The Sword and the Machine: Islam's Regression into Mechanicality and its Hasnamussian Sanctification of War
In The UnHoly Trinity I argued that atheism is the engine of Hasnamussian narcissism. In Gurdjieff on Islam and the Original Revelation of Jesus Christ I traced Gurdjieff's tragic but respectful reading of Islam: a genuine revelation from the "full-of-hope Saint Mohammed," swallowed by the Hasnamussian forces of power and imitation.
This blog draws those two threads together.
The Hasnamuss is defined by the absence of Objective Conscience, not the absence of a creed. And Gurdjieff gives us the mechanism by which a religion that confesses God can still become the vehicle of the Hasnamussian impulse.
As revelation regresses into mechanicality, a mechanical religion can only be held together by external force. The doctrines of conquest and apostasy in the Islamic legal tradition are that force. They are the sword that the machine requires, and the sword in turn keeps the machine asleep.
For Gurdjieff, nothing in the universe is more abnormal than war. A religion or ideology that makes war a sacred duty is therefore condemned, in his terms, in the extreme.
War: An Abnormality in the Universe
Gurdjieff devotes an entire chapter of Beelzebub's Tales to what he calls "the process of the periodic reciprocal destruction of men," and subtitles it Beelzebub's opinion of war. His verdict is unequivocal. Beelzebub calls this process the most terrible of all the horrors that can exist anywhere in the Great Universe. It is a property found among the three-brained beings of Earth that the beings of other planets can scarcely conceive.
War, for Gurdjieff, is not a regrettable feature of the human condition. It is an abnormality in the cosmic order, the clearest symptom of everything that went wrong with humanity after the organ Kundabuffer. Normal three-brained beings, living by Objective Conscience, would not do it.
His cosmology tells us why.
Human beings are meant to pay for their existence through conscious labour and intentional suffering, and so to give back the finer substances the cosmos requires. When they fail to pay consciously, Great Nature extracts the payment by other means: mass death.
War is the involuntary, mechanical substitute for the conscious being-effort man refuses to make. It is suffering that is imposed on others, instead of suffering intentionally taken on oneself.
In Ouspensky's record, Gurdjieff says the same thing from another angle. War is caused by planetary influences acting on people who are machines; sleeping men cannot help being moved by them. Can war be stopped? It can, he says, but only if people awaken.
If war is the supreme abnormality of human life, then any teaching that makes war a sacred duty, that promises reward in heaven for it and builds it into the law of God, takes the worst symptom of man's fall and calls it obedience.
For Gurdjieff there could hardly be a graver indictment. It is the Naloo-osnian impulse "to destroy the existence of other breathing creatures" (pp. 405–6) given the authority of revelation.
Saint Mohammed's Hope and Its Betrayal
Gurdjieff never calls Islam a false revelation. Beelzebub names its founder "Saint Mohammed" (p. 704), a title he reserves for genuine messengers from Above, and calls him "full of hope." Had the teaching remained as given, Beelzebub says, it might have become a hearth of hope and reconciliation among the nations.
It did not.
Gurdjieff describes how the early followers stirred the revelation into a hotchpotch, mixing it with the theories of the Babylonian dualists and with the sensual paradise elaborated by later "Sheiks-Islamists" (pp. 704–5). Within a short time the community split into Sunnite and Shiite. The psychic hatred between them, he says, became an organic hate, a disease of the collective that outside powers would later exploit to keep them from ever uniting (pp. 705–6).
Most tellingly, Gurdjieff says the religion was built on "bits-here-and-bits-there" of Mohammed's teaching and was used above all "for egoistic and political aims by beings with Hasnamussian properties" (pp. 709–10). The word is his, not mine.
In Beelzebub's account, the institutional religion that grew out of Saint Mohammed's revelation was shaped from its earliest generations by Hasnamussian hands.
The last living remnant of Islam, for Gurdjieff, was the dervish monasteries, which had preserved the teaching in its primary form. With their closure in modern Türkiye he saw the final sparks of the original revelation go out (pp. 710–11).
A Religion for Those Who Could No Longer Contemplate
In the dialogue between the young Persian and the Doctor (pp. 989–1011), Beelzebub gives his most systematic account of Islam's place in the history of revelation. The religion arose, he says, at a time when people had lost the capacity for contemplation: the higher function by which divine truth is understood consciously (p. 1010).
So the teaching had to be simplified and externalised. Its customs of ablution, circumcision and the ordering of marriage were given so that the everyday life of its followers "might at least mechanically flow more or less tolerably" (pp. 1010–11). These were wise and merciful provisions. But they were provisions for people who could no longer participate consciously in what they practised.
This is the point.
In Gurdjieff's own terms, the Mohammedan religion became a mechanical religion of right practice, not a way of conscious transformation. Its rites could produce right behaviour, but not the birth of conscience. The outer washing of the body could not take the place of the inner purification of the heart.
By contrast, Beelzebub says that the teaching of Jesus Christ, if carried out according to its original, would be the best of all religions that exist or ever will exist (p. 1009). It made provision for soul and body alike, and it demanded what Islam had been obliged to set aside: conscious participation in divine Being.
The Feedback Loop: The Machine and the Sword
Here the two halves of the argument meet.
A religion of conscious transformation holds people together from within: by conscience, by understanding, by love freely given. A mechanical religion has no such inner bond. Its unity has to be maintained from outside, by law, by social pressure and finally by force. That is why the regression into mechanicality and the exoteric doctrine of conquest belong together. Each requires the other.
Mechanicality requires the sword. Where people can no longer verify the truth of a teaching for themselves, the only way to extend it is external: territory, taxation, subjugation. The only way to keep people within it is a penalty for leaving. Jihad as conquest and the death penalty for apostasy are the outward enforcement mechanisms a mechanical religion depends on.
The sword deepens mechanicality. A faith entered under pressure and held under threat can only produce formatory belief, the outward compliance of the sleeping man. Fear replaces conscience. The literal paradise Gurdjieff mocked becomes a reward for killing, and the image does the work that understanding no longer can.
The Hasnamuss runs the loop. Those who gain from this arrangement, the "beings with Hasnamussian properties" who used the religion for egoistic and political aims, have every interest in keeping it going. Every war renews the organic hatreds Gurdjieff describes, and every new hatred justifies the next war.
This is the process of reciprocal destruction turned into a self-sustaining institution. A sacred teaching, mechanised, becomes the engine of the very abnormality it was given to heal.
Compulsion: The Architecture of Subjugation
The Qur'an contains the famous line that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). But the later Medinan verses, and the law built on them, describe a different order.
For example, Sura 9:29 commands believers to fight those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden, until they pay the jizya "with willing hand" while being brought low. The verse does not demand conversion. It demands subjugation.
The Jew or Christian may keep his faith, but only as a dhimmi: taxed, ranked beneath, and barred under classical law from building new churches, bearing arms, or witnessing against a Muslim. That status was designed to humble. It pressed on whole populations, generation after generation, until conversion became the way out.
Sura 9:5, the "verse of the sword," goes further for the polytheists: when the sacred months have passed, kill them wherever you find them, seize and besiege them, lie in wait for them. If they repent, establish prayer and pay the alms, let them go. For the pagan, the classical choice was conversion or the sword (i.e., death).
Sura 8:39 tells the believers to fight until there is no more fitna (persecution, or disorder) and religion is wholly God's; Sura 2:193 repeats the formula.
In the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, the Prophet says he has been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is his Messenger. Those who do so have protected their blood and property.
Many classical commentators resolved the tension with 2:256 through the doctrine of abrogation (naskh): the later verses of the sword cancel or limit the earlier verses of tolerance. On that reading, "no compulsion" describes only the inner act of faith, which no one can force. The outward order of the world is to be brought under Islam by force.
This is mechanicality written into law. Abrogation is the juridical form of the regression Gurdjieff describes for Islam: the inner meaning is set aside, and the external command governs.
Gurdjieff's whole teaching depends on the free act of the individual (I wish, I verify, I work on myself). A faith extended by conquest and maintained by tax and degradation manufactures automatons, and gives that manufacture the authority of heaven.
Apostasy: The Execution of Conscience
If the sword governs entry into the community, the apostasy law governs exit.
The Qur'an's own verses on apostasy speak mostly of divine judgment. Those who turn back lose their works in this world and the next (2:217) and face God's wrath (16:106, which exempts those forced to recant while their hearts stay firm).
Sura 4:89 speaks of those who turn away: seize them and kill them wherever you find them. Classical jurists extended this verse, which in context concerns hostile deserters, to apostasy in general.
The decisive texts are in the hadith.
In Bukhari, the Prophet says that whoever changes his religion should be killed. Another widely transmitted hadith names three people whose blood may lawfully be shed: the married adulterer, the murderer, and the one who abandons his religion and leaves the community.
Bukhari also reports that when Ali burned a group of apostates, Ibn Abbas objected only to the method: he would not have burned them, but he would have killed them, in keeping with the Prophet's command.
On this basis all four Sunni schools and the main Shia school agreed that the adult male apostate is to be executed, usually after a period for repentance; the Hanafis imprisoned rather than executed the female apostate. This was not a fringe view but the classical consensus. Death for apostasy remains as law for about a dozen Islamic countries today. Where courts do not enforce it, families and mobs sometimes do.
For Gurdjieff, Objective Conscience is the "Representative of the Creator" in the essence of a person, and it can only awaken in freedom. A mechanical religion cannot tolerate that freedom, because it has nothing inside the person to hold them.
So it kills the one who leaves. It does not punish the deformation of conscience. It punishes conscience itself whenever it reaches a conclusion the community forbids.
Christ did the opposite. He let the rich young man walk away, grieving but unforced (Mark 10:22). When many disciples left him, he turned to the Twelve and asked whether they also wished to go (John 6:67). The door was open, because a love that cannot leave is not love.
From the Law to the Logos
The original teaching of Christ is the antithesis of this whole arrangement. When Peter drew his sword in Gethsemane, Christ told him to put it back, for all who take the sword will perish by it (Matt 26:52).
Before Pilate he said his kingdom was not of this world, or his servants would fight (John 18:36). He conquers by being killed, not by killing.
In Gurdjieff's cosmology, this is exactly the point. War is the mechanical substitute for intentional suffering: payment extracted from others by force. The cross is intentional suffering in its purest form, taken on freely for the sake of others. It is the conscious payment that makes the involuntary payment of war unnecessary.
Christ does not merely forbid the sword. He offers the only thing that can replace it.
The Law can regulate the outer life of a humanity that has lost the capacity for contemplation. Only the Logos can restore that capacity.
To recover the original Christianity is, as I argued before, to fulfil and not deny the hope of Saint Mohammed: the restoration of right order under God. But that order cannot be imposed by conquest. It can only be born in free and awakened conscience.
The Verdict
Gurdjieff's judgment on this matter is not mild. War is the most terrible horror in the universe.
A Hasnamuss is a being whose ego has crystallized without conscience. A religion that, through regression into mechanicality, has made war a sacred duty and death the price of leaving has joined the two. It is the Hasnamussian impulse given the robes of revelation.
The atheist Hasnamuss says there is no God, so I am the measure. The religious Hasnamuss says there is a God, so I may kill on his behalf. The second is in some ways more dangerous, because it gives the inclination to destroy a heavenly reward.
This is not a judgment on the many Muslims who seek God sincerely, nor on the hope of Saint Mohammed, which Gurdjieff honoured. It is a judgment on a system, taken together as a whole, that has become know as Islam.
And the test for every tradition, including our own, is Gurdjieff's test: does this teaching awaken Objective Conscience in free beings, or does it replace conscience with law, fear and the sword?
Comments