From the beginning of Orientalist studies of the Muslim
world, it was axiomatic to define certain religious
phenomena in terms of their origins. Because of the
tendency to view all Eastern doctrines as
essentially alike, Orientalist scholars of the
Romantic period invariably defined Sufism as a
mysticism that was Indian in origin; from the first
appearance of the term in European languages,
“Sufism” was characterised as essentially Looking
back at this early scholarship today, it is
surprising that this unanimous belief in the Indian
origin of Sufism was almost entirely unconnected to
any historical evidence. From the days of Sir
William Jones and Sir John Malcolm to relatively
recent times, this opinion has had a remarkable
longevity, despite the ludicrous appearance of some
of these claims today. As an example one may
consider the outrageous claim of Max Horten, in a
1928 study that sought to explain Sufism as a pure
expression of Vedanta: “No doubt can any longer
remain that the teaching of Hallaj (d. 922) and his
circle Another pertinent example is found in an
observation of William James in his 1902 Gifford
Lectures, published as The Varieties of
Religious Experience:
In the Mohammedan world the Sufi sect and various
dervish bodies are the possessors of the mystical
tradition. The Sufis have existed in Persia from the
earliest times, and as their pantheism is so at
variance with the hot and rigid monotheism of the
Arab mind, it has been suggested that Sufism must
have
James's remark illustrates, innocently enough, how
widely this opinion was shared at the time by the
academic world in Europe and America. It is easier
to see from the perspective of the later twentieth
century that this opinion was conditioned by
nineteenth-century racial attitudes as well as
assumptions about the unchanging nature of
religions.