Sufisim in light of Islam

[abuhidaya]

There was one point in my life, I was convinced there was a proper form of sufisim in reforming the soul and heart. I was convinced after hearing a few speeches by the likes of Husain Abdus Sattar, and after reading in the book of Abu ala al Mawdudi, that the proper form of sufisim, is that which is promulgated by the likes of Ahmed Sirhindi 15 century reformer, who opposed some of the innovations introduced by the scholars of his time in aqida or what not.

Although reformations are to be encouraged, I read the book of Abdul Haq al Ansari on the works of Ahmed Sirhindi, entitled sufisim and shariah, I was disappointed because even the ideas of Sirhindi seem very strange, and unislamic on some points, he also influenced shah waliyullah ad dehlawi. There is a lot of philosophical jargon, and since I also know a lot about Hinduism, I see several parallels between sufisim and hinduism.

Im pretty much convinced sufisim has no place in the ummah, and Abdul Haqq al Ansari, discusses Ibn Taymiyahs ideas on sufisim which were more appealing to me, He said if something is good in sufisim take it, if something is bad leave it. Tazkiyah of Nafs has a huge place , but it must be done by leaving these false sufi orders or what not, by doing it by the kitab and sunnah. Even Ghazali did not ascribe to an order. Im taking the approach of Jamaluddin Zarabozo, he studied over 100 tariqahs , he said none of them were consistent with Islam.

Im also surprised that people follow modern scholars who preach shirk based philosophies like wahdatul wujood. One good thing about Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi is that he critisizes the ideas of Ibn al Arabi, and some of his pantheistic doctrines. By the way I was not reading with a closed mind, even reading the book shows my open mind, since the book was pro sufi in it's tone.

It also shows me why the Kufaar promote sufisim so much, and their libraries are filled with works of Rumi, Ibn al Arabi and so on.

[Mossy]

Indeed, with all groups you take what's good and leave what's bad..

We can discuss the validity of a given area/concept with respect to Islam, but that will probably necessitate an extra level of openmindedness on your part - for example not making the outright statement that the doctrines of Ibn Arabi were pantheistic, but that you currently view them as such. Although, of course, if you've already made up your mind on such matters, theres no need for discussion :)

[abdul518ca]

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi defended Ibn A'rabi and his doctrine in his book titled 'Allamah Ibn A'rabi Aur Unka Maslak'. From what I've heard, this book is 30 volumes long. :p

You can read parts of it here:

http://alashrafia.com/urdu/thanwi.html

[faqir]

Ibn Arabi RH was not a pantheist.

[Azzam]

Can you please post insha Allah exactly what you have stating that Ibn Taymiyyah was a qadiri. I want to get these statements checked out.

Believing in certain terms in their meanings does not necessitate that a person of among this group or that.

[IlyasLahoz]

IBN TAYMIYYA ON
"FUTOOH AL-GHAYB" AND SUFISM
The external evidence of Ibn Taymiyya's affiliation with the Qadiri tariqat by a chain through three shaykhs named Ibn Qudama has been given by Ibn Taymiyya's disciple, Ibn Abd al-Hadi. Further internal evidence of Ibn Taymiyya's sufi inclination can be seen in his hundred-page commentary on Gilani, covering only five of the 78 sermons of "Futooh al-Ghayb", but showing that he considered the sufi path a salutary effort and even essential within the life of the Islamic community.
The commentary is found in volume 10:455-548 of the first Riyadh edition of the "Majmoo` fatawi Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya".

It can be seen from this commentary that Ibn Taymiyya calls Abd al-Qadir "shaykhuna", "our shaykh," a title which he never gives anyone else in his entire works, just as he never gives the title "imamuna", "our imam", to other than Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

In his commentary on the "Futooh" Ibn Taymiyya stresses that the primacy of the shari`a forms the soundest tradition in sufism, and to argue this point he lists over a dozen early masters, as well as more contemporary shaykhs like his fellow Hanbalis, al-Ansari al-Harawi and Abd al-Qadir, and the latter's own shaykh, Hammad al-Dabbas:


"The upright among the followers of the Path - like the majority of the early shaykhs (shuyukh al-salaf) such as Fudayl ibn `Iyad, Ibrahim ibn Adham, Ma`ruf al-Karkhi, al-Sari al-Saqai, al-Junayd ibn Muhammad and others of the early teachers, as well as Shaykh Abd al-Qadir [Gilani], Shaykh Hammad, Shaykh Abul Bayan and others of the later masters - do not permit the followers of the Path to depart from the divinely legislated command and prohibition, even were that person to have flown in the air or walked on water. p516"
In his treatise on the difference between the lawful forms of worship and the innovative forms, entitled "Risalat al-`ibadaat al-shar`iyya wal-farq baynaha wa bayn al-bid`iyya" (in "Majmoo`at al-rasa'il wal- masa'il", Beirut, Lajnat al-turath al-`arabi 5:83),
Ibn Taymiyya unmistakably states that the lawful is the method and way of "those who follow the path" (al-salikeen) or "the way of self-denial" (zuhd) and those who follow "what is called poverty and Sufism", i.e. the fuqara and the sufis:


"The lawful is that by which one approaches near to Allah. It is the way of Allah. It is righteousness, obedience, good deeds, charity, and fairness. It is the way of those on the path (al- salikeen), and the method of those intending Allah and worshipping Him; it is that which is travelled by everyone who desires Allah and follows the way of self-denial (zuhd) and religious practice, and what is called poverty and Sufism and the like."
Regarding Abd al-Qadir's teaching that the salik should abstain from permitted desires, Ibn Taymiyya begins by determining that Abd al- Qadir's intention is that one should give up those permitted things which are not commanded, for there may be a danger in them. But to what extent? If Islam is essentially learning and carrying out the Divine command, then there must be a way for the striver on the path to determine the will of Allah in each particular situation. Ibn Taymiyya concedes that the Qur'an and Sunna cannot possibly cover every possible specific event in the life of every believer. Yet if the goal of union of will and desire with Allah is to be accomplished by those seeking Him, there must be a way for the striver to ascertain the Divine command in its particularity.

Ibn Taymiyya's answer is to apply the legal concept of ijtihad to the spiritual path, specifically to the notion of ilham or inspiration. In his efforts to achieve a union of his will with Allah's, the true Sufi reaches a state where he desires nothing more than to discover the greater good, the action which is most pleasing and loveable to Allah. When external shar`i arguments cannot direct him in such matters, he can rely on the standard Sufi notions of private inspiration (ilham) and intuitive perception (dhawq):


"If the salik has creatively employed his efforts to the external shar`i indications and sees no clear probability concerning his preferable action, he may then feel inspired - along with his goodness of intention and reverent fear of Allah - to choose one of two actions as superior to the other. This kind of inspiration (ilham) is an indication concerning the truth. It may be even a stronger indication than weak analogies, weak hadiths, weak literal arguments (zawahir), and weak istisHaab which are employed by many who delve into the principles, differences, and systematizing of fiqh. p.473."
Ibn Taymiyya bases this view on the principle that Allah has put a natural disposition for the truth in mankind (p. 474), and when this natural disposition has been grounded in the reality of faith and enlightened by Qur'anic teaching, and still the striver on the path is unable to determine the precise will of Allah in specific instances, then his heart will show him the preferable course of action. Such an inspiration, he holds, is one of the strongest authorities possible in the situation.

Certainly the striver will sometimes err, falsely guided by his inspiration or intuitive perception of the situation, just as the mujtahid sometimes errs. But, he says, even when the mujtahid or the inspired striver is in error, he is obedient.

Appealing to ilham and dhawq does not mean following one's own whims or personal preferences (p. 479). In his letter to Nasr al-Manbiji ("Majmu`at al-rasa'il wal-masa'il" 1:162), he qualifies this intuition as "faith-informed" (al-dhawq al-imaani). His point is, as in the commentary to the "Futooh", that inspirational experience is by nature ambiguous and needs to be qualified and informed by the criteria of the Qur'an and the Sunna. Nor can it lead to a certainty of the truth in his view, but what it can do is give the believer firm grounds for choosing the more probable correct course of action in a given instance and help him to conform his will, in the specific details of his life, to that of his Creator and Commander.

Other works of his as well abound in praise for Sufi teachings. For example, in his book "al-ihtijaaj bi al-qadar" (Cairo: al-matba`a al- salafiyya, 1394/1974 p. 38), he defends the Sufis' emphasis on love of Allah and their voluntarist rather than intellectual approach to religion as being in agreement with the teachings of the Qur'an , the sound hadith, and the imja` al-salaf:


"As for the Sufis, they affirm the love (of Allah), and this is more evident among them than all other issues. The basis of their Way (tariqa) is simply will and love. The affirmation of the love of Allah is well-known in the speech of their early and recent masters, just as it is affirmed in the Book and the Sunna and in the agreement of the salaf."
Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions.

G Fouad Haddad ©
20 Mar 1996

[IlyasLahoz]

The initiatic chain our brother Ahsan referred to:

In a unique manuscript of the Hanbali Yusuf ibn Abd al-Hadi (d. 909 H./1503 CE), entitled Bad' al-ulqa bi labs al-khirqa, uncovered in the Princeton University Library, Ibn Taymiyya is listed in a Sufi spiritual genealogy with other well-known Hanbali scholars. The links in this genealogy are, in descending order from Abdul Qadir Jilani:

Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (d. 561 H./1165 CE)

Abu Umar b. Qudama (d. 607 H./1210 CE)

Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudama (d. 620 H./1223 CE)

Ibn Ali b. Qudama (d. 682 H./1283 CE)

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 H./1328 CE)

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751 H./1350 CE)

Ibn Rajab (d. 795 H./1393 CE)

Furthermore, there is another unique manuscript, also found in the Princeton Library, of the work of Ibn Taymiyya himself, in a book named, Targhib al-Mutahabbin fi labs Khirqat al-Mutammayyazan by Jamal ad-Dan al-Talyani. Here are Ibn Taymiyya's own words, as quoted from a work of his, al-Mas'ala at-Tabraziyya: "I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, there being between him and me two Sufi shaikhs."

In another manuscript he said, "I have worn the Sufi cloak of a number of Sufi shaikhs, belonging to various tariqats, among them Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, whose tariqat is the greatest of the well-known ones, may Allah have mercy on him."

After him, the lineage continues on to his student, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and his student Ibn Rajab.

References: "al-Hadi" manuscript in Princeton Library, Yahuda Collection, fol. 154a, 169b, 171b-172a; "at-Talyani," manuscript, Chester Beatty, 3296 (8) in Dublin, fol. 67a.

[IlyasLahoz]

one might also, more generally, take a look at the following tow articles regarding tasawwuf in the light of Islam:

The Meaning of Tasawwuf (http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/faridi.htm)


Tasawwuf and Sharia (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/shafiqur.htm)

[Alijj.u]

Im also surprised that people follow modern scholars who preach shirk based philosophies like wahdatul wujood. One good thing about Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi is that he critisizes the ideas of Ibn al Arabi, and some of his pantheistic doctrines. By the way I was not reading with a closed mind, even reading the book shows my open mind, since the book was pro sufi in it's tone.

Sheikh Muhammad alHâmid (rahimahu-llâh), when he denounced the pseudo Sufis of his time wrote in his letter to sheikh Muhammad Abu nNasr several points upon which he had found them to contradict Islam, the fifth one was the belief in wahdatu lwujûd, against which he wrote a whole chapter entitled: “Refutation of those who profess wahdatu lwujûd”, which he explains as believing “that this universe, with its animated and non-animated beings, is divine altogether, and that God is its soul (rûh). This is absolutely kufr, for it is an incarnation (hulûl) which believers reject and declare kufr. As for the poetry and prose which I found about incarnation, there is plenty of it. There is a sentence attributed to the author of ‘al’Insânu lKâmil’ which says that Christians did kufr only because they reduced the extent of divinity to Christ and his mother (peace be upon them), and that it is because of this restriction that they committed kufr, and that they left the Unitarian movement which believes that divinity extends to everything. This statement, whatever interpretation I could give to it, was undoubtedly forged against him.”

In “^Uqûdu l’Alâs bimanâqibi l’Imâmi lÂrifi lHabîb ’Ahmadu bnu Hasan al^Attâs”, you will find that Sheikh Zayn Dahlân, mufti of the Shâfi^i masters in Makkah said: “Sheikh ’Ahmad arRamliyy was questioned about the person who professes wahdatu lwujûd, so he declared that this apostate should be killed and his body thrown to the dogs, for this belief does not allow any safe interpretation, and its kufr is worse than the kufr of Jews and Christians” (this sentence is applied in countries where Islamic Law rules). It is reported that when Sheikh ibn Hajar learned about this fatwa, he was very pleased.



It also shows me why the Kufaar promote sufisim so much, and their libraries are filled with works of Rumi, Ibn al Arabi and so on.

The same could be said about Wahhabism. Basically they often support or praise anything and anybody that will undermine the unity of the Ummah and weaken its position.

After the Iranian revolution, they went as far as starting the Green Belt policy which has bred much of the new Wahhabi generation in Europe, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Even after their foolish manipulations let to the tragic September 11th, they still protect the Saudi state and its religious zealots in the West. My city and my country are filled with the children of the Green Belt, with their internal arguments and their hostility towards the Muslim community.

[abeer_xyz]

Im also surprised that people follow modern scholars who preach shirk based philosophies like wahdatul wujood. ...
It also shows me why the Kufaar promote sufisim so much, and their libraries are filled with works of Rumi, Ibn al Arabi and so on.
How can wahadat al-wajud be a sheerk-based philosophy? Ibn al-Arabi and Jalal al-Din Rumi are the best philosophers of Tawhid.

Both the them are philosophers of Wahadat al-Wajud. The difference is that Rumi provided an emphasis on “Change” or “Evolution” present in the universe.

If one wants to understand Ibn al-Arabi, he may first ponder upon the following issue.

The main question in Ibn al-Arabi’s philosophy is the relation between Allah and His creation in relation to existence.

The common sense view of the universe is actually materialistic in exact sense. Allah created material universe from nothing. It shall cease to exist if Allah annihilates it. Hence the universe is God-dependent.

Now I put a hypothetical question.

What will happen to this universe if God dies without annihilating this universe? Shall this material universe continue to exist? Or shall this universe automatically vanish along with God?

[Alijj.u]

How can wahadat al-wajud be a sheerk-based philosophy? Ibn al-Arabi and Jalal al-Din Rumi are the best philosophers of Tawhid.

Ibn al^Arabiyy and Jalâluddîn arRûmiyy (radiya-llâhu ^anhumâ) had nothing to do with wahdatu lWujûd. Do not trust forged texts which then are badly translated anyway. As for attributing any philosophy to them, they would undoubtedly find this offensive.



The common sense view of the universe is actually materialistic in exact sense. Allah created material universe from nothing. It shall cease to exist if Allah annihilates it. Hence the universe is God-dependent.

Now I put a hypothetical question.

What will happen to this universe if God dies without annihilating this universe? Shall this material universe continue to exist? Or shall this universe automatically vanish along with God?

Abeer_xyz, you did not receive this according to tradition, otherwise you would know that there is nothing apart from Allâh which Allâh does not create. God actually creates everything and every characteristic of everything.

Creation would not be at all if Allâh did not create it. If we were not being created now, we would not be conversing.

I do advise you not to take your knowledge from books. Your post shows that you rely already on forged books for your understanding of the teaching of the masters. Knowledge is received through individuals who received it from other individuals through a chain which goes all the way to the Last Prophet (salla-llâhu ^alayhi wasallam). We use books after receiving them according to the tradition of 'Ahlu sSunnah walJamâ^ah.

[abuhidaya]

As for Ibn Taymiyah being Qadiri this is incorrect. The author never mentions it, because it is a myth.

Ibn Taymiyah does praise Abdul Qadir al Jilani who shared similiar ideas to him in Tawhid Asma wa Sifat and shared the same madhab, and was a pious person who followed kitab and sunnah, along with others such as junayd and al Fudhayl.

The chains people produce amounts to no evidence, because if those chains are historically analyzed often they reveal a gamut of inadequacies. In chains they have people meeting each other, who never lived in the same time.

Abdul Haq al Ansari states on pg 130 of his book Sufisim and Shariah:

Ibn Taymiyah, to be sure, is a most thorough and most incisive critic of Sufisim; and his criticisim is not limited to a few philosophical doctrines or some popular practises, as some writers have held, but covers the entire field of Sufi thought and life.

He also mentions the general outlook of Ibn Taymiya as the following which is the view also of Abul Hasan Ali an Nadwi:

Some people accept everything of Sufism, what is right as well as what is wrong; others reject it totally, both what is wrong and what is right, as some scholars of kalaam and fiqh do. The right attitude towards sufisim, or any other thing, is to accept what is in agreement with the Qur'an and Sunnah and reject what does not agree.

sources: Muhammad Hashim Kishami: Zubdat al Maqamat p. 177
Nadwi, S. A. Hassan, Tarikh Da'wat Volume IV p.136


Ibn Hajar praised ibnu taymiyah does not mean ibn Hajar agreed with everything Ibnu Tayimah said, same analogy with how Ibn Taymiyah praised some abideen like Abdul Qadir al Jilani, junayd etc...

Sufisim is pleasant on the outside but on the inside some of its teachings seem to contradict the pure teachings of islam. Sufis have wonderful manners, but corrupt beliefs. So the good in sufisim is found in kitab and sunnah, so we only need to adhere to that in order to attain spiritual tranquility.

Every Mujadid critisized the ways of the sufis, even sufi revivors critisized the majority of the sufis of their time who immersed themselves in practises of shirk and bid'a. An example of this would be Ahmed Sirhindi, Shah Waliyullah Ad Dehlawi and Uthman Dan Fodio, and more recently the Sanusiyah movement in Libya. The poet Muhammad Iqbal also critisized the sufis, while he praised Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, according to a book called Voices of Resurgent Islam , by John Esposito. I feel sufisim is a big hindrance to achieving any political or military success in the ummah.

Why would the westerners mistranslate when they are praising them for their "brilliance". Any Western text book on religion, exalts the station of sufisim, because often it does not oppose their barbaric atrocities towards muslims, instead they write empty lines of poetry. This is why the ideas of these people are also used by Hindu figures, Buddhist monks, and religious pluralists, people like Guru Nanak the founder of sikhism, was heavily influenced by sufisim.

[Alijj.u]

By the way, this is advice, if it was badly formulated, excuse my lack of manners or sensitivity.

I am quite desperate though to reach you and help your start from safe premises with a safe methodology. The Community has a traditional way of imparting knowledge, do not ignore it. It is about surrendering, submitting, patience and steadfastness.

Allâh ta^âlà said to our master Muhammad (^alayhi ssalâtu wassalâm) what means: "Say, if you love Allâh follow me..."

[Alijj.u]

As for Ibn Taymiyah being Qadiri this is incorrect. The author never mentions it, because it is a myth.

Ibn Taymiyah does praise Abdul Qadir al Jilani who shared similiar ideas to him in Tawhid Asma wa Sifat and shared the same madhab, and was a pious person who followed kitab and sunnah, along with others such as junayd and al Fudhayl.

That indeed is a much more realistic presentation of Ibn Taymiyyah.



The chains people produce amounts to no evidence, because if those chains are historically analyzed often they reveal a gamut of inadequacies. In chains they have people meeting each other, who never lived in the same time.

To claim that chains produce no evidence because... amounts to sawing the branch you sit on. You will be left with no Qur'ân, no hadîth and certainly nothing else.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

<<I feel sufisim is a big hindrance to achieving any political or military success in the ummah.>>

thats funny.... i believe its part of the solution. but i would like to know why you think it is a 'hindrance'? some of the greatest of scholars of today are sufis.... as were the classical, such as Imam al-Ghazali and Imam an-Nawawi.

<<Why would the westerners mistranslate when they are praising them for their "brilliance". Any Western text book on religion, exalts the station of sufisim, because often it does not oppose their barbaric atrocities towards muslims, instead they write empty lines of poetry. This is why the ideas of these people are also used by Hindu figures, Buddhist monks, and religious pluralists, people like Guru Nanak the founder of sikhism, was heavily influenced by sufisim.>>

this is not a reason to reject sufism. tasawwuf is a valid shari'i science according all the scholars of ahl al-sunna, from deoband, to barel... wake up!!

[Alijj.u]

Sufisim is pleasant on the outside but on the inside some of its teachings seem to contradict the pure teachings of islam. Sufis have wonderful manners, but corrupt beliefs. So the good in sufisim is found in kitab and sunnah, so we only need to adhere to that in order to attain spiritual tranquility.

We do not reject the science of hadîth because Wahhâbis are trying to take it over, and we shall certainly not leave in their hands 'in shâ'a-llâh. Neither shall we leave Sufism be blemished by imposters and self-deluded people, neither shall we leave in their hands 'in shâ'a-llâh.

This battle against corruption is an on going one. If you think you will stop infection by just amputating, you will soon be dead.


Every Mujadid critisized the ways of the sufis, even sufi revivors critisized the majority of the sufis of their time who immersed themselves in practises of shirk and bid'a...

I do not know about "every mujaddid" and it is doubtful we will agree on who many of the mujaddids were. But much of this paragraph of yours is very true. Scholars, especially the sufis among them, have clearly criticised pseudo Sufis and this is still going on.


I feel sufisim is a big hindrance to achieving any political or military success in the ummah.

once again you ignore the difference between Sufi claimants and Sufis, for I do not think you actually do not know how involved Sufis were and still are. To this day they are being murdered to get them out of the way. The staunch support of the West to fake Sufis and Wahhâbis should be enough to show what they really want to destroy.


Guru Nanak the founder of sikhism, was heavily influenced by sufisim.

Indeed Guru Nanak is a typical product of pseudo Sufism. Sikhism has just gone all the way and dropped pretending.

[abuhidaya]

The chain or isnad is important in Hadith and Quran. Chains in the sciences of fiqh, hadith, have practical implications, not mystical implications. It is easy to distinguish the transmission of tangible knowledge but more difficult to assert the transmission of states of being.

A teacher is important, in order to learn from his adab with ALLAH and fellow men, yet it does not mean, that in order to achieve piety one must ascribe to a particular tariqah, which claims to descend from the early generations of muslims.

The isnad in the sufi tradition has been corrupted. The so called pseudo sufis, exemplifies this. They claim to have chains that reach back to the Prophet saws as well, does that entail their purity or the purity of their teachings, no. Does that entail that a chain necessitates being attatched to a earlier scholar in the chain, no, for that implication to be true would mean that the pseudo sufi would be a mirror of the adab and teachings of the pious. So what relevance does the chain have when tasawuff is the science of spiritual stations, and the spiritual illumination is a blessing of ALLAH, which can be given to anyone he wills, not necessarily those belonging to a "sacred" chain. So a chain can be polluted easily when a corrupt person , spreads his innovations to fellow disciples. What is necessary for the student of sacred knowledge is to find a pious teacher blessed by ALLAH with righteousness, and learn from him, such as how Ibn al Qayyim found Ibn Taymiyah, or how people use to learn the way of Zuhud from Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal. People claim the "wahabi" tradition is devoid of the teacher/student dynamic but the shaykh himself was a student of an Indian Scholar Muhammad Hayat As Sindhi. The ideas of the shaykh were also in India as well.


Qualifications of Abdul Haqq al Ansari, are on the back of the book: http://store1.yimg.com/I/islamicbookstore-com_1831_209448974

Also I apologize if the tone of my statements seems to be negative, because we are all muslims, and we need to respect each other by virtue of our faith in ALLAH. We also need to realize these disagreements always existed, whatever path we choose, we need to be sincere to ALLAH.

[Alijj.u]

The chain or isnad is important in Hadith and Quran. Chains in the sciences of fiqh, hadith, have practical implications, not mystical implications. It is easy to distinguish the transmission of tangible knowledge but more difficult to assert the transmission of states of being.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Sufi chains transmitted states of being? Sufi chains transmmit, as well as other traditional sciences, the knowledge, experience and technicalities which are particular to their speciality.


A teacher is important, in order to learn from his adab with ALLAH and fellow men, yet it does not mean, that in order to achieve piety one must ascribe to a particular tariqah, which claims to descend from the early generations of muslims.

Did you meet "sufis" who told you differently?


The isnad in the sufi tradition has been corrupted. The so called pseudo sufis, exemplifies this.

That is not particular to Sufism. We have self or sect proclaimed "muhaddiths" and "mufassirs" all around the place. If you say their chains have been corrupted you recognise the validity of a good chain, but if you think the chain is going to do the work for you you are in for a surprise.


They claim to have chains that reach back to the Prophet saws as well, does that entail their purity or the purity of their teachings, no.

Oh no! many a good master had a bad pupil!

If you thought this was Sufism, I can understand why you could not make sense of it eventually.


"Does that entail that a chain necessitates being attatched to a earlier scholar in the chain, no, for that implication to be true would mean that the pseudo sufi would be a mirror of the adab and teachings of the pious. So what relevance does the chain have when tasawuff is the science of spiritual stations, and the spiritual illumination is a blessing of ALLAH, which can be given to anyone he wills, not necessarily those belonging to a "sacred" chain.

Again, where on earth did you get the idea that Sufi chains transmitted states of being?


So a chain can be polluted easily when a corrupt person , spreads his innovations to fellow disciples. What is necessary for the student of sacred knowledge is to find a pious teacher blessed by ALLAH with righteousness, and learn from him,

Who would disagree with that? Again, nothing particular to Sufism and we spot the hypocrite or the innovator in the same way as it is done in other branches of science, which takes more or less time.


such as how Ibn al Qayyim found Ibn Taymiyah, or how people use to learn the way of Zuhud from Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal.

Well, as you said: "So a chain can be polluted easily when a corrupt person , spreads his innovations to fellow disciples."


People claim the "wahabi" tradition is devoid of the teacher/student dynamic but the shaykh himself was a student of an Indian Scholar Muhammad Hayat As Sindhi. The ideas of the shaykh were also in India as well.

See, chains don't solve everything, do they?

[Alijj.u]

ولو لا السند لقال من شاء ما شاء

Ibn alMubârak (rahimahu-llâh) said: "If it had not been for chains (sanad), whoever wanted so would have said whatever they wanted".

[ilm_seeker]

As sallamu alaikum

I recommend our brother to check out http://www.suhba.org to check out what Tassuwaf/Sufism is really about. In sha'Allah it will dispell your false notations.

Wa alaikum as sallam

[abuhidaya]

What Im saying is I hear sufis claim that in order to have spiritual purification you need to ascribe to a tariqah, my arguement is no , you dont need a tareeqah or to do specific forms of ibadat and adhkar assigned by a murshid. When I said transmission of states of being, I meant it in this context, that the teacher if he belongs to a tariqah will attract disciples by virtue of the fact he is part of a long tradition of tasawuff,assuming that because his predecessor was such and such, he will be able to transmit that same way of life to the disciplie by virtue of his knowledge of the way of tasawuff and his practical example. We know the best form of dawah is by watching the actions of a person, hence this is also what I meant when I stated transmitting piety to the disciple by watching his example, and following that, but if his example is corrupt, it is easy to be corrupted.

I am saying, you dont need that because each of us can attain self purification without following a tariqah. You can have a teacher teach the ways of tazkiyah, but he doesnt even have to be a part of any tariqah, because the ways of tazkiyah are clear and simple, outlined in the Quran and Sunnah, it is not philosophical jargon.

You can attain ihsan by adhering to Islam. I can bring several examples from the writings of sufi scholars to prove my arguement who say you need to follow a tariqah for proper tasawuff. We dont need to believe in things like wahdatul wujood etc...

Purification is simple, as Islam is simple. This is the summary of my views on sufism. That's my last comment on the subject.

[Alijj.u]

What Im saying is I hear sufis claim that in order to have spiritual purification you need to ascribe to a tariqah, my arguement is no , you dont need a tareeqah or to do specific forms of ibadat and adhkar assigned by a murshid. You can attain ihsan by adhering to Islam. I can bring several examples from the writings of sufi scholars to prove my arguement. We dont need to believe in things like wahdatul wujood etc...


Mâ shâ'a-llâh! That males perfect sense.

Assalâmu ^alaykum and good night abuhidaya, may Allâh bless you and me with knowledge and piety.

[ahl-e-bayt]

whoever said islam was simple ?! If purification was so simple you and I would have been "simply" purified by now. This slogan of ISLAM IS SIMPLE is very annoyingly ignorant and baseless ....

If it is simple why does it require the minds of intelligent people like Abu Hanifa to study and teach it ?!


TO fight your ego is the most difficult thing to do and that is why it is called the Greated Jihad ...

It is not necessary to join a tariqa to purify oneself. Who said that ? Name them please. People join tariqa's to study the science of purification just like others who join al azhar to study fiqh. You need a teacher to study anything and thats when tariqas come in. And you need a good environment and encouragement to study.

Please do not compare your self with great scholars who did no join a tariqa and achieved purification. Dude did they ever follow a madhab?!? most of them were mujtahids and did not need to. Similarly they were masters of tasawuf and did not need a tariqa to teach them.

As far as sufism is concerened, it is a science. There is no sufism/tassawuf without ISLAM. As IMAM Ghazzli has said, Islam without sufism is a body without a soul.

Hazrat Ali r.a. said, that man is enemy of a thing which he is ignorant of. For now you need to study from the right sources and then come on forums.

You need to learn about this aspect of Islam called tassawuf by the scholars. Visit http://www.suhba.org/ for a better undersatnding which you do not have yet.

[abuhidaya]

okay Im going to reply to ahlul bayt, I went to the site several times, and I have read a lot of that scholars material including reliance of a travellor.

A good critique of his work, is found in the book Dispraise of al Hawa by Dr. Saleh as Saleh, publisher Dar al Khayr. He called Ibn al Arabi , Shaykh al Akbar.

[Mossy]

Is that the book in which he categorises sufism as bidah effectively and happily quotes from Tablees Iblis as if it was completely authentic, using comments on the pseudo-sufis as holding for all sufis, as well as accusing Sh Nuh of things such as fabricating Imam Malik's statements regarding sufism?

Hmmm.

[faqir]

He called Ibn al Arabi , Shaykh al Akbar.

On Ibn Arabi [rahimahullah ta'ala]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3302&highlight=Arabi

[ahl-e-bayt]

quick reply to you abuhidaya, when you want to learn about something you go and ask its specialists. Not some Phd Saleh who is anti that from the start.

You cannot learn about something if you have a bias. If you do that then you are like a fanatical christian studying the Quran to find faults with it. And verily the Quran will never show you its beauty then. So if you go towards tasawuf with enmity and/or bias or ignorance you will only learn what you want to learn and nothing more.

I suggest instead of proving me wrong, you go and study about this science from its specialists and then critisize it. I would readily hear you then.

Before this discussion gets ugly i would like to stop talking on this matter. It wont help either one of us arguing and feeding our ego.

Peace!

[IlyasLahoz]

What Im saying is I hear sufis claim that in order to have spiritual purification you need to ascribe to a tariqah, my arguement is no , you dont need a tareeqah or to do specific forms of ibadat and adhkar assigned by a murshid. When I said transmission of states of being, I meant it in this context, that the teacher if he belongs to a tariqah will attract disciples by virtue of the fact he is part of a long tradition of tasawuff,assuming that because his predecessor was such and such, he will be able to transmit that same way of life to the disciplie by virtue of his knowledge of the way of tasawuff and his practical example. We know the best form of dawah is by watching the actions of a person, hence this is also what I meant when I stated transmitting piety to the disciple by watching his example, and following that, but if his example is corrupt, it is easy to be corrupted.



A brief audio clip which explains the importance of nisba, ie learning the obligatory states of being from people who learned them from people who learned them etc to the sahaba, radiAllahu anhum to the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam.
Nisba (http://server1.aswatalislam.net/Audios/Lectures/Husain%20Abdul%20Sattar//Husain%20Abdul%20Sattar%20-%20Importance%20of%20the%20Path%20(www.aswatalisla m.net).mp3)

I think you may find Shaykh Hussain's approach to tasawwuf (which is from his teachers from their teachers etc) fairly agreeable.

[Mohammed Mohammed]

Islamic Sufism by Rabbani

Islamic Sufism is perhaps the closest one can get to a contemporary manual or text-book on Islamic Spirituality. The book covers almost every conceivable aspect of Sufism, from a summary of the very basics of the Islamic rituals such as fasting and prayers, to the more complex concepts such as "Wahdatul wujud" or "Oneness of Being".
available at
www.al-haddad.co.uk