In the 18th and 19th centuries, Russian conquests in the North Caucasus fought the Muslim peoples of the Caucuses, the Daghestanis, Chechens, Ingush, and others, and incorporated them into the Russian state.
34th Grandshaykh of the Osmanli Naksibendi Order, Shaykh Muhummad al-Yaraghi (K.S.) was one of the leading Shaykhs speaking of defending against these incursions. However, he focused intimately on the purification of the self as a first priority, he is quoted as saying:
Go to the mosques, weep and pray in repentance, shake dreams from your eyes and God will forgive you and restore you to the righteous path and arm you for great deeds.
Then [after purification of their souls] Almighty God will reinforce you for the battle against the kaafir. Azrail will fly over the Russian troops, their bayonets and cannons will not be dangerous to you and you will learn that God has more power than any earthly tsar.
You must be ready when the hour comes and you are called to battle. God will give me a sign when this day has arrived and I will tell you. Meanwhile, pray and weep.
ref: In Quest for God and Freedom, Zelkina
Most Muslims, even so called ‘traditional’ Muslims, carry a wide gap of knowledge when dealing with their tradition. That gap is history.
Indeed, the history of Muslim nations may not be relevant to ones personal faith. Faith is faith, and nation is nation. Yet, Islam is a faith that, as espoused by most Muslims, contains answers for matters of public utility and the foundation and details of creating a just, moral nation. Hence, various political organizations have come into being, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Tahrir, and numerous so-called ‘Islamists’ groups. Most educated Muslims are familiar with them and their efforts in attempting to inject Islam piece-meal into the political landscape.
Unfortunately, the pieces these groups try to inject are usually in the wrong order, if not the wrong pieces all together.
The efforts of these organizations are usually of some interest to Muslims in their active regions. They work on educating many Muslims towards a ‘proper’ understanding of their faith (as understood through the lens of their own political machinations). Generally their explanation of Islam is completely ahistorical, and that is because a historical view of the practice of the faith is actually completely contrary to their rigid interpretation of the religion.
The history of Islamic nations is only as useful to Muslims in as much as it can be used to bolster their self-confidence. When we speak of Muslims contribution to mathematics, the sciences of optics, and medicine, we feel satisfaction that Islam brought progress to humanity. Yet, we are so easily able to forget and dismiss the leadership which created the environment which allowed people of different faiths to come together, a society which carried and defended Islam in the first place. Instead, many Muslims have bought into a fake historical tale which was put together by the combining the gossip and imaginations of the enemies of Islam.
Let us put analysis of successes aside, as most modern Muslims may tend to avoid that subject to concentrate on the ever-important ‘present’. These are the ones who would say, “Why should I care about what happened so long ago?” Often the verse of the Quran is quoted to further cement that disconnection:
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. (2:141)
However, it is an odd contradiction that these same people will clamor over learning and understanding classical Arabic so they can spend time reading fiqh and aqeedah works from centuries past, whether it be Imam Ghazali or Ibn Tayimiyya. For some reason, these ancient people and texts are extremely important and relevant. How can it be then, that the lifestyle, texts and manners of a living, thriving, Muslim society of not only 100 years ago is completely irrelevant?
One might say that the aforementioned figures were giants in their field, and that is what gives them the right to be studied today. Yet, they too have passed away, and their teachings are not being carried by any nation. Unlike the nations gone astray mentioned in the Quranic Ayat, the Ottomans were and are Muslims, and Muslims are not a nation that has passed. We are not a people to forget the legacy of our greatest leaders and teachers.
Let us put aside that the direct spiritual inheritors of the Ottoman example live today, the Sultans were also giants in their field, which was Islamic leadership and with strength and tolerance. The awliya of the time were also giants, and yet we learn very little of their lives and how they practiced Islam as a reality. Put that aside, we are so disconnected that we learn very little how even the average Muslim lived their lives.
This present-centric Muslim will, focusing on the news of the day, speak of the problems and depravities of the various modern day states. “Lashing a woman for being raped? Bombings in Palestine? Heads rolling in Iraq? That is not part of Islam!”
Yes, you are right it is not part of Islam, but other people seem to think otherwise, so who should we choose from to represent Islam? The Saudi’s are doing the lashing. The bombings continue by Palestinian groups. And the heads are still rolling in Iraq by those proclaiming “AllahuAkbar!”.
So is it only a purely theoretical, personal Islam that we have to present as a proof of a different understanding of Islam to the world and to our own selves? Are Muslims and Islam becoming like college students wearing dark rimmed glasses professing communism: an ideal which never reaches any practicable form? Or are we only somewhat controllable and palatable as a faith and as a nation when we are living within the boundaries of a westernized host-state?
Why don’t we count on the simple reality that not only a hundred years ago, the Islamic world was much more compassionate, considerate, and just?
The relationship between our generation and the Ottomans should be very tight indeed. Yet, often Muslims know more about the Abbasids or the times of Andalus (if even that), than they know of the Ottoman Sultan prophesized by the hadith:
“Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will her
leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” -Hadith (related: Ahmed, Bukhari)
Not only was the Ottoman empire ended not yet a hundred years ago from our time period, it ruled for over 600 years leading Muslims into an environment of modern day diplomacy, economics, and approaching globalization. Frankly, it is the circumstances of the Ottoman Empire which closely match the challenges that Muslims of today have faced, and it is in their example that we may find numerous answers towards dealing with the modern world.
For traditional Muslims this is even more of an important connection. The reality is that when Wahabis and Salafis speak of ‘returning’ to the Quran and Sunnah, it is largely the Ottomans which they wish to forget. It is the Ottomans they took up arms against. In fact, it is the Ottomans that carried what is commonly understood as “traditional” Islam in its spiritual and political form together as a reality. It was in Ottoman times that the Sultans that came to sit at the feet of the Sheykhs of the true Sufi orders.
Modern day Muslims are usually pleasantly surprised to learn only a sample of the true facts of the Ottoman Empire. Through those facts, the last great Islamic empire becomes understood as highly educated, sober and scrupulous about Islam’s edicts, charitible, and scientific. As a consequence, the false history written largely by combining the medieval gossip and conjecture of the enemies of Muslims becomes obliterated.
However, Muslims may say, “The Ottoman Sultans ultimately failed.” Or, even more disturbing (and slightly obscene when compared to the facts ), they will attempt portray the Ottoman Sultans as corrupt (and hence why they lost their power). On the other hand, high scholars such as Mufti Taqi Usmani and Sheykh Abdul Hakim Murad have written about the departure of power from the Sultans in a completely different light:
This was the beginning of the Uthmaani or Muslim reign over Istanbul and Turkey which lasted for five centuries. The Uthmaani Sultans reigned over it with great splendour and it ended in the beginning of the twentieth century through the treachery of Kamal Ata Turk, and the secular state which came into being. – Mufti Taqi Usmani
Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad’s work on the Ottomans is a testament to his study on the matter, and his fluency in the Ottoman tongue gives him unique access to the records relevant to coming to appropriate conclusions. What was his take on the downfall of the Ottomans?
Much of the recent history of the Umma can be understood as the simple consequence of ghafla – of heedlessness of Allah ta‘ala. The Ottoman empire, for instance, is a good example. By Allah’s decree and permission, this state continued for an astonishing six hundred years or more, from 1280 until 1924. In fact, the Ottoman sultans were the longest-reigning of any significant dynasty in world history. No family, in China, India, Europe or anywhere else, ruled for so long. And the achievement is the more remarkable when we look at the size and the diversity of the empire. Many races, religions and languages were present; there was no obvious unifying criterion for all the sultan’s subjects; and yet the empire endured.
It is not difficult to see why Allah should have given the Ottoman state such success. The sultans always respected the ulema and the shuyukh: Sultan Mehmed, who liberated Constantinople from the Byzantine oppression, was the disciple of Ak Shamsuddin, himself of the lineage of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, radiya’Llahu anhu. With such men to pray for them, the early sultans could hardly be defeated in battle. Another factor in Ottoman success was the insistence of the Ottoman ulema on tolerating differences of opinions among Muslims. All classical writers on Muslim political theory have taken to heart Imam al-Ghazali’s insistence that the Muslims are never served by attempts to impose one narrow definition of the faith on everyone else. That kind of totalitarian approach results only in hatred and civil war, bringing misery and weakness to the Muslim community.
The Ottoman demise resulted not from the adoption of a narrow definition of Islam that set Muslim against Muslim, but from a thoughtless Westernisation among the ruling classes. Adopting the materialism of Western Europe, the Ottoman nobility and middle classes began to abandon the Sunna. The turban began to disappear, followed by the remainder of Muslim dress. Houses began to be designed to bring the sexes together, rather than to separate them. The mosques in rich sections of town emptied, except on Fridays. And the high men of the state, with some exceptions, were increasingly reluctant to ask the great ulema for their prayers.
The Ottoman empire ended, effectively, with the First World War. Sultan Abd al-Hamid had been overthrown by a Westernising clique which then decided to bring the empire into the war which ended in its dismemberment. If the Ottomans had remained loyal to the Sunna, and hence avoided injustice, bribery, and weakness on the field of battle, the Ottoman state would in all probability be in existence today, and its model of an Islam which tolerates diversity would still prevail, instead of the nervous, intolerant little groups which fill the Islamic scene today.
The Sultan may have been removed by ‘the people’, but it was not the Sultans who suffered as a result of people choosing unbelief over belief. They lived fairly simple lives before and after the removal of power, Sultan Abdul Hamid died continuing his love for carpentry. It is us, the people, who have suffered.
In any event, this is not a call to a new political party or some other form of obtuse power play. The spiritual inheritors to the Ottomans are making subtle preparations awaiting Imam Mahdi (AS) rather than making bold power moves. Rather this is a small reminder that when understanding things about our tradition, the Ottomans should not be forgotten. And it is a history which should be learned at the feet of one of those spiritual inheritors.
It is there we dropped the flag, and it will be from there that Muslims will pick it up.
Why is it that any talk of the tradition of spirituality is littered with the “Cult” word?
Why are Tariqats cults, ‘cult-like’, ‘cultish’ but the Prophet (Sallalahualaihewassalam) and Sahabi (R) are not? The focus on the manners, teachings and protocols of the Sheykh is exactly how the Sahabi (R) learned from the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihiwassalam).
Yet for those connected inheritors of the Prophet (Sallalahualaihiwassalam), learning from their teachers who learned from their teachers each in this way, we believe this practice is determinental, unhealthy, and negative?
Are books the only avenue towards learning left for Muslims, the nation of an unlettered Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam)?
What remains of Islamic Spirituality (the basis of which is learning, knowing, and fighting your ego) when you begin to start picking and choosing whatever ‘spirituality’ is palatable to your ego in the first place?
In that vein I will share this excerpt which will benefit myself and others inshaAllah:
=====
The relationship between the shaykh or spiritual guide and his disciple is one of the more complex issues in the practical dimension of Sufism and can only be touched upon in the present context. All Sufis agree that entering the path without a shaykh is impossible. If someone thinks he has done so, in fact he has gone astray. The basic reason for the absolute necessity of the spiritual master is that the path is unknown before it is traversed, and a person cannot possibly prepare himself for the dangers and pitfalls that lurk on the way. The unknowability of the path goes back to the unknowability of God. That which can be known is that which He has taught us through revelation. Traveling the path is only possible through His guidance. Though the wide and easy path of the Shari’a is incumbant upon all, the narrow and steep path of the Tariqa requires special qualifications on the part of the seeker and the person who shows the way. A second important reason for the necessity of the master is the principle set down in the Koranic verse, “Enter houses by their doors” (2:189). The door to knowledge of unseen things has been set up by God and His Prophet, and only the inheritors of the Prophet, designated by the silsilas or “chains of transmission” of the Sufi orders, are qualified to open those doors for others. Any attempt to enter this house by other than its door represents the utmost discourtesy toward God and His Prophet.
Even in Ibn al-Arabi’s time there were people who claimed to be Sufi masters without possessing the proper qualifications. Often these were seekers who began with good intentions, but were then “led on step by step” through the divine deception. In other words, God continued to show them favors while they did not fulfill their part of the covenant. Instead of acting in accordance with the rules of courtesy in every situation and observing all the intricacies of the Law, they gradually were emboldened to the point of considering themselves beyond these affairs, which they saw as fit only for the common people. Thus they forgot that the Prophet and all his Companions, not to mention every friend of God, followed the Scale of the Law in all affairs…
The term “companionship” (suhba) is a general designation for the disciple’s relationship to the shaykh. There is companionship in the specific sense of undergoing training at the hands of a master, and in the more general sense of visiting the master and acquiring his blessing.
To revere the shaykh is to show reverence for none but God, so revere him out of courtesy toward God in God.
The shaykhs are the courteous, and proximity aids them in guiding and strengthening in God
They are the inheritors of all the messengers, so their words come only from God.
You see them like the prophets among their enemies, never asking from God anything but God.
But if a state should appear in them which distracts them from the Shari’a, leave them with God-
Follow not after them and walk not in their tracks, for they are God’s freedmen in God.
Be not guided by him from whom the Shari’a has gone, even if he brings news from God!
When we saw that nowadays the disciples are ignorant of the levels of their shaykhs, we said concerning that:
Ignored are the measures of the shaykhs, the people of witnessings and firm rooting!
People consider their words low out of ignorance, though they stand in a lofty degree!
The shaykhs are deputies of the Real in the cosmos, like the messengers in their time. Rather, the shaykhs are the inheritors, those who have inherited the knowledge of the revealed Laws from the prophets, though the shaykhs do not set down the Law. It belongs to them to preserve the Shari’a for everyone; it is not theirs to make the Law. It belongs to them to help the elect preserve their hearts and observe the rules of courtesy.
[The Sufi Path of Knowledge - William C. Chittick]
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
THE CLOUDS OF CANAKKALE
Sohbet given by Sheykh Abdul Kerim al-Hakkani al-Kibrisi
Friday 9 Ramazan, 1428
Septermber 21, 2007
Osmanli Naks-i’bendi Hakkani Dergah, Siddiki Center, New York.
[After the Juma prayer someone asked Sheykh Efendi about the Canakkale War of 1915 saying, "Many are now saying that the clouds that appeared in Canakkale taking in British soldiers and disappearing, it's just astory. Is it true?"]
Sheykh Efendi: Auzu billahi min ash-sheytanir rajim.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim.
Medet Ya Seyyidi Sultanul Awliya, Medet.
Millions today are making jokes about how the cloud appeared in
Canakkale and took one group of British and just disappeared and still
their bodies are not known anywhere. Now they are making stories. But
people from that time believed because they saw and they witnessed.
After them their children, they are also not believing because it’s
something extraordinary. It’s showing (to the non-Muslim forces that
came against the Ottoman Empire) that the God that you are worshipping
is helping these people and it’s not helping you. So it’s not such a
good position that you want to be in, right? How are you going to say,
“The side that we were fighting against, they were right and the Lord
helped them by sending clouds and everyone disappeared in it.” It
wasn’t just ten people in it.
Not only that but so many other unusual things happened there. Who was
in Canakkale? Our Grandsheykh (Abdullah Daghestani QS). So is it so
hard for us to understand who is making all these things? Heh, there
was a General who didn’t like the Grandsheykh. And a bomb flew and
fell into the area where the Grandsheykh and everyone were in. Almost
everybody died or became wounded. Where Gransheykh was, where it fell,
it just became a big hole and Grandsheykh was sitting and praying
there. The General was shocked and he came down to the Grandsheykh. He
kissed his hand and said, “I didn’t believe in God. I didn’t believe
in anything but I believe you from now on because I have seen with my
eyes what had happened.” He said, “You are a different individual from
everything else.” And that General started following the Grandsheykh.
Not only Grandsheykh but so many other sheykhs and saints entered into
that war. 250,000 people died. It’s not 250. Two hundred and fifty
thousand people died there in that short time. Only from the Turks.
Almost 300,000 died from the other side. Over 300,000 people. You are
talking about more than half a million people dying in those waters
and in those lands there. Everywhere you are stepping on there are
bodies underneath it.
I spent three nights there and early in the morning when I was calling
the Azan… I was calling the Azan very strongly early in the morning,
(there was one tomb, that of Suleyman Pasha, he did great things there
too) near his tomb and I was going there for prayer and you can see in
far distance the lights of the Greek islands there, right on the
border. People came from the other side. In the morning when I was
calling the Azan right before dawn, things were setting down and I was
seeing all these beautiful rains of light coming down. Like rain drops
light was coming down and with that different smells were coming. And
there was a voice speaking to me saying that all those drops are
representing all those soldiers, and everyone has a different smell.
So everywhere I was walking I was seeing different lights. I was
walking, passing through their tomb sites and you would think that
there are so many tombs there but it’s not. In the mountains and
everywhere you see that light connection coming from the Paradise to
there, from their tombs going up.
That’s why people who don’t have strong spirituality cannot live
around there. It’s pretty heavy for them. People who have high
spirituality want to live there all the time but they don’t leave them
too because you discover so many secrets there. It opens up. Unless
you are keeping the secrets, then they keep you there for some time.
Otherwise (they don’t). You can see that all those areas are not
packed up with things. Everywhere is almost empty. In the villages,
you see the people, you look at their faces, no arguments, just peace
coming from their faces and they are always walking, going back and
forth but no talking. No sound. It’s like a dead valley. No sound.
It’s like a different world that you are living in. Even just an
ordinary person can feel that right away and understands that it’s
completely different here now.
Huh, all those soldiers, British, ANZAC, all those are very happy to
be buried there. They are saying, “Mistakenly we have fallen into
Paradise.” (Sheykh Efendi smiles). Everything smells different. The
flowers smell different there, the mountain flowers, they all have
different smells and different colors. You can see that heavenly look
on everything there. All the stones they put there are symbolic. They
are not underneath there. They just carried so many of them and they
buried them in mass graves and they put those stones there. But there
are special places where special incidents happened. Those areas are
completely different. You see how it is there. But you can see it on
the stones. Every stone that you pass, the age that all died were 19,
20, 21.
Did you see the trench? The war trench behind which they were hiding?
You didn’t go there?
`X’: No, I didn’t.
Then you didn’t see anything what the soldiers the built. Do you know
how close they came to each other? From here to there where `Y’ is
sitting [approx. 10 meters]. The world has never seen a war like that
before. Never. No way that it can get that close. You have trenches
here and you have trenches there [Sheykh Efendi pointing to the two
opposite walls of the dergah and the distance between them is about 30
ft.]. That’s how close they got. Everything was so close there. The
fear and the smell of death and the smell of the love of Paradise that
kept those people keep on coming and going. People without faith
cannot stand there. The other ones had no choice because they were
dumped there with ships. So they had no place to go now. So many were
brought from the Subcontinent countries. They were Muslims. Afghanis
and [today's] Pakistanis. So many were put in ships and brought there
[by the British] to fight the Khalifah’s soldiers. Khalifah’s
soldiers! They didn’t know. They tried to give up but they [the
British] said, “You cannot go anywhere. We will shoot you down into
the water.” So they were fighting.
People are having everything easy now, everybody speaks on everything
and Islam became a game to everybody. A game. Nothing but a game. Not
accepting anything. People gave lives! Not life. Lives! One house
giving three, four sons to die in that war. Can you imagine? Four
sons, five sons died in that war. Three sons died and the husband
died. I met a lady. Looking at her face is like looking at a heavenly
person, as if heaven appeared through her face. It is not sad and it
is not khek khek khek. It is a beauty that is appearing. So beautiful
and calm. She was talking, she was praying and she was saying to me
what happened. The husband died and three sons died. And she was
saying, “Alhamdulillah. I hope I didn’t make a mistake. But I have no
regret. If I had ten sons then I will give again. But I am looking at
the situation of this country now and I am very sad. I think those
ones will be sad too.” Looking at her face, (I saw) Paradise coming
out from her face. And she said that she didn’t cry. She cried from
the pain but she didn’t cry for anything and she was very happy with
what Allah did. Then she was living all these years after that by
herself. She had another daughter and she died too after some time.
And she is still living. Allahu Akbar! People going through all that
pain, do you think it’s easy? Think on it. Just to think on it. So
many people I say these to, they say `Eh.’ I say, “Compare, just
compare with yourself and look what happens.” No comparison.
Impossible to compare. They were believing. That’s all. They were
believing in what they were doing. They were sincere with what they
were doing.
I met another lady. She fixed the whole village with her father’s
death money that was coming. The government was not taking care of the
tombs of the people, okay? And he was one of the persons who died in
Canakkale and it’s near the village there. So they brought him to the
village and they put him there and at that time the government put
money out saying they have to take care of those areas. They did it.
Then [later] everything was falling down. So she was showing me the
tomb site that she fixed and she was saying to me, “He fixed it
himself.” I said, “How it happened?” She goes, “Everything was falling
down and the little money that they were giving me from the government
for my father’s death, I saved little for me for whatever was
necessary for me to live on, and the rest to this village. He is in
the grave and with his money we are still living. He is in the grave.
With his money we are still living. The village is still living with
the money that is coming because of him. And they are fixing his tomb
with his money.” Allah, Allah. Unusual things are happening around
there.
Astaghfirullah al-Azim wa atubu ilaih.
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 Sheykh, 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. Sheykh 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 Sheykhs 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 Sheykhs 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 Sheykh 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 (16.0MB)
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 