Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Abdul Rahman

Going Sufi

Recommended Posts

So, deoband is a place in India. It has a University. They were a reaction to colonial England. Very anti West, according to Wikipedia. Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, deoband is a place in India. It has a University. They were a reaction to colonial England. Very anti West, according to Wikipedia. Is this correct?

yes. yes and yes. They were a anti-west response but have cooled down since then. Their practice of sufism is very sober no-nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ what do u mean haku, when u say its sober and no nonsense?

they don't dance or sing. They don't do weird stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a biiiiig Sufi debate with my friend and our Shaykh. I won so 1-0 to the Sufi Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 'Sufi' per se. Rather I've done some impartial reading and some studies about 'true and authentic Tasawwuf, and thus have developed an impartial understanding about its teaching. Tasawwuf is something which is very much from the Qur'an and Sunnah, however over centuries certain practices have caused it to mutate and stray from it's intial objective; making a few things in contemporary Tasawwuf, dubious.

 

Well, that's my own personal understanding, which means nowt in the grand scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 'Sufi' per se. Rather I've done some impartial reading and some studies about 'true and authentic Tasawwuf, and thus have developed an impartial understanding about its teaching. Tasawwuf is something which is very much from the Qur'an and Sunnah, however over centuries certain practices have caused it to mutate and stray from it's intial objective; making a few things in contemporary Tasawwuf, dubious.

 

Well, that's my own personal understanding, which means nowt in the grand scheme of things.

What is the difference in say a suffi and a regular Sunni Muslim? Or better yet, what would be a good place to start understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 'Sufi' per se. Rather I've done some impartial reading and some studies about 'true and authentic Tasawwuf, and thus have developed an impartial understanding about its teaching. Tasawwuf is something which is very much from the Qur'an and Sunnah, however over centuries certain practices have caused it to mutate and stray from it's intial objective; making a few things in contemporary Tasawwuf, dubious.

 

Well, that's my own personal understanding, which means nowt in the grand scheme of things.

What's your view on Tariqa, bay'ah, walis, and the general abundance of bid'ah in worship (mandatory Du'aa's for certain individuals past and present, e.g. Ibn al Arabi and Abd-al-Qadr al Jilani, or current heads of tariqas, things like having "Ya Muhammed" written in mosques, etc.)?

 

bit of a loaded question but generally want to know what you consider proper tasawwuf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference in say a suffi and a regular Sunni Muslim? Or better yet, what would be a good place to start understanding?

 

In a nutshell as far as I'm concerned, you can't really compare 'Sunni' with 'Sufi', since Sunni is more of a theological umbrella term, whilst Tasawwuf could be classed as a mind/set or mentality. Ultimately Tasawwuf entails following the Qur'an and Sunnah, which is the bedrock of Sunni Islam.

 

What's your view on Tariqa, bay'ah, walis, and the general abundance of bid'ah in worship (mandatory Du'aa's for certain individuals past and present, e.g. Ibn al Arabi and Abd-al-Qadr al Jilani, or current heads of tariqas, things like having "Ya Muhammed" written in mosques, etc.)?

 

bit of a loaded question but generally want to know what you consider proper tasawwuf.

 

With regards to Tariqas, Tasawwuf was established before the advent of the Turuq. It was known as Zuhd (ascetism) and many classical scholars had written on this subject e.g. Abdullah Ibn Al-Mubarak wrote the book Kitabul Zuhd wal Raqaa'iq. The Schools of Sufism developed around the 12th Century. So ultimately one can be 'Sufi' without joining a Tariqah or giving Bay'ah to a Shaykh.

Many Sufi Tariqas have weak chains back to the Prophet (saw), so many mandatory adhkar or dua stipulated by a Tariqah my not be established in the Sunnah. Having said that, the founder of the Tariqah or someone may have recited a certain adhkar or dua and found it to be beneficial. This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who recites the same thing will receive the same benefit.

With regards to people like Ibn Al-Arabi and Al-Hallaj, the true Sufi Scholars spoke out against them. Imam Junayd Al-Baghdadi said that anyone who believes in that which AL-Hallaj was killed for, then he is a Kafir and Murtad. Ibn Al-Arabi was refuted by Imam Dhahabi, who said that the worst book written was the book of Ibn Al-Arabi known as Fusoos Al-Hikam, and he also rhetorically said 'if there's no Kufr in Fusoos; then there's no Kufr in the Dunya.

 

I will continue will Abdul Qadir and the rest of the Questions in a moment. I have to pop outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ibn Al-Arabi was refuted by Imam Dhahabi, who said that the worst book written was the book of Ibn Al-Arabi known as Fusoos Al-Hikam, and he also rhetorically said 'if there's no Kufr in Fusoos; then there's no Kufr in the Dunya.

 

Was his main issue with it the concept of Wahda al-Wujud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abd-al-Qadr al Jilani, or current heads of tariqas, things like having "Ya Muhammed" written in mosques, etc.)?

 

bit of a loaded question but generally want to know what you consider proper tasawwuf.

 

Imam Abdul Qadir Al-JIlani was a contemporary to Salahuddin, and his students became viziers to Nuruddin Zinki and Salahuddin. He was a master of Hanbali Fiqh, as well as being influenced by the teachings of Imam Ghazali. Imam Nawawi said that he did not receive any authentic narrations of Karamaat of the Sufis, as authentic as the Karamaat of Abdul Qadir. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said he was the greatest scholar of his time to preach to people and tell them to abandon desires. The practice of Urs and other festivals related to Abdul Qadir were not started by him, since the chain back to Abdul Qadir is very weak.

 

What do you mean by current heads? Like those who have been given Khilafah in their tariqah? I don't know much about them to be honest. Ultimately the Scholars who are now seen as the founders of their chains, didn't intend to start these schools as they are seen today. Some of it even came from shia influence.

 

With regards to the Awliyah, Imam Tahawi said that it is the creed of Ahlus Sunnah that we believe in the Karamaat of the Awliyah and their authentic stories which have reached us through authentic and trustworthy sources. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote about this in his book Criteria of the Friends of Allah and the Friends of Shaytan. The acceptance of Awliyah as friends of Allah and that they performed a 'miracle' is accepted. However we reject the false and fabricated stories; things like there are 6 Saints in charge of the matters of the Dunya, and 40 Abdaal who are hidden in the mountains of Syria constantly worshipping Allah.

 

The 'Ya Muhammad' thing; I remember reading about it a while ago. The argument put forward was that a person's creed would contextualise was they meant by the particle 'Ya'. Some modern-day Sufis believe the Prophet (saw) to be ever-present and ever-witnessing, so this statement from such a person may reflect this belief. However if someone who doesn't believe this made the statement, it could be interpreted differently. This 'mysticism' of the Prophet being present, prayer towards graves, revering your saint/peer is not what correct Tasawwuf is about.

 

There's a lot that can be said but I kept it brief lol.

 

 

Was his main issue with it the concept of Wahda al-Wujud?

 

Yes, I believe so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes. yes and yes. They were a anti-west response but have cooled down since then. Their practice of sufism is very sober no-nonsense.

 

I'm not sure if you've read about it, but Tasawwuf in Sub-continent was more or less one and the same until there was a disagreement between Hajji Imdaadullah Al-Makki and his students. This lead to the Sufi split between the Barelwis and Deobandies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×