Lately, the focus of Muslim authors has been on establishing better relations and unity between what they term “Sufis” and “Salafis”. Yahya Birt has written an expansive piece on the subject which deserves reading. Others have chimed in on the necessity of coming together. Even Sh. Hamza Yusuf has spoken about the rivalry between students of his Zaytuna organization and Al-Maghrib Institute.
First, let us talk accurately about who we are discussing here. Sh Hamza Yusuf lovers, sufi sympathizers, simple fans of Sh Yasir Qadhi or Imam Suhaib Webb are not the problem here, all of these fan groups know too little about the details of their faith to really create any tangible disunity. They may fight on the internet occasionally, but they don’t decide the direction of organizations and content of their classes.
These fans generally aren’t even aware of the issues in question, often resort to one or other approach when presented with a choice. They are content to live on the gray border lines of dispute. Alhamdulillah to them, they deserve respect as well, especially if they are not entering into these topics to avoid disunity. But these ones should also understand that there are differences over real issues and ignoring the problems does not make them go away. Leaving all possible debate and concentrating on the basics is good, as long as it does not cause you to deny the methods of the traditional ways for those who are seeking.
From my limited perspective, the real issue has been between those who announce and have an established traditional Sufi tariqat, a Shaykh, and are learning in the traditional ways, versus actual trained Salafi’s in ideology.
The disunity has largely been originating from the Salafi side, whose fundamental creed is based on their own purification of other misguided groups.
Yahya Birt states accurately
To put it another way. Sufis can’t be expected to endorse a position that would seek to make them agree that tasawwuf is an optional add-on, a bad innovation, or, worse, even a heresy. Rather Sufis would like anti-Sufis to accept that placing tasawwuf at the heart of our religion is a valid interpretive possibility even if they disagree with it.
And then continues on with three issues for resolution of the above:
Three major issues in Sufi-Salafi reconciliation will be (i) the reclassification of some acts as fiqhi differences rather than as matters of basic aqida, as bid`a rather than as shirk, (ii) the recognition that there are primary and secondary issues in credal and legal matters and (iii) that the semantic approach adopted by some scholars of the East provides a means to diffuse differences between Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis over the description of God’s transcendence and immanence.
It is important to note that when reading these three elements, the common pattern is that the Salafi overzealousness is what is being tempered here. On the other hand, real Sufi’s have had no problem uniting with anyone, and I know in my Tariqat, we are very open and frank and enjoy the company of non-Muslims who have sincere hearts.
It is with a conciliatory attitude that Yahya Birt is presenting issue number #1, accepting Tariqat practices as Bida rather than Shirk. MashaAllah. Obviously, we don’t hold any of our practices to be anything but based on the Sunnah, but AllahuAlim. The truth that Yahya is subtly representing here is the reality that Salafi’s cannot unite with those they believe are fundamentally Mushriks, so at least they need to consider Tariqat people as Ahl ul Bida (People of Innovation) in order to work together. The idea here seems to be that some Tariqat people might be willing to be told that their practices are Bida rather than Shirk (still sinful, just less so). The suggestion is if this approach is taken the Salafi’s will have toned their message down, so we may be able to unite.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach as it expects Tariqat people to simply take less abuse for ‘unity’ to occur.
Issue #2 is, in my opinion, is representing the idea that the Salafi’s need to categorize what they feel are the primary and secondary levels of disagreement in matters related to Aqida and Fiqh. This is in order to give them, again, a priority of disagreement. “Fight over only the most important stuff” as it may be.
Again, fundamentally flawed. This conciliatory approach towards abuse is not the right direction for unity. Abuse, whether in the home or classroom, is abuse, and it has to stop.
Issue #3 mentions “to diffuse differences between Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis”. Let us be honest here: there is no huge disagreement between Ashari’s and Mutiridi’s. And Sh Muhummad Yaqubi in the talk ‘Advice to Seekers’ with Sh Hamza Yusuf did not consider Salafi’s to be Athari’s (and indeed, Salafi’s are hardly ever using this term). Can the differences be diffused? Possibly, as long as it is not a part of Salafi creed to consider others as innovators and mushriks, or guilty of ‘all three categories’ of shirk, etc.
Certainly there is no such extreme hostility coming from teachers of Tassawuf. Shaykh Maulana Nazim al-Hakkani has never even mentioned the name of a Salafi in any of his talks. And in general, tariqat people are much more involved and concerned with working on themselves to have that much time complaining about individuals and organizations. While Sh. Gibril Haddad does good work, profiling and attacking other Shaykhs is not the general example of the people of Tareeq.
But indeed, there has been a lot of talk about unity on the American Salafi side. For all of Sh Yasir Qadhi’s efforts, and internet personalities such as Amad, talk of unity has changed little between them and actual Shaykhs and students of Tariqat. People who are teaching or learning in the ways of the self in the manner of the Naksibendi, Shazili, Chishti, Qadiri, Ba Alawi, and other ways still seem to boil the blood of Salafi’s.
Amad, one of the key organizers of muslimmatters.org recently stated his criticisms at Saifuddin taking initiation with our Shaykh the other day:
Pictures of some of what goes on at this ‘dergah’ tell the story; everyone is free to check them out and make up their own mind, as I do not intend to delve into this hornet’s nest.
So Amad and others have a problem with my Flickr picture album, and that is what calls for a hate comments telling people to avoid a “hornet’s nest”. Is this the spirit of unity?
Numerous other incidents have occurred between this blog and anti-Tariqat folks. This blog, like myself, generally just tries to stay on positive topics and occasionally will enter a discussion to defend good people. As some might remember, not so long ago, a small defense of the Hadra created an eruption that everyone who was paying attention could feel the heat from. Accusations of Bida’, Shirk and Kufr are what the Salafi’s always resort to, and Yahya Birt is right, until they can get over that, there will be no real unity.
Unity may be able to exist between non-Tariqat people, who are creating untraditional forms of Tassawuf and joining with the Wahabi’s in that regard. They are free to do so with not one single ounce of complaint from my part. I would only advise them to be careful, as it seems they are not being grounded in the traditional ways of spirituality, and proximity without principles is only a door for assimilation, not appreciation.
Unity should not become its own idol. We need to understand that we are all for uniting with all people of faith, with sincere hearts and humbleness on all our parts. Uniting with enemies of that spirit of friendship is a contradiction, and by no means necessary.
So, the real issues will remain between what Amad has stated are ‘extreme’ Sufi’s (basically anyone who is actually in a Tariqa and a student of the Sufi ways) and Salafi’s. And it has nothing to do with hostility on this Sufi’s part.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Salaam ‘Alaikum
At the same time, it would require “Salafis” to accept that there are those among the trad’l ‘ulema and their students who consider aspects of their taught ‘aqida and fiqh to be bid’a as well. Which, as we have seen recently, they are not willing to accept, and instead classify it as “attacks” on the Salafi movement. Because we were supposed to sit back and take it lying down when we were takfir’d, bayaan’d, spit on, beaten, run out of the community, but we’re not supposed to even say one word, no matter how well mannered or how scholarly it is.
No, the only thing we can unite on is la illaha illa Allah, Muhammadur Rasul’Allah… can we do that? Right now, I’m not sure. But I’m also not sure how long some of these modernist movements are going to live out anyway.
This is what i don’t understand. No one can point me to any indication that this “unity” is the over arching principle we should live islam by. I just simply don’t get it.
I agree with ummZaid to the extent that the really heated issues only started developing when “extreme sufis” started fighting back. For the most part, we were quiet, and really just accepted things as they were.
Salaam.
Good write up. May ALLAH bless you.
If we do not want others to insult our beliefs, our Shuyukh and traditions, then we should not insult others.
This Imam Suhaib Webb continious topic that led to this unending discussion should be laid aside. He started it and has clarified his views. It is not worth discussing any more.
Lets mind and focus on how we can be good Tulaab ul ilm and get the best we can from our wonderful Shuyukh.
Was salaam
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Assalamaualaykum Bhai Jaan,
Masha’Allah may this article bring you into the happiness of Allah (Swt), His Holy Prophet (s), and Their Beloved Ones.
I also wanted to comment that those who consider themselves “Sufi,” or “traditionalists,” or whatever the term of today is, must ponder over the following point: With whom do you seek to unite? Do you want to come close to those ones who have filled the pages of history with the blood of the Ahlul Bayt, of the Saints, and of the Scholars. With those ones who give top marks to paper that advocate that we move the burial place of our Beloved Prophet (s)? Of people who curse the Awliya and Ulema of the past?
Or do you seek unity with those who are loved by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s)?
Know that Hakk and Batil can never unite.
*just one clarification because it relates to what is attributed to my comment… which I posted on Hakim’s site as well*
Yursil, since you have chosen to quote me here, I should clarify the context of this quote, and I choose to do so, because I do sincerely believe that you are not intentionally trying to mislead here. So, what I meant about the “hornet’s nest” is the DISCUSSION on this topic, not the dergah itself. Thus I did not wish to delve into the topic because that has the potential to start a comment-war (i.e. the hornet’s nest), which I am frankly not interested in. That’s why I suggested for the individuals to see what is going on there and decide for themselves if they like it or not.
Hope that is clear.
waslaam
BismillahirRahamnirRaheem
Salamu’alaikum,
Alhamdulillah, thank you for that clarification. On the other hand, your entire comment was criticizing our tareeqa (by the way, is a synonym for our ‘group). Another quote from you which follows some quoted text supposedly by me or Saifuddin:
I don’t think the above is representing unity either.
-Yursil
Dear Sidi Yursil, as-salamu alaykum,
This is a thoughtful post. It does identity a lack of clarity in what I wrote, which I shall clarify in the piece inshaAllah. To reclassify acts from shirk to bid`a is a first step. But as I stated in the previous sentence you quoted, “Sufis can’t be expected to endorse a position that would seek to make them agree that tasawwuf is an optional add-on, a bad innovation, or, worse, even a heresy. Rather Sufis would like anti-Sufis to accept that placing tasawwuf at the heart of our religion is a valid interpretive possibility even if they disagree with it.” This represents the second stage and optimal position in any attempt at unity.
On issue 2, the object of address is everyone, not just Salafis. I think in the piece I mentioned three indications on this score between primary and secondary issues. FIrst, Sheikh Ali Goma`a observation; second, the Amman Initiative and its three basic principles; and third, Imam al-Ghazali’s Faysal al-Tafriqa.
On issue 3, again you have raised some important clarification about whether Salafis self-describe or traditionalists ascribe Salafis to the category Athari. However the semantic approach, as I have understood it is broad enough to cover modern-day Salafis as well. This needs further clarification however.
Unity does not imply agreement on all points, but a greater respect for difference while agreeing on matters that by necessity are known to be part of the religion. And it certainly cannot be achieved in an atmosphere of insult and abuse, which I nowhere endorse in the piece, and which I think is not a fair reading.
And Allah knows best.
Wa s-salam, Yahya
Walaikumassalam Br. Yahya Birt,
Alhamdulillah, thank you for your comment and your original post.
On issue #2, you have stated you were addressing everyone. Indeed you were, but I have not understood what materialistic change on the ground is being suggested for ‘Traditionalists’. As is made clear, the Amman Initiative (endorsed and advertised by Traditionalists) is really about accepting each other as Muslims and Traditionalists have always considered Salafi’s Muslims. There has not been one doubt about that since they came into being. It needs not be said what Traditionalists think of Imam Ghazali (R).
On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the other position which has continually raised doubts and historically led to blood shedding over the idea that traditionalists were not Muslims.
Yes, unity does not imply agreement on all points.
Certainly, I did not read your piece with an endorsement for an atmosphere of insult and abuse, rather I see it not addressing the real issue of abuse in this explicit manner. I see your article as attempting to ‘trim the hedges’ of their philosophy in order to curb this abuse, however it is not addressing the issue head-on.
It is abuse that the traditionalists have suffered since the inception of the puritanical Salafi movement which has brought us to where we are today.
This abuse continues today and it must (and it will) stop.
Mesut raises an excellent point, it is this abuse which has led to bloodshed in the past and traditionalists will not easily sit with those who sympathize with the killers of their grandfathers and those who are, as we speak, demolishing our Prophet’s (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalams) sacred sites.
-Yursil
[...] September 9th, 2007 at 12:11 am (“Salafism”, Traditional Islam, Islam, Weblogs, Religion) Mind, Body, Soul » Blog Archive » Sufi – Salafi Unity? [...]
As-salamu alaykum,
No one wants to endorse abuse let alone bloodshed — on that we are agreed. However if we don’t even take the chance of talking across the divide, how does one expect it get any better? The Amman Initiative was about reinforcing fundamental Shari rights among Muslims — it was addressing firstly the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq. It lay down minimal standards and it sought to be inclusive. This is the right spirit in which to move things alone, not to stay in the status quo, which is particularly horrible in parts of the Muslim world. But in moving on in the West where conditions are better than the worst of what is going on in the Muslim world,we don’t have to hold someone guilty for the sin of another (e.g. an ideological ancestor), but we merely try to find a basis upon which we can live together, recognise each other as Muslims (and each other as holders of a valid interpretive possibility), fulfil each others basic rights, and (hopefully) create enough good will that we can do good together like feeding the poor and the needy and other acts of benevolent ihsan.
The abuse is still there albeit in a more sotto voice after 9/11 but some Sufis (and I was careful to say not all in the original post) have been opportunistic in reinforcing the cultural aspects of war-on-terror rhetoric against Salafis. In its own way that has been pernicious as it has not sought to protect the fundamental rights of fellow Muslims while these were being usurped as they were members of an anti-Sufi group who have attacked Sufis theologically in the past. This approach has turned up the heat. Others were simply contact to stay silent on the matter, but one has to ask if that is sufficient as a response.
On Sidi Masut’s point. No one said that the sitting together will be easy. But whatever shred of the Prophetic legacy remains, protesting from the outside should not cease, but how about some direct face-to-face time on that issue as well? Such cultural vandalism has been a terrible disgrace and a gash to one’s soul. To erase our sacred past is to leave the door open to rewrite it and hence our future in one’s own image.
wa s-salam, Yahya
BismillahirRahamnirRaheem
Walaikumassalam Br Yahya,
Why does it need to get any better? Certainly, especially in the West, we are already able to be neighbors to each other without any violence, we are already able to fulfill each others basic rights as we would any human being (Muslims or non-Muslim), and Traditionalists already recognize Salafi’s as Muslims.
I’m not sure what the latter buys us exactly, as from my understanding we can unite with all of humanity, of a good, sincere nature (regardless of creed) on matters of good. Indeed, the world is being split into those of faith in God, tolerance, sincerity, and goodness and those who are against those principles. We may find either type of people within any one ‘theological’ boundary.
Well, of course, we need not hold someone guilty for the sin of another, yet there is a difference between accepting and rejecting such sins. Having a sinful ideological ancestor is one thing, having them treated as a hero is another. At that point we are not just talking about an ancestor but an active endorsement of that behavior in the present day.
Do we need to share resources for ‘programs’ and such, and is this the defining test of the unity prize? On both accounts, I don’t think so. We just happen to be working our separate ways.
As far as war on terror rhetoric against the Salafi’s after 9/11, I haven’t seen too much of that but indeed I have seen silence.
I’m not sure why Sufi’s are expected to come to the aid of those who are suffering from a negative media image? Because their abuse of Sufi’s was in-the-past?
It would need to be explicitly clear that such attacks were invalid before I would personally have any desire to put my name to their defense in some public spotlight (BBC perhaps!). It is not as if they are physically drowning and need an actual helping hand as a human being, rather it seems the criticism of silence is really asking for public statements of support from Sufi’s for the Salafi ideology when it itself is exposed.
There is a deep meaning and ideological inference that can be taken from attacks against the pious Awliya. People that can make public attacks against Sufi’s are people of aggression, and we need not love nor support the aggressors because their ideology happens to be ‘losing’ or because they carry the title of Muslim.
There is a reality of the ideology of the terrorists which has indeed needed to be met with some ‘rhetoric’ in order to protect the Muslims living in the West. We certainly don’t agree with the terrorists, and there is an ideological background for the rise of the violence, and it is indeed related to a fundamental puritanical movement which has violent and non-violent outgrowths.
The Prophetic legacy, which predicted disunity as well as the rise of such groups, has led us to where we are today. The Companions (R) themselves dealt with disunity in a very strict manner. I think the manner we have chosen today is mild, going our separate ways is, I think, the best we can hope for without a fundamental shift of the Salafi ideology and their agenda of abuse.
[...] wonders whether Sufi and Salafi can unite. Powered by Gregarious [...]
Salam
Christians, Jews, and various non-Muslim groups have attacked us, Muslims, whether sufi or salafi, in the past, and are attacking us in the present, both ideologically and physically. This hasn’t stopped us from accepting those of them who we can join with in matters of common interest. And, alhamdulillah, many Sufis have been at the forefront of ACTIVELY calling out for this unity for common purposes. This call for a dialog also disregards the violence done by these nations, communities, religious groups, towards Muslims in the past and the present (by other representatives or members of the groups). But this call is rightly seen as a necessity.
Therefore, I don’t understand this exception when it comes to the Salafis. In many parts of the world, this call for an ‘agree to disagree’ policy is necessary to stop physical and emotional violence between family members and community members belonging to Sufi or Salafi groups. No one is saying that these problems were started by traditionals. The blame for this lie squarely at the feet of Salafi/Wahhabi ideologues. But, I can’t understand why we should exclude them out of a necessary dialog while at the same time calling for a commonality with non-Muslim groups.
And, in some places, takfir and demonization has been active between traditional groups too. Should dialog be precluded as a possibility in those cases too?
Wassalam
as-salamu’alaikum Faramir,
I think you have positioned it very clearly with your first sentence, unity in this day and age is not based on the name of our faith. That common interest that you mention however is not something which overrides the aggressive nature of some groups.
So, for example, we will find it impossible to unite with those teleevangalists who are preaching ‘Christianity’ with a distinct level of hatred towards Muslims. At the same time, we can work with those groups whose message is not based on the degredation of others, and those who are willing to put aside differences and work towards a common goal.
There is no exception for Salafi’s to that rule. However, the Salafi’s have always been a group whose preaching is much more akin to “Bill Keller” than to Pope John Paul.
Dialogue transcends, as you and I have stated, the boundaries of the name of our faith. Rather dialogue sits with the sincere, the ones seeking peace, tolerance and a message of hope.
Salafi identity is based on who and what they reject, and this message of abuse, public criticism, and political expression of that puritanical ‘cleansing’ is an instrinsic part of their philosophy. Therefore, yes, they need to perform major surgery on what they consider their own brand of ‘Salafism’ before dialogue of any meaningful type will occur.
assalamu alaikom
Great post.
“groups know too little about the details of their faith to really create any tangible disunity.”
I kind of disagree. Those people that bicker make the online situation an unpleasant one and it is causing a disunity among the “students of knowledge” at least to some extent.
Also, even though people said that doing what GF Haddad did by refuting salafi scholars wasn’t necessarily a good idea, I think it was necessary.
Salafis are always posting up “refutations” of the scholars and some of their refutations of sufism are just plain silly but there are not many people countering them up until recently. I don’t think the sufis/traditionalists should make it their main goal to expose deviant groups , that job is taken lol, but the sufis should defend themselves.
Now sufism is at such a stance where non-Muslims and Muslims look at it with doubt. We’re in a pretty bad state if the normal Muslim thinks that a Sufi is a mystic who doesn’t pray or fast, etc.So I understand we shouldn’t stoop down to their low level of adab but we need to start refuting. One of my main criticisms of Sufis today is that they are too exclusive, and maybe I’m wrong.
Also many traditionalists have written about this conflict/schism you, Danya, MR , Saad Omar etc..
but where are the salafis that have called for unity? (this is not sarcastic by the way, I’m asking genuinely, because I’m hoping there are some, I would like to read this from a salafi perspective)
However, I do not know how long this movement will stay either. Right now the same people who said it was misguidance to follow a madhab, but you need to follow the quran and sunnah are saying that non-scholars have no choice to follow but a madhab and that’s acceptable. haha I was just at a lecture by a Salafi who changed his views on that. haha
It seems that some of the more extreme ones are finding themselves forced to change their views with what is more correct.
but my main question is what are the salafis saying?
about unity?
I’ve seen numerous postings about this topic from traditionals?
what is our salafi brethren saying about the issue?
this is a sincere question , any links to blog posts by them?
because we just seem to be discussing this among ourselves.
it saddens me to say this, but this article is one of the most pretentious and condescending things i have ever read coming from a muslim.
you say “real Sufi’s have had no problem uniting with anyone” and “we are very open and frank and enjoy the company of non-Muslims who have sincere hearts.”
But your vitriol directed to salafis gives a different message. Either they are worse than non-Muslims, or they do not have sincere hearts, neither of which, i hope, you have the audacity to pass judgment on.
This post is also a contradiction to the way of your teachers (despite some falsity in this claim) – as you mention –
”
Certainly there is no such extreme hostility coming from teachers of Tassawuf. Shaykh Maulana Nazim al-Hakkani has never even mentioned the name of a Salafi in any of his talks. And in general, tariqat people are much more involved and concerned with working on themselves to have that much time complaining about individuals and organizations.”
This post in and of itself disproves this claim. Really, it just looks like another hate-filled attack directed towards those with whom you disagree. You will not find, for example, on muslimmatters [I bring it up only because you brought it up first] any diatribes like this directed against sufis.
You further prove this point by saying,
“Sh Hamza Yusuf lovers, sufi sympathizers, simple fans of Sh Yasir Qadhi or Imam Suhaib Webb are not the problem here, all of these fan groups know too little about the details of their faith to really create any tangible disunity.”
Here again you pass judgment on entire masses of people. You not only belittle their knowledge without any basis, but give passing insults which run quite contrary to this spiritual tariqat persona of having no problem with uniting with anyone that you attempt to give here.
You then say,
“As some might remember, not so long ago, a small defense of the Hadra created an eruption that everyone who was paying attention could feel the heat from. Accusations of Bida’, Shirk and Kufr are what the Salafi’s always resort to, and Yahya Birt is right, until they can get over that, there will be no real unity.”
and
“And it has nothing to do with hostility on this Sufi’s part.”
No outright hostility maybe, but you must admit there is some insistence to force these issues down people’s throats. No one discusses issues of hadra, etc. until “tariqat sufis” insist on partaking in them and discussing them with others. the unity will not happen when those accusations stop (i admit that is part of the problem) but rather when the sufis step back and objectively evaluate the shari’ legitimacy of those acts.
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum,
On the contrary:
http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/10/the-ruins-of-traditional-islam/
Quote from the site: –And without the casuistry of scholars to claim otherwise, I can only think to describe this as grave worship, as blatant shirk.–
Nothing more needs to be said about your post. It calls for us to basically ‘purify’ our deen as it is understood according to your ways, this is why unity cannot occur while accusations of shirk are being thrown around.
No need to step back, as those acts were and are sanctioned in centuries of Shariat legitmacy. So we have our Shari’ position. If Salafi’s want to unite they will have to learn to accept that fact.
Khadija, this is the link to what the Salafi’s are saying:
http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/29/unity-based-on-renewal-guidance
lol.. if you want to defend grave worshipping, then i concede, i have no argument left here
And right back to where we started. Salafi’s calling Sufi’s grave worshipers. Thank you for demonstrating my point, I don’t think I could have done better. What you describe as grave worship, we accept as Tawassul.
anyway im still interested in seeing your response to the many other points i made
BismillahirRahamnirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum,
I’m not really interested in debating the finer points of my post with you, the fundamental message is not one of hatred, but of unity.
Those are your judgments to make. There is not a scale that Muslims have to be higher than Non-Muslims in character in sincerity, rather we can only witness each others actions and the reality is it boils down to the same old things… Traditional Muslims just want to be left in peace following their ways and their understanding of the Shariat and Salafi’s just want to make it known how right they are in stopping it and enforcing their understanding of the Shariat.
The rest of your comment is therefore not really relevant, as much of it is based on the idea that Salafi’s don’t ever say anything against Sufi’s, and this is just not the truth (as proven in the post and with your comments).
Uniting with people who are yelling Bidaa! Shirk! Kufr! in your face is just not going to happen. This was a message for traditional minded people, so please let’s leave it at that.
-Yursil
wow. i am so sick of this back and forth garbage. almost every blog i go to someone is foaming a the mouth about this salafi vs sufi thing. has anyone ever thought of taking a cue from those shaykhs they rever so much and keeping their mouths closed?
you all obviously have no fear that you are saying anything wrong – god is on your side- and no fitnah at all comes from these arguments that bigger,better people than you haven’t managed to resolve.
i am so done with muslim sites. you come by looking for inspiration and all you find is this.
This write up has a judgemental tone to it. The reality is that most in the tariqah think that the Salafis are deviants as well. And you mention that Shaykh Nazim has never said anything negative about Salafis. Has he not mentioned the term “Wahabis,” which is a synonym? No one calls themselves a “Wahabi” either, BTW/
How about uniting with the Ja’fari Shi’is or the Dawoodi Bohras? Doesn’t the leadership of the tariqah consider them deviants too?
There is a level of nifaq in this posting.
In fact, racism among Muslims in the US is probably an even bigger issue than this.
The reality is that a majority of Muslims have a degree of asabiyyah and are sanctimonious when it comes to their “jama’ah.” Let’s be honest, so that we really can discuss unity or if it’s even possible.
BismillahirRahamnirRaheem
Salamu’alaikum,
It’s unfortunate that a casual reading by someone in an authoritative position in
‘Islamic’ politics leads to this type of comment.
The question is not whether other groups are deviant or not, but rather, can we continue our primary work without involving negativity of attacks?
You asked
As I stated:
Yes, he may have generally mentioned Wahabi’s or even Salafi’s (on rare occasion) as belief systems or ideologies, however the reality is he has never attacked an individual. The Wahabi and Salafi propaganda machine however, is based on attacks on individuals.
Unity exists with people of sincerity, on matters of commonality. And sometimes unity is expressed by simply allowing other communities to exist without need of constant criticism being flung over-the-wall.
I agree that the Salafis are more provocative and are harsher in their attacks. On a personal note, I’ve been attacked by both sides as well as my leader and community.
We all know that unity doesn’t equal uniformity. At the same time, how can one unify under the banner of Islam when the other party considers you a deviant Muslim? What is this unity based upon?
Are you truly going to have the feeling of unity in your heart with someone, who although may not attack you constantly, still believes or thinks that you’re not following “traditional Islam” or that you are a deviant? I don’t think so.
I do not consider tolerating someone by not flinging criticisms to be unity.
I’m sorry that you found my previous comment as unfortunate.
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum,
I’m uncertain as to your point. The entire basis of my post is to discuss the failings of the “Sunni unity pledge” and to get to the honesty required for it to be real.
On the other hand, it is clear that people can unite over any basic cause. Deviancy only implies some aspect of faith is mistaken. Does that mean you cannot sit with sincere people unless their faith is perfect?
Unifying under a banner of each individuals understanding of Islam is an unnecessary cause of division. We manage to unify with even non-Muslims in our real lives over other things, whether it be a basic a thing as being citizens of a township, employees, or as human beings.
A feel-good feeling of unity is not the goal here, the goal of the ‘pledge’ was to stop attacks.
Haqq and Baatil can not unite, I’m not declaring anybody on one side or the other.
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu ‘alaikum Zaazaan. You wrote,
Although perhaps you should? Indeed Haqq and Batil are opposite poles. Maybe it might prove more fruitful to declare what you understand to be Haqq-way. Then your comment would mean more than merely a number some text and a date. If you clarified your position perhaps comment #30 may stand for something, who knows it may stand for Haqq! And then again what you understand may be Batil, wa Allahu a’alam… but I’m not declaring you are on one side or the other.
Yursil accurately described Muslims who use canned, generalized and cliche positions saying,
I was once like this so I understand the apprehension of taking a stand, but like Malcolm X said,
wa’alaikum as-salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
I stand for following the path of Rasulullah (Sallallahu ‘Alaihe Wa Sallam) and his companions. It is a very sad state we are in where we ask Whose Islam? Speaking of that there is quite a relevant article on this by Khalid Baig, might wanna check it out:
http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/whose_Islam.shtml
Since, we are talking about Haqq and Baatil, it would be relevant to discuss sunnah and bidah, here is another article by the same author:
http://albalagh.net/general/bidah.shtml
“The Straight Path has been laid out. Our job is only to follow it, not to try to discover new paths.”
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu ‘alaikum Zaazaan. Good you are showing what you stand for, I too stand for following the sunnat of the Holy Prophet Sayyidina Maulana Muhammad (alayhi salatu wa salam).
So now that we agree there, what would you like to discuss about sunnah and bidah. I see your link and your quote, but what should I gather from these two or am I supposed figure it out on my own?
wa’alaikum as-salaam, I just recommend reading those articles, they are good, however I am surprised as to what I am seeing on some of these sites, all this music, qawwali and all seems really suspicious. But I just wanna get that out there
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
And what do you suspect Zaazaan?
Asalaamu alaikum.
I’m confused Zaazaan… you post nasheeds on your blog. That is music also. You cannot have it both ways.
Your quote about following the Straight Path and not seeking new paths is in essence correct. But how do you know what that Straight Path is if you do not have a teacher who comes from a long line back to the Prophet (salalahi alahi wa salaam) in explaining that path for your level of understanding?
Those didn’t have musical instruments on it, according to the ulama, innocent singing is fine as long as there are no musical instruments
According to your Ulema. According to the other Ulema, there are other opinions.
Assalamualaikumwarahmatullah,
they are not just “my ulema”, and I am well aware of the difference of opinion. With such a difference of opinion, wouldn’t this be left as a doubtful matter to be avoided? Not to mention, a hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari that says this:
Narrated Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash’ari: that he heard the Prophet saying, “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, ‘Return to us tomorrow.’ Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.”
Asalaamu alaikum Zaazaan,
It is interesting that you choose to focus/argue only on differences and worry about music, but do not answer when questions are posed to you about deeper matters. I specifically asked you how you can think you are on the “Straight Path” if you have no one to guide you upon it and are defining it entirely based on your understanding. Unless you yourself are a scholar, you do not have the knowledge to make decisions about all aspects without going to another who is more learned. And even scholars have teachers and shaykhs above them that they go to for advice and clarification. It is necessary to have a living guide who is able to exemplify the practice we wish to acquire.
Selectively quoting hadith that serve your own agenda but differ from other hadiths on the matter does not really bolster your case. Perhaps for you music is a doubtful matter best avoided, alhamdulAllah, but that does not make it doubtful for everyone.
Wa’alaikum as-salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu Aminah,
I just brought up music because I noticed it on these sites, let me ask, I noticed u guys use sunnipath, right? Well, that site itself, declares music as Haraam. So even if it really does come down to ‘my ulema’ or ‘your ulema’, wouldn’t it still become doubtful to you. And I’m not selectively using hadith for my own agenda, I’m saying that if such a severe reprimanding is given, placing musical instruments on the same level as zinaa and khamr in an authentic hadith, how could anyone dare still listen? And also, you are right, it is a very wrong way of thinking people have of doing things without knowledge, which should definitely be obtained from the ulema, but why follow a specific set of scholars and ignore the others?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1793&CATE=142
We are not Internet Muslims we take our direction from guides connected to the Prophet (S) in training and lineage. However, even Sunnipath, who take a position in general against music say:
Anyway, I dont suggest any further debate on this matter, we are forbidden to argue in matters of religion. Best to go our seperate ways.
very well, just trying to give nasiha, it is better to read books and ask the people of knowledge, but did u just say that you ask people who are related to the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihe Wa Sallam) in lineage? Is there really any basis for that? Based on hadiths I have heard, lineage has nothing to do with piety.
One last thing I would mention on the subject, there is something called ijmaa’, if the majority of authentic ulama will make a ruling on an issue that would be the correct view, is this not the case with music?