[layedgebiamma]

Yes you did make the claim, you said:



So now it is upto you to provide how NO Tariqah alive today do not represent Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's understanding of Sufism. and please stop saying that you didn't make any claims when you infact did.

A doubt is hardly a claim. It is a doubt. If I say 'I doubt that X is Y' am I stating that 'X is not Y' or that 'I have doubts with regards to whether X is Y or not?' The answer is clear. A claim would be 'Ibn Taymiyyah would not approve of any of the current tariqahs in existence.'

Why are you now taking a different route? you first talk about of what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah mentions and his paradigms and now you have leaped to whether or not it is legislated in the sunnah, if you want to talk about what Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned specifcially then fine i will discuss, but if you want to change topics then by all means you carry on by yourself. There is no legislation of Tariqahs in the Sunnah by name, but the application of it is clearly shown i.e. tazkiyah al-Nafs / Ihsan.

Ibn Taymiyyah was in favor solely of matters legislated in the Sunnah; this is clear from his own writings, as well as the writings of Hanbalis before and after him. I don't really see why I have to cite this, it's pretty common knowledge.

Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah himself answers:

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d..._no=22&ID=1727

فأجاب : الاجتماع لذكر الله واستماع كتابه والدعاء عمل صالح وهو من أفضل القربات والعبادات في الأوقات ففي الصحيح عن [ ص: 521 ] النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال : { إن لله ملائكة سياحين في الأرض فإذا مروا بقوم يذكرون الله تنادوا هلموا إلى حاجتكم } وذكر الحديث وفيه { وجدناهم يسبحونك ويحمدونك }

Ibn Taymiyyah clearly quotes the mash-hur hadith that is used by people who participate in Dhikr gatherings.

Yes, but what kind of dhikr gatherings are being spoken about and what sort of dhikr is being undertaken? This is not referred to in the question. Is it unision dhikr in which everyone recites dhikrs at once? Is it after the prayer? What kind of dhikr gathering is it? If this is not spoken, then it can simply be used as a proof for his opinion regarding every sort of dhikr gathering, when 'dhikr gathering' can include everything from people getting together to seek ilm to people clapping and dancing according to some (not that I'm including you in this definition).

Maybe you want to see something different, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was aked regarding large amounts of Tahleel counts (70,000) helping the Mayyit from the emancipation of the Naar:

http://islamweb.net/newlibrary/displ...=22&startno=31

وسئل عمن " هلل سبعين ألف مرة وأهداه للميت يكون براءة للميت من النار " حديث صحيح ؟ أم لا ؟ وإذا هلل الإنسان وأهداه إلى الميت يصل إليه ثوابه أم لا ؟

he answered:

فأجاب : إذا هلل الإنسان هكذا : سبعون ألفا أو أقل أو أكثر . وأهديت إليه نفعه الله بذلك وليس هذا حديثا صحيحا ولا ضعيفا . والله أعلم

Although he said it is not a hadith, he did say it will help the Mayyit. Infact pay attention; he did not even repudiate the counting of 70,000 Tahleels, which is a slient approval for counting many Dhikrs even for oneself in Dhikr gatherings.

So, do you want to stick to what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding Tasawwuf and it's various practices?

Yes, please continue. If you can find specific statements regarding matters that are legislated and approved of by Ibn Taymiyyah, that will be good.

However, I'm aware that he rejected Bay'ah in the way that it is commonly done now. Is this not the case? What Sufi order does not use Bay'ah, or absolute obedience to a Shaikh?

Well, obivously, you never paid attention to my words before; i clearly said, Music, Singing, Dancing is not part of many Sufi gatherings, many are against this and call it HARAAM, which i am also.

Gatherings of Dhikr, Qur'an and Du'a as mentioned by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is what i am for.

Fantastic! The question is, how do you use the word 'singing,' and the word 'dancing,' because groups such as the Shadhili Tariqah do things which could be characterized on one hand as 'singing' or 'dancing' depending on one's definition of the term, and the question as to whether or not Ibn Taymiyyah would have approved of that is very clearly in one direction.

So these practices, such as singing and hadrahs (practiced by the Qadiri Tariqah as can be very simply seen and the Shadhili Tariqah) and seeking help from the dead, or making pilgrimages to tombs- all of this you are against? I'm certain on the latter two and the first one.

The whole reason i gave you the article, was that many of the excerpts i posted from Ibn Taymiyyahs' Majmu have been translated there. Doesn't mean i am inadvertantly promoting kabbani. I am not turning to him, as i have clearly pasted the direct words of Ibn Taymiyyah without the need of Kabbani, the link was to get a gist of what bn Taymiyyah said, not to read the conclusion of the author..

Even if they call him Shaykh al-Akbar, that doesn't mean the Tasawwuf they practice is any different to that of what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah himself practiced and praised. Because Ibn Taymiyyah himself praises Ibn al-'Arabi's other books besides Fusoos. We are talking about a science called Tasawwuf, please stick to it.

Very well, I see what you're saying. The question is, how exactly is the translation slanted? For example, the term 'awliya' can be translated in a lot of ways, but the author chose to translate it as 'saints.' This sort of thing can be easily used to create a slant one way or the other in any given article.

Are you absolutely certain of that? I can't quite imagine that calling such an individual 'Shaykh al-Akbar' would have no effect whatsoever on their approach to matters. And yes, Ibn Taymiyyah initially praised Futuhat, but he later took back his praises after he read Fusus. This is also well known.

As for the science, it is doubtlessly a reality, but the question is, how does one define the science? It is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and Ibn Qudama and the other great Hanbali shaykhs were all in favor of purifying intentions and the like, this can easily be seen in their voluminous works on the subjects; such as Towards the Hereafter, Diseases of the Heart and their Cures, The way to Patience and Gratitude, and similar. If we define the science that way, then sure, fine.

But what about the practices? Are the practices in line with what Ibn Taymiyyah espoused? Because despite the excellent links you've posted which have clarified that Ibn Taymiyyah was in favor of dhikr gatherings (but how are dhikr gatherings defined) and reciting much dhikr (nobody is not in favor of reciting much dhikr unless they're barking mad), there are numerous practices (such as bay'ah of the sort that Sufi sheikhs practice) which he clearly disapproved of.

For that matter, if all of these matters can be proved from the Shari'ah in a direct sense (the application was mentioned, yes, that is definitely proven without a doubt), then why is it that the learned Maulana did not argue in that manner; instead arguing that the practices which are done are equivalent to technological inventions?