Sunday, 29 November 2015
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
IS SUFISM RIGHTEOUS PATH?
Sufism - Response To A Sufi Symphathizer
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
May I start by asking Allah Ta’ala to guard me and you – and all brothers – against any form of partisanship in the name of anything other than Islam, the deen of Allah as brought by our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It is indeed very interesting that a Muslim should always remain a Muslim and should strive, as much as possible, to be free from being partisan except for the name of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While this is a fundamental truth, it is equally important to bear in mind that when one is a Muslim, he cannot free himself from being against what is unIslamic and in contradiction to the teachings of the Rasul (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because Islam and indeed the whole teachings and life of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are no more obscure, neither are they mysterious.
The deen of Allah has been completed before the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) left this world, and all these are found in the Qur’an and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet. But it is not a hidden fact that the Ummah has been divided into groups and sects, each has formulated for itself either sets of beliefs or different phases of ibadaat, and each claiming what he practises to be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), for no Muslim will admit that he professes something that negates his teachings. We are therefore left with the question: how do we ascertain what is in line with the teachings of the Prophet in order to differentiate it from what is against it? Here comes the issue of the fundamental yardstick with which to carry out this important task, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and implied approvals) of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of those pious and noble companions. This is another vital aspect of understanding the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because the companions who lived with him and witnessed the Qur’an being revealed to him, were the direct and immediate subjects of his teachings, the students who received his lessons and understood and practised it in the way and manner ordered and desired by Allah Ta’ala. Any mistake on their part in the course of practising any injunction is redressed immediately by ‘Wahy’.
This is why it is of fundamental importance to believe that the Islam practised by the Sahabah is the best as it conforms with and reflects the true teachings of the Rasul and affirms that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) really taught them what Allah ordered and that he was the best of all teachers, the most successful instructor able to bring forth a generation which was able to change and influence the whole world within a period of less than twenty years from his death. It is in the light of the above that Islam frowns at anything new and not known to be part of it in the days of the Prophet as an aspect or pattern of worship through which the pleasure of Allah is sought.
On a more specific note, upholding the view that one does not belong to any group, is a fact very necessary and rational, if by that, he means he will not belong to any group in a sort of blind way as to believe that anything not upheld by that group is false. But if dissociating one’s self with any group means he will focus on any matter regarding religion from a neutral point of view without sticking to a specific Islamic principle based on the supremacy of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the practice of the pious predecessors, then this is surely anything but right. What Islam requires from his subjects is that the virtue or otherwise of anything, anyone or any group is measured by that person’s or group’s conformity with Islam and its teachings. One must believe that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, the most pure, absolute and not relative truth, the best value system suitable to mankind and the most accurate way of life that guides to every goodness in this world and in the hereafter.
Any good thing found in any other way not Islam is found in Islam and more, so we may praise that way or path for being in line with what Islam taught, but not for containing something Islam fails to attain. That is why when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saw Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with some papers he got from a Jew, and read it to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet was outraged and immediately rebuked him and said: ((…I have indeed brought it (this deen and path) to you so clean and neat…I swear by Him in whose Hand is my life, Had Musa been alive it wouldn’t be allowed for him but to follow me) – Ahmad 3/387, Darimi 1/115, Ibn Abi Shai’bah No. (26421) and others. Its isnad is Hasan.
So the fact that the Shi’ites, for example, called on all Muslims to rise against America or its values, is not because that is part of the Shi’ii creed independent of other Muslims and that you can not find same with any other groups of the Muslims. Rather it is Islam that calls upon all Muslims not to take the non-believers as friends, and the failure of other groups to make such calls does not mean they do not have that in their set of beliefs.
Secondly the issue of a write-up being balanced, differs relatively from one subject to another just as it differs from the writer’s ideological background. After all, in Islam what is known to be hailed most when speaking or writing about others, is that one should be just and should not ascribe anything contrary to the reality of the person or topic he discusses. But if what is meant by being balanced is that one must appear or sound neutral, or that when he presents an opposing view he must necessarily give the proposing view, I beg to assert that this is not a general principle in Islam, although it is allowed if one will later on specify the correct path so as not to leave people in the dark, thereby implying that all is one and same. In the same vein, if I am asked about Christianity, for instance, will I be charged with being unfair by pointing the Islamic view alone and stressing that it is a corrupted religion proscribed by Allah with the coming of Islam et cetera.
That is why I am more surprised after reading M. Halilu’s introduction to the response he posted on Hijazi’s article, calling for non-partisanship, to find the writer of the response a Sufi and his response so ‘imbalance’ in the sense that he made some unfounded charges against Hijazi just by way of reading his mind under the pretense of reading between the lines.
This issue of balance and imbalance and the issue of some ‘Sheiks’ lacking in da’wah methodology as cast on this forum from time to time are of course topics that need to be discussed in a more detailed manner. May Allah spare us or other brothers the time to take it up.
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Fariduddien Rice, in his response to Yusuf Hijazi’s article, charges him of lying, relying on non-Muslim sources, failing to provide references to some of the issues he raised, condemning Muslims and attributing them to kufr and shirk, among other things.
The piece I am writing will focus more on providing the sources and references Hijazi is charged of failing to give. This will also answer the charge of relying on non-Muslim sources, although most of Hijazi’s non-Muslim references appear to be connected with definitions of some terms. Other charges are mere personal attacks as can be seen clearly.
As regards the origin of the word Sufi there are of course many differing views on that and the Sufis themselves are not in agreement. Affirming this, Al-Sahrawardi believes that the Sufis’ definition of the word are more than one thousand. (See: ‘Awariful Ma’aarif p. 54). Another Sufi claims there are about two thousand definitions of the word (See Tahir al-Hamidi’s introduction to al-Ta’arrufi Li Madhhabi Ahlit Tasawwuf, by Abubakr al-Kalaabaadhi, p. 11). I don’t think there is a word so ‘blessed’ with such number of meanings.
As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s position on Sufism, it is true that he praised some of the famous Shaikhs attributed to Sufism, but it is important to note that he did so not for the sake of Sufism as a thought, but because the works and deeds of those Shaikhs were in conformity with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This you will find most where he discusses the issue of ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ (Unity of Creation or union with the Creator, or the belief that everything is one and God in essence) and condemns its proponents. This ideology, according to them permits one to claim what they call ‘Raf’ut Takaaleef’ (free from obligations of observing the precepts of religion). It is at this stage the Sufi Sheikh declares his disciple free from obligations like observing the five daily prayers and the likes, an attitude worthy of condemnation. So when Ibn Taimiyyah, who is very conversant with the works of those famous Shaikhs like Ibrahim ibn Adham, Abu Salaiman al-Daaraanee, Junaid, Abdul Qadir Jailani and others, whom he knows to have been in compliance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and calling their disciples to be upright in following the teachings of Islam and engaged themselves in ‘Amr bil Ma’roof wan Nahyu ‘anil Munkar’ (enjoining the good and forbidden the evil), he does not hesitate to dissociate them from the practices of Wahdatul Wujud’ and so he praises them based that. It is in this regard he says : “As for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst the Saalikin (disciples or followers of a spiritual path) like the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaimaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Sari as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars. These people did not allow the ‘Saalik’ to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! (i.e. in the name of Karamah). Rather they made it incumbent upon him to carry out what is commanded and leave off all whatever is prohibited until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf”. (Majmu’ Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 10 p.516-517).
It is therefore clear that Ibn Taimiyyah wishes to make a perfect distinction between the practice of those early men of Zuhd and piety and the practices of the later days Sufis. But Ibn Taimiyyah’s critique of Sufism as a thought and practice is what occupies much of his writings on the subject in his effort to dispel the fallacies that marred Islam in the name of Sufism, even though we find him giving excuses to some sufi practices particularly when the person involved is known to be steadfast in complying with the teachings of the Sunnah in general and only errs in that instance.
As for Sufism being a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufis interacted, Fariduddien dismissed this claim on the ground that no reference was given by Hijazi and that this theory comes from non-Muslim orientalists. The fact is that the theory is indeed true and has been testified by more than one Muslim scholar or writer, Sufi and non-Sufi. The first person to link Sufism with a foreign religion was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bairuni (d. 440) in his book: ‘Tahqeeq Ma Lil Hindi Min Maquulatin Maqbulatin Fil ‘Aqli Au Mardhuulah’ where he outlined three aspects on which Sufism meets with Hindu philosophy and religion. (See the History of Islamic Sufism by Dr. Qasim Gani and the book Islamic Sufism by Dr. Taftazani. There is also a very strong relation between Sufism and Buddhism in many aspects. There is indeed a Phd. thesis on the subject titled: Buddhism – its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism’ by Dr. Abdullah Mustapha Numsok, in the Islamic University of Madina. The author is now a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the University of Emir Sunklaa, in Fatani – Thailand. He has discussed this issue in a detailed and scholarly manner establishing the linkage and relationship between the two thoughts. In one of the examples he cited on discarding women and marriage he quoted what was reported from one Sufi Riyah ibn ‘Amr Al-Qaisi, that he said: “A person will not reach the level of Siddiqeen unless he leaves off his wife like a widow, and his sons like orphans and returns to the dwellings of dogs” (Al-Kawakibud Durriyyah 1/105-106). This statement is in line with what is reported from a Buddhist Saint, Shamana who says: “This stage of holiness (Arahat) is unattainable but by him who leaves off his house and endure the burden of leaving off his wife like a widow and his sons like orphans” (Lessons for the Saints p. 47). He further cited many examples in various aspects of the Buddhist and Sufi creeds, like the issue of seclusion, the doctrine of Fana’a (which the Buddhist call Nervana), ways of receiving and practising Dhikr and Wird, belief in the presence of the Sheikh or Saint at times of Dhikr, making dhikr in congregation and in one tone, the issue of Hulul (incarnation) which the Buddhists call (Awatar or Mahayan), wearing the Suuf (wool), wearing ragged clothes, encouraging destitution and begging (Almajiranci), unemployment in the name of religion etc. In fact the resemblances and relationship are too obvious to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader. In an abstract he gave in English at the end of the thesis, the writer concluded: “In my study, I also uncovered the relationship between Sufism and Buddhism as follows: …4) That it has been historically confirmed that Indian-Buddhist monks have influenced the emergence of the Sufi groups,marking their difference in looking at the Islamic view point of life. 5) The common elements between Sufism and Buddhism are: 1. Hulul or Samsara – transmigration of souls and 2. Nirvana or Fana – extinction requiring engaging in mental exercises and life practices such as giving up of property, marriage, observing of hunger, begging and giving up of the world and so on.” (Buddhism – Its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism, Abstract p. 3-4).
All this in addition to its Platonian, Christian, Jewish and Shi’ite origin. This you can find in the book ‘At-Tasawwuf – Origin and Sources by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir p. 49-135, where he quoted confessions by many Sufis to that effect. It is indeed worth reading. Also refer to Tafseer al-Qurtubi where he mentioned that an aalim was asked about the sufi samaa’ and dancing, and he attributed that to the followers of as-Samiri, that is from the Jews. (Tafseerul Qurtubi 11/237-238).
The distinction between Sufism in its early stage and what metamorphosed to become Sufism in later days, is indeed very vital to this topic. What remains to be noted by many is that present day Sufism has been distanced far away from the early one characterised by Zuhd and Seclusion for ibadah. Sufism, now is in what researchers call its sixth stage, that is the stage of ‘Tariqanism’, meaning that no Sufi is now allowed to practice Zuhd as known in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) independently unless he officially renders himself a subject and disciple of a Sheikh or founder of one Tariqa (Sufi order) or the other. It is now pure partisan in the sense that one Sheikh does not allow his disciple to change to another Tariqa or Sheikh as this is considered ‘riddah’. This is all written in their books and studies in the field are so many for anyone to deny this. So when writers condemn Sufism without differentiating the early from the present they mean the present one. This is not to say that the early one also has not been condemned by many scholars amongst the salaf considering the fact that the name itself is alien to Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While zuhd and dhikr are values upheld by the Sunnah, making it in the name of Sufism renders, at least, its pattern a bid’ah.
As regards Shafi’is condemnation of Sufism which Hijazi quoted him saying: “If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawwafa) at the begenning of the day, he doesn’t come at Zuhur except an idiot”, Fariduddien dismisses this by saying: ‘No reference has been provided. You can provide all these references to non-Muslim sources, but you cannot even provide a reference for a supposed statement by Imam al-Shafi’I? Why can’t you provide the reference?”. May be it will please him to know that this statement is confirmed to have been said by Shafi’e as has been reported with isnad by Al-Baihaqi in his ‘Manaaqibus Shaafi’ee vol. 2 p. 207.
And as regards that of Malik refer to Tartibul Madaarik by Al-Qadi ‘Iyaad 2/54, and Manaqib Malik by az-Zawawi p. 157) and that of Ahmad refer to Talbis Iblis p. 166-167.
To be continued in sha Allah.
This is my second response to Fariduddien’s article on Sufism. I intend to cover all the article minutely in sha Allah and answer the most important and relevant questions he raised. As for my answers to the questions raised by Bro. Halilu’s, I will in sha Allah give them before the next posting.
6. While Hijazi stresses that sufism started as a move towards excessive ibaadah, Fariduddien accuses him of limiting dhikr, either because he fails to grasp what is the difference between the word ‘ibadah’ and ‘dhikr’ or he wants to assert that sufism is nothing but dhikrullah. Ibadah comprises dhikr and other aspects of worship. Anything excessive beyond the limited bounds is not allowed as known in the Sunnah.
Then one can also ask: if he means limiting dhikr in the quantitative sense, that is, one is not allowed to limit himself in repeating a particular dhikr to a restricted number of times, this is true, - unless where specified by the Sunnah.
But if he means by the non limitation that one can extract and produce on his own whatever dhikr he wishes, without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), then this is of course wrong. Dhikr, as an ibaadah must be traced to the Qur’an or Sunnah otherwise, it is a bid’ah. It is worth mentioning that dhikr is one of the most important ibaadahs, a religious obligation with which Allah Ta’ala orders His servants. It is the only form of worship in the Qur’an given a quantitative emphasis. Allah Ta’ala says: ((O you who believe, remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and afternoon)) Al-Ahzab: 41-42. He also says: ((…And the men and women who remember Allah much, Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and great reward)) Al-Ahzab: 35.
That is why you find most of the day to day activities of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are accompanied with one sort of dhikr or another. In fact the Prophet has a specific dhikr for most of his actions, and teaches the Muslim to make this type of ibadah engulf most of his time, from the time he wakes up from his sleep, and when entering the toilet, when coming out, entering the mosque, coming out of it, and during the prayer each action of the prayer has a specific dhikr, when entering ones house, when putting on new clothes, when going to bed, when entering the market and almost every time.
But all these invocations and adhkar are to be received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) in word and pattern. One is therefore not allowed to ‘invent’ a dhikr of his own. Nay he is not allowed to change the wordings of a dhikr confirmed to be said by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Al-Baraa ibn ‘Aazib (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: (When going to bed, perform ablution just like you do when praying, then rest yourself on the right-hand side of your body, then say: “O Allah I have submitted my face to you…” up to the end of the du’a which is: “Aamantu bi kitaabikal ladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal ladhi arsalta” (I believe in Your Book which You revealed, and Your Prophet whom You sent”. Al-Baraa said: I repeated it for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to hear, and when I came to “I believe in Your Book which You revealed…” I said: ‘…and Your Messenger’ (i.e. instead of saying Your Prophet). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “No, ‘and Your Prophet whom You sent’. (Bukhari No. 247, Muslim No. 2081).
The hadith is clear in that it is not allowed for one to change the wording of any dhikr narrated from the Prophet, what more of putting up his own. Ibn Hajar, in his comment on this hadith said: “The best explanation given to the Prophet’s response to this companion who substituted the word ‘Messenger’ instead of ‘Prophet’, is that the wordings of adhkaar are in a sort of abeyance (i.e. should not be said by anyone but based on a nass by Allah or His Prophet), and that they have special characteristics and secrets not subject to analogy. The wordings in which they come must therefore be preserved. This is what al-Maaziri preferred. He (al-Maaziri) said: ‘One must restrict himself to their texts as they are narrated in their letters, for it is possible that the reward is attached to these letters. They might have been revealed to the Prophet in these words. It is therefore obligatory to say them in their letters’. (Fathul Bari 11/116).
As regards the impact of other religions and civilizations on Sufism, Fariduddien continues to deny that. I will treat that separately in sha Allah, in my next response to Bro. Halilu as he appears to disregard previous references to that effect.
On the concept of Wihdatul Adyan (validity of all religions), Fariduddien says: ‘Here the author claims that Tasawwuf teaches the validity of all religions. This claim is false and incorrect. A clear discussion of this, from the viewpoint of traditional Islam (of which Tasawwuf is a part), can be found…’.
The concept of Wihdatul Adyan is one of the most blashpemous teachings of philosophic Sufism and one of the resulting impacts of the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (Union of Existence). According to this concept there is no difference between Iman and Kufr as everything is in reality one thing. They believe that by saying that there is a deity and a servant worshipping him, one is putting a distinction between the two, and this is wrong according to them. So all religions are nothing but one. None of them is better than the others. Whatever deity one worships he is worshipping nothing but one deity. All are on the right path.
Ibn Taimiyyah comments on this concept by saying: “Among their words is that there is nothing in essence but Allah, so idol worshippers do not worship anything but him. That is because, according to them, he has no ‘ghair’ (another, other, else …). That is why they interpret Allah’s saying: ((And your Lord Has decreed that you worship none but Him)) Al-Israa:23, to mean: And your Lord Has predestined that you worship none but Him, because He has no ‘ghair’ whose worship can be conceptualised. So every idolator is just worhsipping Allah” Majmu’ul Fatawaa 2/124.
A contemporary Sufi, Abdurrahman Badawi confesses this reality when he said: “The importance of the concept of ‘al-ittihad’ (oneness of existence) in the making or adaptation of the process of escapade is great, especially in explaining the escapades that express the equality of all religions – both heaven oriented and non-heaven oriented - to the Sufi. To him all religions are equal because the existence (al-wujud) is one, and this existence is nothing but Allah. Therefore all of them are from Allah, and as far as Allah is concerned there is no difference” (Shatahaatus Sufiyyah p. 9).
You can see from the above quote that Badawi did not differentiate between early and later Sufis, even if he is sure that early Sufis did not go to this extent. Then why should a non-Sufi be accused of failing to recognise this difference. Why shouldn’t he be given the benefit of doubt to the fact that whenever he condemns sufi acts, that he refers to the later sufis who diverted from the Zuhd school to philosophical and Hindi schools.
When we come to Ibn Arabi we will find that he expounds more on it to the extent that one will accept, beyond reasonable doubts, that he means what he says. See what Hijazi quoted in his article from the Fusoos of the man saying: “Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else…” (Al-Fusoos p. 113).
In another place he confirms the validity of Fir’auna’s claim that he is the lord. In his comment on the verse: ((Saying: I am your lord, most high)) An-Nazi’aat:24, he says ((…Even though all are lords to some degree, I am the most high among them…)) Al-Fusoos p. 210-211.
Somewhere else he says: ((My mind has become set to accept every image – it is a grazing land for antelopes, a temple for the monks, a house for idols, a Ka’abah for the circumambulator, a tablet for the Taurah and a book of the Qur’an”. (Al-Futuhaatul Makkiyyah 3/21).
These kinds of statements from the man are countless in his books, especially the Fusoos and Futuhaat.
Ibnul Faarid, another Sufi who professes ittihaad says: “When a worshipper falls to the ground worshipping stones do not regard it abominable in bigotry. And if the Magian worships the fire …all these worship none but me, even if their aim and intention were directed to other than me”.
Back home you find Tijjani in a more lucid and express manner affirms this concept. While commenting on Allah’s saying: ((Verily, I am Allah. There is no god but Me, so worship Me)) Taha: 14, he says: “He means there is no deity apart from Me, even if the idolators worship their idols, neither did they worship anything but Me, nor did they aim other than Me with humbleness and humility. Nay, I am the god being worshipped in them. This is the meaning of His saying: ((There is no god but Me)). It is in this way he wants you to believe in what the ignorant ones believe that they worship something apart from me or that they aim other than me” Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/184-185.
He also says: “And amongst them is the one who aims at the Most High but behind a cover, that is the idol worshippers and their likes. Because by worshipping the idols, they do not aim at other than Al-Haqq (Allah), the Most exalted, nor do they worship something else. Rather Allah, The Most exalted appears to them from behind those covers in His Glory and Greatness, and attracts them accordingly by virtue of His predestined decree which no one denies” (Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/239).
The likes of these utterances are so many in Sufi books. Now we come to the question: are these words to be taken on their face value? Do these people really mean what they say? Are they telling us that, O you people! You are just wasting your time worshipping one god while you are supposed to worship everything you can rest your eyes on or think of in your mind? Do they mean to tell us that all the verses in the Qur’an calling to the worship of Allah alone, the only God, the Lord of the worlds etc, are mere quabbles and meaningless statements?. This reminds me of another Sufi, Al-‘Afeef At-Tilmisani, who says: “There is no Tauhid in the Qur’an, rather the whole of Qur’an is shirk. He who follows the Qur’an will never reach real Tauhid” (Ibn Taimiyyah quoted him in Al-Furqan baina auliya’ir Rahman wa auliya’is Shaitan p. 88, and Jami’ur Rasa’ili Wal Masa’il 4/51, and Majmu’ul Fatawa 13/186). I don’t expect a Muslim will hesitate to call this kufr. We ask Allah to forgive us repeating these words.
Now Fariduddien in his response to Hijazi, says the claim of the writer – meaning Hijazi – that Sufism teaches the validity of all religions is false and incorrect. He then refers us to ‘a clear discussion’ of the issue by one Nuh Ha Mim Keller on a web address. He says that Mr. Keller shows that the belief in the universal validity of all religions is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, and not part of the teachings of Ibn al-Arabi.
In response to this claim we can view the issue from the following points:
First: The argument that Sufism does not teach the concept of the validity of all religions will not hold. Only if one will contend that the concept originated from other than the Sufis, a claim that will not be supported by the vast Sufi literature. That is because this concept is a direct result of Wahdatul Wujud and al-Ittihad. When one believes that whatever he sees around him – his house, his wife, his sons, his vehicle, his bed, the sun the moon, the trees, the seas, himself and everything is nothing but Allah, there is no point in trying to make a distinction between the Creator, the Lord and Deity, the One and only God and between His creatures, for the line of demarcation has been buried. So, whatever he worships he is in reality worshipping one god. This is what is preached in Sufi books. One may say that not all Sufis believe in this idea or that it is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, as asserted by Fariduddien. Yes of course, but is there any fault in attributing it to Sufisim as a thought and to Sufis as a group so long as we have never come to know this in Islam but from them. Only if one will claim the likes of ibn Arabi not to be Sufis, which will never hold also, as you will come to see.
Secondly, Is Nuh Keller the right person to give us the real meaning of the words spoken by Ibn Arabi, Al-Tilmisani, Ibnul Faarid, Tijjani and their likes? I am not underestimating his knowledge, but wouldn’t Fariduddien do the Muslims a favour of referring to early scholars especially among the Sufis who tried to give meanings acceptable to Islam. Although I am not able to access the page referred to, where Mr Keller treated the matter, but on searching the his name in the web I arrived at a number of articles written by him. In one of those articles, he spoke of how he embraced Islam about twenty-five years ago (i.e. from the time of the talk) and that he studied first at the university of Chicago then to Al-Azhar University of Egypt, later on to Jordan. Some of the articles also articulate on ‘Why it is necessary to follow the Madhhabs’, issues of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, condemning terrorism, especially condeming the Taliban government etc. This doen not mean, if he speaks the truth it not be accepted from him, for everyone has the right to give opinion on any topic and be accepted based on the strength of his argument, but in an intellectual discourse I opine that Fariduddien would have given names of early scholars who took the same position especially that Mr. Keller in one of his lectures confesses that his first studies were in the hands of the orientalists.
Thirdly, Keller’s claim that Wahdatul Adyan is not part of the teachings of Ibn Arabi and that those who attribute it to him only take a very selective reading of the writings of the man, is not based on academic research also. It is a mere claim not substantiated with any evidence, and contradicts what early scholars summed up from his writings and based on that passed their rulings on him which I will come to mention later in sha Allah. The truth of the matter is that, ibn Arabi, even though is not the founder of this thought, he believed in it and played an important role in passing it over to later generations. The statements quoted above and many others testify to that. Samih ‘Aatef Zain says: “The concept of wahdatul adyan was not the invention of Ibn ‘Arabi, rather many Sufis before him advocated it, most famous among them was Al-Hallaj who, through his belief in hulul (incarnation) found that difference in religious beliefs is nothing more than a difference in opinion, with each belief aiming at one reality, that is Allah’s love …This thought might have attracted Ibn ‘Arabi after some centuries, as such he embraced it and manipulated it to suit his caprices considering that man has the free choice to take up any religion he wishes. Nay he can even take all religions…nothing can stop him from worshipping Satan or taking up a dog or a pig to be his god, because – in his false assumption – god is inside all these creatures. That is why he said without any caution that: ‘The dog and the pig are nothing but our god, and The Lord is nothing but a monk in the church’…” (As-Sufiyyah Fi Nazaril Islam p. 470-471. I have choosen to refer to this writer for : 1. He is an Egyptian Professor who has written widely on Sufism and I suppose his conclusions will not be based on a selective reading of Ibn Arabi’s writings. I came to know the book about 17 years ago, in my local branch of the Kano State Library. 2. The author, in his preface, expressly stated: ‘This book of ours only tries to bring out the important Sufi madhhabs and those who profess it, and all that stems from it as a thought. We have not taken side with this or against that, but we have taken up Sufism on the scale of Islam based on Qur’an and Sunnah – and have stayed in sha Allah with Islam…”.
In another study, conducted by Dr. Kamal Muhammad Isa in ‘Nazaratun Fi Mu’taqadaati ibn ‘Arabi p. 51 he assigned a topic for the concept of Wahdatul Adyan and cited some of ibn Arabi’s statements to that effect.
Dr. AbdulQadir Mahmud, in his ‘The Sufi Philosophy in Islam’ says: ‘So the theory of the validity of all religions is one of the products of Wahdatul Wujud according to Ibn ‘Arabi as he sees that all worship the one god who appears in their shapes and the shapes of all gods. Nothing resembles this like the theory of the Indian – Shankar who says: ‘I worship god in every place of worship I like or I bow in front of any god without differentiation’ (Al-Falsafatus Sufiyyah Fil Islam p. 516). These are only examples of comprehensive researches made on the writings and beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabi.
Then considering Ibn Taimiyyah to have treated the issue of Sufism with fairness as accepted by Fariduddien and most Sufis, I bring here what he had to say on Ibn ‘Arabi and his concepts of validity of all religions and wahdatul wujud. In his answer to a question on the contents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Al-Fusoos, he said, referring to some statements of Ibn Arabi and his likes: “These people are more blasphemous (than the idolators) considering the fact that these (Ibn Arabi and his likes) considered the idolator to be worshipping Allah and nothing but Allah, and that the idols, to Allah, are like parts of the human body to man… while the idolators confess that their idols are not Allah and that they are His creatures. Also considering the fact that the idolators among the Arabs were confirming that the heavens and the earth have a lord who created them, but according to these people the heavens and the earth and other creatures have no lord apart from themselves. Rather the creatures are the creator…” Majmu’ul Fataawaa 2/129-130.
In another page he says: “The same with these people of ittihad (oneness of creation). Their leaders are leaders in kufr. They must be executed, and whoever claims to have repented, his repentance should not be accepted when caught before he claims repentance. That is because he is the greatest of hypocrites (Zanadiqa) who profess Islam outwardsly and maintain the greatest kufr in their inner self…He who associates himself with them must be punished or defends or praises them or exolts their books or is known to be helping them or hates to speak ill of them or tries to find excuses for them claiming that this kind of statements no one knows its reality, or says: ‘who told you he is the author of this book?’ and the likes of these excuses which no one will say them but an ignorant or hypocrite. Nay he who knows about them and fails to help in standing against them must be punished. Because rising against these people is one of the greatest obligations, for they have corrupted the minds and the religions on many Shaikhs, kings and rulers. They roam all over the earth in corruption and prevent people from the way of Allah. Their damage to the religion is greater than the damage done by those who destroy the worldly affairs of the Muslims and leave alone their religion, like armed robbers and like the Tatar who seize their wealth and leave them their religion…” (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/131-132).
He adds: “He who appears to have good opinion about them and claims that he does not know their real situation, it should be explained to him and if he did not distant himself from them and openly show his rejection, he should be considered of them”. (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/133).
On the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence and union with the creator), Fariduddien confesses that there are differing opinions regarding the matter and gave example of one of his Shaikhs, Sirhindi who criticized ibn al-‘Arabi on this doctrine as being erroneous. Thanks to Sirhindi for acknowledging the truth, but the word erroneous is too mild for Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory. Nevertheless, it is a good effort to acknowledge that it is not right, but does that mean it is not part of Sufism, just because one or two Sufis disagree with him on it. That is why people are continually called upon to understand these issues. It is not a matter of praise or condemnation. Something bad will not be good just because Ibn Taimiyyah praises it, just as anything good will not cease to be good because someone condemns it. What we should always look at is the praise or condemnation of Allah and His Messenger. Then Fariduddien should also remember that he said there are differing opinions on the matter, that is, while Sirhindi and Ansari reject Ibn Arabi’s theory of Wahdatul Wujud, holders of the other opinion must have accepted and endorsed it and they are Sufis, so the argument is still in place that the theory is part of Sufism even if some Sufis, regardless of their number, reject it. How many of their other doctrines are a matter of concensus, very little. So long as Sufism is a mixture of creeds originating from different sources most of which are alien to Islam, you must definitely find conflicting opinions as regards the acceptability of such beliefs but they are all part of the general name SUFISM. Take for example the various names and Shaikhs every Tariqa finds itself affiliated to. They are so many and each of them has its methods of adimitting new ‘recruits’ or murids, and different aspects of belief, rites and obligations, and all are addressed Sufis, while each holds his peculiar identity under whatever umbrella.
Fariduddien then comes from another angle to say that Wahdatul Wujud is interpreted by others to mean something other than its literal meaning, that is ‘nothing exists of itself, independent of everything else, except Allah’. If they mean to interpret the two-word phrase: ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ the essence of the words itself dismisses this interpretation. Because the word ‘union’ meaning becoming one, has never been interpreted by any scholar of the Arabic language to mean dependence. These people say that in order to understand their theory in its reality you have to dismiss some words from your dictionary, that is any word that indicates dualism, pluralism like ‘bainiyyah’ (between), ghairiyyah (another, other, else etc), ithnainiyyah (dualism) and lot of other words which usage must indicate the existence of more than one thing.
Moreover, it is a waste of time for someone to find excuses and secondary meanings to these statements when they themselves tell us that they mean what they say, and that their words should be given their literal meanings. As-Sakhawi in his ‘Al-Qaulul Munbii ‘an tarjamati ibn ‘Arabi’ says that Ibn Arabi in his Futuhat explicately declared that his statements should be taken as they appear, that is in their literal meanings’.
As-Shaukani also says: ‘He once again said in ‘Ad-Dau’ul lami’ (meaning Sakhawi) under the biography of Husain ibn Abdur Rahman al-Ahdal, that he said: I was told about ibn Arabi that he said: My statements should be given their apparent meanings, and I intend their literal meanings’. So how can you assume – O you who have been deceived – that he did not mean its apparent meanings? Moreover his words in his Futuhaat and Fusoos are in clear Arabic, so also the words of his fellow men, how then can scholars of Shari’ah be expected to understand something contrary to that?…Look, you poor fellow, how those ignorant people played with your intellect, to what extent do you love them. While Allah Ta’ala Has ruled upon the Jews and Christians with disbelief for saying He is the third of the three (in trinity – Ma’idah 73), why shouldn’t He judge these people according to their words? Now listen, let me dictate to you some of the Karamahs of those so called Auli’ya who played with the deen of Allah. As for Hallaj, he was the pioneer in the field of ‘Wahdah’ (oneness of existence), that doctrine in which ibn Arabi and his fellow men wasted their life, but he (Hallaj) lived an era in which there were remains of goodness and mercy in its people on this deen. So they killed him with the swords of Islam…” (As-Sawarimul Hidaad Al-Qati’ah p. 97-98).
That is why many scholars maintained that it is prohibited to give Ibn Arabi’s words meanings other than their apparent one. See Tanbeehul Ghabi Ila Takfeer ibn Arabi by Al-Biqa’ie (d. 885) p. 127. See also ‘Al’Iqduth Thamin Fi Tarikhil Baladil Amin’ by Taqiyuddin Al-Fasi (d.832), where he quoted 22 eminent scholars who explicitly condemned and rendered Ibn Arabi apostate for his concept of Wahdul Wujud and its product Wahdatul Adyan. This chapter has been edited independently in a small book of 83 pages.
I will conclude this part with some questions: what is the essence of all these lengthy quotations on Wahdatul Adyan and Wahdatul Wujud? Didn’t it die out with the demise of the direct deciples of Ibn Arabi? Are the Muslims still threatened by this theory – or is it no more theory? Do we find among the Sufis who believe in and put this doctrine in practice?
One does not need a field research to answer these questions, and will find that even in this present time some of the Sufis believe and practise the concept of Wahdatul Wujud. A man believed to be sane and reasonable living among his kin and friends, eating from and enjoying Allah’s bounties, suddenly opens up his mouth and declare that he is now the lord of the worlds, that he is Allah the creator of the heavens and earth, that he forgives the sins of his deciples. I know of a local school in Kano, back in 1996 where some of its students, most of whom were youths of about 18 – 30, distributed some of Allah’s beautiful Names between themselves, each calling his colleague with one, and believing each of them to be Allah. They used them so jestingly one will not believe such a thing will happen in a Muslim society.
In my place, (Birnin Kudu) the son of a reknown Tijjaniyyah sheikh, declared himself the khalifa of Ibrahim Kaulaha, and immediately attracted the attention of the people of all near-by towns and within a short time he was believed to be telling the truth. In less than a year, after the death of his father, he was believed, at least by his immediate students (murids), to be god. He used to go round the town claiming to be forgiving peoples’ sins. This is a person I know personally and knows me quite alright. Alhamdu lillahi, he later on left the town for Kano, claiming that the people back home did not accord him what he deserved of reverence. These are therefore, things I know from personal experience not read in Sufi books.
Accounts of events of this nature are too many to be denied in many societies, all under the concept of this Wahdatul Wujud and in the name of Sufism.
We ask Allah to guard us from deviating away from His path.
To be continued in sha Allah.
M. Halilu Uba,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
I really appreciate your frankness and zeal in exercising justice and fairness. These are values expected of every Muslim and I ask Allah Ta’ala to help and make us stick to His path.
I will try to be brief but to the point in sha Allah, as I have answered most of what you raised, in other write-ups though not addressed to you in particular.
But may I appeal to you and any other brother viewing things the way you do, to kindly make this discourse in the best objective manner possible. The importance of this in any intellectual discourse cannot be over-emphasised. Our focus should be on what one says and what arguments he presents, not what we perceive one to be holding in terms of belief or ideological inclination or whether he is for or against us. His method of presenting his case or putting up his arguments may indicate, but does not necessarily fashion out the ‘party’ to which he belongs. I know of many people who are strongly against Sufism even before they are aware of anything like Wahhabism. Even before you spell it out that you are not a Sufi, I have not taken it from your stance on the matter that you are one, just as I won’t throw anyone, for being anti-Sufi, into a camp I assume he must necessarily belong to – ‘Wahhabi Movement’, ‘Modern Day Salafiyyah’, or any other group – whatever I may perceive the term to mean. What I understood from you was a sincere quest for justice and fair-play in dealing with matters of knowledge, and that is what I still hold, regardless of the method or language you apply in making your point.
Many a member on this forum will view the current discussions on Sufism as just another Izala-Tariqa crisis, based on pure partisanship, for peoples’ intellects have been compartmentalised on this issues into these groups so much so that whenever one speaks against one of them he is seen to belong to the other. Some members, on the other hand, who detaste these kinds of discussions find it necessary to swift their attentions at least away from it. In my view NMN is rich with people who are professionals in various fields and who I assume are above this line of thinking. That is why I personally do not contribute to the view that the forum is dominated by anti-Sufi or Wahhabi elements as they are usually referred to. Rather there are a lot who reserve comments on almost every topic, and prefer the ‘DROM’ class, for reasons best known to them.
One other thing before taking up the issues you raised, Islamic knowledge, especially that has to do with ‘aqeedah and legislating ‘ibaadah, is factual and not subject to the experiments other branches of knowledge like the natural sciences undergo. It is either the Qur’an, the Sunnah or what the Sahabahs agree upon. Opinions differ in interpretations, yes, but not necessarily due to an in-built bias. To say this in a sweeping generalisation, is like disowning these texts their power of al-bayan (eloquence). Yes, there are texts that are subject to interpretation, but what counts is not the interpretation of poor Abubakar or any of his friends. Rather interpretations from ulama of the highest degree of piety who lived with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and received his teachings, and whom he did not depart without telling them whatever goodness that will bring them near their Lord and near the Jannah, and warning them from whatever evil that will make them near Hell. So what we need is knowledge of what those people practised. If it is available it should please be produced on any matter not only this. Opinions and interpretations will only be binding if they conform to that of the generation of Sahabah.
Now to the issues you raised, let me start with some of your words when addressing brother Ibrahim Ado. You said: ‘The other thing you mentioned which caught my attention is the issue of groups partisanship. A lot has been said already. You hit the hammer on the nail when you pointed out that there was a time in Muslim history when the Mu’tazila were reigning and the Hanbalis down. This is part of the reason we must be careful with blanket condemnation. We may just be living in an era when Sufi bashing is fashionable…’
In so far as political power influences the spread of one Mazhab or another, facts do not change just because of that. If you will just take the time of browsing the pages of the history you mentioned, particularly that to do with the reign of Mu’tazila, you will find that the political power of the Mu’tazila played a vital role in spreading their mazhab, not in making it the truth as against the mazhab of the salaf which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali was calling to at that time. That is why he (Imam Ahmad) did not succumb to the Mu’tazili aqeedah despite the fact that he was tortured and coerced to do so, a stance which earned him the title ‘Imam Ahlus Sunnah’. So blanket condemnation or not, a Muslim should believe that Islam as brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and understood by the Sahabah is still there and up to end of this world. It is the only recognisable deen in the sight of Allah. A Muslim only accepts something else, when this is not clear to him whether he happens to get acquainted with it through free books, scholarships from Petro-Dollars or Petro-anything.
Then you said: ‘…They all have differences, each one applying his line of thinking, hence his mazhab. If sticking to the sunnah means just one thing, they should not differ on issues’.
It is natural for people to differ and their difference is never an indication that they are on the wrong track. The Sahabah differred on some issues of fiqh and that did not make Islam vague. The problem is where do we resort to whenever we differ. While some see that in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), others view that they resort to other sources. But as I have repeated a number of times, the religion of Allah is Islam, whose main source is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of the salaf. Whoever sticks to this will never be astray in sha Allah, as prophesied by the rasul himself that a party of his ummah will remain with the truth to the last day. It is just the duty of the Muslim to look for the right path and in no where but the aforementioned sources. It is to these sources Allah and His Prophet attached us. Any difference you hear or witness is due to the failure of one side to either accept or even resort to them. It is wrong to assume that one should stay without any belief. Rather he must necessarily belong to the mazhab taught by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), that is to be with the followers of his sunnah, and strive to know what this sunnah is. What people are always called upon to understand is that there is no one whose example is incumbent upon the Muslim to follow except the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No one or group should be followed blindly. So one should just go and search anywhere in this world, find what the Prophet and his companions were practising in their days, then follow it, wherever he finds himself and whatever influence he happens to experience either in any Petro-dollar country or in any cave on the vast of this earth. He will only be answerable to that which Allah Has decreed through His prophet. In the days of the Sahabah, when some of the deviated parties – such as the Shi’ah and Khawarij and Qadariyyah - started emerging, they disengaged themselves from them and warned people against them. Some of them even declared the Qadariyyahs apostate for denying Allah’s knowledge of human actions. They did not say: O you people all of you are Muslims. We only differ in matters of opinion or interpretation of the data we received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No they never did that.
Now to the issue of Sufism, I assume we are not in disagreement as to the fact that in Sufism, as a thought – regardless of the origin of the word, there is what is good and what is bad (or what you choose to call the worst mistakes and errors of the worst examples of Sufi personalities). The first, that is the good contained in it, is what some ulama accept and accord it the meaning of ‘Zuhd, tazkiyyah, ihsaan’, or to sum it up, inner purification. The second, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs and rites alien to the teachings of Islam but camouflaged in the name of Sufism. This second meaning is what we have today as Sufism in the name the various Sufi Tariqas, each affiliated to a Shaikh they call Wali.
So we have two angles from which to look at the meaning of the word ‘Sufism’:
Its meaning as a word comprising of many different things. This is what I wanted to show: how it is made difficult, if not impossible, to reach a clear definition of the word. The Sufis themselves – early and contemporary - could not reach an agreement even to a minimum degree as to its meaning, despite its fundamental importance to them. Philosophers and thinkers, as you put it, argued on the number of teeth a donkey has. Yes, this is their usual business. Ours is Islam, the deen of Allah, brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). We are talking of what to worship our Lord with in order to earn His pleasure, an essential factor for which He sent His Prophets to the human race. Should something so vital like this be so obscure to the extent of denoting about two thousand meanings. So our issue is not the parable of the number of teeth a donkey has and the dilemma of the philosophers. Our issue is that a word is just found in our midst, no one can tell us what it means, not even the people with whom it is known. Then we come to find some Muslims identifying themselves with a group or a number of groups under a common denominator given this name. Is it then fair to accuse one for condemning it on the ground that he deliberately failed to differentiate between what is good of it and what is bad? This is the point I was trying to show. It is not a mere theory a child or even an old man can direct us to the way out in order to ascertain its specific meaning. I have clearly got what you mean, that is we should look at the reality of what has been practised by the Sufis especially eminent scholars of Islam amongst them: what did they practice? All the same if we focus that attention what we will find ourselves amidst is another dilemma. Were those scholars identified as Sufis in the manner we find Sufism now? We will in sha Allah try to look at this angle.
The meaning of Sufism as a thought or as the word used by some scholars to refer to ‘Zuhd’ and the set of moral code of conduct and personal etiquette adopted by Muslims in the early days of Islam, and what it came to be comprising of in later days up to this time.
For a clear picture of this we need to study the stages through which Sufism passed in brief.
May I start by asking Allah Ta’ala to guard me and you – and all brothers – against any form of partisanship in the name of anything other than Islam, the deen of Allah as brought by our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It is indeed very interesting that a Muslim should always remain a Muslim and should strive, as much as possible, to be free from being partisan except for the name of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While this is a fundamental truth, it is equally important to bear in mind that when one is a Muslim, he cannot free himself from being against what is unIslamic and in contradiction to the teachings of the Rasul (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because Islam and indeed the whole teachings and life of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are no more obscure, neither are they mysterious.
The deen of Allah has been completed before the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) left this world, and all these are found in the Qur’an and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet. But it is not a hidden fact that the Ummah has been divided into groups and sects, each has formulated for itself either sets of beliefs or different phases of ibadaat, and each claiming what he practises to be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), for no Muslim will admit that he professes something that negates his teachings. We are therefore left with the question: how do we ascertain what is in line with the teachings of the Prophet in order to differentiate it from what is against it? Here comes the issue of the fundamental yardstick with which to carry out this important task, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and implied approvals) of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of those pious and noble companions. This is another vital aspect of understanding the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because the companions who lived with him and witnessed the Qur’an being revealed to him, were the direct and immediate subjects of his teachings, the students who received his lessons and understood and practised it in the way and manner ordered and desired by Allah Ta’ala. Any mistake on their part in the course of practising any injunction is redressed immediately by ‘Wahy’.
This is why it is of fundamental importance to believe that the Islam practised by the Sahabah is the best as it conforms with and reflects the true teachings of the Rasul and affirms that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) really taught them what Allah ordered and that he was the best of all teachers, the most successful instructor able to bring forth a generation which was able to change and influence the whole world within a period of less than twenty years from his death. It is in the light of the above that Islam frowns at anything new and not known to be part of it in the days of the Prophet as an aspect or pattern of worship through which the pleasure of Allah is sought.
On a more specific note, upholding the view that one does not belong to any group, is a fact very necessary and rational, if by that, he means he will not belong to any group in a sort of blind way as to believe that anything not upheld by that group is false. But if dissociating one’s self with any group means he will focus on any matter regarding religion from a neutral point of view without sticking to a specific Islamic principle based on the supremacy of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the practice of the pious predecessors, then this is surely anything but right. What Islam requires from his subjects is that the virtue or otherwise of anything, anyone or any group is measured by that person’s or group’s conformity with Islam and its teachings. One must believe that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, the most pure, absolute and not relative truth, the best value system suitable to mankind and the most accurate way of life that guides to every goodness in this world and in the hereafter.
Any good thing found in any other way not Islam is found in Islam and more, so we may praise that way or path for being in line with what Islam taught, but not for containing something Islam fails to attain. That is why when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saw Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with some papers he got from a Jew, and read it to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet was outraged and immediately rebuked him and said: ((…I have indeed brought it (this deen and path) to you so clean and neat…I swear by Him in whose Hand is my life, Had Musa been alive it wouldn’t be allowed for him but to follow me) – Ahmad 3/387, Darimi 1/115, Ibn Abi Shai’bah No. (26421) and others. Its isnad is Hasan.
So the fact that the Shi’ites, for example, called on all Muslims to rise against America or its values, is not because that is part of the Shi’ii creed independent of other Muslims and that you can not find same with any other groups of the Muslims. Rather it is Islam that calls upon all Muslims not to take the non-believers as friends, and the failure of other groups to make such calls does not mean they do not have that in their set of beliefs.
Secondly the issue of a write-up being balanced, differs relatively from one subject to another just as it differs from the writer’s ideological background. After all, in Islam what is known to be hailed most when speaking or writing about others, is that one should be just and should not ascribe anything contrary to the reality of the person or topic he discusses. But if what is meant by being balanced is that one must appear or sound neutral, or that when he presents an opposing view he must necessarily give the proposing view, I beg to assert that this is not a general principle in Islam, although it is allowed if one will later on specify the correct path so as not to leave people in the dark, thereby implying that all is one and same. In the same vein, if I am asked about Christianity, for instance, will I be charged with being unfair by pointing the Islamic view alone and stressing that it is a corrupted religion proscribed by Allah with the coming of Islam et cetera.
That is why I am more surprised after reading M. Halilu’s introduction to the response he posted on Hijazi’s article, calling for non-partisanship, to find the writer of the response a Sufi and his response so ‘imbalance’ in the sense that he made some unfounded charges against Hijazi just by way of reading his mind under the pretense of reading between the lines.
This issue of balance and imbalance and the issue of some ‘Sheiks’ lacking in da’wah methodology as cast on this forum from time to time are of course topics that need to be discussed in a more detailed manner. May Allah spare us or other brothers the time to take it up.
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Fariduddien Rice, in his response to Yusuf Hijazi’s article, charges him of lying, relying on non-Muslim sources, failing to provide references to some of the issues he raised, condemning Muslims and attributing them to kufr and shirk, among other things.
The piece I am writing will focus more on providing the sources and references Hijazi is charged of failing to give. This will also answer the charge of relying on non-Muslim sources, although most of Hijazi’s non-Muslim references appear to be connected with definitions of some terms. Other charges are mere personal attacks as can be seen clearly.
As regards the origin of the word Sufi there are of course many differing views on that and the Sufis themselves are not in agreement. Affirming this, Al-Sahrawardi believes that the Sufis’ definition of the word are more than one thousand. (See: ‘Awariful Ma’aarif p. 54). Another Sufi claims there are about two thousand definitions of the word (See Tahir al-Hamidi’s introduction to al-Ta’arrufi Li Madhhabi Ahlit Tasawwuf, by Abubakr al-Kalaabaadhi, p. 11). I don’t think there is a word so ‘blessed’ with such number of meanings.
As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s position on Sufism, it is true that he praised some of the famous Shaikhs attributed to Sufism, but it is important to note that he did so not for the sake of Sufism as a thought, but because the works and deeds of those Shaikhs were in conformity with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This you will find most where he discusses the issue of ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ (Unity of Creation or union with the Creator, or the belief that everything is one and God in essence) and condemns its proponents. This ideology, according to them permits one to claim what they call ‘Raf’ut Takaaleef’ (free from obligations of observing the precepts of religion). It is at this stage the Sufi Sheikh declares his disciple free from obligations like observing the five daily prayers and the likes, an attitude worthy of condemnation. So when Ibn Taimiyyah, who is very conversant with the works of those famous Shaikhs like Ibrahim ibn Adham, Abu Salaiman al-Daaraanee, Junaid, Abdul Qadir Jailani and others, whom he knows to have been in compliance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and calling their disciples to be upright in following the teachings of Islam and engaged themselves in ‘Amr bil Ma’roof wan Nahyu ‘anil Munkar’ (enjoining the good and forbidden the evil), he does not hesitate to dissociate them from the practices of Wahdatul Wujud’ and so he praises them based that. It is in this regard he says : “As for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst the Saalikin (disciples or followers of a spiritual path) like the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaimaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Sari as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars. These people did not allow the ‘Saalik’ to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! (i.e. in the name of Karamah). Rather they made it incumbent upon him to carry out what is commanded and leave off all whatever is prohibited until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf”. (Majmu’ Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 10 p.516-517).
It is therefore clear that Ibn Taimiyyah wishes to make a perfect distinction between the practice of those early men of Zuhd and piety and the practices of the later days Sufis. But Ibn Taimiyyah’s critique of Sufism as a thought and practice is what occupies much of his writings on the subject in his effort to dispel the fallacies that marred Islam in the name of Sufism, even though we find him giving excuses to some sufi practices particularly when the person involved is known to be steadfast in complying with the teachings of the Sunnah in general and only errs in that instance.
As for Sufism being a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufis interacted, Fariduddien dismissed this claim on the ground that no reference was given by Hijazi and that this theory comes from non-Muslim orientalists. The fact is that the theory is indeed true and has been testified by more than one Muslim scholar or writer, Sufi and non-Sufi. The first person to link Sufism with a foreign religion was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bairuni (d. 440) in his book: ‘Tahqeeq Ma Lil Hindi Min Maquulatin Maqbulatin Fil ‘Aqli Au Mardhuulah’ where he outlined three aspects on which Sufism meets with Hindu philosophy and religion. (See the History of Islamic Sufism by Dr. Qasim Gani and the book Islamic Sufism by Dr. Taftazani. There is also a very strong relation between Sufism and Buddhism in many aspects. There is indeed a Phd. thesis on the subject titled: Buddhism – its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism’ by Dr. Abdullah Mustapha Numsok, in the Islamic University of Madina. The author is now a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the University of Emir Sunklaa, in Fatani – Thailand. He has discussed this issue in a detailed and scholarly manner establishing the linkage and relationship between the two thoughts. In one of the examples he cited on discarding women and marriage he quoted what was reported from one Sufi Riyah ibn ‘Amr Al-Qaisi, that he said: “A person will not reach the level of Siddiqeen unless he leaves off his wife like a widow, and his sons like orphans and returns to the dwellings of dogs” (Al-Kawakibud Durriyyah 1/105-106). This statement is in line with what is reported from a Buddhist Saint, Shamana who says: “This stage of holiness (Arahat) is unattainable but by him who leaves off his house and endure the burden of leaving off his wife like a widow and his sons like orphans” (Lessons for the Saints p. 47). He further cited many examples in various aspects of the Buddhist and Sufi creeds, like the issue of seclusion, the doctrine of Fana’a (which the Buddhist call Nervana), ways of receiving and practising Dhikr and Wird, belief in the presence of the Sheikh or Saint at times of Dhikr, making dhikr in congregation and in one tone, the issue of Hulul (incarnation) which the Buddhists call (Awatar or Mahayan), wearing the Suuf (wool), wearing ragged clothes, encouraging destitution and begging (Almajiranci), unemployment in the name of religion etc. In fact the resemblances and relationship are too obvious to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader. In an abstract he gave in English at the end of the thesis, the writer concluded: “In my study, I also uncovered the relationship between Sufism and Buddhism as follows: …4) That it has been historically confirmed that Indian-Buddhist monks have influenced the emergence of the Sufi groups,marking their difference in looking at the Islamic view point of life. 5) The common elements between Sufism and Buddhism are: 1. Hulul or Samsara – transmigration of souls and 2. Nirvana or Fana – extinction requiring engaging in mental exercises and life practices such as giving up of property, marriage, observing of hunger, begging and giving up of the world and so on.” (Buddhism – Its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism, Abstract p. 3-4).
All this in addition to its Platonian, Christian, Jewish and Shi’ite origin. This you can find in the book ‘At-Tasawwuf – Origin and Sources by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir p. 49-135, where he quoted confessions by many Sufis to that effect. It is indeed worth reading. Also refer to Tafseer al-Qurtubi where he mentioned that an aalim was asked about the sufi samaa’ and dancing, and he attributed that to the followers of as-Samiri, that is from the Jews. (Tafseerul Qurtubi 11/237-238).
The distinction between Sufism in its early stage and what metamorphosed to become Sufism in later days, is indeed very vital to this topic. What remains to be noted by many is that present day Sufism has been distanced far away from the early one characterised by Zuhd and Seclusion for ibadah. Sufism, now is in what researchers call its sixth stage, that is the stage of ‘Tariqanism’, meaning that no Sufi is now allowed to practice Zuhd as known in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) independently unless he officially renders himself a subject and disciple of a Sheikh or founder of one Tariqa (Sufi order) or the other. It is now pure partisan in the sense that one Sheikh does not allow his disciple to change to another Tariqa or Sheikh as this is considered ‘riddah’. This is all written in their books and studies in the field are so many for anyone to deny this. So when writers condemn Sufism without differentiating the early from the present they mean the present one. This is not to say that the early one also has not been condemned by many scholars amongst the salaf considering the fact that the name itself is alien to Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While zuhd and dhikr are values upheld by the Sunnah, making it in the name of Sufism renders, at least, its pattern a bid’ah.
As regards Shafi’is condemnation of Sufism which Hijazi quoted him saying: “If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawwafa) at the begenning of the day, he doesn’t come at Zuhur except an idiot”, Fariduddien dismisses this by saying: ‘No reference has been provided. You can provide all these references to non-Muslim sources, but you cannot even provide a reference for a supposed statement by Imam al-Shafi’I? Why can’t you provide the reference?”. May be it will please him to know that this statement is confirmed to have been said by Shafi’e as has been reported with isnad by Al-Baihaqi in his ‘Manaaqibus Shaafi’ee vol. 2 p. 207.
And as regards that of Malik refer to Tartibul Madaarik by Al-Qadi ‘Iyaad 2/54, and Manaqib Malik by az-Zawawi p. 157) and that of Ahmad refer to Talbis Iblis p. 166-167.
To be continued in sha Allah.
This is my second response to Fariduddien’s article on Sufism. I intend to cover all the article minutely in sha Allah and answer the most important and relevant questions he raised. As for my answers to the questions raised by Bro. Halilu’s, I will in sha Allah give them before the next posting.
6. While Hijazi stresses that sufism started as a move towards excessive ibaadah, Fariduddien accuses him of limiting dhikr, either because he fails to grasp what is the difference between the word ‘ibadah’ and ‘dhikr’ or he wants to assert that sufism is nothing but dhikrullah. Ibadah comprises dhikr and other aspects of worship. Anything excessive beyond the limited bounds is not allowed as known in the Sunnah.
Then one can also ask: if he means limiting dhikr in the quantitative sense, that is, one is not allowed to limit himself in repeating a particular dhikr to a restricted number of times, this is true, - unless where specified by the Sunnah.
But if he means by the non limitation that one can extract and produce on his own whatever dhikr he wishes, without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), then this is of course wrong. Dhikr, as an ibaadah must be traced to the Qur’an or Sunnah otherwise, it is a bid’ah. It is worth mentioning that dhikr is one of the most important ibaadahs, a religious obligation with which Allah Ta’ala orders His servants. It is the only form of worship in the Qur’an given a quantitative emphasis. Allah Ta’ala says: ((O you who believe, remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and afternoon)) Al-Ahzab: 41-42. He also says: ((…And the men and women who remember Allah much, Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and great reward)) Al-Ahzab: 35.
That is why you find most of the day to day activities of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are accompanied with one sort of dhikr or another. In fact the Prophet has a specific dhikr for most of his actions, and teaches the Muslim to make this type of ibadah engulf most of his time, from the time he wakes up from his sleep, and when entering the toilet, when coming out, entering the mosque, coming out of it, and during the prayer each action of the prayer has a specific dhikr, when entering ones house, when putting on new clothes, when going to bed, when entering the market and almost every time.
But all these invocations and adhkar are to be received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) in word and pattern. One is therefore not allowed to ‘invent’ a dhikr of his own. Nay he is not allowed to change the wordings of a dhikr confirmed to be said by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Al-Baraa ibn ‘Aazib (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: (When going to bed, perform ablution just like you do when praying, then rest yourself on the right-hand side of your body, then say: “O Allah I have submitted my face to you…” up to the end of the du’a which is: “Aamantu bi kitaabikal ladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal ladhi arsalta” (I believe in Your Book which You revealed, and Your Prophet whom You sent”. Al-Baraa said: I repeated it for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to hear, and when I came to “I believe in Your Book which You revealed…” I said: ‘…and Your Messenger’ (i.e. instead of saying Your Prophet). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “No, ‘and Your Prophet whom You sent’. (Bukhari No. 247, Muslim No. 2081).
The hadith is clear in that it is not allowed for one to change the wording of any dhikr narrated from the Prophet, what more of putting up his own. Ibn Hajar, in his comment on this hadith said: “The best explanation given to the Prophet’s response to this companion who substituted the word ‘Messenger’ instead of ‘Prophet’, is that the wordings of adhkaar are in a sort of abeyance (i.e. should not be said by anyone but based on a nass by Allah or His Prophet), and that they have special characteristics and secrets not subject to analogy. The wordings in which they come must therefore be preserved. This is what al-Maaziri preferred. He (al-Maaziri) said: ‘One must restrict himself to their texts as they are narrated in their letters, for it is possible that the reward is attached to these letters. They might have been revealed to the Prophet in these words. It is therefore obligatory to say them in their letters’. (Fathul Bari 11/116).
As regards the impact of other religions and civilizations on Sufism, Fariduddien continues to deny that. I will treat that separately in sha Allah, in my next response to Bro. Halilu as he appears to disregard previous references to that effect.
On the concept of Wihdatul Adyan (validity of all religions), Fariduddien says: ‘Here the author claims that Tasawwuf teaches the validity of all religions. This claim is false and incorrect. A clear discussion of this, from the viewpoint of traditional Islam (of which Tasawwuf is a part), can be found…’.
The concept of Wihdatul Adyan is one of the most blashpemous teachings of philosophic Sufism and one of the resulting impacts of the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (Union of Existence). According to this concept there is no difference between Iman and Kufr as everything is in reality one thing. They believe that by saying that there is a deity and a servant worshipping him, one is putting a distinction between the two, and this is wrong according to them. So all religions are nothing but one. None of them is better than the others. Whatever deity one worships he is worshipping nothing but one deity. All are on the right path.
Ibn Taimiyyah comments on this concept by saying: “Among their words is that there is nothing in essence but Allah, so idol worshippers do not worship anything but him. That is because, according to them, he has no ‘ghair’ (another, other, else …). That is why they interpret Allah’s saying: ((And your Lord Has decreed that you worship none but Him)) Al-Israa:23, to mean: And your Lord Has predestined that you worship none but Him, because He has no ‘ghair’ whose worship can be conceptualised. So every idolator is just worhsipping Allah” Majmu’ul Fatawaa 2/124.
A contemporary Sufi, Abdurrahman Badawi confesses this reality when he said: “The importance of the concept of ‘al-ittihad’ (oneness of existence) in the making or adaptation of the process of escapade is great, especially in explaining the escapades that express the equality of all religions – both heaven oriented and non-heaven oriented - to the Sufi. To him all religions are equal because the existence (al-wujud) is one, and this existence is nothing but Allah. Therefore all of them are from Allah, and as far as Allah is concerned there is no difference” (Shatahaatus Sufiyyah p. 9).
You can see from the above quote that Badawi did not differentiate between early and later Sufis, even if he is sure that early Sufis did not go to this extent. Then why should a non-Sufi be accused of failing to recognise this difference. Why shouldn’t he be given the benefit of doubt to the fact that whenever he condemns sufi acts, that he refers to the later sufis who diverted from the Zuhd school to philosophical and Hindi schools.
When we come to Ibn Arabi we will find that he expounds more on it to the extent that one will accept, beyond reasonable doubts, that he means what he says. See what Hijazi quoted in his article from the Fusoos of the man saying: “Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else…” (Al-Fusoos p. 113).
In another place he confirms the validity of Fir’auna’s claim that he is the lord. In his comment on the verse: ((Saying: I am your lord, most high)) An-Nazi’aat:24, he says ((…Even though all are lords to some degree, I am the most high among them…)) Al-Fusoos p. 210-211.
Somewhere else he says: ((My mind has become set to accept every image – it is a grazing land for antelopes, a temple for the monks, a house for idols, a Ka’abah for the circumambulator, a tablet for the Taurah and a book of the Qur’an”. (Al-Futuhaatul Makkiyyah 3/21).
These kinds of statements from the man are countless in his books, especially the Fusoos and Futuhaat.
Ibnul Faarid, another Sufi who professes ittihaad says: “When a worshipper falls to the ground worshipping stones do not regard it abominable in bigotry. And if the Magian worships the fire …all these worship none but me, even if their aim and intention were directed to other than me”.
Back home you find Tijjani in a more lucid and express manner affirms this concept. While commenting on Allah’s saying: ((Verily, I am Allah. There is no god but Me, so worship Me)) Taha: 14, he says: “He means there is no deity apart from Me, even if the idolators worship their idols, neither did they worship anything but Me, nor did they aim other than Me with humbleness and humility. Nay, I am the god being worshipped in them. This is the meaning of His saying: ((There is no god but Me)). It is in this way he wants you to believe in what the ignorant ones believe that they worship something apart from me or that they aim other than me” Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/184-185.
He also says: “And amongst them is the one who aims at the Most High but behind a cover, that is the idol worshippers and their likes. Because by worshipping the idols, they do not aim at other than Al-Haqq (Allah), the Most exalted, nor do they worship something else. Rather Allah, The Most exalted appears to them from behind those covers in His Glory and Greatness, and attracts them accordingly by virtue of His predestined decree which no one denies” (Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/239).
The likes of these utterances are so many in Sufi books. Now we come to the question: are these words to be taken on their face value? Do these people really mean what they say? Are they telling us that, O you people! You are just wasting your time worshipping one god while you are supposed to worship everything you can rest your eyes on or think of in your mind? Do they mean to tell us that all the verses in the Qur’an calling to the worship of Allah alone, the only God, the Lord of the worlds etc, are mere quabbles and meaningless statements?. This reminds me of another Sufi, Al-‘Afeef At-Tilmisani, who says: “There is no Tauhid in the Qur’an, rather the whole of Qur’an is shirk. He who follows the Qur’an will never reach real Tauhid” (Ibn Taimiyyah quoted him in Al-Furqan baina auliya’ir Rahman wa auliya’is Shaitan p. 88, and Jami’ur Rasa’ili Wal Masa’il 4/51, and Majmu’ul Fatawa 13/186). I don’t expect a Muslim will hesitate to call this kufr. We ask Allah to forgive us repeating these words.
Now Fariduddien in his response to Hijazi, says the claim of the writer – meaning Hijazi – that Sufism teaches the validity of all religions is false and incorrect. He then refers us to ‘a clear discussion’ of the issue by one Nuh Ha Mim Keller on a web address. He says that Mr. Keller shows that the belief in the universal validity of all religions is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, and not part of the teachings of Ibn al-Arabi.
In response to this claim we can view the issue from the following points:
First: The argument that Sufism does not teach the concept of the validity of all religions will not hold. Only if one will contend that the concept originated from other than the Sufis, a claim that will not be supported by the vast Sufi literature. That is because this concept is a direct result of Wahdatul Wujud and al-Ittihad. When one believes that whatever he sees around him – his house, his wife, his sons, his vehicle, his bed, the sun the moon, the trees, the seas, himself and everything is nothing but Allah, there is no point in trying to make a distinction between the Creator, the Lord and Deity, the One and only God and between His creatures, for the line of demarcation has been buried. So, whatever he worships he is in reality worshipping one god. This is what is preached in Sufi books. One may say that not all Sufis believe in this idea or that it is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, as asserted by Fariduddien. Yes of course, but is there any fault in attributing it to Sufisim as a thought and to Sufis as a group so long as we have never come to know this in Islam but from them. Only if one will claim the likes of ibn Arabi not to be Sufis, which will never hold also, as you will come to see.
Secondly, Is Nuh Keller the right person to give us the real meaning of the words spoken by Ibn Arabi, Al-Tilmisani, Ibnul Faarid, Tijjani and their likes? I am not underestimating his knowledge, but wouldn’t Fariduddien do the Muslims a favour of referring to early scholars especially among the Sufis who tried to give meanings acceptable to Islam. Although I am not able to access the page referred to, where Mr Keller treated the matter, but on searching the his name in the web I arrived at a number of articles written by him. In one of those articles, he spoke of how he embraced Islam about twenty-five years ago (i.e. from the time of the talk) and that he studied first at the university of Chicago then to Al-Azhar University of Egypt, later on to Jordan. Some of the articles also articulate on ‘Why it is necessary to follow the Madhhabs’, issues of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, condemning terrorism, especially condeming the Taliban government etc. This doen not mean, if he speaks the truth it not be accepted from him, for everyone has the right to give opinion on any topic and be accepted based on the strength of his argument, but in an intellectual discourse I opine that Fariduddien would have given names of early scholars who took the same position especially that Mr. Keller in one of his lectures confesses that his first studies were in the hands of the orientalists.
Thirdly, Keller’s claim that Wahdatul Adyan is not part of the teachings of Ibn Arabi and that those who attribute it to him only take a very selective reading of the writings of the man, is not based on academic research also. It is a mere claim not substantiated with any evidence, and contradicts what early scholars summed up from his writings and based on that passed their rulings on him which I will come to mention later in sha Allah. The truth of the matter is that, ibn Arabi, even though is not the founder of this thought, he believed in it and played an important role in passing it over to later generations. The statements quoted above and many others testify to that. Samih ‘Aatef Zain says: “The concept of wahdatul adyan was not the invention of Ibn ‘Arabi, rather many Sufis before him advocated it, most famous among them was Al-Hallaj who, through his belief in hulul (incarnation) found that difference in religious beliefs is nothing more than a difference in opinion, with each belief aiming at one reality, that is Allah’s love …This thought might have attracted Ibn ‘Arabi after some centuries, as such he embraced it and manipulated it to suit his caprices considering that man has the free choice to take up any religion he wishes. Nay he can even take all religions…nothing can stop him from worshipping Satan or taking up a dog or a pig to be his god, because – in his false assumption – god is inside all these creatures. That is why he said without any caution that: ‘The dog and the pig are nothing but our god, and The Lord is nothing but a monk in the church’…” (As-Sufiyyah Fi Nazaril Islam p. 470-471. I have choosen to refer to this writer for : 1. He is an Egyptian Professor who has written widely on Sufism and I suppose his conclusions will not be based on a selective reading of Ibn Arabi’s writings. I came to know the book about 17 years ago, in my local branch of the Kano State Library. 2. The author, in his preface, expressly stated: ‘This book of ours only tries to bring out the important Sufi madhhabs and those who profess it, and all that stems from it as a thought. We have not taken side with this or against that, but we have taken up Sufism on the scale of Islam based on Qur’an and Sunnah – and have stayed in sha Allah with Islam…”.
In another study, conducted by Dr. Kamal Muhammad Isa in ‘Nazaratun Fi Mu’taqadaati ibn ‘Arabi p. 51 he assigned a topic for the concept of Wahdatul Adyan and cited some of ibn Arabi’s statements to that effect.
Dr. AbdulQadir Mahmud, in his ‘The Sufi Philosophy in Islam’ says: ‘So the theory of the validity of all religions is one of the products of Wahdatul Wujud according to Ibn ‘Arabi as he sees that all worship the one god who appears in their shapes and the shapes of all gods. Nothing resembles this like the theory of the Indian – Shankar who says: ‘I worship god in every place of worship I like or I bow in front of any god without differentiation’ (Al-Falsafatus Sufiyyah Fil Islam p. 516). These are only examples of comprehensive researches made on the writings and beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabi.
Then considering Ibn Taimiyyah to have treated the issue of Sufism with fairness as accepted by Fariduddien and most Sufis, I bring here what he had to say on Ibn ‘Arabi and his concepts of validity of all religions and wahdatul wujud. In his answer to a question on the contents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Al-Fusoos, he said, referring to some statements of Ibn Arabi and his likes: “These people are more blasphemous (than the idolators) considering the fact that these (Ibn Arabi and his likes) considered the idolator to be worshipping Allah and nothing but Allah, and that the idols, to Allah, are like parts of the human body to man… while the idolators confess that their idols are not Allah and that they are His creatures. Also considering the fact that the idolators among the Arabs were confirming that the heavens and the earth have a lord who created them, but according to these people the heavens and the earth and other creatures have no lord apart from themselves. Rather the creatures are the creator…” Majmu’ul Fataawaa 2/129-130.
In another page he says: “The same with these people of ittihad (oneness of creation). Their leaders are leaders in kufr. They must be executed, and whoever claims to have repented, his repentance should not be accepted when caught before he claims repentance. That is because he is the greatest of hypocrites (Zanadiqa) who profess Islam outwardsly and maintain the greatest kufr in their inner self…He who associates himself with them must be punished or defends or praises them or exolts their books or is known to be helping them or hates to speak ill of them or tries to find excuses for them claiming that this kind of statements no one knows its reality, or says: ‘who told you he is the author of this book?’ and the likes of these excuses which no one will say them but an ignorant or hypocrite. Nay he who knows about them and fails to help in standing against them must be punished. Because rising against these people is one of the greatest obligations, for they have corrupted the minds and the religions on many Shaikhs, kings and rulers. They roam all over the earth in corruption and prevent people from the way of Allah. Their damage to the religion is greater than the damage done by those who destroy the worldly affairs of the Muslims and leave alone their religion, like armed robbers and like the Tatar who seize their wealth and leave them their religion…” (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/131-132).
He adds: “He who appears to have good opinion about them and claims that he does not know their real situation, it should be explained to him and if he did not distant himself from them and openly show his rejection, he should be considered of them”. (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/133).
On the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence and union with the creator), Fariduddien confesses that there are differing opinions regarding the matter and gave example of one of his Shaikhs, Sirhindi who criticized ibn al-‘Arabi on this doctrine as being erroneous. Thanks to Sirhindi for acknowledging the truth, but the word erroneous is too mild for Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory. Nevertheless, it is a good effort to acknowledge that it is not right, but does that mean it is not part of Sufism, just because one or two Sufis disagree with him on it. That is why people are continually called upon to understand these issues. It is not a matter of praise or condemnation. Something bad will not be good just because Ibn Taimiyyah praises it, just as anything good will not cease to be good because someone condemns it. What we should always look at is the praise or condemnation of Allah and His Messenger. Then Fariduddien should also remember that he said there are differing opinions on the matter, that is, while Sirhindi and Ansari reject Ibn Arabi’s theory of Wahdatul Wujud, holders of the other opinion must have accepted and endorsed it and they are Sufis, so the argument is still in place that the theory is part of Sufism even if some Sufis, regardless of their number, reject it. How many of their other doctrines are a matter of concensus, very little. So long as Sufism is a mixture of creeds originating from different sources most of which are alien to Islam, you must definitely find conflicting opinions as regards the acceptability of such beliefs but they are all part of the general name SUFISM. Take for example the various names and Shaikhs every Tariqa finds itself affiliated to. They are so many and each of them has its methods of adimitting new ‘recruits’ or murids, and different aspects of belief, rites and obligations, and all are addressed Sufis, while each holds his peculiar identity under whatever umbrella.
Fariduddien then comes from another angle to say that Wahdatul Wujud is interpreted by others to mean something other than its literal meaning, that is ‘nothing exists of itself, independent of everything else, except Allah’. If they mean to interpret the two-word phrase: ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ the essence of the words itself dismisses this interpretation. Because the word ‘union’ meaning becoming one, has never been interpreted by any scholar of the Arabic language to mean dependence. These people say that in order to understand their theory in its reality you have to dismiss some words from your dictionary, that is any word that indicates dualism, pluralism like ‘bainiyyah’ (between), ghairiyyah (another, other, else etc), ithnainiyyah (dualism) and lot of other words which usage must indicate the existence of more than one thing.
Moreover, it is a waste of time for someone to find excuses and secondary meanings to these statements when they themselves tell us that they mean what they say, and that their words should be given their literal meanings. As-Sakhawi in his ‘Al-Qaulul Munbii ‘an tarjamati ibn ‘Arabi’ says that Ibn Arabi in his Futuhat explicately declared that his statements should be taken as they appear, that is in their literal meanings’.
As-Shaukani also says: ‘He once again said in ‘Ad-Dau’ul lami’ (meaning Sakhawi) under the biography of Husain ibn Abdur Rahman al-Ahdal, that he said: I was told about ibn Arabi that he said: My statements should be given their apparent meanings, and I intend their literal meanings’. So how can you assume – O you who have been deceived – that he did not mean its apparent meanings? Moreover his words in his Futuhaat and Fusoos are in clear Arabic, so also the words of his fellow men, how then can scholars of Shari’ah be expected to understand something contrary to that?…Look, you poor fellow, how those ignorant people played with your intellect, to what extent do you love them. While Allah Ta’ala Has ruled upon the Jews and Christians with disbelief for saying He is the third of the three (in trinity – Ma’idah 73), why shouldn’t He judge these people according to their words? Now listen, let me dictate to you some of the Karamahs of those so called Auli’ya who played with the deen of Allah. As for Hallaj, he was the pioneer in the field of ‘Wahdah’ (oneness of existence), that doctrine in which ibn Arabi and his fellow men wasted their life, but he (Hallaj) lived an era in which there were remains of goodness and mercy in its people on this deen. So they killed him with the swords of Islam…” (As-Sawarimul Hidaad Al-Qati’ah p. 97-98).
That is why many scholars maintained that it is prohibited to give Ibn Arabi’s words meanings other than their apparent one. See Tanbeehul Ghabi Ila Takfeer ibn Arabi by Al-Biqa’ie (d. 885) p. 127. See also ‘Al’Iqduth Thamin Fi Tarikhil Baladil Amin’ by Taqiyuddin Al-Fasi (d.832), where he quoted 22 eminent scholars who explicitly condemned and rendered Ibn Arabi apostate for his concept of Wahdul Wujud and its product Wahdatul Adyan. This chapter has been edited independently in a small book of 83 pages.
I will conclude this part with some questions: what is the essence of all these lengthy quotations on Wahdatul Adyan and Wahdatul Wujud? Didn’t it die out with the demise of the direct deciples of Ibn Arabi? Are the Muslims still threatened by this theory – or is it no more theory? Do we find among the Sufis who believe in and put this doctrine in practice?
One does not need a field research to answer these questions, and will find that even in this present time some of the Sufis believe and practise the concept of Wahdatul Wujud. A man believed to be sane and reasonable living among his kin and friends, eating from and enjoying Allah’s bounties, suddenly opens up his mouth and declare that he is now the lord of the worlds, that he is Allah the creator of the heavens and earth, that he forgives the sins of his deciples. I know of a local school in Kano, back in 1996 where some of its students, most of whom were youths of about 18 – 30, distributed some of Allah’s beautiful Names between themselves, each calling his colleague with one, and believing each of them to be Allah. They used them so jestingly one will not believe such a thing will happen in a Muslim society.
In my place, (Birnin Kudu) the son of a reknown Tijjaniyyah sheikh, declared himself the khalifa of Ibrahim Kaulaha, and immediately attracted the attention of the people of all near-by towns and within a short time he was believed to be telling the truth. In less than a year, after the death of his father, he was believed, at least by his immediate students (murids), to be god. He used to go round the town claiming to be forgiving peoples’ sins. This is a person I know personally and knows me quite alright. Alhamdu lillahi, he later on left the town for Kano, claiming that the people back home did not accord him what he deserved of reverence. These are therefore, things I know from personal experience not read in Sufi books.
Accounts of events of this nature are too many to be denied in many societies, all under the concept of this Wahdatul Wujud and in the name of Sufism.
We ask Allah to guard us from deviating away from His path.
To be continued in sha Allah.
M. Halilu Uba,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
I really appreciate your frankness and zeal in exercising justice and fairness. These are values expected of every Muslim and I ask Allah Ta’ala to help and make us stick to His path.
I will try to be brief but to the point in sha Allah, as I have answered most of what you raised, in other write-ups though not addressed to you in particular.
But may I appeal to you and any other brother viewing things the way you do, to kindly make this discourse in the best objective manner possible. The importance of this in any intellectual discourse cannot be over-emphasised. Our focus should be on what one says and what arguments he presents, not what we perceive one to be holding in terms of belief or ideological inclination or whether he is for or against us. His method of presenting his case or putting up his arguments may indicate, but does not necessarily fashion out the ‘party’ to which he belongs. I know of many people who are strongly against Sufism even before they are aware of anything like Wahhabism. Even before you spell it out that you are not a Sufi, I have not taken it from your stance on the matter that you are one, just as I won’t throw anyone, for being anti-Sufi, into a camp I assume he must necessarily belong to – ‘Wahhabi Movement’, ‘Modern Day Salafiyyah’, or any other group – whatever I may perceive the term to mean. What I understood from you was a sincere quest for justice and fair-play in dealing with matters of knowledge, and that is what I still hold, regardless of the method or language you apply in making your point.
Many a member on this forum will view the current discussions on Sufism as just another Izala-Tariqa crisis, based on pure partisanship, for peoples’ intellects have been compartmentalised on this issues into these groups so much so that whenever one speaks against one of them he is seen to belong to the other. Some members, on the other hand, who detaste these kinds of discussions find it necessary to swift their attentions at least away from it. In my view NMN is rich with people who are professionals in various fields and who I assume are above this line of thinking. That is why I personally do not contribute to the view that the forum is dominated by anti-Sufi or Wahhabi elements as they are usually referred to. Rather there are a lot who reserve comments on almost every topic, and prefer the ‘DROM’ class, for reasons best known to them.
One other thing before taking up the issues you raised, Islamic knowledge, especially that has to do with ‘aqeedah and legislating ‘ibaadah, is factual and not subject to the experiments other branches of knowledge like the natural sciences undergo. It is either the Qur’an, the Sunnah or what the Sahabahs agree upon. Opinions differ in interpretations, yes, but not necessarily due to an in-built bias. To say this in a sweeping generalisation, is like disowning these texts their power of al-bayan (eloquence). Yes, there are texts that are subject to interpretation, but what counts is not the interpretation of poor Abubakar or any of his friends. Rather interpretations from ulama of the highest degree of piety who lived with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and received his teachings, and whom he did not depart without telling them whatever goodness that will bring them near their Lord and near the Jannah, and warning them from whatever evil that will make them near Hell. So what we need is knowledge of what those people practised. If it is available it should please be produced on any matter not only this. Opinions and interpretations will only be binding if they conform to that of the generation of Sahabah.
Now to the issues you raised, let me start with some of your words when addressing brother Ibrahim Ado. You said: ‘The other thing you mentioned which caught my attention is the issue of groups partisanship. A lot has been said already. You hit the hammer on the nail when you pointed out that there was a time in Muslim history when the Mu’tazila were reigning and the Hanbalis down. This is part of the reason we must be careful with blanket condemnation. We may just be living in an era when Sufi bashing is fashionable…’
In so far as political power influences the spread of one Mazhab or another, facts do not change just because of that. If you will just take the time of browsing the pages of the history you mentioned, particularly that to do with the reign of Mu’tazila, you will find that the political power of the Mu’tazila played a vital role in spreading their mazhab, not in making it the truth as against the mazhab of the salaf which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali was calling to at that time. That is why he (Imam Ahmad) did not succumb to the Mu’tazili aqeedah despite the fact that he was tortured and coerced to do so, a stance which earned him the title ‘Imam Ahlus Sunnah’. So blanket condemnation or not, a Muslim should believe that Islam as brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and understood by the Sahabah is still there and up to end of this world. It is the only recognisable deen in the sight of Allah. A Muslim only accepts something else, when this is not clear to him whether he happens to get acquainted with it through free books, scholarships from Petro-Dollars or Petro-anything.
Then you said: ‘…They all have differences, each one applying his line of thinking, hence his mazhab. If sticking to the sunnah means just one thing, they should not differ on issues’.
It is natural for people to differ and their difference is never an indication that they are on the wrong track. The Sahabah differred on some issues of fiqh and that did not make Islam vague. The problem is where do we resort to whenever we differ. While some see that in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), others view that they resort to other sources. But as I have repeated a number of times, the religion of Allah is Islam, whose main source is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of the salaf. Whoever sticks to this will never be astray in sha Allah, as prophesied by the rasul himself that a party of his ummah will remain with the truth to the last day. It is just the duty of the Muslim to look for the right path and in no where but the aforementioned sources. It is to these sources Allah and His Prophet attached us. Any difference you hear or witness is due to the failure of one side to either accept or even resort to them. It is wrong to assume that one should stay without any belief. Rather he must necessarily belong to the mazhab taught by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), that is to be with the followers of his sunnah, and strive to know what this sunnah is. What people are always called upon to understand is that there is no one whose example is incumbent upon the Muslim to follow except the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No one or group should be followed blindly. So one should just go and search anywhere in this world, find what the Prophet and his companions were practising in their days, then follow it, wherever he finds himself and whatever influence he happens to experience either in any Petro-dollar country or in any cave on the vast of this earth. He will only be answerable to that which Allah Has decreed through His prophet. In the days of the Sahabah, when some of the deviated parties – such as the Shi’ah and Khawarij and Qadariyyah - started emerging, they disengaged themselves from them and warned people against them. Some of them even declared the Qadariyyahs apostate for denying Allah’s knowledge of human actions. They did not say: O you people all of you are Muslims. We only differ in matters of opinion or interpretation of the data we received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No they never did that.
Now to the issue of Sufism, I assume we are not in disagreement as to the fact that in Sufism, as a thought – regardless of the origin of the word, there is what is good and what is bad (or what you choose to call the worst mistakes and errors of the worst examples of Sufi personalities). The first, that is the good contained in it, is what some ulama accept and accord it the meaning of ‘Zuhd, tazkiyyah, ihsaan’, or to sum it up, inner purification. The second, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs and rites alien to the teachings of Islam but camouflaged in the name of Sufism. This second meaning is what we have today as Sufism in the name the various Sufi Tariqas, each affiliated to a Shaikh they call Wali.
So we have two angles from which to look at the meaning of the word ‘Sufism’:
Its meaning as a word comprising of many different things. This is what I wanted to show: how it is made difficult, if not impossible, to reach a clear definition of the word. The Sufis themselves – early and contemporary - could not reach an agreement even to a minimum degree as to its meaning, despite its fundamental importance to them. Philosophers and thinkers, as you put it, argued on the number of teeth a donkey has. Yes, this is their usual business. Ours is Islam, the deen of Allah, brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). We are talking of what to worship our Lord with in order to earn His pleasure, an essential factor for which He sent His Prophets to the human race. Should something so vital like this be so obscure to the extent of denoting about two thousand meanings. So our issue is not the parable of the number of teeth a donkey has and the dilemma of the philosophers. Our issue is that a word is just found in our midst, no one can tell us what it means, not even the people with whom it is known. Then we come to find some Muslims identifying themselves with a group or a number of groups under a common denominator given this name. Is it then fair to accuse one for condemning it on the ground that he deliberately failed to differentiate between what is good of it and what is bad? This is the point I was trying to show. It is not a mere theory a child or even an old man can direct us to the way out in order to ascertain its specific meaning. I have clearly got what you mean, that is we should look at the reality of what has been practised by the Sufis especially eminent scholars of Islam amongst them: what did they practice? All the same if we focus that attention what we will find ourselves amidst is another dilemma. Were those scholars identified as Sufis in the manner we find Sufism now? We will in sha Allah try to look at this angle.
The meaning of Sufism as a thought or as the word used by some scholars to refer to ‘Zuhd’ and the set of moral code of conduct and personal etiquette adopted by Muslims in the early days of Islam, and what it came to be comprising of in later days up to this time.
For a clear picture of this we need to study the stages through which Sufism passed in brief.
IS SUFISM RIGHTEOUS PATH?
Sufism - Response To A Sufi Symphathizer
By Dr Abubakar Sani Birninkudu, Jigawa State, Nigeria. [abubakarsani.BlogSpot.com]
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
May I start by asking Allah Ta’ala to guard me and you – and all brothers – against any form of partisanship in the name of anything other than Islam, the deen of Allah as brought by our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It is indeed very interesting that a Muslim should always remain a Muslim and should strive, as much as possible, to be free from being partisan except for the name of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While this is a fundamental truth, it is equally important to bear in mind that when one is a Muslim, he cannot free himself from being against what is unIslamic and in contradiction to the teachings of the Rasul (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because Islam and indeed the whole teachings and life of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are no more obscure, neither are they mysterious.
The deen of Allah has been completed before the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) left this world, and all these are found in the Qur’an and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet. But it is not a hidden fact that the Ummah has been divided into groups and sects, each has formulated for itself either sets of beliefs or different phases of ibadaat, and each claiming what he practises to be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), for no Muslim will admit that he professes something that negates his teachings. We are therefore left with the question: how do we ascertain what is in line with the teachings of the Prophet in order to differentiate it from what is against it? Here comes the issue of the fundamental yardstick with which to carry out this important task, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and implied approvals) of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of those pious and noble companions. This is another vital aspect of understanding the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because the companions who lived with him and witnessed the Qur’an being revealed to him, were the direct and immediate subjects of his teachings, the students who received his lessons and understood and practised it in the way and manner ordered and desired by Allah Ta’ala. Any mistake on their part in the course of practising any injunction is redressed immediately by ‘Wahy’.
This is why it is of fundamental importance to believe that the Islam practised by the Sahabah is the best as it conforms with and reflects the true teachings of the Rasul and affirms that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) really taught them what Allah ordered and that he was the best of all teachers, the most successful instructor able to bring forth a generation which was able to change and influence the whole world within a period of less than twenty years from his death. It is in the light of the above that Islam frowns at anything new and not known to be part of it in the days of the Prophet as an aspect or pattern of worship through which the pleasure of Allah is sought.
On a more specific note, upholding the view that one does not belong to any group, is a fact very necessary and rational, if by that, he means he will not belong to any group in a sort of blind way as to believe that anything not upheld by that group is false. But if dissociating one’s self with any group means he will focus on any matter regarding religion from a neutral point of view without sticking to a specific Islamic principle based on the supremacy of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the practice of the pious predecessors, then this is surely anything but right. What Islam requires from his subjects is that the virtue or otherwise of anything, anyone or any group is measured by that person’s or group’s conformity with Islam and its teachings. One must believe that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, the most pure, absolute and not relative truth, the best value system suitable to mankind and the most accurate way of life that guides to every goodness in this world and in the hereafter.
Any good thing found in any other way not Islam is found in Islam and more, so we may praise that way or path for being in line with what Islam taught, but not for containing something Islam fails to attain. That is why when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saw Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with some papers he got from a Jew, and read it to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet was outraged and immediately rebuked him and said: ((…I have indeed brought it (this deen and path) to you so clean and neat…I swear by Him in whose Hand is my life, Had Musa been alive it wouldn’t be allowed for him but to follow me) – Ahmad 3/387, Darimi 1/115, Ibn Abi Shai’bah No. (26421) and others. Its isnad is Hasan.
So the fact that the Shi’ites, for example, called on all Muslims to rise against America or its values, is not because that is part of the Shi’ii creed independent of other Muslims and that you can not find same with any other groups of the Muslims. Rather it is Islam that calls upon all Muslims not to take the non-believers as friends, and the failure of other groups to make such calls does not mean they do not have that in their set of beliefs.
Secondly the issue of a write-up being balanced, differs relatively from one subject to another just as it differs from the writer’s ideological background. After all, in Islam what is known to be hailed most when speaking or writing about others, is that one should be just and should not ascribe anything contrary to the reality of the person or topic he discusses. But if what is meant by being balanced is that one must appear or sound neutral, or that when he presents an opposing view he must necessarily give the proposing view, I beg to assert that this is not a general principle in Islam, although it is allowed if one will later on specify the correct path so as not to leave people in the dark, thereby implying that all is one and same. In the same vein, if I am asked about Christianity, for instance, will I be charged with being unfair by pointing the Islamic view alone and stressing that it is a corrupted religion proscribed by Allah with the coming of Islam et cetera.
That is why I am more surprised after reading M. Halilu’s introduction to the response he posted on Hijazi’s article, calling for non-partisanship, to find the writer of the response a Sufi and his response so ‘imbalance’ in the sense that he made some unfounded charges against Hijazi just by way of reading his mind under the pretense of reading between the lines.
This issue of balance and imbalance and the issue of some ‘Sheiks’ lacking in da’wah methodology as cast on this forum from time to time are of course topics that need to be discussed in a more detailed manner. May Allah spare us or other brothers the time to take it up.
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Fariduddien Rice, in his response to Yusuf Hijazi’s article, charges him of lying, relying on non-Muslim sources, failing to provide references to some of the issues he raised, condemning Muslims and attributing them to kufr and shirk, among other things.
The piece I am writing will focus more on providing the sources and references Hijazi is charged of failing to give. This will also answer the charge of relying on non-Muslim sources, although most of Hijazi’s non-Muslim references appear to be connected with definitions of some terms. Other charges are mere personal attacks as can be seen clearly.
As regards the origin of the word Sufi there are of course many differing views on that and the Sufis themselves are not in agreement. Affirming this, Al-Sahrawardi believes that the Sufis’ definition of the word are more than one thousand. (See: ‘Awariful Ma’aarif p. 54). Another Sufi claims there are about two thousand definitions of the word (See Tahir al-Hamidi’s introduction to al-Ta’arrufi Li Madhhabi Ahlit Tasawwuf, by Abubakr al-Kalaabaadhi, p. 11). I don’t think there is a word so ‘blessed’ with such number of meanings.
As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s position on Sufism, it is true that he praised some of the famous Shaikhs attributed to Sufism, but it is important to note that he did so not for the sake of Sufism as a thought, but because the works and deeds of those Shaikhs were in conformity with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This you will find most where he discusses the issue of ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ (Unity of Creation or union with the Creator, or the belief that everything is one and God in essence) and condemns its proponents. This ideology, according to them permits one to claim what they call ‘Raf’ut Takaaleef’ (free from obligations of observing the precepts of religion). It is at this stage the Sufi Sheikh declares his disciple free from obligations like observing the five daily prayers and the likes, an attitude worthy of condemnation. So when Ibn Taimiyyah, who is very conversant with the works of those famous Shaikhs like Ibrahim ibn Adham, Abu Salaiman al-Daaraanee, Junaid, Abdul Qadir Jailani and others, whom he knows to have been in compliance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and calling their disciples to be upright in following the teachings of Islam and engaged themselves in ‘Amr bil Ma’roof wan Nahyu ‘anil Munkar’ (enjoining the good and forbidden the evil), he does not hesitate to dissociate them from the practices of Wahdatul Wujud’ and so he praises them based that. It is in this regard he says : “As for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst the Saalikin (disciples or followers of a spiritual path) like the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaimaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Sari as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars. These people did not allow the ‘Saalik’ to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! (i.e. in the name of Karamah). Rather they made it incumbent upon him to carry out what is commanded and leave off all whatever is prohibited until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf”. (Majmu’ Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 10 p.516-517).
It is therefore clear that Ibn Taimiyyah wishes to make a perfect distinction between the practice of those early men of Zuhd and piety and the practices of the later days Sufis. But Ibn Taimiyyah’s critique of Sufism as a thought and practice is what occupies much of his writings on the subject in his effort to dispel the fallacies that marred Islam in the name of Sufism, even though we find him giving excuses to some sufi practices particularly when the person involved is known to be steadfast in complying with the teachings of the Sunnah in general and only errs in that instance.
As for Sufism being a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufis interacted, Fariduddien dismissed this claim on the ground that no reference was given by Hijazi and that this theory comes from non-Muslim orientalists. The fact is that the theory is indeed true and has been testified by more than one Muslim scholar or writer, Sufi and non-Sufi. The first person to link Sufism with a foreign religion was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bairuni (d. 440) in his book: ‘Tahqeeq Ma Lil Hindi Min Maquulatin Maqbulatin Fil ‘Aqli Au Mardhuulah’ where he outlined three aspects on which Sufism meets with Hindu philosophy and religion. (See the History of Islamic Sufism by Dr. Qasim Gani and the book Islamic Sufism by Dr. Taftazani. There is also a very strong relation between Sufism and Buddhism in many aspects. There is indeed a Phd. thesis on the subject titled: Buddhism – its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism’ by Dr. Abdullah Mustapha Numsok, in the Islamic University of Madina. The author is now a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the University of Emir Sunklaa, in Fatani – Thailand. He has discussed this issue in a detailed and scholarly manner establishing the linkage and relationship between the two thoughts. In one of the examples he cited on discarding women and marriage he quoted what was reported from one Sufi Riyah ibn ‘Amr Al-Qaisi, that he said: “A person will not reach the level of Siddiqeen unless he leaves off his wife like a widow, and his sons like orphans and returns to the dwellings of dogs” (Al-Kawakibud Durriyyah 1/105-106). This statement is in line with what is reported from a Buddhist Saint, Shamana who says: “This stage of holiness (Arahat) is unattainable but by him who leaves off his house and endure the burden of leaving off his wife like a widow and his sons like orphans” (Lessons for the Saints p. 47). He further cited many examples in various aspects of the Buddhist and Sufi creeds, like the issue of seclusion, the doctrine of Fana’a (which the Buddhist call Nervana), ways of receiving and practising Dhikr and Wird, belief in the presence of the Sheikh or Saint at times of Dhikr, making dhikr in congregation and in one tone, the issue of Hulul (incarnation) which the Buddhists call (Awatar or Mahayan), wearing the Suuf (wool), wearing ragged clothes, encouraging destitution and begging (Almajiranci), unemployment in the name of religion etc. In fact the resemblances and relationship are too obvious to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader. In an abstract he gave in English at the end of the thesis, the writer concluded: “In my study, I also uncovered the relationship between Sufism and Buddhism as follows: …4) That it has been historically confirmed that Indian-Buddhist monks have influenced the emergence of the Sufi groups,marking their difference in looking at the Islamic view point of life. 5) The common elements between Sufism and Buddhism are: 1. Hulul or Samsara – transmigration of souls and 2. Nirvana or Fana – extinction requiring engaging in mental exercises and life practices such as giving up of property, marriage, observing of hunger, begging and giving up of the world and so on.” (Buddhism – Its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism, Abstract p. 3-4).
All this in addition to its Platonian, Christian, Jewish and Shi’ite origin. This you can find in the book ‘At-Tasawwuf – Origin and Sources by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir p. 49-135, where he quoted confessions by many Sufis to that effect. It is indeed worth reading. Also refer to Tafseer al-Qurtubi where he mentioned that an aalim was asked about the sufi samaa’ and dancing, and he attributed that to the followers of as-Samiri, that is from the Jews. (Tafseerul Qurtubi 11/237-238).
The distinction between Sufism in its early stage and what metamorphosed to become Sufism in later days, is indeed very vital to this topic. What remains to be noted by many is that present day Sufism has been distanced far away from the early one characterised by Zuhd and Seclusion for ibadah. Sufism, now is in what researchers call its sixth stage, that is the stage of ‘Tariqanism’, meaning that no Sufi is now allowed to practice Zuhd as known in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) independently unless he officially renders himself a subject and disciple of a Sheikh or founder of one Tariqa (Sufi order) or the other. It is now pure partisan in the sense that one Sheikh does not allow his disciple to change to another Tariqa or Sheikh as this is considered ‘riddah’. This is all written in their books and studies in the field are so many for anyone to deny this. So when writers condemn Sufism without differentiating the early from the present they mean the present one. This is not to say that the early one also has not been condemned by many scholars amongst the salaf considering the fact that the name itself is alien to Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While zuhd and dhikr are values upheld by the Sunnah, making it in the name of Sufism renders, at least, its pattern a bid’ah.
As regards Shafi’is condemnation of Sufism which Hijazi quoted him saying: “If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawwafa) at the begenning of the day, he doesn’t come at Zuhur except an idiot”, Fariduddien dismisses this by saying: ‘No reference has been provided. You can provide all these references to non-Muslim sources, but you cannot even provide a reference for a supposed statement by Imam al-Shafi’I? Why can’t you provide the reference?”. May be it will please him to know that this statement is confirmed to have been said by Shafi’e as has been reported with isnad by Al-Baihaqi in his ‘Manaaqibus Shaafi’ee vol. 2 p. 207.
And as regards that of Malik refer to Tartibul Madaarik by Al-Qadi ‘Iyaad 2/54, and Manaqib Malik by az-Zawawi p. 157) and that of Ahmad refer to Talbis Iblis p. 166-167.
To be continued in sha Allah.
This is my second response to Fariduddien’s article on Sufism. I intend to cover all the article minutely in sha Allah and answer the most important and relevant questions he raised. As for my answers to the questions raised by Bro. Halilu’s, I will in sha Allah give them before the next posting.
6. While Hijazi stresses that sufism started as a move towards excessive ibaadah, Fariduddien accuses him of limiting dhikr, either because he fails to grasp what is the difference between the word ‘ibadah’ and ‘dhikr’ or he wants to assert that sufism is nothing but dhikrullah. Ibadah comprises dhikr and other aspects of worship. Anything excessive beyond the limited bounds is not allowed as known in the Sunnah.
Then one can also ask: if he means limiting dhikr in the quantitative sense, that is, one is not allowed to limit himself in repeating a particular dhikr to a restricted number of times, this is true, - unless where specified by the Sunnah.
But if he means by the non limitation that one can extract and produce on his own whatever dhikr he wishes, without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), then this is of course wrong. Dhikr, as an ibaadah must be traced to the Qur’an or Sunnah otherwise, it is a bid’ah. It is worth mentioning that dhikr is one of the most important ibaadahs, a religious obligation with which Allah Ta’ala orders His servants. It is the only form of worship in the Qur’an given a quantitative emphasis. Allah Ta’ala says: ((O you who believe, remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and afternoon)) Al-Ahzab: 41-42. He also says: ((…And the men and women who remember Allah much, Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and great reward)) Al-Ahzab: 35.
That is why you find most of the day to day activities of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are accompanied with one sort of dhikr or another. In fact the Prophet has a specific dhikr for most of his actions, and teaches the Muslim to make this type of ibadah engulf most of his time, from the time he wakes up from his sleep, and when entering the toilet, when coming out, entering the mosque, coming out of it, and during the prayer each action of the prayer has a specific dhikr, when entering ones house, when putting on new clothes, when going to bed, when entering the market and almost every time.
But all these invocations and adhkar are to be received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) in word and pattern. One is therefore not allowed to ‘invent’ a dhikr of his own. Nay he is not allowed to change the wordings of a dhikr confirmed to be said by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Al-Baraa ibn ‘Aazib (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: (When going to bed, perform ablution just like you do when praying, then rest yourself on the right-hand side of your body, then say: “O Allah I have submitted my face to you…” up to the end of the du’a which is: “Aamantu bi kitaabikal ladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal ladhi arsalta” (I believe in Your Book which You revealed, and Your Prophet whom You sent”. Al-Baraa said: I repeated it for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to hear, and when I came to “I believe in Your Book which You revealed…” I said: ‘…and Your Messenger’ (i.e. instead of saying Your Prophet). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “No, ‘and Your Prophet whom You sent’. (Bukhari No. 247, Muslim No. 2081).
The hadith is clear in that it is not allowed for one to change the wording of any dhikr narrated from the Prophet, what more of putting up his own. Ibn Hajar, in his comment on this hadith said: “The best explanation given to the Prophet’s response to this companion who substituted the word ‘Messenger’ instead of ‘Prophet’, is that the wordings of adhkaar are in a sort of abeyance (i.e. should not be said by anyone but based on a nass by Allah or His Prophet), and that they have special characteristics and secrets not subject to analogy. The wordings in which they come must therefore be preserved. This is what al-Maaziri preferred. He (al-Maaziri) said: ‘One must restrict himself to their texts as they are narrated in their letters, for it is possible that the reward is attached to these letters. They might have been revealed to the Prophet in these words. It is therefore obligatory to say them in their letters’. (Fathul Bari 11/116).
As regards the impact of other religions and civilizations on Sufism, Fariduddien continues to deny that. I will treat that separately in sha Allah, in my next response to Bro. Halilu as he appears to disregard previous references to that effect.
On the concept of Wihdatul Adyan (validity of all religions), Fariduddien says: ‘Here the author claims that Tasawwuf teaches the validity of all religions. This claim is false and incorrect. A clear discussion of this, from the viewpoint of traditional Islam (of which Tasawwuf is a part), can be found…’.
The concept of Wihdatul Adyan is one of the most blashpemous teachings of philosophic Sufism and one of the resulting impacts of the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (Union of Existence). According to this concept there is no difference between Iman and Kufr as everything is in reality one thing. They believe that by saying that there is a deity and a servant worshipping him, one is putting a distinction between the two, and this is wrong according to them. So all religions are nothing but one. None of them is better than the others. Whatever deity one worships he is worshipping nothing but one deity. All are on the right path.
Ibn Taimiyyah comments on this concept by saying: “Among their words is that there is nothing in essence but Allah, so idol worshippers do not worship anything but him. That is because, according to them, he has no ‘ghair’ (another, other, else …). That is why they interpret Allah’s saying: ((And your Lord Has decreed that you worship none but Him)) Al-Israa:23, to mean: And your Lord Has predestined that you worship none but Him, because He has no ‘ghair’ whose worship can be conceptualised. So every idolator is just worhsipping Allah” Majmu’ul Fatawaa 2/124.
A contemporary Sufi, Abdurrahman Badawi confesses this reality when he said: “The importance of the concept of ‘al-ittihad’ (oneness of existence) in the making or adaptation of the process of escapade is great, especially in explaining the escapades that express the equality of all religions – both heaven oriented and non-heaven oriented - to the Sufi. To him all religions are equal because the existence (al-wujud) is one, and this existence is nothing but Allah. Therefore all of them are from Allah, and as far as Allah is concerned there is no difference” (Shatahaatus Sufiyyah p. 9).
You can see from the above quote that Badawi did not differentiate between early and later Sufis, even if he is sure that early Sufis did not go to this extent. Then why should a non-Sufi be accused of failing to recognise this difference. Why shouldn’t he be given the benefit of doubt to the fact that whenever he condemns sufi acts, that he refers to the later sufis who diverted from the Zuhd school to philosophical and Hindi schools.
When we come to Ibn Arabi we will find that he expounds more on it to the extent that one will accept, beyond reasonable doubts, that he means what he says. See what Hijazi quoted in his article from the Fusoos of the man saying: “Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else…” (Al-Fusoos p. 113).
In another place he confirms the validity of Fir’auna’s claim that he is the lord. In his comment on the verse: ((Saying: I am your lord, most high)) An-Nazi’aat:24, he says ((…Even though all are lords to some degree, I am the most high among them…)) Al-Fusoos p. 210-211.
Somewhere else he says: ((My mind has become set to accept every image – it is a grazing land for antelopes, a temple for the monks, a house for idols, a Ka’abah for the circumambulator, a tablet for the Taurah and a book of the Qur’an”. (Al-Futuhaatul Makkiyyah 3/21).
These kinds of statements from the man are countless in his books, especially the Fusoos and Futuhaat.
Ibnul Faarid, another Sufi who professes ittihaad says: “When a worshipper falls to the ground worshipping stones do not regard it abominable in bigotry. And if the Magian worships the fire …all these worship none but me, even if their aim and intention were directed to other than me”.
Back home you find Tijjani in a more lucid and express manner affirms this concept. While commenting on Allah’s saying: ((Verily, I am Allah. There is no god but Me, so worship Me)) Taha: 14, he says: “He means there is no deity apart from Me, even if the idolators worship their idols, neither did they worship anything but Me, nor did they aim other than Me with humbleness and humility. Nay, I am the god being worshipped in them. This is the meaning of His saying: ((There is no god but Me)). It is in this way he wants you to believe in what the ignorant ones believe that they worship something apart from me or that they aim other than me” Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/184-185.
He also says: “And amongst them is the one who aims at the Most High but behind a cover, that is the idol worshippers and their likes. Because by worshipping the idols, they do not aim at other than Al-Haqq (Allah), the Most exalted, nor do they worship something else. Rather Allah, The Most exalted appears to them from behind those covers in His Glory and Greatness, and attracts them accordingly by virtue of His predestined decree which no one denies” (Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/239).
The likes of these utterances are so many in Sufi books. Now we come to the question: are these words to be taken on their face value? Do these people really mean what they say? Are they telling us that, O you people! You are just wasting your time worshipping one god while you are supposed to worship everything you can rest your eyes on or think of in your mind? Do they mean to tell us that all the verses in the Qur’an calling to the worship of Allah alone, the only God, the Lord of the worlds etc, are mere quabbles and meaningless statements?. This reminds me of another Sufi, Al-‘Afeef At-Tilmisani, who says: “There is no Tauhid in the Qur’an, rather the whole of Qur’an is shirk. He who follows the Qur’an will never reach real Tauhid” (Ibn Taimiyyah quoted him in Al-Furqan baina auliya’ir Rahman wa auliya’is Shaitan p. 88, and Jami’ur Rasa’ili Wal Masa’il 4/51, and Majmu’ul Fatawa 13/186). I don’t expect a Muslim will hesitate to call this kufr. We ask Allah to forgive us repeating these words.
Now Fariduddien in his response to Hijazi, says the claim of the writer – meaning Hijazi – that Sufism teaches the validity of all religions is false and incorrect. He then refers us to ‘a clear discussion’ of the issue by one Nuh Ha Mim Keller on a web address. He says that Mr. Keller shows that the belief in the universal validity of all religions is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, and not part of the teachings of Ibn al-Arabi.
In response to this claim we can view the issue from the following points:
First: The argument that Sufism does not teach the concept of the validity of all religions will not hold. Only if one will contend that the concept originated from other than the Sufis, a claim that will not be supported by the vast Sufi literature. That is because this concept is a direct result of Wahdatul Wujud and al-Ittihad. When one believes that whatever he sees around him – his house, his wife, his sons, his vehicle, his bed, the sun the moon, the trees, the seas, himself and everything is nothing but Allah, there is no point in trying to make a distinction between the Creator, the Lord and Deity, the One and only God and between His creatures, for the line of demarcation has been buried. So, whatever he worships he is in reality worshipping one god. This is what is preached in Sufi books. One may say that not all Sufis believe in this idea or that it is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, as asserted by Fariduddien. Yes of course, but is there any fault in attributing it to Sufisim as a thought and to Sufis as a group so long as we have never come to know this in Islam but from them. Only if one will claim the likes of ibn Arabi not to be Sufis, which will never hold also, as you will come to see.
Secondly, Is Nuh Keller the right person to give us the real meaning of the words spoken by Ibn Arabi, Al-Tilmisani, Ibnul Faarid, Tijjani and their likes? I am not underestimating his knowledge, but wouldn’t Fariduddien do the Muslims a favour of referring to early scholars especially among the Sufis who tried to give meanings acceptable to Islam. Although I am not able to access the page referred to, where Mr Keller treated the matter, but on searching the his name in the web I arrived at a number of articles written by him. In one of those articles, he spoke of how he embraced Islam about twenty-five years ago (i.e. from the time of the talk) and that he studied first at the university of Chicago then to Al-Azhar University of Egypt, later on to Jordan. Some of the articles also articulate on ‘Why it is necessary to follow the Madhhabs’, issues of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, condemning terrorism, especially condeming the Taliban government etc. This doen not mean, if he speaks the truth it not be accepted from him, for everyone has the right to give opinion on any topic and be accepted based on the strength of his argument, but in an intellectual discourse I opine that Fariduddien would have given names of early scholars who took the same position especially that Mr. Keller in one of his lectures confesses that his first studies were in the hands of the orientalists.
Thirdly, Keller’s claim that Wahdatul Adyan is not part of the teachings of Ibn Arabi and that those who attribute it to him only take a very selective reading of the writings of the man, is not based on academic research also. It is a mere claim not substantiated with any evidence, and contradicts what early scholars summed up from his writings and based on that passed their rulings on him which I will come to mention later in sha Allah. The truth of the matter is that, ibn Arabi, even though is not the founder of this thought, he believed in it and played an important role in passing it over to later generations. The statements quoted above and many others testify to that. Samih ‘Aatef Zain says: “The concept of wahdatul adyan was not the invention of Ibn ‘Arabi, rather many Sufis before him advocated it, most famous among them was Al-Hallaj who, through his belief in hulul (incarnation) found that difference in religious beliefs is nothing more than a difference in opinion, with each belief aiming at one reality, that is Allah’s love …This thought might have attracted Ibn ‘Arabi after some centuries, as such he embraced it and manipulated it to suit his caprices considering that man has the free choice to take up any religion he wishes. Nay he can even take all religions…nothing can stop him from worshipping Satan or taking up a dog or a pig to be his god, because – in his false assumption – god is inside all these creatures. That is why he said without any caution that: ‘The dog and the pig are nothing but our god, and The Lord is nothing but a monk in the church’…” (As-Sufiyyah Fi Nazaril Islam p. 470-471. I have choosen to refer to this writer for : 1. He is an Egyptian Professor who has written widely on Sufism and I suppose his conclusions will not be based on a selective reading of Ibn Arabi’s writings. I came to know the book about 17 years ago, in my local branch of the Kano State Library. 2. The author, in his preface, expressly stated: ‘This book of ours only tries to bring out the important Sufi madhhabs and those who profess it, and all that stems from it as a thought. We have not taken side with this or against that, but we have taken up Sufism on the scale of Islam based on Qur’an and Sunnah – and have stayed in sha Allah with Islam…”.
In another study, conducted by Dr. Kamal Muhammad Isa in ‘Nazaratun Fi Mu’taqadaati ibn ‘Arabi p. 51 he assigned a topic for the concept of Wahdatul Adyan and cited some of ibn Arabi’s statements to that effect.
Dr. AbdulQadir Mahmud, in his ‘The Sufi Philosophy in Islam’ says: ‘So the theory of the validity of all religions is one of the products of Wahdatul Wujud according to Ibn ‘Arabi as he sees that all worship the one god who appears in their shapes and the shapes of all gods. Nothing resembles this like the theory of the Indian – Shankar who says: ‘I worship god in every place of worship I like or I bow in front of any god without differentiation’ (Al-Falsafatus Sufiyyah Fil Islam p. 516). These are only examples of comprehensive researches made on the writings and beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabi.
Then considering Ibn Taimiyyah to have treated the issue of Sufism with fairness as accepted by Fariduddien and most Sufis, I bring here what he had to say on Ibn ‘Arabi and his concepts of validity of all religions and wahdatul wujud. In his answer to a question on the contents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Al-Fusoos, he said, referring to some statements of Ibn Arabi and his likes: “These people are more blasphemous (than the idolators) considering the fact that these (Ibn Arabi and his likes) considered the idolator to be worshipping Allah and nothing but Allah, and that the idols, to Allah, are like parts of the human body to man… while the idolators confess that their idols are not Allah and that they are His creatures. Also considering the fact that the idolators among the Arabs were confirming that the heavens and the earth have a lord who created them, but according to these people the heavens and the earth and other creatures have no lord apart from themselves. Rather the creatures are the creator…” Majmu’ul Fataawaa 2/129-130.
In another page he says: “The same with these people of ittihad (oneness of creation). Their leaders are leaders in kufr. They must be executed, and whoever claims to have repented, his repentance should not be accepted when caught before he claims repentance. That is because he is the greatest of hypocrites (Zanadiqa) who profess Islam outwardsly and maintain the greatest kufr in their inner self…He who associates himself with them must be punished or defends or praises them or exolts their books or is known to be helping them or hates to speak ill of them or tries to find excuses for them claiming that this kind of statements no one knows its reality, or says: ‘who told you he is the author of this book?’ and the likes of these excuses which no one will say them but an ignorant or hypocrite. Nay he who knows about them and fails to help in standing against them must be punished. Because rising against these people is one of the greatest obligations, for they have corrupted the minds and the religions on many Shaikhs, kings and rulers. They roam all over the earth in corruption and prevent people from the way of Allah. Their damage to the religion is greater than the damage done by those who destroy the worldly affairs of the Muslims and leave alone their religion, like armed robbers and like the Tatar who seize their wealth and leave them their religion…” (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/131-132).
He adds: “He who appears to have good opinion about them and claims that he does not know their real situation, it should be explained to him and if he did not distant himself from them and openly show his rejection, he should be considered of them”. (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/133).
On the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence and union with the creator), Fariduddien confesses that there are differing opinions regarding the matter and gave example of one of his Shaikhs, Sirhindi who criticized ibn al-‘Arabi on this doctrine as being erroneous. Thanks to Sirhindi for acknowledging the truth, but the word erroneous is too mild for Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory. Nevertheless, it is a good effort to acknowledge that it is not right, but does that mean it is not part of Sufism, just because one or two Sufis disagree with him on it. That is why people are continually called upon to understand these issues. It is not a matter of praise or condemnation. Something bad will not be good just because Ibn Taimiyyah praises it, just as anything good will not cease to be good because someone condemns it. What we should always look at is the praise or condemnation of Allah and His Messenger. Then Fariduddien should also remember that he said there are differing opinions on the matter, that is, while Sirhindi and Ansari reject Ibn Arabi’s theory of Wahdatul Wujud, holders of the other opinion must have accepted and endorsed it and they are Sufis, so the argument is still in place that the theory is part of Sufism even if some Sufis, regardless of their number, reject it. How many of their other doctrines are a matter of concensus, very little. So long as Sufism is a mixture of creeds originating from different sources most of which are alien to Islam, you must definitely find conflicting opinions as regards the acceptability of such beliefs but they are all part of the general name SUFISM. Take for example the various names and Shaikhs every Tariqa finds itself affiliated to. They are so many and each of them has its methods of adimitting new ‘recruits’ or murids, and different aspects of belief, rites and obligations, and all are addressed Sufis, while each holds his peculiar identity under whatever umbrella.
Fariduddien then comes from another angle to say that Wahdatul Wujud is interpreted by others to mean something other than its literal meaning, that is ‘nothing exists of itself, independent of everything else, except Allah’. If they mean to interpret the two-word phrase: ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ the essence of the words itself dismisses this interpretation. Because the word ‘union’ meaning becoming one, has never been interpreted by any scholar of the Arabic language to mean dependence. These people say that in order to understand their theory in its reality you have to dismiss some words from your dictionary, that is any word that indicates dualism, pluralism like ‘bainiyyah’ (between), ghairiyyah (another, other, else etc), ithnainiyyah (dualism) and lot of other words which usage must indicate the existence of more than one thing.
Moreover, it is a waste of time for someone to find excuses and secondary meanings to these statements when they themselves tell us that they mean what they say, and that their words should be given their literal meanings. As-Sakhawi in his ‘Al-Qaulul Munbii ‘an tarjamati ibn ‘Arabi’ says that Ibn Arabi in his Futuhat explicately declared that his statements should be taken as they appear, that is in their literal meanings’.
As-Shaukani also says: ‘He once again said in ‘Ad-Dau’ul lami’ (meaning Sakhawi) under the biography of Husain ibn Abdur Rahman al-Ahdal, that he said: I was told about ibn Arabi that he said: My statements should be given their apparent meanings, and I intend their literal meanings’. So how can you assume – O you who have been deceived – that he did not mean its apparent meanings? Moreover his words in his Futuhaat and Fusoos are in clear Arabic, so also the words of his fellow men, how then can scholars of Shari’ah be expected to understand something contrary to that?…Look, you poor fellow, how those ignorant people played with your intellect, to what extent do you love them. While Allah Ta’ala Has ruled upon the Jews and Christians with disbelief for saying He is the third of the three (in trinity – Ma’idah 73), why shouldn’t He judge these people according to their words? Now listen, let me dictate to you some of the Karamahs of those so called Auli’ya who played with the deen of Allah. As for Hallaj, he was the pioneer in the field of ‘Wahdah’ (oneness of existence), that doctrine in which ibn Arabi and his fellow men wasted their life, but he (Hallaj) lived an era in which there were remains of goodness and mercy in its people on this deen. So they killed him with the swords of Islam…” (As-Sawarimul Hidaad Al-Qati’ah p. 97-98).
That is why many scholars maintained that it is prohibited to give Ibn Arabi’s words meanings other than their apparent one. See Tanbeehul Ghabi Ila Takfeer ibn Arabi by Al-Biqa’ie (d. 885) p. 127. See also ‘Al’Iqduth Thamin Fi Tarikhil Baladil Amin’ by Taqiyuddin Al-Fasi (d.832), where he quoted 22 eminent scholars who explicitly condemned and rendered Ibn Arabi apostate for his concept of Wahdul Wujud and its product Wahdatul Adyan. This chapter has been edited independently in a small book of 83 pages.
I will conclude this part with some questions: what is the essence of all these lengthy quotations on Wahdatul Adyan and Wahdatul Wujud? Didn’t it die out with the demise of the direct deciples of Ibn Arabi? Are the Muslims still threatened by this theory – or is it no more theory? Do we find among the Sufis who believe in and put this doctrine in practice?
One does not need a field research to answer these questions, and will find that even in this present time some of the Sufis believe and practise the concept of Wahdatul Wujud. A man believed to be sane and reasonable living among his kin and friends, eating from and enjoying Allah’s bounties, suddenly opens up his mouth and declare that he is now the lord of the worlds, that he is Allah the creator of the heavens and earth, that he forgives the sins of his deciples. I know of a local school in Kano, back in 1996 where some of its students, most of whom were youths of about 18 – 30, distributed some of Allah’s beautiful Names between themselves, each calling his colleague with one, and believing each of them to be Allah. They used them so jestingly one will not believe such a thing will happen in a Muslim society.
In my place, (Birnin Kudu) the son of a reknown Tijjaniyyah sheikh, declared himself the khalifa of Ibrahim Kaulaha, and immediately attracted the attention of the people of all near-by towns and within a short time he was believed to be telling the truth. In less than a year, after the death of his father, he was believed, at least by his immediate students (murids), to be god. He used to go round the town claiming to be forgiving peoples’ sins. This is a person I know personally and knows me quite alright. Alhamdu lillahi, he later on left the town for Kano, claiming that the people back home did not accord him what he deserved of reverence. These are therefore, things I know from personal experience not read in Sufi books.
Accounts of events of this nature are too many to be denied in many societies, all under the concept of this Wahdatul Wujud and in the name of Sufism.
We ask Allah to guard us from deviating away from His path.
To be continued in sha Allah.
M. Halilu Uba,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
I really appreciate your frankness and zeal in exercising justice and fairness. These are values expected of every Muslim and I ask Allah Ta’ala to help and make us stick to His path.
I will try to be brief but to the point in sha Allah, as I have answered most of what you raised, in other write-ups though not addressed to you in particular.
But may I appeal to you and any other brother viewing things the way you do, to kindly make this discourse in the best objective manner possible. The importance of this in any intellectual discourse cannot be over-emphasised. Our focus should be on what one says and what arguments he presents, not what we perceive one to be holding in terms of belief or ideological inclination or whether he is for or against us. His method of presenting his case or putting up his arguments may indicate, but does not necessarily fashion out the ‘party’ to which he belongs. I know of many people who are strongly against Sufism even before they are aware of anything like Wahhabism. Even before you spell it out that you are not a Sufi, I have not taken it from your stance on the matter that you are one, just as I won’t throw anyone, for being anti-Sufi, into a camp I assume he must necessarily belong to – ‘Wahhabi Movement’, ‘Modern Day Salafiyyah’, or any other group – whatever I may perceive the term to mean. What I understood from you was a sincere quest for justice and fair-play in dealing with matters of knowledge, and that is what I still hold, regardless of the method or language you apply in making your point.
Many a member on this forum will view the current discussions on Sufism as just another Izala-Tariqa crisis, based on pure partisanship, for peoples’ intellects have been compartmentalised on this issues into these groups so much so that whenever one speaks against one of them he is seen to belong to the other. Some members, on the other hand, who detaste these kinds of discussions find it necessary to swift their attentions at least away from it. In my view NMN is rich with people who are professionals in various fields and who I assume are above this line of thinking. That is why I personally do not contribute to the view that the forum is dominated by anti-Sufi or Wahhabi elements as they are usually referred to. Rather there are a lot who reserve comments on almost every topic, and prefer the ‘DROM’ class, for reasons best known to them.
One other thing before taking up the issues you raised, Islamic knowledge, especially that has to do with ‘aqeedah and legislating ‘ibaadah, is factual and not subject to the experiments other branches of knowledge like the natural sciences undergo. It is either the Qur’an, the Sunnah or what the Sahabahs agree upon. Opinions differ in interpretations, yes, but not necessarily due to an in-built bias. To say this in a sweeping generalisation, is like disowning these texts their power of al-bayan (eloquence). Yes, there are texts that are subject to interpretation, but what counts is not the interpretation of poor Abubakar or any of his friends. Rather interpretations from ulama of the highest degree of piety who lived with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and received his teachings, and whom he did not depart without telling them whatever goodness that will bring them near their Lord and near the Jannah, and warning them from whatever evil that will make them near Hell. So what we need is knowledge of what those people practised. If it is available it should please be produced on any matter not only this. Opinions and interpretations will only be binding if they conform to that of the generation of Sahabah.
Now to the issues you raised, let me start with some of your words when addressing brother Ibrahim Ado. You said: ‘The other thing you mentioned which caught my attention is the issue of groups partisanship. A lot has been said already. You hit the hammer on the nail when you pointed out that there was a time in Muslim history when the Mu’tazila were reigning and the Hanbalis down. This is part of the reason we must be careful with blanket condemnation. We may just be living in an era when Sufi bashing is fashionable…’
In so far as political power influences the spread of one Mazhab or another, facts do not change just because of that. If you will just take the time of browsing the pages of the history you mentioned, particularly that to do with the reign of Mu’tazila, you will find that the political power of the Mu’tazila played a vital role in spreading their mazhab, not in making it the truth as against the mazhab of the salaf which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali was calling to at that time. That is why he (Imam Ahmad) did not succumb to the Mu’tazili aqeedah despite the fact that he was tortured and coerced to do so, a stance which earned him the title ‘Imam Ahlus Sunnah’. So blanket condemnation or not, a Muslim should believe that Islam as brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and understood by the Sahabah is still there and up to end of this world. It is the only recognisable deen in the sight of Allah. A Muslim only accepts something else, when this is not clear to him whether he happens to get acquainted with it through free books, scholarships from Petro-Dollars or Petro-anything.
Then you said: ‘…They all have differences, each one applying his line of thinking, hence his mazhab. If sticking to the sunnah means just one thing, they should not differ on issues’.
It is natural for people to differ and their difference is never an indication that they are on the wrong track. The Sahabah differred on some issues of fiqh and that did not make Islam vague. The problem is where do we resort to whenever we differ. While some see that in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), others view that they resort to other sources. But as I have repeated a number of times, the religion of Allah is Islam, whose main source is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of the salaf. Whoever sticks to this will never be astray in sha Allah, as prophesied by the rasul himself that a party of his ummah will remain with the truth to the last day. It is just the duty of the Muslim to look for the right path and in no where but the aforementioned sources. It is to these sources Allah and His Prophet attached us. Any difference you hear or witness is due to the failure of one side to either accept or even resort to them. It is wrong to assume that one should stay without any belief. Rather he must necessarily belong to the mazhab taught by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), that is to be with the followers of his sunnah, and strive to know what this sunnah is. What people are always called upon to understand is that there is no one whose example is incumbent upon the Muslim to follow except the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No one or group should be followed blindly. So one should just go and search anywhere in this world, find what the Prophet and his companions were practising in their days, then follow it, wherever he finds himself and whatever influence he happens to experience either in any Petro-dollar country or in any cave on the vast of this earth. He will only be answerable to that which Allah Has decreed through His prophet. In the days of the Sahabah, when some of the deviated parties – such as the Shi’ah and Khawarij and Qadariyyah - started emerging, they disengaged themselves from them and warned people against them. Some of them even declared the Qadariyyahs apostate for denying Allah’s knowledge of human actions. They did not say: O you people all of you are Muslims. We only differ in matters of opinion or interpretation of the data we received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No they never did that.
Now to the issue of Sufism, I assume we are not in disagreement as to the fact that in Sufism, as a thought – regardless of the origin of the word, there is what is good and what is bad (or what you choose to call the worst mistakes and errors of the worst examples of Sufi personalities). The first, that is the good contained in it, is what some ulama accept and accord it the meaning of ‘Zuhd, tazkiyyah, ihsaan’, or to sum it up, inner purification. The second, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs and rites alien to the teachings of Islam but camouflaged in the name of Sufism. This second meaning is what we have today as Sufism in the name the various Sufi Tariqas, each affiliated to a Shaikh they call Wali.
So we have two angles from which to look at the meaning of the word ‘Sufism’:
Its meaning as a word comprising of many different things. This is what I wanted to show: how it is made difficult, if not impossible, to reach a clear definition of the word. The Sufis themselves – early and contemporary - could not reach an agreement even to a minimum degree as to its meaning, despite its fundamental importance to them. Philosophers and thinkers, as you put it, argued on the number of teeth a donkey has. Yes, this is their usual business. Ours is Islam, the deen of Allah, brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). We are talking of what to worship our Lord with in order to earn His pleasure, an essential factor for which He sent His Prophets to the human race. Should something so vital like this be so obscure to the extent of denoting about two thousand meanings. So our issue is not the parable of the number of teeth a donkey has and the dilemma of the philosophers. Our issue is that a word is just found in our midst, no one can tell us what it means, not even the people with whom it is known. Then we come to find some Muslims identifying themselves with a group or a number of groups under a common denominator given this name. Is it then fair to accuse one for condemning it on the ground that he deliberately failed to differentiate between what is good of it and what is bad? This is the point I was trying to show. It is not a mere theory a child or even an old man can direct us to the way out in order to ascertain its specific meaning. I have clearly got what you mean, that is we should look at the reality of what has been practised by the Sufis especially eminent scholars of Islam amongst them: what did they practice? All the same if we focus that attention what we will find ourselves amidst is another dilemma. Were those scholars identified as Sufis in the manner we find Sufism now? We will in sha Allah try to look at this angle.
The meaning of Sufism as a thought or as the word used by some scholars to refer to ‘Zuhd’ and the set of moral code of conduct and personal etiquette adopted by Muslims in the early days of Islam, and what it came to be comprising of in later days up to this time.
For a clear picture of this we need to study the stages through which Sufism passed in brief.
May I start by asking Allah Ta’ala to guard me and you – and all brothers – against any form of partisanship in the name of anything other than Islam, the deen of Allah as brought by our noble Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It is indeed very interesting that a Muslim should always remain a Muslim and should strive, as much as possible, to be free from being partisan except for the name of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While this is a fundamental truth, it is equally important to bear in mind that when one is a Muslim, he cannot free himself from being against what is unIslamic and in contradiction to the teachings of the Rasul (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because Islam and indeed the whole teachings and life of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are no more obscure, neither are they mysterious.
The deen of Allah has been completed before the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) left this world, and all these are found in the Qur’an and the authentic sunnah of the Prophet. But it is not a hidden fact that the Ummah has been divided into groups and sects, each has formulated for itself either sets of beliefs or different phases of ibadaat, and each claiming what he practises to be in line with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), for no Muslim will admit that he professes something that negates his teachings. We are therefore left with the question: how do we ascertain what is in line with the teachings of the Prophet in order to differentiate it from what is against it? Here comes the issue of the fundamental yardstick with which to carry out this important task, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and implied approvals) of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of those pious and noble companions. This is another vital aspect of understanding the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is because the companions who lived with him and witnessed the Qur’an being revealed to him, were the direct and immediate subjects of his teachings, the students who received his lessons and understood and practised it in the way and manner ordered and desired by Allah Ta’ala. Any mistake on their part in the course of practising any injunction is redressed immediately by ‘Wahy’.
This is why it is of fundamental importance to believe that the Islam practised by the Sahabah is the best as it conforms with and reflects the true teachings of the Rasul and affirms that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) really taught them what Allah ordered and that he was the best of all teachers, the most successful instructor able to bring forth a generation which was able to change and influence the whole world within a period of less than twenty years from his death. It is in the light of the above that Islam frowns at anything new and not known to be part of it in the days of the Prophet as an aspect or pattern of worship through which the pleasure of Allah is sought.
On a more specific note, upholding the view that one does not belong to any group, is a fact very necessary and rational, if by that, he means he will not belong to any group in a sort of blind way as to believe that anything not upheld by that group is false. But if dissociating one’s self with any group means he will focus on any matter regarding religion from a neutral point of view without sticking to a specific Islamic principle based on the supremacy of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the practice of the pious predecessors, then this is surely anything but right. What Islam requires from his subjects is that the virtue or otherwise of anything, anyone or any group is measured by that person’s or group’s conformity with Islam and its teachings. One must believe that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, the most pure, absolute and not relative truth, the best value system suitable to mankind and the most accurate way of life that guides to every goodness in this world and in the hereafter.
Any good thing found in any other way not Islam is found in Islam and more, so we may praise that way or path for being in line with what Islam taught, but not for containing something Islam fails to attain. That is why when the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saw Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with some papers he got from a Jew, and read it to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet was outraged and immediately rebuked him and said: ((…I have indeed brought it (this deen and path) to you so clean and neat…I swear by Him in whose Hand is my life, Had Musa been alive it wouldn’t be allowed for him but to follow me) – Ahmad 3/387, Darimi 1/115, Ibn Abi Shai’bah No. (26421) and others. Its isnad is Hasan.
So the fact that the Shi’ites, for example, called on all Muslims to rise against America or its values, is not because that is part of the Shi’ii creed independent of other Muslims and that you can not find same with any other groups of the Muslims. Rather it is Islam that calls upon all Muslims not to take the non-believers as friends, and the failure of other groups to make such calls does not mean they do not have that in their set of beliefs.
Secondly the issue of a write-up being balanced, differs relatively from one subject to another just as it differs from the writer’s ideological background. After all, in Islam what is known to be hailed most when speaking or writing about others, is that one should be just and should not ascribe anything contrary to the reality of the person or topic he discusses. But if what is meant by being balanced is that one must appear or sound neutral, or that when he presents an opposing view he must necessarily give the proposing view, I beg to assert that this is not a general principle in Islam, although it is allowed if one will later on specify the correct path so as not to leave people in the dark, thereby implying that all is one and same. In the same vein, if I am asked about Christianity, for instance, will I be charged with being unfair by pointing the Islamic view alone and stressing that it is a corrupted religion proscribed by Allah with the coming of Islam et cetera.
That is why I am more surprised after reading M. Halilu’s introduction to the response he posted on Hijazi’s article, calling for non-partisanship, to find the writer of the response a Sufi and his response so ‘imbalance’ in the sense that he made some unfounded charges against Hijazi just by way of reading his mind under the pretense of reading between the lines.
This issue of balance and imbalance and the issue of some ‘Sheiks’ lacking in da’wah methodology as cast on this forum from time to time are of course topics that need to be discussed in a more detailed manner. May Allah spare us or other brothers the time to take it up.
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Fariduddien Rice, in his response to Yusuf Hijazi’s article, charges him of lying, relying on non-Muslim sources, failing to provide references to some of the issues he raised, condemning Muslims and attributing them to kufr and shirk, among other things.
The piece I am writing will focus more on providing the sources and references Hijazi is charged of failing to give. This will also answer the charge of relying on non-Muslim sources, although most of Hijazi’s non-Muslim references appear to be connected with definitions of some terms. Other charges are mere personal attacks as can be seen clearly.
As regards the origin of the word Sufi there are of course many differing views on that and the Sufis themselves are not in agreement. Affirming this, Al-Sahrawardi believes that the Sufis’ definition of the word are more than one thousand. (See: ‘Awariful Ma’aarif p. 54). Another Sufi claims there are about two thousand definitions of the word (See Tahir al-Hamidi’s introduction to al-Ta’arrufi Li Madhhabi Ahlit Tasawwuf, by Abubakr al-Kalaabaadhi, p. 11). I don’t think there is a word so ‘blessed’ with such number of meanings.
As for Ibn Taimiyyah’s position on Sufism, it is true that he praised some of the famous Shaikhs attributed to Sufism, but it is important to note that he did so not for the sake of Sufism as a thought, but because the works and deeds of those Shaikhs were in conformity with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). This you will find most where he discusses the issue of ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ (Unity of Creation or union with the Creator, or the belief that everything is one and God in essence) and condemns its proponents. This ideology, according to them permits one to claim what they call ‘Raf’ut Takaaleef’ (free from obligations of observing the precepts of religion). It is at this stage the Sufi Sheikh declares his disciple free from obligations like observing the five daily prayers and the likes, an attitude worthy of condemnation. So when Ibn Taimiyyah, who is very conversant with the works of those famous Shaikhs like Ibrahim ibn Adham, Abu Salaiman al-Daaraanee, Junaid, Abdul Qadir Jailani and others, whom he knows to have been in compliance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, and calling their disciples to be upright in following the teachings of Islam and engaged themselves in ‘Amr bil Ma’roof wan Nahyu ‘anil Munkar’ (enjoining the good and forbidden the evil), he does not hesitate to dissociate them from the practices of Wahdatul Wujud’ and so he praises them based that. It is in this regard he says : “As for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst the Saalikin (disciples or followers of a spiritual path) like the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaimaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Sari as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars. These people did not allow the ‘Saalik’ to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! (i.e. in the name of Karamah). Rather they made it incumbent upon him to carry out what is commanded and leave off all whatever is prohibited until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf”. (Majmu’ Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 10 p.516-517).
It is therefore clear that Ibn Taimiyyah wishes to make a perfect distinction between the practice of those early men of Zuhd and piety and the practices of the later days Sufis. But Ibn Taimiyyah’s critique of Sufism as a thought and practice is what occupies much of his writings on the subject in his effort to dispel the fallacies that marred Islam in the name of Sufism, even though we find him giving excuses to some sufi practices particularly when the person involved is known to be steadfast in complying with the teachings of the Sunnah in general and only errs in that instance.
As for Sufism being a conglomerate consisting of extracts from a multitude of other religions with which Sufis interacted, Fariduddien dismissed this claim on the ground that no reference was given by Hijazi and that this theory comes from non-Muslim orientalists. The fact is that the theory is indeed true and has been testified by more than one Muslim scholar or writer, Sufi and non-Sufi. The first person to link Sufism with a foreign religion was Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bairuni (d. 440) in his book: ‘Tahqeeq Ma Lil Hindi Min Maquulatin Maqbulatin Fil ‘Aqli Au Mardhuulah’ where he outlined three aspects on which Sufism meets with Hindu philosophy and religion. (See the History of Islamic Sufism by Dr. Qasim Gani and the book Islamic Sufism by Dr. Taftazani. There is also a very strong relation between Sufism and Buddhism in many aspects. There is indeed a Phd. thesis on the subject titled: Buddhism – its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism’ by Dr. Abdullah Mustapha Numsok, in the Islamic University of Madina. The author is now a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the University of Emir Sunklaa, in Fatani – Thailand. He has discussed this issue in a detailed and scholarly manner establishing the linkage and relationship between the two thoughts. In one of the examples he cited on discarding women and marriage he quoted what was reported from one Sufi Riyah ibn ‘Amr Al-Qaisi, that he said: “A person will not reach the level of Siddiqeen unless he leaves off his wife like a widow, and his sons like orphans and returns to the dwellings of dogs” (Al-Kawakibud Durriyyah 1/105-106). This statement is in line with what is reported from a Buddhist Saint, Shamana who says: “This stage of holiness (Arahat) is unattainable but by him who leaves off his house and endure the burden of leaving off his wife like a widow and his sons like orphans” (Lessons for the Saints p. 47). He further cited many examples in various aspects of the Buddhist and Sufi creeds, like the issue of seclusion, the doctrine of Fana’a (which the Buddhist call Nervana), ways of receiving and practising Dhikr and Wird, belief in the presence of the Sheikh or Saint at times of Dhikr, making dhikr in congregation and in one tone, the issue of Hulul (incarnation) which the Buddhists call (Awatar or Mahayan), wearing the Suuf (wool), wearing ragged clothes, encouraging destitution and begging (Almajiranci), unemployment in the name of religion etc. In fact the resemblances and relationship are too obvious to leave any doubt in the mind of the reader. In an abstract he gave in English at the end of the thesis, the writer concluded: “In my study, I also uncovered the relationship between Sufism and Buddhism as follows: …4) That it has been historically confirmed that Indian-Buddhist monks have influenced the emergence of the Sufi groups,marking their difference in looking at the Islamic view point of life. 5) The common elements between Sufism and Buddhism are: 1. Hulul or Samsara – transmigration of souls and 2. Nirvana or Fana – extinction requiring engaging in mental exercises and life practices such as giving up of property, marriage, observing of hunger, begging and giving up of the world and so on.” (Buddhism – Its History, Beliefs and Relationship with Sufism, Abstract p. 3-4).
All this in addition to its Platonian, Christian, Jewish and Shi’ite origin. This you can find in the book ‘At-Tasawwuf – Origin and Sources by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir p. 49-135, where he quoted confessions by many Sufis to that effect. It is indeed worth reading. Also refer to Tafseer al-Qurtubi where he mentioned that an aalim was asked about the sufi samaa’ and dancing, and he attributed that to the followers of as-Samiri, that is from the Jews. (Tafseerul Qurtubi 11/237-238).
The distinction between Sufism in its early stage and what metamorphosed to become Sufism in later days, is indeed very vital to this topic. What remains to be noted by many is that present day Sufism has been distanced far away from the early one characterised by Zuhd and Seclusion for ibadah. Sufism, now is in what researchers call its sixth stage, that is the stage of ‘Tariqanism’, meaning that no Sufi is now allowed to practice Zuhd as known in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) independently unless he officially renders himself a subject and disciple of a Sheikh or founder of one Tariqa (Sufi order) or the other. It is now pure partisan in the sense that one Sheikh does not allow his disciple to change to another Tariqa or Sheikh as this is considered ‘riddah’. This is all written in their books and studies in the field are so many for anyone to deny this. So when writers condemn Sufism without differentiating the early from the present they mean the present one. This is not to say that the early one also has not been condemned by many scholars amongst the salaf considering the fact that the name itself is alien to Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). While zuhd and dhikr are values upheld by the Sunnah, making it in the name of Sufism renders, at least, its pattern a bid’ah.
As regards Shafi’is condemnation of Sufism which Hijazi quoted him saying: “If a person exercised Sufism (Tasawwafa) at the begenning of the day, he doesn’t come at Zuhur except an idiot”, Fariduddien dismisses this by saying: ‘No reference has been provided. You can provide all these references to non-Muslim sources, but you cannot even provide a reference for a supposed statement by Imam al-Shafi’I? Why can’t you provide the reference?”. May be it will please him to know that this statement is confirmed to have been said by Shafi’e as has been reported with isnad by Al-Baihaqi in his ‘Manaaqibus Shaafi’ee vol. 2 p. 207.
And as regards that of Malik refer to Tartibul Madaarik by Al-Qadi ‘Iyaad 2/54, and Manaqib Malik by az-Zawawi p. 157) and that of Ahmad refer to Talbis Iblis p. 166-167.
To be continued in sha Allah.
This is my second response to Fariduddien’s article on Sufism. I intend to cover all the article minutely in sha Allah and answer the most important and relevant questions he raised. As for my answers to the questions raised by Bro. Halilu’s, I will in sha Allah give them before the next posting.
6. While Hijazi stresses that sufism started as a move towards excessive ibaadah, Fariduddien accuses him of limiting dhikr, either because he fails to grasp what is the difference between the word ‘ibadah’ and ‘dhikr’ or he wants to assert that sufism is nothing but dhikrullah. Ibadah comprises dhikr and other aspects of worship. Anything excessive beyond the limited bounds is not allowed as known in the Sunnah.
Then one can also ask: if he means limiting dhikr in the quantitative sense, that is, one is not allowed to limit himself in repeating a particular dhikr to a restricted number of times, this is true, - unless where specified by the Sunnah.
But if he means by the non limitation that one can extract and produce on his own whatever dhikr he wishes, without resorting to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), then this is of course wrong. Dhikr, as an ibaadah must be traced to the Qur’an or Sunnah otherwise, it is a bid’ah. It is worth mentioning that dhikr is one of the most important ibaadahs, a religious obligation with which Allah Ta’ala orders His servants. It is the only form of worship in the Qur’an given a quantitative emphasis. Allah Ta’ala says: ((O you who believe, remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and afternoon)) Al-Ahzab: 41-42. He also says: ((…And the men and women who remember Allah much, Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and great reward)) Al-Ahzab: 35.
That is why you find most of the day to day activities of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) are accompanied with one sort of dhikr or another. In fact the Prophet has a specific dhikr for most of his actions, and teaches the Muslim to make this type of ibadah engulf most of his time, from the time he wakes up from his sleep, and when entering the toilet, when coming out, entering the mosque, coming out of it, and during the prayer each action of the prayer has a specific dhikr, when entering ones house, when putting on new clothes, when going to bed, when entering the market and almost every time.
But all these invocations and adhkar are to be received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) in word and pattern. One is therefore not allowed to ‘invent’ a dhikr of his own. Nay he is not allowed to change the wordings of a dhikr confirmed to be said by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).
Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Al-Baraa ibn ‘Aazib (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: (When going to bed, perform ablution just like you do when praying, then rest yourself on the right-hand side of your body, then say: “O Allah I have submitted my face to you…” up to the end of the du’a which is: “Aamantu bi kitaabikal ladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal ladhi arsalta” (I believe in Your Book which You revealed, and Your Prophet whom You sent”. Al-Baraa said: I repeated it for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to hear, and when I came to “I believe in Your Book which You revealed…” I said: ‘…and Your Messenger’ (i.e. instead of saying Your Prophet). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: “No, ‘and Your Prophet whom You sent’. (Bukhari No. 247, Muslim No. 2081).
The hadith is clear in that it is not allowed for one to change the wording of any dhikr narrated from the Prophet, what more of putting up his own. Ibn Hajar, in his comment on this hadith said: “The best explanation given to the Prophet’s response to this companion who substituted the word ‘Messenger’ instead of ‘Prophet’, is that the wordings of adhkaar are in a sort of abeyance (i.e. should not be said by anyone but based on a nass by Allah or His Prophet), and that they have special characteristics and secrets not subject to analogy. The wordings in which they come must therefore be preserved. This is what al-Maaziri preferred. He (al-Maaziri) said: ‘One must restrict himself to their texts as they are narrated in their letters, for it is possible that the reward is attached to these letters. They might have been revealed to the Prophet in these words. It is therefore obligatory to say them in their letters’. (Fathul Bari 11/116).
As regards the impact of other religions and civilizations on Sufism, Fariduddien continues to deny that. I will treat that separately in sha Allah, in my next response to Bro. Halilu as he appears to disregard previous references to that effect.
On the concept of Wihdatul Adyan (validity of all religions), Fariduddien says: ‘Here the author claims that Tasawwuf teaches the validity of all religions. This claim is false and incorrect. A clear discussion of this, from the viewpoint of traditional Islam (of which Tasawwuf is a part), can be found…’.
The concept of Wihdatul Adyan is one of the most blashpemous teachings of philosophic Sufism and one of the resulting impacts of the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (Union of Existence). According to this concept there is no difference between Iman and Kufr as everything is in reality one thing. They believe that by saying that there is a deity and a servant worshipping him, one is putting a distinction between the two, and this is wrong according to them. So all religions are nothing but one. None of them is better than the others. Whatever deity one worships he is worshipping nothing but one deity. All are on the right path.
Ibn Taimiyyah comments on this concept by saying: “Among their words is that there is nothing in essence but Allah, so idol worshippers do not worship anything but him. That is because, according to them, he has no ‘ghair’ (another, other, else …). That is why they interpret Allah’s saying: ((And your Lord Has decreed that you worship none but Him)) Al-Israa:23, to mean: And your Lord Has predestined that you worship none but Him, because He has no ‘ghair’ whose worship can be conceptualised. So every idolator is just worhsipping Allah” Majmu’ul Fatawaa 2/124.
A contemporary Sufi, Abdurrahman Badawi confesses this reality when he said: “The importance of the concept of ‘al-ittihad’ (oneness of existence) in the making or adaptation of the process of escapade is great, especially in explaining the escapades that express the equality of all religions – both heaven oriented and non-heaven oriented - to the Sufi. To him all religions are equal because the existence (al-wujud) is one, and this existence is nothing but Allah. Therefore all of them are from Allah, and as far as Allah is concerned there is no difference” (Shatahaatus Sufiyyah p. 9).
You can see from the above quote that Badawi did not differentiate between early and later Sufis, even if he is sure that early Sufis did not go to this extent. Then why should a non-Sufi be accused of failing to recognise this difference. Why shouldn’t he be given the benefit of doubt to the fact that whenever he condemns sufi acts, that he refers to the later sufis who diverted from the Zuhd school to philosophical and Hindi schools.
When we come to Ibn Arabi we will find that he expounds more on it to the extent that one will accept, beyond reasonable doubts, that he means what he says. See what Hijazi quoted in his article from the Fusoos of the man saying: “Beware of restricting yourself to one particular religion and disbelieving in everything else…” (Al-Fusoos p. 113).
In another place he confirms the validity of Fir’auna’s claim that he is the lord. In his comment on the verse: ((Saying: I am your lord, most high)) An-Nazi’aat:24, he says ((…Even though all are lords to some degree, I am the most high among them…)) Al-Fusoos p. 210-211.
Somewhere else he says: ((My mind has become set to accept every image – it is a grazing land for antelopes, a temple for the monks, a house for idols, a Ka’abah for the circumambulator, a tablet for the Taurah and a book of the Qur’an”. (Al-Futuhaatul Makkiyyah 3/21).
These kinds of statements from the man are countless in his books, especially the Fusoos and Futuhaat.
Ibnul Faarid, another Sufi who professes ittihaad says: “When a worshipper falls to the ground worshipping stones do not regard it abominable in bigotry. And if the Magian worships the fire …all these worship none but me, even if their aim and intention were directed to other than me”.
Back home you find Tijjani in a more lucid and express manner affirms this concept. While commenting on Allah’s saying: ((Verily, I am Allah. There is no god but Me, so worship Me)) Taha: 14, he says: “He means there is no deity apart from Me, even if the idolators worship their idols, neither did they worship anything but Me, nor did they aim other than Me with humbleness and humility. Nay, I am the god being worshipped in them. This is the meaning of His saying: ((There is no god but Me)). It is in this way he wants you to believe in what the ignorant ones believe that they worship something apart from me or that they aim other than me” Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/184-185.
He also says: “And amongst them is the one who aims at the Most High but behind a cover, that is the idol worshippers and their likes. Because by worshipping the idols, they do not aim at other than Al-Haqq (Allah), the Most exalted, nor do they worship something else. Rather Allah, The Most exalted appears to them from behind those covers in His Glory and Greatness, and attracts them accordingly by virtue of His predestined decree which no one denies” (Jawahirul Ma’aani 1/239).
The likes of these utterances are so many in Sufi books. Now we come to the question: are these words to be taken on their face value? Do these people really mean what they say? Are they telling us that, O you people! You are just wasting your time worshipping one god while you are supposed to worship everything you can rest your eyes on or think of in your mind? Do they mean to tell us that all the verses in the Qur’an calling to the worship of Allah alone, the only God, the Lord of the worlds etc, are mere quabbles and meaningless statements?. This reminds me of another Sufi, Al-‘Afeef At-Tilmisani, who says: “There is no Tauhid in the Qur’an, rather the whole of Qur’an is shirk. He who follows the Qur’an will never reach real Tauhid” (Ibn Taimiyyah quoted him in Al-Furqan baina auliya’ir Rahman wa auliya’is Shaitan p. 88, and Jami’ur Rasa’ili Wal Masa’il 4/51, and Majmu’ul Fatawa 13/186). I don’t expect a Muslim will hesitate to call this kufr. We ask Allah to forgive us repeating these words.
Now Fariduddien in his response to Hijazi, says the claim of the writer – meaning Hijazi – that Sufism teaches the validity of all religions is false and incorrect. He then refers us to ‘a clear discussion’ of the issue by one Nuh Ha Mim Keller on a web address. He says that Mr. Keller shows that the belief in the universal validity of all religions is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, and not part of the teachings of Ibn al-Arabi.
In response to this claim we can view the issue from the following points:
First: The argument that Sufism does not teach the concept of the validity of all religions will not hold. Only if one will contend that the concept originated from other than the Sufis, a claim that will not be supported by the vast Sufi literature. That is because this concept is a direct result of Wahdatul Wujud and al-Ittihad. When one believes that whatever he sees around him – his house, his wife, his sons, his vehicle, his bed, the sun the moon, the trees, the seas, himself and everything is nothing but Allah, there is no point in trying to make a distinction between the Creator, the Lord and Deity, the One and only God and between His creatures, for the line of demarcation has been buried. So, whatever he worships he is in reality worshipping one god. This is what is preached in Sufi books. One may say that not all Sufis believe in this idea or that it is not part of authentic Sufi teachings, as asserted by Fariduddien. Yes of course, but is there any fault in attributing it to Sufisim as a thought and to Sufis as a group so long as we have never come to know this in Islam but from them. Only if one will claim the likes of ibn Arabi not to be Sufis, which will never hold also, as you will come to see.
Secondly, Is Nuh Keller the right person to give us the real meaning of the words spoken by Ibn Arabi, Al-Tilmisani, Ibnul Faarid, Tijjani and their likes? I am not underestimating his knowledge, but wouldn’t Fariduddien do the Muslims a favour of referring to early scholars especially among the Sufis who tried to give meanings acceptable to Islam. Although I am not able to access the page referred to, where Mr Keller treated the matter, but on searching the his name in the web I arrived at a number of articles written by him. In one of those articles, he spoke of how he embraced Islam about twenty-five years ago (i.e. from the time of the talk) and that he studied first at the university of Chicago then to Al-Azhar University of Egypt, later on to Jordan. Some of the articles also articulate on ‘Why it is necessary to follow the Madhhabs’, issues of Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, condemning terrorism, especially condeming the Taliban government etc. This doen not mean, if he speaks the truth it not be accepted from him, for everyone has the right to give opinion on any topic and be accepted based on the strength of his argument, but in an intellectual discourse I opine that Fariduddien would have given names of early scholars who took the same position especially that Mr. Keller in one of his lectures confesses that his first studies were in the hands of the orientalists.
Thirdly, Keller’s claim that Wahdatul Adyan is not part of the teachings of Ibn Arabi and that those who attribute it to him only take a very selective reading of the writings of the man, is not based on academic research also. It is a mere claim not substantiated with any evidence, and contradicts what early scholars summed up from his writings and based on that passed their rulings on him which I will come to mention later in sha Allah. The truth of the matter is that, ibn Arabi, even though is not the founder of this thought, he believed in it and played an important role in passing it over to later generations. The statements quoted above and many others testify to that. Samih ‘Aatef Zain says: “The concept of wahdatul adyan was not the invention of Ibn ‘Arabi, rather many Sufis before him advocated it, most famous among them was Al-Hallaj who, through his belief in hulul (incarnation) found that difference in religious beliefs is nothing more than a difference in opinion, with each belief aiming at one reality, that is Allah’s love …This thought might have attracted Ibn ‘Arabi after some centuries, as such he embraced it and manipulated it to suit his caprices considering that man has the free choice to take up any religion he wishes. Nay he can even take all religions…nothing can stop him from worshipping Satan or taking up a dog or a pig to be his god, because – in his false assumption – god is inside all these creatures. That is why he said without any caution that: ‘The dog and the pig are nothing but our god, and The Lord is nothing but a monk in the church’…” (As-Sufiyyah Fi Nazaril Islam p. 470-471. I have choosen to refer to this writer for : 1. He is an Egyptian Professor who has written widely on Sufism and I suppose his conclusions will not be based on a selective reading of Ibn Arabi’s writings. I came to know the book about 17 years ago, in my local branch of the Kano State Library. 2. The author, in his preface, expressly stated: ‘This book of ours only tries to bring out the important Sufi madhhabs and those who profess it, and all that stems from it as a thought. We have not taken side with this or against that, but we have taken up Sufism on the scale of Islam based on Qur’an and Sunnah – and have stayed in sha Allah with Islam…”.
In another study, conducted by Dr. Kamal Muhammad Isa in ‘Nazaratun Fi Mu’taqadaati ibn ‘Arabi p. 51 he assigned a topic for the concept of Wahdatul Adyan and cited some of ibn Arabi’s statements to that effect.
Dr. AbdulQadir Mahmud, in his ‘The Sufi Philosophy in Islam’ says: ‘So the theory of the validity of all religions is one of the products of Wahdatul Wujud according to Ibn ‘Arabi as he sees that all worship the one god who appears in their shapes and the shapes of all gods. Nothing resembles this like the theory of the Indian – Shankar who says: ‘I worship god in every place of worship I like or I bow in front of any god without differentiation’ (Al-Falsafatus Sufiyyah Fil Islam p. 516). These are only examples of comprehensive researches made on the writings and beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabi.
Then considering Ibn Taimiyyah to have treated the issue of Sufism with fairness as accepted by Fariduddien and most Sufis, I bring here what he had to say on Ibn ‘Arabi and his concepts of validity of all religions and wahdatul wujud. In his answer to a question on the contents of Ibn ‘Arabi’s book Al-Fusoos, he said, referring to some statements of Ibn Arabi and his likes: “These people are more blasphemous (than the idolators) considering the fact that these (Ibn Arabi and his likes) considered the idolator to be worshipping Allah and nothing but Allah, and that the idols, to Allah, are like parts of the human body to man… while the idolators confess that their idols are not Allah and that they are His creatures. Also considering the fact that the idolators among the Arabs were confirming that the heavens and the earth have a lord who created them, but according to these people the heavens and the earth and other creatures have no lord apart from themselves. Rather the creatures are the creator…” Majmu’ul Fataawaa 2/129-130.
In another page he says: “The same with these people of ittihad (oneness of creation). Their leaders are leaders in kufr. They must be executed, and whoever claims to have repented, his repentance should not be accepted when caught before he claims repentance. That is because he is the greatest of hypocrites (Zanadiqa) who profess Islam outwardsly and maintain the greatest kufr in their inner self…He who associates himself with them must be punished or defends or praises them or exolts their books or is known to be helping them or hates to speak ill of them or tries to find excuses for them claiming that this kind of statements no one knows its reality, or says: ‘who told you he is the author of this book?’ and the likes of these excuses which no one will say them but an ignorant or hypocrite. Nay he who knows about them and fails to help in standing against them must be punished. Because rising against these people is one of the greatest obligations, for they have corrupted the minds and the religions on many Shaikhs, kings and rulers. They roam all over the earth in corruption and prevent people from the way of Allah. Their damage to the religion is greater than the damage done by those who destroy the worldly affairs of the Muslims and leave alone their religion, like armed robbers and like the Tatar who seize their wealth and leave them their religion…” (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/131-132).
He adds: “He who appears to have good opinion about them and claims that he does not know their real situation, it should be explained to him and if he did not distant himself from them and openly show his rejection, he should be considered of them”. (Majmu’ul Fatawa 2/133).
On the concept of Wahdatul Wujud (unity of existence and union with the creator), Fariduddien confesses that there are differing opinions regarding the matter and gave example of one of his Shaikhs, Sirhindi who criticized ibn al-‘Arabi on this doctrine as being erroneous. Thanks to Sirhindi for acknowledging the truth, but the word erroneous is too mild for Ibn ‘Arabi’s theory. Nevertheless, it is a good effort to acknowledge that it is not right, but does that mean it is not part of Sufism, just because one or two Sufis disagree with him on it. That is why people are continually called upon to understand these issues. It is not a matter of praise or condemnation. Something bad will not be good just because Ibn Taimiyyah praises it, just as anything good will not cease to be good because someone condemns it. What we should always look at is the praise or condemnation of Allah and His Messenger. Then Fariduddien should also remember that he said there are differing opinions on the matter, that is, while Sirhindi and Ansari reject Ibn Arabi’s theory of Wahdatul Wujud, holders of the other opinion must have accepted and endorsed it and they are Sufis, so the argument is still in place that the theory is part of Sufism even if some Sufis, regardless of their number, reject it. How many of their other doctrines are a matter of concensus, very little. So long as Sufism is a mixture of creeds originating from different sources most of which are alien to Islam, you must definitely find conflicting opinions as regards the acceptability of such beliefs but they are all part of the general name SUFISM. Take for example the various names and Shaikhs every Tariqa finds itself affiliated to. They are so many and each of them has its methods of adimitting new ‘recruits’ or murids, and different aspects of belief, rites and obligations, and all are addressed Sufis, while each holds his peculiar identity under whatever umbrella.
Fariduddien then comes from another angle to say that Wahdatul Wujud is interpreted by others to mean something other than its literal meaning, that is ‘nothing exists of itself, independent of everything else, except Allah’. If they mean to interpret the two-word phrase: ‘Wahdatul Wujud’ the essence of the words itself dismisses this interpretation. Because the word ‘union’ meaning becoming one, has never been interpreted by any scholar of the Arabic language to mean dependence. These people say that in order to understand their theory in its reality you have to dismiss some words from your dictionary, that is any word that indicates dualism, pluralism like ‘bainiyyah’ (between), ghairiyyah (another, other, else etc), ithnainiyyah (dualism) and lot of other words which usage must indicate the existence of more than one thing.
Moreover, it is a waste of time for someone to find excuses and secondary meanings to these statements when they themselves tell us that they mean what they say, and that their words should be given their literal meanings. As-Sakhawi in his ‘Al-Qaulul Munbii ‘an tarjamati ibn ‘Arabi’ says that Ibn Arabi in his Futuhat explicately declared that his statements should be taken as they appear, that is in their literal meanings’.
As-Shaukani also says: ‘He once again said in ‘Ad-Dau’ul lami’ (meaning Sakhawi) under the biography of Husain ibn Abdur Rahman al-Ahdal, that he said: I was told about ibn Arabi that he said: My statements should be given their apparent meanings, and I intend their literal meanings’. So how can you assume – O you who have been deceived – that he did not mean its apparent meanings? Moreover his words in his Futuhaat and Fusoos are in clear Arabic, so also the words of his fellow men, how then can scholars of Shari’ah be expected to understand something contrary to that?…Look, you poor fellow, how those ignorant people played with your intellect, to what extent do you love them. While Allah Ta’ala Has ruled upon the Jews and Christians with disbelief for saying He is the third of the three (in trinity – Ma’idah 73), why shouldn’t He judge these people according to their words? Now listen, let me dictate to you some of the Karamahs of those so called Auli’ya who played with the deen of Allah. As for Hallaj, he was the pioneer in the field of ‘Wahdah’ (oneness of existence), that doctrine in which ibn Arabi and his fellow men wasted their life, but he (Hallaj) lived an era in which there were remains of goodness and mercy in its people on this deen. So they killed him with the swords of Islam…” (As-Sawarimul Hidaad Al-Qati’ah p. 97-98).
That is why many scholars maintained that it is prohibited to give Ibn Arabi’s words meanings other than their apparent one. See Tanbeehul Ghabi Ila Takfeer ibn Arabi by Al-Biqa’ie (d. 885) p. 127. See also ‘Al’Iqduth Thamin Fi Tarikhil Baladil Amin’ by Taqiyuddin Al-Fasi (d.832), where he quoted 22 eminent scholars who explicitly condemned and rendered Ibn Arabi apostate for his concept of Wahdul Wujud and its product Wahdatul Adyan. This chapter has been edited independently in a small book of 83 pages.
I will conclude this part with some questions: what is the essence of all these lengthy quotations on Wahdatul Adyan and Wahdatul Wujud? Didn’t it die out with the demise of the direct deciples of Ibn Arabi? Are the Muslims still threatened by this theory – or is it no more theory? Do we find among the Sufis who believe in and put this doctrine in practice?
One does not need a field research to answer these questions, and will find that even in this present time some of the Sufis believe and practise the concept of Wahdatul Wujud. A man believed to be sane and reasonable living among his kin and friends, eating from and enjoying Allah’s bounties, suddenly opens up his mouth and declare that he is now the lord of the worlds, that he is Allah the creator of the heavens and earth, that he forgives the sins of his deciples. I know of a local school in Kano, back in 1996 where some of its students, most of whom were youths of about 18 – 30, distributed some of Allah’s beautiful Names between themselves, each calling his colleague with one, and believing each of them to be Allah. They used them so jestingly one will not believe such a thing will happen in a Muslim society.
In my place, (Birnin Kudu) the son of a reknown Tijjaniyyah sheikh, declared himself the khalifa of Ibrahim Kaulaha, and immediately attracted the attention of the people of all near-by towns and within a short time he was believed to be telling the truth. In less than a year, after the death of his father, he was believed, at least by his immediate students (murids), to be god. He used to go round the town claiming to be forgiving peoples’ sins. This is a person I know personally and knows me quite alright. Alhamdu lillahi, he later on left the town for Kano, claiming that the people back home did not accord him what he deserved of reverence. These are therefore, things I know from personal experience not read in Sufi books.
Accounts of events of this nature are too many to be denied in many societies, all under the concept of this Wahdatul Wujud and in the name of Sufism.
We ask Allah to guard us from deviating away from His path.
To be continued in sha Allah.
M. Halilu Uba,
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,
I really appreciate your frankness and zeal in exercising justice and fairness. These are values expected of every Muslim and I ask Allah Ta’ala to help and make us stick to His path.
I will try to be brief but to the point in sha Allah, as I have answered most of what you raised, in other write-ups though not addressed to you in particular.
But may I appeal to you and any other brother viewing things the way you do, to kindly make this discourse in the best objective manner possible. The importance of this in any intellectual discourse cannot be over-emphasised. Our focus should be on what one says and what arguments he presents, not what we perceive one to be holding in terms of belief or ideological inclination or whether he is for or against us. His method of presenting his case or putting up his arguments may indicate, but does not necessarily fashion out the ‘party’ to which he belongs. I know of many people who are strongly against Sufism even before they are aware of anything like Wahhabism. Even before you spell it out that you are not a Sufi, I have not taken it from your stance on the matter that you are one, just as I won’t throw anyone, for being anti-Sufi, into a camp I assume he must necessarily belong to – ‘Wahhabi Movement’, ‘Modern Day Salafiyyah’, or any other group – whatever I may perceive the term to mean. What I understood from you was a sincere quest for justice and fair-play in dealing with matters of knowledge, and that is what I still hold, regardless of the method or language you apply in making your point.
Many a member on this forum will view the current discussions on Sufism as just another Izala-Tariqa crisis, based on pure partisanship, for peoples’ intellects have been compartmentalised on this issues into these groups so much so that whenever one speaks against one of them he is seen to belong to the other. Some members, on the other hand, who detaste these kinds of discussions find it necessary to swift their attentions at least away from it. In my view NMN is rich with people who are professionals in various fields and who I assume are above this line of thinking. That is why I personally do not contribute to the view that the forum is dominated by anti-Sufi or Wahhabi elements as they are usually referred to. Rather there are a lot who reserve comments on almost every topic, and prefer the ‘DROM’ class, for reasons best known to them.
One other thing before taking up the issues you raised, Islamic knowledge, especially that has to do with ‘aqeedah and legislating ‘ibaadah, is factual and not subject to the experiments other branches of knowledge like the natural sciences undergo. It is either the Qur’an, the Sunnah or what the Sahabahs agree upon. Opinions differ in interpretations, yes, but not necessarily due to an in-built bias. To say this in a sweeping generalisation, is like disowning these texts their power of al-bayan (eloquence). Yes, there are texts that are subject to interpretation, but what counts is not the interpretation of poor Abubakar or any of his friends. Rather interpretations from ulama of the highest degree of piety who lived with the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and received his teachings, and whom he did not depart without telling them whatever goodness that will bring them near their Lord and near the Jannah, and warning them from whatever evil that will make them near Hell. So what we need is knowledge of what those people practised. If it is available it should please be produced on any matter not only this. Opinions and interpretations will only be binding if they conform to that of the generation of Sahabah.
Now to the issues you raised, let me start with some of your words when addressing brother Ibrahim Ado. You said: ‘The other thing you mentioned which caught my attention is the issue of groups partisanship. A lot has been said already. You hit the hammer on the nail when you pointed out that there was a time in Muslim history when the Mu’tazila were reigning and the Hanbalis down. This is part of the reason we must be careful with blanket condemnation. We may just be living in an era when Sufi bashing is fashionable…’
In so far as political power influences the spread of one Mazhab or another, facts do not change just because of that. If you will just take the time of browsing the pages of the history you mentioned, particularly that to do with the reign of Mu’tazila, you will find that the political power of the Mu’tazila played a vital role in spreading their mazhab, not in making it the truth as against the mazhab of the salaf which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali was calling to at that time. That is why he (Imam Ahmad) did not succumb to the Mu’tazili aqeedah despite the fact that he was tortured and coerced to do so, a stance which earned him the title ‘Imam Ahlus Sunnah’. So blanket condemnation or not, a Muslim should believe that Islam as brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and understood by the Sahabah is still there and up to end of this world. It is the only recognisable deen in the sight of Allah. A Muslim only accepts something else, when this is not clear to him whether he happens to get acquainted with it through free books, scholarships from Petro-Dollars or Petro-anything.
Then you said: ‘…They all have differences, each one applying his line of thinking, hence his mazhab. If sticking to the sunnah means just one thing, they should not differ on issues’.
It is natural for people to differ and their difference is never an indication that they are on the wrong track. The Sahabah differred on some issues of fiqh and that did not make Islam vague. The problem is where do we resort to whenever we differ. While some see that in the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), others view that they resort to other sources. But as I have repeated a number of times, the religion of Allah is Islam, whose main source is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) based on the understanding of the salaf. Whoever sticks to this will never be astray in sha Allah, as prophesied by the rasul himself that a party of his ummah will remain with the truth to the last day. It is just the duty of the Muslim to look for the right path and in no where but the aforementioned sources. It is to these sources Allah and His Prophet attached us. Any difference you hear or witness is due to the failure of one side to either accept or even resort to them. It is wrong to assume that one should stay without any belief. Rather he must necessarily belong to the mazhab taught by the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), that is to be with the followers of his sunnah, and strive to know what this sunnah is. What people are always called upon to understand is that there is no one whose example is incumbent upon the Muslim to follow except the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No one or group should be followed blindly. So one should just go and search anywhere in this world, find what the Prophet and his companions were practising in their days, then follow it, wherever he finds himself and whatever influence he happens to experience either in any Petro-dollar country or in any cave on the vast of this earth. He will only be answerable to that which Allah Has decreed through His prophet. In the days of the Sahabah, when some of the deviated parties – such as the Shi’ah and Khawarij and Qadariyyah - started emerging, they disengaged themselves from them and warned people against them. Some of them even declared the Qadariyyahs apostate for denying Allah’s knowledge of human actions. They did not say: O you people all of you are Muslims. We only differ in matters of opinion or interpretation of the data we received from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No they never did that.
Now to the issue of Sufism, I assume we are not in disagreement as to the fact that in Sufism, as a thought – regardless of the origin of the word, there is what is good and what is bad (or what you choose to call the worst mistakes and errors of the worst examples of Sufi personalities). The first, that is the good contained in it, is what some ulama accept and accord it the meaning of ‘Zuhd, tazkiyyah, ihsaan’, or to sum it up, inner purification. The second, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs and rites alien to the teachings of Islam but camouflaged in the name of Sufism. This second meaning is what we have today as Sufism in the name the various Sufi Tariqas, each affiliated to a Shaikh they call Wali.
So we have two angles from which to look at the meaning of the word ‘Sufism’:
Its meaning as a word comprising of many different things. This is what I wanted to show: how it is made difficult, if not impossible, to reach a clear definition of the word. The Sufis themselves – early and contemporary - could not reach an agreement even to a minimum degree as to its meaning, despite its fundamental importance to them. Philosophers and thinkers, as you put it, argued on the number of teeth a donkey has. Yes, this is their usual business. Ours is Islam, the deen of Allah, brought by Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). We are talking of what to worship our Lord with in order to earn His pleasure, an essential factor for which He sent His Prophets to the human race. Should something so vital like this be so obscure to the extent of denoting about two thousand meanings. So our issue is not the parable of the number of teeth a donkey has and the dilemma of the philosophers. Our issue is that a word is just found in our midst, no one can tell us what it means, not even the people with whom it is known. Then we come to find some Muslims identifying themselves with a group or a number of groups under a common denominator given this name. Is it then fair to accuse one for condemning it on the ground that he deliberately failed to differentiate between what is good of it and what is bad? This is the point I was trying to show. It is not a mere theory a child or even an old man can direct us to the way out in order to ascertain its specific meaning. I have clearly got what you mean, that is we should look at the reality of what has been practised by the Sufis especially eminent scholars of Islam amongst them: what did they practice? All the same if we focus that attention what we will find ourselves amidst is another dilemma. Were those scholars identified as Sufis in the manner we find Sufism now? We will in sha Allah try to look at this angle.
The meaning of Sufism as a thought or as the word used by some scholars to refer to ‘Zuhd’ and the set of moral code of conduct and personal etiquette adopted by Muslims in the early days of Islam, and what it came to be comprising of in later days up to this time.
For a clear picture of this we need to study the stages through which Sufism passed in brief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)