pantheism or monism in Maulana's poetry?

[Reema B.]

Salam alaiakum wa rahmatu Allah,

Mashallah, I really admire your website and work here and I have also
recently purchased the Kindle version of Rumi & Islam.

I have so far only read a few translations (or rather versions) of
Rumi's poetry as I unfortunately do not know how to read Farsi. I was
always amazed by how much I was learning about Maulana and I
especially observed how the West tends to depict him as separate from
Islam which is really far from the contrary...

However, I still have a question that bothers me and it maybe based on
a huge misunderstanding on my part. There are times when I find the
poems (or rather the translations and versions) speak of Allah's
relationship to creation in traditional Islamic manner and at other
times in the manner of pantheism or monism.

The way I have personally understood a lot of Sufi writings is that
everything is just a temporary reflection or shadow of God that
originates and ends with God and that God is everywhere and also
present in our hearts (as He is closer to us than our jugular veins)
but at the same time Creation is NOT Him and thus God is beyond
everything unlike what pantheism advocates (pantheism claims that
everything is God; I personally find such a doctrine quite spiritually
destructive as I find that it can justify attachments and submission
to things rather than grounding our attachments and submission only to
God who is far greater than what we can truly think of).

I would highly appreciate any clarification regarding this issue, wa
jazakum Allah alf khair,
Reema

[Ibrahim]

Dear Reema,
Wa `alaykuma 's-salâm,

Can't give a complete reply unless you share the translations or
versions that you are questioning (book titles and page numbers, and
source references please, if possible--to make it easier to find the
original Persian verses). Otherwise, all that can be offered is my
assurances that there is no pantheistic monism in Mawlana Rumi's
works, and that his mystical theology is firmly based on traditional
Islamic principles. The issue of pantheism in sufi poetry is really
an
outdated view of Orientalist scholars between the 18th century and
the
mid-20th century. These Orientalists viewed Islam as incapable of
developing it's own mystical dimension, so they concluded that
Islamic
cultures imported what they viewed as pantheistic doctrines from
Hinduism, Neoplatonism, etc. Modern authorities on Rumi such as
Schimmel, Chittick, and Lewis don't even mention pantheism. It is
possible that some recent popularizing Rumi translators or versioners
were influenced by older Orientalist books on sufism (which includes
the works of Nicholson), so that they also projected pantheism into
their renderings.

Ibrahim
-----------

[Reema B.]

Salam alaikum,

Thank you for your response.

The verses I'll be quoting now come from The Rumi Collection edited by
Kabir Helminski and it contains random selections of Rumi's poetry and
prose translated by diverse authors, him being one of them. I am
overall very satisfied with this book. There's a particular chapter in
this book titled "The Only One" and the essay contained in that
chapter seems to contain traditional Islamic definitions of God's
relationship to His creation. However, some of the poetry attributed
to Rumi after this essay in this chapter seem to give me the
impression that they speak of pantheism or monism, probably due to the
reasons you just stated or maybe due to a misunderstanding on my
part.

Here are two selections of verses from Mathnawi I, 1126-1127, the
first is translated by Nevit Ergin & Camille Helminski:

"Do you know who stitches that cloak of joy,
that cloak of grief?
Why does this cloak
think himself different than the one who sews?"

My thoughts: however, from the way the previous verses (which aren't
quoted here) are translated in this poem, I think this seems to be
kinda out of context.

Here's part of a poem from the same source:

"This universe is a banner
that keeps fluttering.
Your heart sees the banner;
your soul thinks it's the air that makes it move.
But the one who knows
how helpless air is
recognizes that everything
is nothing but God."

Here's a poem from the same source again translated by Kabir
Helminski:

"A breakfast tea a beloved asked her lover,
'Who do you love more, yourself or me?'

'From my head to my foot I have become you.
Nothing remains of me but my name.
You have your wish. Only you exist.
I've disappeared like a drop of vinegar
in an ocean of honey.'

A stone which has become a ruby
is filled with the qualities of the sun.
No stoniness remains in it.
If it loves itself, it is loving the sun.
And if it loves the sun, it is loving itself.
There is no difference between these two loves.

Before the stone becomes the ruby, it is its own enemy.
Not one but two exist.
The stone is dark and blind to daylight.
If it loves itself, it is unfaithful: it intensely
resists the sun.
If it says: 'I', it is all darkness.
A pharaoh claims divinity and is brought down.
Hallaj says the same and is saved.
One I is cursed, another I is blessed.
One I is a stone, another a crystal.
One an enemy of light, the other a reflector
of it.
In its inmost consciousness, not through any doctrine,
it is one with the light.

Work on your stony qualities
and become resplendent like the ruby.
Practice self-denial and accept difficulty.
Always see infinite life in letting the self die.
Your stoniness will decrease; your ruby nature
will grow.
The signs of self-existence will leave your body,
and ecstacy will take you over.
Become all-hearing like an ear and gain a ruby
earring.
Dig a well in the earth of this body,
or even before the well is dug,
let God draw the water up."

Here's one last one which is from Furuzanfar #511 translated by Andrew
Harvey:

"The lamps are different,
But the Light is the same.
So many garish lamps in the dying brain's
lamp shop,
Forget about them.
Concentrate on essence, concentrate on Light.
In lucid bliss, calmly smoking off its own holy
fire,
The Light streams toward you from all things,
All people, all possible permutations of good,
evil, thought, passion.
The lamps are different,
But the Light is the same.
One matter, one energy, one Light, on
Light-mind
Endlessly emanating all things.
One turning and burning diamond,
One, one, one.
Ground yourself, strip yourself down,
To blind loving silence.
Stay there, until you see
You are gazing at the Light
With its own ageless eyes."

However, I do find it very interesting how there are some selections
of poetry in that same chapter, and even that essay I just told you
about in the chapter's opening that really make me wonder whether any
of these verses I just quoted for you were either blown out of context
or not translated right.

I would highly appreciate your reply and I thank you in advance,
Reema

[Ibrahim]

Dear Reema,
Wa `alaykuma 's-salâm,

Thank you for quoting the verses that you questioned, which contain
good examples of the consequences of sloppy versions of Rumi; how, by
being made "more radically mystical" they can be attractive to
Westerners--yet such versions can cause Muslim readers to have a bad
impression of Rumi's poetry. The book you have quoted from is a
collection of popularized versions of Rumi claimed to be "An Anthology
of Translations." However, none of the authors you quoted can read
Persian or have translated from Persian texts; rather their renderings
are re-Englishings based on the real translations from Persian by
scholars (none of whom are credited--such as Nicholson and Arberry);
rather, the version-makers take credit as the "Rumi translators." And
their distortions can be very offensive to Muslim readers (for
examples, see: http://dar-al-masnavi.org/corrections_popular.html).

1) You quoted from p. 103, which is not from the Mathnawi, but was re-
Englished from an unreferenced translation from Turkish by Ergin of a
ghazal poem:

This universe, which resembles a flag,
Moves all the time.
Your heart sees only the flag,
Your soul thinks air is moving it.

But the one who knows

How air is a helpless creature,
Accepts that everything is nothing but God.
--translated (from Turkish) by Nevit Ergin, “Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi:
Divan-i Kebir Meter 3,“ 1995, pp. 114-115

shuqqa-ye `alam `âlam har chand ke mê-raqS-ad
chashm-e tô `alam bîn-ad, jân-e tô hawâ dân-ad

w-ân kas ke hawâ-râ ham dân-ad ke che bê-châra-st
joz HaZrat-e illâ ‘llâh, bâqî hama lâ dân-ad

شُقَّهٔ علم عالم هر چند که می رقصد
چشمِ تو علم بیند جانِ تو هوا داند

وانکس که هوا را هم داند که چه بیچاره ست
جز حضرتِ إِلَّا لله باقی همه لا داند

Although the world is dancing (like) the rag of a flag, your eyes see
(only) the flag (but) your soul knows the wind (is moving it).

And the person who also knows the wind, how helpless it is, knows that
all (is) not permanent except the majestic presence of “except God”.*
--Mawlana Rumi’s ghazal no. 616
*A reference to “(There is) no divinity except God” (Qur’ân 47:19)
[lâ ‘ilâha ’illâ ‘llâh]. Also a reference to “All that is upon (the
earth) will pass away, but the Face of your Lord will abide, full of
Majesty and Glory” (Qur’ân 55:26-27). Equivalent to "(There is) no
permanence except God" [lâ bâqî 'illâ 'llâh].

COMMENTS:
What the translator from Persian to Turkish (Golpinarli) wrote is not
known to me, but clearly someone changed "all (is) not permanent
except God" to "everything is nothing but God." But "laa baaqii" means
"not enduring, lasting, remaining." Here is "sufi pantheism"--injected
into the poem by the versioner.

2) You quoted from pages 104-5 (correct citation missing--Mathnawi V:
2020-49, I: 1126-27):

"In its inmost consciousness, not through any doctrine, it is one with

the light." (Math. V: 2038)

Here is an accurate translation by Nicholson: This "I," O presumptuous
meddler, was "He" (God) in the inmost consciousness, through oneness
with the Light, not through (belief in) the doctrine of
incarnation." [în anâ hû bow-ad dar sirr, ay fuZûl/ z-ittihâd-e nûr,
na az râ'y-e Hulûl]
ین اَناَ هو بُوَد در سرّ، ای فُضول
زِاتّحادِ نور، نه از رایِ حُلول

COMMENT:
Here you can see that the version, by omitting the word "incarnation",
dilutes Rumi's meaning. Here, Mawlana Rumi is careful about his
justification of the ecstatic utterance attributed to the sufi master
Mansur Hallaj: "I am God" [anâ 'l-Haqq--"Haqq" was used to mean "God,"
especially in Persian sufism]. Mawlana denies the heretical doctrine
of incarnation of God into human form [Hulûl], but says it was God's
"I" speaking from the deepest level of consciousness. This is not as
radical as it sounds: "for We are nearer to him [man] than (his)
jugular vein" (Qur'ân 50:16) has been interpreted by sufis to mean, by
extension: "for We are closer to him than (his) very self." And the
Hadîth, "And when I [= God] love him [= My (saintly) servant], I am
his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his
hand with which he sees, and his foot with which he walks"--has been
interpreted to mean, by extension, "and his speech by which he
speaks." Although Mawlana may appear to be saying that a created form
of light can be one with Divine Light, he is speaking through poetic
metaphors that should not be interpreted too literally as indicating
"pantheism".

3) You quoted a poem of 21 lines from page 110, a version by Harvey
that appears to be an amplification of three verses from Mathnawi I:
678-79, 681: "If ten lamps are present in (one) place, each differs in
form from another. To distinguish without any doubt, the light of
each, when you turn your face towards their light is impossible.... In
things spiritual there is no division and no numbers; in things
spiritual there is no partition and no numbers." (trans. by Nicholson)

COMMENT:
Almost all of the words in this "translation" are by Harvey, an
example of what he has called (more honestly than most version-makers)
"re-creations of Rumi". Mawlana does not teach here that physical
light equals Divine Light, but that there is unity in the spiritual
world that differs from what we experience in the physical world of
multiplicity.

Ibrahim

--------------------------