Sufism and its Non-Islamic Roots

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by anonymouse, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. anonymouse

    anonymouse <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

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

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  3. Madarijas-Salikeen

    Madarijas-Salikeen <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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
     
  4. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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..
     
  5. Suhaib Jobst

    Suhaib Jobst 'Amal Ahl al-Madina

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  6. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  7. Suhaib Jobst

    Suhaib Jobst 'Amal Ahl al-Madina

    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.
     
  8. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  9. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

    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?
     
  10. Um Abdullah M.

    Um Abdullah M. Nothing

    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.
     
  11. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

  12. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    It is purifying the heart of all that distracts it from Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala). Purifying it from any trace of riyaa, hypocrisy, or kufr that may reside there. Subduing the self until it no longer commands, but only obeys Allah. Until everything you do is done solely for the sake of Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala).

    As I have said, the best work on this particular subject is the works of Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (rahimahuallah). I have posted a link with excerpts from his works.
     
  13. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  14. al-omari

    al-omari Well-Known Member

    I think it is wrong to compare what you termed self-styled "Salafi" organizations to some of the aforementioned Sufis. These Salafis might have bad manners and incorrect manhaj but at least their aqeedah is correct as opposed to the Sufis whose aqeedah and manhaj is misguided. I wouldn't include Hamza Yusuf with the Sufis you mentioned as he is better than them. But Kabbani, Palazzi and Murad are openly collaborating with the enemies of Islaam.
     
  15. Suhaib Jobst

    Suhaib Jobst 'Amal Ahl al-Madina

    Both their conception of Imaan is one of Irjaa'. Both are hostile against the Muslims, one against the "Wahhabis" and the other against the "Khawarij". They concentrate on attacking these falsely-labelled groups (which are actually the same group), but leave alone the Kuffar, even making excuses for the worst enemies of Islam, whether from the Disbelievers or the Hypocrites.

    While the enemies of Islam crack down upon any real manifestation of Islam, which calls to elevating the Word of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) and defending the rights of the Muslims, Neo-Salafis and contemporary Sufis are left alone with their activities. Why? Because they adopt an approach to Islam which concentrates on either the exterior dress or weird manners of worship and strange philosophical rhetoric.

    Both groups view Siyasah and Fiqh al-Waaqi as distracting to the common Muslim, so they essentially emasculate the youth following them from being any real threat to our enemy's agenda of promoting a "moderate Islam". Abu Khadijah and Hisham Kabbani - the two are far more alike than they are different; both are the kind of "Muslims" who are promoted by the enemies, both are harsh upon the Muslims and easy upon the worst from the Disbelievers.

    I really don't understand why some brothers and sisters are hesitant when it comes to Hamza Yusuf. Sure his approach is less belligerent than the others, but the man has expressed his true allegiance time and time again. The man openly collaborates with the enemies of Islam and claims there are "allegorical" verses in the Holy Qur'an. Forget about his other mistakes: These two serious errors are enough for me to formulate an opinion of the man.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
  16. Um Abdullah M.

    Um Abdullah M. Nothing

    well, the ones who are labeled as "khawarij" and "takfiris", are basically the same, they are also hostile against Muslims who don't follow their same ideology.
    and you say that these groups, above, leave the kuffar,
    well these ones labeled as "khawarij" mostly concentrate on kuffar (fighting and killing them) and leave deviant groups, most of their time is all in politics and issue of "kuffar" & rulers, while I hardly see any topics by them on different issues of Islam other than fighting and killing the kuffar, and attacking "scholars of the taghoot".

    so in my opinion, they are no better than "madhkhalis".
    I have seen them posting articles on political issues and attacking scholars whom they believe are "Scholars of the taghoot" and other similar topics in another forum.
    and only a few individuals would discuss with them, you can count them on one hand, I was one of them, and I would actually recieve some pms supporting me in defending the scholars, and discovered that there are many in the forum who do not like their ideology and manhaj, but keep silent and not get into discussions with them just to be free from their bad mouths, so they just keep away from discussing with them, and these members are not "madhkhalis", nor from deviant groups.
    just regular Muslims, not fitting themselves in any group, but their aqeedah is bascially correct, on fitrah.
    so, the same as many Muslims keep away from discussing with madhkhalis becuase of their bad mouths and manners, they also keep away from the ones called "khawarij" or "takfiris", because they can't stand their bad mouthing and manners, either.

    (note: not everyone from both groups are bad mouthed, or ill mannered, for I have come across ones who are called "madhkhalis" who were good mannered, same with ones who are labeled as "khawarij" there are some who are well mannered and debate without bad mouthing others, but many of both sides are like what I describe above - before this note).

    so to me and many others, both groups are same in their way of treatment of their fellow Muslims.


    summary:
    Sufis concentrate on "Wahhabis" and hardly anything else, like their life goal is just to fight these wahhabis, even shia are safe from them (except for Deobandis, they do refute shia).
    salafis who are called "Madhkhali" concentrate mostly on who are labeled "khawarij", "Qutubis", "ikhwanis"
    ones labeled as "khawarij' \ takfiris concentrate mostly on "rulers"/ "scholars of the taghoot" (in their belief), "madhkhalis and fighting kuffar


    while the ones on middle path (insha Allah), in my opinion, work on all sides, fighting all sects that are deviant (sufis, shia, ibadis, Ahbash ..etc.), refuting them and spreading correct aqeedah and teachings of Islam.
    they also, in addition to that, refute other religions attacks on Islam (i.e. Christians ..etc.) + atheists.
    they also work on doing dawah to Muslims in different issues of deen, whether aqeedah or fiqh or purification of soul ..etc.
    they also do dawah to kuffar, who are not fighting Islam or Muslims, and call for fighting the kuffar who are killing Muslims and taking Muslim land.

    of course you won't find one person doing all of this together, it is a lot, and one person can't be debating and refuting all these groups.
    so you will find some of them refuting this and some refuting that, and some doing dawah to non Muslims, and other doing dawah to Muslims ..etc.
    but basically you will find their beliefs and manhaj same, believing that all the above is important.

    while other groups, put almost all importance to one or 2 issue, and neglect almost everything else.
    like these HT (who are corrupt in aqeedah), make the issue of khilafah above everything else, like there is nothing in Islam except khilafah, and even worse, they would accept a shia to be khalifah !

    Authubillah.
     
  17. Skillganon

    Skillganon The Serial Repper

    Was Shaykh Abdul-Qadir's a Sufi?

    What is the proof?


    If I have problem with some of the passages in those links I will post them here. You can explain to me. Some of it still sounds wierd
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2007
  18. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    The proof is that he wrote a bunch of books about tasawwuf, drawing extensively from the works of early Sufis like Junayd and Bayazid. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

    No disrespect intended, but if you have problems with Shaykh Abdul-Qadir's works, that's really your problem, not his.
     
  19. aMuslimForLife

    aMuslimForLife Ahlul Hadith


    As Salaam Alaykum,

    I once followed the Shadhili tariqa, and our shuyukh considered Ibn Arabi Shaykh al Akbar. Those Sufis who consider Ibn Arabi "Shaykh Akbar" doesn't mean they have Shirki beliefs, nor does it mean they believe Allah is everywhere and everything.

    As Bro Sharif_Abu_Jafar mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah was in general unbiased person. And based on the things that I read from Ibn taymiyyah regarding Tasawwuf it is unfortunate that those who claim to follow him aren’t as open minded and unbiased as he was.

    Ibn Taymiyyah said, “In the beginning, I was very much impressed by Ibn Arabi and held him in great esteem as I had found many of his discussions in the Futuhat, Al Kunh, Al Muhkam al Marbut, Ad Durrat al Fakhirah, Matali an Nujum and other such works very illuminating and useful. I was not aware at the time of his esoteric ideas as I had not read the Fusus and other like works.”

    This statement by Ibn Taymiyyah is so profound. Because Ibn Taymiyyah does not consider all Ibn Arabi works to be outside of the context of the Quran and Sunnah, in fact he was quite impressed by many of Ibn Arabi’s work.

    Shaykh Nuh Keller who considers ibn Arabi “Shaykh Akbar” does not consider the Fusus to be an authentic work of Ibn Arabi and therefore does not teach from that book. Shaykh Nuh Keller and the Shadhili shuyukh of Syria’s knowledge of Ibn Arabi is based on Ibn Arabi's books in which they have sanad for such as Futuhat, which was specifically mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah as a book which was to him “very illuminating and useful.”

    Shaykh Nuh Keller mentioned in a lecture that I attended that he personally does care if people criticize Ibn Arabi, if they do so with a condition, that they had studied Ibn Arabis works with someone who has a sanad with his works, and then they criticize him all they wanted.

    Shaykh Nuh Keller said based on the works of Ibn Arabi that he had studied with a sanad back to Ibn Arabi, he had not found anything in his works indicating that ibn Arabi believed Allah was everywhere and everything, in fact he said he found his aqidah conformed to the aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah.

    Conclusion

    Therefore, a sufi praising ibn Arabi does not necessarily mean they harbor incorrect knowledge about Allah or Islam.

    And Allah knows best.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2007
  20. tawheedullah

    tawheedullah <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    I actually agree with this to certain extent. People like Ibn Ata Allah (rahimahuallah) and also the Deobandis held positive views of Ibn Arabi in the same way you mention.

    However, I still think Ibn Taymiyyah's position was correct. I also think it's a great exagerration to consider him "Shaykh al-Akbar" and "the Seal of the Awliya" (this means the wali who has attained a position so high that no other wali can ever top him). Ibn Arabi's books are mostly bizarre arcana rather than beneficial knowledge about the spiritual path. Ibn Arabi's books read like weird trivia books to me.
     

Share This Page