/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

I wouldn't advice you to bother with sufism.

A religion that is about dancing and moving heads isnt' very appealing to me.

I find it fascinating that so many who are new to Islam are drawn to Sufism. We've had many threads on this board where people have said exactly what you're saying:

>I'm new to Islam

>I'm curious about Sufism

Before you worry about this branch or that branch, you first need to familiarize yourself with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Every Muslim, regardless of masjid affiliation, is obligated to read Qur'an and Sunnah and to follow them explicitly.

Everything else is details.

It should also be noted that Sufism is not a separate branch of Islam. Sufism is a form of Islam that shows in both Sunni and Shi'a schools, but is not its own separate school.

Currently the branches are Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi. Everything else you've heard about (Salafi, Twelvers, etc) are parts of those. For example, a Salafi is a Sunni.

>>11957

Maybe because it's easier to focus on only the afterlife? Sunni Islam tends to stress the "balancing of both worlds" aspect, which frankly is much harder than just focusing on one of them. Newcomers could be intimidated by that and see Sufism as an easier way to ease into the religion.

It might also be a bit more relatable to outsiders. Sufism is kinda monk-like, isn't it? A group of people who dedicate themselves only towards spiritual enlightenment? Christians, Buddhist, Hindus all have people like that, so it may help the convert wrap around the idea of dedicating themselves to Allah.

But that's just my own speculation.

>>11959

Actually, that makes perfect sense. Jz'kAllah, brother.

>>11954

Stay away from the Sufi stuff friend, all it does is open the gates to further deviance.

>>11954

My problem with Sufism is the blatant influence from Greco/Roman philosophy, Paganism, and mystical sects of Judaism and Christianity that surface among them.

One of the things that make me angriest is the Greco/Roman ideas on Noble lying. To think it is ok to quote fabricated stories and false statements of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم), is ridiculous. Ibn Taymiyyah said it best, they are lying on the Messenger on Allah. Whether it is intended to benefit the person or not, it is a sin and we have authenticated reports saying the one who lies upon the Messenger is cursed.

>>12026

Well you should definitely want to follow the Salaf because they're pretty much the best generations of Muslims which have come so far. But I guess calling yourself a Salafi or whatever is more on the individual.

>>12046

The Salafi methodology is defended by authentic reports of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم). I haven't seen any solid argument against it. I have also noticed Ikwhanis and more liberal Muslims respecting it in communities I have been around, even though they don't follow the religion as carefully.

The "traditional" "literal" "ultra-conservative" labels thrown at Salafis is more complimentary than anything. It is sad that Muslims think they need to change and progress when what was given to us was for all time, and the best generation was the first generation of Muslims.

>>12053

It has to do a lot with the western Liberal ideology which is a total cancer. Everyone now feels the need to "progress" AKA having sodomites run amuck in your society.

I also totally agree that we don't need to change, Allah has given us commands and rules to follow, nowhere does he say stop following these rules and commands at some arbitrary point in time.

Sufism is esoteric, not progressive.

You absolutely must be Muslim in order to be Sufi. It's not a delineation nor is it a separate path.

You can be a Salafi Sufi.

Ignorance of Sufism is the alienation of your fellow brothers and sisters in Islam.

>>12055

Ali ibn Abi Talib was the original Sufi. It has nothing to do with western liberalism.

>>12057

I was saying people who are anti-Salafi are commonly infected with Liberalism.

>Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the original Sufi

You're gonna need to bring some evidence with that claim man, I've heard something like this before but do not know the reasoning.

>>12060

The wikipedia page on Sufism has all of the necessary links and such. I'm not Sufi, but I do know that it's not a branch of Islam and that anyone from any Islamic school of thought can be Sufi.

>>12062

You can't be a Salafi-Sufi that's for sure, since they're contradictory.

>>12065

They are most certainly not contradictory. Sufism is part of all branches/schools of Islam. There is nothing contradictory.

You need to learn what Sufi is before you continue this conversation. It's not the "liberal branch of Islam".

>>12070

Salafiyyah are a school based on the teachings of one man, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and is a movement within Sunni Islam.

Sufi has no single, individual teacher; but is a broad spectrum form of Islam that permeates all branches, schools, and ideologies.

>>12070

To put it a better way: You cannot just be Sufi.

>>12071

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab didn't bring anything new. Salafiyyah is the way of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and his companions. We can trace it back to Ibn Taymiyyah and all the way back to the companions themselves. It is a methodology of only accepting the true evidence and not bringing anything new to the religion.

>>12069

I agree that Sufism shouldn't be described as a liberal branch of Islam. I have a hard time understanding Salafi-Sufi compatibility. Salafi are very critical of esoteric beliefs within sufism, even Ibn Taymiyya gave refutations to those upon that methodology.

>>11954

>>12077

If that were true, then explain the Ibadi. The Ibadi have been around since the Prophet(صلى الله عليه و سلم) and before the Sunni/Shi'a schism.

Salafiyyah didn't show up until much, much later in Islamic history. Long after the Hanafi and long after even the Twelvers.

So, if we're going on "oldest is best", then why isn't everyone Ibadi?

>>12142

Because they're Kharijites that's why not everybody is an Ibadi.

>>12142

https://islamqa.info/en/11529

It is funny to mention Ibadis as a counter to the statement I made. Their existence doesn't disprove it. As Sunni Muslims, we have differences with the Ibadi in Aqeedah and they share similar views with the Khawarij.

>>12142

>Salafiyyah didn't show up until much, much later in Islamic history. Long after the Hanafi and long after even the Twelvers

"oldest is best" is actually accurate, that is the Sahaba. The ones who are on the right path are the ones who follow what they are upon. That is Salafiyyah. The name isn't after some Imam or Reformer. It literally explains the methodology of following what the Sahaba were upon.

>>12149

If oldest is best, then Ibadi is best. Good job.

>>12152

Well the Kharijites also came a bit before the Ibadi and the first generation of the Salaf came before both of them.

>>12152

I guess you don't know what Sahaba means.

>>12181

Of course I know what it means, but the Sahaba didn't have computers, internet, air conditioning, blue jeans, access to unlimited knowledge, modern medicine ….

The Sahaba would tell you how to find proper drinking water in the desert. I can tell you that the nearest desert is 1000 miles away, but turn on any faucet in the house.

I respect the Sahaba, but their knowledge is limited to their life and experience. I don't need to know how to pick dates because I can go to the grocery store.

If you want to live like the Sahaba, then turn off your computer, discontinue your electricity and telephone services, shut off your running water.

Don't make claims about the "greatest generation" when you're hypocritically posting about it on a modern internet image board. Allah made us smart enough to evolve. Catch up, son.

>>12185

So now it isn't Ibadi, it is modern technology?

Catch up to what? Your inconsistent arguments?

None of those examples have anything to do with Aqeedah. I think you just changed the subject completely.

>Don't make claims about the "greatest generation"

It comes from authentic hadith.

>>12186

I said that if you're arguing "older is better" … are you or are you not arguing that older is better?

>authentic hadith

Show me one Sahaba that talked about the internet.

>>12185

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also described them in the following terms: “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one group.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “(Those who follow) that which I and my companions follow.” This is mentioned in the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr which was recorded and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi (2641). It was also classed as hasan by al-‘Iraaqi in Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (3/432), al-‘Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/284) and al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

This hadith obviously shows that when it comes to the religion and not technology that oldest is in fact the best.

>>12188

So, everyone except Salafiyyah are going to Hell?

Sorry, friend, but not even the Prophet had the ability to determine who and who does not go to Hell. He was just a man, unworthy of worship.

>>12189

It's an authentic hadith are you trying to say the prophet (peace be upon him) was a liar now?

>>12190

I'm saying that the Prophet had no authority to make that statement and I question the validity of the hadith, as is my right to do so.

>>12188

Further, he says "seventy-three sects" when there are only currently twenty-eight.

If he did say that, then he was either wrong or it is not an authentic hadith.

>>12191

Why can't a prophet of Allah make such a statement, do you have evidence pointing elsewhere?

>>12193

What man can know who is and who is not going to Hell?

If you say Muhammad could do so, then you are saying he is more than a man. That is blasphemy.

If you say no man can do so, then you have to reject that hadith.

>>12194

Allah could of easily revealed this knowledge to him! So are all the hadith about the dajal and the Messiah fake now because no man could know the future like that.

>>12195

No man can know what happens after this life. If Allah were going to reveal that knowledge, then it would be reflected in Qur'an. It is not.

This Muhammad worship needs to stop.

>>12196

Alrighty then you've definitely got to be a troll or an idiotic Quranist.

>>12198

>can't back up his claims

>better call him a heretic!

Well, you've proven that you worship Muhammad, believing him to have supernatural powers.

Nothing in your hadith is true. Not one word of it. It even gets the number of sects of Islam wrong.

I suggest you go study more and stop arguing on 8chan.

>>12200

Then what is the real number of sects? I've brought evidence and you just said the hadith wasn't true without bringing counter evidence from Quran or Sunnah.

Also believing that the prophets were given the ability to do certain things isn't shirk you moron. How was it that Musa was able to split the red sea, am I worshiping Musa now because he did something out of the ordinary?

>>12202

I told you the number of sects currently in Islam and I told you that no man can know who is and who is not going to Hell.

You claim it is an authentic hadith. The burden of proof is on you. However, since you cannot discuss this without calling me names, then how about you take a couple days to cool off. In the meantime, gather your proof that the hadith is authentic.

>>12203

Should also point out that Musa didn't part the sea. Allah parted the sea. This much is clear. If Allah gave Muhammad the power to see the fate of souls, it would have been mentioned in Qu'ran. It isn't.

>>12203

>You claim it is an authentic hadith. The burden of proof is on you

His quote of the Hadith ended with references to Hadith scholars and their rankings. This particular hadith has many chains from the Sahaba.

http://sunnah.com/search/?q=split+into+sects

>>12196

This brings up a question i've been wondering lately, are those who reject authentic hadith and the Sunnah now welcome on this board?

>>12211

People are allowed to question the authenticity of any hadith.

>>11999

How do you explain the fact that the majority of Sunni scholars throughout history either approved of Sufism or were Sufis themselves?

Also, how do you explain the fact that the Muslim who pwned Greek philosophy forever (al-Ghazali) was a Sufi?

Sufism is NOT influenced by Greek philosophy.

As to your misunderstanding about the use of weak (NOT FABRICATED) hadith which encourage good deeds, that is not a Sufi belief and it is not based on anything "Greco-Roman." It is the opinion of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and most of the Sunni jurists throughout history (with the exceptions of Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Jawzi).

>>12026

Most Sufis in the Muslim world are ultra-conservative and super traditional. The "Sufis are hippies" lie is something manufactured by western media and Salafi cucks.

>>12053

>The "traditional" "literal" "ultra-conservative" labels thrown at Salafis is more complimentary than anything.

Salafis aren't traditional. They're a modern reform movement that is barely 200 years old and their entire methodology is based around rejecting traditional legal methodologies and credal formulations.

The traditionalists are the people who adhere to the Ash'ari/Maturidi schools of aqidah and the four major madhahib in fiqh.

>>11999

Completely false. Although this is true for certain groups of Sufis, most of sufisms mysticism is completely justifiable and strongly based in Islamic Tradition.

Read Al Ghazali sometime brother.

>>12692

Well, I don't know if I would call any Sufi "ultraconservative" as not too many of us (except a few of those wacky Pakis) promote banning music, destroying historical monuments, treating women like cattle, killing people for fornication, apostasy, sodomy, drunkenness and other sins best left to Allah (SWT).

But yes, most Sufis are not Liberal but Moderate Conservatives. Far from Liberal.

>>12026

Sufis ARE the Moderate approach.

>>12069

They absolutely are contradictory.

Sufism, at it's base level, is esotericism. Salafis are literalists that reject esotericism and all the practices associated with Sufism (Saint Veneration especially)

There are Salafis that call themselves Sufis when it suits them (Deobandis). But they are, in fact, not Sufis and never can be unless they give up their disgusting fundamentalist beliefs.

>>12062

It is not a branch of Islam, technically.

However, with how much mainstream Sunnism and Shi'ism have denounced Tassawuf and Kalam as bid'ah, the majority of Sufis might as well be from another sect with how different they are.

>>13569

>thinks Sufis are deviant

>doesn't think Shi'a are deviant

Who is more mainstream Sunni than al-Ghazali? Who is more mainstream than an-Nawawi? Who is more mainstream than as-Suyuti?

Sufism IS mainsrream Sunni Islam.

>>13587

I'm a Sufi myself.

I'm just saying that mainstream Islamic scholars, Sunni and Shi'a, have forsaken Sufi teachings. al Ghazali and An Nawawi aren't that mainstream anymore. And Ibn Arabi is called a heretic so many times by people. Sufi Sheikhs such as Hisham Kabbani are absolutely blasted with criticism for being adherents to Sufism.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so many scholars saying music, saint veneration and visiting shrines is bid'ah.

Maybe I just live around a lot of Salafi masjids and hear them on youtube a lot. But it seems like this is the case right now.

>>13569

>mainstream Sunnism and Shi'ism have denounced Tassawuf

>mainstream Sunnism have denounced Tassawuf

Really?

Doesn't feel like it in Malaysia

>>13598

Well, depends where in Malaysia you are, so I've heard. Weren't there those two states or so that went full Wahhabi?

>>13596

Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, Zaid Shakir, Yahya Rhodus, and Abdal Hakim Murad seem pretty mainstream to me.

As to condemning music, that's a contentious issue among Sufis as well. That's why some turuq use music while some don't.

BTW, which tariqa are you part of? I'm a Qadiri.

>>13562

>Most of sufisms mysticism is completely justifiable and strongly based in Islamic Tradition. Read Al Ghazali sometime brother.

What works of his in particular?

>>13615

Nice. I'm a Naqshbandi.

You think so? Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad seem to get a lot of criticism on their channels. As do the more "strongly Sufi" People like Hisham Kabbani or Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri.

>>13627

I'd recommend The Forty Foundations of Religion and Kimiya-yi Sa'adat.

>>13630

>You think so? Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad seem to get a lot of criticism on their channels. As do the more "strongly Sufi" People like Hisham Kabbani or Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri.

Everyone gets criticized. "Dawahman" is Salafi and I can find dozens of "Dawahman Exposed" videos.

>>13634

Yeah, I mean more than usual. There seems to be more "Deviant Tahir ul Qadri/Hamza Yusuf/Suhaib Webb/exposed!!!!1111 Xddddd" than anything criticizing d*ckheads like Dawahman or Ismail Menk or Bilal Philips.

While I respect a lot of the different Sufi orders, I personally don't think they're really all that necessary anymore.

I always kind of favored the informal Qalandari, wandering dervish who learns a little bit from everyone thing to the formal structure of "obey your sheikh and never question him or leave the order" thing. Maybe in the past, that was kind of necessary, but in a day and age when basic Sufi teachings are readily available to a more educated and literate populace, I don't really see the point of such a strict institution really existing.

>>13775

That's not really ever how things were. Most Sufi shuyukh have multiple initiations.

My Shaykh is a Qadiri, a Chrishti, and a Shadhili. He received his ijaza in the first two in his native India, and was received into the Shadhili tariqa in Egypt while studying at Al-Azhar.

>>13780

*while living a life of asceticism and contemplation

>>13780

>I know some Naqshbandis have told me they can never leave the order once they make bayah to the sheikh and even if they do, God will still punish them as "their sheikh is always with them".

Most famous Naqshbandi shuyukh of history have multiple initiations themselves (Ahmad Sirhindi, Shah Wali Allah, Mawlana Khalid, etc.). Most contemporary shuyukh in the Indian Subcontinent are initiated into the Qadiri, Naqshbandi, Chishti, and Suhrawardi turuq. In the Arab world, Shaykh Samir al-Nass, one of the greatest Sufis of our time, has ijaza in the Naqshbandi tariqa from Mufti Abu'l Yusr ibn Abidin as well as Nazim al-Haqqani, the Rifa'i tariqa from Abdullah Sirajuddin, and the Shadhili tariqa from Abdur-Rahman Shaghouri (though Shaykh Samir's primarily affiliation is through Ibn Arabi's little-known Akbari tariqa, through the line of Shaykh Ahmad al-Haroun).

The only tariqa I know of that actually forbids its members from having other affiliations is the Tijani tariqa (popular in North Africa and West Africa), and I don't find fault with them in this because in my interactions with Tijanis it seems they produce excellent people.

>>13780

I think the confusion here is that I am talking about having multiple affiliations and you are talking about actually leaving a tariqa.

You shouldn't leave a tariqa after you join it, unless the Shaykh did something egregiously contrary to shari'ah which makes him unworthy of being followed. You should also follow a shaykh's guidance in terms of when and if he allows you to take barakah from other shuyukh.

Sufism is not some sort of freewheeling spiritual democracy. It never has been, and your invocation of the Qalandariyya and the Malamatiyya seems to be based on popular misconceptions about those paths.

Tasawwuf is hierarchical and initiatic in nature. Giving someone freedom to "find their own path" leaves them open to fall into all sorts of Satanic traps.

>>13780

> in the formal orders the murid is forced to just emulate his sheikh or sheikhs who basically hold a certain monopoly on barakah

>the inevitable result is that people start assigning the sheikhs too much exclusive authority in spiritual matters that they cease to actually look within themselves, only ever waiting for instructions from the sheikhs like cattle

The sheikh is a guide. You're supposed to follow his authority. Now that doesn't mean you can't disagree with them on some things (I don't think).

They aren't wholly infallible. They're just showing you the path you need.

>>13801

>Now that doesn't mean you can't disagree with them on some things (I don't think).

From what I have been told, some sheikhs may see any disagreement as a sign of a lack of spiritual commitment. But if a particular order allows a measure of debate and discussion on matters of spirituality where people are allowed to voice dissenting opinions without being totally ostracized, I don't really have as much of an issue with that but then such orders are probably never quite as rigidly organized around a sheikh to begin with.

>They aren't wholly infallible. They're just showing you the path you need.

The thing is the particular ideas surrounding the authority of the sheikhs of the sufi orders has often given way to extremism as there have been many Sufi sheikhs who have become warlords or have led massive rebellions by either claiming infallibility or by saying that regardless of whether they are infallible, the initiate is forced to obey them.

I admire the teachings of the early awliya and the theoretical ideas of later Sufi teachers, but I've always been skeptical of the cult surrounding the authority of the grand sheikhs, especially since many of the early saints like Uwais al-Qarni, Rabia al-Adawiyyah, Ibrahim ibn Adham etc. were never physically initiated by anyone before reaching their exalted stations.

>>13789

>>13630

Are there any traditions in the verified collections (Bukhari, Muslim) that legitimize Sufism? My understanding was that the Sufi hadiths tend to be less confirmed.

>>13814

If I'm not mistaken, some of the narrators in Bukhari & Muslim were sufis.

You'll probably find a little more precedent for Sufi teachings in the hadith of the Shi'a though.

>>13804

>I admire the teachings of the early awliya and the theoretical ideas of later Sufi teachers, but I've always been skeptical of the cult surrounding the authority of the grand sheikhs.

I can understand that. I used to really like Sheikh Nazim Haqqani and Abdulkerim Effendi (and still do) but they commanded very strict obedience and claimed to have amazing capabilities. Which was a little much for me, personally.

I never made bayah to a sheikh myself, but I consider myself Naqshbandi as the sheikhs within that Tariqah are generally who I look for in my search for one.

>I don't really have as much of an issue with that but then such orders are probably never quite as rigidly organized around a sheikh to begin with.

Those that encourage discourse like that are very solidified in the authority of the sheikh. It's just that the sheikhs are benevolent.

All Sufi Orders emphasizing initiation have the Sheikh as the grand authority to some extent. There are some movements that are loose with that I suppose, though.

>>13815

>You'll probably find a little more precedent for Sufi teachings in the hadith of the Shi'a though.

I've never seen a Sufi work cite a Shi'a work of hadith. Sufis seem to be fond of the collections of Tirmidhi and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in addition to a lot of citations from the Sahihayn.

The favorite Hadith cited by classical Sufis is from Sahih al-Bukhari:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allah be pleased with him, who said that the Messenger of Allah said: Allah - may His Majesty be exalted ! - said:

>"Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him.

>"My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him.

>"When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks.

>"Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him."

>>13819

> Really? I've seen Sufis cite narrations from works like Nahjul Balagha before.

I've read a great deal of classical Sufi works and I've never seen that. In fact I've seen Sufis refute the attribution of Najh al-Balagha to Sayyidina 'Ali (karramallahu wajha).

Also, even though Abu Hurayrah (radiallahu anhu) is not part of the Sufi chains of transmission, he IS important to early Sufism as one of the People of the Porch, and as a transmitter of Sufi ahadith (like the one I cited above).

>>13820

>I've read a great deal of classical Sufi works and I've never seen that. In fact I've seen Sufis refute the attribution of Najh al-Balagha to Sayyidina 'Ali (karramallahu wajha).

Well, nobody said Nahjul Balagha was written by Ali. The book was compiled by Sharif Razi centuries later from a variety of Sunni & Shi'a sources. Not even the Shi'a believe it's 100% authentically Ali's words (nor do they make such a claim for any of their books of hadith)

>>13819

Sayyida A'ishah (radiallahu anha) is a forerunner of tasawwuf as well. Essentially all the Sahaba are. You need to read Ibn 'Arabi more.

Also, law is an essential part of tasawwuf. It was the Sufis of al-Andalus who introduced the study of the Sahihayn and 'Usul al-Fiqh to the Maghreb. Sufis have written the most important commentaries on the Sahihayn, and all extant chains of transmission for Sahih al-Bukhari go through Sufi masters.

>>13822

>essentially all the Sahaba are.

Eh, that seems pretty revisionist

>You need to read Ibn 'Arabi more.

I'm fairly indifferent to Ibn Arabi myself and I think he claimed a lot of things he didn't have any authority to claim. Some of his ideas have merit, but I'm more attracted to the philosophical mysticism of men like Ibn Sina.

>Also, law is an essential part of tasawwuf.

I didn't say it wasn't. But Bukhari & Muslim aren't exactly concerned with deep esoteric mysteries as they are with ordinary religious practice.

>It was the Sufis of al-Andalus who introduced the study of the Sahihayn and 'Usul al-Fiqh to the Maghreb.

So what? Why are you telling me things I already know?

>Sufis have written the most important commentaries on the Sahihayn, and all extant chains of transmission for Sahih al-Bukhari go through Sufi masters.

Yes, I know. I already said this.

>>13822

Law is an essential part of Sufism. but Sufis tend to have a flexible approach to it to some degree.

Even at their most conservative.

Sufism is something to explore after you've learned about Islam, and been muslim for a while, and are looking for new ideas and interpretations for certain elements of the faith. You need a strong background in firm doctrine, and theological examination, to properly 'vet' a lot of Sufic ideas. Keep in mind, as well, that there are hundreds to thousands of different Sufic orders, and more than one of them revolves around smoking weed and chugging ayahuasca, and thinking real hard about Fatimah or Aisha's "divine feminine". Others involve counting up the dots in the arabic script of the Quran, and somehow that means something. There's more than one cult, in the wider Sufic world, and it's apparently quite easy to wind up in one. It happens to madrassa students all the time.

These sorts of things are a lot of fun, and they can really make you think about certain elements of the Quran, and overall religious doctrines. BUT you really need to have a solid foundation in the theological realities, before you start popping off into funfunsufiland. If you don't you could end up as some kind of pseudo-rasta/neo-nazi/hyper-sexual/crystal-obsessed nutjob, who is muslim in name only, and barely even that.

>>13824

>Eh, that seems pretty revisionist

Thinking otherwise is revisionism.

>

I'm fairly indifferent to Ibn Arabi myself and I think he claimed a lot of things he didn't have any authority to claim. Some of his ideas have merit, but I'm more attracted to the philosophical mysticism of men like Ibn Sina.

I'm not saying you have to agree with him. He is certainly more authoritative on Sufism than you or me.

> I didn't say it wasn't. But Bukhari & Muslim aren't exactly concerned with deep esoteric mysteries as they are with ordinary religious practice.

Ibn Abi Jamrah and Ibn Arabi would disagree with you. The Sahihayn are full of mystical knowledge.

>>13828

>Thinking otherwise is revisionism.

When I think of early Sufis among the Sahaba, I don't think of Khalid ibn Walid as much as I do Salman.

>I'm not saying you have to agree with him. He is certainly more authoritative on Sufism than you or me.

And I don't agree with the idea that all the Sahaba are essential models for an aspiring Sufi, regardless of Ibn Arabi's authority or how much I may agree with some of his ideas on Being. To me that's almost a bit too Salafist (now that I think about it, Ibn Taymiyyah was a Sufi wasn't he?)

>>13833

>You're carrying Shi'a biases into your perception of Sufism

You do know not all Sufis are expressly Sunnis, right? The Nimatollahi orders are Shi'ite, as are the Bektashi and the Dhahabiya. And the Nurbakshi dervishes are kind of inbetween Sunnis & Shi'a. The Nizaris refer to themselves as "the Nizari Ismaili tariqat and their followers as "dervishes," and have written extensively on classical Sufi works Likewise, many Twelver Shi'a scholars have written extensive & respectful commentaries on Ibn Arabi's thought and that of other classical Sufis, including Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini and Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai.

>but that doewn't change that the major classical authorities of Sufism considered all the Ashab-e-Kiram as sources of guidance.

Regarding them all as sources of guidance does not preclude they all are of equal stature. No Sufi worth his salt, not even Ibn Arabi, would say Ali is equal to all the other Sahaba when it comes to spiritual knowledge. The only point I made was that Bukhari & Muslim generally do not feature as many narrations from those who are considered the more exalted and higher Sufi authorities among the Sahaba.

>>13829

>I think it's wrong to try to say Sufis are this or that

Well the you would be wrong. Sufism at it's core is esoteric Islam. The rigid groups like the Deobandis who outright deny esotericism and almost all classical Sufi teachings, instead turning to revisionist literalism under the blasphemous guise of tradition are against Sufism.

You can bring up fringe groups that don't fit the general norm of Sufism.

>I think the attempt to portray Sufism as this super open-minded liberal Muslim religious movement often ignores the complex history and dynamics of the Sufis' history.

Now just when the hell did I do that?

I'm not saying we are liberal. I'm saying we are moderate conservatives. almost all of the time. contemporarily especially.

Sufism has a spectrum. The far end of one being liberal. But the very conservative ones such as are still not conservative enough to reach the levels of fundamentalism common in so many other forms of Islam in this day and age.

Going farther than that would be rejecting most sufi practices as bid'ah and turning to literalism. As some so called Sufis do.

>>13830

>now that I think about it, Ibn Taymiyyah was a Sufi wasn't he?

In the same way Hitler was a Socialist.

He used it to attract. But doctrinally rejected what defines something as a Sufi.

>>13836

>You do know not all Sufis are expressly Sunnis, right? The Nimatollahi orders are Shi'ite, as are the Bektashi and the Dhahabiya. And the Nurbakshi dervishes are kind of inbetween Sunnis & Shi'a.

All of those orders are offshoots of Sunni orders. The Nimatullahi silsila descends from Junayd al-Baghdadi, one of the great Imams of Ahl us-Sunnah. The Baktashis descend from the Sunni Yasawi order and the Dhahabiyya descend from the Sunni Kubrawiyya.

The fact that a handful of shuyukh in the Qizilbash and Safavi period converted to Shi'ism and propagated a Shi'i form of Sufism in Iran doesn't change the fact that Sufism is, at its root, Sunni.

>Regarding them all as sources of guidance does not preclude they all are of equal stature. No Sufi worth his salt, not even Ibn Arabi, would say Ali is equal to all the other Sahaba when it comes to spiritual knowledge.

I never said that all the Sahaba are of equal status.

> The only point I made was that Bukhari & Muslim generally do not feature as many narrations from those who are considered the more exalted and higher Sufi authorities among the Sahaba.

A statement like this shows profound ignorance of the narrators of the Sahihayn and the Sufi approach to ahadith.

Sufi books are replete with narrations from the Sahihayn. The highest authority in tasawwuf is Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa salam), and any authentic hadith (and even many which are da'eef) is sufficient evidence in tasawwuf. We love the Ahl al-Bayt, but we do not lend credence solely to hadith narrated from them.

>The Nizaris refer to themselves as "the Nizari Ismaili tariqat and their followers as "dervishes," and have written extensively on classical Sufi works Likewise, many Twelver Shi'a scholars have written extensive & respectful commentaries on Ibn Arabi's thought and that of other classical Sufis, including Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini and Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai.

The Nizaris have borrowed a lot from the heritage of Sufism, but they were not the originators of this.

As for the Shi'ah commentaries on the Fusus al-Hikam and other Akbarian works, I am well aware of this, but I also know that those people have been criticized by other Shi'a authorities, many of whom attack Ibn Arabi and call him a "Nasibi."

>>13854

>Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're more liberal in their understanding of the law anymore than Jewish Kabbalists necessarily have a more liberal understanding of the Torah

I wasn't saying they have a liberal interpretation. Flexible =/= Liberal. Moderate =/= Liberal. We have a more moderate interpretation on average.

All i'm saying is that different thinkers have followed Sufi ideas to different ends, acknowledging their Sufi character at least on that superficial level, instead of denying it because "no true Sufi Man…", helps to create more authentic responses to deviations and allows to build on old ideas to better illustrate what we feel to be their true end.

Good point.

But one simply cannot be a strict literalist who rejects almost all Sufi teachers and practices outright and a good Sufi, I don't think.

All I was saying was that most Sufis today are moderate conservatives and should be generally portrayed as such. It would be very accurate as opposed to the "liberal hedonist" thing Salafis and Hipsters like to portray us as.

You seem to agree with that in your comparison of Sufism to socialism. But why do you not think the now common form of Sufism will be able to mount an authentic response to people similar to Ibn Taymiyya or other fundamentalists.

A revival of Futuwwa to those groups now mainstream in the Sufi community, I think would do the trick nicely.

>>13895

>Everybody was really a Shi'i in taqiyya! Fearless men who put their lives on the line were actually sniveling cowards who refused to speak the truth! Please take my conspiracy theory seriously!

I am *very* well aware of the extent to which the Rawafid have plundered the heritage of the Sufis to add some depth to their flimsy and pathetic doctrine.

To someone as brainwashed as you, it may not be relevant that all Sufi orders have Sunni origins. To sane people who actually believe in history, it does. Claiming that Imam al-Junayd was Shi'i is the silliest thing I've heard in my life.

This reminds me of how the Wahhabis like to claim that ar-Razi, al-Ghazali, al-Juwayni, etc. all made miraculous deathbed conversions to their doctrine (which didn't even exist at the time) and recanted all their previous works.

In comparison to the Sunni commentaries on Ibn Arabi's works, the Shi'a commentaries are pathetic trash. How could they be anything else, given that they have to ignore or censor Ibn Arabi's constant positive references to Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and A'ishah (radiallahu anhum)?

WE are the followers of the Ahl al-Bayt, and you are their enemies. Here is a very short yet powerful bit of truth from the greatest living inheritor of ash-Shaykh al-Akbar wa al-Kibrit al-Ahmar Ibn Arabi (quddus Allah sirrahu):

https://youtu.be/hIoyWDtc7cs

>>13855

>But one simply cannot be a strict literalist who rejects almost all Sufi teachers and practices outright and a good Sufi, I don't think.

Perhaps not, but one can still be a "fundamentalist" about non-literal matters or still be hostile to any apparent deviation either way.

>All I was saying was that most Sufis today are moderate conservatives and should be generally portrayed as such. It would be very accurate as opposed to the "liberal hedonist" thing Salafis and Hipsters like to portray us as.

Part of my problem with the term "Sufi" itself is that it is a much later invention. As far as we know, the term "Sufi" or "Sufiyya" cannot be authentically traced back to the Prophet himself and doesn't become current as a reference to a mystical teaching until some time after the formative period of Islam and the lives of the earliest "Sufi" figures. Whether or not the core ideas of many later Sufis can be traced back to the Prophet piece by piece is a different argument from whether it is correct to refer to the mystical school of thought brought by the Prophet as "Sufism"

I think then whether or not the majority of "Sufis" are moderates, conservatives, libertines, militants, Sunni, Shi'a or none of the above is ultimately irrelevant as each one of these groups probably has just as much of a valid claim to the title of "Sufi" as any of the others, regardless of who's the majority. For me, the term "Sufism" itself has always just been another term for the historical phenomenon of "Islamic mysticism" as such. And even if we assume the term "Sufi" is a legitimate term to describe anyone, I can only see the term as being another term for the saints themselves, and so most of the moderate conservative majority doesn't have a right to call themselves Sufi anymore than the liberal hedonists or antinomian radicals in that case. I honestly feel that the term Sufi itself should probably be abandoned in the future so as to create a better atmosphere of dialogue between all the different Islamic groups who hold mystical proclivities because the term "Sufi" itself has become far too wrapped up in pointless identity politics that people become more concerned, like this guy >>13897, with who has the right to wear the label of "Sufi" than with what theoretical ideas in the Islamic mystical tradition are correct whether they may be properly called Sufism or not.

>>14006

>I honestly feel that the term Sufi itself should probably be abandoned in the future so as to create a better atmosphere of dialogue between all the different Islamic groups who hold mystical proclivities because the term "Sufi" itself has become far too wrapped up in pointless identity politics that people become more concerned, like this guy >>13897 (You), with who has the right to wear the label of "Sufi" than with what theoretical ideas in the Islamic mystical tradition are correct whether they may be properly called Sufism or not.

It is precisely because of those theoretical foundations that I dispute the right of the Rawafid to associate themselves with this tradition.

Besides, tasawwuf is not primarily a theoretical matter, but a matter requiring direct experiential knowledge (irfan). The classical Sufis considered it impossible for a heretic, be they Rafidi, Khariji, Mu'tazili, etc. to achieve the status of arif billah. Those outside of Ahl as-Sunnah are cut off from all forms of divine grace, especially irfan, and anyone who claims irfan and is not of pure creed is delusional.

>>11954

just be muslim bro you dont need to chose a sect

learn how to do the 5 pillars, everyone agrees on

believe in the 6 articles of faith

read quran, memorize and understand it

that is our duty in these modern times of jahiliya and dajjalun

use hadith as a guide

>>11999

Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, were always influential to Islam.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H002

>>11997

this tbh fam