Shah started out as a magic mushroom taking, chain smoking occultist (he was secretary to Gardner, one of the original popularisers of paganism in the UK) and quite Imperially anachronistic in a sort of "Richard Burton" way (certainly he would not have existed and taught in this particular way had it not been for the dying days of the British Empire). Yes, he "faked" a lot of stuff -- including his Muhammedean lineage. It's actually because he faked it that I know he was the real deal
He actually came from a more familiar background, even working in Halal food certification. His brother is a "proper" Naqshbandi sufi sheikh - quite a lot more "traditional" in his approach.
I'd say the most interesting thing about his Sufism is -- as you can see from that video (if you watch the rest of it) -- he shows what Sufism looks like when you remove all the Islamic terminology. It's still all there, pretty much the kind of thing I bang on about here and in my blog, but I retain the terminology -- essentially because these are different times from Shah's, and my audience is a different audience.
For example, in his book the Commanding Self, he has some great lines about cooking, where it appears he is just discussing recipes for curry, like some Asian uncle, talking about how to cook well. But under the hood, he is going on about what the nature of "halal" is, what a "recipe" is (a "recipe" is the ability to not get attached to the recipes we are given -- by Churches, Governments, authority figures -- e.g., blowing people up if they cook different kinds of recipes from our own -- and, instead, to get down to business and actually eat the "food" of truth).
Anyhow he described Sufism as a kind of vine that will grow onto any tree (Christian, Judaic, Hindu, Islamic, atheist humanist) and adopt its terminology, but to deliver the same message. So many of my Shah friends are actually Christian or ostensibly atheists -- but they make great Sufis nevertheless.
Anyhow, one thing that people forget about Naqshbandi sheikhs is that they sometimes use tricks, irony and practical jokes as a teaching device. They've been doing that since their movement began. Basically the prerequisite is to "fake it". That's what went on with the "fake manuscript": it was Shah trying to teach Robert Graves a point about what the nature of the "manuscript" archetype is (it is the text of your own perception). And Graves failed to "get it", as he insisted (like a literalist Muslim, basically) on wanting physical evidence.
Anyhow I get the same kind of thing from "religious" Sufi types: "no silsilah (lineage), no right to teach". Shah's in my lineage, though ultimately it's the Hound Dog that I look toward for astral guidance.
Love and Light,
TT
Topic: Saudi funded schools in the UK teaching hatred & extremism