is sufism correct??

[The Law26]

Arabman

In that case you and MM suffer from dementia and should seek urgent medical help, or the reason you deny being called Wahabi is because you guys prefer the misleading term Salafi (did you read and adhere to Sheikh Albani’s directive in this regard). That is why you guys dishonestly insist that you alone represent the Islam of the Prophet pbuh, and that, you are far from setting up a new sect, because you are simply reviving what you believe to be ‘true’ Islam. Generally, that is what makes you guys to be hostile to the four generally accepted schools of Sunni jurisprudence and accuse them of shirk.

Another fact sheet for you guys to understand is that unfortunately, Saudi Arabia prides as it calls itself, the only ‘truly’ Islamic state in the world, although this claim can be stiffly disputed and contested by many Muslims here. However, no one cant deny that the official Saudi Islam, or what is commonly referred to as ‘Wahhabism’, is the outcome of the movement led by the Eighteenth century by Mohamed bin ‘Abdul Wahab (1703-91), who, along with Mohamed Ibn Saud (the patriarch of the Saudi Royal family), were the chief architects of the Saudi state. Since then, successive Wahabi scholars such Bin Baz and co. issued fatwa’s on behalf of the Al-Saud regime. Such one fatwa was their support of the Gulf War in 1991 (on behalf of the Americans and Saudis) and declared Sadam Hussein as an apostate who is dangerous to Islam. It is a fact that they export ‘Wahhabi’ Islam to Muslims elsewhere, particularly beginning from the 1970s onwards, which was a major preoccupation of the Saudi regime. The Wahabis believe that Shias, Sufis, or any Muslims who did not share their version of Islam are apostates and fit to be killed, or the very least, in a politically restrained environment, call them Shirks. No wonder then, that the Saudi Wahabis has such laws that treat women like second hand Muslims.

[The rebel]

I do come across the 4 school sunni or sufi. I of course believe salafis are closer to true sunnism compared to the four schools, and ESPECIALLY sufis. The salafi way is the 'kuran and ahadith' way. There is no room for the ra'ee of scholars if there is an authentic hadith about a certain issue. Many people try to object saying that it is a recent phenomenon started by wack radicals like Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Abdul Wahhab. But the truth of the matter is that 'salafi' views were actually present earlier in history. Examples would include A-Darimi, or even Ahmad bin Hanbal. I also noticed that most people who study Sunnism deeply (i.e. not listening to Sunni sheikhs, but actually reading primary sources), endup with Salafi beliefs.


The Law26, I would suggest you read Ahmad bin Hanbal's 'Aqaid Ahlus-Sunnah'. It's a perfect echo of salafi views.

[The Law26]

Rebel wrote;

“I also noticed that most people who study Sunnis deeply (i.e. not listening to Sunni sheikhs, but actually reading primary sources), end up with Salafi beliefs.”

Rebel, those who delivered the sources are those who are behind the funding of the centres, mosques or Muslim schools, who always propagate their own version and interpretation. Over the last 30 years, the Saudis with their wealth built and managed most of those institutions and appointed their own staff. We Somalis in the Diaspora frequent such institutions without realizing it. However, today there are many splinter sects and sub-sects that originated mostly from the Wahabis and collectively call themselves salafis, and that is why it is important to investigate the origin (and method) of the so-called Salafi movement that they claim to represent. They are not what they seem to be in the surface, that is why they can deceive many lay people.

The fact is that these guys have nothing to do with the genuine and righteous Salaf--period, it is an innovation initiated about 250 years ago by a man named Mohamed ibn `Abdil-Wahhab. This whole movement is riddled with bad bida's. Among them is claiming that all the Muslims are actually Mushrikeen (except for themselves). This gave them (in their minds) the right to slaughter, or ridicule other Muslims.

It is a fact that the Salafiyah (Salaf=predecessors) movement has not been around for a long time, most of the neo-Salaf that we see today, is merely the egg laid by the Wahabi goose. Nowadays, although they differ in trivial issues with their 'Wahhabi' cousins, they also are synonymous in many ways. So Rebel, if a movement has started not long ago, was everyone before it 'wrong' in their understanding of Islam? That may not be the case. Ironically, I share with them the necessity and urgency for an Ijtihaad, however, that is where all our similarities end, because these guys seek a return to Abdiwahaab’s era by their insistence of the literal interpretation of the Quraan whenever it fits their own agenda, and their insistence that Hadiths can abrogate the Quraan.

The neo-salafis have their own pet prejudices and rationalize their biases in ways that sometimes go against the teachings of Islam. They cut themselves off deliberately from the broader understandings of Islam, elevating or misinterpreting Ahadith, Sunnah, Fiqh, and then congratulate themselves afterwards for being part of "the club." From my perspective, they are contributing to the problem of Ijtihad rather than helping to solve it, because these folks seem to believe that holding the Quraan as supreme and measuring all else against its truth are wrong, preferring that we should measure the Quraan against the "truth" of the secondary sources. How backward.

"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning..." (3:7)

This verse above seems to say that there are some verses we should take literally, and others we should not. With no doubt we do not take them by their most "literal meaning". There are Verses that are Muhkam--explicitly clear and unambiguous. And there are Verses that are Mutashaabih, that is, Verses that are NOT to be taken at "face" value. Also, we should all remember that there is more to the Sunnah than outward acts. Following the Sunnah and the practices of our prophet pbuh is also to embody mercy, justice, forbearance, patience, humility, and things of that nature. The Sunnah is to be balanced.

If you study their literature carefully, then you will find that they claim that some Ahadiths can abrogate the Quraan and others are Qudsi and have almost the same importance as the Quraan. After more than 1400 years, no one has been able to successfully challenge the accuracy of even one word in the Holy Quraan. It should be apparent that whatever Allah SWT and His Messenger wanted to preserve forever has been included in the Holy Quraan and whatever has not been included in the Holy Quraan did not receive the protection from Allah SWT to preserve it.

No one should ignore Ahadith altogether, but it is necessary to discern them in light of the Quraan. The Salafis that I met, or read insist that following Ahadith is the same as following Prophet pbuh. They often fail to take into consideration is that Allah SWT also made it clear that the Prophet pbuh was to follow Him. So, when Ahadith doesn't follow Allah's Sunnah, then it must be rejected. In the Holy Quraan Allah SWT describes the Quraan as (Kitabun Mubeen). A book that makes things clear (or plain) to understand. So, when Ahadith doesn't follow Allah's Sunnah, then it must be rejected. What is incumbent upon is to understand the intent of Allah SWT in the Quraan and the manner of the Prophet pbuh. Any man who repeatedly married strong, confident, smart and independent women, as did our prophet pbuh, who treated them with such care, equality, dignity and consideration would not approve of the many misogynist and ridiculous things attributed to him by those guys. Furthermore, our Messenger pbuh himself made to confirm that the Wahi he is receiving is the Quraan:

“And this Quraan has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches” (6:19)

qul innama_ attabi'u ma_ yu_ha_ ilayya mir rabbi, ha_za_ basa_'iru mir rabbikum wa hudaw wa rahmatul liqaumiy yu'minu_n(a).Wa iza_ quri'al qur'a_nu fastami'u_ lahu_ wa ansitu_ la'allakum turhamu_n(a)

“Say: I follow only that which is inspired in me from my Sustainer. This (Quraan) is insight from your Sustainer, and a guidance and a mercy for a people that believe. And when the Quraan is recited, give ear to it and pay heed, that you may obtain mercy.” (7:203-204)

Here again our Messenger pbuh is made to say that the Wahi he is receiving is the Quraan. Then Allah SWT reminds the Prophet pbuh that he is to warn only by the Quraan. If there were other speeches of his which was also by Wahi, then Allah SWT would not have told him to remind by the Quraan:

“We know best what they say, and you are not one to compel them; therefore remind him by means of the Quraan who fears My promise.” (Quraan 50:45

“And to rehearse the Quraan: and if any accept Guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls; and if any astray, say: ‘I am only a Warner’”. (Quraan 27:92).

Rebel, all these verses in the Quraa(5:99, 16:82, 24:54, 29:18, 42:48, 64:12) confirm the only duty of the messenger pbuh is to deliver Allah SWT’s message and the Prophet pbuh was commanded not to teach anything that wasn’t revealed in the Quraan (69-43-47).

Though my personal opinion is that the miss-placed and well-intentioned placement that many give to the traditions at the expense of the Quraan is only to our and their detriment. There are a total of 114 Suras 6236 Ayats in the Quraan. Roughly 500 of them deal with norms of social conduct, which are less than 10 %, but shamefully, the infatuation with the traditions that comment on the purported intent of the Prophet pbuh, takes more preference for them.

Maybe it is a part of a grand Wahabi conspiracy to divert us away from the understanding of the Quraan. May Allah SWT save us from the cry of the Quraan on the day of Judgement, when it would cry out aloud, for abandoning it, there is a verse in the Quraan that resonates with this theme.

[The Law26]

Rebel

One last note, and as I indicated above, the Salaf period only refers to the first three generations that our Prophet Mohamed pbuh referred to when he said: "The best of my generation are my sahaba and then the tabieen and then the taba tabieen." These are the true salafis or "righteous predecessors." Insha Allah when you and I die we will be salafis as well, but only Allah SWT knows and only when we die. The movement today where people call themselves salafis or adherents to "The Salafi dawah" has its roots with Mohamed ibn Abdul-Wahab. You can find similarities to an even earlier more brutal group called the khawarij, but that is not the origin of today's salafis. The major similarity is that the khawarij also felt that only they knew Islam but they actually labelled and killed other Muslims calling them kaffirs. Suffice to say that Abdulwahab’s movement basically champions that everyone else is involved in religious innovation and un-Islamic practices and that they had the "real Islam."

There are many salafi zealots who exhibit very bad behaviors of a Muslim. I myself know of incidents ranging from non-returning of salaams to khutbas directed at specific individuals to physical violence. Also it is true that you can find this behavior in non-Salafis as well of course (I've had non-salafis stooped in their cultural baggage not return salaams to me) but, I will admit that most of that kind of behavior that I have experienced and others that I know have experienced disproportionately comes from those that are "salafis." So, that indicates that they can't be the Salafis that our Prophet pbuh reffered to.

Let us be real here, they do have their own scholars so it is erroneous to say they don't follow scholars but they only seem to accept "their own" scholars. Their approach to the deen to be not considered a good approach by most scholars and laymen alike does have a merit.

However, I admit that what some of the sub-sub Salafi movement did do was to spark those that follow mad-habs and other Muslims like myself to not be so "blind" in our approach and to not be lazy about scholarship. With those Salafis penchant for constant demand of "daleel" it has forced individuals to respond to those demands and thus re-energize the thirst for Islamic knowledge.

Rebel, I know of Salafis (which are the majority by the way) that are downright horrible, and I know of Salafis that are decent people trying to be good Muslims and who love Allah SWT and want Jennah. On a more personal positive note, I found out that when they willingly are exposed to knowledge and the correct information about Islam, they are open to re-evaluating some stances they may have held.

[ANONOMIZZ]

The Sufis worship others than** Allaah**, such as Prophets (Alahum Asalam) and “awliya’” [“saints”], living or dead. They say, “Yaa Jeelaani”, “Yaa Rifaa’i” [calling on their awliya’],

or “O Messenger of Allaah, help and save” or “O Messenger of Allaah, our dependence is on you”, etc.But Allaah forbids us to call on anyone except Him in matters that are beyond the person's capabilities. If a person does this, Allaah will count him as a mushrik, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And invoke not, besides Allaah, any that will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).” [Yoonus 10:106]

The Sufis believe that there are abdaal, aqtaab and awliya’ (kinds of “saints”) to whom Allaah has given the power to run the affairs of the universe. Allaah tells us about the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say [O Muhammad]: ‘…And who disposes the affairs?’ They will say. ‘Allaah.’…” [Yoonus 10:31]The mushrik Arabs knew more about Allaah than these Sufis!

Some soofis are mushrikoon Billah !! SopxanAllah

[optimist_1]

[quote="AMAT-ALLAH"]Concept,Concept,Concept[/quote]

Hadal deee

[Cawar]

The Law

According to you Islam and muslims are rappresented by saudis and the so called Wahabis which you despise....but plz dont insult our naive somali culture and intellect by claiming that you are the only genious fella who sees their supposedly hidden agenda(if any).


A muslim should always look at the bigger picture of islam and that of its related events/issues...but them gaalo seem to be succeeding with their divisive agendas...given the fact that muslims of today hate each other more than they ever consider the non muslim, not to mention the critique.


In conclusion, we ought to debate, contradict and perhaps challenge each other fiercely within the islamic boundaries, but to actually belittle each other is what made muslims divisive, not to mention weak and hatefull..........if we only followed the quran and the Sunnah literally????.

[The rebel]

The law,

I know what Salaf means and most of salafis trace their Fiqh back to either the teaching of Imam Ali, Abu Bakr and Aisha and Ibn mas'ood. Let us be objective here and state the facts. Before beginning, we should be aware that Salafism is still a fairly small group within Sunni Islam which has been able to spread its roots due to the oil money being pumped in.

From what I have read through sunni literature, Ibn Taymiyyah(their God father) was a great Scholar of salafis, but in some aspects he considered himself to be a Mujtahid, which many Sunni Scholars object to, also he practised Ijtihad over matters which had already been decided by the four schools of thought, other times you would see him reject Sahih Hadiths if it went against his own opinion which upset many scholers.

One great book to read is called The Doctrine of Ahl as-Sunnah versus the Salafi Movement by Jamal Effendi al-`Iraqi al-Zahawi, another good book is called Fitnatul Wahhabiyyah - The menace of Wahhabism, this book was written by then the Grand Mufti of Mecca al-Mukarramah Shaykhu-l-Islam Ahmad Zayni Dahlan al-Makki ash-Shafi'i (1204-1222 AH).


I think salafis are good followers of Sunna. But what cause the majority of Ahl sunna to reject them was their believe that Allah has physical parts like his creation (i. e. hand, face).

[The rebel]

The salafis, after all, believe in the Islam of the earliest generation, and since Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal belonged to that generation, it only makes sense that the salafi beliefs are the same as theirs. The interpretations of 'power' and 'authority' and metaphorical understanding of Allah's attributes was a much later development in sunni Islam, and since anything that starts later on is considered a bid'a, for them, salafis stick to the literal meanings. It's actually quite understandable, and their stance is actually more justified than the one held by later sunnis of the 4 madhhabs.. This again goes to prove my opinion that true sunnism is actually salafism.

Last not least, Few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. or in this case, some truth that someone disagrees with, dont make the other truths any less true.

[Beenlow]

The Law 26, I think you have mixed two groups that media claims wahhabis. First group is so called "Al-Qaida" and second group is "saudi-wahhabis" Bin Baaz, Al-Albaani etc. Actually these two groups fight each other, so they can't be the same.

You say that Ibn AbdulWahhaab (rahimahullah) was a man of bidca and Ibn Baaz was a munaafiq, astaaghfirullah. Where are your evidence, please give me evidence from Qur'an and authentic Sunna to back your claims and show where these great scholars are wrong.

I asked you a question before in thread "Muslim Leaders" but you didn't reply, can you do it now? Here's the q again:

I don't think there is wahabism/salafism, only one deen like many brothers said here. I think Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn AbdulWahhaab (rahimahumullaah) were great scholars and I yet haven't seen anything from them that goes against the teachings of Prophet scws (same thing with modern time's sheikhs Ibn Baaz, Al-Albaani, Ibn Muqbil etc). It's western media that's brainwashing people and trying to separate muslims. I have one question: they call al-qaida a wahhabi sect and same time they call kingdom of SA wahhabi country. So which ones are real wahhabis when these two hate each other?

The Law26, I know the reality in Saudi-Arabia and I know many bad things that are going on but Prophet scws said that there will be rulers with hearts of devils and even if they beat our backs and take our wealth wey should obey them as long as they are muslims and is 100% forbidden to revolt in a situation like this.

Making lawful the killing of muslims is a way of the Khawaarij, the same people who killed many sahaba, who created fitna between Ali (ra) and Muawiah (ra) and killed Uthmaan (ra). They make takfeer (say they are kuffar) to muslims when they see something bad from them. A person can drink alcohol and do many bad things and he's still a muslim, a bad one but still a muslim. If this person believes that things he do are halaal, then he is disbeliever, not before that. Haafid Ibn Hazm said: "Whoever destroys all his deeds, then he is a believer who is sinning, deficient in faith. He does not disbelieve." And Prophet scws said whoever calls another muslim a kaafir is kaafir himself.

About a leader ruling with something else than Allah has commanded, Ibn Baaz (rahimahulah) said: There are four categories:
1.King rules with something else 'cos he thinks it's better than Islamic Law. He is kaafir with major kufr.
2.King rules with something else 'cos he thinks it's like islamic Law so it's permissible. He is kaafir with major kufr.
3.King rules with something else but he thinks that Islamic Law is better, but same time he thinks it's permissible what he's doing. He's kaafir with major kufr.
4.King who rules with something else but same time believes that ruling by Islamic Law is only law that's permissible, but for some reason he doesn't rule with Sharica. So this king makes minor kufr, he doesn't leave from religion and he is commiting the most major of major sins.

So I ask, how should we act with leaders like this, and please give evidence from Qur'an or Sunnah of Prophet SCWS.

[Beenlow]

About the topic, depends of what kind of Suufi, extreme suufis are really far away from religion. Some muslims claim sufism but they are normal, they don't dance in forest screaming Allah Allah. Depends on how deep in it you are.

If someone makes dhikr that's not from the Sunna of Prophet SCWS then that dhikr is wasted. There are two conditions that deeds are accepted:
1. Niyah is good and right and only for Allah.
2. It's done the way of prophet SCWS 'cos the Deen was completed in his time,. Otherwise it's bidca.

[muslim-man]

Ar kan law29 isuguwacaayo xaa wahabigan kusalidey horta

what part of anyone who deviates fro the teachings of the prophet p.b.u.h (quran and sunah) is doing bidca (wrong) does he not understand??

[The Arabman]

muslim-man, The Law26 is finding it impossible to grasp the fact that there isn't a Muslim who calls himself Wahabi, nor a sect/religion/madhab named Wahabism. He thinks it's some sort of a denial or preferring a different term. I think it would take him a long time (maybe never) to grasp that.

[Beenlow]

Waiting for Law 26 to answer...

[DANGIRL]

Some of suufis i have seen arent correctly chemical balance.