A few days ago I read an article on the net by a writer who insisted on seeing a mystic performing a miracle so he might believe mystical claims.
I am not trying here to say or even to hint that anyone who demands a proof for mystical claims is right or wrong, that is not my intention or concern. I am also not trying to prove that miracles exist; I am just trying to say that the possibility of what might be considered as miracles, need not be dismissed.
My basic opinion on the subject is that there is no such thing as a miracle if one means by a miracle something unnatural (not in existence). And that is because I do not think the words unnatural or supernatural are meaningful. If something does happen, it is bound to be natural (part of what is possible to happen in existence), but may be it is the viewer who might need to reconsider the perception of Nature he or she has.
So, what's new?
The Quran mentions in the first verses in Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) that those who succeed, believe in the unseen (Gaib). They are certain about God's existence, but they do not wait for miracles or something 'supernatural' to happen in order to believe. Quran(2:3-5):
"Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; and who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter, they are on (true guidance), from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper."
Indeed the Quran mentions several times those who argue similar to the above-mentioned writer: show me a Miracle/Sign to believe. Quran(2:118):
"Say those without knowledge: 'Why speaketh not God unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?' So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts)."
in [Quran 46:26] addressing the people of Quraysh (the Prophet's tribe), regarding ancient populations :
"And We had firmly established them in a (prosperity and) power which We have not given to you (ye Quraysh) And We have endowed them with (faculties of) hearing, seeing, heart and intellect: but of no profit to them were their (faculties of) hearing, sight and heart and intellect, when they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah; and they were (completely) encircled by that which they used to mock at!"
and also [Quran 50:37]:
"Verily in this is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding or who give ear and earnestly witnesses (the truth)"
The Signs are there. It is probably the manner or the way one selects to see things that can prove crucial to 'seeing' it or missing the point.
The Quran says that there are those who are unable to see it no matter what anyone cares to show them, so even if they saw a miracle or a series of miracles right before their eyes they would try their best to explain things away (By the way the Quran lists several arguments, people who do not believe often use). :
"Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's Plan. But most of them ignore (the truth)." [Quran 6:111].
"They said (to Moses): 'Whatever be the Signs thou bringest, to work therewith thy sorcery on us, we shall never believe in thee'". Quran(7:132)
Yusuf Ali's comment on the verse:
"A type of obstinacy and resistance to God's message. As they [ancient egyptians] believed in sorcery and magic, they thought anything unusual was but sorcery and magic, and hardened their hearts against Truth."
Perhaps in a similar manner, some people believe everything has to have a purely material explanation.
Sufi master Abdul-Aziz Al-Dabbagh said once about some religious concepts: "I only believe in what I see, otherwise if I don't see it, I would only be guessing."
Hardly anyone would disagree with this sort of statements. I think everyone would just love to see it to believe it. However, that level of awareness does not appear to be reachable through starting from, assumptions to test, rather through a firm adoption of a set of beliefs to be realized. The difference is an important one. The Quran repeats this point over and over: that one has to start from believing in God. Realizing that God exists is impossible, according to Sufis, through logical means (humanly means that will always have inherent shortcomings and limits), but possible through silence, acceptance of one's limits and opening one's mind and heart to existence as it is without any urge to have any assumptions. It is a pristine instinctive realization based on a clean heart, a clear consciousness, a sincere desire to know, patience, honesty (with oneself and others) high moral values and an active positive role in life. That is why, for instance, to a Sufi, trying to honestly adhere to the highest moral values is not an option or just something commendable, because a much finer role for moral values is that they can act as the key to open the door for something completely unexpected by many people. Sufi master Ibn Ata-Ellah pointed out that Angels are nearer to God (not as in physical distance but in a spiritual sense) than (most) human beings for a good reason: they have angelic qualities and behavior. Trying to be like an angel is something that can lift one's rank spiritually.
It is a Point of View
If we have to talk about miracles, then Existence as it is, is a miracle. On a personal level, one's own existence is probably the greatest of all miracles. According to Sufis, knowing oneself is a very important step in one's life. A mystical saying states: who knew who he is has known who his Lord is.
These days trying to understand human nature, within the popular scientific context, appears to mean trying everything possible to prove the physicality of all human experience.
No one can deny the physical aspect of a human being, but I believe there is more to existence than just the physical aspect. It should not be unexpected for human experience to have a physical aspect, yet that aspect could be tightly interwoven with far more than what appears and is easily measurable.
I guess it is not easy to talk to someone who has determined for himself that nature can only be about the physical aspect one knocks on anytime and in return receives a vibrating response that can be measured. Suggesting that there is more to existence than just the physical layer, could typically be faced with an immediate request for a physical proof. But, since we are talking about the possibility of existence as being more than just physical, then I think it is legitimate to suggest that there might be a need to revise notions of 'testing' and 'evidence' as well as reconsidering 'assumptions' and 'theories', because modern scientific mindset and scientific methods, as they are, may not be suitable for the task.
I felt that the above mentioned article's writer tried to give an impression that his opinion stands on modern science and what it is all about. If so, then I think he is not being fair. Since, there are scientists who believe, and there are people who do not have many clues about science, who are non-believers. So, not to believe is not necessarily about science. It might not be fair to claim that science can only speak for a certain orientation of thought. I think that Science is for anyone who cares to study phenomena in a systematic way and manages to show 'evidence' and able to reproduce results. I think it is possible to extend the current popular view of science to one that satisfies the current way of observation and testing, yet can go beyond and show how every single phenomenon is not just physical.
The problem with some of the current terminology is that a word like natural has become synonymous with purely physical and humanly measurable. I think 'natural' should be about nature as it is, without artificial confinements. There is a view that says nature has various layers of manifestation. According to that view, perceiving the most outward layer, or the physical aspect, is not wrong, but it probably does not give us the whole story about nature. If such layers or aspects exist, and they have effect on phenomena as we perceive them, would a real scientific urge to know, stop at the physical layer?
The instant question of a skeptical scientist then would probably be: where did you get the idea that there are more layers or aspects to nature than just the physical one?
To say that such aspects can be sensed by some people (with finer perceptive ability?) just as the physical aspect is sensible to just about anyone, would probably sound arrogant to some people. So, would stating it as an assumption put forward for observation and testing be more acceptable? I guess not many would object, but I hope that (given that the above notes on the need for modified scientific methods are acceptable) the whole burden of observation and testing would not fall on the shoulders of people who dared to assume that much.
Coming back to miracles, I guess one can define a Miracle as an unusual phenomenon, something that defies the laws of nature "as one knows it". In that sense, scientists have managed to surprise many unprepared people with "miracles" of science. It is somewhat of a wonder then, why can some people of science imagine themselves surprising an unsuspecting villager with something "scientifically explainable", yet they discard any possibility for themselves being surprised with something beyond anything they had imagined possible. I don't think it is fair to insist that the way one is accustomed to see things is the only possible way to see them.
Miracles and Sufis
As far as Sufi writings are concerned, acts attributed to Sufis that are seen as miraculous or defying natural laws are: 1) very natural, 2) do not deserve attention, 3) do not happen unless there is a clear permission for a clear purpose. Being busy with so called miracles and paying attention to them is being veiled from what is more important, which is to transcend all attention-grabbing aspects of creation, miraculous or not. To Sufis, miraculous deeds can hamper progress on the path. They are part of the 'tests' a Sufi has to go through unaffected.
Anyway, from a reader's seat, when Sufis wrote about so called miracles, I did not get the feeling they were talking about anything extraordinary. Everything is natural, but we might be able to explain certain things, while other things defy our knowledge and ability to explain them, at a certain level of awareness. If Mystics say that there is a deeper understanding of existence, then it is probably only consistent to expect them to talk about a better perception of the nature of Nature.
Now, how is it that what might be perceived as miracles appear at the hands of mystics? As I understand, it is not something mystics do, they simply pray, and what happens is an answer to a prayer.
The power of a sincere prayer directed to none other than God Almighty cannot be compared to something achieved with anything else. It is the tradition of Prophets and those who follow their footsteps to seek God's help and guidance at every point. It is God's creation after all, and who else knows it better? It is just consistent then for Prophets and their followers to rely on the Creator of all things.
If I understand correctly, the differences in answers to prayers (or lack of answers) lie in the strength of belief in God, the purity of one's heart, the degree of abidance by religious guidelines, and the amount of good deeds. Such matters represent one's personal assets. And the more of them, the higher one's rank in a spiritual sense, and possibly the more clear the answer. At the level of Prophets and advanced mystics, it is not uncommon for an answer to a prayer to be prompt and comprehensive.
Sufis, however do not have much concern about worldly matters and events, so they don't pray much for that. It might surprise some people how some Sufis describe living on earth. A Sufi once described life on earth as living in an area full of dump, it is stinky and many of its inhabitants are excited over trash. I should point out that a description like that about earthly life need not be understood as coming from someone who does not like or is not satisfied with earthly life, rather from someone who has known about a vastly better place, and he is merely trying to call attention of people who have little or no clues, to such a place or such experiences. Another saying towards the same goal but with a different tone is what the Prophet said once: a place for a bow in heaven is better than earthly life and all that is in it.
It is realization or at least unwavering faith that is perhaps behind that peaceful attitude about life and beyond. A Sufi is comfortable living life regardless of how good or poor living conditions are. And when the time comes to leave this world, there are no qualms or regrets. It is living life for the purpose that one has been created for: Knowing God, that is a fixed goal, once realized, inner tranquility reigns regardless of the surrounding environment. Sufis are simply at peace with concepts of existence as they are, and phases of one's personal existence. Probably, the reason for what seems to be an indifference or an unexcited attitude about worldly matters can be clear once Sufis are understood.
A side note. Any chance for normal people to get a glimpse of what a mystical experience is like? I do not know. However, some normal people report having actually seen glimpses of a much better world. To some of them it felt like a deeply religious experience and it is not a matter of mere believing in something that might be there anymore. Those reports are typically from people who have been through the experiences accidentally and mostly it is just a once in a lifetime experience. Some scientists, interested in these cases, try to explain this kind of experiences exclusively in terms of the physical phenomenon that was associated with it, and most of them would describe those experiences as just imaginations. I am not sure how those experiences relate to mystical experiences, since there seem to be some differences. There are mystical experiences that gave insight about physical phenomena and solutions about physical problems, so I would think such experiences were something other than imagination. Ancient knowledge about medicine and how to cure and protect human body from illnesses is probably a good example. (These days there is a growing interest in ancient medicine, but I am not aware of any studies about the roots and the philosophical grounds of that type of medicine. I think that would be interesting to see.) Another point, Mystics talk about consistent experiences. They are used to reach mystical states of experience, and it is not a rare incident for them. Mystical experiences can be of lengthened periods or even permanent for some advanced Sufis. I have read stories about Sufis who have been through mystical experiences while they were fully awake and people around them did not notice anything unusual about them other than a certain calmness and few movements and words. It appears that, once that world is seen and experienced, no earthly gain is that big a deal, no matter what is that gain to most people.
The point I'm driving at is that while Sufis can pray for worldly gains, they won't usually do that. It does not seem to be the better decision to waste valuable prayers on 'perishables' and 'short-lived experiences', when the same prayers can be directed towards advancement in a far better realm.
Even when a situation, from a purely physical perspective, looks like it urgently needs a prayer, they would be reluctant to pray. Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) was about to be thrown into fire when archangel Gabriel (PBUH) asked him if he had any request. If it seems strange that the question sounds like coming from someone totally unworried about Ibrahim, the answer is even stranger. Ibrahim said "From you, nothing. As for God, He knows what situation I am in." And sure enough, without prayers or seeking help from angels, the fire became cool and safe for Ibrahim.
In stories about Sufis it is common to hear what might be described as carefree conversations, regardless of what the situation is. They might look like men with nerves of steel, and it is purely natural to some mystics, but it is not exactly in the way most people think about it.
Why don't Mystics show us something?
Avoiding teaching or accepting very few people to teach is common about Sufi masters. If someone avoids people as much as he can and is so reluctant to teach even the basics, then I doubt he would be the type of person who would show off. If I understand Sufis, I would guess that, typically, it is the farthest thing on a mystic's mind to call attention to himself let alone to satisfy anyone's curiosity or to try to prove anything to anyone. Their priorities seem to be too different from priorities of most people.
Personally, I doubt that a Sufi master would normally accept a challenge like the writer of the aforementioned article proposes. I noticed that Sufis might try to explain their point of view but they don't try to force it on anyone. It is my feeling that there is a certain meekness about them. Whenever a discussion gets tense, Sufis typically tend to stop arguing and remain silent, which seems to have been interpreted as an acceptance of accusations against them or that they do not have an appropriate answer. The latter is most likely the case, since an answer that suits most people's way of looking at things might not always be easy for some Sufis to provide.
Final note
I tried to cover two points with regards to calls, scientific or otherwise, from people to see miracles to believe: a) It seems to me that there is a certain gap between what some scientifically oriented persons seem to be interested in and focused on, and what I think Mysticism is about. b) The perception that Mysticism has nothing to do with science, probably deserves to be reconsidered.
