when secularists and fundamentalists agree -- postscript

Ahmet Yasevi was a twelfth century Turkic poet and Sufi mystic. He founded the first Turkic Sufi order and exerted considerable influence on the development of mystical orders throughout the Turkic-speaking world. His school continued to be influential for several centuries after his death. Tamerlane built an impressive mausoleum at Yasevi’s burial site some one hundred years after his death that is still a tourist destination. And, by the way, his influence can still be seen today by the fact that in 1993, the joint Kazakh-Turkish state university was named after him. So, Yasevi is not some obscure, quaint intellectual in the Muslim world.

Here is one of his discourses: “On Your Religion”:

Throughout the dervish [sufi] literature you will find us saying repeatedly that we are not concerned with your religion or even the lack of it. How can this be reconciled with the fact that believers consider themselves the elect?

Man’s refinement is the goal, and the inner teaching of all the faiths aim at this. In order to accomplish it there are always a tradition handed down by a living chain of adepts, who select candidates to whom to impart this knowledge.

Among men of all kinds this teaching has been handed down. Because of our dedication to the essence, we have, in the Dervish Path, collected those people who are less concerned about externals. … In the dogmatic religions of the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus and literalist Islam this precious thing has been lost.

We return to this vital principle to all these religions and this is why you will see so many Jews, Christians and others among my followers. The Jew says that we are the real Jews, the Christians, Christians.

It is only when you know the Higher Factor that you will know the true situation of the present religions and of unbelief itself. And unbelief is a religion with its own form of belief.

Whatever you might think about this passage, it certainly is not a rejection of intellectual honesty, or genuine pluralism (admittedly it doesn’t say much about “gender equality” or “secular politics.”) It also does not reflect a “thoroughgoing cult of death.” And, at least for me, to place this passage in the same category as alchemy or astrology is not thinking clearly.

Interestingly enough, it is extremist in the sense that it totally rejects dogmatism or literalism and opts, instead, for the idea of human refinement. I seriously doubt that Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins has ever read anything by Yasevi, or even knows he existed. And yet, he's an important Islamic writer and religious leader.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor for The Atlantic, in discussing the whole issue of Islam bashing, makes this point about prejudice: “prejudice, by its very nature, makes broad leaps in logic. Prejudice is not wrong because it is uncivil, impolite or unsympathetic. It is wrong because it is weak thinking.” Mostly, I’m against weak thinking.