Talk:Idries Shah/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article below is an intersting example of attachment to a set of beliefs ( and very strong emotion), that ignores the way in which Shah presented his material, and presents assertion rather than evidence. I am not going into detail - rather I would invite prospective readers to investigate Idris Shah, and compare tone, content and feel to that of his detractors - and see what you come up with!! [User: Bill Parslow 00:59 6 DEc 2006 GMT]

When you write that Shah "is an impostor", please be specific, i.e. what did he claim to be, what was he not? The current formulation does not say. One could get the impression that he did not even write his books this way. Nixdorf 00:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I tried to answer. His two principal books are collages containing actually-nothing. When I say this, I mean: soteriology, cosmology, psychology, ontology, pneumatology, metaphysics, etc. Shah was criticized by Hossein Nasr in 70ies for his false presentation of Sufism and, more- for the intellectual void. Let's see. Shah had authored:

at least 2 books on esoteric stuff unfer nom-de-plume (Akron Daraul, Rafael Lefort). These books are, IMO, empty and insignificant (save a passage or two in the book on secret societies)
a few books that are mish-mash of newspapers excerpts, casual observations and purport to convey some "wisdom" (Perfumed scorpio etc.)
two more books on Sufis (The way of the Sufi, The Sufis) that are a goulash of various esoteric materials and citations from Persian poetry (Rumi, Attar, Hafiz,..). These two principal works are, IMO, spiritual and intellectual desert (and esoteric, too).

For true Sufism, with esoterica galore, one should better consult works that make Shah ridiculous:

Sayyed Hossein Nasr: Islamic cosmological doctrines
Henry Corbin: The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism
Henry Corbin: Creative imagination in Sufism of Ibn al-Arabi
Annemarie Schimmel:Mystical dimensions of Islam
William Chittick: The Self disclosure of God

Mir Harven 19:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What you have written so far is not fact, but subjective opinion. It is lacking in evidence, such as providing quotes and source of same of Hossein Nasr's criticisms of Idries Shah, which would make it objective criticisms, not the "mish-mash" of subjectivity it currently is.

Excellent work. Perhaps the page could be worded a bit more neutral (it now takes quite an "anti-stance") please follow the guidelines for the NPOV. The literature list above should probably go to the sufi page, don't you think? Nixdorf 21:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, move the lit. to Sufi page & NPOV the article (some claim that etc.). I'm too tired. By the way-pity the link on Neosufism by James Moore is not available in the entirety. I've read it ca. 8 months ago, and has a devestating material on Idries Shah (although-one must be careful since Moore is a Gurdjieffian, and hence not impartial.But still-a very good article, and what is available is just, IMO, ca, 25-30%). Also-I could write tons of other stuff re Shah, but it doesnt matter. One thing more-Hazrat Inayat Khan should not be put in the same wagon with IS, because he was the genuine universalist Sufi, rooted in Indian Chishti order. An admirable figure, IMO. Mir Harven 22:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article is interesting, and if you read it closely, you find that it quotes politicians who have an axe to grind (among other things), and whom apparently think that they are qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses (which a reputable psychotherapist would not do publically). Not always the best or most reliable sources for truth. And since the article leaves out the details of these events that he refers to about Idries Shah's father, one could just as easily say that Idries Shah's father created political enemies because he opposed something that was wrong that these politicians were trying to profit from, and that these people were trying to get even by smearing Idries Shah's father's name.

Idries Shah

It seems ill-advised to rely on a venomous hatchet job as evidence that Idries Shah was an "impostor" (see the linked truncated article by Moore), when equally unbalanced evidence can be deployed against Gurdjieff and his followers – including Moore. For instance, Whittall N. Perry, a traditionalist follower of Guenon, Schuon et al. concludes that Gurdjieff was the antiChrist ('Gurdjieff in the Light of Tradition' (1978)). This bias alone earns Harven's piece a NPOV black mark. However, ignoring the washerwomen's gossip, and cutting to the chase, Harven's 'conclusions' are contentious, tendentious, and factually wrong in equal measure.

IGNORANCE OF HISTORY: Sayyed Hossein Nasr (one of Harven's "most eminent authorities on Sufism", let it be noted) writes in his introduction to Mir Valiuddin's 'Contemplative Disciplines in Sufism' (1980) that Valiuddin's examples of sufic practice are drawn from the 3 most important sufi orders. They are the same orders chosen by Shah in 'The Way of the Sufi' (1968), along with Suhrawardis. To imply Shah was ignorant of numerous other groupings - such as Mevlevis, Rifai, Bektashi - is wrong, since they are all referred to throughout his writings.

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CODES: 'The Sufis' (1964) contains extensive discussion of abjad coding. It also details sufic exploitation of the fact that Arabic single triliteral roots form groups of related concepts. In his other works Shah often refers to historical and current sufic use of these systems as standard practice. As for Hafiz, Shah's publishing house, Octagon Press, reissued the only complete English translation of the Divan (1974), wryly noting in their catalogue that it had been used by the vulgar for fortune-telling for centuries.

FAILURE TO ILLUMINATE PSYCHOLOGICAL DOCTRINE OR SPIRITUAL PRACTICE: When criticized for mentioning 'God' and 'spirituality' so infrequently, Shah replied that these were sacred terms, not to be bandied about. Junaid's maxim that 'Sufism was formerly a reality without a name; now it is a name without a reality' was often quoted by Shah. Shah's whole output can be seen as an extended presentation of the preparatory purificatory stages of the path. His writings are designed to create objectivity in attentive readers. The reason why Shah thought this was more urgently needed at the present time than induction of 'states' in the unprepared should be self-evident. If not, one of Shah's students provides ample documentary evidence of the pathological nature of much contemporary 'spirituality', including some well-known sufic adepts initiated into ostensibly legitimate chains (see Kate Thomas 'The Kundalini Phenomenon' (1999)). That said, 'A Perfumed Scorpion' (1982) contains a section devoted to the same technical concepts and practices that Harven excoriates Shah for ignoring.

Serious omissions and errors undermine Harven's opinion piece. The kindest act would be to remove it until someone who has actually read Shah considers it worthwhile to contribute an article.

Frankly-I couldnt care less for I.Shah. The sign is that I will not try to reinstate the criticism of this impostor, but put it into this page. As for objections: Gurdjieff was also a self-styled guru (just like LRH of Scientology or Carlos Castaneda or...). Shah's work dont "teach" anything, they didnt enrich the world, and this man (Idries Shah) was explicitly criticized by S.Hossein Nasr, William Chittick and Annemarie Schimmel. I.S. is bunk, and there's not much to it.Mir Harven 19:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, let's set aside the heated issues raised by the hagiographies of Shah's supporters and the vitriol of his detractors alike. These are no more substantial nor valuable to the real work than the surface froth is to the ocean.

Having studied Shah's works from 1986, I have to say that the overly-emotive picture painted by James Moore and Mir Harven do not correlate either with my own experience, nor (generally) with what I have observed of the beneficial effects and real changes in his students and readers brought about through extensive, in-depth Sufi study. In my opinion, his preparatory work -- in making visible the workings of the Commanding Self, and gaining some degree of mastery over this complex, for example -- has had a profound and valuable influence on such people and continues to do so, ten years after his death. As Rumi once advised: "Do not look at my outward appearance, but take what is in my hand." Whomever and whatever Shah was or was not: he had a great deal to offer, and was willing and able in doing so.

Perhaps one of the real issues for many of his students following his death (some of whom are unsure of their next step, while others have moved on), and for others interested in the Way is: where do we go from here? In the 21st century West, what is the way ahead?

EricT 13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A. H. Almaas, personally. I recommend Diamond Heart, Book 1 or Essense to begin with. But this may not work for all; the school and the student must fit eachother (assuming the school is genuine and the student is sincere). Maybe, for some, to face the reality possibility that a new teaching is not to be found for them, is the next step. I don't know. Shah wrote during a specific time and place; we are in a new world, a new century, and I am very curious to see what happens. --Chinawhitecotton 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Idries Shah: a career

However, in addition to the aforesaid one must, regrettably, conclude that Idries Shah was, very probably, an impostor- the contention well documented in one of the external links (unfortunately, the entire article on Shah's "version" of Sufism is not available as it had been a year ago: commercialization of the Web had evidently prompted its author, James Moore, to leave only a third of the excellent article for free reading).

If you want the John Bennett's position on Idries Shah and sufism, please go to http://www.naqshbandi.org/frmchain.htm, and click on the link for Shaykh `Abdullah al-Fa'iz ad-Daghestani. Scroll down to the John Bennet part near the bottom of the page.(see also:[1])

Shah's credentials have been debunked one by one:

Idries Shah was not a Sayyed, ie. prophet Mohammad's biological descendant.

I believe that this was answered well by another on this page. If you have proof of your assertion, post it. Otherwise there is proof out there that you are completely wrong on this count.

His father, Sirdar Iqbal Ali Shah was not Shaykh in any order of Dervishes, especially Naqshbandi, who are, by any criterion, the most strict and fundamentalist Sufi order.

If you had any knowledge of sufism, you would know that there are many different Naqshbandi orders, and they each do things their won way. There are the Turkish Naqshbandis, the Indian Naqshabandis, Afghani Naqshbandis. There are the Naqshbandi Mujaddidiyya, and other variations. People who assume the the Haqqani Naqshbandis are the only Naqshbandi order and that Idries Shah was a member of this Turkish order of Naqshbandis are mistaken. There are many orders of Naqshbandiyya. And the same is true for a number of the other orders, such as the Chishtiyya. There is more than one order of Chishtiyya. And they all have valid silsillas, for those who need that kind of thing. And a number of them are not anything close to fundamentalist. And one can be a Naqshbandi sheikh in one of these orders, and not be a Naqshbandi sheikh in another of these Naqshbandi orders.

Idries Shah himself did not receive any Sufi training, nor was a Shaykh of any order. There is no corroboration for any of his extravagant contentions.

No corroboration if you don't look in Afghanistan and/or India or some of the other places. And since most contemporary sufi training consists of attending groups and reciting of dhikr/zikr, and just living a normal life, you would be hard put to say that most are getting any sufi training. The other trainings that you associated with sufism are given privately, individually, and only at certain stages in a person's life. And are never made public, by either the student, or the teacher. So you would never find out about them in Idries Shah's case. And the great majority of the sufi student's training is just living his/her life by the public standards of the school (as long as they are a student and have not completed their training under the teacher) and by the private instructions given by the sheikh, which will not be public knowledge.

Moreover, Idries Shah displayed profound ignorance with regard to Sufi and other spiritual traditions: his traced Zen lineage to Sufi influence (in his book "The Sufis"), which is preposterous since Zen predates Sufism by a few centuries;

Unfortunately, if the prophets of Judaism, Christianiy and Islam are considered to be sufis by the sufis (which is true for at least some of the sufi orders, if not all), then sufism would have to antedate Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as Adam is considered a sufi, also. And it has to antedate Judaism, as Adam, Enoch, and Abraham all preceded Judaism. As for contact with Zen, Zen is/was and offshoot of Buddhism (I think Chan Buddhism, if I remember correctly), and there has been an ongoing interchange between the Buddhists and Muslims in Afghanistan and other areas near by. If I am not mistaken, there was supposedly a BBC report about a group or tribe of Jewish peoples in India who still maintained some Hebrew religious customs and terms, supposedly after migrating to the area 1500 - 2000 years ago( see http://www.bneimenashe.com/). So if the Islamic prophets are sufis, and since these Islamic prophets antedate formal Islam, then sufism antedates Islam. Since the prophets are considered sufis, and they were/are a part of the Hebrew religion, sufism existed as the inner core of Judaism, and as such could have easily have migrated with these people's and been passed on. As there was a certain amoung of contact between India, Persia, and the Middle East for centuries prior to Islam, the exchange and influence could easily have happened by many routes, not just then one mentioned above.

he mystified the doctine of Lataif, or subtle faculties of perception used in a few orders by wrongly placing the position of Lataif-which can be easily checked; then again, he "banished" God from his "Sufism" (Idries Shah sometimes uses fuzzy term "Reality"), while Sufism is eminently Islamic mysticism.

If you had actually done any research on the matter, you would have discovered that there is no hard-and-fast agreement on the exact position, associated colors, and ordering of the lataif among sufi teachers. Some have one set of colors, ordering, position, etc., some another, while still others have still a different take on it. There are specific sufi reasons for this, and they are outside of the scope of this place.

A number of Indian sufis of established sufi orders use Hindu terminology instead of Islamic terminology. Nor do all of the Indian sufi orders require students to become Muslims upon acceptance into their school.

Idries Shah did not banish God from his books. It is quite common among certain groups of sufis to refer to God as "Reality" (with a capital "R"). It is a short hand way for referring to God as the only True Reality. And again, there other reasons for using the term "Reality" among sufis, and again these reasons lay outside the scope of this place.

there is no corroboration for his claims on the nature of Sufism, since no experienced scholar or member of Sufism had backed his claims. More, the most eminent authorities on Sufism: Sayyed Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin, William Chittick, Marjan Mole, Javad Nurbaqsh and others have frequently vehemently denied his claims and presented him as a self-advertising ignorant.

Two points -- 1)My experience has been that these authors have frequently denied what other people *say* Idries Shah wrote, and not what Idries Shah actually wrote. 2) It is quite common in the written literature of sufism to find two or more sufi teachers disagreeing with each other. There are reasons for teachers disagreeing with each other, not all of them have anything to do with either teacher being wrong. Part of it has to do with teaching people to go beyond the "either-or"/dualistic mentality that inhibits their development, the mentality if one person is right, the other person must be wrong, when it may be a case of both people describing partial aspects of the thing, so that the person may hopefully put them both together and finally grasp the entirety instead of just useless pieces (like knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 and 4 + 4 = 8, but not knowing how to add).

Idries Shah's central concepts, to which he owns his global popularity, are very simple: he presented Sufism as universal spiritual tradition and posed as the true successor of Gurdjieff's supposed "mission" to the West. As for the 1st claim, one must say that there is no one spiritual tradition in the world, not even in the West, and, more devastatingly-not even in Sufism. There are numerous strands and schools of Sufism which are dominated by Gnostic, Hermetic, Neoplatonic or Hindu Vedantic influences he simply overlooked, but can be found in authoritative works on Sufism. This "universalist" trait made him popular among New Agers who were repelled by everyday spectacle of growing Islamic aggresive behavior and enmity towards everything "Western", and wished, in all likelihood, that there is a "hidden", universalist dimension of Islam devoid not only of aversion towards West, but also of specifically Islamic religious prescriptions (regular prayer five times a day in Arabic tongue, fasting on the month of Ramadan etc.). Just, the problem is that there is no Sufism without Islam, as there is no Zen without Buddhism.

Again, the problem becomes one of, if the prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sufis, (which as far as I am aware, the sufis regard them as sufis), and since these prophets predate Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and Buddhism, (Adam presumably predating ALL established religions and mystical traditions), then sufism predates all of these.

As far as sufism being the core of all of these -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and so on, are the trees and branches and leaves and fruits. Sufism is consider the water that flows through these trees. Water needs a container, and the practice of sufism needs a container. There are individual containers, and group containers. Both are needed. Each gets superceded in its time and a new container comes along.

Second, his claim by which he attracted much of the followers of Gurdjieff (especially J.G.Bennet and his group) was that he was the successor of Gurdjieff's "mission" to the West (which, as the story goes, originated from some imagined secret Eastern esoteric school, not very well defined). He proposed that he knew secrets of enneagram, gnostic-hermetic symbol popularized in the school of Gurdjieff and Uspensky. Although there are some claims (in past years) that enneagram has been deciphered as a sort of condensed symbol of Hermetic worldview (or, a Hermetic Tree of Life, containing its cosmology and psychology, or, more in the spirit of ancient times, astrology, alchemy and numerology)- there is nothing spectacular about this. But, Shah's claim was mesmerizing for the followers of Gurdjieff (at least his "outer circle", since closests members like Mme. de Salzmann didn't pay any attention to Shah's stories). The mystique of an emissary from "secret grand Orient" who "knows it all" catched the spirit of times (60s and 70ies) and, combined with Shah's well nourished social contacts with aesthetic luminaries (but spiritual innocents) like Robert Graves and Doris Lessing, helped this social climber to achieve prominence and social success.

What can be concluded about his works ?

They:

do not contain any historical material that could be of use. In fact, they abound with unsubstantiated and deceptive claims (for instance, the Sufi-Carbonari connection; the Sufi origin of Zen; Naqshbandis, the msot orthodox Sufi order are presented as the "esoteric inner circle" of Sufism; in his book "The way of the Sufi", Shah claimed that four chief Sufi orders were Naqhsbandis, Suhrawardis, Chistis and Qadiris. This is preposterous, since the Suhrawardi order is now of relatively minor importance and following, and Shah did not mention much more influential orders like Halveti, Mevlevi, Shadhilli, Bekstashi or Rufai)

Actually, he does give historical material that can be of use. The question is, what use did you have in mind? It is only useful for certain things, and they are for certain types of person's initial development.

As far as the Naqshbandis being the "esoteric inner circle" of Sufism, here is this link, and it is a non-Idries Shah link -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/azeemiasufiway/message/35 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/azeemiasufiway/message/36

do not expose various Sufi metaphysical and psychological doctrines, which are very well covered in the works of classics of Sufism-and Shah's contemporaries: Corbin, Nasr, Schimmel, Chittick, Nurbaqsh, Valiuddin.

Why should he go over what others have already done? He refers to some of these people and their writings in his writings.

do not give hints to "esoteric" practices assimilated in the Sufi mainstream doctrines: abjad or "science" of letters (similar to Kabbalistic gematria) or foretelling the future by reliance on Hafiz's work

Idries Shah's, The Sufis, has over a chapter on the "abjcad or 'science' of letters"

do not contain any illuminating information of Sufi practice. This part is especially important, since Idries Shah's appeal lay mainly in the supposedly "secret" practical knowledge of meditative and spiritual practice one cannot gain except by entering in his "school". On the contrary- although Sufi practices lege artis are supposed to be overseen by an experienced Shaykh (since this is an initiatory chain), the entire process is described in detail in Mir Valiuddin's book "Contemplative disciplines in Sufism", where, in manual-like style, one can see what Idies Shah had been mystifying about more than four decades.

Except curiously enough, if you translate some of the stories in Idries Shah back into Arabic or Persian, then you find out what they actually correspond to. And if you do this, you get a lot more than what you find in these other gentleman's works.

I would suggest that you quite relying on these narrowly limited books that you seem to have such a fondness for, and go out and actually explore sufism yourself, instead of using those academic sources, which have a very narrow focus and do not even come close to the entirety of sufism.

Mir Harven 20:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I propose that this page should be removed since it seems to have a attracted a lot of people who have a problem with Shah and therefore may present an unnalanced view.

The writer above seems to think that 'Schools', 'Doctrines', 'orders', historical patterns of 'influence' and so on are of great importance though in my view these things did not concern Shah much.

In short they are biased but I suppose this is the problem with writing articles for an encyclopedia. -- ---

It might be worthwhile making pages about Shah's critics which summarize their arguments. For example, I have looked at Moore's arguments against Shah. Moore vituperates against Shah and also cites a professor named Elwell-Sutton against Doris Lessing's defenses of Shah. That is all well and good, for readers who know and revere Elwell-Sutton. Those readers who do not regard Elwell-Sutton as an unquestionably rarefied authority might like to read a page about Elwell-Sutton and why his opinion was worth more than Lessing's. Red Walker 16:58 16 May 2004

Looking at the obituary at http://www.clearlight.com/~sufi/shahobit.htm I see a number of interesting allegations.

For example, that page alleges that in 1970, Doctors of Islamic Law affirmed Shah's right to proclaim himself as the holder of various titles.

<quote> Shah was in fact born in Simla, India, in 1924, into a distinguished Hashemite family, which traces its ancestry and titles, confirmed and attested by Doctors of Islamic Law in 1970, back to the prophet Mohammed. His inalienable titles included Badshah (sovereign), Emir, Sirdar (general). Then there was Sharif , translatable as prince of the blood, and Hadrat , which means holy, presence. </quote>

Further: <quote> Shah's knowledge and activities took place in so many different areas of specialisation and in so many countries, that friends and sometimes even family were aware of what he was doing purely on a 'need to know' basis. So an account such as this inevitably refracts a very limited - and Western - view. The concealment was in part a mixture of modesty, discretion, and an unwillingness to waste time; and part a refusal to indulge anything that smacked even faintly of gossip of self-serving. Shah himself, and those round him, were masters of disinformation. For example, when in 1967 Robert Graves, a long-time friend, published his new translation of the Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam and declared Khayyam a Sufi, a group of academic Orientalists who felt their territory undermined by the fresh air Shah was bringing to the subject, attacked him by association, and even travelled to Afghanistan to collect ammunition against him and his family. Unaware of the tradition there of protecting the Hashemite family from idle curiosity. they were fed all kinds of tall and ridiculous tales, which they gave unchecked to the press, in an attempt to discredit him. </quote>

So it looks to me as if the people attacking Shah can't be taken at face value. At very least, if they want to discredit his claims of ancestry, they'll have to start with the Doctors of Islamic Law who vouched for him. Since I personally know nothing, all I can say is that Shah's books seem to have more common sense than most college professors' books.

Goodbye to all that

This theme is, IMO, exhausted. Therefore, I can only restate what I've said earlier, just adding a final "verdict" on Shah's defenders. The following is the about Shah's most famous book, "The Sufis".

This book is the perfect example of arrogant mystification, flourishing only because New Age pestilence has virtually decimated mentally capable opponents to such pompous free-fantasy balderdash. In contradistinction to the array of true scholars ( Arberry, Nicholson, Corbin, Burckhardt, Schimmell, Chittick,..), or quasi-Sufi, but nonetheless lucid and eloquent authors like Hazrat Inayat Khan- Shah's magnum opus is an exercise in conscious misrepresentation.

1. The book offers a welter of bizarre suppositions (possible "Sufi" origin of Ch'an/Zen, Carbonari, Tarot cards,...), seducing paranormal mystique ( Qiff exercise, barakah,..) and a roster of medieval superstitions (hidden Sufis, Qutb,..).

As I wrote above, Unfortunately, if the prophets of Judaism, Christianiy and Islam are considered to be sufis by the sufis (which is true for at least some of the sufi orders, if not all), then sufism would have to antedate Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as Adam is considered a sufi, also. And it has to antedate Judaism, as Adam, Enoch, and Abraham all preceded Judaism. As for contact with Zen, Zen is/was and offshoot of Buddhism (I think Chan Buddhism, if I remember correctly), and there has been an ongoing interchange between the Buddhists and Muslims in Afghanistan and other areas near by. If I am not mistaken, there was supposedly a BBC report about a group or tribe of Jewish peoples in India who still maintained some Hebrew religious customs and terms, supposedly after migrating to the area 1500 - 2000 years ago( see http://www.bneimenashe.com/). So if the Islamic prophets are sufis, and since these Islamic prophets antedate formal Islam, then sufism antedates Islam. Since the prophets are considered sufis, and they were/are a part of the Hebrew religion, sufism existed as the inner core of Judaism, and as such could have easily have migrated with these people's and been passed on. As there was a certain amoung of contact between India, Persia, and the Middle East for centuries prior to Islam, the exchange and influence could easily have happened by many routes, not just then one mentioned above.

Regarding the Tarot cards, I suggest you read Mystical Origins of the Tarot : From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage, by Paul Huson, or The Mystical Tower of the Tarot by John D. Blakeley.

Regarding hidden sufis, and the Qutb (both of which are found outside of Idries Shah's works in other sufi sources), I suggest you look again at these links -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/azeemiasufiway/message/35 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/azeemiasufiway/message/36

2. A complete compendium of Sufi spiritual discipline, as given in Mir Valiuddin's "Contemplative Disciplines in Sufism", is the antidote to Shah's ludicrous con tricks re Lataif sitta. Along with enneagram, the lataif/latifas have become the Central Asian "psychic" junk import on the global spiritual supermarket, aimed primarily at Western insatiable & gullible consumers of the "miraculous".

Again, if you had done any decent research on the matter, instead of relying on just some very narrow sources, you would discover that different sufis and sufi orders have different orderings, positions, and colorings for the lataif. The reasons for this are outside the scope of this page.

3. As far as I can see, the only valuable thing in this disastrously organized pseudoscholium (no clear exposition of Sufi cosmology, psychology, gnoseology, soteriology, history, practice,..) is that it can entice a curious & innocent reader to delve into works of Corbin, Burckhardt, Chittick,.. or to turn to the intriguing modern writers like Inayat Khans (pa & sons), who, albeit in a westernized form, have retained (and renovated) something of the original Indian Sufi worldview and culture.

Why should he redo what others have already done? He already points to ibn Arabi and ibn Arabi's cosmology in his work, The Sufis, so what is your problem?

As for Shah's partisans and defenders-well, what can be said ? They're "touchy-feely" (didn't present any argument with regard to Shah's worthiness/worthlessnes as a scholar or writer.

Well, you are looking for scholarship and writer-liness. That explains why you don't go to the many sufi sources written by the sufis themselves, and only rely on second-hand information. For instance, it is quite apparent that you most likely have not read any translations of any sufi works or any of the sufis mentioned by Idries Shah and held in great regard by other sufis. Sources such as the Quran, ibn-Arabi, Junaid, Fariduddin, Rumi, and so on.

They liked him. OK, I can live with that. But, phleeease...don't try to sell an empty shell for a ruby.). They address (as far as I can see) only non-Sufi, personal issues (was Shah a Sayyed ? Frankly- I don't give a hoot. Who's more credible as far as medieval Persian literature is concerned- Doris Lessing, Idries Shah, or some dusty University professors who make/made a living out of translating and commenting on Rumi and Hafiz ? And backed by academic Sufi luminaries like Sayyed Hossein Nasr ("Islamic cosmological doctrines", plus some 30 other books) ? Or that Shah-debunkers were derided by Afghan common folk and tribal sages ? And this was, having in mind mujahedin and taliban Afghanistan with all its disgusting depravities (pregnant women kicked out of hospitals, ancient Buddhas carved in rock destroyed by howitzer fire, stoning and massacring various "infidels",..)- a valuable "argument" ? Where, on earth, is anything "esoteric" in all of Shah's writings ? Where is Ar-Ruh al-Qudsi ? Where are the chief tenets of Ikhwan al-Safa ? Of Ismaili gnosis that absorbed Corpus Hermeticum and Enneads ? Of Bektashis and reincarnation ? Of heterodox Kalandars and Malamiyya-bayramiyya who ignore Islamic Shariah ? Where is wahdat al-wujud explained ? Or difference between Rumi and Ibn-Arabi ? Or changing perspectives of Rumi who sometimes speaks of man as "soul"/nafs, and sometimes as "spirit"/ruh ? Or the practice that takes a disciple through seven «spheres» of Ptolemaic-Hermetic cosmos to the eighth sphere, that of «fixed stars» corresponding to the Logos or Nur-i-Mohammadi ? Seven planes of Plotinian Psyche to the Nous, the true abode of the spirit-soul compound ? This is becoming tiresome....

Shah's appeal is, nuts and bolts, a primer in seducing power of a certain psychological pattern that appears not infrequently among occultists (East and West, North and South)- probably an irrepressible longing for a "hidden wisdom" that will transform (immortalize, liberate, enlighten,..) one who succeeds in contacting the emissary from the source of such wisdom (never mind that "source", "wisdom" and "emissary" are highly questionable.). The point with these Shahs, L.R.Hubbards, Castanedas, Gurdjieffs, Rajneeshs/Oshos,..is that their powers of seduction resonate with the deeper inner needs of the potential spiritual prey. In such an atmosphere there is no room for critical thinking, nagging questions, impolite pointing the finger to the naked emperor. Maybe the truth will set you free, but certain deceptions will surely make you satisfied. Mir Harven 19:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And as far as attracting nuts and kooks, public figures have always attracted them. That in itself says noting about their quality as human beings or what they are doing. The Beatles attracted kooks (and one died because of this), Hitler attracted kooks, Jesus attracted kooks, public sufi teachers attract kooks, and so on. It's part of the territory. A tree is a tree whether it is surrounded by mentally ill people or farmers or animals or no one.

From you posts, and from your complaint above that Idries Shah lacks worthiness with respect to being a scholar or writer, do you judge the quality of the auto mechanic by how he writes his bill ("Ahh! You are a terrible auto-mechanic. I know this because you used bad grammar on this invoice! How well you fix cars and how well you make them run is entirely beside the point."). Many of the writers on sufic topics you refer to (but not necessarily all) do chop-and-hack jobs on the sufis and the sufic concepts they attempt to present. -- blessings and peace, fjm

Two Articles

There exist two articles about Idries Shah in Wikipedia. The other one is written Idris Shah. --Mounir 11:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moore vs Shah

Maybe those who have read I.Shah as his work unfolded from the 1960's to the 1990's know best how they have benefitted from his humor and the compassionate way in which he mirrored the absurdity of the readers unfathomable prejudice or greed for "knowledge". As it stands James Moore's debunking is a fine tribute to exactly that kind of "idiots glory". There is of course ( but why should we know ?)no reference to Idries Shah in the works by Henry Corbin or Seyyed Hossein Nasr of the kind described by Mir Haven, although there is a large enough language gap between Corbin (French) and Shah (English) to make it difficult to verify. Apparantly they deal with the same subject. See for instance Henri Corbins "L'Archange Empourprée" (Fayard,1976) and "The Mystical and Visonary Treatises of Surhawardi" translated by W.M.Thackson Jr.(Octagon,1982)

An interesting parrallel between the unaknowledged mutual enlightening accross the same language barrière (English - French) can be gleaned from the generation prior to Idries Shah,namely in the examination of the works of Louis Massignon and Sirdar Ikbal Ali Shah ,the co-debunked father of Moores unfortunate victim. One may have the good fortune to stumble on a recent edition of "Islamic Sufism" (Adam Publishers,New Dehli 1998) by Ikbal Ali Shah ,the original of which dates back to 1933 (long before the Sirdar alledgedly went on the dole) around which date an in depth study of sufism (tasawwuf) had been introduced by Massignon ("Essay sur les Origines du Lexique Technique de la Mystique Musulmane" Paris, 1914-1922)and against the background of which such contributions as "L'Illumination dans le mysticisme de l'Iran" (irfan) by Abdul-Hussein-Ali Abadi (Thèse, Paris 1939)could be judged. (Ali Abadi interestingly certified by the London University while subjecting his thesis in Paris) see also:Paghman saadat, sufi studies

84.193.173.73 13:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Way of the Scholar

In his closely annotated essay:"The study of Sufism in the West" (in "The Way of the Sufi" 1968) Idries Shah drew attention to the German coinage of the word "Sufism" by F.A.G. Thölluck in "Ssufismus sive Theosophia persarum pantheistica" Berlin 1821 (in latin) Would it be of use to know that the "sufism" of Thölluck may have circulated in plain Dutch since the start of the 18th century ?

In 1701 there appeared a Dutch translation of "Hayy Ibn Yakhdan" (Amsterdam, Willem Lamsveld,ed) based on the Latin of Edward Pococke The Dutch introduction by the anonymous translator (S.B.D.) gave a concise biographical review of the philosophers related to the text: Al Farabi,Avicenna,Algazali(=Al Ghazali),Ibn Bayya(=Ibn Bajjah),Averoës(=Ibn Rushd), and as it was written "Junaid,genaamd Koning der Suffische gezindheid" (i.e. Junayd,King of the Sufic creed) As an exemple of this creed Mansur Al-Hallaj was introduced with a description of his death and a reference to his famous "Anna'l Haqq".Why did S.D.B. think this was relevant at the time ? The Dutch (-see Dutch East India Company), appart from having extensive commercial interests in the Orient and the Levant, were long time hosts of a brilliant network of european humanist correspondents - including the "pantheïst" Spinoza (see:humanism)

In 1697 the "Bibliothèque Orientale" of Barthelemy d'Herbelot de Molainville had appeared, opening a "vast warehouse of oriental knowledge".[2] There were to be several more editions of the "Bibliothèque..." (each one more and more trunkated by catholic censorship ? comparative reading should tell). In the final edition of 1777 (The Hague) there were however still lemmas to be found such as: hallage (=Al-Hallaj;Tome II pg 188-191)-kebri nag'meddin (=Najmuddin Kubra;Tome II pg 355)-gili (=Abd al Karim al Jili;Tome II pg 145)-eschkallah (=Ishq Allah;Tome I pg 647-650)and of course tassaouf (=tasawwuf;Tome III pg 449)where it was stated:"...it is from this science or art that those who follow her take the name Sofi, see Sofi Tome III pg 329 ."

Although throughout this edition (1777) there is constant reference to the "Methnevi" and its author "Gellaledin Mohammed al Balkhi"(=Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi) there is not (no longer ?)any lemma proper to either "Methnevi" or "al Balkhi".

Following an article in the periodical "Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans" (Basnage de Beauval ed september 1688) - "Mémoire sur le quïetisme des Indes" by François Bernier there had developed an opinion that the French expression of the creed of Pure Love (Pur Amour-Quietism)-which originated with the Spanish "Alumbrados" of Molinos and his pupil François Malaval-was in fact a disguised form of Islam. This may have aroused the subsequent censors of the "Bibliothèque Orientale".

During a long stay in India (1659-1668) François Bernier had been a medical doctor at the court of Alamgir I(=Aurangzeb) where he had witnessed the downfall of Dara Shikoh. In his extensive letters Bernier introduced his friends to the oriental aspects of philosophy (Upanishads,Mahmud Shabistari ...) he had discussed at the court of Alamgir I under the protection of Daneshmand Khan. In his "Mèmoire..."(1688) he even wrote about the specific style of meditation("sitting") of the Chinese sect of "Yu-guei-kiao (read Wu Wei,-note)... since about 60(600?) years after the advent of Christ this idolatrie (read buddhism,-note) went to China..." thus probably refering to Bodhidharma and describing possibly for the first time in Europe the practice of "Zazen".(pardon his confusion)

Another French traveller,François Petis de la Croix, had spent over a year (1674-1676) in Isphahan studying the "Masnavi" under Derwish Moqlas (ref: Extrait des Voyages de Petis de la Croix redigé par lui mème-Chez Ferra 1810;bib.sub auctor Dourry Effendi) He became a staunch suporter of "Mevlana" in France, as well as a collector of oriental musical instruments. His son writing in his defence under a pseudonym later gave his own reasons why he thought:" The Mevlevi are perfect Quïetists."(quote) (in:Lettres critiques de Hadgi Effendi à la Marquise de G... au sujet des mèmoires de M.le Chevalier d'Arvieux. Traduit du Turc en Français par Ahmed Frangui. Renegat Flamand -1735,A Paris chez Guillam avec aprobation et Privilège du Roy)

When S.D.B.introduced his translation of Ibn Tufayl/Edward Pococke many of the French Quïetists languished in jail (a.o. Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon). Quietism had been an issue hotly debated between the bishops Fénelon and Bossuet; and remembered as la Querelle du Pur Amour.

As to the aspect of "sufi" scholarship it was mainly thanks to the comprehensive introduction to the subject by Idries Shah ("The Sufis" -1964)that the means to a renewed critical lecture of the "Bibliothèque Orientale" were accesably facilitated; the monumental contributions of Louis Massignon and Henry Corbin being in larger part directed to superior studies ( Ecole pratique de Hautes Etudes - Sorbonne)84.193.158.54 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Works under psuedonyms

The article states that "Idris Shah also wrote "Secret Societies: A History" under the pseudonym of Arkon Daraul." I am wondering if it is appropriate to state this. I agree that it seems likely. Shah often noted that he wrote under pseudonyms, but I don't believe he ever said under what names he did so. Other books, like The Teachers of Gurdjieff and Journeys With a Sufi Master have also been named, but at what point is it appropriate to list in the encyclopedia? At least a source indicating that it is common knowledge is needed.--Chinawhitecotton 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note...

I found the following quote in the article problematic, it's under "works":

"His definition of Sufism was liberal in that he was of the opinion that it predated Islam and did not depend on the Qur'an, but was universal in source, scope and relevance."

It should be noted that from an Islamic perspective (and Shah's!), nothing predates Islam. Islam, a word meaning simply "surrender" is the primordial religion of mankind, the religion of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. Each community of mankind has had it's prophet of "Islam". The modern sociological manifestation of Islam since the time of the prophet Muhammad has distinct differences with this broader, universal, and more comprehensive version.

Sufism is more properly rendered as part and parcel of the religion of Adam, and I think that Sidi Shah would likely agree.

From Shah's point of view, I would say that the word "Sufi" is a peel-off label for the benefit of those of us who want labels. They are said to recognize others like them -- whatever their creed, caste, colour, station in life; etc -- as "people like us" or "we friends". As for religion, it's a vehicle like any other and is not the only means of approaching truth.

BTW, there's a fledgling, non-religious sufi-related wiki, SarmouniWiki. Note that the server is only online from 11:00 to 23:00 hours UK time.

EricT 14:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Peepshow and the Works

As an inveterate "supporter" of Idries Shah I cherish with some emotion a twelve page collection of opinion from the printed press called "The Review of Reviews" that opens with the words taken from "The Guardian": "A peepshow into a world which most people do not imagine exists". The backpage shows a colorfull display of sixty-nine covers of major editions of Shahs work in several languages, including an "Abacus"- Sphere Books edition of "The Secret Lore of Magic" -thus visualising the integration of this title in the corpus of the Works. From the colophon of my own 1972 edition I note the following: -First published in Great Britain in 1957 by Frederick Muller Ltd. Reprinted 1963, 1965, 1969, 1971. Copyright Sayed Idries Shah, 1957. First Abacus edition: 1972 Reprinted October 1972. This does not look like a very secretive publication. Therefor I do not quite understand the "information" about the book introduced in the section "Works" of the article.

It had been some time since I glossed over my copy of the book, but -you may well imagine- IT HAPPENED AGAIN !! I was graced with a cascade of liberating laughter. Ye Olde Shah! How I love that man!

P.S. The book is still on sale via Amazon Books be it under the misspelled authors name of Indries Shah.(84.192.182.229 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Books on Magic

I believe the information is correct. See:

Bracelin book by Octagon, 1960

Secret Lore of Magic, 1957

Link

The following link was removed as spam:

Katinka

Vive la police !

84.198.252.158 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

my signature escaped me, am sorry, Lunarian 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudonymous literature

The following section has been removed by an editor:

Shah admitted that he wrote under pseudonyms, although he did not reveal the details of the works published, stating that that would defeat the purpose of using a pseudonym. Some books which have been suggested as coming from Shah's pen are:

Gerald Gardner, Witch by Jack Bracelin (1960)
You and Your Stars by Edouard Chatelherault (1960)
Secret Societies: A History by Arkon Daraul (1961)
Witches and Sorcerers by Arkon Daraul (1962)
Afghanistan, Cockpit in High Asia by Peter Michael King (1966)
The Teachers of Gurdjieff by Rafael Lefort (1966) (also suggested as Omar Ali Shah's work)
Among the Dervishes: An account of travels in Asia and Africa, and four years studying the Dervishes, Sufis and Fakirs, by living among them by O. M. Burke (1973)
Journeys With a Sufi Master by Bashir M. Dervish (1982)
The People of the Secret by Ernest Scott (1983) (actually written by Edward Campbell, according to Campbell's obituary)
Adventures in Afghanistan by Louis Palmer (1990)

These theories certainly do have fairly wide currency, and if appropriate sources can be found that have put them forward, could be reinserted. Jayen466 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

To the IP contributor -- please understand that nationality is not the same as ethnic descent. No one disputes that Shah had Afghan ancestors on his father's side. However, as far as I remember, Shah's family had been banished to India several generations earlier, following their support for the British, against the majority of Afghans. Shah himself was born in India. So if you would like to put Afghan as nationality in the info box, please provide sourced, verifiable evidence that Shah had an Afghan passport – I don't believe he did. I don't know whether he also had, or acquired, British nationality. It's probably safest, for now, to leave the nationality field blank. Jayen466 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shah and Bennett

The article fails to mention how Shah persuaded Bennett to write him off the large mansion where Bennett's group held classes, which Shah immediately sold to developers for huge profits, despite previous promises to continue the work of Bennett's spiritual group.

The life of shah before writing 'oriental magic' (which is a pile of garbage) should also be expounded in detail, including all his frauds and criminal activities.

And none of his exalted claims about his family roots have never been proven and are thus rumor and false boasting.

This article is in a need of serious rewrite.

Capricornis (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Witness, the autobiography of John G. Bennet

(Turnstone Books 1975 ISBN 0 85500 043 0):

" Shah was not, and did not claim to be, a teacher, but he did claim that he had been sent by his own teacher and that he had the support of the ' Guardians of the Tradition '. He gave me a document authorising me to make it known to my own pupils and anyone else I thought fit. I reproduce some key passages here with Mr. Shah's permission. "

John Bennet in op. cit pp 355-356

the key passages (Copyright, Octagon Press, 1966 & 1974) are on pp 356-358, together with the above citation they form part of the chapter Service and Sacrifice dedicated to John Bennet's sale of Coombe Springs to Idries Shah.

In case we need to inform ourselves...

Lunarian (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth considering the fact that partly through handing over Coombe Springs, in his own words Bennett found freedom [not least from attachments] and was able to subsequently move on as a result. So Shah may be said to have done him a service. Sorry, I don't a copy of Witness to hand to cite chapter and verse.

EricT (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Shah told Bennett that he is from the 'Sarmoung Brotherhood' from which Gurdjieff, Bennett's main teacher in life claimed to have originated his knowledge. Shah equated this brotherhood with the 'Guardians of Tradition' and claimed to be one of them, for which there is no proof whatsoever except his claims. That 'document' that Shah floundered around is probably the most ridiculous part of the whole thing, as if ancient secret brotherhoods issued membership cards, and it is similar to the fake document SLM Mather fabricated to 'prove' that the Golden Dawn society has some alleged ancient roots. Gurdjieff specifically mentioned several times there are no written artifacts of the Sarmoung Brotherhood.

The relationship between Shah and Bennett evolved over time, starting harmlessly, and Bennet being excited abotu it (as in many others like Subud) and later Shah would come up with more and more incredulous claims, at the end after Shah defrauded him and stole his property, Bennett completely denounced him. Coombe Springs was not 'sold', the price on the contract was 1 pound, it was a gift on which Shah insisted, although Bennett was uncomfortable with it and wanted to lease it instead, but Shah blackmailed him saying that 'the brothers' want a proof of Bennett's dedication, and that proof would be his unwavering trust of Shah to the point of giving him Coombe Springs as a present. Bennett's worries proved true, as Shah unscurpoulosly sold the property the next day, despite his promises otherwise.

Good book on the matter is 'Madame Blavatsky's Baboon' by Peter Washington, who gathered his information on Bennett directly from interviewing Bennett's widow.

Capricornis (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Washington is hardly worthy of being weighed in as a paragon of the anti-Shah league. Much of his work is secondary material, having been cobbled together from other sources -- including the works of Shah's own publisher Octagon Press.

EricT (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The document 'Declaration of the People of the Tradition' is online during UK daylight hours at: http://www.sarmouni.dyndns.org/writing/DeclarationOfThePeople.pdf , btw.

EricT (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How and when did Bennett completely denounce him? Can you provide a direct citation and quotation? My understanding is that he did not complain about the Coombe Springs deal in his autobiography (I have not read it). I am asking because I am curious - I don't know much about this - but also because you make a lot of claims and seem to have a strong POV on the matter, but reference only a book without quotes or sources. As for an interview with the widow, it occurs to me that she and Bennett himself might have different opinions on this matter...Bennett himself had decades of opportunity to complain about his interaction with Shah if he had wished to...--Chinawhitecotton (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Needless (?) to say the cited autobiography goes into some detail about the assesment of Idries Shah's background by Bennet and his friends. Needless also to debate then on a matter of hearsay.

Lunarian (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

These matters are discussed here by someone personally involved in the sale of Coombe Springs (one of the shareholders). Among other things, he mentions that Shah subsequently bought Bennett a house to live in. Perhaps not permissible as a source here, but still of interest for perspective and as a pointer for further research, if need be. -- Jayen 466 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Unfortunately, it's not possible to link to the article directly. On the index page, look for the article written by B. Main-Smith. -- Jayen 466 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In his book Sherborne: An Experiment in Transformation Allen Roth records that Shah visited Bennett at Sherborne House the year before Bennett died, talked with Bennett's students and later walked with Bennett for a couple of hours in the gardens. Mr Gerald Green also gave Roth a photograph with a picture of the urn in the rose garden at Sherborne, with a note that it was the gift Idries Shah had made to Bennett after his visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.152.128 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there are strong feelings on this topic. I, myself, do not hold a particularly strong POV on this, but was very surprised when I came across this article and read nothing but praise about Shah, when there is plenty of controversy surrounding him, which has not been even mentioned.

Badmouthing Washington is not the way to go and makes no sense. His book is very well researched, with multitude of references and primary sources. Yes there are plenty of secondary sources as well, but why should that degrade the value of the book? Secondary sources are just as valid as primary ones and both should be used for balance.

The article also makes glorifying statements like about his ancestry from Muhammad, when there is not proof whatsoever of this besides Shah's own claims. I marked that as fact, and if no one can quote a non-Shah source about it, I propose it to be moved under the 'Controversies' subtitle that I added. All the other controversies should be mentioned in there.

Right now the article reads as an advertising pamphlet for Shah,

Capricornis (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shah was born Idris al-Hashimi ."The Hashemites [1] trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf (died c.510 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the descendants of his daughter, Fatima." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite

EricT (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Hashemites or the Bani Hashim are the direct descendents of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), through his daughter Fatima and (her husband) his cousin Ali (the fourth, and last, "Rightly-Guided" Caliph of Islam). "Hashim" was the name of the great-grandfather of both the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Caliph Ali. The Hashemite family ruled, in various forms, over the Hejaz (the Western part of Arabia which includes the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina) from the time of the Caliph Ali in the Seventh Century CE until 1925 CE." -- http://www.princehamzah.jo/English/The_Hashemite_Lineage.html

... providing of course Shah actually was born al-Hashimi :)

EricT (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In his article on Neosufism, Moore states: "Idries Shah's pretension to be a Sayyid (in common incidentally with a million or more putative descendants of Muhammad's younger grandson Husain) may be conceded grosso modo, without its conferring on him the spiritual authority he implies. But the wilder boasts of his posterity -- that he springs from Abraham's loins and from the last Sasanid kings -- belong to the melancholy area of creative genealogy; and indeed in so far as they rely on his vaunted place in the 'senior male line of descent from... Mohammed,' they labour under the unconsidered difficulty that all three sons of the Prophet died in infancy."

Also take the following into account: "Sayyid ... is an honorific title that is given to males accepted as descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad through his grandsons, Hasan ibn Ali and Husayn ibn Ali, who were the sons of his daughter Fatima Zahra and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib. This follows Muhammad's saying that Hassan and Husayn are his children, and that he Muhammad is their father." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid

EricT (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I too am pretty agnostic regarding Shah and Sufism, and in fact I don't know a great deal about the subject. I do know though, that there is significant controversy attached to his name, and that many people (including many Islamic Sufis) see him as a charletain. This should be at least covered in the controversy section, if not touched on in several sections of the article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the controversies need to be explained and properly referenced without passing judgment, dubious statements in the present article need to be referenced and qualified or removed.. I have no time to do the research and rewrite until after the holidays, but I am willing to lend a hand to anyone who would :) Marry Christmas! Capricornis (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are in for a treat then !

Many happy returns,

Lunarian (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, capricornis, elsewhere you write without citations: "The life of shah before writing 'oriental magic' (which is a pile of garbage) should also be expounded in detail, including all his frauds and criminal activities."

Might I suggest that others who are both familiar with Shah's works, able to take onboard the controversies and still maintain a NPOV might be better equipped than either of us to carry out such edits?

EricT (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let Shah speak for himself

The criticisms levelled against Shah are all answered in his books. At times I wonder how carefully his critics have actually read him.

As Rumi said, "Fihi ma fihi" - you will get out of him what is in him for you - but there is a whole universe in Shah's works, and a generous invitation to the heart.

Let Shah speak for himself

The criticisms levelled against Shah are all answered in his books. At times I wonder how carefully his critics have actually read him.

As Rumi said, "Fihi ma fihi" - you will get out of him what is in him for you - but there is a whole universe in Shah's works, and a generous invitation to the heart.

Reader Be Ware

While contemplating the salad of "esotericism" suggested by M. Harven, the reader might ask themselves what any of this has to do with their own life, human durability, and the viability of humanity in the coming century, much less the millenia ahead. If you find anything stale or unappetizing in this salad, you might consider the current and topical presentation at the following source: http://ishkbooks.com/

A story

The words of M. Harven remind me of a sufi story...

Once there was a poor Persian village where all were blind. One day a strange new creature called an elephant appeared at the village wall. Since no one in the village had ever heard of an elephant, the three wisest of the blind villagers went out to discover what the new creature was like. They all felt the creature. The first blind sage felt the tail and said, "This creature cannot be an elephant, this is a rope!" The second blind sage felt the leg and said, "No, this is a tree!" The third blind sage felt the side and said, "No, you fools, this is a wall!"

And i can also add that M. Harven listening to the others fighting assumed that the elephant doesn't exist and walked away...

P.S: Look for yourself my friend :)

I have been reading the discussion so far and it does seem useless. It is clear that Mr Harven has no possibility but contradicting Idries Shah as he lacks the organs necessary to digest his teachings and works. This is the first and most crucial requirement for any kind of personal development.....Charge a donkey with books and he will still stay a donkey. It is not about reading his books but about what is experienced through the process of reading them, and if nothing has awoken in Mr Harven, it is not a surprise. Idries Shah himself said countless times not everyone is prepared to be a student. In any case unprepared people are required, at least to serve as an example of what we should prevent ourselves from becoming. Cahora

A Note

Interestingly, I note that some people know of no proof (if any real proof can be given on anything) about other Sufis existing around the time of the Prophet Mohammed, or before. It is on record that Uways el Qarni who died in AD 657 was regarded as a Sufi Master but never met Mohammed, and indeed it is said they even exchanged greetings.

Interesting too, is the 'Elephant in the dark' story above. It is also a given that 'real' Sufis cannot present all they do to all and sundry. This is because most ordinary peoples minds are not capable of seeing 'the whole picture' without adequate training, and also because they may not have reached the required standard to be able to handle this knowledge without falling prey to the nafs. This applies to all levels, including scholars, professors, religious leaders, and others who have a disposition to blow their own trumpets. Jules.

The Proof Of The Pudding ----------------------------

It's true that there are many things that Shah said that must be taken on faith or left to one side. The ideas he wove were sometimes self-supporting. For instance, that the incomplete are not in a position to comprehend or judge the completed. This kind of comment rules out all criticism and can certainly be off-putting. If we can't judge then how can we separate the true from the false. His answer, that 'like calls to like' is hardly encouraging. That those that truly seek truth will recognize it and those who do not recognize it did not truly seek it, can be interpreted as elitist and is wonderfully impossible to disprove.

But Shah never asked for non-critical acceptance of his ideas. Only that his readers didn't have a non-critical rejection of them. That they treat them as an interesting working hypothesis. That they let him state them because he said they needed to be stated, but not get stuck on them.

The reason that I unequivocally say that Shah was the most important author I've ever found is twofold:

1) his words made sense. Shah's concepts and the way he articulated them demistified the religious "quest". What he said rings true.

2) The things he taught illuminated future experiences. Stories I read would suddenly brighten my perception of a situation which would in turn illuminate the story. This resonance happened often enough that I could know that Shah knew what he was doing. His books induced experiences long after they were read.

It was these experiences that enabled me to put my doubts aside (not to bury them or disavow them) while I listened to his words with the respect they deserved.

He himself responded in his works to the criticisms of others and I've looked before for people who've criticized Shah to see if they exhibit the behaviour Shah ascribed to them. I never found such great examples until I read this page. Fortunately, Shah's works innoculate his readers against ad hominem attacks against him. Rumi's words could have been spoken by Shah "Do not look at my outward shape, but take what is in my hand."

I will never know if everything Shah said was the literal truth. I presume it wasn't though. Shah was never trying to convey information, he was trying to prepare for experience. So allegory in the guise of fact and fact in the guise of fiction were perfectly acceptable tools for him. And he clearly stated so. And whether Shah was or wasn't a Sayed is utterly immaterial. If his works touched you they worked. If they didn't and you wish to belittle his authority/authenticity then he would never have begrudged you that meager compensatory pleasure. He was, always, too busy.

What About Robert Graves?----------------------------

I'm on the fence as regards Shah. Certainly, the incident involving Shah and Robert Graves, a translation of an allegedly ancient manuscript and the subsequent controversy are recorded in Graves' diaries for all to read. It calls into question Shah's integrity. Having said that, much of what his critics say about him is founded on academic snobbery or resentment at Shah's critique of Gurdieff and the fact he won over a leading supporter of the Gurdieff cult (Shah alleged Gurdieff was a runaway trainee Sufi). Personally, I have often found his writings to be an astrigent for common stupidities.

Shah on Naqshbandi

In his work "The Sufis" Idries Shah [[3]] describes the Naqshbandi as follows: "One of the most widespread of Sufi Orders.The name is litterally Painters(...)many persian poets use the word naqsh(diagram,painting,map,etc)to denote a relationship between these Sufis and the whole "plan" of human development which Sufism is believed to be aiding." Using the non-esoteric faculty of command over two languages at a time (English&French)it is possible to expand. In a scholarly study:"Le Bouddhisme dans l'Iran Musulman" by A.S.Mellikian-Chirvani (in:Le Monde Iranien et l'Islam Tome II, Hautes Etudes Islamiques et Orientales d'Histoire Comparée IV,6-Librairie Droz,Genève 1974)the attention of the student is directed towards the fact that:"The eastern iranian world effectively adhered to buddhism over the complete extent of its territory i.e.Merv,Balkh,Qunduz,Heybak and Bamiyan(...)Bukhara the great metropole of persian letters has certainly been an essential centre for iranian buddhism." Balkh,the center of the Barmakids princes who sponsored a buddhist convent of some 360 monks,may be remembered as the birthplace of Ibn Sina and Mevlana Jalal-ud-din later called Rumi after the Mongol invasion of the 13th century A.D.had forced him to emmigrate and Bukhara where Bahaudin Naqshband tought and is burried. M-Chirvani quotes from Abu Bakr Muhammad al Narshachi's history of Bukhara written in the 10th century A.D.: "There was once a prince in Bukhara named Maagh.At his orders a market was held (the Bazaar of Maaghruz)and it was he who gave directions to the dorudgaran (woodcutters) and naqqashan (painters). They made buddh (idols) the whole year through.The prince himself came to the market and took place on a trone opposite where now stands the Mosque of Maagh, in order to excite the people to buy..." Maagh was an imaginary figure.His name appears to be of Sogdiana origin where it sinifies "the moon" and the moon was the classical symbol for the Buddha in the iranian poetry since the 8th century A.D. The origin of the connection may have been the occurence of a yearly festival held at Bamiyan where an episode from buddhist mythology was enacted:The Red Buddha,Sakyamuni is clothed in a golden garb by the White Buddha,Maitreya. The two statues at Bamiyan were accordingly decorated.The 56m large one was clothed in gold over red, the smaller 35m statue dressed in white. The smaller statue was commonly associated with the moon because of the moon crescent in the fresco (naqsh :look at:[4]) painted in the niche above the head.(ref.Mellikian-Chirvani in op.cit.) On september 18th 1998 the "small" Moon-Buddha was destroyed by Taliban who tried to obliterate 2.000 years of cultural heritage, including the paintings of which generation upon generation of "painters" had explained the meaning in as far as the content transcended the superficial observation of the image as idol. The current opinion on painting among Naqshbandi focuses on the Hadith reported by Muslim on the authority of A'isha: "We had a curtain on which was the picture of a bird and which every person would face upon coming in.The Prophet said one day:"Put this somewhere else, for every time I come in I remember the world(dunya)" The consensus among scholars - Imam at-Tahawi al Hanafi,Abdul Rahman al Jaziri,Ibn Taymmiyyah - being that if the picture had been unlawfull it would have been destroyed. Hence the authorization to use images "that cast no shadow" for teaching purposes as opposed to statues for the worship of others than Allah(i.e."that cast shadows") It may well be that the Naqshbandi in particular observe the same restraint towards images in general as they do towards music. In "The Way of the Sufis" (Penguin 1974 pg172)Idries Shah reported the following teaching of Bahaudin Naqshband: "Take an example in musical assemblies.We do not attend them nor do we employ music.This is because for our time and in our position (i.e.14th century A.D.-note)there is more harm than good in it. Music heard in the right way improves the approach to conciousness.(Inayat_Khan) But it will harm people who are not sufficiently prepared, or of the correct type, for hearing or playing it.In fact they are using it for the lower purpose of arousing sentiment,emotion, which is no basis for farther progress." Later I.Shah was to comment on this: "Raising the emotional pitch is the most primitive method of increasing attention towards the instrument wich increased the emotion. It is the prelude to, or the accompaniment of almost every form of indoctrination." (in:"Learning how to learn - Psychology and spirituality of the Sufi Way"-Penguin 1985 section 2:On Attention.) see also: Paghman saadat,Sufi studies

Concerning citations

The assertion that Idries Shah founded Octagon Press is supported by a tribute to him published after his death, which was made available at the Octagon press website for a time, but which has now been removed (was http://www.clearlight.com/~sufi/shahobit.htm)

From that tribute, now available at http://www.idriesshah.com/ , we read: "Through Octagon Press , the publishing company he founded to keep these books in print after mainstream publishers might drop them from their lists, he also established a broad historical and cultural context for Sufi thought and action ..."

The date of the founding, said to be 1960, is not mentioned, but a search of online bookshops will reveal books bearing the Octagon Press name dating back that far. A search of companies house also show it being incorportated as a private limited company in 1972. Goto http://www.creditgate.com/companysearch/OCTAGON+PRESS+LIMITED+THE.aspx and click on "get the latest information on this company."

EricT (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would urge the removal of the phrase "rather ruthlessly" and phrase "equally ruthless" from the controversies section. Ruthless means "without mercy or pity" which is in no way NPOV nor are references to this term cited.

EricT (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the mania of adding citation please to a manner of speech "almost as ruthless" and your sense of humor "equally stale". Please get a grip and add constructively. You seem to have the means.

Lunarian (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sale of Coombe Springs, the term "promptly" might be used rather than the pejorative "rather ruthlessly", for example. In the case of Omar Khayyam, one might also say "Equally controversial" as a fact rather than "Equally ruthless" which is clearly a biased opinion.

Shortcut

WP:ASF

EricT (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you were to tell the story of Khidr with the boat or the snake without accentuating the apparent ruthlessness...

Anyway, this is as much your Wiki as anyone else's so you are free to correct.

Lunarian (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality / Controversial tags

Anyone think that the neutrality / controversial tags might now be removed after recent edits? EricT (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we dare ? :D !

Lunarian (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As a feeble student of Sufi may I remark that IMHO the whole of the comments should be preserved as an example of the way in which some people will defend their opinions and those of the Gurus who appeal to them, by using careful selection of material. Mohemtarin, chand nefer nevisande inja zaban e farsi baladi? How many have learnt the original languages in which the propositions of the Sufi Way were expounded? "Those who know don't write, those who write don't know!"86.135.90.190 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great ! Let's celebrate !

Lunarian (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section Lacking

Although I tend to agree with EricT that somebody else should write about the controversies, as I am obviously too harsh, and he is obviously too supportive, the controversies section as it stands right now it is way too weak. I mentioned bennett as an example, but the major controversies about shah are twofold:

1. His life before he wrote 'oriental magic'. there has been lots of evidence that he and his brother (another sufi 'master') got involved into many shady deals and illegal activities. Read washington for a starting point, and he cites many (MANY!) sources.

2. The critical opinions towards Shah of the traditional Sufi groups and leaders should be expounded in great detail, as it gives the unbiased reader a view of Shah's teaching in context of real, historic sufism. Shah's switch from writing about magic and occultism to sufism should also go here.

And the POV tag should stay until somebody goes through the whole article and makes different word choices, which will be less praising of shah and more cool and encyclopedic in tone. The article still sounds like an advertising pamphlet for shah.

cheers,

Capricornis (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Esteemed Mister,

It is obvious that neither Sufism, nor Idries Shah in particular, are among your fields of expertise. Shady deals and illegal activities...that is quite an allegation. Please state your facts clearly and precisely, then cite your sources in a verifiable manner.

Until you do, the decision to lift the POV tag must of need stay with those who know what they are talking about.

I'm a Mister too,

Lunarian (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kitab el-Luma

Anon has added the following to 'Works': 'In page 14 [actually annotation 14] of his book The Sufis, Shah provides the only citation for his controversial claim that "it is authoritatively on record" that Sufi predates Muhammad, Islam and the Qur'an: the Kitab el-Luma. Although Shah does not reveal the full title or author, almost certainly he is referring to the oldest and most definitive written work on Sufi, the Kitab al-luma‘ fi ’l-tasawwuf (The Book of Lights; The Quintessence of Sufism), written by Abu Nasr al-Sarraj al-Tusi (?-988 or 989 A.D.), which in fact traces Sufi exclusively to Muhammad, Islam and the Qur'an.'

(a) Shah was referring to the *word* Sufi. Make any difference? (b) Could the actual Kitab text be posted for comparison? EricT (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In 'The Study of Sufism in the West,' in 'The Way of the Sufi' (1968), Shah states that 'As there is no standard appellation for Sufism, the inquirer may turn to the word Sufi itself, and discover that it suddenly became current about a thousand years ago [3] both in the Near East and in Western Europe.' Note [3] Reads: 'According to the fifteenth-century poet and Sufi master, Jami (in his Nahjat el-Uns). Sheikh Suhrawardi dates the word from the ninth century, and the word is not sufficiently established to be found in dictionaries of such a comparatively early date. Imam Qushairi in his Rasail places the appearance of the word at about A.D. 822. Earlier Sufis used many names, including 'The Kindred', 'The Recluses', 'The Virtuous', 'The Near Ones Q: do any of these or others predate Islam? EricT (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be the best idea to discuss the finer points of diverging opinion on the talk page; or in an essay with free acces via internet. Or else to be as precise as possible about text and citation -again this might not be in the format of the lemma. Study of the subject is best debated in Blogs.

In casu the verifiable text reads:

"In the religious sphere, the Koran maintains the unity of religions and the identical origin of each-"Every nation had a Warner" Islam accepted Moses, Jesus and others as inspired prophets. Further, the recognition of Mohammed's mission by numerous former Jews, Christians and Magians (including priests) some of whom had traveled to Arabia during his lifetime seeking a teacher, provided a further basis for the belief in a continuity of ancient, not localized, teaching, of which previous highly organised religions might be merely elaborations or popularizations.

This is why, in Sufi tradition, the "Chain of Transmission" of Sufi schools may reach back to the Prophet by one line, and to Elias by another. One of the most respected seventh-century Sufi masters-Uways, who died in 657-never met Mohammed, though he was living in Arabia at the same time and outlived him. Again, it is authoritatively on record that the name "Sufi" was in use before the declaration of his prophetic mission by Mohammed. (note 14: Kitab el-Luma) It is essential to grasp this sense of continuity of inner teaching, and also the belief in the evolution of society, if the Sufis are to be understood to any real extent."

Idries Shah, in The Sufis quothed from Octagon ed, 1989 pg 32.

Rather than a claim this looks more like an observation any schoolkid could make if he were bent on looking into the subject with a clear head.

Can we now please have the relevant counter observation by al-Tusi ?

Lunarian (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the reference to annotation 14 of the book in the lemma was insufficient since the numbering of notes is not continuous throughout the chapters, while the book contains a separate section: "Annotations" (unnumbered) in which the subsection "Classical Teachers" (in op.cit. pg 369) is of further relevance to this discussion.

Lunarian (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)