Where does Sufism fall within the Islamic hierarchy?

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

And this person wants us to believe that he is a true hanbali.

Serious question, Was Imam Ahmad a Sufi?

[mh16388]

Serious question, Was Imam Ahmad a Sufi?

there was a booklet i saw once that proved the hanbali ulema of that time were sufis. does anybody remb the title?

[warea]

Serious question, Was Imam Ahmad a Sufi?

The zuhd of the Imam is well known. He associated with sufies. And also reported to have seen Allah in dreams. And here's a input from a early text on sufism

AHMAD IBN HANBAL

He was distinguished by devoutness and piety, and was the guardian of the Traditions of the Apostle. Sufis of all sects regard him as blessed. He associated with great Shaykhs, such as Dhu ‘l-Nun of Egypt, Bishr al-Hafi, Sari al-Saqati, Ma`ruf al-Karkhi, and others. His miracles were manifest and his intelligence sound.*The doctrines attributed to him today by certain Anthropomorphists are inventions and forgeries; he is to be acquitted of all notions of that sort. He had a firm belief in the principles of religion, and his creed was approved by all the divines. When the Mu`tazilites came into power at Baghdad, they wished to extort from him a confession that the Koran was created, and though he was a feeble old man they put him to the rack and gave him a thousand lashes. In spite of all this he would not say that the Koran was created. While he was undergoing punishment his*izar*became untied. His own hands were fettered, but another hand appeared and tied it. Seeing this evidence, they let him go. He died, however, of the wounds inflicted on that occasion.*Shortly before his death some persons visited him and asked what he had to say about those who flogged him. He answered: “What should I have to say? They flogged me for God’s sake, thinking that I was wrong and that they were right. I will not claim redress from them at the Resurrection for mere blows.”*He is the author of lofty sayings on ethics. When questioned on any point relating to practice he used to answer the question himself, but if it was a point of mystical theory (haqa’iq) he would refer the questioner to Bishr Hafi.*One day a man asked him: “What is sincerity (ikhlas)?” He replied: “To escape from the cankers of one’s actions,” i.e. let thy actions be free from ostentation and hypocrisy and self-interest. The questioner then asked: “What is trust (tawakkul)?” Ahmad replied: “Confidence in God, that He will provide thy daily bread.” The man asked: “What is acquiescence (rida)?” He replied: “To commit, thy affairs to God.” “And what is love (mahabbat)?” Ahmad said: “Ask this question of Bishr Hafi for I will not answer it while he is alive.”*Ahmad ibn Hanbal was constantly exposed to persecution: during his life by the attacks of the Mu`tazilites, and after his death by the suspicion of sharing the views of the Anthropomorphists. Consequently the orthodox Muslims are ignorant of his true state and hold him suspect. But he is clear of all that is alleged against him.

Source: Kashf al-Mahjub*

[dr.ati]

The zuhd of the Imam is well known. He associated with sufies. And also reported to have seen Allah in dreams. And here's a input from a early text on sufism

Are you kidding? Kasf al mahjub was written by Ali hujwiri who was a persian Hanafi Sufi of the 10th century. His words about Imam Ahli Sunnah Imam Ahmad rahimahullah can not be taken as evidence. Come up with something better. "He associated with Sufis" is your baseless slander on the noble Imam. Zuhd and seeing Allah does not necessitate Tasawwuf.

[AK-1990]

I've heard that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah R.A dedicated 2 whole 'jild' (parts) of his majmooa e fatawa to 'tasawwuf' where he relates quotations from Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani R.A, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mubarak R.A and Hazrat Fuzail bin Ayaz R.A. He calls many by the title 'Syed' of their eras.
If we accept (which I know the Hanafis believe) that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was a hanbali. This shows that the Imam had a high respect for sufis and tasawwuf in general.
And Allah knows best.

[Abdullah288]

Assalamu alaykum

Tawassuf= tazkiyat nafs + zuhd
no one has a problem with tazkiyat nafs or zuhd.

when some people think of tawassuf they equate it with barelvis, bidah, shirk, grave worshipping. that is why they reject tawassuf

[Abdullah288]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YakXuCAlC0Y

differnce between early sufis and the ones who came later

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

The zuhd of the Imam is well known. He associated with sufies. And also reported to have seen Allah in dreams. And here's a input from a early text on sufism

That's not what I asked really, you said "Tassawuf" even if Tassawuf has Zuhd and Tazkityatu Nafs, it doesn't mean someone is a "Sufi" in name automatically by partaking in those two activities. A sufi, in the context that we are using it now a days has certain connotations a lot of which are negative that don't apply to Imam Ahmad.

The meaning of words change as time goes on, and now the word "Tassawuf/Sufi" automatically gives a lot muslims the idea of a Mushrik, now one can say (someone did in this thread, was it you?) that the same can be said for a Muslim, however, we are told by Allah to be Muslims and this is our religion, however the word Tassawuf is a Bida'a and can be left or kept depending on the reason for it's use.

So if you are saying Imam Ahmad was a Zaahid, Aabid, Faqeer inda Allah, Had high Imaan, High Ihsaan, etc etc etc... and that is your idea of a "True Sufi" and thus a "True Hanbali" than absolutely no one alive in this day is following any of the Madhabs in a "Real" Way, so you are no longer Shafi'i, because you also neglect to come close to those things similar to Imam ash-Shafi'i. However, if your saying that Imam Ahmad followed a Tareeqa, Twirled around, Called upon other than Allah, Poked himself with burning Iron, etc... and thus because the Dr. doesn't do these things he isn't a "True" Hanbali, then once again your wrong, because Imam Ahmad didn't do any of those things. If your saying that He is not Hanbali because he denies the use of the word "Sufi" in the context of being from a specific group of people during the Salaf, again that's baseless to begin with, and has absolutely no baring on whether or not he is Hanbali, because Hanbali has to do with Fiqh+Aqeedah, if he follows either of them he is Hanbali, now whether or not he can reach high Ihsaan without what you consider "Tassawuf" has nothing to do with being Hanbali or not Hanbali.

And why is it that you and your Henchmen are the only ones going around questioning peoples "Hanbalism." Who are you to question anyone elses Fiqh/Belief? Question yourself, and keep your thoughts of peoples business to yourself. How many times have you ever seen a Hanbali here question if someone was REALLY Hanafi/Shafi'i/Malaki?

[warea]

That's not what I asked really, you said "Tassawuf" even if Tassawuf has Zuhd and Tazkityatu Nafs, it doesn't mean someone is a "Sufi" in name automatically by partaking in those two activities. A sufi, in the context that we are using it now a days has certain connotations a lot of which are negative that don't apply to Imam Ahmad.

The meaning of words change as time goes on, and now the word "Tassawuf/Sufi" automatically gives a lot muslims the idea of a Mushrik, now one can say (someone did in this thread, was it you?) that the same can be said for a Muslim, however, we are told by Allah to be Muslims and this is our religion, however the word Tassawuf is a Bida'a and can be left or kept depending on the reason for it's use.

So if you are saying Imam Ahmad was a Zaahid, Aabid, Faqeer inda Allah, Had high Imaan, High Ihsaan, etc etc etc... and that is your idea of a "True Sufi" and thus a "True Hanbali" than absolutely no one alive in this day is following any of the Madhabs in a "Real" Way, so you are no longer Shafi'i, because you also neglect to come close to those things similar to Imam ash-Shafi'i. However, if your saying that Imam Ahmad followed a Tareeqa, Twirled around, Called upon other than Allah, Poked himself with burning Iron, etc... and thus because the Dr. doesn't do these things he isn't a "True" Hanbali, then once again your wrong, because Imam Ahmad didn't do any of those things. If your saying that He is not Hanbali because he denies the use of the word "Sufi" in the context of being from a specific group of people during the Salaf, again that's baseless to begin with, and has absolutely no baring on whether or not he is Hanbali, because Hanbali has to do with Fiqh+Aqeedah, if he follows either of them he is Hanbali, now whether or not he can reach high Ihsaan without what you consider "Tassawuf" has nothing to do with being Hanbali or not Hanbali.

And why is it that you and your Henchmen are the only ones going around questioning peoples "Hanbalism." Who are you to question anyone elses Fiqh/Belief? Question yourself, and keep your thoughts of peoples business to yourself. How many times have you ever seen a Hanbali here question if someone was REALLY Hanafi/Shafi'i/Malaki?

Tassawuf and Sufism is defined as all Sunnis and authoritative Sufi scholars defines it. Your personal imaginations are irrelevent and im sorry I can't bend the definition to fit your imaginations.

Imam Ahmed never adhered to a madhab too. Yet you claim your a hanbali. Similarily madhabs in tasawuf exists. Dancing has never been defined as tasawuf. Certain tareeqas may have used it based on their fiqh position on these issues yet even they don't define tasawuf and sufism as dancing, which is just your personal straws.

Hanbalis would have their sharia ruling on the science of tassawuf and the people known as Sufis and would immitate their hanbali "Imams" who are all well known to be followers of Sufi tareeqas. So yes it has much to do with how much modern day salafised claimants to hanbalism actually adhere to the madhab and follow the way of their Imams.

But since the thread is being diverted into a hanbali vs tassawuf issue, ill end it here.

[Abu Jahid]

Assalamu alaykum

Tawassuf= tazkiyat nafs + zuhd
no one has a problem with tazkiyat nafs or zuhd.

when some people think of tawassuf they equate it with barelvis, bidah, shirk, grave worshipping. that is why they reject tawassuf

Wa 'alaykum assalam wa rahmatullah,

Very true, dear brother!

But since the thread is being diverted into a hanbali vs tassawuf issue, ill end it here.

Hanbalis vs Tasawwuf?!? Rather it should be said: Hanbalis vs Bid'ah!!
What some people call as "Tasawwuf" is not really Tasawwuf!

Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) had been asked regarding those who make Sama' and who dance (Raqs) (and who then claim that they're coming nearer to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala through this):
He answered regarding them in "ذم ما عليه مدعو التصوف" ("Criticism/Condamnation of that which the claimants of Tasawwuf are upon") that doing this is a Bid'ah and that the testimony of those, who do such a thing, is not to be accepted!

You can read it here:

http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=gsqndhxs

Conclusion: Imam Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) was an "evil Wahhabi"...