From the beginning of Orientalist studies of the Muslimworld, it was axiomatic to define certain religiousphenomena in terms of their origins. Because of thetendency to view all Eastern doctrines asessentially alike, Orientalist scholars of theRomantic period invariably defined Sufism as amysticism that was Indian in origin; from the firstappearance of the term in European languages,“Sufism” was characterised as essentially Lookingback at this early scholarship today, it issurprising that this unanimous belief in the Indianorigin of Sufism was almost entirely unconnected toany historical evidence. From the days of SirWilliam Jones and Sir John Malcolm to relativelyrecent times, this opinion has had a remarkablelongevity, despite the ludicrous appearance of someof these claims today. As an example one mayconsider the outrageous claim of Max Horten, in a1928 study that sought to explain Sufism as a pureexpression of Vedanta: “No doubt can any longerremain that the teaching of Hallaj (d. 922) and hiscircle Another pertinent example is found in anobservation of William James in his 1902 GiffordLectures, published as The Varieties ofReligious Experience:
In the Mohammedan world the Sufi sect and variousdervish bodies are the possessors of the mysticaltradition. The Sufis have existed in Persia from theearliest times, and as their pantheism is so atvariance with the hot and rigid monotheism of theArab mind, it has been suggested that Sufism musthave
James's remark illustrates, innocently enough, howwidely this opinion was shared at the time by theacademic world in Europe and America. It is easierto see from the perspective of the later twentiethcentury that this opinion was conditioned bynineteenth-century racial attitudes as well asassumptions about the unchanging nature ofreligions.