To the Romantics the mind and the self are one, and the blending of both is only possible when the mind transcends itself into the other. This attempt by the Romantics, says Herbert Schueller, is intended “to transcend the mundane and the human, even though the human mind is the agency by which this transcendence must be achieved; the difficulty is that the only agency which the human mind has for transcending itself is itself” (1993, 72). This further explains the correlation between mystical and Romantic self-denial. Surely mere denial of the mind or of the self, mindlessness or selflessness, does not necessarily lead to the mystical experience — we all have our mindless moments in which our minds become vacant and idle—unless the mind, via intended or spontaneous concentrated meditation and/or contemplation of the other, fuses with it; only then such experiences procure powerful moments of knowledge.

The kinship between all forms of mysticism, Christian mysticism, Sufism, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, has become common knowledge. There is no doubt that “Sufism” is an Islamic term, but I strongly believe that the term, which derives from the Arabic noun suf (“wool”), has a Christian origin. History tells us that during the second and third centuries, Christians fled the persecution of the Roman Empire and inhabited the mountains in Iraq and Lebanon. The monks, and especially the hermits, chose the high mountain caves as places of refuge and of contemplation and worship of God. They were the earliest Christian ascetics and mystics ever. To those hermits, the natural beauty and solemnity of those mountains, especially in Lebanon, represented the divine wisdom and beauty of God. Those early hermits were called sufi’yün because they wore suf garments as a sign of humility and to protect themselves from the year-round cool mountain climate. Those Christian mystics are frequently mentioned in Sufi stories and poetry and in pre-Islamic literature, which abounds with allusions to the light or illumination coming forth from their caves. Moreover, if as the Sufi believe that the first Muslim mystic was the Prophet, then contacts between Christian mystics and Muslim ones started as early as the Prophet Muhammad and continued throughout the course of development of Sufism. There is no doubt that the kinship between Christian mysticism and Sufism is a historic fact. Yet for the purposes of my work I would like to draw upon differences between Christian mysticism and Sufism, differences which may have been the basis of the Romantics’ interest in Sufism. And although it is not wrong to assume that the Romantics’ concern in Sufism was channeled via their initial interest in mysticism in general, I have no doubt in my mind that their engrossment with Sufism was augmented by their fascination in Orientalism. It is in connection with the aforementioned that I will try to suggest the kinship between Sufism and Romanticism.

One of the basic differences between Christian mysticism and Sufism is that the first adheres to the authority of the established church while the second places the mystical experience above the authorities of traditional dogmas or doctrines. Commenting on the relation between experience and dogma in Christian mysticism, H. P. Owen explains:

These mystics constantly appeal to the Church’s authority in the realm of religious belief. They accept unconditionally those dogmas that the Church teaches and in which all Christians believe. Moreover in varying degrees they show a detailed knowledge of the ways in which dogmas have been formulated (1983, 156).

Thus unlike the Sufi mystics, the Christian mystics almost never become heretics prosecuted by the Christian church. “Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Bernard, Suso, Tauler, Thomas Kempis, Teresa, John of the Cross, all, though not free from tension, were in holy orders, lived out their lives in regularized Christian ways, continued all their life to participate in Christian ritual and sacramental activity, were not permanently excommunicated, did not die outside the Church” (Katz, 1983, 33). On the other hand, the orthodox Islamic authorities accused the Sufi mystics of being heretics (zanad'qa) and were prosecuted and even sometimes martyred. Early in the tenth century when the Sufi mystic and poet al-Hall'j advanced his mystical views of love and joyful suffering, he was imprisoned for several years and then executed. Al-Hall'j, like several other Sufi mystics, was considered a martyr symbolizing the free Sufi spirit in conflict with orthodoxy. The circumstances of Al-Hall'j’s life and prosecution and his Sufi thought were quite known to the Romantics through several works, the most popular amongst those being D’Herbelot’s Bibliotheque Orientale, which most Romantics possessed in their libraries. Al-Hall'j and other Sufi figures would appeal to the Romantics for two reasons: first, because in their search for a new system they rejected orthodox dogmas and doctrines; and second, because the Sufi concept of “joyful suffering” exonerates the Romantics’, especially Wordsworth’s, notion of “silent pain” as revealed in his “The Ruined Cottage,” “Simon Lee,” and “Micheal”. Also, like the Sufi mystics the Romantics emphasize their individual experiences, unmindful whether they conform to traditional dogmas and doctrines or not.

Another difference between Christian mysticism and Sufism is apparent in a definition of the latter presented by A. J. Arberry, who asserts that “Sufism may be defined as the mystical movement of an uncompromising Monotheism” (1972, 12). To the Sufi, Allah is One and only One (“La 'lah 'lla Allah”). The Prophet Muhammad does not share Allah’s Godhead, and in no way is he equal to Allah. It follows that the Muslim and the Sufi do not recognize an incarnate God, a Savior acting as a medium between Allah and his worshipers. The Prophet is only the vehicle of the Divine Message to man, and the Qur’an is this Divine Message. Via ardent repetition of verses from the Qur’an, the Sufi empties himself from himself and becomes one with this Divine Message, thus becoming one with Allah. Christian mystic believes in the doctrine of Trinity. Bernard McGinn asserts that “Christian understanding of mystical union must be radically different from Jewish and Muslim ones, if only because union, however understood, is with the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (1996, 187). Thus the Christian mystic’s object of contemplation and meditation is God or God Incarnate, Jesus Christ; the Bible is not his immediate channel for achieving the mystical experience. This rather apparent difference entails Sufi features which would appeal to the Romantics. To the Sufi the Qur’an is the only means to achieve mystical fusion with Allah. And since, as the Qur’an clearly states, “Whithersoever ye turn, there is the Face of God” (Sura 2:109), then the Sufi sees Allah in Man and Nature as well. To love Man and Nature is to love Allah; this of course gives Sufism pantheistic colorings. Furthermore, the Sufi belief in the Unity of Being (“wahdat al-wujud”) implies the unity of all elements of the Universe in God. These features would appeal to the Romantics. Blake’s concept of “The Universal Man,” Wordsworth’s “holy marriage”, Coleridge’s reconciliation theory, Byron’s laudation of the universe and its elements, Shelley’s view of the infinite, and Keats’s perception of universal harmony reciprocate the Sufi “Unity of Being.” And like the Sufi poets, the Romantics found their Divine Message in the elements of the Universe.


zvyraznenie kurzivou podla a.c.; viac na http://www.ndu.edu.lb/academics/palma/20010701/SufismChristianMysticism.htm