[layedgebiamma]

The best thing to bring is his categorization of Sufis into three types- which is known. I don't see why I have to quote it here in particular- you probably know of it if you're this well acquainted with his work.

The fatwa is interesting, thank you for pointing it out.

What I'd like to know is specifically which tariqas or groups in this time fall into his first category as opposed to the second or the third. I am simply asking questions; if you would like to answer them, then go ahead.

His views on Ibn Arabi' and Mansur Hallaj were certainly echoed by many, might I add.

[RogHammon]

.

[Arbinknit]

Here is Mufti ZarWali khan db ( a very prominent deobandi scholar) Takfeer on Barelvis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW-Rv1z0si8

Salam thanks but i dont understand the language lol. But the bottom line is hes saying theyre kuffar yeah?

[RogHammon]

I made the statement of the categorisation of the Sufiyyahs, because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah did so and to this i provided the proof, but for some reason you have taken a task upon your shoulders to prove that there is no type of 'sufism' alive today which fulfils the category of Sufiyah al-Haqaa'iq (true sufis) as mentioned by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.

For that you claim it is you my brother that needs to substantiate from his works not me, since i didnt make this claim.

Not only is the fatwa interesting, these types gathering for many Sufis is the bedrock / foundation of their whole Tariqahs.

As for wanting to know about what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah mentions regarding the three types of Sufis, then he mentions:

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...k_no=22&ID=651

فأما " صوفية الحقائق " : فهم الذين وصفناهم .

وأما " صوفية الأرزاق " فهم الذين وقفت عليهم الوقوف . كالخوانك فلا يشترط في هؤلاء أن يكونوا من أهل الحقائق . فإن هذا عزيز وأكثر أهل الحقائق لا يتصفون بلزوم الخوانك ; ولكن يشترط فيهم ثلاثة شروط : ( أحدها العدالة الشرعية بحيث يؤدون الفرائض ويجتنبون المحارم .

و ( الثاني التأدب بآداب أهل الطريق وهي الآداب الشرعية في غالب الأوقات وأما الآداب البدعية الوضعية فلا يلتفت إليها .

و ( الثالث أن لا يكون أحدهم متمسكا بفضول الدنيا فأما من كان جماعا للمال أو كان غير متخلق بالأخلاق المحمودة ولا يتأدب بالآداب الشرعية أو كان فاسقا فإنه لا يستحق ذلك .

وأما " صوفية الرسم " فهم المقتصرون على النسبة فهمهم في اللباس [ ص: 20 ] والآداب الوضعية ونحو ذلك فهؤلاء في الصوفية بمنزلة الذي يقتصر على زي أهل العلم وأهل الجهاد ونوع ما من أقوالهم وأعمالهم بحيث يظن الجاهل حقيقة أمره أنه منهم وليس منهم

As for Turooq then he isn't talking about any specific ones ,in any of the cases. Just those misguided individuals for the latter two. Moreover the Sufi Tariqahs were well in vogue at the time of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and the term 'Sufiyah' and 'Tasawwuf' were only applied to them hence approving of all of them.

You may want to read this, the first post - it has some excerpts from the link translated:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ll=1#post57938

Ibn al-'Arabi is not a yardstick to measure what true Sufism is or isn't, and im sure you know this - because as i mentioned even Ibn Taymiyyah praised his other Sufi works.

[layedgebiamma]

I made the statement of the categorisation of the Sufiyyahs, because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah did so and to this i provided the proof, but for some reason you have taken a task upon your shoulders to prove that there is no type of 'sufism' alive today which fulfils the category of Sufiyah al-Haqaa'iq (true sufis) as mentioned by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.

For that you claim it is you my brother that needs to substantiate from his works not me, since i didnt make this claim.

Not only is the fatwa interesting, these types gathering for many Sufis is the bedrock / foundation of their whole Tariqahs.

As for wanting to know about what Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah mentions regarding the three types of Sufis, then he mentions:

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...k_no=22&ID=651

فأما " صوفية الحقائق " : فهم الذين وصفناهم .

وأما " صوفية الأرزاق " فهم الذين وقفت عليهم الوقوف . كالخوانك فلا يشترط في هؤلاء أن يكونوا من أهل الحقائق . فإن هذا عزيز وأكثر أهل الحقائق لا يتصفون بلزوم الخوانك ; ولكن يشترط فيهم ثلاثة شروط : ( أحدها العدالة الشرعية بحيث يؤدون الفرائض ويجتنبون المحارم .

و ( الثاني التأدب بآداب أهل الطريق وهي الآداب الشرعية في غالب الأوقات وأما الآداب البدعية الوضعية فلا يلتفت إليها .

و ( الثالث أن لا يكون أحدهم متمسكا بفضول الدنيا فأما من كان جماعا للمال أو كان غير متخلق بالأخلاق المحمودة ولا يتأدب بالآداب الشرعية أو كان فاسقا فإنه لا يستحق ذلك .

وأما " صوفية الرسم " فهم المقتصرون على النسبة فهمهم في اللباس [ ص: 20 ] والآداب الوضعية ونحو ذلك فهؤلاء في الصوفية بمنزلة الذي يقتصر على زي أهل العلم وأهل الجهاد ونوع ما من أقوالهم وأعمالهم بحيث يظن الجاهل حقيقة أمره أنه منهم وليس منهم

As for Turooq then he isn't talking about any specific ones ,in any of the cases. Just those misguided individuals for the latter two. Moreover the Sufi Tariqahs were well in vogue at the time of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and the term 'Sufiyah' and 'Tasawwuf' were only applied to them hence approving of all of them.

You may want to read this, the first post - it has some excerpts from the link translated:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ll=1#post57938

Ibn al-'Arabi is not a yardstick to measure what true Sufism is or isn't, and im sure you know this - because as i mentioned even Ibn Taymiyyah praised his other Sufi works.

I'm not making a claim. Rather, I'm asking a question. If one could make a summation of, say, the practices of the four major tariqas (Qadiri, Naqshbandi (not sure which one would have been around at his time), Chishti, and Suhrawardiyya) and then ascertain which of these practices are explicitly mentioned in the Sunnah as legislated, then this would certainly be a vast proof in favor of Sufism. However, I am myself aware that this is not necessarily the case in terms of how people argue for Sufism. For example, in Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi's treatise, Shariat and Tariqat, he instead takes a different tack- I'm sure you've read the book.

Gatherings are indeed one of the foundations of Tariqahs. However, what sort of gathering is being described? A gathering in which a hadra is done- or a gathering in which people remember Allah through various ways of doing so, such as reading al-Qur'an, doing dhikr? What sort of gathering is being promoted?

As for that article, it was written by Hisham Kabbani and I have no idea why you would turn to such a person to substantiate claims of Ibn Taymiyyah's approval or disapproval of anything; I have read such articles by him and his crew (GF Haddad, and the others) in the past only to find interesting distortions and vast inconsistencies; not to mention the strange practices that the Naqshbandi-Haqqani tariqah seems to promote.

Okay, if Ibn Arabi' isn't a yardstick to measure sufism with, what orders nowadays do not refer to him as Shaykh al-Akbar? This too would be a great proof in their favor.

[RogHammon]

I'm not making a claim. Rather, I'm asking a question. If one could make a summation of, say, the practices of the four major tariqas (Qadiri, Naqshbandi (not sure which one would have been around at his time), Chishti, and Suhrawardiyya) and then ascertain which of these practices are explicitly mentioned in the Sunnah as legislated, then this would certainly be a vast proof in favor of Sufism. However, I am myself aware that this is not necessarily the case in terms of how people argue for Sufism. For example, in Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi's treatise, Shariat and Tariqat, he instead takes a different tack- I'm sure you've read the book.

Yes you did make the claim, you said:

What Tariqa indeed would fit into Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's Sufism paradigm? I doubt very much that the ones nowadays would. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Gatherings are indeed one of the foundations of Tariqahs. However, what sort of gathering is being described? A gathering in which a hadra is done- or a gathering in which people remember Allah through various ways of doing so, such as reading al-Qur'an, doing dhikr? What sort of gathering is being promoted? 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.

As for that article, it was written by Hisham Kabbani and I have no idea why you would turn to such a person to substantiate claims of Ibn Taymiyyah's approval or disapproval of anything; I have read such articles by him and his crew (GF Haddad, and the others) in the past only to find interesting distortions and vast inconsistencies; not to mention the strange practices that the Naqshbandi-Haqqani tariqah seems to promote. 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..

Okay, if Ibn Arabi' isn't a yardstick to measure sufism with, what orders nowadays do not refer to him as Shaykh al-Akbar? This too would be a great proof in their favor. 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.

[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?

[t78VPkdO]

Brother Aspirer, one question.

Do we need Ibn Taymiyyah's approval of Tasawwuf practices, in order for them to be correct?
I would have thought you would ask "Where from the hadeeth of Nabee SAW are these practices approved of?". That would have been more worthy of your ideology.

You're not the first, or last one, to oppose tasawwuf.
The book by Hazrat Sheikh should have been sufficient for you (just in case you're wondering, I'm not from the sub-continent). If it was not, it's unfortunate.

My only advice, is that silence is better than mistakes in judgment.

If you are mistaken in your judgment, when standing in front of Allah ta'alaa, or after being buried in your grave, the sincerity in searching for truth will not be sufficient to justify criticism, slander etc...with silence however, one can not go wrong.

One of the principles of the people of tasawwuf, is for one to get busy in his own affairs, and in improving his spirituality...searching for the faults of the "Sufis" will not help you in that matter. Not to mention the hadeeth of Nabee SAW in Abu Dawud that prohibits from searching into the faults of the Muslims.

In your criciticism of people of Tasawwuf, people with your ideology have not left anyone from East to West.

May Allah ta'alaa grant us tawfeeq.

[layedgebiamma]

Brother Aspirer, one question.

Do we need Ibn Taymiyyah's approval of Tasawwuf practices, in order for them to be correct?
I would have thought you would ask "Where from the hadeeth of Nabee SAW are these practices approved of?". That would have been more worthy of your ideology.

You're not the first, or last one, to oppose tasawwuf.
The book by Hazrat Sheikh should have been sufficient for you (just in case you're wondering, I'm not from the sub-continent). If it was not, it's unfortunate.

My only advice, is that silence is better than mistakes in judgment.

If you are mistaken in your judgment, when standing in front of Allah ta'alaa, or after being buried in your grave, the sincerity in searching for truth will not be sufficient to justify criticism, slander etc...with silence however, one can not go wrong.

One of the principles of the people of tasawwuf, is for one to get busy in his own affairs, and in improving his spirituality...searching for the faults of the "Sufis" will not help you in that matter. Not to mention the hadeeth of Nabee SAW in Abu Dawud that prohibits from searching into the faults of the Muslims.

In your criciticism of people of Tasawwuf, people with your ideology have not left anyone from East to West.

May Allah ta'alaa grant us tawfeeq.

No, I don't see why we do, as Ibn Taymiyyah is not the be-all-end-all of Shaykhs; however, he is most certainly a figure who is viewed as a great man of the Sunnah by some and others believe him, as Taqi-ud-din al-Subki and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami did, that he was a man whose 'learning exceeded his intelligence' (I believe that is al-Subki's claim); so he is an interesting and important figure and I find it interesting to see which side of the fence he really lands on, since it's difficult to say.

I'm simply asking questions. I don't see why that's such a terrible thing. Nor am I stating that everything that requires doing is based around what Ibn Taymiyyah said or did, nor am I slandering the people of tasawwuf. If you read what I have said, I have not done any of those things- rather, simply questioned what paradigm of sufism that Ibn Taymiyyah would have fit into, in response to a claim by another brother.

Where have I slandered any of the people of tasawwuf? I have claimed that some of their practices have been criticized by prominent Hanbalis through the ages, and that many of them do not fit into the Hanbali paradigm of bid'ah. This is verifiable directly from works written by the Hanbali shaykhs I have cited.

Since when is asking questions equivalent to 'searching for faults,' or 'slander?' I would like an apology if that's the sort of tack you're taking, or the sort that you think I'm taking, because it's most certainly not true. If you'll notice, I've not said a single thing beyond stating that some people made takfeer of Ibn Arabi' (a truthful statement) and including Mansur Hallaj (given that he was executed for a statement, also verifiably true), and that some tariqahs engage in practices that could be termed as singing or dancing depending on one's definition of the term, which is also verifiably true.

What's more is, if a principle of the people of tasawwuf is what you have just stated, then why are there dozens of websites by the people of tasawwuf dedicated to attacking cartoon-caricatures of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah in which he is made out to be an anthromorphist bid'a-peddler of the highest order, or odd conspiracy theories passed around about Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab and his dawa? I don't really see how that fits in to what you just said.

EDIT - A final note: a good book to read is The Path of Sunnah by Sheikh Safraz Khan Safdar (I believe he passed into the akhirah recently, if I am incorrect then let me know).

Ameen.

[t78VPkdO]

[QUOTE=Aspirer;620388]

Since when is asking questions equivalent to 'searching for faults,' or 'slander?' I would like an apology if that's the sort of tack you're taking, or the sort that you think I'm taking, because it's most certainly not true. I present you my sincere apology, from the depth of my heart.

[TeLMgNva]

Brother Aspirer, were you not a Hanafi?

I mentioned this before on this forum, but it is sad to see the Hanbali Shuyookh being used to draw people away from the Madhahib and into Salafiyyah.

[RogHammon]

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.'

Okay fine, present your reasons for doubts from the work of Ibn Taymiyyah.

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. Now, you've just proved my point you are making claims, you have bought zilch forward from the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, so without further ado, please post, iv even posted you a link to his Majmu', so get cracking. I dont care what you deem as common knowledge.

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). Again a fine example of you not paying attention to what i bought forward.

Firstly if you read the question carefully then you would know what type of dhikr majlis it is referring to. For your benefit i will relay it:

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

Question:

وسئل عن رجل ينكر على أهل الذكر يقول لهم : هذا الذكر بدعة وجهركم في الذكر بدعة وهم يفتتحون بالقرآن ويختتمون ثم يدعون للمسلمين الأحياء والأموات ويجمعون التسبيح والتحميد والتهليل والتكبير والحوقلة ويصلون على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والمنكر يعمل السماع مرات بالتصفيق ويبطل الذكر في وقت عمل السماع "

Answer:

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 } لكن ينبغي أن يكون هذا أحيانا في بعض الأوقات والأمكنة فلا يجعل سنة راتبة يحافظ عليها إلا ما سن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المداومة عليه في الجماعات ؟ من الصلوات الخمس في الجماعات ومن الجمعات والأعياد ونحو ذلك

Please pay attention to the question, for that you will realise in what context the answer was given.

Yes, please continue. If you can find specific statements regarding matters that are legislated and approved of by Ibn Taymiyyah, that will be good. Im not here to prove to what is legislatesd and what is not, my point is to prove that Ibn Taymiyyah himself was a Sufi and acted like one.

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? How can he reject Bay'ah where this is the pinnacle of what Sufism and Tasawwuf in which Ibn Taymiyyah constantly praises? if i remember correctly he had the cloak of Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir Jilani. Anyway for your claim that your aware that Ibn Taymiyyah rejected Bay'ah then please put forward from his Majmu' some statements. I want to see you quoting something from his books now please.

And a correction, there is NO such thing as absolute obedience to a Shaykh.

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. Your seriously wasting my time, In Hanafi Madh-hab there is no Dancing, No Singing, No Music and following the position of my Madh-hab is important than following a Shaykh of tasawwuf that allows Music, singing and dancing. I for one cannot answer what other Schools have to say.

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. Yes the position of my Madh-hab Music and Singing is Haraam.

I feel i need to type the following in capitals.

[1] NOT ALL PRACTICE HADRAH.

[2] NOT ALL SING

[3] NOT ALL ASK FROM THE DEAD

[4] NOT ALL MAKE PILGRIMS TO TOMBS.

SO WOULD YOU NOW SAY THERE ARE SOME SUFIS THAT IBN TAYMIYYAH WAS REFERRING TO ALIVE TODAY?

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. Your missing the point, historically in the Islamic world, Awliyaa refers to the saints so technically speaking there is NO slanty translation. even Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Aqeedah Wasithiyah:

http://www.resaltalislam.org/userfro...MarkIndex=22&0

ومن أصول أهل السنة : التصديق بكرامات الأولياء

Who is he referring to as Marvels of the Awliya? the Wali whom the Prophet said: "La Nikah Illa Bi-Waliyy", obviously not.

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. Your missing the point according to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah there was problem in Ibn al-'Arabis Aqeedah, NOT in his Tasawwuf!!!!!!!

This is what he said:


وإنما كنت قديما ممن يحسن الظن بابن عربي ويعظمه مارأيت في كتبه من الفوائد مثل كلامه في كثير من الفتوحات و الكنة و المحكم و المربوط و الدرة الفاخرة ومطالع النجوم ونحو ذلك ولم نكن بعد اطلعنا على حقيقة مقصوده ولم نطالع الفصوص ونحو ذلك وكنا مع إخواننا في الله نطلب الحق ونتبعه ونكشف حقيقة الطريق فلما تبين الأمر عرفنا مايجب علينا ." انتهى .

مجموع الرسائل و المسائل " ابن تيمية الحراني [1/179].
دار الكتب العلمية ط: الثانية. بدون تاريخ

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. again you are making the claims regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, look yeah, you keep making claims without any substance, either post something to back your words from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah or dont reply.

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. Top part i answered above, and second part bolded is hawaa without substance.

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? Look many people have different way of tackling things. And that is the least of your worries, you should worry about backing up your unstabstantiated claims regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, which i am waiting for.

[GoodLover]

dear Aspirer, for your info:

1. Naqshbandi-Mujaddidis definitely do not refer to ibn 'Arabi (ra) as Shaykh al-akbar. Imam Rabbani critcised him strongly. I suggest you learn about Imam Rabbani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (ra) and the tasawwuf practised by those who are particular in following his teachings. A good start will be: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sufism-Shari.../dp/0860371484
2. Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar (ra) was a Naqshbandi Mujaddidi (am quite certain of this, others can correct)
3. if you are sincere and haven't done so already, study the Tazkiyah workshop here by Mufti Kamaluddin Naqhsbandi for the proofs (the 2009 talks): http://www.islamicspirituality.org/a...wuf-essentials

[evalayCap]

The Sharh of Abdul-Qadir Jilani's Futuhul Ghaib by Ibn Taimiyyah . It's an eye opener.

http://www.al-rashad.com/Commentary-...ib_p_3307.html

[penpizdes]

Even the word "Sufism" (Tasawwuf) is problematic. Sufi literally means a person who is attached to wool. The first deviant ascetics began to wear wool as a way of rejecting the world. They indeed had good intentions, but it was a deviation from the Sunnah of the Prophet who preferred other fabrics to wool. These early deviants were trying to follow the supposed Sunnah of Eesa ibn Maryam while ignoring the Sunnah of Rasoolullaah who said that even if Moses were to be alive, he would have no choice but to follow the Prophet

Similarly, when Eesa ibn Maryam descends, he will rule by the Sunnah of the Prophet and not by the Gospel.

Zuhd is indeed an integral part of Islaam. It is from the Sunnah to do such things as frequent fasting, praying for long periods at night, eating very little, not wanting riches and power, frequently doing Dhikr (with Sunan Adhkaar), having complete tawakkal in Allaah, having Sabran Jameela (never complaining to anyone except Allaah), remaining quiet and not talking except when necessary, sleeping on the ground, etc.,

These are all good things, which should not be monopolized by the Sufis. Every Muslim should strive to achieve this level of Zuhd.

But not to go to extremes like the Christians who invented monastacism and completely shut themselves out from the world, denying the importance of marriage and working for a living. Islaam is the middle path between the two extremes of over-indulgence/worldliness and the other extreme of monastacism.

Returning to the Sunnah is the true asceticism and purification of the soul. It is the true Tareeqah, not the Turuq of Naqshbandi, Qaadiri, Shadhili, Rifa'i, etc. Take the notion of Sabran Jameela for example. It means beautiful patience and not to complain or ask from anyone except Allaah. The Sufis have so deviated from this concept that not only do they encourage people to even ask from the dead, but if they were true ascetics, they would encourage everyone to only ask from Allaah.

[layedgebiamma]

Hmm. With all due respect to you, you've made some excellent points here. I'd best read up on this further. I am nothing if not willing to consider alternative points of view. As for now, I'll withdraw the claims I've made and continue looking into the matter. My apologies if I've irked you in some way.

And thanks, Rahmaniyyah, that was useful information. Interesting to note that about the Shaykh. I shall at some point in the future listen to some parts of this series.

Maneatinglizard, I am a questioner. It is an unfortunate addiction of mine. I do not settle, generally, except when questions are answered. If questions seem unanswerable or there are contradictions in the answers, then I'm not happy with the answers. If my questions can be answered, then I'm happy with them. That's how I do things. Perhaps it is not appropriate, as a layman, but if I'm not confident in the people I make taqleed of, then why continue to make taqleed of them? Quite illogical.

[Rabbahpuptiopp]

Even the word "Sufism" (Tasawwuf) is problematic. Sufi literally means a person who is attached to wool. The first deviant ascetics began to wear wool as a way of rejecting the world. They indeed had good intentions, but it was a deviation from the Sunnah of the Prophet who preferred other fabrics to wool. These early deviants were trying to follow the supposed Sunnah of Eesa ibn Maryam while ignoring the Sunnah of Rasoolullaah who said that even if Moses were to be alive, he would have no choice but to follow the Prophet

Returning to the Sunnah is the true asceticism and purification of the soul. It is the true Tareeqah, not the Turuq of Naqshbandi, Qaadiri, Shadhili, Rifa'i, etc. Take the notion of Sabran Jameela for example. It means beautiful patience and not to complain or ask from anyone except Allaah. The Sufis have so deviated from this concept that not only do they encourage people to even ask from the dead, but if they were true ascetics, they would encourage everyone to only ask from Allaah.

I don't know about other turuq, but the naqshbandi mujaddidis are all about returning to the sunnah. What you are saying sounds just like the people who say, "I don't follow Imam Abu Hanifah or Imam Malik, I follow the sunnah!" What do you think the aimmah were following? Forgive me, but that's my perception of that statement of yours.

I don't understand why people are unwilling to accept that you cannot lump all "sufis" together into one group. Just because someone calls himself a sufi, doesn't make it so, the same way just because a Qadiani calls himself Muslim, doesn't mean he is.

You bring up the issue of the word "sufi" being problematic, and claim that it comes from "suf", or wool, but then completely leave out the other etymology which is safa/tasfiyah. If you did that on purpose, it was a very dishonest thing to do. Wearing wool is a deviation from the sunnah? Are you serious? What do you say about the salafis who drape checkered cloths over their heads instead of wearing turbans. Are they deviating from the sunnah, too?

And not all sufis do istigatha, as someone already mentioned, so why even bring that up? If it doesn't apply to all sufis, you cannot use it to criticize tasawwuf as a whole. And if asking others for help is against the sunnah, then would the sahaba have done it? Did they not occasionally complain to the Prophet of their problems?

All of the points you made are basically red herrings or straw-man arguments.

No one is denying that there are indeed people who call themselves sufis who do things that contravene the sunnah. But to lump all Sufis together and make blanket statements against tasawwuf as a whole is highly disingenuous.