Sufism

Sufis are not a sect of their own, nor do they claim to be.

Sufi ideals were practiced by the early Muslims. But people who took things too far were criticised. The critics took the example of the extreme Sufis and associated it with Sufism itself. Eventually this criticism led to the emergence of people who rejected Sufism. Over the years as more and more people became anti-Sufi they justified their position by saying that Sufism has no grounding in Quran or Sunnah.

As a response to the bad press that Sufi ideals were getting some Sufis tried to reform Sufism and take out what were deemed 'extreme' practices. The Deobandi school is one such reform movement. The Brelawis on the other hand saw nothing wrong with Sufism and stuck to traditional Sufism.

Today the debate between pro-Sufis and anti-Sufis continues. And anyone who is loosely pro-Sufi is labelled a 'Sufi' (not always by themselves but by anti-Sufis who want someone to argue with).

Anyway, I gleaned the above from [url=http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0700710604.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg]a book I’m ‘reading’[/url] at the moment.

[quote="Beast"]Sufis are not a sect of their own, nor do they claim to be.

Sufi ideals were practiced by the early Muslims. But people who took things too far were criticised. The critics took the example of the extreme Sufis and associated it with Sufism itself. Eventually this criticism led to the emergence of people who rejected Sufism. Over the years as more and more people became anti-Sufi they justified their position by saying that Sufism has no grounding in Quran or Sunnah.

As a response to the bad press that Sufi ideals were getting some Sufis tried to reform Sufism and take out what were deemed 'extreme' practices. The Deobandi school is one such reform movement. The Brelawis on the other hand saw nothing wrong with Sufism and stuck to traditional Sufism.

Today the debate between pro-Sufis and anti-Sufis continues. And anyone who is loosely pro-Sufi is labelled a 'Sufi' (not always by themselves but by anti-Sufis who want someone to argue with).

Anyway, I gleaned the above from [url=http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0700710604.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg]a book I’m ‘reading’[/url] at the moment.[/quote]

What you jus said reminded me of summin sum1 told me few monthes ago. Thing is, Sufi's didnt take anything to an extreme, they said the worldly matters are of no concern to them, yes. But it doesnt mean they didnt work to feed their children and get by in life etc. This religion was passed down by traditions, and slowly, when the anti-sufi sects came along, they picked a few traditions which they liked, and left the rest.

So, sufi's didnt take anything to an extreme, but People like to think they did, because they do not understand concepts such as tasuwwuf etc which are attributed to sufism alone.

As for the reform movement of the School of Deoband, I think the founder of the school was Ismail Dehlvi, and alongside him was Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Dehlvi's Grandfather was actually a great sufi master by the name of Shah Waliullah r.a. Im sure Deoabndis still tudy writing of Shah Waliullah r.a.

Shah Wali Allah is mentioned in my book as a Sufi reformer. He is quoted as saying, 'Sufis without knowledge of Quran and Sunna, and scholars who are not interested in mysticism are brigands and robbers of the din.'

his grandson not take his advice then?

The Deobandis differentiate between what they see as valid and invalid Sufi practices just as Shah Wali Allah apparently did.

psuedo-sufi's as my good friend used to say?

[quote="Beast"]The Deobandis differentiate between what they see as valid and invalid Sufi practices just as Shah Wali Allah apparently did.[/quote]

Apparantly being a key word. Many of shah waliallah's book are printed by deobandi owned publishing houses, so they can make him say what they want.

Reminds me of a what shaykh Hamza once said, he said he's got 2 copies of the same book, by the same publishing house, one from 1994, other from 2000. The difference is the publishing house was bought out by a certain sect round 1996, and ideas in the book have been changed. Shaykh Hamza didnt mention what ideas or what sect or anything, but you get the idea.

This is a problem, not only do you have to watch out whose books you are buying, but also, which publishing house they are coming from. Shame, seld-education isnt as simple as it once used to be, cant even buy a book without being suspicious.

[quote="Fresh Prince"]psuedo-sufi's as my good friend used to say?[/quote]

Lol

I doubt anyone would distort the books as such...

There was a time period where 'sufi's' were seen as keeping themselves away from the system.

Then later it was argued it was better to reform the system than avoid it.

(but I think I am talking about a diferent change in 'sufism'... not the one being discussed...)

i think you are

care to explain

ok...this is a few years old so what I say may have alot of cobwebs on it...

At some point (I think during the Ummayyad dynasty... but that sounds too early) The 'sufi's' of the time found the ruling elite too corrupt to deal with.

Instead of cleaning house, they advocated separation from the corrupt.

This was because the ruling elite had previously run stunts with the scholars, one feeding them all haraam food, and then announcing that now they had to listen to him, or they will be outed or something...

So sufi's totally rejected involvement in any type of politics. This was around the same time some tried to become extreemly detached from the world around them.

After a perios of time (centuries), the 'sufi's' argued the opposite, that the ruling elite must be engaged to make them less corrupt, and that generally sufi's must interact with others, as separation from the amterial world was not acceptable...

Salaam

Sufism IS Islam.

Fresh and Beast raised a valid points….another reason why Sufism is seen “separate” is because we’re all at different spiritual levels, not all of us have reached the highest level of spiritual perfection….and some of us do not even wish to go there.

Sufism is the higher/ more advanced level of Islam.

Most of us just try to avoid the haraam and the halaal (if that) and try to fulfil the fard acts of Islam.

To get closer to God, one must do beyond that. And a Sufi is the one who has defeated his Nafs (ego) and does a lot more than the basics.

Like, we’re told to not let the world distract us from the remembrance/love of God….the Holy Prophet ﷺ (who was a Sufi) was sometimes so overcome with the extreme love, remembrance of God that he used to lightly slap the thigh of his beloved wife Hadrat Aisha (ra) and order her to talk to him so that he’ could momentarily be distracted from the extreme love of God which engulfed him.

We know that we should follow the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet ﷺ and we do try to copy the way he slept, ate and drank water…Hadrat Awais Karni (another Sufi) broke every one of his teeth because he heard that one tooth of his beloved leader had broke in a battle….he also did a lot more than the basics.

We are told that we must wish for others what we wish for ourselves be selfless…one Sufi (I can’t remember his name) had a bag of coins stolen and he was extremely upset…simply and only because he felt sorry for the thief who on the Day of Judgement would have no valid excuse for his actions in the Court of Allah (swt).

Also…a Sufi places love of God above everything. He worships God not because of fear of hell or love of Paradise…He worships God for the sake of God.

Sufism is the higher/advanced level of Islam, and this Muqam is sadly not stressed or even mentioned in many Mosques.

Wasalaam

what i try sayin on a couple of posts, somewhat confusingly........MS said it in one 😢

BTW - I heard that story about the Sufi who broke all his teeth upon hearing The Beloved Prophet (Saw) hurt one of his 🙂

I dont know why my posts on Sufism was deleted.

I only criticised the Deobandis. I also mentioned something something about Adam.

whats wrong with what he said!! :o

[size=7]ok it was wrong, but funny![/size]

Perhaps Boss can provide an explanation ?

group bashing should not be tolerated.

So, should a bunch of thieves be not criticised ?

only when and where appropriate.

otherwise it is backbiting/slander.

Yes. And in the context of Sufism, it was "appropritate" to have a go at those who claim that to be a Sufi is to Sin.

I would love to see a quote supporting your position.

They disagree with some ASPECTS of what is part of the all encompassing term of sufism.

They hate the very idea. They even dont like the term "Sufism". They claim it is an innovation in religion. A sin.

[quote="Omrow"]Yes. And in the context of Sufism, it was "appropritate" to have a go at those who claim that to be a Sufi is to Sin.[/quote]
lol u joker, u having a go at deobandis for being against sufis? wrong group mate. go find another to bash. 😂

i dont think u should be encouraging him! :shock: :o

[quote="Fresh Prince"]i dont think u should be encouraging him! :shock: :o[/quote]
good point, didnt mean it that way though. :oops: but my point was that deobandis are the last to criticise sufis, because they still follow a lot of sufi practices.

arguable

unless extremely watered-down ones

[quote="Sirus"]arguable

unless extremely watered-down ones[/quote]

They dislike sufi's extremely, or atleast the deo's i kno do. But they have a Tazkiyah process which is a watered down version to the one we follow.

Oh hayder, u kno the Fake Shaykh, he's was originally a deobandi, i jus remembered him when u mentioned watered down sufism, his version is made up sufism. :roll:

Ya Digg 8)

Salaam

Some of Awliya’s have defined Sufism as “etiquette alone”.

Once an Awliya was engaged to marry a beautiful woman…a few weeks before their marriage she was afflicted by some skin disorder that disfigured her face…the family decided to call of the wedding, but the Awliya pretended that he had been afflicted with blindness so that his bride wouldn’t feel ashamed of her looks

This awliya spent the rest of his life pretending to be blind so that his wife wouldn’t feel embarrassed of her looks…. It was only when his wife passed away that he stopped pretending to be blind.

Another Saint accepted a sweet from a non Muslim and intentionally broke his Nafl (voluntary) fast…simply and only because he felt if he refused he would have broke her heart.

Such was the extent that Awliya’s used to go through just to avoid hurting people’s feelings.

The great Sufi Rumi said

“Whoever has not a share of etiquette is not a human being. This is because the difference between animals and humans is etiquette. Open your eyes and read the Qu’ran more carefully. You will realise that its verses are about good etiquette.

Wasalaam

The Holy Prophet SAW said:

"I was only sent to perfect Noble Character."

MS I put that here, 'cause what you said reminded me of this.

lol

[quote="razor"][quote="Sirus"]arguable

unless extremely watered-down ones[/quote]

They dislike sufi's extremely, or atleast the deo's i kno do. But they have a Tazkiyah process which is a watered down version to the one we follow.[/quote]
hmm interesting u say that coz the deobandis i am familiar with do have practices which are similar to sufi practices, as razor mentioned.