Why is it that any talk of the tradition of spirituality is littered with the “Cult” word?
Why are Tariqats cults, ‘cult-like’, ‘cultish’ but the Prophet (Sallalahualaihewassalam) and Sahabi (R) are not? The focus on the manners, teachings and protocols of the Sheykh is exactly how the Sahabi (R) learned from the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihiwassalam).
Yet for those connected inheritors of the Prophet (Sallalahualaihiwassalam), learning from their teachers who learned from their teachers each in this way, we believe this practice is determinental, unhealthy, and negative?
Are books the only avenue towards learning left for Muslims, the nation of an unlettered Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam)?
What remains of Islamic Spirituality (the basis of which is learning, knowing, and fighting your ego) when you begin to start picking and choosing whatever ‘spirituality’ is palatable to your ego in the first place?
In that vein I will share this excerpt which will benefit myself and others inshaAllah:
=====
The relationship between the shaykh or spiritual guide and his disciple is one of the more complex issues in the practical dimension of Sufism and can only be touched upon in the present context. All Sufis agree that entering the path without a shaykh is impossible. If someone thinks he has done so, in fact he has gone astray. The basic reason for the absolute necessity of the spiritual master is that the path is unknown before it is traversed, and a person cannot possibly prepare himself for the dangers and pitfalls that lurk on the way. The unknowability of the path goes back to the unknowability of God. That which can be known is that which He has taught us through revelation. Traveling the path is only possible through His guidance. Though the wide and easy path of the Shari’a is incumbant upon all, the narrow and steep path of the Tariqa requires special qualifications on the part of the seeker and the person who shows the way. A second important reason for the necessity of the master is the principle set down in the Koranic verse, “Enter houses by their doors” (2:189). The door to knowledge of unseen things has been set up by God and His Prophet, and only the inheritors of the Prophet, designated by the silsilas or “chains of transmission” of the Sufi orders, are qualified to open those doors for others. Any attempt to enter this house by other than its door represents the utmost discourtesy toward God and His Prophet.
Even in Ibn al-Arabi’s time there were people who claimed to be Sufi masters without possessing the proper qualifications. Often these were seekers who began with good intentions, but were then “led on step by step” through the divine deception. In other words, God continued to show them favors while they did not fulfill their part of the covenant. Instead of acting in accordance with the rules of courtesy in every situation and observing all the intricacies of the Law, they gradually were emboldened to the point of considering themselves beyond these affairs, which they saw as fit only for the common people. Thus they forgot that the Prophet and all his Companions, not to mention every friend of God, followed the Scale of the Law in all affairs…
The term “companionship” (suhba) is a general designation for the disciple’s relationship to the shaykh. There is companionship in the specific sense of undergoing training at the hands of a master, and in the more general sense of visiting the master and acquiring his blessing.
To revere the shaykh is to show reverence for none but God, so revere him out of courtesy toward God in God.
The shaykhs are the courteous, and proximity aids them in guiding and strengthening in God
They are the inheritors of all the messengers, so their words come only from God.
You see them like the prophets among their enemies, never asking from God anything but God.
But if a state should appear in them which distracts them from the Shari’a, leave them with God-
Follow not after them and walk not in their tracks, for they are God’s freedmen in God.
Be not guided by him from whom the Shari’a has gone, even if he brings news from God!
When we saw that nowadays the disciples are ignorant of the levels of their shaykhs, we said concerning that:
Ignored are the measures of the shaykhs, the people of witnessings and firm rooting!
People consider their words low out of ignorance, though they stand in a lofty degree!
The shaykhs are deputies of the Real in the cosmos, like the messengers in their time. Rather, the shaykhs are the inheritors, those who have inherited the knowledge of the revealed Laws from the prophets, though the shaykhs do not set down the Law. It belongs to them to preserve the Shari’a for everyone; it is not theirs to make the Law. It belongs to them to help the elect preserve their hearts and observe the rules of courtesy.
[The Sufi Path of Knowledge - William C. Chittick]
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
For our ulema to spend so much time focusing on us, trying to educate us etc., so that we can better our own lives, takes complete devotion to Him, Ta’ala. We owe them more than we can imagine.
Asalaamu alaikum.
Yeah, even when the actual word cult is not mentioned, it is the underlying attitude. I think this is cultural conditioning; to alot of Americans, Islam in general is a “cult”. I have heard/read it referred that way many times. Of course these people also consider “deviant” forms of Christianity (Mormonism, Rastafarian, etc.) cults. And yet no one sees the real cult of personality that is present in how Catholics view the Pope and how Protestants practically worship the words of Paul (who was not a prophet) as akin to the words of God Himself. So, to some with a Western upbringing, steeped in a belief that Christianity is the only way and only begrudgingly “accepting” Jews, pretty much anything else is considered cultish. Then, when they finally get past that to accept Islam, their limited knowledge and understanding of this deen and its depth leads them to continue the same thought patterns. Perhaps for those raised “in Islam” that see tasawuff that way it is a different reason; difficulty separating their culture practices from Islam and genuinely wanting to be able to do so (throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak), still being unknowlegeable, and sometimes being ashamed of these traditions continuing to exist in the “modern” world where they feel pressured to propagate a “rational” belief system.
Ultimately, it all comes down to a simple case of self-centered belief that “I know what is right” and not being willing to admit to still being a student and needing a teacher. Modern life is so much about independence, free will, personal validation etc. Tasawuff recognizes inter-dependence, submission to Allah, and the breaking down of selfishness and self-centered desires. So to those who view their own desires as the most important, they will not be able to understand why others would choose self-denial and admission of our limitations. They are not able to understand needing a teacher because they think there is nothing they need to be taught. In this way, to them, “following” someone else is a huge taboo. But as Umm Layth says, for those of us who recognize the work of scholars and teachers on the path, we owe them much for their work and ability to impart some of their knowledge to us so that inshaAllah we can also draw closer to Allah.
spirituality has nothing to do with cults , but it is common for the leaders to abuse their power in being spiritual sheikhs , you may get offended by this but is very common , speaking from experience here .
While I generally agree with what you are saying here, I had a tangential question about William Chittick and perennialism. He is talking about the Scale of Law – but perennialism talks about scale of law as encompassing all mystical paths (christian/judaic mysticism, hindu mysticism, etc) towards God, so what Scale of law is he referring to here. Is this Sharia? Or is this any of God’s law? I am also curious as to know whether this writing was before or after his advancement of perennialism as an acceptable philosophy.
Salamu’alaikum,
I am uncertain as to his specific position at the time or even now, but its very clear that at least in this text, he is speaking very clearly to Sharia, mentioning it personally twice and in quotation twice.
-Yursil
He is a well known perennialist – that is why I was asking because I have read other writings of his in which he is very explicit about following classical Islam and its shariah. I missed the last paragraph where he mentions Sharia explicitly, sorry about that.
I’m actually taking Islam with Prof. Chittick at my school. He’s very smart. Laymen Muslims can’t mess with him.
I’m sorry but that whole quote about the shaykhs seems really exaggerated and suspect, where in the Qur’aan and Sunnah is this exactly?
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
36:21
Follow those who ask of you no fee.