BARAKA BASHMENT

SHARI’A: Commonly translated as “law,” however, here experienced as SUCHNESS since we recognize law to be man-made. Shari’a is therefor the suchness of existence preceeding, following, and enveloping human involvement. There is no law other than being and occurrence. Things are and be. “Man”-made law is a simulation of suchness. It is corruption and the ultimate expression of a failed society.


TARIQA: Commonly translated as “path,” but here understood to be LIFE as every microcosmic expression of the life-living-dying etc is part and parcel of the path itself. The fulfillment of tariqa occurs both self-aware and ignorant since all beings “go” willingly or unwillingly.


HAQIQA: Usually translated as “Truth,” however here translated as THE MERGING OF DIRECT AND PRE-SOCIALIZED EXPERIENCE WITH “IT” IN A SIMULTANEOUS IMPLODING OF BOTH SHARI’A AND TARIQA WITH OR WITHOUT HUMAN PARTICIPATION. It is Chogyam Trungpa’s “blue pancake” and the clap of the zen wood block. It simply is and your Kali-severed head.

Being naked or next to, often reminds me of the Qalandar. For those who don’t know, the Qalandar is the card a person pulls when Islam gets dogmatic and “literal.” Back in the day, people used to pull the Sufi Card. It was a zinger! It was clean, crisp, dutiful, and loving. When legalism revealed itself for what it was…legalism, out came the Sufi Card. It was radical in its niceness. A friendly card. A card with “adab.” Sufism was the decadent antidote to the atrophied heart of everyday boredom. Sufism was the idea that Islam was not a burden. Just maybe “Islamic Sufism” had relevance for people NOT interested in Religion ™.

Then the “white guys in shorts” showed up. (I owe this term to a professor of mine referring to a well-known experimental poet who he referred to as “still just another white guy in shorts with a palm pilot”). They were tame. They were safe. They preached to a well rehearsed choir. They LOVED the idea of the wine of the beloved’s wine-bearer’s wine and imitated the cadence and verse of “Sufi Poetry” with a taxodermists flare! Loved it! Their “love” of Rumi had a tinge of racism to it as he was pedestaled above “Muslims.” “Sufism is beyond religion,” they would say. And there’s some truth to that. But religion is beyond Religion ™ too! However, by the time the white guys in shorts had completely excavated Rumi and “Sufism” from this totalitarian “Muslim religion,” what remained was a lifeless caricature whirling in the safety of a secular society where people are encouraged to “do” as long as nothing gets “done.” (But I’ll take that anyday over the “Other Option”). The revolution of Rumi was no more. The brilliance of white guys in shorts being their ability to simply lift their “interests” out from a most cumbersome obstacle, “culture, ” and to vacate it of all it’s nuance. The edges are smoothed over to resemble a most Condo-esque furniture.

I had to realize early on that no wonder I was always put off by “Suf-ism.” It was just another -ism maintaining the status quo. A Turkish representative at “Culture Day.” It was the aspect of Islam everybody liked. They liked it so much they continually try to rip it from the dark and scary clenches of Islamic fingers. Sometimes Islam is happy to give it up. Other times, “it’s ours and you can’t have it!” Ahh… what can we expect from the Age of Misappropriation in all its understandable paranoia, though paranoia nonetheless.

So who was it that I was thinking of early on in my testing of Middle Eastern mystic pools? Certainly there was a group that NO ONE wanted to call their own. Certainly there were people who disturbed the white guys in shorts and were deemed heretics by the Islamic ulema. Certainly there was a group that I could find some semblance of authenticity in.

Introducing: The Qalandars. Those unruly, hairless, bangle wearing, patched-frock toting, acetic wanderers. We love them and thank goodness for their existence every time the rules and duties get a wee bit absurd. Use your pinky and pointer to clean out your nose. That’s SUNNAH!!!

Now I’ve been around the block enough times to know that it doesn’t matter how “radical” or how “transgressive” a person or group is. The identity of which will eventually be enveloped by the Spectacular Packaging Machine (i.e. society predicated on objectification), whose incomprehensible vastness subsists on fields of happily-chaotic-and-open-ended-possibility-infused approaches to life and runs them through the SPM and shoots them out onto shopping mall shelves in cellophane wrapping for $29.99. Export necessitates marketablility. So I’m aware that The Great Closing-In has begun in regards to Qalandars. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that my even being able to reference this non-group as a group is evidence of the impending doom. Such is life I suppose. Keeps us on our toes and reinforces the good lesson of nonattachment.

But fear not! To my chagrin, spirit remains. That thing I so want to see removed from all discourse! Nevertheless, something resembling it’s nature remains constant. Just as we take cues from Muhammad’s (s) example rather than mimic his actions (i.e. people were pretty quick to use toilet paper instead of the prescribed “three clean stones.” See. Even the fascists know when to be selective on what is to be parroted. Next time you meet a fascist about to do the deed, be sure to bring him a few clean stones to wipe himself with. We’ll see who’s so Sunni! Innovation I tell you!) No. It is the “why” of an action that gives hope and gives breathing room. The “what” is an idol. The “why” is the hammer!

As such, it is the “why” of the various antinomians the scholars so willing lump into the Qalandariyya wandering the earth that intrigue me so. And for good reason. I live in New York City in the year 2006 CE. Shaving my beard, and wearing a bunch of bracelets, and patches isn’t going to position my ego in direct opposition to materialist society. What it’s probably going to do is get me thrown into some basement filled with sweaty boys preaching to yet another well rehearsed choir to the rhythm of some sub-denomination of punk/hardcore. And goodness, we can’t have that again. As the old joke goes: How many… (insert ANY movement here. I always heard riot grrls, but I’ll stick with the theme.) How many hardcore kids does it take to change a lightbulb? None. Hardcore kids can’t change anything. Of course you could easily put me in place of hardcore kids and get the same answer. Because ANY movement whose foundation is its own reduction will merely reinforce that which it intends to change. The individual anarchisms within the movements themselves get the work done.

And so the story goes. It is the quiet end of day in a lamp lit museum basement. The intern finds a brass bangle lieing on the floor. She picks it up and turns it around in her hand. She lifts it and recognizes the scent of rose. She closes her eyes and for a moment feels the cool shade of a forest in summer. She then turns and makes her way down the deep alphabetical aisle lined with drawers stacked ten feet high. L… M… N… O… P… Q… She pauses. Reaches for the correct drawer. Pauses again and slips the bangle in her pocket.

It is the individual anarchisms that get the work done.

1.
For every anarchist there is a definition of anarchism so nuanced and well articulated that when the hour is up you forget what it was you were originally discussing. It’s a blessing and a curse. The definition for me that seems most basic and realistic comes from the website THE EMMA GOLDMAN PAPERS.

Anarchism: Anarchism is the political philosophy of those who believe that a society based on shared ownership and voluntary agreements among individuals and groups is possible and that without each person’s consent and involvement in the social order all established forms of government essentially rest upon the threat of force.

I really like this definition. Sharing, ownership, voluntary agreements, individuals, possibility, groups, consent, and involvement. For me, throw a Bismillahi ir-Rahman ir-Rahim in the front of it, and you’ve got some real Islam. And yet, rather than take the age-old route of anarchism is without rules or laws, this definition alludes to the practice of challenging human law as inherent and eternal, rather than just saying: NO LAW. Cause let’s face it, there really is no group, anarchist or not, that does not abide by some laws, whether they be not to harm one another or “if it’s yellow let it mellow, if it’s brown flush it down” as the anarchist info shop in Philadelphia I once volunteered at used to have posted in the bathroom. It’s not lawlessness we’re after per se, but involvement and possibility. Lawlessness is merely a possible biproduct of a truly inclusive society. (more…)