Sufism and its Non-Islamic Roots

[anonymouse]

Sufism and its Non-Islamic Roots
http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/...php?topic=98.0

Sufism and its Non-Islamic Roots -Sufistic elements in the religions before Islam-

Dictionary meaning of sufism

synonyms of sufism in different regions
Sufism/Mysticism
Gnosticism/Irfan
Ascetism

types of sufism
Psychological Mysticism
Philosophical Mysticism
Mystical tradition

sufism in the history

sufistic elements in the religions before Islam
Sufism within the Jahiliyya society
sufism within the Judaic tradition
Christian Mysticism
Sabeans & sufism
the Iranian religious traditions
Manichaeism
the old Turkish belief Shamanism
Chinese Mystical religions
Within the Hindu thought
philosophical traditions: Egyptian philosophy and the Greek philosophical traditions

Conclusion
Sufism is a systematic belief on its own -other than Islam-

References
http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/...php?topic=98.0

[tawheedullah]

Yeah, this is the kind of stuff that get's put on here that I don't like.

BTW, there is no such thing as "Egyptian Philosophy". There are philosophers who lived in Egypt, but that was during the Greek period.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

There is Tasawwuf and there is Tasawwuf of those who give bayah to a sheikh and become like the dead under the washer (obeying him in everything). The Tasawwuf built upon the Quran and Sunnah (the study of Zuhd etc and striving ie Jihad an nafs ) this is praiseworthy. Like Imam Nawawi rahmatullah alayh wrote about. But never did you find the likes of Imam Nawawi, Ahmad ibn Taymiyah, and others calling to unconditional bayah to a sheikh and doing innovated forms of dhikr to reach a state of annhiliation. The great Alim Ibn Qudamah al maqdisi wrote a fatwa against the evil practice of Hadra which is a gross innovation. This is not praiseworthy actions of a Zaahid. The great Alim adh Dhahabi wrote against many of the Sufi works that had bizaare and strange beliefs rather it be literal or not , the works contained kufr. If it was not literal and the person who wrote them made that clear then we excuse them for kufr however this does not mean that its permissible for them to write books which appear to be kufr. Imam Dhahabi wrote against such grossness in works of Sufis.

Talbis Iblis of Imam ibn Jawzee was very good in refutation of the deviancys of many Sufis and shias alike. Ahmad ibn taymiyah rahmatullah alayh challenged sufis in debates. He exposed the deviant beliefs of some of the sufis. At times he exposed frauds (im referring to his debate with the rifaii sufi master) and in his beautiful fatwas spoke against Bayah to a particular sheikh (obeying that sheikh in every affair which is impermissible blind following).

Praise be to Allah who has saved me from all this. I was on the brink of kufr and Alhamdulilah the One the Mighty Who Acended His Throne In the Most Perfect Manner , He is My Rabb who has granted so many favors to me.Allahumma sali ala muhammadin wa ala ali muhammad. May He aza wa jal guide me onto the straight path

[tawheedullah]

There is Tasawwuf and there is Tasawwuf of those who give bayah to a sheikh and become like the dead under the washer (obeying him in everything). The Tasawwuf built upon the Quran and Sunnah (the study of Zuhd etc and striving ie Jihad an nafs ) this is praiseworthy. Like Imam Nawawi rahmatullah alayh wrote about. But never did you find the likes of Imam Nawawi, Ahmad ibn Taymiyah, and others calling to unconditional bayah to a sheikh and doing innovated forms of dhikr to reach a state of annhiliation. The great Alim Ibn Qudamah al maqdisi wrote a fatwa against the evil practice of Hadra which is a gross innovation. This is not praiseworthy actions of a Zaahid. The great Alim adh Dhahabi wrote against many of the Sufi works that had bizaare and strange beliefs rather it be literal or not , the works contained kufr. If it was not literal and the person who wrote them made that clear then we excuse them for kufr however this does not mean that its permissible for them to write books which appear to be kufr. Imam Dhahabi wrote against such grossness in works of Sufis.

Talbis Iblis of Imam ibn Jawzee was very good in refutation of the deviancys of many Sufis and shias alike. Ahmad ibn taymiyah rahmatullah alayh challenged sufis in debates. He exposed the deviant beliefs of some of the sufis. At times he exposed frauds (im referring to his debate with the rifaii sufi master) and in his beautiful fatwas spoke against Bayah to a particular sheikh (obeying that sheikh in every affair which is impermissible blind following).

Praise be to Allah who has saved me from all this. I was on the brink of kufr and Alhamdulilah the One the Mighty Who Acended His Throne In the Most Perfect Manner , He is My Rabb who has granted so many favors to me.Allahumma sali ala muhammadin wa ala ali muhammad. May He aza wa jal guide me onto the straight path

Bayah is not necessarily "blind following". I have read Deobandi works where bayah to a Shaykh is permitted, but not if the Shaykh tells you to do something haram.

Also, that quote about "a corpse and it's washer" has been misquoted for centuries. It is a quote from Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (ra) where he was actually referring to Allah (swt) rather than a Shaykh. It's from Futuh al-Ghaib..

[Suhaib Jobst]

I must admit, give me that article several months ago and I would have accepted it out of hand. But after reading many posts from 'Ahlus Sunnah', 'Tawheedullah', 'Sharif Abu-Jafar', and some other brothers, this led me to examine the original sources of Sufism rather than rejecting them out of hand.

Here is what I have come to believe after further research: The Ahl as-Suffa were pious individuals, who renounced the illusions of this world and stressed the importance of abiding by Shari'ah and Ittiba' as-Sunnah. They rebelled against the deteriorating condition of the Muslim intellectual and spiritual fervor, when philosophical traditions infiltrated the pristine beauty of Islam.

What we usually mean when we condemn Sufism is the tradition started by Ibn Arabi and Mansur al-Hallaj. This was the innovation falsely ascribed to Tasawwuf, which innovated the concepts such as Al-Hulool, Wahdat-ul-Wujood, and denying or distorting the Was-Sifaat of Allah (Azza wa-Jall). As documented throughout this forum, particularly on the Beliefs and Fundamentals section, many of those whom the Sufis ascribe to were actually upon the correct Aqeedah. This other form of Sufism was definitely upon the madhhab of As-Salaf as-Saalih, masha'Allah.

So it is really not simple at all to say Sufism is based on foreign, non-Islamic modes of thinking or Kaffir ideologies. The situation is far more complex. The Sufis we rightly condemn are from the "intoxicated school", but they are far removed from the pure tradition of Tasawwuf, i.e. formulated to protect the Muslims from a purely legalistic approach, at the real detriment of the spiritual approach.

As Muslims, we should reach a synthesis between both approaches. No doubt Shari'ah and Ittiba' as-Sunnah comes first, but this needs a spiritual direction guiding it. This is especially the case for the Islamic communities in the West -immigrant Muslims, second- or third- generation immigrants, and reverts.

We are diverse and obviously need an Islamic tradition which is cleansed from all cultural baggage which has harmed the pure Deen and caused problems in the name of Religion (while it is far removed from it). We should also recognize in our Da'wah efforts, the spiritual approach is most efficient and Muslims in our societies need guidance in a materialist environment.

At the same time, we must forestall the efforts of the ecstatic, deviated Sufis - Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Hisham Kabbani, Nazim al-Qubrusi, Abdul-Hakim Murad, Hamza Yusuf, Abdul-Hadi Palazzi. And we need to prevent the efforts of the self-styled "Salafi" organizations which are prevalent in the West. Both extremes dominate the discourse, competing for converts and making Islam into a matter of social and economic status, a matter of taqleed to a list of "shaykhs" which divides the Muslims, rather than uniting them, and actually runs many people away from even considering true Islam.

Both sides have a concentration on one aspect which is detrimental to the other aspect. Perhaps this is a little too cliche - or maybe it will be anathema to some - but in my opinion, we need to forget these labels and remember the form behind the content. We need to develop a Sufi heart and a Salafi approach. There is no Zuhd without Shari'ah, and no Shari'ah without Zuhd.

And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

[tawheedullah]

What we usually mean when we condemn Sufism is the tradition started by Bayazid al-Bistami, Ibn Arabi, and Mansur al-Hallaj. This was the innovation falsely ascribed to Tasawwuf, which innovated the concepts such as Al-Hulool, Wahdat-ul-Wujood, and denying or distorting the Was-Sifaat of Allah (Azza wa-Jall). As documented throughout this forum, particularly on the Beliefs and Fundamentals section, many of those whom the Sufis ascribe to were actually upon the correct Aqeedah. This other form of Sufism was definitely upon the madhhab of As-Salaf as-Saalih, masha'Allah.

Need to take Bayazid out of that. Ibn Taymiyyah and Ad-Dhahabi praised him as a true Wali.

"There are two categories of fana': one is for the perfect Prophets and saints, and one is for seekers from among the saints and pious people (saliheen). Bayazid al-Bistami is from the first category of those who experience fana', which means the complete renunciation of anything other than God. He accepts none except God. He worships none except Him, and he asks from none except Him."-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (RA).

Yes. Ibn Taymiyya apparently believed in fanaa'. I don't know the source of that particular quote, but I know he also spoke well of Bayazid in volume 10 and 11 of his Majmu` Fatawa.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Need to take Bayazid out of that. Ibn Taymiyyah and Ad-Dhahabi praised him as a true Wali.

"There are two categories of fana': one is for the perfect Prophets and saints, and one is for seekers from among the saints and pious people (saliheen). Bayazid al-Bistami is from the first category of those who experience fana', which means the complete renunciation of anything other than God. He accepts none except God. He worships none except Him, and he asks from none except Him."-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (RA).

Jazakallah Khair. His description of the various forms of Sufism really got me to question many of my previous beliefs in this regard. I would hear or read a statement from an alleged Sufi and reject that person out of hand, neglecting the fact many of these statements have been falsely ascribed to them.

Ibn Taymiyya apparently believed in fanaa.

Like many other terminologies, fanaa was probably far different in its original meaning and connotation than what it has become in the current discourse. Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) is the perfect example of the balanced approach I described, indeed all the true scholars from the past. Many contemporary Sufis are very obsessed about him, but he was more expressive of Tasawwuf than they could even fathom.

[tawheedullah]

Jazakallah Khair. His description of the various forms of Sufism really got me to question many of my previous beliefs in this regard. I would hear or read a statement from an alleged Sufi and reject that person out of hand, neglecting the fact many of these statements have been falsely ascribed to them.



Like many other terminologies, fanaa was probably far different in its original meaning and connotation than what it has become in the current discourse. Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) is the perfect example of the balanced approach I described, indeed all the true scholars from the past. Many contemporary Sufis are very obsessed about him, but he was more expressive of Tasawwuf than they could even fathom.

I suggest the works of Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani very highly. They've shown me what true tasawwuf is about.

BTW, Bayazid explained fanaa' as shedding one's ego (nafs) as a snake sheds its skin.

[Skillganon]

Assalamu alaikumw wr wb

So brother's & sisters those who espoused true sufism.

Can you tell me in your own words what is true sufism without leaving much out?

[Um Abdullah M.]

a huge number of sufis today or majority of them consider Ibn Arabi to be shaikh al Akbar.
and have many deviant beliefs of later sufis who had many innovations and even some shirki beliefs.

so if there are any sufis on correct path today they are a small minority in the world.

and I would say that the closest ones to the truth are deobandis, especially the mamati ones, from what I read in another thread in this forum.

unless there is another sufi group that is even closer, that I don't know of.