zakat does not render one a shaykh.

The performance of 'wondrous deeds' which, seemingly, break the known laws of physics and/or biology does not make one a shaykh. Indeed, the final dajjal (i.e., imposter) will exhibit all manner of facility with respect to the manifestation of 'wondrous deeds' - including, raising people from the dead - but this does not make the dajjal a shaykh.

Others may proclaim one to be a shaykh. Others may even pay to read one's books, or attend one's workshops, and feel that they are getting good value for the money spent, but personal testimonies and written endorsements do not make someone a shaykh.

One may believe or feel that one has a calling to be a shaykh. However, the existence of such a belief or feeling is not sufficient to make someone a shaykh, and, in fact, there are a number of famous examples of people [e.g., Hazrat Qadir Gilani (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him)] who ran away from such responsibilities, not feeling adequate to the task to which they clearly were being called.

There is only one element which makes a person a shaykh. If this element is present - while intelligence, talent, scholarship, and accomplishment are absent, then, one is a shaykh, but if this element is absent, then, irrespective of whatever gifts, diplomas, or kudos can be listed next to one's name, one will not be a shaykh ... and this one element is Divine niyat or intention.

There is nothing paradoxical about the spiritual guidance of the Prophets or the saints or the great shaykhs. It is our ignorance which makes things seem this way.

There is nothing paradoxical about kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, empathy, compassion, love, sincerity, honesty, humility, modesty, poverty, steadfastness, faith, patience, gratitude, piety, wisdom, and friendship. Yes, there is something Divine about all of these qualities, but there is nothing inherently paradoxical about them, although, sometimes, those who seek to pass themselves off as teachers try to reduce mysticism to a series of paradoxical teachings.

There is a difference between a paradox and a mystery, and no matter how many paradoxes one may resolve, the mystery of Self will remain a mystery unless God wishes otherwise. Mysticism, unlike the Bastille, cannot be conquered by assault, but, instead, one gains entry only through inside help - help which has been appointed by Divinity and not help which has been self-appointed as a result of delusion and illusion.

When it comes to people like Gurdjieff or E.J. Gold, what others say about the spiritual qualifications of such individuals really is irrelevant, and, moreover, what those people themselves say about themselves in this respect, is also irrelevant. The only voice which counts is the Divine one.

Trying to discern what the Divine voice is saying to us is not an easy task. Whole lifetimes are often consumed with dealing with such a challenge, and, the result is not always successful.

Trying to step onto the spiritual path is an inherently dangerous activity. There are no guarantees even if one should be fortunate enough to discover, or be discovered by, an authentic teacher.

Furthermore, the problem of trying to differentiate between authenticity and inauthenticity is fraught with peril because we start from a position of ignorance about such matters and, as well, easily become confused due to the many forces acting on us, both from within and without, which have a vested interest in misdirecting us away from the truth in relation to this issue. Ironically, even though the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave many clues concerning the advent of the Latter Days, and even though every last one of the many minor signs indicating the nearness of this time have now come into evidence, and even though the Prophet clearly indicated that such times would be filled with spiritual darkness and all manner of dajjal, all too many people suppose that spirituality has never been more advanced than it is today and that almost any Tom, Dick or Harry who has a following qualifies as an authentic shaykh.

Truly, the human capacity for self-deception is seemingly bottomless. And, indeed, human kind continues to prove ourselves to be "extremely oppressive and ignorant," (33:72) and there is no one who is more oppressive and ignorant than someone who claims, or is claimed to be, a spiritual guide who has not been appointed by God - and, this remains true regardless of whatever intelligence, talents, gifts, wit, beauty, scholarship, or charm someone brings to the table.