Bewildered Tongue: The Semantics of Mystical Union in Islam MICHAEL SELLS 1 ecome the fearing with which hehears the seing with which fescen the hand wih which he gespn the fot with which he rite” “These words take the form ofa adh qués (ranscendent had ith, an exte-Qur ante pronouncement inthe divine voice. They lathe foundation text or Sui understanding of andthe "passing ‘Bway of the sell, and Baga, the “remaining” of a consciousness hat can be said fo be divine within the human or human within the divine, Together, ana” and bagd’ corespond to what in the West is calles mystical union, if union is understood In a special ‘Enve Although some Islamic terms suchas jan? might fit the stan “ard definition of union as "conjunction of two entities.” such a Conjunction eno! what is meant by the theologically more explicit {anpuage af and” and bagd’- When one ofthe entities (he burn) passes away, the other (he divine), insofar as ican be considered a entity a ll fills ts psychic space, becoming its bearing and its secing To become empty of ell to pass away. sto become like 1 polished mirror reflecting the divine image and to become one {en the divine in that image. This moment of union is manifested Tn language through a transformation of normal reference and the Alvstons between sublect and abject, elf and other. eflenive and fpomefiexive, upon which language s based,rs snore In Islamic terature there (sno adjective such as “mystical” to distinguish the Arabic terms from their use in other contents The topic of mystical union confronts us immediately with s central spect of clasieal Islamic culture: the Interpermesbility and in- ‘erfusion of discursive and cultural worlds such that cach fs te flected within the other. The challenge in an exsay ofthis kind is to allow not only the central terms of Sufsm but the language context in ehh they are embedded and without hich they are Stripped of meaning to show through and, in showing through, #0 contribute their own distinsie perspective to comparative mys. tics. Ihave organized the esse theratiealy, with ive sections ‘corresponding to five major language words o modes of discourse. Because such thematic division occasions some chronological shipping back and fort, I present here a topical oatin of he five ‘Section Ite postic archetype of lover beloved union and the erie elton between the cles pot radon and Sef language of union Seton 2" Quranic themes and theologies! controversies ap ‘ropriatd and transformed within Soi lnguage union ‘Seton 3: the moth scent through the hesvealy spheres the divine throne andthe Sul dlsovery e's symm of tion within his mythis costo Section the Sufi "bewildered digas” of union in which distinctions between subject and oye speaker and hearer, begin to mele Section 5: the new discourse of mystical dialectic, transfor. ‘mation of phosphical discourse by mystica non, ands tmultaneats transformation by Bhilosophy of mystical The dynamic character ofthe Arable and Islami language of union Is a result ofthe interplsy among the fie eden Cera themes (remembrance ofthe Beloved, ive madres, bewilderment, nd the moment of ruth) and theological ewes ce wl and des Ling. divine unity and divine names, the ambivalent nate ofthe ‘