Cutting Sufis Too Much Slack

[IlyasLahoz]

This is an issue that has been of concern for me for some time, and which has recently surfaced in another thread:

If it is ok* to point out the methodological errors of our Salafi brothers, who are Muslims and almost always very sincere. Or to point out the methodological errors of our Shia or HT or 'progressive' etc brothers, all of whom are Muslims, then why must we refrain from doing so with people who claim to be Sufis.

I think that as a general rule we give our Sufi brethren too much leeway. The reason Shaykh Nuh's name was mentioned in the a previous discussion on this topic, I believe, is that his stance+ serves as a bright-line rule for protecting ourselves from imposters.
If we cannot use the shariah as a guidepost for discerment, then what can we use.
Allahu 'alam



* I mean by this, that it is acceptable, in fact necessary, to warn others of mistakes that could lead to msiguidance.

+ His stance being that where there is no shariah there is no tariqa. Tasawwuf, to paraphrase the Shaykh, is not a short-cut by which those "in the know" can bypass the rigors of the Islam.

[tazkiyyah]

Because , the way of the sufis is not one of blame.

The way of the sufis is loving and teaching Love.
If people want to argue, at that point the sufis depart.

So Sufis arent really interested in arguments.
If you want to talk to me about love, welcome. We can hug and kiss

If you want to argue.....I shall depart

[Yusuf]

Because , the way of the sufis is not one of blame.

The way of the sufis is loving and teaching Love.
If people want to argue, at that point the sufis depart.

So Sufis arent really interested in arguments.
If you want to talk to me about love, welcome. We can hug and kiss

If you want to argue.....I shall depart

Biiiiiig Huuug :cheesygri

[amar ibn zaim]

Muslims should love not hate.....


amar

[Omar HH]

There is no tariqa without Shari`ah.

Those who warn others of the mistakes of a group which it is dubious (not manifest misgudiance such as the Salafis, the Shi`a, the Ghulat etc.) should only be commented upon by qualified authentic scholarship and not by the lay man in any way what so ever.

Thats my opinion at least,

:jazak:

[muslim786]

There is no tariqa without Shari`ah.

Those who warn others of the mistakes of a group which it is dubious (not manifest misgudiance such as the Salafis, the Shi`a, the Ghulat etc.) should only be commented upon by qualified authentic scholarship and not by the lay man in any way what so ever.

Thats my opinion at least,

:jazak:

The following is taken from SIRAAJ-AL-AWAARIF

By

Hazrat Allamah Sayyid Abul-Husain Ahmad-e-Noori Al- Husaini Al-Qaadiri Barkaati Marehrawi (rah)

and translated by Shaykh Abdul Hadi Al-Qadiri Razawi

TWELFTH NOOR

Some false Sufis say that the path of Sharee’ah is different to the path of Tareeqah. Such Sufis have no dealings with Sharee’ah. O ignorant! Listen carefully to my advice so that you may be saved from destruction. May Allah Y have Mercy upon you and guide you.

Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is the Master of two stations. He guides the misguided towards Allah Y and perfects the imperfect. This was his mission on earth, which he fully accomplished with precision. One of his stations was to guide in accordance to the Laws of Nubuwwah and the other was the perfection of Wilaayah. The Laws of Nubuwwah (guidance of mankind) are obvious and the mission of the perfection of Wilaayah was to increase the love of Allah Yin the hearts of His creation and draw them nearer to the Creator. Thus, he first imparted the knowledge of Islam to them and strengthened their beliefs on the Laws of Sharee’ah. Thereafter, he led them to spiritual perfection (Wilaayah). He never reversed this pattern or blessed anyone with Wilaayah by keeping him or her away from the Laws of Sharee’ah. By Allah Y! This has never happened or will ever happen. Whosoever desires or seeks Allah Y can never be exempt from the Laws of Sharee’ah. Open your ears and listen carefully! Sharee’ah is the tree and Tareeqah is its fruits. No fruit can come into existence without the tree. There are some trees that do not bare fruits.

The same applies to man. Man is never void of two conditions, that is, being a Moh’min or a Kaafir. There are two types of Moh’min - pious or sinner. The pious are of two types - Aalim or Jaahil. Then, there are two types of Aalims. The Aalim of the Laws of Nubuwwah or the Aalim of the Laws of Wilaayah. Wilaayah too has two states, Aa’m (general) or Khaas (special). This Ayah explains the general category:

الله ولي الذين آمنو ا *

All Moh’min are the Wali (friends) of Allah Y.

The special (Khaas) is referred to as, “The consciousness of every existence vanishes from his senses and he becomes extinct in the Divine Being of Almighty Allah Y.” This is known as special or exclusive Wilaayah, which the Saalik achieves by means of his spiritual struggle, devotions, and above all, by the Grace and Mercy of Allah Y.

In comparison to the Kaafir, Wilaayate-Aam (general Wilaayah) is achieved by mere entrance into Islam. A Moh’min in comparison to a Kaafir is a Wali and a pious in comparison to a sinner is a Wali. An Aalim in comparison to a Jaahil is a Wali. It is clear from these points that special Wilaayah (Khaas) cannot be achieved without Islam and its laws but Islam is found and exists without special Wilaayah.

An ordinary Muslim who is not a Wali is like a barren tree (without fruit) and an Aarif Muslim (Wali) is like the tree full of fruits. It is not necessary for every Muslim to be an Aarif (Wali). There are numerous Muslims who are not Aarifs. To be an Aarif, it is compulsory for one to be obedient to Islam and to the Laws of Sharee’ah. I (Sayyid Abul Husain Ahmad-e-Noori) tell you this and thoroughly understand this. May Allah Y help you in both the worlds.

The illustrious Sheikhain, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddique t and Sayyiduna Omar Al-Farooq t, are the fruits of the tree of Nubuwwah and they are our Masters and guides. The tree of Nubuwwah is the foundation and it is due to this that we are blessed with the Maarifah (Understanding) of Allah Y through which man reaches the stations of Wilaayah. The general Muslim public and the Noble Sufi fraternity must be thankful to the Sheikhain for being blessed with Islam and Irfaan (Secret Knowledge of Allah Y). It is solely through the Barkaat of the Sheikhain that the people of the past, the present and the future have, are and will receive the sacred gift of Islam and Irfaan. Had it not been for these two (Sheikhain), let alone Wilaayah, we would not have any knowledge of Islam

[IlyasLahoz]

:salam:
There have been some good responses, thanks you.


Because , the way of the sufis is not one of blame.

The way of the sufis is loving and teaching Love.
If people want to argue, at that point the sufis depart.

So Sufis arent really interested in arguments.
If you want to talk to me about love, welcome. We can hug and kiss

If you want to argue.....I shall depart

I didn't mean that we should point fingers, I was addressing the issue of partisanship.
And I certainly don't want to argue, so please stay.


There is no tariqa without Shari`ah.

Those who warn others of the mistakes of a group which it is dubious (not manifest misgudiance such as the Salafis, the Shi`a, the Ghulat etc.) should only be commented upon by qualified authentic scholarship and not by the lay man in any way what so ever.

Thats my opinion at least,

:jazak:
Sidi Omar, I don't disagree. However there are plenty of "sufi" groups out there who's error is plain and manifest (perhaps even more so than some of those others we've named), yet they are given a pass. When an issue is brought up, we say I don't enough to comment sidi, Allah knows best.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is the proper adab for laypersons ALL the time. But if we don't give excuses to even moderate salafis, then why should we bend over backwards to excuse people who are obviously not playing by any rules?

[laughinglion]

:salam:

I think it may be more correct to call the way of the sufi, the way of the sunnah. Actions that may be founded in love but may call for apparent harshness and finger-pointing according to necessity. The sufi may be called the one who is prepared to oppose himself and others according to the dictates of the truth.

Jus'a thought.

With Peace

[Crono Devir]

People should not be soft on others when it comes to misguidence in the Aqqedah.

refering to Omar HH first post.

[YousefAbusSafar]

I don't personally undestand why so many here are so hard and full of hatred for the salafees and particularly that many here accuse them of tashbeeh, when I've read quotes from many sufis affirming belief in wahdatul wujood.

What could be a greater form of tashbeeh than to claim that Allaah and his creation are one existence (a'oodhu billaah).

I know that not all sufis believe this but I've also gotten the impression that sufi scholars sometimes keep things secret from those they consider 'awwaam and I've read lots of quotes from soofees regarding which cause me to really wonder if there is a double standard in spreading so much malice and hatred for salafis while overlooking the fact that among your own selves there are those who are a million times worse in commiting what you accuse the salafis of.

I honestly don't understand how it is that a person can claim to be ash'ari in 'aqeedah and at the same time withhold his tongue regarding someone like ibn 'Arabee who claimed that Allaah and his creation are one existence and the many sufi scholars who agree with him on this. It just seems like an oxy moron to me. If you want quotes, I would be surprised if you haven't seen more of these quotes than I have, but you can find tons of referenced quotes like these on another forum which I don't know if I can link to here and I believe there was a book put out from Shaykh ibnul Qayyim (with work from Dr. Saalih as Saalih) which brought some ridiculous quotes as well.

Please keep in mind I'm not partisan for anything but the truth, I just want to hear what you have to say regarding this, particularly how can someone be ash'ari and at the same time affirm belief in wahdatul wujood (another forum brought referenced quotes from deobandi scholars where they apparently affirmed wahdatul wujood but they still say they claim that their 'aqeedah is ash'ari maturidi elsewhere?!?! As for the Barelwis, I don't know much about them). Some of these quotes where even scanned onto the computer from the actual books.

I just want someone to explain this to me because it really has me lost.

[salman]

Salamu 'Alaykum

I agree with Sidi GodiAli.

Misguided Sufis may be "misguided" but they certainly do not go about clamouring and making takfir as if they are the only muslims on the face of the earth that deserve any sort of reward - or for that matter that they are the only muslims at all!

Salafis on the other hand - or alot of them - have made it the focal point of their da'wah to be harsh, stern and ridiculing, as if the thousands and thousands of Ulema who passed before them were nothing but ignorant muqallids who could not comprehend religion. We seek refuge in Allah.

As for Sayyidina Ibn 'Arabi then half the people who read his books could not even understand them, so how do you expect us to? Rather, as one brother said these are "experiences" and not "theological points". Only those experienced can understand such things...

Plus - the awaam are told to stay away from such advanced books since Sufi literature is full of metaphors, figures of speech and so forth which many fail to grasp.

Wasalam

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

In the name of Allah, with peace and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah,

Salam 'alaykum,


I don't personally undestand why so many here are so hard and full of hatred for the salafees and particularly that many here accuse them of tashbeeh, when I've read quotes from many sufis affirming belief in wahdatul wujood.

What could be a greater form of tashbeeh than to claim that Allaah and his creation are one existence (a'oodhu billaah).

The whole topic is thoroughly misunderstood by Salafis and others, because the language in which these doctrines are expressed is a technical language, and as such is not meant to be understood by laymen who lack the appropriate training. I will briefly try to explain what this technical language means, according to what I've managed to gather so far, and I ask forgiveness from Allah for any mistakes I make.

The basic idea is that Allah's existence is necessary (it is impossible for Him not to exist), whereas our existence is contingent (it is possible for us not to exist). Moreover, everything in creation is totally and utterly dependent on Allah for its very being and everything it does: "There is no strength and no power except in Allah".

Now if you understand this, then you will see that Allah's existence is radically different from our existence, and that his existence is, in some sense, "more real" than our existence. Allah has an infinitely higher "level of reality" than we do. "Nothing is like unto Him" says the Quran.

To see this, think about your reflection in a mirror: this reflection undoubtedly exists, but is it not clear that it has a "lower level" of existence i.e. that in some sense you are *more real* than your image? To use another analogy: suppose you write a story in which you invent some characters: those characters exist in a sense (since you wrote the story and made them up), but they do not have existence in the same sense that you do: your existence is genuine in a way that theirs is not.

In the same way, we might say that Allah's existence is of an infinitely higher level than ours, so much so that our "existence" appears to be unworthy of the name by comparison. To mark this distinction in levels of existence, the technical terminology of many of the Sufis uses the word "wujud" to mean "necessary existence" as opposed to just existence. And since they hold that this necessary existence is an attribute of Allah that is not shared by anyone or anything apart from him, then the only "wujud" (using the word in this special technical sense) is Allah.

If you have understood this, then you will see that the basic idea of "wahdat al wujood" is not the affirmation that Allah and His creation are one (may Allah protect us!), but rather the affirmation that they are radically and utterly different. Allah and His creation are so different, in fact that, that it is as if creation is nothing at all compared to the infinite, transcendent, necessary and beginninglessly eternal reality of Allah Himself. Allah's existence is so totally different from ours that the Sufis reserve the word "existence" (or "wujood") only for His radically different existence. And only one Being has *this* kind of existence, namely Allah the Exalted, on Whom everything else depends for whatever limited existence it might have.

This should explain the seemingly puzzling language the Sufis sometimes use when discussing these matters: it's a technical language, not the ordinary, everyday language in which we express our meanings. Once you take into account the special meanings the Sufis give to the words they use, you will see that they do *not* affirm what you think they affirm.

Allah knows best.

Wa al-salam,....

[Omar HH]

Salamu 'Alaykum

I agree with Sidi GodiAli.

Misguided Sufis may be "misguided" but they certainly do not go about clamouring and making takfir as if they are the only muslims on the face of the earth that deserve any sort of reward - or for that matter that they are the only muslims at all!

Salafis on the other hand - or alot of them - have made it the focal point of their da'wah to be harsh, stern and ridiculing, as if the thousands and thousands of Ulema who passed before them were nothing but ignorant muqallids who could not comprehend religion. We seek refuge in Allah.

As for Sayyidina Ibn 'Arabi then half the people who read his books could not even understand them, so how do you expect us to? Rather, as one brother said these are "experiences" and not "theological points". Only those experienced can understand such things...

Plus - the awaam are told to stay away from such advanced books since Sufi literature is full of metaphors, figures of speech and so forth which many fail to grasp.

Wasalam

Dear Salman,

For us Awwam who realize this is metaphorical can we read such texts? I currently own al-Wasaya of ibn `Arabi as well as his Diwan.

:jazak:

[salman]

Dear Salman,

For us Awwam who realize this is metaphorical can we read such texts? I currently own al-Wasaya of ibn `Arabi as well as his Diwan.

:jazak:

Salamu 'Alaykum

It is generally advised not to. This is not only about "Arabic" usage but the "Sufi usage of Arabic" which is not simply "yad" signifies "power" or the like but far more...

Wasalam

[IlyasLahoz]

None of this is what I meant.
I was talking about so-called sufi-groups, like this one "tariqa" in NY that has a popular shaykha and has lent its voice in favor of female-led prayer.
Or tariqas where hijab is not an issue, nor is following a madhhab or those where free-mixing between genders is condoned.
I think, beacuse they are not harsh or judgemental, that we underestimate the damage that these groups do to our community. How many sincere people have been led to misguidance because of these pseudo-sufis? How many sincere Muslims have turned their backs on tasawwuf because of the antics of these pretenders?
Then there are those misguided people throughout the Muslim world, who commit abomnible acts in the name of Sufi piety, like drinking, taking drugs, ignoring mandtory prayers while spending hours listening to "religious" music. Those who take hindu, animist and other non-muslim "shaykhs" from whom they propurt to learn 'sprituality'.
Allahu 'alam, all I wanted to point out was that we should be objective in our critcism.

[IlyasLahoz]

For those who really want to know about ibn 'Arabi :rahma: -


What do the scholars say about Ibn `Arabi? Is he a disbeliever or one of the greatest saints (awliya)?
Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed

What do the scholars say about Ibn `Arabi? Is he a disbeliever or one of the greatest saints (awliya)?

Scholars have differed about Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi. Some declared him a disbeliever because of what they found in his books, in terms of expressions used that contradict the shari`ah, according to the way they understood it. And others said he was among the greatest saints and righteous and they considered those expressions to be of the terminology of the Sufis without its being contradictory to the shari`ah even though the outward meaning may have seemed as such, but the intended meaning certainly was not.

Many of our realized imams from Ahl al-Sunna, our `Ashari masters such as Shaykh al-Islam Zakariya al-Ansari, who was an imam of the many sciences of theology, tafsir, hadith, fiqh and Arabic have tread the same path, as well as their great students such as the Imam of Egypt, al-Shihab Ahmad al-Ramli and his son, Al-Shams Muhammad al-Shams al-Khatib al-Shirbini and the pillars of the late scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam al-Shihab Ibn Hajar al-Haitami. The latter has elaborated on the issue of al-Shaykh al-Akbar, and has defended him at length in his great work, Al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyah, so whoever wishes may refer to it. (f. There is a short biography about Ibn `Arabi in the Reliance of the Traveler and Shaykh Nuh has written an article about him, that can be found at the website, www.masud.co.uk).

Shaykh al-Islam Zakariya objected, in his book al-Ruddah from “Sharh al-Rawd”, when Imam ibn al-Muqri called Ibn `Arabi and his followers disbelievers, saying, “And it (i.e. Ibn al-Muqri calling Ibn `Arabi a disbeliever) is only according to his understanding, as some of them did from the outward meaning of his sayings. And the truth is that they are [f. the foremost of the] believers and their words are aligned with their terminology like the rest of the Sufis. And these meanings are a reality according to what they intend even if it requires that others need to interpret, for if they only understood the outward, it would entail disbelief. Because words that have particular terminological usages are literal when they are used in their very terminology and are considered to be figurative when used out of their terminology.

Thus, whoever understands it according to its terminology, understands it soundly. And many great scholars, gnostics of Allah, considered Ibn `Arabi to be of foremost believers, among them is Shaykh Taj al-Din ibn Ata’iLlah and Shaykh AbduLlah al-Yafi`i, and this high rank of theirs is not maligned by the outward purport of their words to those who are not Sufis because of what we have just said. Because it may be that when a gnostic of Allah is drowned in the ocean of oneness and beholding of Allah-such that his self vanishes in Allah and his attributes vanish in Allah’s attributes and he is oblivious to anything other than Him-certain expressions may come out in this state, that may seem to indicate hulul and ittihad (indwelling and union with Allah [s. see Reliance of the Traveler w7.1] ) because of the deficiency of language to express the state that he has risen to, rather it has nothing to do with those two things, as the erudite scholar al-Sa`d al-Taftazani has said.”

This is some of what the scholars have said about Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi. And it is my belief, and it is the belief of my shaykhs, realized men in the spiritual path following in the footsteps of realized scholars of the Sacred Law that I mentioned and others, also, that: that Shaykh Muhyi al-Din is among the Imams of our noble Sufis and that his words that appear in discussions of Sufism are completely in line with their terminology without them being meant as hulul or ittihad (indwelling and union with Allah) of the creation with the Creator nor the opposite, and without any negation of responsibility for the morally responsible.

A person who doesn’t tread the spiritual path with a shaykh who is knowledgeable, who acts upon his knowledge and is realized in Allah should be warned of going near the books of the Shaykh, such as the Futuhat, because those who are not familiar with their terminology, in most cases, will be misled by the outward purport of his words. So he would either believe in something false that wasn’t even intended, or he would deny [f. and condemn] their true spiritual experiences that are not contradictory to the shari`ah. And it is also unfit for those who are not known of being of sound Sufism to speak the words of the Sufis unless by way of ascribing them [s. those words] to the Sufis, and without believing just the outward meaning of their words, as has been stated by Ibn Hajar in the Tuhfa, in the chapter of apostasy.

And the questioner should know that no one has the knowledge of what is in people’s hearts nor the ends of their works except Allah. And having a better opinion is (husn al-dhann) that our Imams said what they said about Shaykh Ibn `Arabi, in praise or blame, only to serve the deen in what seemed correct to them. Also, the one thing that our imams do agree upon is that it is haram to believe any false belief that may seem to be indicated by the words of Shaykh Muhyi al-Deen and others.

And those whose faith is established, we don’t declare them disbelievers, except with certainty. And the basis that is used regarding apostasy is that whoever says something whose outward is disbelief, but may carry some meaning that could be interpreted otherwise, he is not declared a disbeliever until it is confirmed what he intended by it, [f. and that he actually intended disbelief]. And we have seen that great imams of verification have explicitly stated Ibn `Arabi’s high rank after having thorough knowledge of what he said. And they considered those words that were open to interpretation to be in accordance with the terminology of the Sufis, such that those words were not intended as disbelief.

And Allah knows best the truth and unto Him is the return and the final abode.

- Amjad Rasheed

(Translated by Sr. Shazia Ahmad, with notes from Faraz Rabbani’s recorded translation)

السؤال : ما قولُ العلماء في ابن عربي ؟ هل هو كافر أم من كبار الأولياء ؟

الجواب : اختلف العلماءُ في الشيخ محيي الدين ابن عربي فكفره بعضهم لما وجدوه في كتبه من عبارات خارجة عن الشرع بحسب ما فهموها هم ، وجعله آخرون من أكابر الأولياء والأخيار وجعلوا تلك العبارات جاريةً على اصطلاح الصوفية من غير أن يكون فيها خروجٌ عن الشرع وإن كان ظاهرُها هذا لكنه ليس مراداً ألبتة ، وجرى على هذا الأخير أئمةٌ محققون من أهل السنة ساداتنا الأشاعرة كشيخِ الإسلام زكريا الأنصاري جامع أشتات العلوم كلاماً وتفسيراً وحديثاً وفقهاً وعربية ، وأكابرِ تلامذته كإمام مصر الشهاب أحمد الرملي وولده الشمس محمد والشمس الخطيب الشربيني وعمدة المتأخرين شيخ الإسلام الشهاب ابن حجر الهيتمي ، وقد وسع هذا الأخيرُ الكلامَ على الشيخ الأكبر والانتصارَ له في فتاويه المشهورة بالحديثية فليراجعها من شاء ، وقد اعترض شيخُ الإسلام زكريا في كتاب الردة من "شرح الروض" على الإمام ابن المقري في تكفيره الشيخ ابن عربي وطائفته فقال :" وهو [ أي : تكفير ابن المقري لابن عربي ] بحسب ما فهمه كبعضهم من ظاهر كلامهم ، والحق أنهم مسلمون أخيار وكلامهم جارٍ على اصطلاحهم كسائر الصوفية وهو حقيقةٌ عندهم في مرادهم وإن افتقر عند غيرهم ممن لو اعتقد ظاهره كَفَر إلى تأويل ؛ إذ اللفظُ المصطلحُ عليه حقيقةٌ في معناه الاصطلاحي مجازٌ في غيره ، فالمعتقدُ منهم لمعناه معتقدٌ لمعنى صحيح ، وقد نصَّ على ولاية ابن عربي جماعةٌ علماءُ عارفون بالله منهم الشيخُ تاج الدين ابن عطاء الله والشيخُ عبد الله اليافعي ، ولا يقدح فيه وفي طائفته ظاهرُ كلامهم المذكور عند غير الصوفية لما قلناه ، ولأنه قد يصدر عن العارف بالله إذا استغرق في بحر التوحيد والعرفان - بحيث تضمحل ذاته في ذاته وصفاته في صفاته ويغيب عن كل ما سواه - عباراتٌ تُشعر بالحلول والاتحاد - لقصور العبارة عن بيان حاله الذي ترقى إليه - وليست في شيء منهما كما قاله العلامة السعد التفتازاني غيره ". اهـ وما بين معقوفتين من كلامي .

هذا طرفٌ من كلام العلماء في الشيخ محيي الدين ابن عربي ، واعتقادي فيه هو اعتقادُ مشايخي المحققين في الطريق تبعاً لأئمة محققين في علوم الشرع ممن ذكرت وغيرهم وهو : أن الشيخ محيي الدين من أئمة ساداتنا الصوفية ، وأن كلامه في مباحث التصوف جارٍ على اصطلاحهم من غير أن يراد به حلولٌ ولا اتحادٌ للخلق بالخالق أو العكس ، ومن غير نفي للتكليف عمن توجه عليه ، وأنه يُحذرُ على مَن لم يسلك على شيخٍ عالمٍ عاملٍ عارفٍ أن يطالع كتبَ الشيخ كالفتوحات ؛ لأنَّ غير العالم بمصطلحهم الأغلبُ عليه الاغترارُ بظواهر الكلام فإما أن يعتقد معنى باطلاً غير مراد أو ينكر أذواقهم الحقة غير المخالفة للشرع ، ويُمنعُ أيضاً على من لم يشتهر بالتصوف الصادق التكلمُ بكلماتهم المشكلة إلا مع نسبتها إليهم غير معتقد ظواهرها كما قاله العلامة ابن حجر في "التحفة" في كتاب الردة .

وليعلم السائل أن علم بواطن الناس وخواتيم أعمالهم لا يكون إلا لله ، وحسنُ الظن أن أئمتنا ما قالوا ما قالوا في الشيخ ابن عربي مدحاً أو ذماً إلا نصرة للدين بما ظهر لكلٍّ منهم ، والأمر الذي لا يختلف فيه أئمتنا هو أنه يحرم اعتقادُ معتقدٍ باطلٍ مما يوهمه كلام الشيخ محيي الدين وغيره ، وأن من ثبت أيمانه فلا نخرجه عنه إلى الكفر إلا بيقين ، والأصل في باب الردة أن من صدر منه قولٌ ظاهره الكفر وكان يحتمل التأويل أن صاحبه لا يكفر به ما لم نتحقق إرادته الكفر ، وقد سبق أنَّ أئمة محققين صرحوا بولاية ابن عربي مع اطلاعهم على كلامه ، وجعلوا كلامه مما يحتمل التأويل بحسب اصطلاح الصوفية بحيث لا يكون مرادُهم من ذلك الكلام الكفر ، والله أعلم بالصواب وإليه المرجع والمآب.

[Omar HH]

I can start speaking of Wahdat al-Wujood but I don't want to confuse you people.

Basically look at al-Ghazali's Qawa`id fil `Aqaid.

All that exists is Allah's entity, attributes, and actions.

Anyways :jazak:

[Crono Devir]

where free-mixing between genders is condoned.

where is mixing of the genders in a public place not allowed?

and what is 'free mixing'?

[love4all]

salams

from 'walking in footsteps':

Recent times have witnessed an upsurge in interest and demand for books on tasawwuf and Islamic spirituality. The gradual dissemination of well-articulated traditional Islamic belief, praxis and spirituality into the West, as well as the re-finding of this rich heritage among the descendants of immigrant communities from Muslim lands, have contributed to the publication of many books on this subject. As may be expected, such books are of differing quality and outlook. For the edification of the interested reader on tasawwuf, one should note that books on the subject of tasawwuf may be divided into three broad categories:

(a) kutub `amali: perhaps the most useful type of tasawwuf literature, these books detail – either systematically or in part – the practical aspects of purification of the soul or other such matters pertinent to the reality of the next life. Of these, the most famous and comprehensive is the Ihya Ulum ad-Din – although, to date (with the notable exception of Dr T.J Winters), it has not yet received an adequate translation into English. Others include ar-Risala al-Qushayriyya, the works of Imam al-Haddad, and books such as ‘Purification of the Heart’ by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

(b) Kutub tarikhi: describing the lives of one or more masters of the spiritual path, these are books which more correctly fall under the category of biography or hagiography. Though they may contain valuable and precious insights into tasawwuf (such as Martin Lings ‘A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century’), they serve primarily as targhib – to awaken in the reader a yearning to emulate the subject and attain something of their rank with Allah. ‘The Naqshbandi Sufi Way’ (Naqshbandi Haqqani), ‘The Chain of Light’ (Qadiri Radawi) and ‘Lanterns of the Path’ (Chishti Habibi) are examples of this type of literature which give short biographies on each master in the spiritual chain of transmission of a particular tariqa.

(c) kutub dhawqi: those elevated books of mysticism that detail some of the spiritual experiences, mysteries and levels of reality attained by the great masters of the spiritual path. These include the books of ibn al-`Arabi, the Mathnawi of Mawlana Rumi, and others. This is an extremely important point to be aware of, because the higher realities of tasawwuf (and by extension of Islam) are not conducive to being written on paper or apprehended by the unaided mind. It is virtually inevitable that the essence of the master’s writings will be ‘lost in translation’.

Faith (yaqin) and spiritual insight (ma`rifah) are not the same as information (khabar) or knowledge (`ilm). Fortunately for the Muslim masses, many of these books remain unpublished in manuscript form, and are only taught through ijaza by those who have mastered them, to those able to correctly understand them. Some prominent examples, however, are widely available in English; and it behoves the reader to be aware that there is a significant risk of misinterpretation of the author’s meaning or intent, that can serve to misguide rather than guide.

In general, the great classics of Islamic literature – whether books of fiqh, `aqida, tafsir but perhaps especially of tasawwuf – are specifically designed to be learnt through what Shaykh Afifi al-Akiti calls ‘the baraka of ru`ya’ – that is, in the context of face-to-face teaching at the hands and under the blessed gaze of a realised teacher who has both attained mastery of the subject and is capable of awakening such understanding in his disciples. As my shaykh often tells me, ‘you must leave book-knowledge and come to heart-knowledge.’ Islam is no more or less than the great venture of the human soul to re-connect with the Divine Reality. As the great masters of early Islam tell us, ‘one who knows his soul knows his Lord.’ One requires a shaykh precisely because the mind cannot comprehend the reality of the spirit.


salams
love4all

[YousefAbusSafar]

Jazaakumullaahu khairan for all the info. Please pardon me if I came accross the wrong way in my post, I just wanted an explanation and that cleared up a lot.

[tazkiyyah]

Imam zaid said there are 2 approaches to seeing a sister without hijab

1) OH MY GOD
shes become fasiq
spit
yuck
oh no

2)Husn e dhann
Subhanallah...someone stole the sisters hijab

[eTeacher]

Jazakumullah for airing your concern Br. AL,

I think one distinction we fail to make is that are both Sufism and Salafism inherently right or wrong? The problem people have with Salafism is that it’s inherently wrong because of their methodological errors and many other reasons. Hence both the hardcore Salafees as well as moderate Salafees will be criticized. The former (haters) more than the latter.

Whereas Sufism is not inherently wrong. Hence only those Sufis will be criticized on SF whose actions are contrary to Islam or who make methodological errors.

We can say Salafism is wrong but we can’t say Sufism is wrong. What we can say is that ‘some wannabe’ Sufis are wrong. Just like we can’t say Islam is wrong. But we can say some Muslims are wrong. Now if a Muslim does something wrong, we wont criticize Islam for it, we will criticize the individual. Just like if some Sufi does something wrong, we don’t say Sufism is wrong. We say, “That certain person who is claiming to be a Sufi is wrong.” We don’t paint all of Sufism/Islam with the same brush. But we can say that all of Salafism is wrong because of various reasons.

Just the other day, after leading Eid Prayers in another city, I was walking out of the hall and a Mufti friend of mine was meeting some people. He met a person, and I suddenly felt something weird about the person whose hands the Mufti shook. Later on I asked him, “That certain person who you met, is he Salafee inclined?” The Mufti said, “Yes!” The Mufti asked me, “Why?” So I told him, “When the person met you, I could see that his eyes were filled with hate towards you. I just sensed it. Seems like I was correct.”

That’s one of the problems people have with Salafism. Salafism develops hatred and animosity towards non-Salafee Muslims and if looks could kill, all non-Salafee Muslims of the world would be dead by now. One thing is they have made tons of methodological mistakes and to compound that huge mistake, they have immense hatred towards those who are not like them. What good is our worship if our hearts are filled with animosity and rancor and resentment towards those who don’t pray like us? It’s just pathetic! Therefore on SF, we don’t let people push their Salafee hate filled views here. We love them as humans, but we utterly hate their mistakes. Hate the sin and not the sinner. Hate the sickness and not the sick.

I hope the above is a good enough explanation to take care of your concern. As far as:


I was talking about so-called sufi-groups, like this one "tariqa" in NY that has a popular shaykha and has lent its voice in favor of female-led prayer.
Or tariqas where hijab is not an issue, nor is following a madhhab or those where free-mixing between genders is condoned.
I think, beacuse they are not harsh or judgemental, that we underestimate the damage that these groups do to our community. How many sincere people have been led to misguidance because of these pseudo-sufis? How many sincere Muslims have turned their backs on tasawwuf because of the antics of these pretenders?
Then there are those misguided people throughout the Muslim world, who commit abomnible acts in the name of Sufi piety, like drinking, taking drugs, ignoring mandtory prayers while spending hours listening to "religious" music. Those who take hindu, animist and other non-muslim "shaykhs" from whom they propurt to learn 'sprituality'.


well....You’ll have to show us where on SF the above mentioned Sufi groups have promoted their false views and beliefs. Remember we don’t out rightly say Sufism is wrong. If the above mentioned groups try to promote their filth, they will be censored. If SF has erred in their criticism, please let us know.

So do we cut misguided Sufis too much slack on SF? The short answer would be no, not at all.

Sincerely,
Nazim Mangera
www.xanga.com/emam

[IlyasLahoz]

Salaam 'alaikum
Jazak Allah khair Mawlana Nazim,
Your points are well-taken, particularly your explanation of how the difference lies in that some movements are inherently wrong while others are not (inherently so). Your answer has put my heart at ease and, inshaAllah, broadened my perspective.
Thank you again.
As a final point, I have to clarify one thing:
I didn't mean to direct my initial comments at sunniforum at all, rather I meant us Sunni Muslims as a whole. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear about that.
wasalaam 'alaikum

[salahuddin]

+ His stance being that where there is no shariah there is no tariqa. Tasawwuf, to paraphrase the Shaykh, is not a short-cut by which those "in the know" can bypass the rigors of the Islam.

:salam:

I believe this comes up in a couple of Imam Al-Haddad's books, perhaps more explicitly in Key to The Garden. I think the phrase he uses is that there's "No haqiqa without shari'a". Or are we talking about a different issue?

Wa salaam

[eTeacher]

As a final point, I have to clarify one thing:
I didn't mean to direct my initial comments at sunniforum at all, rather I meant us Sunni Muslims as a whole. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear about that.
wasalaam 'alaikum

It's all good yo...no problemo :)

[jinnzaman]

Imam Ghazzali on Deviant Sufis:

http://s14.invisionfree.com/Shield_of_Islam/index.php?showtopic=493

[taalibah]

Jazakumullah for airing your concern Br. AL,

I think one distinction we fail to make is that are both Sufism and Salafism inherently right or wrong? The problem people have with Salafism is that it’s inherently wrong because of their methodological errors and many other reasons. Hence both the hardcore Salafees as well as moderate Salafees will be criticized. The former (haters) more than the latter.

Whereas Sufism is not inherently wrong. Hence only those Sufis will be criticized on SF whose actions are contrary to Islam or who make methodological errors.



I do not understand how you make this claim about salafism or sufism being "inherantly" wrong. Why can you say salafism is wrong but not sufism? Both are made up names, yet a good muslim will follow the salaf and believe in tazkiyyat un nafs. You have to accept that both these words carry negative connotations. In the same way that you said sufism = Islam, one could say, so does salafism, because that is essentially following the salaf, following the Qur'an and sunnah, yet to different people these words mean different things. Only Islam can equal Islam, any synonyms must be from the Qur'an and sunnah.

I think it is extremely wrong to generalise about salafism. I have met lots of salafis who are from the most wonderful sincere sisters I know, and I love them for Allah's sake, as they love me for His sake, although I disagree with them (just like sufis). I do not doubt there being many extremely hateful salafis (wierdly enough, they tend to be online a lot), but it is not right to speak like this, picking on a certain group while leaving others. wAllahu a'lam.

I can say that in my personal experience, I prefer to be with 'salafi' sisters simply because they are more strict, orthodox, if anything, they will only be too strict, so my deen is not in danger with them because they love the qur'an and sunnah and love to seek 'ilm. With 'sufi' sisters, unfortunately, suddenly music is halal, free mixing is ok, photos are ok, it's all about poetry rumi and sa'di appear more that Allah and His messenger, fancy 'cultural' events, anything goes . I know this is not 'sufism', I know about the sufi mujahideen etc. this is nothing to do with real zuhd and tazkiyat un-nafs. yet I am trying to show that this depends on your personal experience with these groups.

As far as the question of the thread is concerned, it is (unfortunately in this world) inevitable that those following a certain group will make a thousand excuses for their own, yet barely one for those they dislike. Anyone that denies this happens is blinding themselves to the truth.

As neither a salafi nor a sufi (I don't follow a tariqah, hopefully that will not make me a non-muslim if sufism = islam!), I find it hard to see how this forum can be objective, but in the same way, neither would an extreme salafi forum be. I suppose it comes down to the point of really in the end what you hope to gain by "winning the argument" and like it or not, our egos play a big part. It is also easy to become obsessed with labelling and refuting (perfect pray for shaytaan) while forgetting yourself and others you care for. Each person is responsible for themself. May Allah 'azza wa jall help us to purify our intentions and allow us to serve His deen, ameen.

Allahu a'lam/

[godilali]

My personal experience is that I found Salafis to be lax and lenient, compared to the Hanafi ulama I follow. I guess it varies from situation to situation.

[Omar HH]

Salafis are really strict. Maybe the only people stricter is the Majlis type Deobandi-Hanafis.

Thats from what i've seen.

[laughinglion]

:salam:

Siti Taalabah the major problem with the "salafi's" from which all the other negative issues [related to them] stem from is that their whole methodology and approach to understanding and practicing the Deen of Islam is something that is relatively new [at least marginal/deviant] among the Muslims. No doubt many of the people who claim to follow the way of the salaf are sincere in their undertaking but their basic premise's are based on ignorance and neglect of the rich intellectual history of the Muslims. No doubt "salafi's" make many valid points about the negative aspects of the fiqh, aqidah and tasawwuf of ahlu's-sunnah, this though does not make their fundamental deviation acceptable.

With Peace

[Travelleress]

Jazakumullah for airing your concern Br. AL,

I think one distinction we fail to make is that are both Sufism and Salafism inherently right or wrong? The problem people have with Salafism is that it’s inherently wrong because of their methodological errors and many other reasons. Hence both the hardcore Salafees as well as moderate Salafees will be criticized. The former (haters) more than the latter.

Whereas Sufism is not inherently wrong. Hence only those Sufis will be criticized on SF whose actions are contrary to Islam or who make methodological errors.

We can say Salafism is wrong but we can’t say Sufism is wrong. What we can say is that ‘some wannabe’ Sufis are wrong. Just like we can’t say Islam is wrong. But we can say some Muslims are wrong. Now if a Muslim does something wrong, we wont criticize Islam for it, we will criticize the individual. Just like if some Sufi does something wrong, we don’t say Sufism is wrong. We say, “That certain person who is claiming to be a Sufi is wrong.” We don’t paint all of Sufism/Islam with the same brush. But we can say that all of Salafism is wrong because of various reasons.

Just the other day, after leading Eid Prayers in another city, I was walking out of the hall and a Mufti friend of mine was meeting some people. He met a person, and I suddenly felt something weird about the person whose hands the Mufti shook. Later on I asked him, “That certain person who you met, is he Salafee inclined?” The Mufti said, “Yes!” The Mufti asked me, “Why?” So I told him, “When the person met you, I could see that his eyes were filled with hate towards you. I just sensed it. Seems like I was correct.”

That’s one of the problems people have with Salafism. Salafism develops hatred and animosity towards non-Salafee Muslims and if looks could kill, all non-Salafee Muslims of the world would be dead by now. One thing is they have made tons of methodological mistakes and to compound that huge mistake, they have immense hatred towards those who are not like them. What good is our worship if our hearts are filled with animosity and rancor and resentment towards those who don’t pray like us? It’s just pathetic! Therefore on SF, we don’t let people push their Salafee hate filled views here. We love them as humans, but we utterly hate their mistakes. Hate the sin and not the sinner. Hate the sickness and not the sick.

JazakAllah khayr for this clarification.

[tazkiyyah]

I think it is extremely wrong to generalise about salafism. I have met lots of salafis who are from the most wonderful sincere sisters I know, and I love them for Allah's sake, as they love me for His sake, although I disagree with them (just like sufis). I do not doubt there being many extremely hateful salafis (wierdly enough, they tend to be online a lot), but it is not right to speak like this, picking on a certain group while leaving others. wAllahu a'lam__
_____________________
Thats true.There are many many sincere christians out there too..unlike the american evangelists.people who really really do care about humanity and they love people sincerely and I believe that.
But our argument with them is intellectual and spiritual, and also with the salafis they are our brothers and sisters but our argument with
them is methodological.
____________
I can say that in my personal experience, I prefer to be with 'salafi' sisters simply because they are more strict, orthodox, if anything, they will only be too strict, so my deen is not in danger with them because they love the qur'an and sunnah and love to seek 'ilm.
____

They also hate the awliya...read what they say about people like
baha-ud-deen naqshband and imam sha'rani etc etc.
Allah declares war on those who hate his awliya...so i
don't feel safe personally being around people who have a declaration
of war from God hanging over their necks...the earth might start to
shake on coventry road in birmingham for example. I'd move away
regardless of the length of the brothers beard or the sisters niqab
mawlana thanwi said outwardly the la-madhabis follow the sunnah
but they actually leave the fard(Respecting the awliya)
____

[salman]

I do not understand how you make this claim about salafism or sufism being "inherantly" wrong. Why can you say salafism is wrong but not sufism? Both are made up names, yet a good muslim will follow the salaf and believe in tazkiyyat un nafs. You have to accept that both these words carry negative connotations. In the same way that you said sufism = Islam, one could say, so does salafism, because that is essentially following the salaf, following the Qur'an and sunnah, yet to different people these words mean different things. Only Islam can equal Islam, any synonyms must be from the Qur'an and sunnah.

I think it is extremely wrong to generalise about salafism. I have met lots of salafis who are from the most wonderful sincere sisters I know, and I love them for Allah's sake, as they love me for His sake, although I disagree with them (just like sufis). I do not doubt there being many extremely hateful salafis (wierdly enough, they tend to be online a lot), but it is not right to speak like this, picking on a certain group while leaving others. wAllahu a'lam.

I can say that in my personal experience, I prefer to be with 'salafi' sisters simply because they are more strict, orthodox, if anything, they will only be too strict, so my deen is not in danger with them because they love the qur'an and sunnah and love to seek 'ilm. With 'sufi' sisters, unfortunately, suddenly music is halal, free mixing is ok, photos are ok, it's all about poetry rumi and sa'di appear more that Allah and His messenger, fancy 'cultural' events, anything goes . I know this is not 'sufism', I know about the sufi mujahideen etc. this is nothing to do with real zuhd and tazkiyat un-nafs. yet I am trying to show that this depends on your personal experience with these groups.

As far as the question of the thread is concerned, it is (unfortunately in this world) inevitable that those following a certain group will make a thousand excuses for their own, yet barely one for those they dislike. Anyone that denies this happens is blinding themselves to the truth.

As neither a salafi nor a sufi (I don't follow a tariqah, hopefully that will not make me a non-muslim if sufism = islam!), I find it hard to see how this forum can be objective, but in the same way, neither would an extreme salafi forum be. I suppose it comes down to the point of really in the end what you hope to gain by "winning the argument" and like it or not, our egos play a big part. It is also easy to become obsessed with labelling and refuting (perfect pray for shaytaan) while forgetting yourself and others you care for. Each person is responsible for themself. May Allah 'azza wa jall help us to purify our intentions and allow us to serve His deen, ameen.

Allahu a'lam/

Salamu 'Alaykum

Dear sister, the fact is really simple that Shaykh Nazim was trying to make. Whereas the people of tasawwuf follow accepted methodology to derinve the foundations of this religion, the accepted 'aqidas of Abul Hasan Ash'ari and Abu Mansur Maturidi, and the well-known paths of Islamic spirituality with continuous chains to the Prophet - Allah bless him and grant him peace -, our Salafi brether not only bipass this methodology to form some n'th madhab but also categorically reject the accepted 'aqidas and the paths that our Ulema have been following centuries.

If someone thinks this is not "dangerous" then he should think again.

You may feel comfortable with them because they are "strict" but when was "strictness" ever a meter for correctness? Excessiveness is looked down upon as evidently clear in the Prophetic sayings. Excessiveness that leads to belittling the vast majortiy of Ulema, the Awliya, and the Muhaqiqun is even worse - as Sidi Tazkiyyah pointed out. This is not a light matter. What do we have to stand to gain in ridiculing the friends of Allah except disgrace?

Lastly, this is never about "winning the arguement". I doubt the Ulema on this board give advice and answer questions to win an arguement - I seek refuge in Allah from such a thought. One shoudd atleast have husn al dhann for his fellow believers from amongst those granted 'ilm.

Wasalam

[tazkiyyah]

When it comes to sufis there is method in the madness
And for salafis there is madness in the method.

[Omar HH]

People who criticize Sufis - unless they are really qualified to warn people of something - are being very dangerous. From appearance it might look one way - but if you upset someone who turns out to be a Wali then the war of Allah is upon you.

Anyone who calls himself "Sufi" and goes and attacks other tariqas, or Shaykhs, or murids has really embarassed himself, his Shaykh, and his tariqa. May Allah keep us away from that.

The conditions of a Shaykh, a Salik, a tariqa, and the whole gamut has been sufficiently explained in the Mahabith al-Asliyah by Ibn al-Banna. That is the standard by which to judge if the tariqa your joining is valid or not.

"And whoever harms a Wali of mine, I am at war with him."

:jazak:

[hassan roberto hrvat]

Salam aleikum ! When will we above sectarism ? As muslim i recognize and study all school's of thought but i don't give any immunity to any. I'm myself a traditional sunni and don't like the narrow minded and limited salafis at all , but they are still my brother's and sister's in faith and i'm not at their level of fanatic bigotry to believe that only i'm folowing the sunnah and all the other's are ahl bida' and dalal. The sufi's at the another side are absolutely not a united reality but they are hundred's different types of sufism , some on the right path some very deviated and heretics. To be o to call someone a Sufi Shaykh ,for me , don't give him any right to be above criticism and have a sort of immunity as we can only give to a Prophet. I have meet some sufi master's and many mureed's of different tariqat's and really i must say that many of them are really full of strange thing's. I prefer sit alone and read the books of Shaykh al Akbar muhideen ibn Arabi and Jamaludin Rumi and not to make personality cult to someone ( as sadly many mureeds of Shaykh Nazim are doing) or shouting around "kufr" ,"bidah" ,Shirk" as many salafi's like to do. With Salam's and Dua , your brother Hassan omar Roberto hrvat

[Omar HH]

Salam aleikum ! When will we above sectarism ? As muslim i recognize and study all school's of thought but i don't give any immunity to any. I'm myself a traditional sunni and don't like the narrow minded and limited salafis at all , but they are still my brother's and sister's in faith and i'm not at their level of fanatic bigotry to believe that only i'm folowing the sunnah and all the other's are ahl bida' and dalal. The sufi's at the another side are absolutely not a united reality but they are hundred's different types of sufism , some on the right path some very deviated and heretics. To be o to call someone a Sufi Shaykh ,for me , don't give him any right to be above criticism and have a sort of immunity as we can only give to a Prophet. I have meet some sufi master's and many mureed's of different tariqat's and really i must say that many of them are really full of strange thing's. I prefer sit alone and read the books of Shaykh al Akbar muhideen ibn Arabi and Jamaludin Rumi and not to make personality cult to someone ( as sadly many mureeds of Shaykh Nazim are doing) or shouting around "kufr" ,"bidah" ,Shirk" as many salafi's like to do. With Salam's and Dua , your brother Hassan omar Roberto hrvat

Sufism is knowledge of taste (`ilm al-adhwaq) you cannot really get it from books but only real living hearts.

Secondly any murid of any tariqa knows you are supposed to believe your Shaykh is the best Shaykh, love him, and only follow his advice. (See Shaykh Nuh's tariqa notes).

Thirdly nobody is immune from all sins except the Prophets :saw:. This is correct. We must point this out to everyone.

Fourthly though criticizing a Sufi Shaykh is a big deal and you should be very qualified (10 years or so of Islamic learning) until you even consider it.

The dangers of upsetting Awliyah are well known. As Shaykh Abuqanit al-Sharif al-Hassani said:

> Please can you give me an explanation of the 19. Darqawi Letter.
>
> Resistance to the fuqara, the affiliated with Allah, and to all the
> slaves of Allah comes form great ignorance and dullness since the people
> of beginnings must err. The people of the ends have no protection, let
> alone those who are at the beginning. The Prophets, peace be upon them,
> have protection, peace be upon them. Whoever sees himself among them is
> mistaken, so we should remind him with kindness and gentleness. If he is
> reminded, blessed is Allah! If not, our Lord knows us all better since
> He, the Exalted! Said, "You who believe! Watch out for yourselves. The
> one who is misguided will not harm you if you are guided".

Allah Most High has said in a hadith which is recorded in Ibn Majah
and other collections (e.g., Bukhari):

"... Whoever shows enmity against a friend of Mine, I declare war
against him! ..."

What this means, in upshot, is that if someone makes a friend of Allah
upset (purposely or due to complex ignorance), this person is in BIG
trouble.

And no one has protection from the wrath which Allah unleashes for such
a crime, not the person in the beginning of the Path, nor the person
who has finished the Path (meaning attained full ma`rifah), nor the
person who is in the middle of the Path. The only people who have
protection from this wrath are the prophets (May Allah bless them and
give them peace) - but none of us are prophets.

Thus, it is very, very dangerous and an act full of foolishness to make
a friend of Allah upset. It is as good as material and spiritual suicide.

This is what al-Darqawi means by "Resitance" or "Opposing" the fuqara'.

But one should also be careful about showing enmity to regular people
(all the slaves of Allah) as some of them may be "friends of Allah in
disguise" just like the honest and sincere fuqara' are.

[For example, if you saw most of the scholars in the Maghrib on
the street, you would not be able to distinguish them from the common
people. Thus, one should not judge by appearances. This
culture of khumul (being hidden) - except for one's students - has many
advantages and in the end leads to people who are more sincere and
more throughly experienced and qualified - as these people can pretend
to be normal in order to learn how the society actually works and what
the people are actually like - as the people will not put on a show
for them - unlike someone dressed like a religious authority in front
of which people will act differently and superficially.]

And only "dullminded" and stupid people can engage in such foolish acts
in which the Powerful Creator declares *war* against them.

Now when he says, "we should remind him with kindness and gentleness",
it means that we should remind the person who is engaging in enmity
with us that "Allah does not like that His friends be dealt with such
bad manners and people who show enmity to them or hurt them are likely
to suffer great trials and punishments in this world, in the interworld,
and in the hereafter."

If the person is reminded and takes heed, then may Allah bless him (as
we have nothing against him personally).

But if he does not cease his attacks, then we entrust his affair to
Allah (i.e. we expect Allah to declare war against him) and we entrust
our affair to Allah also (i.e. Allah knows we are free of the false
accusations that he is hurling at us).

Now, we will mention the context of this letter:

Know that if you travel the Path to Allah with sincerity, you will
gain more tawfiq and blessings than the common man or external scholar
can ever hope for. This causes *some* common people or external scholars
to be jealous of those of the Path. And they hurl accusations (verbal
and physical abuse) at the sincere fuqara'.

This happens every time a man/woman reaches the state of sincerity with
His Lord like a pattern from Allah - as Allah says "And like thus, we
appointed for each prophet enemies from the Shayateen of Ins and Jinn..."
[al-Qur'an 6:112] - hinting at the fact that Allah has a pattern of
appointing "enemies" of His friends - so that His act of Vengence may
have a domain to be carried out in. These enemies become the target
of His Vengence as one of His names is al-Muntaqim (The Avenger).

al-Darqawi is instructing his disciples that when they come across
such attacks, they should first remind the person of the grave act
he is committing and then entrust their affair to Allah (i.e. they
expect Allah to vindicate the fuqara' and deal with this enemy in a
painful manner until he repents).

In the end, the one who is misguided will not harm those that are
guided - rather, it is very likely that the one who is misguided will
incur great harm to himself due to his ignorant attacks on the friends
of Allah.

[This brings us to a needing a definition of a
friend of Allah "wali" in the hadith. The
definition is:

"al-waliyyu al-muttaqiyyu hasala lahu `ala
d-dawami l-fana'u fi-l af`ali awi l-fana'u
fi s-sifati awi l-fana'u fi dh-dhaat. aw
huwa al-muttaqiyyu fi l-baqa'."

"The Wali (friend of Allah) is the person who
Allah has given tawfiq to in obeying Him and
not disobeying Him (both externally and
internally) in most circumstances and has given
tawfiq to always or almost always be in one of
four states: (1) annihilation in His actions,
(2) annihilation in His attributes,(3) annihilation
in His Entity, or (4) in the state of subsistence
(which entails constant full ma`rifah coupled with
non-egocentrism)."

Reference(s):
This definition is derived from al-`Asqalani,
Sharh Bukhari, hadith #6021, raqa`iq, tawadu`

`Asqalani states that the wali is "The person who obeys
Allah regularly and sincerely worships Him." Now, it
is our view that a person cannot become truly *sincere*
until he gets rid of the "I" in his worship. And
such only happens either through fana' or baqa'
with its various levels.

One should note here that it is possible to achieve
fana' fi l-af`aal without a spiritual Path - and this
is the limit the common man can reach without further
training. Thus, people who are not associated with
a spiritual path can also be awliya' (friends of Allah).

If the person undergoes some formal training (even if
self-taught - as long as he is very astute), then he
can reach fana' fi s-sifaat even without a qualified
teacher. [This is what Ibn `Ajibah says in his Sharh
of al-Mabahith al-Asliyyah in the section of taking
a spiritual teacher. But, if he does not have a teacher
and is also not astute (unaware of the pitfalls), then
Shaytan is likely to become his teacher - and in such a
case is likely to commit a grave mistake which will
land him in Allah's punishment either in this world
or the next.]

And in order to reach either fana' fi dh-dhaat or
baqa', the person must have a completed kamil teacher;
otherwise, the chances are very slim.

And people are of varying degrees in their wilayah.]

[hassan roberto hrvat]

Salam aleikum ! Brother Omar HH , i agree 100% with what you wrote. My intention was going above sectarian mentality.Not to offend the shuyukh's of tasawuf in any way.We know that there are many false sufi's and we must ask traditionally qualified ulama of sufism to understand what is right and what is wrong in this dangerous field.Even the deviated sufi's are pretending all sort of respect and obbedience and threat you with terrible consequence at dunya level and ruhani level if you don't humble before their leader's. And it is even true that sufism is taste and a spiritual dimension connected to a living source and not mere book reading. What i was saying is a teaching what i hear from a sufi master in the balkan's : after explaining me the general principles how to recognice true sufi's ,recognice half sufi's and see clearly who are the charlatan's ,he told me : half sufi's and false sufi's are poison for your soul , stay away from them ,and it is superior to be in company of the book's of the awliya then in the company of this deviated or incomplete people.So to give respect and honor to false sufi's is wrong and it must be clear that in some cases it is difficult to understand and it is better to ask qualified people before we judge in one sense o another.

[Omar HH]

Yes.

False Sufis are indeed dangerous.

That is why there is only one real book (other than the Qur'an and Sunnah obviously) which in detail gives you the description of true and false Sufis - explains Sufism - and guides you in such a way that you can find a true guide.

This book is called the Mahabith al-Asliyah by Ibn al-Banna. Ibn `Ajibah does a Sharh of this text as well.

You can find it here:

http://www.guidinghelper.com/pdf/MA_Explanation.pdf

:jazak:

[Omar HH]

23 And this knowledge cannot be placed in books. | Rather, it is a buried treasure in the hearts, minds, and souls (of gifted
people).
24 Beware of hoping to encompass this knowledge | from pages of books, poetry, or rhyming metered verses.
25 From these sources, you can only get a small description | which you cannot actually see even though it is not actively
hidden.

- Ibn al-Banna in al-Mahabith al-Asliyah.