Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 12

Broadcasting from our new podcast studio, Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 12 is now available for downloading by clicking here .

 This week's edition includes music, poetry, a story entitled The Snake Charmer, an essay entitled Zikr, and a commentary entitled Common Roots, Part 1. We hope you'll join us and catch the Sufi Reflections ship before it sails!

 

Reality without a Name

Reality without a Name is a critical examination of a variety of themes and principles that are of relevance to exploring the Sufi mystical path. Using Sufism: A Short Introduction by Professor William C. Chittick as a case study, the present work takes the shortcomings, problems, and errors of the latter book as a starting point for explicating an array of misunderstanding concerning the Sufi spiritual tradition which are prevalent inside and outside of academia. In addition, the present case study seeks to utilize the ensuing discussion to develop a constructive approach to engaging – at least in conceptual terms – the Sufi path. Reality without a Name provides readers with a wealth of material that may, God willing, be of value to readers from various background.

On the one hand, this book will serve as an excellent introduction to the basic teachings of the Sufi path for those with little knowledge of this spiritual tradition. On the other hand, this work offers, hopefully, numerous insights for more advance understandings, as well. God willing, readers, whatever their backgrounds, will be provided with a great many issues upon which to reflect.

The present critique is potentially significant in several respects. Perhaps most crucial among these considerations is that Reality without a Name serves as a warning. All too many students are at risk of being misled and miseducated in relation to both Islam and the Sufi path when books like Sufism: A Short Introduction are permitted to go unchallenged with respect to the problematic and error-filled manner in which the Sufi mystical path is being "explained" through such books. Sufism: A Short Introduction is only one book, but it is emblematic and, therefore, instuctive, concerning much of what is wrong with the way in which certain facets of academia approach 'undrstanding' tasawwuf.

If you would like to order this book, click on the following link: REALITY WITHOUT A NAME

Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace

To listen to this poem: LISTEN


Thinking about events,
a lament forms in my heart
for the innocent ones
whose lives are cast into ruins
beneath boots of glory
that march to visionary
commands from leaders gone
mad with the ego’s song of
self-serving delusion.

Wondering what goes on
in the hidden depths beyond
surface shallows which flow
in public space, I try to
fathom the undertow
set in motion by ones with
power and ambition
so that I may try to chart
a course for my own heart.

Navigating becomes
nightmarish when contending
with the lies used to bend
lines that define life maps which
defy one’s moral compass
while edicts are pronounced
that threaten rendition or
charges of sedition
if one should disobey.

Wondering about those
human beings whose bodies
lay still beneath rubble
or freshly dug earth due to
wondrous technology
and whose mortal sin was to
breathe air in the wrong place,
I also wonder about
those who kill in such haste.

My soul fills with pain and
tears as images of once-
laughing children -- now wrapped
in shrouds of silent witness
to newly won freedom --
haunt my heart’s memory,
while it searches for some
defensible theory for
murderous rage … but fails.

Wondering why ‘leaders’
feel so free to abuse the
lives of others and
treat that which is sacred with
low purposes of greed,
oppression, and corruption,
I seek answers amidst
dark deeds of mis-adventure
and see evil’s presence.

Re-framing is a tool
used by the tacticians of
falsehood to paint pictures
of truth and beauty … hiding
order’s nuanced decay
which seeps into people’s day,
turning light into night,
until life becomes entombed
in someone’s agenda.

Wondering, wandering
about history which shows,
again and again what
reasoning knows to be truth
concerning the monsters
who ruthlessly play games
of fame exploiting mere
human beings as life-like
toys for competing whims.

Anguished cries of the weak,
the disenfranchised, the poor
and hungry are heard by
models of civility
who claim they understand
this plight, but duty demands
that the rich get richer
while the rest are shown the door
to noble sacrifice.

I wonder about those
who label all terror but
their own as ignoble
while devising strategies
to inspire needless
fear to better control the
cattle who are to be
slaughtered on the altar of
service to endless lust.

Battles were lost as trust
died with the first casualty
of war and innocence
disappeared in the mangled,
burnt bodies of those who
did not transgress against us
yet were deemed suitable
for torture, rape, and murder
by those with diseased souls.

Wondering what to do
When faced with such relentless
Narcissism, I pray
for true guidance that blesses
me with understanding,
strength, courage and character
so that I might resist,
in moral ways, the darkness
which wages war on peace.

What's Right With Islam by Imam Rauf - A Critical Commentary

In What's Right With Islam Imam Rauf says “There is little doubt today that the rise of religious fundamentalism represented the reaction of religion against the antireligious secular modernism that peaked in the mid-twentieth century.” (page xx of Preface)

I'm not so sure this is correct. Fundamentalism, in its essence, is not an expression of spirituality but, rather, constitutes a desire for power that appears in the guise of a religious form. The power in question has to do with a desire to impose one's perspective on others quite irrespective of the presence of secular modernism – although secular modernism can assume the role of a stage prop which can be used to incite the emotions of a target audience that fundamentalists seek to control in order to bring about the agenda of the latter.

This tendency to seek power and control over the lives of others existed within the Muslim community from a very early period … just like it exists, as a potential, within all communities -- both religious and non-religious. Historically, Muslim theologians were often motivated by the desire for such power – that is, a desire to expand their sphere of influence by establishing and imposing the religious norms to which the theologians believed everyone should be subject. Similarly, Muslim jurists frequently were inclined toward such an agenda and, thereby sought to enforce a certain conception of life upon everyone within the community, and, as well, many Muslim politicians were operating out of a similar sort of framework in which the ultimate goal was to rule over people rather than serve God even as the idea of the latter was used to hide a program of authoritarian control.

Whatever the actual sins of modernism, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism may be – and these sins are many – the fact of the matter is that those in the Muslim community (theologians, jurists, political rulers) who were either jockeying for power or who were attempting to hold on to power used the very real sins of colonialism et al as a means of misdirecting attention away from their own sins (that is, would-be Muslim “leaders”) of wishing to control, exploit, and abuse Muslim peoples. Among fundamentalists, the issue was never – except superficially -- about defending Muslims from the Western hordes but was, rather, an attempt to make sure that the reins of oppression were held by so-called 'Muslims' rather than Westerners.

If one takes a look at the long list of fundamentalists from: the karijis [a sect that came into being during the Caliphacy of Hazrat 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and who – that is, the kharijis – considered all Muslims who did not accept their interpretation of Islam to be infidels], down through: ibn Taymiyyah [1268-1328 who, among other things glorified the idea of jihad – which he construed in terms of armed conflict – to be superior to Islamic pillars such as fasting and the hajj or pilgrimage], Muhammad al Wahhab [1703 – 1792 who was a founder of a radical, puritanical, dogmatic theology which calls for a return to medieval Islam], Muhammad Abdus Salam Faraj [1952- 1982 who argued that all of the problems existing in the Muslim world were the result of a failure by Muslims to consider jihad, in the sense of armed, violent conflict, to be a mandatory duty of every Muslim in relation to combating all non-Muslims as well as those who were 'insufficiently' Muslim], and such groups as the Taliban, al-Qaidah, Hamas, and Hezbollah (along with many other individuals and groups who have not been noted above), all of these groups and individuals have one thing in common – the desire to recreate the world in their own image – using force and compulsion wherever necessary. The common thread among the foregoing fundamentalists is very resonant with the motivation running through modernism, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism – namely, a desire to impose one's 'will to power' upon innocent people, along with the presumption accompanying this 'will to power' – namely, that one has the right to manipulate and oppress the lives of others.

Rallying cries revolve around this or that cause (whether this be the panicked hysteria in the West concerning religious fundamentalism, or the frenzied mobs in the East focused on the evils of capitalism and imperialism), but these rallying cries are just techniques of manipulation used by both sides for purposes of creating and managing the fear of various communities. People who are afraid constitute a formidable resource which has been mined for centuries by those who wish to exploit that resource to the advantage of the 'leaders' and to the disadvantage of the people who are sacrificed while fear is stoked to a burning rage all around the world.

To be sure, there are people in the Muslim world who are quite prepared to kill anyone who do not think as the former do. However, there also are people in the West who are quite prepared to kill anyone who stands in the way of capitalistic or 'democratic' hegemony – whether of an economical, political, and/or militaristic sort. The existence of such real threats is just a pretext that can serve to generate undue influence upon populations – both East and West – in order to induce those respective populations to act out of fear rather than insight, understanding, compassion, or wisdom.

Like actors in a gangster movie, the players on whatever side (West or East) were, and are, interested only in being able to impose their own will on other human beings. The conflict was not and is not a clash of cultures as Huntington tries to argue but, instead, a clash of mobsters and tyrants who were, and are, seeking to slice up the worldly pie in a manner that was, and is, advantageous to any given mobster organization – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Imam Rauf indicates that being “told that Islam is a religion of peace doesn't jive with images of Muslims” advocating violence against America, Christians, or Jews. On the other hand, being told that the West stands for democracy, freedom, and justice doesn't jive with images of Western corporations, governments, and militaries destroying lives, communities, and countries all over the world while they plunder resources of various peoples that have been usurped by oppressive tyrants in such communities and countries which (that is, the tyrants) are often created, funded, supported and protected by the West.

All too many people in the West and East seem to forget that Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have raised a question about those who would find fault with the mote in the eye of one's neighbor while ignoring the beam in one's own eye. Framing the issues becomes very important in the war to control how people think and feel about any given situation.

Acting in inhuman ways becomes so much easier when people – with the help of the media, government officials, and religious figures -- can define a problem in terms of the barbaric and uncivilized acts of 'the Other' while completely ignoring the etiological role played by the many atrocities perpetrated against the Other prior to the onset of the Other's treacherous acts – atrocities which are largely or totally ignored by a given side's way of framing things in a self-serving, distorted, and self-righteous manner. The other side is always the causal agent for the existence of evil in the world, when, in truth, events are almost always due to a more complicated dynamic in which forces and factors from all sides converge and synergistically interact with one another to generate crisis, escalation, and tragedy.

Early in What's Right With Islam Imam Rauf speaks a little about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, referring to that aspect of the amendment which addresses the issue of the relationship between church and state. He indicates how the founding fathers wished to ensure that religion would not be able to gain access to the corridors of power and, in the process, be imposed upon people. However, Imam Rauf indicates that later on, during the twentieth century, a more militant, anti-religious form of secularism began to hold sway within the institutions of governance, thereby violating what he believed to be the actual intent of the First Amendment authors which, according to Imam Rauf, was never meant to create an atheistic or agnostic society.

Trying to figure out the intent of the founding fathers is a tricky business. Legislatures, courts, jurists, educators, and commentators have been trying to do this for more than two hundred years.

There are, at least, several components to this hermeneutical task. First, there is the intent of the people who actually drafted the amendment, and, secondly, there is the intent of those who voted on the amendment.

Even if there are written records to document, to a degree, what the drafters of an amendment were thinking when a given amendment was proposed, there may not be a great deal of information which details the thinking process of those who voted for or against such an amendment. Did the thinking of the latter coincide precisely with that of the drafters of an amendment, or did it differ, and, if so, in what way? How did they envision the amendment playing out in the actual course of events? What did they believe the constraints and degrees of freedom of such an amendment to be? What did they believe they were signing on to or rejecting?

Were all the people who voted on the amendment inclined toward religion, and, if so, in what way were they religious? Were they orthodox something or other? What did orthodoxy mean to them? Did they have a formal affiliation with religious institutions, or were they independent thinkers and doers when it came to religious observance? What role did they believe government should play in supporting and helping people to seek and, possibly, secure the purpose of life? What did they believe the purpose of life to be?

In order for someone, such as Imam Rauf, to make a statement about what the intention of the founding fathers was, or was not, with respect to the First Amendment, one would have to be able to answer all of the foregoing questions and quite a few more. Imam Rauf may, or may not, be correct in his opinion concerning the intent of the founding fathers, but this is an empirical question which requires evidence not just unsupported supposition.

More importantly, perhaps, there is an issue concerning the First Amendment which Imam Rauf – along with many others – does not seem to consider. If I understand his position, he feels there should be some sort of balance between the aspirations of the state and the aspirations of religion such that while the latter should never be permitted to dominate activities of state, nonetheless, the state should not oppose or undermine the attempts of religious people to give active expression to their individual faith.

One question which I have with respect to the foregoing is this: Why should the state be permitted to have any aspirations at all? Another question I have is the following: Why should the aspirations of the state be permitted to dominate people's lives and be imposed on them if one prevents religion from doing this very same thing?

If the First Amendment is intended, in part, as a safeguard against the unwarranted intrusion of any given religious framework into the lives of the people, then, why should one permit the intrusion of any given political framework into the lives of people? If the purpose of this aspect of the First Amendment is to ensure that people do not become unwilling victims of the imposed religious aspirations of others, then, why is there not a reciprocal protection against the imposed political, economic, and philosophical aspirations of others? Why are political and economic philosophies being given a free pass with respect to retaining the right to be imposed on unwilling recipients? If the idea of this facet of the First Amendment is to protect the people against being oppressed by a religion not of their own choosing, then, why are the people not being protected against being oppressed by political philosophies, economic programs, and public policies not of their own choosing? Why is the presumption of governance being given to philosophy – whether this is political, economic, and/or social in nature?

Oppression is oppression whether it comes from religion or politics. If the majority were of a given religious denomination, we do not say: 'Well, the will of the majority should be enforced but, rather, point to the First Amendment and indicate that no religion – irrespective of its majority status – may dominate state policy'.

In a sense, this portion of the First Amendment is directed toward protecting the rights of minorities against the imposition of religious beliefs. No such protections are afforded minorities against the imposition of unwanted political and philosophical beliefs.

I find this to be a curious asymmetry. Is one to suppose that politics and philosophy are somehow more objective or more neutral or less biased than religion is? Is one to assume that politics and philosophy are inherently more humane, just, and compassionate than any religion could be? Is one to automatically presume that politics and philosophy are better equipped to be less arbitrary, oppressive and authoritarian than religions are?

What and where is the evidence to support such presumption? Why is it okay to rule over people in the name of politics, economics, or philosophy, but not okay to rule over people in the name of religion?

Irrespective of what the founding fathers may, or may not, have thought about such matters, I agree with the idea that religion ought not to become entangled in the principles of governance in such a way that religion is imposed on the community being governed. At the same time, I also believe that politics, economics, and philosophy ought not to become entangled in the principles of governance in such a way that they are imposed on the community being governed.

If one agrees that the principles inherent in protecting people from having religion imposed on them are valuable safeguards against tyranny and oppression, then, consistency requires that the same principles be applied to safeguard the public against the tyranny and oppression inherent in any political, philosophical, or economic system that is imposed on others without their consent. Moreover, if people do not wish to be consistent in the manner in which they seek to protect the community against tyranny and oppression, then, one needs to inquire into the nature of the motivation underlying this inconsistency and preferential asymmetry.

Imam Rauf claims that: “Muslims believe that America needs to reestablish the original understanding of the First Amendment, which balances the separation of church and state with freedom of religion by allowing all religions equal standing and by honoring the role of religion in building a good society. This balance is enormously important to Muslims.”

Aside from the fact that I find it somewhat disconcerting to be told that Muslims believe 'such and such' when I am a Muslim, and I don't necessarily believe what Imam Rauf says I believe, and aside from the already mentioned idea that I'm not sure that what he claims the original intention or understanding of the First Amendment to be actually constitutes the original understanding of all parties who voted on that amendment, I also wonder about the meaning of the idea of 'balance' to which he alludes in his foregoing claim.

How does one maintain a separation of church and state in a balanced way? What are the criteria by which one evaluates the conditions of balance? What methodologies are to be used in analyzing the idea of balance? What assumptions underlie such criteria and methodologies? How does one define the “good society”? What justifies such a definition?

For example, suppose a person's spiritual perspective holds that killing is wrong, as well as maintains that most wars are not about protecting the homeland but advancing the special interests of various corporations, power blocs, and ideological agendas, then, 'collateral damage' is really a euphemism for cold-blooded murder and not just an 'unfortunate' side effect of that which is necessary (and necessity here is always framed by those who are seeking to advance their economic, political, material, and/or financial interests). How does one 'balance' such a perspective with the perspective of those who have no problem with taking innocent human lives if this will further their worldly goals? Why should the former be required to support (e.g., through taxes) the perpetration of that (i.e., murder and oppression) to which they do not subscribe, and why should they have to be subjected to the possibility of being charged with 'treasonous' behavior simply because they do not want to lend the kind of support that violates their sense of right and wrong?

There is no balance here. An almost automatic preference tends to be given to the war-mongers, as well as to those with vested material/financial interests and to those who have an ideological agenda which they wish to oppressively impose on people, both domestic and foreign, and the question is why are there no protections against such political, philosophical, and economic tyranny if a central purpose of the 1st amendment is to ensure that oppressive elements do not control governance and if one of the central purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect, among other things, disempowered minorities against the tyranny of majority rule?

Religion is about meaning, purpose, identity, values, and potential. Philosophy and politics are about meaning, purpose, identity, values, and potential. How does one balance conflicting and sometimes diametrically opposed ways of setting about to answer questions concerning such themes?

If the founding fathers believed in such a balance, then, what, precisely, did they mean by this? Did they really understand what they were advocating or voting on? Did they have it all worked out, or was it something of a rough idea whose structural character and horizons were lost in shadows of unasked questions and unknown contingencies?

If one were to bring the founding fathers together today and ask them about whether they truly believed in the idea of allowing all religions equal standing and whether, or not, the founding fathers wanted to honor the role of all religion in building a good society, how would they respond? Would they maintain that, for example, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, as well as the spiritual ways of various Native peoples constituted authentic religious traditions and ought to be accorded equal standing and honored for the way in which they contributed to the building of a good society? And, if they truly believed all these things, then, why – to raise but one issue -- were Native peoples treated in such abysmal, destructive, inhumane ways from the very beginning?

Imam Rauf goes on to say that: “Muslims have yet to fully incorporate the institutional expressions of democratic capitalism … into their various essential institutions: the rule of law (an independent judiciary), human rights, a stable currency, equal opportunity, free markets, social safety nets, and so forth. These principles, in my view, are among the most important institutional expressions of the second commandment that humanity has invented.” Aside from the problems I might have with Imam Rauf's tendency, from time to time, to make sweeping generalizations about what Muslims have, or have not, done across all geographical areas and historical periods, and aside from any questions which I might have about what it would mean to “fully incorporate” such institutional expressions of democratic capitalism or whether even the West has yet to accomplish this, I have a lot of difficulty with the mythology being spewed forth with respect to the alleged accomplishments of 'democratic capitalism'.

For instance, one could talk about the manner in which the judiciary has often been anything but independent as they (across all levels – from municipal, to county, state, and federal) frequently served the interests of power, capital and corporations against the interests of the poor and unempowered. As far as human rights are concerned, one might want to speak with Native peoples, Blacks, women and other minority groups who subsist along the margins of enjoying the full protections of human rights. Moreover, we don't have a stable currency, we have a floating value currency which has been set loose from any meaningful backing by actual material value (e.g., gold or silver), and the jury is still out as to how long the whole financial house of cards will survive before it falls apart, as has occurred on so many occasions throughout U.S. history. In the matter of 'equal opportunity', there are tens of millions of people in the United States who do not have equal opportunity with respect to education, jobs, housing, legal representation, medical care, or government access. In addition, the markets are not free but are distorted by such forces as: government subsidies, corporate welfare, a judiciary which lacks sufficient intelligence to understand that a corporation is not a person, an inequitable system of taxation, regulatory agencies which dance to the beat of lobbyists, and corrupt politicians who serve vested interests against the interests of the people they supposedly represent and against the interests of a truly free system of enterprise. Finally, it is difficult to get excited about a social safety net which has so many rips and tears that millions upon millions of people have fallen through the holes in that safety net.

Imam Rauf maintains that what America has done right is to create institutions which have perfected democratic capitalism. At any moment I expect Rod Serling to step out of the shadows and begin to talk about a man (namely Imam Rauf) who does not yet seem to understand that he has become trapped in the Twilight Zone as this inhabitant of a surreal realm addresses people as if his perceptions and beliefs defined the true nature of things even though what is being discussed by Imam Rauf is not perfected, is not really democratic, and constitutes a perverted, re-framed notion of what capitalism might have been if it had been guided by qualities of justice, morality, and spirituality rather than qualities of greed, inhumanity, and oppression.

[If you would like to read the remaining five parts of this essay, please go to:



What's Right With Islam by Imam Rauf - A Critical Commentary - Part Two

Another Lighthouse -- This one on Long Island

 

Haqiqah

Haqiqah is the Reality of all realities. Haqiqah is the Truth behind all truths.Haqiqah is not a substance, thing, object, entity, material, field, force or energy. Yet, Haqiqah is "woven" into the fabric of each of these.

Haqiqah does not occupy time or space, Rather, time and space exist by virtue of Haqiqah.

Haqiqah is neither a quantity nor a quality, While all quantities and qualities, receive their properties through Haqiqah.Haqiqah is not a function of ideas, concepts, thoughts, understandings, interpretations, or theories. However. all of these presuppose, and make allusions to, Haqiqah, each in its own way.

Haqiqah is not religion, philosophy, science, or mythology. On the other hand, Haqiqah is sought by, and is the raison d'etre of, all of these activities.Haqiqah can neither be described nor explained. Nonetheless, descriptions and explanations, whether correct or incorrect, cannot exist except through Haqiqah.The eyes, mind, imagination, heart and spirit all see Haqiqah according to their capacity to do so. But, Haqiqah transcends what is seen.

Consciousness, being, will, light, hearing, and speech all exist because of the presence of Haqiqah. Nevertheless, all of these bear witness to the absence of Haqiqah, each in its own way.Every chord, song, melody, rhythm, counterpoint, harmony, chant, hymn, tune, aria and symphony is an echo of Haqiqah. Every drawing, painting, sketch, tracing, etching, spattering, composition, impression, collage and picture is an attempt, on one level or another, to capture Haqiqah.

Information, knowledge, understanding, insight, inspiration, gnosis, and revelation simultaneously disclose and conceal Haqiqah, each according to its nature. Everything reflects Haqiqah in terms of its capacity to do so, but Haqiqah is independent of all capacities.Genius praises the intelligence of Haqiqah but cannot fathom the depths of wisdom. Talent soars on the wings provided by Haqiqah but cannot comprehend what makes flight possible.Purpose and meaning have value only to the extent they give expression to the mystery which Haqiqah has placed within us. Significance derives its importance from what Haqiqah loans to it.

Haqiqah underwrites our being, but we remain heedless of the presence of Haqiqah. Our vision is made possible by Haqiqah, but most of us continue to be blind to the source of the light through which the visible becomes manifest.We should will ourselves to seek Haqiqah. Yet, we suffer from complete paralysis without the restorative assistance of Haqiqah.

Haqiqah enables us to act. However, most of us act as if we were independent of Haqiqah.

We are able to speak due to Haqiqah. Unfortunately, most of us often use this gift to speak out against and distort Haqiqah.

We hear because of the mercy extended to us through Haqiqah. Nonetheless, many of us remain deaf to the call of Haqiqah.

We swim in an ocean of Haqiqah. Somehow, most of us manage to stay dry.

Haqiqah comes with every breath we take. But, many of us inhale the oxygen and reject Haqiqah. Every second our hearts beat to the rhythm of Haqiqah. Nevertheless, most of us do not understand the significance of the sound.Our consciousness is aware of itself, and we think this is quite amazing. However, most of us are unaware of Haqiqah, and, as a result, we trivialize the potential of consciousness.

Haqiqah bears witness to everything we do. Yet, many of us are not interested in reciprocating.

Haqiqah seeks us out of love, knowledge and generosity. Many of us seek to run away due to narcissism, ignorance and selfishness.

Haqiqah always treats us with justice. Many of us are intent on treating Haqiqah with injustice.

Haqiqah calls on us to forget falsehood and remember reality. Many of us call on ourselves to forget reality and remember falsehood.

Haqiqah gives expression to tidings of both hope and danger through prophets, saints and spiritual guides. Many of us ridicule both kinds of message.

When we deny Haqiqah, we deny our true selves. When we ignore Haqiqah, we ignore our essential spiritual capacities.Some people say the culmination of mysticism involves union with God. However, one cannot attain what already is the case.

According to Sufi masters, one of the primary goals of the mystical path is the following: If God wishes, we should aspire to have the ignorance and darkness dispelled which prevent us from experiencing and reflecting the presence of Haqiqah in our lives and being. Consequently, one of the fundamental accomplishments of the mystical path is to realize, as fully as God gives us the capacity to do so, that, in essence, we are nothing but a manifestation of Haqiqah.

In order for this to occur, what needs to disappear is, if God wishes, the illusion that other than this could be true.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 11

This week's edition of the Sufi Reflections Podcast includes a story entitled The Interview, music, poetry, an essay entitled Jihad, and a commentary entitled Terrorism, Part 4. We hope you will join us. Download by clicking here . 

Prayer

Prayer has its roots in pre-eternity when the fixed forms of non-existence called out to God to be given created existence. Prayer permeates the realm of spirits in pre-eternity when they responded positively to God's inquiry as to whether or not the spirits acknowledged God as their Lord.The sound of prayers praising God comes from every corner of created existence - from the smallest sub-atomic particle and even smaller, to the universe and beyond.

Every manner of created being has its own unique mode of prayer.Angels were engaged in prayer before human beings came into created existence. Indeed, there are some angels so engrossed in prayers of praise and glorification of God they are not aware human beings have been created. Prayer was on the lips of Adam (peace be upon him) when he sought God's forgiveness for his transgression. Prayers seeking Divine guidance, support, deliverance, protection, favor, mercy and compassion have issued forth from the lips of all one hundred and twenty-four thousand Prophets and their communities who followed after Adam (peace be upon him).

Saints and ordinary people alike engage in prayer. Each praises God, or seeks from Divinity, according to her or his spiritual understanding, condition, intention and circumstances.If one sincerely has faith in the reality of prayer, every manner of prayer raises one up to God. If one is absent to oneself in prayer, one becomes present to God.

Some prayers petition God for the satisfaction of material desires. Other prayers seek intercession on behalf of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the lost, the abused, and the wayward.There are prayers for forgiveness and prayers of thanksgiving. There are prayers of loneliness and prayers of desperation.Some people pray and ask: "Why?". Others pray and submit without knowing why.There are prayers of separation. There are prayers of union.Some people pray with certainty. Others pray with doubts and questions.There are prayers of the true self. There are prayers of the false self.Some individuals pray frequently. Others may pray only a few times in their lives.Prayers are silent and voiced, hymned and chanted. Prayers come standing, sitting, kneeling, lying down and in prostration.

On the Sufi path, different prayers may emerge from different spiritual stations. For example, the prayers of those whom are going through the station of patience may be different from the prayers of those whom are in the station of patience. Alternatively, the prayers of those whom are wayfaring through the station of longing may be different from those who are in the station of gratitude.

The mind prays in one way. The heart prays in, yet, another way. The spirit prays in still another way. and so on.Each aspect of our being has its own modality of praying. However, the best prayer is when all of these are combined together in a harmonious and united manner. In other words, one's prayer should be with one's whole, body, mind, soul, heart, spirit and essential capacity.

According to practitioners of the Sufi path, we should seek to pray with sincerity and for sincerity. Moreover, we should pray out of humility.We should pray with the realization we are impoverished and have no resources of our own. We are dependent totally on God's mercy. We should pray with the understanding there is no power or protection except through God. If we lack such an understanding, we should pray to God to remove our pride and arrogance.Sufi masters indicate an individual should pray with tears of longing and gratitude and joy and repentance. If we cannot pray in this way, then we should seek this blessing from God. In addition, we should pray out of renunciation of the world. In other words, all of our prayers should be out of love for, service to, and the pleasure of God.

From the perspective of the Sufi masters, we should pray without ceasing. Our lives should become prayer.Our prayers should be done with the understanding that God is the trustee of all our affairs. Furthermore, God is the One Who, again and again and again, gives to us independently of whether we have done anything to earn or merit that for which we pray.Sufi masters maintain we should be constantly seeking the welfare of our parents. Moreover, we should pray for others to receive what we are seeking for ourselves.We should pray for both believers and non-believers. We should pray to be free of passing judgment on others.Practitioners of the Sufi path indicate we should pray for the spirits of those who have passed before us. Furthermore, we should pray for the spirits of those who will come after us. We should pray for the spiritual and material well-being of our families and the members of the community. We should pray for the well-being of the people of all nations and for the well-being of all creation.

Sufi masters indicate we should pray for God to enable us not to waste the precious gift of time. We should pray that, God willing, we do not squander our opportunity to realize our true identity. We should pray to fulfil the purpose of our life.We should pray for God to show us things as they really are. We should seek release from all our illusions, delusions and spiritual veils.

According to practitioners of the Sufi path, we should pray that whatever enemies we may have become the friends of God. For, if they become the friends of God, then, God willing, they may become a source of blessings for all of humanity, including us.

We should pray our hearts become purified. We should pray our spirits become perfected.Sufi masters advocate we pray that God permit us to overcome our spiritual weakness, rebelliousness, forgetfulness, and heedlessness. Furthermore, we should pray for God to forgive us our transgressions of omission and commission, both in relation to those transgressions of which we are aware as well as to those of which we are not aware. We should pray for God to increase us in remembrance of Divinity. Moreover, we should pray for God to color us with the lights of Divinity. The masters of the Sufi way urge us to never stop praying to God.

We should never despair of God's mercy and generosity. On the other hand, we should pray to God for patience while our affairs are being arranged in accordance with Divine will. We also should pray to God for submission and acceptance with respect to the Divine disposition of our affairs.According to Sufi masters, we should pray that God fills our being with love of Divinity. Furthermore, we should pray that God permits us to express our love by, among other things, fulfilling our duties of care in relation to creation.We should pray to God for us to become instruments of justice and not injustice. In addition, we should pray to God that we live a life of spiritual nobility and not ignominy.Sufi masters encourage us to pray for God to increase us in levels of faith and spiritual understanding. Also, we should pray to God to be permitted to learn how to embrace sacrifice as a way of life so that we may, God willing, act in accordance with our spiritual understanding.We should pray for God to teach us how to derive spiritual benefit from the trials and difficulties of our lives.

Moreover, we should pray to God with gratitude for the countless blessings which have been conferred on us throughout our lives.We should pray we come to worship and cherish God with every dimension of our being. In addition, we should pray that we return to our spiritual origins, both pleased with, and pleasing to, God.

The Sufi master of all Sufi masters has said we should pray to God as if we could see the Divine. However, even if we are not able to achieve this level of prayer, nonetheless, we should pray with the certainty that God sees us.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 10

This edition of the Sufi Reflections Podcast includes: Music, poetry a story entitled The Artisan from Mystical Horizons, an essay about balance, and Part 3 of a commentary about terrorism. To download a copy of this podcast, click here .


 We hope you'll join us. 

The Interview

A women who appeared to be fifty-something straddled the doorway through which she had just entered the room, opened the folder she was carrying, raised to her eyes the glasses strung around her neck, scanned the contents of the folder, looked around the room, and, then, settled on a man sitting in the corner reading a magazine. “Mr. Carlyle?” she said somewhat hesitantly.

The man reading the magazine looked up, smiled and replied: “That’s me.”

The woman motioned for him to follow her into the area beyond the reception area. Mr. Carlyle placed his magazine on the table by his chair and did as requested.

On the other side of the door was a corridor leading to a number of interview rooms. The woman looked back over her shoulder to make sure that her charge was still in tow and proceeded to walk down the corridor until she reached a door marked ‘C’, turned the knob, and disappeared.

When Mr. Carlyle reached the doorway to Room ‘C’, he found the woman waiting for him by the door in the room’s interior. She smiled in a perfunctory manner and urged the man to enter the room.

Pointing to a chair, she invited Mr. Carlyle to be seated. She, then, navigated her way to a chair opposite the man on the other side of a medium-sized table in the middle of the room.

Placing the folder before her, she sat down. She interlaced her fingers and rested her elbows on the table.

She began with: “Hello. My name is Helen Anderson. I assume everything has been explained to you by Mr. Townsend. However, just to be clear about things, I’ll outline the purpose of our meeting.”

She continued on with: “This meeting is stage 5 of our vetting process. You already have been given a battery of intelligence, psychological, aptitude, and personality tests. Those tests have now been scored and analyzed.

“Obviously, people here have liked what they have seen so far in relation to your scores. Otherwise, you would not have been invited to this session.”

She had the polished, somewhat detached delivery of a person who had said the same words a thousand times before to other candidates. Her manner was neither friendly nor hostile but, rather, geared toward the sort of neutrality which is intended to perform a task efficiently, with as few human entanglements as possible.

She proceeded on with her introduction. “I am not an employee of the organization which is expressing an interest in your services. I am an independent contractor whose task is to conduct an interview and make recommendations on the basis of that exchange with respect to your possible ‘suitability’ for the position in question.

“I urge you to speak forthrightly about anything I may ask. Everything which takes place in this room is being recorded, and I can assure you that the consulting company for which I work will spare no effort to authenticate whatever statements, comments, or claims you may make during this interview.

“Do you have any questions about the purpose of this meeting or in relation to anything which has been said so far? When she saw Mr. Carlyle shake his head in the negative, she said: “Good, let’s move forward.”

She opened the folder in front of her, picked up the top sheet, perused its contents, and placed the piece of paper face down on the table surface to the left of the folder. She, then, placed her forearms across the top of the folder. Her palms were slightly raised above the table with her forefingers directed toward Mr. Carlyle.

“Tell me about your marriage, Mr. Carlyle,” and as she spoke her eyes studied the man with a gaze trained to miss nothing of what might be manifested by the interviewee.

Mr. Carlyle thought for a moment and shrugged a little. “I’m not sure what to say.” But, a few seconds later he became somewhat more expansive in his response.

“We’ve been married for seven years and have three children ... two boys and a girl. Because of the nature of my work, we have had to move a few times ... which has carried some stresses with it, but, on the whole, I would say that my wife and I enjoy a very good, loving relationship.

“When at work, I call her four or five times a day just to see how she and the children are doing ... to see if there is anything I can do. I like to know that everything is okay at home as well as what people are up to ... you know, stay on top of things.”

Ms. Anderson interjected with: “How do you and your wife make decisions?”

Not much time had passed before Mr. Carlyle said: “We always consult with one another about the decisions we make, but, to tell you the truth, Jean, my wife, usually likes to defer to my wishes in most matters affecting the household. She seems to be comfortable with my actively taking charge ... and, I do feel that ‘leadership’ is one of my strengths – whether at home, or at work, or in the community.”

The woman conducting the interview opened the folder before her and fingered her way through a few sheets in the folder before arriving at what she was looking for. She picked up the piece of paper, looked at Mr. Carlyle and said: “I understand that five years ago there was some sort of domestic dispute. What can you tell me about that?”

The man paused for just a second, and, then explained: “It was a misunderstanding really. My wife and I had been discussing something – and, quite frankly, I forget what we were even talking about. The discussion got kind of loud and animated, and, at some point, I’m not really sure how it happened, but my wife got in the way of one of my hand motions, and she fell down, knocking over a table lamp in the process.

“Well, some of the neighbors got a little overexcited about all the commotion and phoned the police. However, when the police arrived, the situation was all under control, and my wife gave the police the same account I just gave you.

We – both my wife and I – have gotten much better at handling situations since then. She knows what she has to do, and I know what I have to do to make sure things don’t get out of control ... and, I guess we have been pretty successful because no one has had to call the police since that one incident.” He gave a rueful smile as he said this.

Ms. Anderson’s face remained impassive. She listened but did not react.

Returning to the folder on the desk once more, she rifled through a few more pieces of paper and, then, pulled another sheet from the pile. She studied the material briefly and asked: “What are your economic views?”

The man raised his eyebrows, exhaled through pursed lips, and commented: “Wow, that’s a pretty broad question,” and looked to the woman across from him for further cues. When none were forthcoming, he looked down to the hand resting on the table, examined the fingernails of his right hand for a few seconds, and, then, looked back at Ms. Anderson.

Starting slowly and gradually picking up speed as he went along, he said: “I believe in capitalism. I believe in the profit motive. I believe in the sanctity of private property. I believe in the importance of working hard and using one’s God-given talents to help make the world a better place. I believe that business leaders should be permitted, with minimum interference, to do what they do best ... which is create wealth that can be distributed across communities and nations. I believe that the limited liability corporation is one of the great innovations of modern history and through this invention incredible technological and organizational strides have been taken to help humankind prosper materially and politically.”

Mr. Carlyle was about to go on when Ms. Anderson asked: “Do you believe there is any limit to what can be accomplished through capitalism? Do you believe that, eventually – and sooner rather than later – everyone will be able to share in the wealth?”

“Absolutely” Mr. Carlyle replied.

“So,” Ms. Anderson responded, “you believe that everyone will
achieve the same standard of living as a result of the distribution of wealth made possible through corporations, the captains of industry, as well as via the movements of the invisible hand that guides free markets?”

With a faint hint of annoyance, Mr. Carlyle said: “No, obviously, not everyone will be able to enjoy the same standard of living. The people who put up the capital, the people with the innovative ideas, the individuals who have the organizational skills to put the capital and ideas into a productive format ... these people are entitled to a greater share of the wealth which is created.”

“Why shouldn’t the general workers benefit from all of this as well?” inquired Ms. Anderson.

Initially, the man looked at her like she was asking a question for which the answer was so obvious that it didn’t deserve an answer. Thinking a bit more about the situation, Mr. Carlyle responded simply: “Without capital, an idea, and organization, nothing gets done.”

“Well”, countered the woman, “couldn’t one also say that without workers, nothing gets done either? If you have capital, an idea, and organizational skills, but you have no workers, then, how is the latter less important than the former?”

The man shrugged his shoulders. “Coming up with an idea, raising money to implement that idea, and organizing things so that the idea will come to fruition ... all these things are the catalysts which start the economic engines.”

To which Ms. Anderson responded with: “And workers are the catalysts who help finish things. If you start a process, but can’t finish it, then, how is starting things more important than finishing things?”

The man shot back: “If not for the wages which owners pay workers, the workers would be without food, clothing, and shelter. Owners give workers work.”

Without the slightest trace of rancor in her voice, the woman replied: “Owners don’t give workers anything for which those owners do not receive something in return. More specifically, without the profits that workers help make possible, then, capital, ideas, and organizational skills are worth very little.”

Mr. Carlyle acknowledged the point being made but qualified things with: “Naturally, workers deserve a fair wage for a fair day’s work.”

“How does one calculate what is fair ... either with respect to wages or the work expected for those wages?” Ms. Anderson wondered.

“Law of supply and demand,” the man remarked. He added: “If there is a large supply of labor, then, the price of wages goes down, and if there is not a large labor supply, then, workers are scarce and, as a result, their bargaining position is stronger.”

“What does the law of supply and demand have to do with the issue of fairness concerning wages? Irrespective of how many workers there are, shouldn’t anyone who works be fairly compensated for the work they do?” she inquired.

“Look,” Mr. Carlyle began, “the profit motive and good business practice demands that the owners of a business should try to maximize profits. Consequently, one of the degrees of freedom with which they have to work in order to be able to maximize profits is to play hardball with workers and get the latter to work as economically as possible.

“This is at the heart of the issue of productivity. The more productive the work force is, the more profitable a business tends to be.

“Costs are one of the variables of productivity. If one can cuts costs, then, productivity should be enhanced.”

Ms. Anderson commented: “If I understand the logic of your position, then, if one could, somehow, get workers to work for nothing, then, presumably this would be a sort of paradise for the owner because one would have totally eliminated one source of business costs entirely. I guess the only thing which might be better from the perspective of owners is if they could induce workers, say through taxes, to hand over some of whatever money workers had managed to acquire so that the government could help subsidize those businesses to be more profitable ... at least for someone.”

“You make it sound like owners are engaged in criminal activity or something,” sniffed Mr. Carlyle. “All they are trying to do is earn an honest buck and help others along in life as well.”

Impassively, Ms. Anderson followed up with: “This brings us back to the issue of what exactly is necessary for someone to get along in life. Would you say that helping workers to acquire health care, or to enjoy safe working conditions, or have access to livable retirement packages, or to be free of ecological problems as a result of economic activity ... would you say that all of this is part of fair wages?”

Mr. Carlyle reflected on what had been said for a short period and indicated: “If you undercut profit too much, then, capital, ideas, and organizational skills have no reason to put forth an effort. You have got to reward these elements of the economic equation, or the raison d’etre for such activity disappears.”

“What’s a fair reward for such efforts, Mr. Carlyle? And, how would you differentiate the fairness with respect to this kind of reward from the fair compensation package to which a worker might be entitled?”

With a certain degree of exasperation, Mr. Carlyle replied: “By law, corporations must maximize the profits for the shareholders of a company. So, legally speaking, the first among equals in the apportioning of the economic pie are the shareholders.”

“And what is it that shareholders do exactly? How did they earn this right to have their financial rights protected above that of workers?” asked the woman.

“They supply the money which greases the wheels of industry,” the man remarked.

“Other than in the case of something such as an initial stock offering, this is not entirely true, is it Mr. Carlyle?” mused Ms. Anderson. “I mean, most of what is traded on the stock market is, in reality, just the moving around of money from one stockholder to another rather than the introduction of new cash into the system.”

“Furthermore,” she stated, “people buy stocks at a certain price, and they sell them at a certain price. The people who sell the stocks get to keep the money – minus, of course, the government’s cut of the action through such things as capital gains tax.

“If the price of stocks rise, then, so do the level of dividends to the stockholders as well as the level of returns for those who sell their stocks ... such as CEOs who often get millions of dollars worth of stock options in exchange for helping the price of a company’s stock to increase in value. Incidentally, if the cutting of costs is so important to productivity, then, why don’t companies decrease the salaries and pay-out packages to CEOs and other financial officers?”

“Surely,” he retorted, “you can’t expect such people to work for little or nothing.”

“Why not?” she wondered. “Many corporations and businesses don’t seem to have any problem with this logic when it comes to regular workers.”

“In any event,” she noted, “with certain, limited exceptions, once a company goes public, it acquires the majority of its investment, research, and operating cash through avenues other than the stock market. And, consequently, I’m still trying to figure out the nature of the constructive component that stockholders add to the economic equation other than to make money from the whole process – often at the expense of workers, the community, and the environment? What gives them the right to be first to the feeding troughs”

Mr. Carlyle shook his head slightly in a sort of manner of disbelief. “The stockholders represent one of the ways through which the wealth that is created by industry and commerce is distributed. Everybody has a chance to benefit from this process through engaging in the stock market. When profits grow, so does the wealth which can be distributed among shareholders.”

“Is this wealth distributed evenly among those who are stockholders?” she asked.

“Every share is worth the same as every other share,” he informed her. “The only difference is due to how many shares of any given stock one owns.”

“Wouldn’t this mean that if one had little, or no, money to begin with, then, the egalitarian nature of individual share prices would make little difference to the impoverished?” she offered.

“Some people are better than others in managing their wealth. You can’t fault the system for the failings of individuals. Besides,” he added, little by little more and more people are being encompassed by the spread of wealth.”

“And,” Ms. Anderson queried, “how long before we can anticipate that everyone will be safely ensconced within the protective womb of the egalitarian justice of the invisible hand of the marketplace?”

“Obviously, no one knows,” he answered. “However, corporations and businesses are working night and day to make this time as short as possible. People have to be patient, work hard, and wait for their opportunity. People have to be willing to make sacrifices ... progress demands sacrifice from everyone.”

The woman paused for a moment and said: “Does this mean that the owners, stock-holders, and leaders of the business world are willing to make as many sacrifices as the workers are being asked to make? Are these ‘leaders’ willing to forego the raises, bonuses, retirement stock options, dividends, health benefits, premium parking spaces, and other perks associated with their positions so that the burden of progress is borne by everyone equally? Don’t you think that if the quality of life of the leaders were tied to the quality of life of the poor that advances in economic progress might happen that much more quickly?”

“That is not how the system works,” the man said somewhat wearily.

'The invisible hand of the market must be permitted to operate in accordance with its own principles of distributing goods and services rather than be forced to follow the arbitrary dictates of this or that political or social policy. If left alone, the free market would serve all of our needs.”

“How do we know this would be the case?” asked Ms. Anderson.

“Has there ever been a time in which the markets have been left alone to go where they will and, thereby, proven that what you are saying is true?”

“This is precisely to the point,” Mr. Carlyle said triumphantly.

“The economic and political mess in which we find ourselves is directly due to the manner in which the invisible hand of free enterprise has not been permitted to move society in the direction of greater wealth for all.”

“Really?!?!” Ms. Anderson said partly as an exclamation and partly as a question, and, then, she remarked “If history teaches us anything, isn’t it that when self-interest is permitted to serve itself in a relatively unrestrained fashion, humanity tends to end up with oppression, dictatorship, fascism, and cartels who are not interested in distributing wealth and power but, rather, in monopolizing these commodities to the great disadvantage of the majority and to the considerable benefit of only the few.”

Mr. Carlyle was about to respond when he was cut off. “Before moving on to other topics, I have one last question to ask you in this general area. Let us assume, for the moment, that all you have said about economics is true. Let us further assume that all that is necessary is for time to be extended to the invisible hand of a free enterprise marketplace and, as a result, everyone eventually will be able to join in the prosperity, where are the resources going to come from which is going to permit everyone – all 6-7 billion of us – to have houses, cars, appliances, clothes, luxuries, food, and the like an d to continue to have these things into the indefinite future?”

He shrugged his shoulders. "Obviously, not everyone can have everything they want. The marketplace will determine what is feasible. Moreover, the marketplace will engender the innovations and breakthroughs which are necessary to solve these problems. Whenever there is an opportunity to make profit, well, this is the mother of all invention.”

“If what you say is true,” hypothesized Ms. Anderson, “then, why doesn’t the opportunity to make a profit make inventors and entrepreneurs of us all?”

“God helps those who help themselves,” Mr. Carlyle quipped.

“Are you saying those who are not successful in business don’t try to help themselves?” she inquired.

“Let’s just say,” he responded, “that I have never come across anyone who was willing to make the necessary effort who wasn’t rewarded for the efforts expended. People make their own luck and destinies.”

Ms. Anderson followed up with: “Where does God fit into your vision of things? Does Divinity have nothing to say about who gets what and when?”

“Naturally, God is the ultimate arbiter in these matters. However, I believe that God favors certain individuals and societies over others – that is why some people flourish and others do not, but even among those who are successful, efforts have to be made.”

“How,” she wondered, “do you know that what you call success and flourishing are signs of God’s favor rather than Divine wrath? After all, I have heard it said that when the ego is enhanced, the spirit is diminished? Isn’t it possible that worldly success is merely a prelude to a spiritual fall?

“Not necessarily,” he replied. “God guides those whom Divinity wishes. One can have worldly success as well as success in the next life ... if God wishes. People who are sincere with God ... well, God is sincere with them.”

“How does one know when one is being sincere with God?” she asked.

“God discloses signs to the chosen,” he remarked.

“But, how does one know what constitutes a sign, or, more importantly, what that sign means?” she pressed.

“One has to have faith that one is on the right path,” he said. “If one is, then, understanding the signs is made clear to one’s heart, mind, and soul.”

“Isn’t this somewhat circular reasoning?” she wondered.

“Not if one is right,” he stated.

“And, if one is not right?” she countered.

Mr. Carlyle shrugged his shoulders and said: “I believe in a forgiving God.”

“But what if the choices you make end up hurting other people?” she asked. “Are they required to forgive you as well?”

“I hope they will, but whether, or not, they do, the only thing of importance to me is my relationship with God.”

“But,” she queried, “what if God is not prepared to forgive you for the harm you do to others unless those people are willing to forgive you for what you have done ... then what?”

While Mr. Carlyle was thinking about the matter, Ms. Anderson changed directions slightly. “What do you think about the war on terrorism?”

“It is very necessary,” he replied.

“Why?” she asked.

“For a variety of reasons,” he said, and, then, he began to speak to some of those reasons. “First, it is better to fight terror where it is being bred than in our own country.”

He was about to go on when she interrupted: “It is better for whom and in what sense?”

He quickly responded: “Why, better for the people of this country, of course. Moreover, why should we put our society at risk unnecessarily ... let’s get the job done now so that we do not have to become further entangled in these matters such that our society ends up being as chaotic as some of the places where the terrorists are busy trying to undermine peace and justice.”

“What about the innocent people whose lives are destroyed – physically, emotionally, psychologically, economically, and spiritually in the places where the terrorists are going about their business through the war on terror? Don’t they get to chose how to go about things? Why must they be required to accept our way of handling the problem?

“Yes, it is a shame,” he commented, “that innocent lives are caught up in this war, but whether those people understand it or not, we are fighting for their freedom ... so they can be secure ... so they can improve the quality of their life ... so they can be free from brutal dictatorship.”

She replied with: “Personally, I have difficulty understanding how such people might come to appreciate what you are claiming when they are dead as a result of our actions. Furthermore, even with respect to the ones who are still alive ... they are not free ... they are not secure ... the quality of their life has not improved but deteriorated ... and they have seen one brutal dictatorship go, only for it to be replaced by another.”

“Well,” he retorted, “these things take time and people have to be willing to make sacrifices to win their freedom.”

“What opportunity did we give them to make their own choices with respect to such sacrifices before we imposed our final solution upon them? How do you get a people to choose to be free when the methodology that is used to accomplish this is one of force and oppression ... how does democracy get engendered through tyranny? Why are we so willing to sacrifice their life to protect our own?

“If the situation were reversed, do you really think that people in this country would appreciate the fact that some army from another country invaded us, killed thousands of innocent people, maimed untold thousands more individuals, destroyed our infrastructure, ruined our economy and our communities, imprisoned our people on mere suspicion, tortured us, humiliated us, and put into power a puppet government that they could control, and, yet, they said the reason they were doing all of this was for our own good and that we must be prepared to make sacrifices ... do you really think that people here would say: ‘Hey, what a great idea. Thanks’?

“Look,” he responded, “I understand what you are saying. I really do, but, sometimes, with greatness goes great responsibility. Leadership must be permitted to lead so that the vision of such leadership can be realized. I hate to sound so trite, but there is a real truth in the fact that in order to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.”

“But,” she inquired, “what if the rest of the world doesn’t want an omelette? What if they don’t want to break any eggs? What if they don’t like the way we make omelettes?”

He shook his head in a dismissive manner. “This is where leadership and the vision of leadership come in. The great leaders always lead people where they need to go even if the people don’t want to go to where they are being led.”

“How do we know where people need to go?” she asked

“Well, that’s the issue isn’t it?” he remarked. “People of vision know, and the generality of humankind does not, so, sometimes, the former have to kick the latter in the rear end to get these people moving in the right direction.”

“Are you certain of this?” she challenged.

“As certain as I am that I am sitting in front of you.” he responded.

She followed up with: “Of course, you do realize that people who are delusional and/or suffering from various kinds of mental disorder tend to feel, believe, and understand that what they claim to be true is just as true as what you believe to be the case about marriage, economics, religion, and terrorism.”

“Are you saying that I am delusional or insane?” he asked.

“That’s not my call,” she indicated. “My job is to evaluate you with respect to your possible suitability for a given position. And I believe that I now have enough information on which to make a decision concerning you. So, if you will return to the reception area, there are a few administrative items which I have to clear, and, you will be notified shortly about the decision.”

She rose, invited Mr. Carlyle to do the same, escorted him through the door, down the hallway and to the passageway leading to the reception area. She said good-bye and thanked him for being candid during the interview.

She returned to Room ‘C’, sat down, and began to write: “Mr. Carlyle has tendencies toward abusive behavior and, as well, is inclined toward being controlling of others. He is delusional, possibly a sociopath. In addition, he is a true believer in the phenomenon of leadership, rather dogmatic about many things, presumptuous, somewhat ethically challenged, and willing to sacrifice others to further his own beliefs. Finally, he has great difficulty seeing events from any perspective but his own. I believe he will make an excellent candidate for the job opening that exists in the terrorist organization which contacted you recently. I believe he has all of the qualities necessary for a first-rate terrorist.”

After re-reading what she had just written, she gathered together the papers scattered about on top of the table, stacked them neatly together, placed her assessment on top of this pile, and, then, she closed the file on Mr. Anthony Carlyle.

Another job completed. Productivity was on the rise, and if things kept going this way, the stockholders would be very happy when dividends were declared in the next quarter.

Spiritual Capacity

From the perspective of the Sufi path, every human being has a unique spiritual capacity. However, not every capacity necessarily will be realized to its full extent, or even in part.

Life is the opportunity provided by God to become busy with doing the things required for bringing one' s essential capacity on line. Whether or not we take advantage of the chance extended to us, is a matter of choice and an exercise in free will.

Spirituality is only one of the potentials we have been given. We each have been outfitted, so to speak, with other non-spiritual capacities. For example, the capacity for life itself is expressed through our biological nature. Our bodies, including the brain, have been equipped with sensory and locomotor modalities. In addition, we have, in varying degrees: intellectual abilities; creative capacities; a spectrum of emotional possibilities; talents of one sort or another, and a capacity for language.

The Sufi masters also sometimes talk of a wide variety of other powers and capabilities which are, under the right circumstances, available to human beings. These capacities range from: the ability to dream, to various kinds of so-called psychic and occult powers.

Many of these latter kinds of capacity are so infrequently accessed or encountered in any direct way, they are considered to be fictional in nature by most of us. Nonetheless, although such abilities are not really part of, nor pertinent to, the Sufi path, the masters of the way do confirm their existence.

Our numerous capacities generate a multiplicity of experiential possibilities, each of which is conducive to extended exploration. In fact, as human beings, we have such a diverse set of capabilities, potentials, capacities, and powers available to us, we easily become confused about, or distracted from, the purpose of life.

According to the Sufi masters, even if we succeed in developing a whole slew of our many abilities, yet, ignore our spiritual possibilities, we will have failed in life' s primary mission. On the other hand, if we sincerely attempt to realize our spiritual capacity, but fail in relation to some of the other capacities, we, nevertheless, will have chosen the right priorities in life as far as the Sufi path is concerned.

To be sure, there are individuals who, by the grace of God, realize their spiritual capacity and, as well, realize one or more other capabilities. These people may be great musicians or artists or poets or leaders and, yet, not have neglected their spiritual dimension.

The foregoing sort of people tend to be relatively rare. They certainly are individuals of immense ability and good fortune.

They are not necessarily the standard by which most of the rest of us ought to gauge our lives. We can appreciate such lives without either feeling compelled to emulate them or feeling one' s life is somehow impoverished for not having been as accomplished as them in various ways.

The primary focus should be on realizing our essential, spiritual capacity. Indeed, according to the Sufi masters, if one goes about the task and challenge of spiritual realization properly, one, generally, will have little interest in, or inclination toward, doing anything else - except in some minimally necessary manner that still will permit justice to be done to other facets of one' s life.

When one becomes absorbed in God, everything else becomes arranged and organized as a function of that absorption. Priorities are set, and attention is given, in relation to how possibilities and activities can be accommodated to, or become expressions of, one' s spiritual orientation.

God may inspire us to do great things. Nevertheless, this is God' s will acting on us for Divine purposes. For us, on our own, to seek to do great things above and beyond the business of realizing one' s spiritual capacity is a sign of the presence of ego. Many of us sometimes mistake the call of the ego for the call of God.

God has a part waiting for us in the Divine passion play. Whether we opt for the role of the fool who squanders his or her spiritual potential, or we strive for the part of the servant of God who struggles to realize her or his essential spiritual capacity, will make no difference to the beauty and majesty of the play.

In either case, we will bring our own, inimitable style to the existential stage. In success or failure, our contribution will be unique.

Either kind of uniqueness will fit equally well into the unfolding of the play. Our choices will neither improve nor diminish the quality of the production or staging process.

There is room for heroines and heroes. However, villains and villainesses are welcome as well. If anything, the presence of antagonistic forces merely heightens the dramatic tension of the whole affair.

In one sense, the choice of roles is entirely up to us. On the other hand, there are a variety of twists, turns and mysteries involved in the plot line.

Sometimes we can have our heart set on playing the bad guy and, suddenly, our world is turned upside down and we start acting, much to our disgust, the part of the hero or heroine. At other times we may be quite prepossessed with being on the side of right and good only to find ourselves falling head first into the underside of life.

Some of these role reversals are temporary. Some of them are permanent. In all cases, they are reflections of capacities within us, and we all wonder where we will end up when the music stops and the house lights are turned on.

We have a unique potential to know God and to experience Divinity. We each have a unique capacity to give expression to the Names and Attributes of God.

Sufi masters maintain that human beings, alone in all of creation, have the capacity to reflect all the Names and Attributes of God. Other aspects of creation do reflect various dimensions of the Names and Attributes of God according to their capacity, but none of the rest of creation has the potential given to human beings.

As indicated previously, there are differences in spiritual capacity among human beings. However, each of these capacities, if realized, can reflect the full, infinite spectrum of Divine Names and Attributes. Each has the potential to do so in a unique fashion.

Because spiritual capacities are unique, there really is no basis for comparison. All jewels have their own beauty and appeal. Each jewel brings something that cannot be offered by any other jewel.

The only ground for comparison lies within the individual. The sole criterion for such comparison is what a person has been able to actualize in the way of spiritual realization, as measured against that individual' s essential spiritual capacity. The degree of success or failure in life is a function of the status of the ratio of these two factors.

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 9

Sufi Reflections Podcast No. 9 is now ready for downloading or may be listened to in streaming format on the spiritual-health.org website. This edition includes poetry, a story entitled Absence, music, and a commentary (Terrorism, Part 2). To download this edition, please click here .

We hope you'll join us.

A Story about Choice and Fate or Destiny -- or choosing one fate for another

The King had been obsessed with fate and death for as long as he could remember. He didn’t know precisely when his intense preoccupation with these intertwined realities had begun, but begun it had, and, gradually, they had come to consume nearly every waking moment.

Some children had a favorite toy which played a central role in their early lives. Other children had an imaginary friend who kept them company through difficult times. As a boy, during adolescence, and into young adulthood, the King’s constant companions had been thoughts of fate and death.

Perhaps, the triggering events which helped precipitate his condition were the many wars that had been fought during his childhood, with so many of the Kingdom’s families losing father’s, sons, and brothers. Or, maybe, the terrible plagues which had swept through the lands, taking the lives of numerous men women and children, somehow had planted a deadly seed of another kind deep within his subconscious.

Undoubtedly, the foregoing sort of factors played contributing roles, but the King suspected that the real source of his anxieties and fears started with the mysterious stranger he had encountered one day in his room. The King had not been sure whether what took place that night was a dream or something else, but the experience had stayed with him.

Whenever he permitted his thoughts to drift in that direction, the whole scene would occupy his consciousness, like an invading force. The experience was just as vivid now as it had been some three decades ago when it first occurred.

As young boys are wont to do, he had been lying in bed, listening to the sounds of the night, thinking about the events of the day, planning what he would do tomorrow, when he heard a noise of some sort – like someone clearing his or her throat. The noise had come from the corner of his room which was always in shadows at night --
even when the full moon shone through his window, as it did that evening.

All his attention was drawn to that portion of the room. He peered into the darkness of the corner, and although he couldn’t see anything, nonetheless, he felt a presence of some sort. He knew, with certainty, he was not alone.

A strange fear descended on him. He became paralyzed.

All he could do was look and listen. Every so often he remembered to breathe.

While, probably, only a few minutes passed, the event seemed to take hours to unfold. Finally, the boy who would be King heard a voice arise out of the shadows.

The voice was neither masculine nor feminine. The words had a quality which penetrated to the very core of his being.

It said:“Prince, if you wish to live forever, then, you must never hear either the complete words or music for...,” and something was whispered softly in the boy’s ear.

What was whispered was unclear. In his mind, he tried to concentrate on re-creating what had been whispered to him, but the words remained indistinct.

The boy managed to summon enough courage to stammer: “Wha...What did you say?”

There was a mocking laughter that softly began echoing in the room. The boy was near tears.

The laughter was replaced by an eerie silence. Then, once again, something was whispered in his ear – this time a little more loudly, yet, still somewhat muffled.

The boy thought he understood what had been whispered, but he wasn’t completely sure. “Please,” said the youngster, “can’t you say the name of the song clearly?”

Only the sound of the wind could be heard. Otherwise, the passage of time was marked by grains of quiet.

The strain of intently trying to listen, for who knows how long, plus the stress brought on by his fear, had completely tired the boy out, and as he was drifting off to sleep, he heard: “If you follow these instructions, you will never die.”

Soon after the eventful night, the boy’s father passed away. The Prince became the new King, and from the moment he ascended the throne, he banned all music and singing in the Kingdom.

Although the boy believed he knew what had been whispered to him that night, he wasn’t quite sure. Therefore, the safest thing to do was to create circumstances that would completely control what might happen in relation to hearing music and singing.

The boy-King’s royal edict had a profound effect on others. The Kingdom which had a long, rich musical history -- with many talented musicians, singers, and writers – was forced into a state of quiescence.

The King dispatched spies throughout the land. Whoever was caught singing or playing music was thrown into prison. The King didn’t want to take a chance that, somehow, inadvertently, he might hear the wrong song in its entirety and, as a result, bring his life to an end.

In addition, all schools were instructed to begin teaching children that music and singing were great evils. Children were given generous rewards for reporting any violations of the King’s proclamation which they might witness in their homes or
neighborhoods. Scholarships were awarded every year to those students who wrote the best essays about the ‘music problem’.

From time to time, of course, people throughout the Kingdom continued to die. However, the King lived on, and, therefore, the purpose was served.

The King became so convinced of the wisdom underlying his ban of music and singing, that he began to engage in high-risk activities, confident that he could cheat death as long as he observed the conditions of that momentous night of his childhood. The King’s boldness and daring deeds became the stuff of epic poems ... which had to be recited in monotones for fear of any hint of musical melody creeping into a recitation.

One day, while traveling in a very remote region of his country, the King met a young woman and fell deeply in love with the maiden. Happily, the woman felt the same way toward him as the King did toward her.

Soon, thereafter, the two were married, and following the honeymoon, they returned to the King’s castle. Although, initially, the King was extremely happy with his wife, events took an ominous turn not too long after they were married.

The King had been walking in the gardens which surrounded the castle, thinking about his Queen, feeling very fortunate for having her as his wife, and enjoying the love he felt for her – a love which was growing with each passing day. Just as he had become ensconced in a very pleasant reverie concerning her, he heard something which
deeply disturbed him.

Singing was drifting down from the window of the Queen’s room. Unmistakably, the voice was that of his wife.

He rushed into the castle and fled up the stairs toward the Queen’s room. He burst into his wife’s room without seeking permission, and angrily roared: “Just because you are Queen, this does not give you the right to break the Royal ban on music and
singing.”

The Queen was shocked and puzzled – shocked at the King’s behavior and puzzled concerning the ban. She had never heard of such a proclamation since news of, and from, the Kingdom hardly ever reached the distant part of the country where she had been raised.

She explained this to the King. While her explanation helped calm him a little, nonetheless, he remained agitated and upset.

The King had never told anyone about his childhood experience. He did not feel comfortable in doing so now, and, yet, he could not have her singing due to his fear of what he had been told that night many years ago.

He said with great emotion: “Please, if you love me, you will not sing anymore. I beg you not to sing.”

“Is there something wrong with my voice?” she asked.

“No, there is nothing the matter with your voice,” he replied. “You sing beautifully, but, I simply cannot have this sort of thing going on in the castle.

“If I let you sing and do nothing, then, I will become known as a Royal hypocrite. I have thrown many people into prison who have violated my ban on singing and music, so how can I let you sing but not extend the same right to them.”

“Well,” inquired the Queen, “what would be so wrong about permitting people to sing and play music? Why not free the people you have imprisoned and do away with your ban?”

“I can’t explain it,” said the King, “but you don’t know what you are asking of me. All I can say is that if you love me and care for me, you will refrain from singing.”

The Queen’s face registered mixed emotions. “I do love you, she said, and if it means all that much to you, I will stop singing. On the other hand, I think you need to understand that singing is very important to my sense of peace and happiness, and, so, in a way, you don’t know what you are asking of me.

“In fact, I feel very badly for the people of your Kingdom because they are being prevented doing something which has been nurturing their souls for centuries. If you cared at all about your loyal subjects, if you loved them as a King should love those who have been entrusted to him, then, you would reverse your silly and
arbitrary ruling.”

The Queen’s words entered the King’s heart like a bolt of lightning. He could not deny the truth in her words, nor could he overlook how important a role singing and music played in the life of his wife.

If he loved her, how could he possibly deny her this great source of joy and satisfaction in her life? If he loved his subjects, how could he have treated them so cruelly?

How could he permit his own selfishness to adversely shape the lives of so many people? Yet, he loved life dearly, and, furthermore, if he were to die, then, what about the sadness which his wife, whom he knew loved him deeply, would experience in relation to his demise.

The immovable object of his childhood experience was being placed into opposition with the irresistible force of his love concerning his wife. What should he do?

For many days he reflected on this matter. His heart was being torn apart in, seemingly, irreconcilable directions.

Eventually, after struggling with the issue for some time, he realized he loved his wife more than he loved his own life. She was the empress of his heart. She was the ruler of his destiny.

He repealed his earlier edict. He freed from prison those who previously had violated the ban, and, seeking to make amends, he lavished great wealth on those whom he had wronged.

His wife was so pleased with him that she fell in love with him more than ever before. The two were very happy together, and the Kingdom was happy for them, as well.

Despite his change of heart, the King could not stop worrying about the forces which he had set loose with his new Royal proclamation. He became entranced whenever he heard his wife sing, and, yet, there was a sweet sadness which permeated this listening, as if, each time, he might be hearing his own swan song.

The King was nearing his 50th birthday, and in honor of the occasion, the Queen had arranged for a special celebration. She wanted the party to be a surprise, so for months she induced many of the courtiers to become co-conspirators in her secret preparations.

The night of the King’s birthday came, and he was taken to the great banquet hall on a pretext. There, waiting for him, was his beloved wife and many of his adoring subjects who had long since forgiven the King for his earlier ban on music.

A great meal was served. Entertainers entertained before, during, and after the meal.

Toward the end of the celebration, the Queen stood up and announced that to commemorate the occasion, she had commissioned a song to be written. The Queen, herself, would sing the song, and she would be accompanied by a small group of musicians who had been especially assembled for this occasion.

The ensemble came to center stage, the music began, and the Queen sang. Tears came to the eyes of the King, not only because of the great beauty of the melody, words, instrumentation, his wife’s voice, and the festive, joyous atmosphere of those attending the celebration, but because, somehow, he knew in his heart that this was
the song about which he had been warned so many years ago in his childhood. This was what had been whispered into his ears that night.

As he was listening, he tried to feel the fullness of life – its joys and its sorrows. He looked at everything in the hall anew and appreciated it for being part of his life, and he was grateful for having been given as many years as he had and for being opened up to the great love of his life.

As he was surveying the crowd and the musicians, the King noticed that one of the musicians was intently looking at him. The man was playing his instrument wonderfully and as if the King were the only one in the room for whom he were playing.

The King knew whom he was looking at. The King knew that Death had come for him that night.

After the song was finished and the crowd, including the King, gave a standing ovation for a performance which would take its place in the great musical tradition of the Kingdom, and make a legend of the Queen, the musician who had been focusing on the King throughout the performance silently motioned him to meet on the balcony behind the stage. Slowly, the King made his way to the balcony where the two were alone.

Death said: “Why didn’t you listen to the counsel you were given so many years ago? You could have lived for ever. You allowed yourself to be maneuvered into a street from which there is no escape. Things might have been otherwise.”

The King looked at Death. His eyes passed over the land of the Kingdom which was bathed in the light of a full moon. His vison went into the Hall where he could see his wife talking with people, receiving their congratulations for her truly marvelous performance.

He had never loved his wife more than he did at that very moment. Then, his eyes returned to the face of Death.

He said: “Sir, we all seal our own fates. We can’t avoid this.”

His gaze went back to his wife. “I just exchanged one fate for a better one. Now, let us get on with the business at hand.”