Source - Br. Abuz Zubair of IslamicAwakening Forums:Tasawwuf is a very general term and to this day remains undefined which has caused a lot of confusion. Due to its generality and vagueness the term has been outright rejected by the Salafis, and precisely due to its generality and vagueness, the corrupt Sufis (that’s the majority) are able to argue for its legitimacy.
Ibn al-Jawzi beautifully deals with the science of tasawwuf in his talbis iblis as I mentioned in my article. Amongst the early Muslims, there was no such thing as tasawwuf, and I think, up to Imam Ahmad’s time, at least, the term remained unknown. People were only known as ascetics – zuhhad and worshippers – ‘ubbad.
So the narrations we come across from the four Imams, either in praise, or in condemnation of the term tasawwuf, I have great reservations about those, primarily because the term didn’t seem to be around at the time.
They did have zuhhad like Bishr al-Hafi and al-Muhasibi who were perhaps the main figureheads of this so-called spiritual movement, but to my knowledge, even they didn’t call themselves as Sufis.
Bishr al-Hafi and al-Muhasibi are well respected ascetics who wrote extensively on disciplining the soul. They were, as Ibn Taymiyya would describe them, the few ascetics Imams who were upright on the Sunnah and Sharia. In spite of that Imam Ahmad censured al-Muhasibi and warned the people against him and forbade them from sitting in his gatherings. Yes, al-Muhasibi was censured for Kalam, but he was also censured for speaking deeply in spiritual matters. Bear in mind that al-Muhasibi’s works did not contain the absurdities contained in the works by latter Sufis.
So it seems the early Salaf, like Imam Ahmad, Abu Zur’a, Abu Hatim and others condemned the righteous ascetics like al-Muhasibi, al-Makki and others. If this was the case, then what would be their attitude towards Ibn ‘Arabi, who is regarded by these Sufis as al-Shaykh al-Akbar – The Grand Shaykh; whom we refer to as al-Shaykh al-Akfar – the most disbelieving of the Shaykhs?
However, it does seem that later on asceticism as practised by al-Muhasibi became acceptable, and gradually it began to develop into a science. The first Sufi amongst the Hanbalis, to my knowledge, was Shaykh al-Islam Abu Isma’il al-Harawi, who wrote his Sufi manual Manazil al-Sa’irin, which was later explained by Ibn al-Qayyim in his Madarij al-Salikin.
At the same time, there also arose a different strand in Tasawwuf which was very philosophical in its approach. This tasawwuf was represented by people like al-Hallaj and Ibn ‘Arabi who philosophised tawassuf incorporating therein pantheism, the belief that the entire existence in reality is one existence, and that is the reality of Tawhid. It is this type of Tasawwuf which became widespread by the time of Ibn Taymiyya. Hence, not only Ibn Taymiyya but many other scholars from the four schools geared their efforts against this philosophical tasawwuf.
Ibn Taymiyya, unlike Imam Ahmad and Ibn al-Jawzi, seem more tolerant towards tasawwuf, not that he was a Sufi himself. I don’t think any of the biographers ever described Ibn Taymiyya as a Sufi. To claim that he was a Sufi because he once wore the Sufi cloak, or he wrote on tazkiya subjects does not make him a Sufi, just as the fact he wrote extensively on ‘ilm al-kalam and falsafa would not make him a mutakallim or a filyusuf – a philosopher. Ibn Taymiyya was in the beginning of his career into Sufism, and an avid reader of Ibn ‘Arabi’s works, until he discovered the clear cut Kufr in Ibn ‘Arabi’s own handwriting. So it is possible that he wore a cloak during his Sufi days. Although, even in his Sufi days he did not indulge in Sufi activities.
Once, he was in the company of some of the Sufi friends who decided to do the group dhikr and began to get ‘spiritually intoxicated’, but Ibn Taymiyya kept himself out of it. One of his friends said to him: ‘why don’t you join us? You don’t know what you’re missing out on!’. Ibn Taymiyya said in reply something to the effect that if this has no basis in the Quran and Sunnah then there is nothing I am missing out on.
Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself, along with his followers weren’t against tasawwuf as such. What they were against was the philosophical tasawwuf spearheaded by Ibn ‘Arabi and Ibn Farid.
The point is, since we know that tasawwuf is undefined, the modern day Sufis cannot use this term to legitimise their version of tasawwuf, which is firmly rooted in Shirk and bid’a of the very early pagans of Quraysh.
So yes, a great number of scholars may have been Sufis, if all the term refers to is asceticism in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah. As for the philosophical tasawwuf represented by the vast majority of the Sufis today, which includes the belief in absolute obedience to the Shaykh as promoted by Keller, Sufi-Metal head-banging sessions as promoted by Hanson, and Wahdat al-Wujud – pantheism as promoted by Murad, then that is just blatant zandaqa and the ‘miracles’ performed by these zanadiqa are not karamat, they are outright witchcraft.
This is in terms of tasawwuf itself, but as for the fruits of this tasawwuf, then that’s another story.
Most of these people I have come across who claim to be Sufis are spiritually corrupt. You find them often boasting about their karamat.
To give you some examples, just look at the Sufi grandson of ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani. He was caught with books of Zandaqa and witchcraft, which were then burnt in public and his school handed over to Ibn al-Jawzi. Even more disgusting is how he took revenge by disgracing Ibn al-Jawzi in his old age.
Look at Ibn ‘Arabi, who is referred to by the Sufis as the Grand Shaykh. He was known amongst the scholars as the most lying of all the Shuyukh – la yuharrim farjan – extremely promiscuous, to whom marriage is the same as incest.
Look at al-Hallaj who was witnessed practising magic in his attempt to dupe people with his ‘karamat’. He was also reported to have slept with his daughter-in-law.
To learn more about their karamat, just open up karamat al-awliya by al-nabahani (taqi al-din al-nabahini’s grand father). Read the ‘karamah’ of a Sufi Shaykh whose male organ would elongate and become like a staff with which he would cane his servant. This sort of content is usually found in our spam folders, not in an Islamic book.
We then look at the writings of al-Kawthari, and the state of his corrupt soul shines through his works. You only need to look at GF Haddad, his deep hatred for Sunnah and lack of justice towards Allah’s creation, to realise stench of his diseased heart.
We only need to look at these desperate Sufi-Ash’aris who falsely claim to be Hanbalis and deliberately lie to hijack the Hanbali Madhab.
This is not even the tip of the iceberg. If you ever get to live amongst them in Syria, you would be shocked to see the division and backbiting amongst their ranks. They bicker over not only the Madhabs, but also the many different tariqas they follow, and how the shaykh of this tariqa is better than the other, and how shaykh so and so of that tariqa is a fake sufi. If you ever thought Salafiyya is in a mess, just have a glance at these Sufis, whose hearts have been turned against each other by Allah.
Now compare this to our Imams who don’t brag about karamat, nor about the state of their hearts…
Read about Imam Ahmad who said that the worse thing you can say to a person is: “You are the champion of the Sunnah!” because it would corrupt his heart. When a Abu bakr al-Marrudhi said to Imam Ahmad: “Look! All of the people of Baghdad love you! Even the Jews and the Christian!” He replied: “When a person knows himself, it does not matter to him what others say”
Read about Imam Ahmad when he advised his student ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq: “Try to be as obscure as possible, for we have been afflicted with fame!”
Read about Imam Ahmad, how he forgave all those who attended his lashing and those who lashed him.
Read about Ibn Taymiyya, and his deep tawakkul upon Allah, his constant adhkar day and night, his strong and brave heart in the face of danger, prison cells and death. Read about him how he had to endure years of imprisonment at the hands of the Sufis, and how he forgave them all when he had the chance to get them executed by the authorities in Egypt.
Read Ibn Taymiyya’s writings and see the justice glaring through them towards his friends and foes.
It is enough a lesson on tasawwuf for us to merely read the biography of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, let alone Imam Ahmad.
As Br. Ansar said:Of course, it should be clarified that not all Muslims who call themselves sufis practice these deviations/innovations. Many muslims sincerely call themselves sufi because they only seek purification and spirituality.
As long as they practice Islam and perform their worship within the limits of the Qur'an and Sunnah without innovating, then there is no problem with such people. The above article is intended to warn people against some of the deviations that are widely practiced amongst various sufi groups, yet it is true that not all sufis practice these.
Bookmarks