Matn/Pizhūhī-i Adabī (Sep 2023)
The Inebriated Myth Tellers or the Sober Observers? Molavi and Shams' Different Views on Shath or Ecstatic Utterance
Abstract
Although it is mentioned that Rumi and Shams agree on all mystical issues, reflecting on their views shows that they have differences of opinion on some minor issues. One such example of disagreement is their view on shath, or the ecstatic utterance. Rumi takes after Bayazid. Therefore, the ecstasy of mystics in inebriation is a symbol of being faithful to God and looking for unity. However, Shams takes after Junaid's mystical pattern and believes that shath does not have any meaning but metempsychosis, arrogance, disability, and inconsistency, and therefore, acquiring knowledge about God and the truth of religion is based on a level of consciousness beyond inebriation. Also, one of the findings of this research is the quality of the connection between determinism and free will. In Rumi’s view, those who resort to shath are tyrants who have voluntarily asked God to make them powerless and mortal. As a result, they have not attributed any promise or action to themselves, and they consider God to be the true doer of all actions. But for Shams, mystics are inebriated, and they are manifestations of God's grace; therefore, they have not benefited from the control over the situation, the stability and discretion of the wise, and they have instead resorted to determinism.Keywords: Shath or Ecstatic Utterance, Mystical Inebriation and Observation, Mystical Pattern, Rumi, Shams-e Tabrizi.IntroductionShath is a traditional way of expressing mystical concepts and findings, which have long been the subject of debate and controversy among mystics, and they disagreed with each other in confirming or denying it; therefore, with each mystic, according to their mystical tradition and disposition, they may achieve value and credibility or may be discredited. Rumi’s mystical disposition is connected with the first mystical tradition in the mystical principles and dealings, and in its branches, it is related to the mystical teachings of Bayazid Bastami, which today is better known as the mystical disposition or the school of Khorasan. The indicators and criteria that were prevalent in Bayezid's teachings since the third century and distinguished his method from other mystical methods were reflected in the evolved form in Rumi’s opinions. Shams’ mystical disposition also agrees with the mystics of the first tradition in explaining the principles of mysticism and branches, in some positions, including Shath, agrees with the views of Junaid Baghdadi. As a result, mystics such as Shams and Rumi, although they agree on the principles within the framework of a mystical tradition, differ from each other in the details of the epistemological method and the achievement of monotheism, concerning their mystical source. The topic of Shath, as it was said, is the way of expressing mystical topics, concepts, and findings, which is considered one of the main points of difference between the two mystics. This research aims to explain and analyze this matter separately in different sections.Literature ReviewIn the domain of Shath, there are many sources of the opinions of Shath mystics, which have been quoted in various Sufi books, such as Manteq al-Asrar, Bebayan al-Anwar, and Rouzbahan Baghli’s Sharh-e- Shathiyat, as well as the prefaces and appendices of the great literary figures on their works, such as Dafter-e Roshanei and Mantiq al-Tair by Shafiei Kadkani and Henry Carbone's introduction to the Sharh-e- Shathiyat, with two translations that are available to researchers. Articles about this have also been published. In the article "Shath: the Overflow of the Soul on the Tongue" (Mohammad Taghavi, 2015), the author has tried to explain issues such as the ambiguity and contradictions of Shath, the relationship between Shath and the truth, and the possibility and impossibility of explaining Shath. In the article "Critical Analysis of Shath Definitions" (Samaneh Jafari and Seyed Ali Asghar Mirbagherifard, 2015), the authors examined the definitions of Shath, the frequency of the mentioned components, and the importance of each of them, and while criticizing the traditional definitions, they reached new approaches in defining Shath. In the article "Analyzing Paradox [Shath] Based on Dissociation between Ontology and Epistemology" (Seyed Ali Asghar Mirbaghrifard and Masoud Algoone, 1389), the indicators of ontological and epistemological dissociation and its importance in the discovery and interpretation of Shath have also been examined. Also, in the article "The Opposition of Shams and Rumi’s Views about Hallaj" (Fateme Mohammadi Asgarabadi and Mehdi Malekthabet, 2013), the authors have compared the views of Shams and Rumi about Hallaj, his personality, and his status; but so far, no comprehensive and independent research has been done on "examination and analysis of Rumi and Shams's view on Shath".MethodologyThe research method in this article is descriptive-analytical, which refers to the original and important works of the first mystical tradition, especially Masnavi and Shams's articles.In this research, separately, according to Shams and Rumi's mystics, their opinions about the various aspects of Shath: 1. meaning and concept; 2. Bayazid and Hallaj's explanation of Shath; 3. Shariat-oriented level of Shath speakers; and 4. The quality of the connection between predestination and free will (Inebriated despots and the sober ones with free will) are analyzed in order to find out the reason for this difference of opinions according to the explanation of the mentioned topics, whose results are of special importance in the comparative studies of Rumi and Shams. It should be mentioned that the quality of the connection between the issue of predestination and free will, in the opinion of Rumi and Shams, is one of the new findings that has been discussed for the first time in this research.ResultsShath is the result of the mystical state and a conventional way of expressing mystical teachings, concepts, and topics, which has long been a place of debate and controversy among mystics, and according to tradition and mysticism, each mystic is valued or discredited. Therefore, although Rumi and Shams agree on principles within the framework of a mystical tradition; however, according to their mystical origins, they are different from each other in detailing the method of epistemology and achieving monotheism. The issue of Shath is considered to be one of the fundamental points of difference between the two mystical dispositions, which can be pondered and compared analytically in various aspects, including the meaning and concept, Bayazid and Hallaj's explanation of Shath, the Shariat-oriented level of Shath speakers, and the relationship between predestination and free will with Shath. The reason for this difference of opinion and the answer to it is the contrast between the meaning of mystical inebriation and observation and the preference of each one over the other, according to the mystical disposition of each mystic.According to the main indicator of Bayazid's mystical disposition, which is the preference for inebriation over observation, he believes that Shath speakers such as Bayazid and Hallaj are great mystics who are so devoid of self from the utmost inebriation and humility, and in the rank of religion, destruction, and unity with the truth that they lose the power of alertness, discernment, discrimination, and speech and attribute all their actions to the truth. As a result, instead of expressing religious and Shariah teachings, Shath has appeared in God's place so that truth can use his language to speak. Also, he considers them tyrants who, out of their free will, begged God to have no will and be mortal in performing their actions. But Shams agrees with the supremacy of observation over inebriation, according to Junaid's mystical disposition. Therefore, in the opinion of Shams, Bayezid and Hallaj, in the course of the stages, they stopped at the inebriation of the second stage, the inebriation of the soul, and did not reach the stage of atom and perfection, consciousness. In fact, Rumi's favor with them is because they are also in the same rank as an inebriated. As a result, in the opinion of Shams, on the one hand, Shath is unexplained, naked, and scandalous words that have no meaning other than holul, arrogance, helplessness, and taint, and on the other hand, inebriated and Shath ones, because they are the only expression of kindness and mercy, are synonymous with Jabryan, who remain in the veil and delusion of their words, and they have become pioneers and founders of religion. But the sober observers have free will, and they are Qadariani who, by possessing the qualities of the wrath and grace of God, can attain the knowledge of God, the truth of religion, and the rank of guardianship, a rank that is only worthy of the sober observers.
Keywords
