[loginptsa]

[QUOTE=David;604787][QUOTE=ahamed_sharif;604782]

I don't practice sufism. But independently I say "You will see more of sunnah, love for Allah swt and Rasulullah sws among sufees than salafees".
You are joking me right? I said "independent analysis"

Shall I add "wallaah" to that

[propolo]

[QUOTE=ahamed_sharif;604793][QUOTE=David;604787]

I don't practice sufism. But independently I say "You will see more of sunnah, love for Allah swt and Rasulullah sws among sufees than salafees".

I said "independent analysis"

Shall I add "wallaah" to that

bro, the salafis are the staunchest in adherence to the sunnah and if you dont see that then you have not sat with them in their gatherings. If I go to a sufi mosque and mention a sunnah that isnt practiced "back home" they will outright reject it, if I bring any sunnah to a salafi masjid they will all race to practice it. That is somethign im 100% certain about. What you have said is teh opposite of reality. Sufis like to busy themselves wit things that simply arent the sunnah

[loginptsa]

Assalamu alaykum

What you are quoting is the body. I see the soul in sufees. Wallah.

[blohannaserri]

Assalamu Aleikum,

Brother David, what you are doing here is absolutely wrong.
A non-muslim asked a question, you intervened by advertising your Aqeeda as good and everyone other's Aqeeda as wrong.
This person must have thought: 'These Muslims can't agree on their religion, how can this be a true religion?'.

There was a possibility that this person might have said the Shahada.
'La ilaha Il Allah' was enough for this person.

You will be responsible on the day of Judgement for this.

Waleikum Salam,

[loginptsa]

Assalamu alaykum


here was a possibility that this person might have said the Shahada. Or this person may be already a muslim but acting as a hindu. If he doing just to make fun, laanat on him. And let him die as what he is acting as.

[amehoubFomo]

Assalamu Aleikum,

Brother David, what you are doing here is absolutely wrong.
A non-muslim asked a question, you intervened by advertising your Aqeeda as good and everyone other's Aqeeda as wrong.
This person must have thought: 'These Muslims can't agree on their religion, how can this be a true religion?'.

There was a possibility that this person might have said the Shahada.
'La ilaha Il Allah' was enough for this person.

You will be responsible on the day of Judgement for this.


Waleikum Salam,

Wassallam & well said!

It's true we need to stop this bickering!

Salafees should learn/adopt some of the praiseworthy traits found in true Sufees whilst the dodgy Sufees should learn to abide by the law of Islam.

We don't need to argue about it, just be a bit sensible!

[cargo_brad]

[QUOTE=David;604797][QUOTE=ahamed_sharif;604793]

bro, the salafis are the staunchest in adherence to the sunnah and if you dont see that then you have not sat with them in their gatherings. If I go to a sufi mosque and mention a sunnah that isnt practiced "back home" they will outright reject it, if I bring any sunnah to a salafi masjid they will all race to practice it. That is somethign im 100% certain about. What you have said is teh opposite of reality. Sufis like to busy themselves wit things that simply arent the sunnah

Brother David, you left the thread where we were having a discussion about the varying fiqh definitions of bid'ah. Herein we've seen you promoting this particular view of what does and does not constitute ibadah again without acknowledging the varying available opinions. Is dhikr ibadah? Is it ibadah if it is used as a means? As an end? Is there a need for a balanced approach? Is there a need for enumerating the differences between conceptions of bid'ah as per the opinions of the Salaf? I believe there is, but you have not lived up to this.

I do not believe this constitutes a sensible way of comporting yourself here, nor does it really suit you to be speaking invective against tasawwuf simply because ignorant people in the subcontinent sacrifice bulls to saints (shirk). If I were to point out that a some Salafis are zealous youths who refuse to believe that any scholar should be followed for any reason and that following a madhab is shirk or equivalent to shirk, you would protest that these people do not represent Salafiyyah- I protest that the practices of ignorant people do not represent Tasawwuf because they do not.

Are the miracles of the awliya true or not?

[12ZHeWZa]

Whooahh, really? Where in the Qur'an does it say that Muhammad reached annihlation or whatever? I thought he was just an ordinary human chosen by God?

Tbh I feel like I'm getting a lot of unorthodox views on Islam, like from the moderator above me and the other guy who implied that enlightenment would save someone from hell.

Wouldn't orthodox Islam say that the Buddha is in hell since he denied the existence of any eternally existing entity (hence God). He denied a creator and considered belief in God to be unhealty, Issara Nimana Vada.

I was looking for some Orthodox views on Islam, not like a new agey liberal concept that accepts the idea of enlightenment. Islam would reject spiritual enlightenment as a legitimate spiritual attainment right?

I mean aren't you views technically heretical according to Islam?

Anyways I'm sensing some hostility here so I'm out.

But yes I do know more about Buddhism than you, I was a Buddhist for several years and read all the commentarial bull****, stories, eschatology, mythology, background, teachings, suttas, controversies, pali terms, translated some pali etc.

I even have a legitimate claim to partial enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism (via Buddhaghosa and Pali commentaries (I reached a certain stage of meditation, sammasana nana)). Plus I know a bunch of stuff about other world religions, occult theories, paranormal events etc. A bunch of **** really (sort of fills my head up).

Peace.

I dont know how full your head is with Islam - but to say sufism is unorthodox is to discount many of the past heavy weight scholars of Islam. I know of no person weather they call themselves sufi, salafi, or just Muslim who would deny that the following list of individuals were the epitamy of orthodox Islam.

Hasan Al Basri (RA) - one of the earliest developers of the science of tasssawuf, he is prominent figure in both naqshbandi, chisti, and Qadri Silasil (chains)

Ibn Qayim - the student of ibn Taymiyya who no salafi would dare bash - said this about the sufis "If it were not for Abu Hashim al-Sufi I would have never perceived the presence of the subtlest forms of hypocrisy in the self… Among the best of people is the Sufi learned in jurisprudence." (Ibn Qayyim, Madarij al-salikin; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifat al-safwa ( Beirut : dar al-kutub al-..ilmiyya, 1403/1989).

Imam Malik - the founder of the Maliki school of thought, the madhab of medina said "He who practices Tasawwuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith, while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself. Only he who combines the two proves true."
It is related by the muhaddith Ahmad Zarruq (d. 899)[Ahmad Zarruq, Qawa..id al-tasawwuf (Cairo, 1310)], and the hafiz ..Ali al-Qari al-Harawi (d. 1014)[ Ali al-Qari, Sharh ..ayn al-..ilm wa-zayn al-hilm (Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqafa al-Diniyya, 1989) 1:33], the muhaddiths ..Ali ibn Ahmad al ..Adawi (d. 1190)[ Ali al ..Adawi, Hashiyat al ..Adawi ..ala sharh Abi al Hasan li risalat Ibn Abi Zayd al musammat kifayat al talib al rabbani li risalat Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani fi madhhab Maalik (Beirut: Dar Ihya' al Kutub al ..Arabiyah, ) 2:195] and Ibn ..Ajiba (d. 1224)[Ibn ..Ajiba, Iqaz al himam fi sharh al hikam (Cairo: Halabi, 1392/1972) p. 5 6.].

Imam Safi - the founder of the sahfi school of thought said - "[Be both] a faqih and a sufi[sufiyyan ]: do not be only one of them, Verily, by Allah 's truth, I am advising you sincerely." (al-Shafi..i in Diwan, p. 47 see also: Diwan p. 66 where Imam Shafi'i gives the advise to be both a faqih and sufi).

Imam Abu ahanifa, father of the hanafi school of islamic jurisprudence said - Ibn ..Abidin relates in his al Durr al mukhtar that Imam Abu Hanifa said: "If it were not for two years, I would have perished."

Ibn ..Abidin comments: "For two years he accompanied Sayyidina Ja..far al-Sadiq and he acquired the spiritual knowledge that made him a gnostic in the Way… Abu ..Ali Daqqaq (Imam Qushayri's shaykh) received the path from Abu al-Qasim al-Nasirabadi, who received it from al Shibli, who received it from Sari al-Saqati who received it from al Ma..ruf al Karkhi, who received it from Dawud at Ta'i, who received the knowledge, both the external and the internal, from the Imam Abi Hanifa." (Ibn ..Abidin, Hashiyat radd al-muhtar ..ala al-durr al-mukhtar 1:43).

and finaly, the salafis love to claim they follow Imam Ahmed bib Hanbal in fiqh, so lets see what they have to say about his comment on sufis - Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188) relates in his Ghidha' al-albab li-sharh manzumat al-adab from Ibrahim ibn ..Abd Allah al-Qalanasi that Imam Ahmad said about the Sufis: "I don't know people better than them." (al-Saffarini, Ghidha' al-albab li-sharh manzumat al-adab (Cairo: Matba..at al-Najah, 1324/1906) 1:120).

others include Imam Nawawi
Junayd AlBaghdadi
Abdl Qahir Al Baghdadi
Imam Ghazali
Imam Fakhruldin Al Razi
Ibn Hajar Asqalani
Jalaudin As Suyuti
even ibn Taymiyya praised the sufis and claimed lineage to the Qadri order in (commentary on Futuh al-ghayb volume 10:455-548 of the first Riyadh editionof the Majmu.. fatawa Ibn Taymiyya) and in a manuscript of the Yusuf ibn ..Abd al Hadi al-Hanbali entitled Bad' al 'ilqa bi labs al khirqa (The beginning of the shield in the wearing of the Sufi cloak), Ibn Taymiyya is listed within a Sufi spiritual genealogy with other well known Hanbali scholars

The student of Hasan Basri named Abdul Wahid ibn Zayd and hadeeth master was the first person to build a sufi Khanqa, at the time this science and its practitioners were not called sufis, but used the term zuhd, or zahid - so in order to avoid pointless debate about the modern day oppinions of lay people regarding sufism - we will refer to those who seek enlightenment and those who obtain enlightenment as Zahid - sound good?

Now if you or david want to paint those who speak of fana and zuhd as liberal weirdo hippie Muslims - or innovative inovators, then you have to include the above list of of the most Muslim Muslims since the time of the companions (RA).

So now creekist, we have established that sufism and Islam are but one in the same, so now can we ignore the petty polemics of uneducated laymen and focus on your OP?

I am actually curious as to what one who has received enlightenment according to budhism experiences - what did you personally experience when you reached your state and did it have a permanent effect?

[njfeedd3w]

Alright.

First some points. I believe I remember Buddha denying the existence of God, or calling those who believe in God fools. But I can't remember the quote, I think it was on accesstoinsight, but I could be wrong though.

Secondly, yes the Buddha recognized the existence of a permanent thing, he called this thing "Nibbana" (although technically nibbana refers to the phenomenon or event of enlightenment, lit "blowing out") or the "Deathless. He recognized it as permanent and unchanging because the thing itself was unborn and unconditioned (meaning it doesn't depend on conditions for its existence).

If you want to call that God, sure, but, technically he never assinged characteristics of sentient or Nibbana being an entity, personally I thought the idea was that Nibbana was a "thing" or "object."

We could also clearly say that yes Jesus preached about God, although Emerson (Ralph Waldo) thought Jesus was being metaphorical.

[njfeedd3w]

Secondly, about my enlightenment experiences. You have to realize I'm not actually enlightened at all. It's just that according to certain criteria, or what some people think I would be.

But I'm actually not, either I misdiagnosed myself as reaching that actual stage of meditation, enlightenment doesn't exist or maybe their criteria is wrong.

So yeah, actually I'm evil and going to hell.

I could also claim enlightenment by Alan Chapman I think.

Peace.

[soipguibbom]

I dont know whats worse : A hindu who is asking questions about Islam, or a Petro dollar funded Wahhabi calling sufis kaafir...

May Allah swt guide you to the right path, and fill your heart with noor, not the black filth you currently have in there

[njfeedd3w]

Hey man, peace be unto you too.

And by the way I'm not hindu or buddhist.

[amehoubFomo]

Secondly, But I'm actually not, either I misdiagnosed myself as reaching that actual stage of meditation, enlightenment doesn't exist or maybe their criteria is wrong.

Exactly, you are not even sure if you 'misdiagnosed' yourself, this is why Tassawuf emphasises on learning from a guide, someone who has the capability to purify you using the Quran and Sunnah.

How would one know if he is on the state of Islam or Ihsaan, the nafs is a very deceptive enemy!

This is such an important Sunnah, and an inherent part of the method on how the Sahabahs learnt the deen, the Quran makes it clear that even the Sahabas who were masters in Arabic and were considered the best of people after the Prophets could not grasp the Kitaab and Hikmaah without a living Guide Sallallahualaiwasalam.

[12ZHeWZa]

Secondly, about my enlightenment experiences. You have to realize I'm not actually enlightened at all. It's just that according to certain criteria, or what some people think I would be.

But I'm actually not, either I misdiagnosed myself as reaching that actual stage of meditation, enlightenment doesn't exist or maybe their criteria is wrong.

So yeah, actually I'm evil and going to hell.

I could also claim enlightenment by Alan Chapman I think.

Peace.

So what did you experience when you had your minor enlightenment or whatever you had, Im just curious - and your not dead yet so I wouldnt sentence yourself to hell.

[njfeedd3w]

Well by Alan Chapman his implication was that reaching the very first stage of the progress to insight would commence the process of KCHGA and that would (in my vocabulary) make me partially enlightened.

Basically the experience is something like this: Your meditating and watching your breath and your sitting and waiting for something to happen, your waiting, and waiting, BUT as soon you notice your waiting, OR sort of locate your self (as in your very being) and objectify it for the first time then a sort of shift occurs (when you objectify your self for the first time) and the meditation really kicks off.

It was a pretty cool insight. It was required IIRC to occur every time one meditated.

The other one by Buddhaghosa and Pali Commentaries, there's lots of discrepancies so I'll just describe the next two stages. The Cause and Effect stage, well basically what happened was when I noted something, because I noted something something would happen and then I would note that (and then I would have an endless supply of objects to note) and it would get so fast as the stream of.... well whatever just really sped up, and then when I couldn't individually note each thing and the meditation became really frustrating, wacky and screwy with your head then I considered myself to reach Sammasana Nana.

So it's sort of iffy for which Nana you have to reach or pass for Buddhaghosa, but it mostly has to do with the Paccaya Parigraha Nana (cause and effect), so since I diagnosed myself as reaching sammasana nana I would technically meet that requirement. The irony is that I use to Daniel Ingram's criteria to diagnose the nanas and he has crossing the A&P event (something about the 4th nana) as really commencing the process.

Oh well. I also never diagnosed myself as being partially enlightened during the time I was actually practicing this meditation (I practiced it only very little) it's only several years later that diagnosed this (or misdiagnosed this).

[12ZHeWZa]

Well by Alan Chapman his implication was that reaching the very first stage of the progress to insight would commence the process of KCHGA and that would (in my vocabulary) make me partially enlightened.

Basically the experience is something like this: Your meditating and watching your breath and your sitting and waiting for something to happen, your waiting, and waiting, BUT as soon you notice your waiting, OR sort of locate your self (as in your very being) and objectify it for the first time then a sort of shift occurs (when you objectify your self for the first time) and the meditation really kicks off.

It was a pretty cool insight. It was required IIRC to occur every time one meditated.

The other one by Buddhaghosa and Pali Commentaries, there's lots of discrepancies so I'll just describe the next two stages. The Cause and Effect stage, well basically what happened was when I noted something, because I noted something something would happen and then I would note that (and then I would have an endless supply of objects to note) and it would get so fast as the stream of.... well whatever just really sped up, and then when I couldn't individually note each thing and the meditation became really frustrating, wacky and screwy with your head then I considered myself to reach Sammasana Nana.

So it's sort of iffy for which Nana you have to reach or pass for Buddhaghosa, but it mostly has to do with the Paccaya Parigraha Nana (cause and effect), so since I diagnosed myself as reaching sammasana nana I would technically meet that requirement. The irony is that I use to Daniel Ingram's criteria to diagnose the nanas and he has crossing the A&P event (something about the 4th nana) as really commencing the process.

Oh well. I also never diagnosed myself as being partially enlightened during the time I was actually practicing this meditation (I practiced it only very little) it's only several years later that diagnosed this (or misdiagnosed this).

I have no idea what you just said - its strange how, within our own circles we develope a foreign language that only others within our circle understand, amongst the budhists, what you said was probably pretty basic, but when you come into the circle of zahids, it goes right over their heads - thats probably how many non muslims feel when they ask a quetion and we respond with a Arabic/Urdhu/english cassarole.

Another question, bro Musafir brought up the islamic emphasis on always having a teacher - does budhism emphasize this as well - and by teacher I dont mean a book, no Muslim would claim his Sheikh is Imam Nawawi who left this world 800 years ago simply because he has all of Imam nawawis writings. In the science of Tazkiya, one who attempts certain things without a guide could end up worse off then they started, is this the same in budhism - or do you guys have a DIY attitude about enlightenment?

[njfeedd3w]

Hello, again. After a long time I guess.

Basically I was describing the certain insights that arose while meditating. Like said that first one (a shift) occurs when you objectify your very being, the second one is when you notice cause and effect, the third one is when you notice the three characteristics. I would have diagnosed myself as reaching the very end of the third nana or stage and that would according to some people make me partially enlightened.

I didn't respond because, you seem to be constantly taking shots at me, and seem to be jealous of the fact that some people would endorse me as being enlightened.

See here: amongst the budhists, what you said was probably pretty basic, but when you come into the circle of zahids, it goes right over their heads - thats probably how many non muslims feel when they ask a quetion and we respond with a Arabic/Urdhu/english cassarole. It's actually not basic at all, it's not necessarily advanced though, it's merely esoteric. You see no Theravada Buddhist would understand what I'm talking about because it phases into Hardcore Dharma, at the same time a Hardcore Dharma follower wouldn't necessarily understand either because it's partially vocabulary I use to describe my own experiences, plus their's theory of mind, as well as some of my own thinking.

Basically when you describe very very detailed mental phenomena you can't really expect anyone who is listening to you, to know what you're saying.

one who attempts certain things without a guide could end up worse off then they started, is this the same in budhism - or do you guys have a DIY attitude about enlightenment? IMO, it doesn't matter whether one has a guide or not because it's ultimately the person's intention that determines where they end up, so the guide sort of becomes irrelevant, but I did catch your implication that I ended up more screwed up than before. Ironic, because that's also what I thought, but according to certain people it had to do with the certain stage I was in. Assuming that I was in that stage that is.

Anyways, like I said I'm not not enlightened at all, so just forget it.

[truck]

I am missing THANKS BUTTON - for this thread

[Liaiskelile]

Why not busy yourself with things the prophet did rather than your own practices that he never did? Do dhikr how he did dhikr rather than singing and chanting like a bunch of hindus

brother, these singing chanting bunch are not sufis. they are what you may call impostors or pseudo-sufis. the real sufis did dhikr as the Prophet (PBUH) did. they followed strictly the sunnah. to simplify matters for you, lets say they did more dhikr than anyone alive today. it is in Qur'an (surah Qayamah) about nafs lawwama (which is next to best nafs), and another surah states nafs mutmainna. the aim of Islam is to reach the highest level of mutmainna of the nafs and to obtain a degree of ihsan. so there is nothing 'unislamic' about these beliefs right?its in the Qur'an. and the Prophet (PBUH) did dhikr and taught us to do dhikr right?again, nothing unislamic. The Qur'an states in surah Ar- Ra'ad that if one sins a black spot is placed upon their heart. one keeps sinning the spot increases. one repents , the spot disappears. The sufis aim for tazkiya nafs. this is exactly what is said in surah ar-ra'ad about 'cleansing the heart'. The Qur'an mentions Hazrat Ibraheem (AS) asking Allah (SWT) for Qalb - e - saleem. Brother, this is again the aim of sufism to achieve Qalb - e - saleem. how is any of this unislamic.

however the problem arises when one defines the word 'sufis'. sufis were poor people some 1000 years ago who wore coarse woolen clothes (because of poverty) which is the literal deifintion of a 'sufi'.
a 'sufi' isnt a pot smoking, headbanging pir sahab. the term has bin widely misunderstood. those people you mentioned are not sufis.
the aim of sufism is completely in line with islam. its just that the 'means' to reach this aim are different and cause controversy.

real sufi: he recites subhan Allah 1000 times a day in a state of peace to achieve a state of ihsan, and achieve tazkiya nafs. (this dhikr or any other legitimate dhikr)
impostor sufi: recites 'Allah Allah' 1000 times a day by going around in circles, smoking pot. he starts to headbang and then starts beating a drum.

the two are worlds apart.


one more misconception is tariqas. look, if a teacher tells you to emulate a real sufi and helps you do different dhikr and guides you to a state of ihsan and tazkiya nafs then why not?
however if the teacher tells you to act like impostor sufi then that tariqa must be avoided.

its just the names and the wrong meaning associated with it. you want to study about tassawwuf then do study it without being critical and from someone who knows. i was ciritical too then i realized, wait these guys want the same thing as me. i looked further and realized who sufis were and who impostor sufis were. hope this clears the confusion.

i do hope a person well versed or better versed than me can verify my above statements about degrees of nafs and ihsan. i have limited knowledge about this as compared to several other members of the forum.

[Liaiskelile]

I am missing THANKS BUTTON - for this thread

same here