+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sufi or Salafi - Does it Matter?

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehzouz View Post
    assalam alaykum

    As long as the Muslims are practicing Islam, does it matter which way their views are inclined since differences in some areas are inevitable?
    alayka salam.

    Differences will only occur if people left the Qur'aan and referred to other things that do not reflect Islaam.

    Some allow weak narrations in the support of actions that encourage good deeds and others don't. Some view singing praises of the Messenger as allowed and others don't. Some view to roll up their trousers high as a must, others don't.
    Weak narrations are equal to lying on the Messenger of Allaah. Allaah has forbidden us to follow doubtful things. There is no evidence from Islaam that supports weak narrations to be used in support of good deeds. This belief seemed to have been legislated later on after the death of Rasoolullaah.

    Shouldn't we be focused on matters that totally not from Islam, like what the Disbelievers want us to believe in like accepting Secularism and Freedoms of Capitalism, like accepting gays and usury (banking) and gambling (stock markets) and to be allowed to mock the Prophets (AS)?
    Many problems occur due to the psuedo-Muslims that are amongst the Muslims. Remember, majority of the problems at the time of the Prophet appeared as a result of people outwardly calling themselves Muslims i.e. hypocrites.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Universe.
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehzouz View Post
    assalam alaykum

    As long as the Muslims are practicing Islam, does it matter which way their views are inclined since differences in some areas are inevitable?

    Some allow weak narrations in the support of actions that encourage good deeds and others don't. Some view singing praises of the Messenger as allowed and others don't. Some view to roll up their trousers high as a must, others don't.

    Shouldn't we be focused on matters that totally not from Islam, like what the Disbelievers want us to believe in like accepting Secularism and Freedoms of Capitalism, like accepting gays and usury (banking) and gambling (stock markets) and to be allowed to mock the Prophets (AS)?
    The secterian tendencies within the ummah is very dengerous and will bring nothing but bitter fruits.Unfortunately today we find groupings amongst the Ummah who have taken the age old divisions regarding the branches of belief, usūl al-fiqh and jurisprudence to extremes. They speak with an agenda to refute each other and exhaust much effort in this pursuit. Regrettably they consider each other the enemy whilst our lands are occupied by the kuffār, such as the land of the Isrā’ and Mi’rāj (The Prophet’s Night Journey), whilst Muslim blood is spilt by the colonialists the world over and whilst the enemies of Islam seek to seduce Muslims away from our core values, sharī’ah rules and even our ‘aqīdah (belief).

    Putting aside the fringe minority amongst both camps, who have clearly gone totally astray – such as those amongst the Sufis that believe in Wahdat al-wujūd – that Allāh (swt) is part of the creation, or those amongst the Salafī ultra-Żāhirī’s (literalists) who make Takfīr (pronouncing disbelief) on everyone apart from themselves – looking at the mainstream of both camps today, one can notice that both sides have gone beyond the bounds of what their founders, and the classical scholars that they refer to, taught.

    The Ash’arī scholars and pioneers in history, whilst they disagreed strongly with the views of the literalists did not consider them and their scholars as enemies. They did not consider Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathīr and the like as heretics even though they differed with them in many issues, ranging from the definition of Imān, the manner in which to understand the sifāt(attributes) of Allāh (swt), in the usage of Qiyās (legal analogical reasoning) and the permissibility of Taqlīd (following qualified legal opinions of a mujtahid) to a school of thought (madhhab). In fact they did not even consider this camp in the same light as the heretical groups such as the Mu’tazilah or the Khawārij. On the contrary the books of these scholars were respected and quoted by Ash’arī scholars throughout history. It is true that they strongly criticised the literalist camp for their approach and views but this was on the scholarly intellectual level and must be taken in this context. This was the practice even amongst the Salaf as-Salihīn (pious predecessors), such as the founding fathers of the madhāhib (schools of thought). For example when Imam al-Shāfi’ī criticised the principle of Istihsān (juristic preference), a secondary source of law utilised by the Hanafī school, in the chapter Ibtāl al- Istihsān (Refutation of Juristic Preference) in his book Kitab al-Umm, he equated the one who adopted it similar to the one who makes the mind sovereign. This in no way meant that he viewed them as deviants; on the contrary he respected his teacher, the student of Imām Abū Hanīfah, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī with high regard.

    Similarly the literalist scholars whom the Salafī camp hold in high regard and take their thought from; whilst they also harshly criticised the Ash’arī’s, especially on some of their views such as the attributes of Allāh (swt), their definition of the Qur’ān as an expression of the speech of Allāh, their definition of Imān (belief) as being Tasdīq (assent) in the heart and not including actions, and their justification of Taqlīd – they did not consider them as heretics or deviants deserving the wrath of Allāh (swt). Look at what Ibn Taymiyyah himself says:

    “It is not necessarily the case that everyone who makes a mistake in matters of ‘aqīdah is destined to be from the destroyed and the losers. Perhaps, the disputant was a mistaken mujtahid for whom Allāh will forgive his mistake. It is also possible that he did not receive enough information about the topic to conclude that the proof has been established against him.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, vol. 3 p.179]

    In fact he mentions that even the Salaf differed on various issues; even those related to the belief. He says:

    “The early pious people (al-salaf) disputed about many of those issues. Yet none of them declared the others of having unbelief, evil or sin. Shurayh rejected the reading of the verse, “But I wonder (‘ajibtu) while they mock” (al-Sāffāt: 12). He said, “Allāh does not wonder.”[1] When that reached Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī, he said, “Shurayh was a poet who was overcome by his own knowledge. But ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ūd] was more knowledgeable than him and he would read, “I wonder”. And ’Āishah disputed with the other Companions regarding Muhammad (saw) seeing his Lord. She said, “Whoever claims that Muhammad saw his Lord has committed a great falsehood against Allāh.” Despite this, we do not say about Ibn ‘Abbās or others who disputed with her on that point, that they stated a great lie against Allāh. They also disputed about whether the dead could hear the words of the living, whether the dead is punished for the crying of his family and so forth…” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, vol 3, pp. 239-240]

    Remember they considered that Allāh (swt) would forgive the sincere believers for their mistakes even in matters they believed were clear, as is mentioned in the hadīth, “Allāh has pardoned for my nation [what is done] by mistake, out of forgetfulness or under duress.”
    If we were to look at the reasons why Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 936 CE) and those who followed him as well as scholars on the literalist side like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) entered into the debates about the branches of belief we would find that they did so with the noble purpose of defending the Islamic creed. Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari rose to the challenge of refuting the strange views of the deviant group, the Mu’tazila who were creating confusion in his time. Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah on the other hand faced the incorrect views of the extreme sufi mystics influenced by foreign philosophies head on and exposed them.

    It would be much more productive, in line with the obligation of enjoining the good and forbidding the munkar (evil) and in keeping with the ethos of the classical scholars, for both camps today to focus on refuting the intellectual onslaught launched by the Kuffār upon the Dīn, its definitive concepts, rules and even the Islamic creed. Today, in the name of reformation people are questioning thehudūd laws set by Allah; they are attempting to destroy the Islamic concept of brotherhood by permitting the alliance with the kuffār against the believers; they attempt to cast doubt on the obligation of the khimār (headscarf) and jilbāb upon the woman in the public life and want us to turn away from the fundamental aqeeda concept of the sovereignty of Allāh (swt) by accepting man-made laws. Secular liberalism championed by the west is the real threat that is corrupting millions of Muslims worldwide not the centuries old debates on the branches of aqeeda and usul al fiqh. One may point to modern day Sūfīs or Salafīs who are modernists used in this campaign against the normative concepts in Islam in order to strengthen his argument against the other camp.

    However, it is clear that there are some in both camps who are being used to cast doubt on the fundamentals of the Dīn. There are some who claim to be the followers of Abul Hasan al-Ash’arī yet they go against the qatī (definitive) matters, contradicting what is established by evidences that are definitive in authenticity and meaning. They going against the consensus of all the scholars including the four Imāms of the madhāhib and all the scholars from amongst the Ash’arī’s such as Qādī ‘Iyād, Al-Ghazālī, Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī, Al-Suyūtī, Al-Rāzī, Al-Nawawī, Ibn Hajr al-Haytamī, Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī and others.

    They argue away the hudud (prescribed punishments) of Allah such as the obligation to cut the hand of the thief and lashing the unmarried fornicator on the pretext of the changing of the time and place. They misuse the principles of masalih al mursala (public interests), dharoora (necessity),alhaf al-dararain (the lesser of the two harms) and the like to justify the taking of riba (usury), electing people to rule by other than Islam and other matters that would be considered blasphemous to the Ash’ari scholars of the past.

    The modernist scholars error is not due to being Ash’arī; rather it is due to being those who are justifying the unjustifiable and their thoughts need to be exposed by both Ash’arī and non-Ash’arī ulema alike.

    Similarly it could be said that there are Salafī scholars that legitimise the clearly non-Islamic rule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and justify the Kingdom’s actions such as its alliance with America. Again those who do this are manifestly turning away from the path of the Salaf, the definitive evidences and the consensus of all scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathīr. The literalists scholars did not only view it is as a strong prohibition; they in fact considered ruling by other than what Allāh (swt) has revealed as disbelief.

    Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir (disbeliever), and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir…So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or ameer, shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

    Hence, the Salafi-modernists should be exposed by the Salafī and non-Salafī scholars alike.

    Perhaps it is also time for both camps to go back to the original sources of the Qur’ān and Sunnah, which are the sources of guidance for the Ash’arīs and Salafīs alike, and attempt to neutrally re-evaluate some of their controversial views. If one was to refer back to the original sources instead of continuing to adhere to the position of their camp, they may conclude that some of the views they have been adhering to are weak or incorrect; such as the traditionalists position that the doors of Ijtihād are closed even though it has been established that Ijtihād is Fard al-Kifāyah (an obligation of sufficiency). Similarly if someone from the Salafī camp independently reconsiders the literalist position of the prohibition of taqlīd he may discover its weakness, as the Qur’ān commands us to,“Ask the people of dhikr (understanding) if you know not” [TMQ 21:7] and the Prophet (saw) said,“The cure for the lack of knowledge is to ask” as well as many other evidences. Maybe if we go back to the original sources and study the matters neutrally, instead of trying to dogmatically defend the position of our teachers and our camp, we may find that the true path is neither Sufism nor Salafism, Ash’arī or Żahirī but that it is a path in between the two.

    More importantly regardless of our scholastic or juristic persuasions let us unite against the clear disbelief of secular liberalism and take heed in the words of our Lord,
    “And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you do not do so, there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism) and oppression on the earth.” [TMQ Al Anfal: 73]

    In this era where the war against Islam is intense and spans the globe it is not fitting for us to exhaust energy in polemics of centuries bygone. Surely refuting the creed of dividing religion from politics and worldly life that has actually affected the ummah en masse is more important than the semantics of the definition of Iman. The thousands of hours spent by imams, speakers, writers and activists in discussing whether the attributes of Allah are literal or metaphoric would be much better spent in actually working to replace the satanic laws that our lands are governed by with the law of the All-mighty, the Supreme. We need to unite upon our fundamentals and despite our differences work together so that the kalima (word) of truth becomes the highest.

    “And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah’s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren, and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat clear to you, that you may be guided.”
    [TMQ Aal Imran: 103]
    Last edited by An Nahda; 04-03-2013 at 14:06.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    476

    Default

    thanks Abu Ismael

  4. #14

    Default

    A very informative blog post on this topic

    http://theletteredwayfarer.wordpress...ng-out-part-1/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,593

    Default

    Salam brother ads1
    I am pleased to see you back on the forum, I posted a reply to this person. I think Muslims need to realize that there is a sharp demarcation between the message of Islam and the behavior of the Muslims which in most case now is unislamic and that exactly what the west wants.
    Obviously the majority of the evil scholars of to day are playing a devastating role in this regard.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mehzouz View Post
    assalam alaykum

    As long as the Muslims are practicing Islam, does it matter which way their views are inclined since differences in some areas are inevitable?

    Some allow weak narrations in the support of actions that encourage good deeds and others don't. Some view singing praises of the Messenger as allowed and others don't. Some view to roll up their trousers high as a must, others don't.

    Shouldn't we be focused on matters that totally not from Islam, like what the Disbelievers want us to believe in like accepting Secularism and Freedoms of Capitalism, like accepting gays and usury (banking) and gambling (stock markets) and to be allowed to mock the Prophets (AS)?

    Islam answers questions that need to be asked first. Your question included. However, because Islam comprehensively and unambiguously solves the biggest problem we will ever face it allows us to live productive lives when we refer to these solutions to solve any problem we may ever face.


    The enemies of Islam know this and because of the intricate nature of how many people become Muslims today, you will find that it is Islam they are using to distort the image of Islam and the understanding of Islam. For instance, you might agree with any of the wonderful replies above because you are sincere and fear being accounted for your actions and therefore find nothing wrong with the replies for your intriguing question. On the other hand, if you (I don't mean you personally) have some of the problems that Muslims have such as taking the truth from people who look like the truth, such as elderly looking, facial hair wearing, polite talking...you catch my drift? Then you won't accept the truth because your thinking process has been tampered with.


    It is inconceivable to think that at the time of the Prophet (saw) every single one of the Sahaba (ra) thought in the exact same way and then after he died they stopped thinking like that and changed their way of thinking. This means that there is a thinking that they had of Islam while he (saw) was alive and a thinking they carried while he was dead? Another inconceivable idea is that the Muslims worshipped Allah differently while the Prophet (saw) was alive from when he (saw) was dead. So if they did not do this, there must be something that they knew from Islam which stopped them from having disparate thoughts on important issues.


    I remember a long time ago reading or hearing about how Abubakar As-Siddiq (ra) reminding the Sahaba (ra) to control how they behaved towards the new Muslims. He was adamant and refused to allow those who made a huge mistake of refusing to give zakah to him because the Prophet (saw) was no more. Howevfer, he was lenient with the new Muslims and even encouraged them to join his army and support the call taken to open other people's lands to the Islamic solution to all of life's problems.


    The point is, whether a person is sufi or not or whether a person is shafi or not, how they become Muslims affects everything they do. A person's action is a reflection of the concepts they carry. Some of those actions can be praised when they conform to the sharia and others will be shunned when they do not conform to it. In fact when a person does an action that requires him to be punished according to the sharia, it is because the Law Giver dictated that such an actions requires such a punishment.


    I think we mustn't forget also that there are also two companions always with us recording our actions which will be presented for or against us. So when we see good or bad we must also remember that this Islam must be carried to others using the kind reminder and whatever means possible in the future to ensure that the answers to the greatest problem man faces are presented accurately, and the enemies of Islam cannot distort that image using 'Islamic like' ideas. That's what I think of your question Brother.
    Take what we gave you with strength.
    QM 2:63

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Nahda View Post
    Similarly it could be said that there are Salafī scholars that legitimise the clearly non-Islamic rule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and justify the Kingdom’s actions such as its alliance with America. Again those who do this are manifestly turning away from the path of the Salaf, the definitive evidences and the consensus of all scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathīr. The literalists scholars did not only view it is as a strong prohibition; they in fact considered ruling by other than what Allāh (swt) has revealed as disbelief.

    Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir (disbeliever), and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir…So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or ameer, shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

    Hence, the Salafi-modernists should be exposed by the Salafī and non-Salafī scholars alike.


    Brilliant quote. I didn't know that.


    I know a lot of Salafi Brothers, and they do not know this either.
    Take what we gave you with strength.
    QM 2:63

  8. #18

    Default

    The salafi obsession with destroying graves

    http://kohram.in/prophet-yunus-grave...is-terrorists/

    Quote from 'Confessions of a British spy' (see point number 4 below)

    :...After a month’s stay in London, I received a message from
    the Ministry ordering me to go to Iraq to see Muhammad of Najd
    again. As I was leaving for my mission, the secretary said to
    me, “Never be negligent about Muhammad of Najd! As it is
    understood from the reports sent by our spies up until now,
    Muhammad of Najd is a typical fool very convenient for the
    realization of our purposes.
    “Talk frankly with Muhammad of Najd. Our agents talked
    with him frankly in Isfahân, and he accepted our wishes on
    terms. The terms he stipulated are: He would be supported
    with adequate property and weaponry to protect himself against
    states and scholars who would certainly attack him upon his
    announcing his ideas and views. A principality would be
    established in his country, be it a small one. The Ministry
    accepted these terms.”

    I felt as if I were going to fly from joy when I heard this news.
    I asked the secretary what I was supposed to do about this. His
    reply was, “The Ministry has devised a subtle scheme for
    Muhammad of Najd to carry out, as follows:

    “1- He is to declare all Muslims as disbelievers and
    announce that it is halâl to kill them, to seize their property, to
    violate their chastity, to make their men slaves and their women
    concubines and to sell them at slave markets.

    “2- He is to state that Ka’ba is an idol and therefore it must
    be demolished.[1] In order to do away with the worship of hajj,
    he is to provoke tribes to raid groups of hadjis (Muslim pilgrims),
    to plunder their belongings and to kill them.

    “3- He is to strive to dissuade Muslims from obeying the
    Khalîfa. He is to provoke them to revolt against him. He is to
    prepare armies for this purpose. He is to exploit every
    opportunity to spread the conviction that it is necessary to fight
    against the notables of Hedjaz and bring disgrace on them.

    “4- He is to allege that the mausoleums, domes and sacred
    places in Muslim countries are idols and polytheistic milieus and
    must therefore be demolished. He is to do his best to produce
    occasions for insulting Prophet Muhammad, his Khalîfas, and
    all prominent scholars of madh-habs.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The book 'confessions of a British spy' also talks about how the British setup an agenda to cut off tassawuf from Islamic way of life.

    "How they created hostility towards tassawuff"

    In their war to annihilate Islam, the most effective weapon
    the British used for deceiving Muslims zealous for serving their
    country and nation was the method of propagating that Islam
    should be adapted to time, modernized and restored to its
    original purity, which again was intended to establish an
    irreligious society. The Shaikh-ul-islâm Mustafa Sabri Efendi, a
    great Islamic savant, was one of the people who perceived this
    very well. By stating, “To abrogate the madh-habs means to
    build a bridge leading to irreligiousness,” he elucidated what
    their real purposes were.

    The British and the other enemies of Islam endeavoured
    assiduously to corrupt the dervish convents and paths of
    Tasawwuf. They strove hard to annihilate Ikhlâs,which is the
    third component of the Sharî’at. The superior leaders of
    Tasawwuf never busied themselves with politics, nor would they
    expect any worldly advantages from anybody. Most of those
    great people were profoundly learned mujtahids. For ‘tasawwuf’
    means to follow the way guided by Muhammad ‘alaihis-salâm’.
    In other words, it means to strictly observe the Sharî’at in
    whatever one says or does, in everything. However, for a long
    time, ignorant, sinful people, and even foreign agents, in order
    to attain their vile goals, have instituted diverse guilds by using
    the names of great men of Tasawwuf, and thus caused the
    Islamic religion and its Sharî’at to collapse, to deteriorate. Dhikr,
    (for instance), means to remember Allâhu ta’âlâ. This is
    essentially the heart’s business. Dhikr purifies the heart of any
    sort of love except that of Allâhu ta’âlâ, such as love of the
    world or of other creatures, and thus love of Allah settles firmly
    in the heart. It is not dhikr for a number of people, men and
    women, to come together and articulate some strange sounds
    in the name of dhikr. The way followed by those superior men of
    religion, by the As-hâb-i-kirâm, has already been forgotten. Sins
    have been committed in the name of worshipping. So much so
    that, especially recently, there is next to no dervish convent left
    where wrongdoing and sins have not entered, where heretical
    practices such as Shi’a have not penetrated. These practices
    carried on in the name of Tasawwuf have become the most
    effective weapons in demolishing the Sharî’at. Music has been
    inserted into dervish convents. Playing musical instruments,
    singing, men and women dancing together hand-in-hand and
    without even women covering themselves, and all other
    eccentricities of this sort have been called worships. Concepts
    such as ‘Turkish Religious Music’ and ‘Music of Tasawwuf’ have
    been fabricated.

    As it is seen, British agents and missionaries first corrupted
    these homes of knowledge, sagacity and beautiful morality, and
    then, on the pretext that they were places of depravity, they
    abrogated not only the corrupt ones but also the ones that had
    not been adulterated. All the sects founded by the British, such
    as Wahhabism, religious eclecticism and reformism, and the
    Salafiyya sect, embody a systematic hostility against Tasawwuf.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts