ISLAMIC ESOTERISM：ARTICLES
Les Études carmélitaines (April 1932) has published a translation of an extended article by Miguel Asín Palacios on Ibn Abbad de Ronda, under the title 'Un précurseur hispano-musulman de Saint Jean de la Croix'. This study is interesting particularly for the numerous texts cited, and in addition is written with a sympathy from which the editors of the review apparently felt obliged to excuse themselves by a rather strange note asking that 'the reader take care not to attach too broad a meaning to the word "precursor".' So it appears that, if certain things must be said, it is not so much because they are true as because one could reproach the Church for not recognizing them and use them against her! Unfortunately, the whole of the author's exposition is marred by a major flaw, the all too frequent confusion of esoterism
with mysticism; indeed, he does not even speak of esoterism, mistaking it for mysticism purely and simply. This error is further aggravated by the use of a specifically 'ecclesiastical' language which is completely foreign to Islam in general and to Sufism in particular, and which contributes a certain impression of malaise. The Shädhiliyah school, to which Ibn Abbad belonged, is essentially initiatic, and if there are some external similarities with mystics such as Saint John of the Cross, in vocabulary for example, these do not preclude a profound difference in points of view. Thus the symbolism of 'night' does not have the same meaning for each, nor does the rejection of external 'powers' imply the same intentions. From the initiatic point of view, 'night' corresponds to a state of non-manifestation (which is therefore superior to the manifested states represented by 'day', the same symbolism as that in Hindu doctrine), and if 'powers' must effectively be set aside, at least as a general rule, this is because they constitute an obstacle to pure knowledge; we do not think the same holds from the mystics' point of view.
The above calls for the remark that Palacios himself is above suspicion in these matters, for he certainly cannot be held responsible for the misuse of his works by others. For some reason, Études carmélitaines has for some time now published articles devoted to Eastern doctrines, but what is most striking about these articles is their attempt to portray these doctrines as 'mystical', an attempt that seems to proceed from the same intentions as those found in the translation of P. Dandoy's book, which we have discussed elsewhere; and a glance at the list of contributors to this review entirely justifies this impression. If one compares such facts of the anti-oriental campaign, which are known to our readers and in which Catholic circles also play a role, one cannot avoid an initial sense of astonishment, for there seems to be some incoherence here; upon reflection, however, one begins to wonder whether a tendentious interpretation like the one in question might not itself constitute to a means of combat against the East, albeit indirectly. In any case it is greatly to be feared that an apparent sympathy may conceal some ulterior motive of proselytism and, if one may say so, of 'annexationism'. We know the Western spirit only too well not to harbor some disquiet in this regard: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes!
Le Voile d'Isis, 1932, pp 480-481.
Les Nouvelles litterairés (issue of May 27, 1933) has published an interview in the course of which Elain J. Filbert indulges in some gossip regarding ourself that is as fanciful as it is offensive. We have often said what we think of these 'personal' accounts: that they have not the least interest in themselves, and that as far as doctrine is concerned, individualities count for nothing and should never obtrude; and over and above this question of principle, we think that anyone but a malefactor has an absolute right to his privacy, and that nothing of his personal affairs should be disclosed to the public without his consent. What is more, if Finbert revels in such anecdotes, he will easily find among his fellow 'men of letters' more than enough individuals whose vanity is only too well satisfied with this foolishness, that he may leave in peace those who do not find this agreeable and who have no intention of being used to 'amuse' others, whoever they may be. However repugnant it is to speak of these things, we nevertheless do so for the edification of those of our readers who may know of the interview in question, and at the very least to set to rights some of the inaccuracies (to use a euphemism) with which this preposterous account swarms. First of all, we must say that when we met him in Cairo, Finbert did not commit the gross impropriety of which he boasts; he did not ask us 'what we came to do in Egypt', and it is well that he did not, for were it otherwise we would promptly have put him in his place! Then, since he 'addressed us in French' we replied to him likewise, and not 'in Arabic' (and furthermore, anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with us knows that we are perfectly capable of speaking 'with great dignity'!). But what is true, and we willingly admit it, is that our answer must have been 'faltering'-quite simply because, knowing the reputation our interlocutor enjoys (rightly or wrongly, is no concern of ours), we were rather embarrassed at the thought of being seen in his company; and it was precisely in order to avoid the risk of another encounter in public that we agreed to see him at the boarding-house where he was staying. If in the course of the conversation we may perhaps have happened incidentally to say a few words in Arabic, this would be nothing extraordinary; but we are absolutely certain that there was no discussion of 'brotherhoods' (whether 'closed' or not, but in any case in no way 'mystical'), for this is a subject which, for many reasons, we had no occasion to broach with Finbert. We spoke only in very vague terms of persons who possessed certain traditional knowledge, upon which he declared to us that we were giving him a glimpse
of things the existence of which he was totally unaware (and he even wrote us to this effect after his return to France). Furthermore, he did not ask us to present him to anyone, and even less to 'introduce him into the brotherhoods,' so that we did not have to refuse him; nor did he give us 'the assurance that he had been initiated (sic) long ago into their practices and that he was considered a Muslim among them'(!)and for our part we are glad he told us no such thing, for had he done so, despite all the proprieties we would have been unable to restrain ourself from bursting into laughter! In what follows, when it is a question of 'popular mysticism' (Finbert seems to have a special liking for this term), of 'spiritual concerts', and other things expressed in a manner as confused as it is typically Western, we have with no great difficulty discovered just where he was able to penetrate: this is of such gravity... that one even takes the tourists there! We shall only add that in his last novel, entitled Le Fou de Dieu (which served as a pretext for the interview), Finbert has given the correct measure of his knowledge of the spirit of Islam: there is not one Muslim in the world, however magzūb and ignorant he may be, who could think of recognizing the Mahdi (who must in no way be a 'new prophet') in the person of a Jew... But apparently Finbert thinks (and not, alas, without some reason), that the public will be mughaffal enough to accept no matter what, as long as it is affirmed by 'a man who comes from the East'but who never knew anything but its outer 'trappings'. If we had any advice to give Mr Finbert, it would be to devote himself to writing exclusively Jewish novels, where he would certainly be much more at ease, and to occupy himself no further with Islam or the East-or with ourselves! Shuf shughulak, yā khawaja! [3]
And here follows another story in just as good taste. Pierre Mariel, intimate friend of the 'late Mariani', has recently published in Le Temps a kind of serialized novel to which he has given a title far too attractive for what it is about: L'esprit souffle où il veut ['the spirit bloweth where it listeth'], of which the principal aim seems to be to excite various Western hatreds. We will not congratulate him for lending himself to this pretty task... nor would we have mentioned this despicable thing had he not taken advantage of the occasion to permit himself a completely gratuitous insult at our expense, which obliges
us to make this response. First, we are under no obligation to tell him what we may or may not have been able to 'surmount', all the more so as he would understand nothing of it, but we can assure him that we nowhere play the part of a 'postulant'; second, and without in the least wishing to speak ill of the Senoussis, it is nevertheless permissible to say that it is certainly not to them that those who want 'to receive higher initiations' should apply; third, what he calls with a rather comical pleonasm 'the final degrees of the Sufi initiatic ladder' (sic) and even degrees that are far from being the last, are not achieved by the outer and 'human' means which he seems to suppose, but exclusively as a result of a completely interior work; and from the moment someone has been joined to the silsilah it is no longer in the power of anyone to prevent him from reaching all the degrees of which he is capable; fourth and finally, if there is a tradition where questions of race and origin do not in any way arise, it is certainly Islam, which in fact counts among its adherents men belonging to the most diverse races. Besides all this, one finds in this novel all the more or less inept clichés current among the European public, including the 'Crescent' and the 'green standard of the Prophet'; but then what sort of knowledge of matters pertaining to Islam could one really expect from someone who, while evidently claiming to link himself to Catholicism, knows the latter so poorly that he can speak of a 'conclave' for the nomination of new Cardinals? And it is with this 'pearl' (margaritas ante porcos [pearls before swine]..., said without irreverence to the reader) that his account ends, as if it was necessary to see there... the 'mark of the devil'!
Le Voile d'Isis, 1933, pp 434-436.
Mesures (July 1938), contains a study by Émile Dermenghem of 'L"instant" chez les mystiques et chez quelques poètes', citing numerous examples. It is perhaps to be regretted that in this exposition he has not distinguished three very different degrees more clearly: first, the higher sense of 'instant', which is properly metaphysical and initiatic and is naturally the sense found in Sufism and in Japanese Zen (of which satori, considered as a technical procedure of realization, is obviously similar to certain Taoist methods); then the meaning that it takes among mystics, already diminished or restricted in scope; and finally its more or less distant reflection, which can still be found among a few profane poets. What is essential in the 'instant' and, at
least in its first sense, gives it its profound value, is not so much its suddenness (which, moreover, is more apparent than real, since what manifests itself is in fact always the result of a prior, sometimes quite protracted, effort, the effect of which has remained latent until then) as its character of indivisibility, for it is this latter which allows its transposition into the 'intemporal', and, consequently, the transformation of a transitory state of the being into a permanent and final acquisition.
Études Traditionnelles, 1938, p 423.