The Wahhabi Imam Abu Haneefa!

[Khorosani]

Shamalwar, we have to be honest though. The salafis have caused huge fitnas in the past, my own teacher who is athari in aqeeda (hanbali ex hanafi) has said that Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rah) killed a lot of people for no reason.

I believe everyone in this forum dicussing this topic should listen to this Deobandi Hanafi on the salafi sufi clash

Salafi vs. Sufi & Bid'ah - 1/2 - Shaykh Hasan Ali - YouTube

Salafi vs. Sufi & Bid'ah - 2/2 - Shaykh Hasan Ali - YouTube

in reality, i've spoken with sufis in Afghanistan who don't aprove of this shirk, yes they have some bidah in their practice but other than that they don't approve of shirk or dancing. They do a lot of dhikr.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Shamalwar, we have to be honest though.

Are you suggesting that I am being dishonest by presenting the classic Hanafi views regarding matters of shirk and tawheed which are in essence nothing more or less than what the Salafi movement is advocating?

The salafis have caused huge fitnas in the past,

It is only natural to have groups and movements causing some kind of mischief and disorder because people tend towards hizbiyyah at some point.

my own teacher who is athari in aqeeda (hanbali ex hanafi) has said that Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rah) killed a lot of people for no reason.

Well, if you want to discuss this topic as you tried to discuss it elsewhere, you need to open a seperate thread for that. Don't bring up everything you think you know in order to discredit Salafis.

The fact that the dawah of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was controversial due to what happened in Jazeeratul Arab is accepted part of our history. Prominent scholars among the Salafis have even discussed this during their talks about history and dawah.

Yet it is in no way related to this thread.

I believe everyone in this forum dicussing this topic should listen to this Deobandi Hanafi on the salafi sufi clash

In this forum, people don't accept the basics of Imaan Billah which is timeless and eternal topic and you want to drag people into polemics of 20th century.

Salafi vs. Sufi & Bid'ah - 1/2 - Shaykh Hasan Ali - YouTube

Salafi vs. Sufi & Bid'ah - 2/2 - Shaykh Hasan Ali - YouTube

Hassan Ali is a childish person who is obviously confused and is dumbing people down because that is part of his dawah.

I have heard many of his talks where he brings up totally irrelevant stuff and things he knows from hearsay to make a point.

I dont think he is the right person we should go to to understand these matters.

in reality, i've spoken with sufis in Afghanistan who don't aprove of this shirk, yes they have some bidah in their practice but other than that they don't approve of shirk or dancing.

The problem is not just Sufis in general. The problem is with Sufism as an ideological movement with its core tenets being against Quran & Sunnah.

We have had many Sufis, even in our recent history who faught against graveworshippers while being members of Naqshbandi tariqa.

Even some prominent maulavis among Taliban are naqshbandis and qaadiris yet extremely hostile towards graverworship.

But still, they do believe that Mansur Halaj and ibn Arabi are saints. Are you suppose to say: well thats not bad, at least they are against graveworship? One aspect of tawheed is not necessarily less important than the other.

They do a lot of dhikr.

Thats only praiseworthy. The question is, how do they make dhikr?

[Khorosani]

Are you suggesting that I am being dishonest by presenting the classic Hanafi views regarding matters of shirk and tawheed which are in essence nothing more or less than what the Salafi movement is advocating?

No of course i agree with that

It is only natural to have groups and movements causing some kind of mischief and disorder because people tend towards hizbiyyah at some point.

This is true, sufis have there fare share of fitna in the past


Well, if you want to discuss this topic as you tried to discuss it elsewhere, you need to open a seperate thread for that. Don't bring up everything you think you know in order to discredit Salafis.

The fact that the dawah of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was controversial due to what happened in Jazeeratul Arab is accepted part of our history. Prominent scholars among the Salafis have even discussed this during their talks about history and dawah.

Yet it is in no way related to this thread.

I wasn't actually mentioning it as a jawab to mujib (lool couldn't help it) i was trying to be fair to his statement

In this forum, people don't accept the basics of Imaan Billah which is timeless and eternal topic and you want to drag people into polemics of 20th century.


Well i wasn't speaking with the whole forum and my answers were more directed to Mujib and yourself

Hassan Ali is a childish person who is obviously confused and is dumbing people down because that is part of his dawah.

I have heard many of his talks where he brings up totally irrelevant stuff and things he knows from hearsay to make a point.

I dont think he is the right person we should go to to understand these matters.

Hassan Ali has a lot of good as well, i loved his lectures on al akhira. Plus i believe his main point was unity among the salafis and sufis


The problem is not just Sufis in general. The problem is with Sufism as an ideological movement with its core tenets being against Quran & Sunnah.

We have had many Sufis, even in our recent history who faught against graveworshippers while being members of Naqshbandi tariqa.

Even some prominent maulavis among Taliban are naqshbandis and qaadiris yet extremely hostile towards graverworship.

But still, they do believe that Mansur Halaj and ibn Arabi are saints. Are you suppose to say: well thats not bad, at least they are against graveworship? One aspect of tawheed is not necessarily less important than the other.

Thats only praiseworthy. The question is, how do they make dhikr?

Sufis need to go back to their roots, they need to stick to Imam Junaid al Baghdadi and the other early sufis.

I'm actually ignorant on this, they are against graveworship but does the consideration of heretics being walis lead to shirk/kufr? If not than we should be lenient with our brothers.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Sufis should abandon bid'ah and shirk and we have nothing but unity left.

You are not being fair when you mention the war and havoc during the Dawah of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab to balance out against Mujibs vicious lies and propaganda to depict the entire Salafi movement as evil.

He is saying that Salafis want to deprive people of their din, and you want to be fair to him? LOL

He is basically saying that Salafis are munafiqeen because they fight the din. Where is fairness in this?

[Khorosani]

Sufis should abandon bid'ah and shirk and we have nothing but unity left.

You are not being fair when you mention the war and havoc during the Dawah of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab to balance out against Mujibs vicious lies and propaganda to depict the entire Salafi movement as evil.

He is saying that Salafis want to deprive people of their din, and you want to be fair to him? LOL

He is basically saying that Salafis are munafiqeen because they fight the din. Where is fairness in this?

you have a point, i believe i should leave this topic and when I get bored or get excited enough and open a thread we'll discuss this topic. Don't want to derail the thread.

when i have something fruitful to say on this topic i will post.

[Mujib]

Khorasani, brother, don't apologize. You make some good points. It is unfortunate that you are being met with such hostility. Allah reward you.

[Mujib]

Do you consider Hallaj Mansoor to have been a sufi?

Firstly, brother, I admire and appreciate your civil speech.

My opinion doesn't matter, brother. I do, however, know that many great scholars of Islam consider him as one of the friends of Allah. The great mujaddid Imam al-Rabbani (ra), after whom the Mujaddidi branch of the Naqshbandi tariqa is named, says that even while he was imprisoned, Mansur al-Hallaj (ra) would not leave praying hundreds of rak`at every day. Other scholars disapproved. They disapproved because of the outwardness of the statement and its potential ramifications.

As for the statement itself, I am not qualified to speak on it, brother. Explaining the intricacies of the spiritual path is something only a shaykh can do. From what I do know, the scholars explain such statements as being the result of a state of jadhba. It is a state that one comes out of and from which one moves on. It is only stage; it is not the goal of the Sufi path.

Some scholars have cited in this regard the hadith from Muslim:

Allah has greater joy at the repentance of one His slaves when he turns towards Him than one of you would have over his mount, which, having escaped from him with his food and drink in the middle of the desert so that he has despaired of finding it and gone to a tree to lie down in its shade, suddenly appears standing by him while he is in that state, so that he takes its reins and then says out of the intensity of his joy, "O Allah, You are my slave and I am Your Lord!" getting confused because of his intense joy.

As for terms like “unity” (ittihad), “indwelling” (hulul), “annihilation” (fana’), etc., they are not to be interpreted literally. Reaching unity does not mean that the Sufi literally becomes part of God. The great Sufi master Imam Ibn `Ata' Illah (ra) said: "Your reaching Allah is your reaching the knowledge of Him, for other than that, Our Lord is too exalted for anything to be joined with Him or for Him to be joined with anything" (Reliance of the Traveller).

Such language and such speech is not for common people. Just like there are `aqida or fiqh works that are above the heads of common people (that have the potential of confusing or misleading them), so too are there works of tasawwuf that are above the heads of common people. The great Sufi imams have warned those who are not qualified against approaching such works independently.

These sort of statements are not the fundamentals or the core of Tasawwuf (Sufism). Purifying the heart and dedicating one's life to Allah are the goal.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Firstly, brother, I admire and appreciate your civil speech.

My opinion doesn't matter, brother. I do, however, know that many great scholars of Islam consider him as one of the friends of Allah. The great mujaddid Imam al-Rabbani (ra), after whom the Mujaddidi branch of the Naqshbandi tariqa is named, says that even while he was imprisoned, Mansur al-Hallaj (ra) would not leave praying hundreds of rak`at every day. Other scholars disapproved. They disapproved because of the outwardness of the statement and its potential ramifications.

As for the statement itself, I am not qualified to speak on it, brother. Explaining the intricacies of the spiritual path is something only a shaykh can do. From what I do know, the scholars explain such statements as being the result of a state of jadhba. It is a state that one comes out of and from which one moves on. It is only stage; it is not the goal of the Sufi path.

Some scholars have cited in this regard the hadith from Muslim:

Allah has greater joy at the repentance of one His slaves when he turns towards Him than one of you would have over his mount, which, having escaped from him with his food and drink in the middle of the desert so that he has despaired of finding it and gone to a tree to lie down in its shade, suddenly appears standing by him while he is in that state, so that he takes its reins and then says out of the intensity of his joy, "O Allah, You are my slave and I am Your Lord!" getting confused because of his intense joy.

As for terms like “unity” (ittihad), “indwelling” (hulul), “annihilation” (fana’), etc., they are not to be interpreted literally. Reaching unity does not mean that the Sufi literally becomes part of God. The great Sufi master Imam Ibn `Ata' Illah (ra) said: "Your reaching Allah is your reaching the knowledge of Him, for other than that, Our Lord is too exalted for anything to be joined with Him or for Him to be joined with anything" (Reliance of the Traveller).

Such language and such speech is not for common people. Just like there are `aqida or fiqh works that are above the heads of common people (that have the potential of confusing or misleading them), so too are there works of tasawwuf that are above the heads of common people. The great Sufi imams have warned those who are not qualified against approaching such works independently.

These sort of statements are not the fundamentals or the core of Tasawwuf (Sufism). Purifying the heart and dedicating one's life to Allah are the goal.

But isn't this concept of referring to hallaj as a friend also once again not rooted in scriptural purism?

These words have intense meanings according to Quranic ayahs. The Quran as I read it said specifically that only one man in history was deserving of this title of befriending God and that was Ibrahim the forefather who God called his friend, and none others are ever called that.

Ibrahim was asked to carry out very strict orders of sacrifice and demonstrated a very concrete thought process.

For example, some might say Ibrahim acted a bit more towards the salafi side when he took a hammer to the idols in the temple and put weapon in the hand of the largest idol so as to make fools of the idolators.

And once again though does literalism not have its place in religion as does an evidence rooted philosophy of how to behave and how to speak regarding religious matters?

i.e. I guess what I am asking is that the general charge against salafis is that they are extremists in a way or that they are selective with hadith right? The notion is that the outcome of their actions results in behavior that is detrimental to native cultures or independent thought. When they are asked about opinions they defer to sheikhs and say that only the qualified can come to certain conclusions.

Is the same not to be said of Sufi mystics who are also at times selective? Are there times for literalism, as the Quran itself says regarding its foundation verses not being misinterpreted and spiritualized in a way that that allows disobedience?

And once again where the nearly literalistic examples of of the Prophet in the literature we have (as well as his companions) and of the Quran (e.g. of only Abraham being called God's friend but none other where even Muhammad (S) is called the slave of God) not better guides?

I myself am not sure and not well read. I have been chasing the definitions of Salafi and Sufi for years now trying to understand what these terminologies mean. I hope to find the time to read some of the great works of the early era in completion and some of the individual works of the various scholars you guys cite.

But at least on the surface, I find it hard as a scientist, to ignore the literal and turn it metaphorical or to create spiritualism when various laws and examples demonstrate a literalism, ie I try to phrase what I say about our personal relationship with God or the relationship of others with Him very carefully. The Quran itself is very very explicit on the use of words even demanding that adherents say not "Son of God" or "Trinity" and to even abhor or shun these terms - such is the monotheistic vigor and degradation of pantheism in Islam.

This is in contrast to the Bible which will throw around words such as "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God."

[Mujib]

Brother, the idea propagated by some that Sufis only believe in figurative, non-literal meanings is false. The literal|figurative binary relates to all three aspects of the din: islam, iman, ihsan. (This tripartite division is based upon the Gibril Hadith. Islam here relates to law and practice, iman to belief, and ihsan to spirituality and perfection.) Sufis are Sunni, thus their position regarding the literal|figurative binary is the Sunni (Ahl al-Sunna) position. The position of Sunnis is the middle position, between absolute literalism and absolute figurativism.

[randolph85]

you salafis are more obsessed with graves than even the most heretic sufis.