Sufism?

[Hashim]

Read this study about the literalism of salfis. There were many things i found out for the first time. The koran is truly mysterious in many ways.

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answe...literalism.pdf

Aslaam Alaykum

Your claim that salafis are iteralist is totally false, are you implying salaf as saleeh is upon he path of khwariji way of islam? Are you implying salafiyaah leads to 'takferrism.' While you are too buzy throwing around labels and hurling insults at the path of the pious predecessers, you are ignoring the fact that the sufi have done more damage to the ummah than good with their constant bid'aah.

[Hashim]

By the way akhee the link does not work.

[Peaceful]

Salam

It does work...try it again bro

Wassalam

[mohamed]

The link does work. What kind of damage did sufism cause?

Is it sufism that lead to killing of people in 9 11?

Is it sufism that lead to the killing of muslims by Mohammed Abdelwahab in Arabia?

Is it sufism that lead to the killing of muslims in Iraq?

What damage did sufism cause?


















/

[Al-Boriqi]

mohammad

Sufis talk differently and so if you come from a salafist background you will find difficulty understanding them. They are not literalist. They look for meanings behind the literature, the wisdom behind it, they look at it from different angles.

1. I never started from a salafee backround when I became muslim for a while. SO even fom seeing and hearing their esoteric ways, I knew theyis was some type of deviance.

2. Everything in the book and sunnah is to be the way our early muslims took them to be as we know throuhg the sunnah that Islam was what was with them. Basically what they did was Islam and what they didnt do is not Islam. So we, as muslims only take literal what they did, and take allegorically what they did.

Of course there are mutasahilaat like Ibn Hazm and other literalists, but for the most part literalism has its role as much as its opposite, and one should not trangress into delving into one angle. The proplem and solution in this, is knowing when to apply literalism and metaphoricalism ino the ayaah.

Of course, the pure literist are from the khawarij, but to fall into the opposite side of the spectrum in ghuloo in that are these people (of sufiyyah).

As for literalism, then there is more of the religion upon this aspect of undertsanding due to the absolute fact that Allah revealed the message clear, and the prophet, clear. No ambiguity at all in many matters.

On top of this, the mere concept of what these people bring of openess (metaphoricalness), is that being open like this opens the doors wide away for landing from one spot to a spot far, far away from the ones that Allah and His messenger intended for the reader and accepter of guidance to land. And this happnes much more times than hoping to land in the realm of guidance on particular ayaah.

They don't worship dead saints, you do not understand what worshipping is. Seeking intercession is not shirk like Ibn taymia thought. Even Ibn Taymiya was not sure of it. You are looking at Islam in a very literalist way. Remember the hadith about two muslims going to battle both being in fire, the killer and the killed, was used to envoke kufr on Ali and Aisha. Remember the hadith that whats below the ankel is in hell fire, then abu bakr asked the prophet what about me, he said you are not of those kind. So its not the garment below the ankle but who the person is. Looking at islam in a literalist way is a khwariji way of islam which ends in takferrism.

1. you misunderstood that very hadeeth akhee. if you would have known, Abu Bakr was the exception due to him being very, very, skinny and his pants fell. But his action was that he would always raised them up. So Abu Bakr's asking the prophet for fear of the hellfire allowed a people to negate the action ( of Isbaal) due to their understadning that there is room for muslims to not act upon it (raising the garments).

2. Shaykhul-Islam was one of the last people to say that seeking intersession was shirk. In fact, anyone who knew the reality of intersession would not even need Ibnul-Taymiyyah as all the Imaams who preceded him were of this view. Shaykhul-Islam was only one who revived what they were upon.

3. Fighting with the intention to kill your brother is kufr, no matter who it is. So the action of Ali and Aisha, in of itself would have been kufr, if they had intended it whcih they didnt). On top of this, this actin is from the kufr al-asghaar. It is not a nullifier of Islam. just as peforming zeena is kufr, it is not a nullifier of Islam.

What kind of damage did sufism cause?

Is it sufism that lead to killing of people in 9 11?

Is it sufism that lead to the killing of muslims by Mohammed Abdelwahab in Arabia?

Is it sufism that lead to the killing of muslims in Iraq?

What damage did sufism cause?

It was sufism that the muslims into the snake's eyes (kuffar) literally overpowered by them.

It was sufism that lead to the downfall of the musim ummah and the last khilafah of the uthmaanis.

It was the sufies who broguht the curse fo Allah as made by the prophet in an authentic hadeeth "May Allah curse the Disbeleivers (nasaarah) for erecting masajid over their dead" THE same exact action of the sufees all over the muslims world, like a plagued aids virus that needs a cure.

It was the cause and existance of the sufees who delievered the lands of the muslims of philastine to the hands of the brothers of apes and swine. And until we leave this, we will remain in this state and worse until we refer cback to the unadulterated sunnah of the messenger of Allah according to what the muslims (the original muslims of the first affair) were upon.
while you can probably name "bad" actions (bad as deemed by you) by salafees whcih may have brouhgt harm, then this harm is nothing compared to the sufees. Their harm originated from beleif itself.

asalamu alaikum

[mohamed]

And what exactly did the salafis and the ikhwans do to remove the so called swines and apes?

This argument is a cop out. The sufis has nothing to do with this. By the way nobody in the muslim world talk like this any more. Fundementalist muslims ruled Sudan, Afghanistan,Iran,Saudi Arabia and all of them are in turmoil. This is the language of the 70's when everyone wanted to blame someone for the muslim's weaknesses. You are repeating the language of the past.

Anyways the salafis argument has no bases in fiqh, it depended on ignorance and oil money to spread. I think that article was pretty much a strong refutation of the salafi methodology.

[atifrafi]

Aslaam Alaykum

The Messenger of Allah (saas) was the first to establish the Sunnah of congregational, jamaa`ah prayer of taraweeh in the Masjid. Then he did not continue with the Sunnah for fear that it might be made mandatory on the Ummah in Ramadan, and they might not be able to do it. In the books of Bukhari and Muslim, 'Aishah (raa) has been reported as saying:

"The Messenger of Allah (saas) observed Taraweeh prayer in the Masjid one night and people prayed with him. He repeated the following night and the number of participants grew. The companions congregated the third and fourth night, but the Messenger did not show up. In the morning he told them, "I saw what you did last night, but nothing prevented me from joining you except my fear that it might be made mandatory on you in Ramadan."

This hadith is a clear indication that the Taraweeh in congregation was not an innovation of 'Umar, the second Khalifah, despite his saying to the contrary. For it has been related that: "Umar bin Al-Khattab attended the Masjid at night in Ramadan and saw people praying individually in every corner of the Masjid with a few in groups. He did not like the sight a bit. 'Umar said, `I thought it would be better to gather these under one Imam'. So, he combined them under 'Obayi bin Ka'ab and Tamimu Ad-Dari to alternate and lead the believers in eleven raka'ats of night prayer. The next day `Umar was in the Masjid which was full with Taraweeh prayers. He was delighted. He said: `Well, this is the best Bid'ah (innovation).'"

`Umar's use of the word bid'ah in this report has been presented and unjustifiably cited as justification for concocting up various so called good innovations. In truth, the Khalifah 'Umar's act to gather the believers in Jama'ah is not bid'ah. For it was the Messenger of Allah himself who started jama'ah by praying in congregation the first and second day, then stopped only as he feared it would become mandatory. After his death, the fear of Taraweeh becoming mandatory (Fard) was not only remote, it was impossible. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad (saas), there will be no more revelation to change any law or rule by abrogation.

Wa'alaykum salaam

Salaam,

thanks for the detailed answer. But I have one very simple question..... The Prophet (sws) stopped one activity, whatever may be the reason.... Then Is it adviseable to start something again which the Prophet (sws) himself stopped practicing.....

Very clearly Hazrat Omer (rt) remarked it as a Bidat which clearly means that there is some difference in the definition.

[Hashim]

Aslaam Alaykum Warahmatuali wa'bar'kaatuuh

Akhee, one thing the sufi are very good at is taking things our of context, when hadrat Umar farooq (radiallaahuanhu) said this thing which you are quoting, 'what a bidah', you are taking this the wrong way akhee, becuase a bid'ah is if you start or introduce or add/make up something in the deen. This Tara'weeh prayer issue, as we can see it is not a Bidh'ah as the prophet (salallhualayi'wa'salaam) practised this, and he ( salallhualayi'wa'salaam) did not wish to pray in jamaat every day in case people thought it was mandotory.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

Hey, regarding all this bid'ah stuff hither and thither, p'raps some wise sage could elucidate a concept or two that have remained a tad blurry for yours truly.

Am I totally in the dark, if I understand bid'ah to be.. hmm, let's see; "a deed or action that has been/is made part of deen, but it cannot be found in the noble Qur'an or within the Sunnah of the Prophet(pbuh)"? If so, things the are 'of this world' (ie. dunya) are not to be made religious obligations (ie. deen), correct? In other words, if something is not proclaimed as obligatory, ie. part of deen, it is not bid'ah, no? Moreover, isn't the concept of bid'ah derived from hadith? The mention in the Qur'an is in the words of Allah(swt); "I have completed for you your religion, completed my favor upon you" (Qur'an 5:3), isn't it? That Islam as revealed in the Qur'an is complete unto itself. If some kind and wise soul could explain these things, I'd be grateful.

Wa'salam

[Guest]

Salaam Ratatosk.

The concept of bid'ah is actually a fundamental sunnah of the Muslims, implied by the Qur'an and verifed by the hadith. The very well being (i.e. authenticity) of Islam, relies on the repulsion and rejection of bid'ah.

I would also add, that if an action is not said to be Islamic, but is carried out in such a way that it appears Islamic to the ignorant beholder, then it is leading towards bid'ah. The Muslims' every action is a religious action. We are meant to do everything for Allah. The way we got about, even walking down the street, should be in accordance with Islam. I.e. walk with modesty, gentleness, smile at the people, greet them, help them out with shopping e.t.c. So these are concepts of Islam; whereas messed up concepts portray Islam in a negative light, and they get passed off as religion, therefore great caution is advised when practicing non-Islam.

Regards

[Guest]

Salaam Mohamed.

Is it sufism that lead to the killing of muslims by Mohammed Abdelwahab in Arabia?

Firstly, yes it was "sufi"ish tareeqahs that caused the war in Arabia. And no, I dont think those who were killed were classed as Muslims, seeing as how they were blatant polytheists.

Regards

[mohamed]

So now you became an ibn taymiya follower or something. Where did you get the polytheist nonsense. This is the abdul wahab lies. He just wanted to conquer, and the best proof is look at them today. Look at the islam in saudi arabia. They turned a religion which was the most tolerant and free in the world to the most barbaric and enslaving one. Abdel wahab and his highway robbers beduin followers with the help of the british established a tyranical beduin islam. Read their history if you don't believe me. Anyways who are you to call muslims polytheist anyways. You blatant arrogance is amazing.

As far as bida', there is nothing wrong with practicing tasawuf, since it is a good virtue and this is the sunna of the prophet. It does not mean that we have to do exactly the way they did, they are after all examples for us and not monkey like imitating. The sunna is not about growing a beard and eating dates. The sufis are the best among the ummah in terms of manners and conduct. The history of sudan and other countries testifies that. Anywhere where there is no tassawuf there is takfeer. This is why the arabian gulf nations and the west has so much takfeer minded muslims. Although with hamza yusuf and others its slowly changing.

[Hashim]

So now you became an ibn taymiya follower or something. Where did you get the polytheist nonsense. This is the abdul wahab lies. He just wanted to conquer, and the best proof is look at them today. Look at the islam in saudi arabia. They turned a religion which was the most tolerant and free in the world to the most barbaric and enslaving one. Abdel wahab and his highway robbers beduin followers with the help of the british established a tyranical beduin islam. Read their history if you don't believe me. Anyways who are you to call muslims polytheist anyways. You blatant arrogance is amazing.

As far as bida', there is nothing wrong with practicing tasawuf, since it is a good virtue and this is the sunna of the prophet. It does not mean that we have to do exactly the way they did, they are after all examples for us and not monkey like imitating. The sunna is not about growing a beard and eating dates. The sufis are the best among the ummah in terms of manners and conduct. The history of sudan and other countries testifies that. Anywhere where there is no tassawuf there is takfeer. This is why the arabian gulf nations and the west has so much takfeer minded muslims. Although with hamza yusuf and others its slowly changing.

Aslaam Alaykum

Firstly, No akhee i think haroon follows Muhammad (salallhualayi'wa'salaam) if i am not mistaken. He is a 'follower' of the prophet Muhammad (salallhualayi'wa'salaam) if i may say. Secondly, can you elaborate inshallaah on how saudi arabia is the most barbaric and enslaving, and perhaps how the arab gulf, is takfeer minded. And thridly, you said to haroon, your blatant arragance is amazing. This is a incorrect statement aimed at the wrong person, if it does apply to anyone, than it applies to taqleed mentality blind followers sufi like yourself akhee. These 'muslims' as you say, who Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab fought, were worshipping trees and stones, today the sufi worship saints and graves, but back in that time these 'muslims', were prostrating before trees and stones. Tawheed was almost non existant in this time and shirk was superiour. So these people are not polytheists? They have breached every category of tawheed, as do the sufi, which constitue shirk. These people contradicted tawheed ul Rububeeyaah, by sharing Allaah subhanhu'wa'tallaah lorship with tres and stones, and idols, they breached tawheed ul asmaah wa'sifaat by giving Allaah aawajaal attributes and charatistics to these deitys they worshipped, for example they belived these things could prevent harm or bring good, they breached Tawheed ul Ebadadaah (uluheyaah) by doing worship (du'aa/prostration) to tress and stones etc. On top of all this, haroon actually said BASICALLY polythesits, which is a lot less worse than most people say. So here my brother, you are badly wrong, in every way. You sufi, you disise sheikh Ul Islaam Ibn Taymiyaah, and you dispise salafiyaah (salafi's) becuase they respect him. But the reason why you people dispise Ibn Taymiyaah (rahimulaah) is becuase he spoke against wrong and bad and he was not scared to do this. Because he openly critized the practises and the bid'aah, he was hated by the sufi, and this is the truth. We are suppose to respect the people of knowledge, yet scholars like Ibn Taymiyaah, Utaymeen, Fawzaan, Al Abani, As Saaboone etc , and the more recent ones, the students of knoledge, like Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadi, Bilaal Phillips etc are dispised by the enmies of salafiyaah.

Allaah knows best.
Wa'alaykukm salaam

[atifrafi]

Aslaam Alaykum Warahmatuali wa'bar'kaatuuh

Akhee, one thing the sufi are very good at is taking things our of context, when hadrat Umar farooq (radiallaahuanhu) said this thing which you are quoting, 'what a bidah', you are taking this the wrong way akhee, becuase a bid'ah is if you start or introduce or add/make up something in the deen. This Tara'weeh prayer issue, as we can see it is not a Bidh'ah as the prophet (salallhualayi'wa'salaam) practised this, and he ( salallhualayi'wa'salaam) did not wish to pray in jamaat every day in case people thought it was mandotory.

Well I am not quoting it as "what a bidah" These are the words of Hazrat Omer (rt) quoted in Bukhari.... Its nothing from me.

My question is still ananswered... What Prophet (sws) stoppped in his lifetime, is it good to start that practice again ?

You have said that the prophet ( salallhualayi'wa'salaam) did not wish to pray in jamaat every day..... What can I say now.... Prophet (sws) did not wish this but what we are doing now???

I don't think there is much left to say.

Regards

[Ratatosk]

Salaam Haroon,

Hmm.. so, was I correct in my assumption then?

if an action is not said to be Islamic, but is carried out in such a way that it appears Islamic to the ignorant beholder, then it is leading towards bid'ah

That is quite an elusive sentence, I trust you agree. But however the case, if it's not made part of deen, it is never bid'ah, no?

walk with modesty, gentleness, smile at the people, greet them, help them out with shopping e.t.c. So these are concepts of Islam

That's just common good behaviour. Gentle manners that all people recognize; muslim, buddhist, atheist, zoroastrian and jew alike.

Wa'salam