Seeking Sacred Sunni Knowledge
Irrefutable Proof that the Hanbalis Were Sufis
The following article is research forwarded by Dr. George Maqdisi after having stumbled accross these manuscripts deep in the Thaahiriyya Library within Damascus. The manuscripts prove that major Hanbalis were Sufis. This, obviously, contradicts the common held pseudo-salafi belief that Sufism is evil and that the early scholars had nothing to do with tasawwuf. This article proves the opposite. However, it goes beyond just stating that many of the salaf were credible Sufis. It strikes at the very heart of those who believe tasawwuf is unorthodox. This article proves the orthodoxy of tasawwuf!
 |
Irrefutable Proof that Many Major Hanbalis Were Sufis |
LET IT BE KNOWN
as salaamu alaykum,
Just because some amongst the hanaabilah were sufi does not mean that the shariah allows such. Even the ‘true sufis’ whom nuh keller praised for applying quran and sunnah and the way (sufi path) have strange teachings in their works, aswell as expressing kufr in works claiming that it has a baatini meaning. Not only this but one of the greatest naqshbandi’s muhammad ameen kurdi (whom nuh praised him and his work on sufism) says ‘some of the sufi sheikhs say Allaah assigns an angel to the grave of the waliy to carry out the request and sometimes the waliy himself gets out of the grave’
Such kufr was in a book which nuh praised as enlightening. Yet it is filled with strange concepts.
These same people who are supposedly following quran and sunnah , claim to reach the divine presence WItness Allaah without a veil and take trips sometimes taking them high above the arsh. Yet the Sahabah never experianced such spiritual states and they were the best of men after the prophets.
None of them ever claim to see Allaah without a veil.
Even basic works such as al ghazalis ihya contain strange examples of what sufism is. The wahdat al wujud is sought through Fana (annhilation) and other strange states.
The best Zuhd is the Zuhd of the salaf, not the path of assigning your affairs to a shaykh and becoming like the dead under the washer.
Let us base our life on the Quran and sunnah and strive to practice it according to the way of the Salaf and not introduce matters into our deen.
wasalaam
-mustafa
Wa’alaykum Salaam wa Rahmatullah
You started out by saying:
What you have said, in my view, is the crux of your own feeble knowledge. In your arrogance and pride you have deemed every single scholar who accepted tasawwuf, many who were Mujtahideen, individuals who conflicted with the laws of the shari’ah. It is interesting that an insignificant person of no knowledge can deem men who have waded in the pools of legal knowledge, men who contradict the shari’ah.
If you had read the article closely, you would have noticed a very important factor; the chain of the knowledge received. Each of these trustworthy men took tasawwuf, in its purest form, from their masters, who are also trustworthy. The chain goes all the way back to Imaam Hasan Al-Basri, who took tasawwuf from Imaam ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (karam allahu wajh). Thus your claim that the sciences of tasawwuf has no place amongst the salaf falls upon deaf ears. In fact, if you study any true Sufi Shaykh’s linkage, you will find that he has taken his path in the same manner.
You have labeled all of these men, including Imam Al-Junayd, Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdisi, the many Hanaabilah mentioned, as well as Abdul Qaadir Al-Jilaani, Hasan Al-Basri and even ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib as men who have contradicted the permissions of the Shari’ah.
We suppose you will also say the same about Imaam Adh-Dhahabi, the supposed defender of your creed. Imaam Adh-Dhahabi (rahimahullah) also attested to being sufi when he stated:
“My Shaykh, the hadīth scholar and ascetic Dhiya’ ud-Dīn ‘Isā ibn Yahyā Al-Ansārī conferred upon me the khirqah (cloak) of tasawwuf in Cairo and said: ‘Shaykh Shihāb Ad-Dīn As-Suhrawardī conferred it upon me in Makkah from his uncle Abūn-Najīb.”
[Siyar: 16:300-302 #5655]
I suppose he too contradicted the shari’ah? Or what of Shaykh-ul-Islaam Shihaabud Deen As-Suhrawardi, of whom Adh-Dhahabi said,
“The Shaykh, the Imaam, the man of knowledge, the zaahid, the ‘aarif (knower) of Allah, the Muhaddith, Shaykh-ul-Islaam, the peerless one of the Sufis…the Shaykh of his time in the science of the reality (‘ilm al-haqiqa).”
Or maybe you would further like to make this claim of the Imaam Ash-Shafi’i? Shaykh Gibril Haddad states the following:
“Al-Shafi`i’s attitude towards tasawwuf was as strict as with kalâm, and he both praised it and denigrated its abuse at the hands of its corrupters. In criticism of the latter he said: “No-one becomes a Sufi in the morning except he ends up a dolt by noon” while on the other hand he declared in his Diwan: “Be at the same time a faqîh and a Sufi.” In Mecca al-Shafi`i was the student of Fudayl ibn `Iyad. Imam al-Nawawi in his Bustan al-`Arifin fi al-Zuhd wa al-Tasawwuf (“The Garden of the Gnostics in Asceticism and Tasawwuf”) narrated from al-Shafi`i the saying: “Only the sincere one (al-mukhlis) can recognize self-display (al-riyâ’).” Al-Nawawi comments: “This means that it is impossible to know the reality of self-display and see its hidden shades except for one who resolutely seeks (arâda) sincerity. Such a one strives for a long time, searching, meditating, examining at length within himself until he knows, or knows something of what self-display is. This does not happen for everyone. Indeed, this happens only with special ones (al-khawâss). But for a given individual to claim that he knows what self-diplay is, this is real ignorance on his part.”
To read more of Imaam Ash-Shafi’i on tasawwuf go here: http://www.livingislam.org/n/shs_e.html
Also see the following link for Imaam Ahmad’s praise of the Sufis: http://www.sunnah.org/tasawwuf/scholar6.htm
I suppose you will then be obliged to disagree with Ibn Taymiyyah when he stated,
“The great shaykhs mentioned by Abu Abdur-Rahmaan As-Sulamee in his Tabaqaat As-Sufiyya and Abul Qaasim Al-Qushayri in his Ar-Risaala were adherents to the school of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah and the guild of Ahlul Hadeeth. These include Fudayl ibn ‘Iyaad, Al-Junayd ibn Muhammad, Sahl ibn ‘Abdullah At-Tustari, ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmaan Al-Makki, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Khafif Ash-Shiraazi, and others, and their speech is found in the Sunnah, and they composed books about the Sunnah.” [See Ar-Risaalah As-Safadiyyah Vol 1 pg 267]
Do you have any idea what exists within As-Sulamee’s Tabaqaat As-Sufiyya?
Then you state:
I respond to such an attack with the words of the sufi, Shaykh-ul-Islaam Jalaalud-Deen As-Suyuti:
“What is transmitted and attributed to the [Sufi] Shaykhs – may Allah be pleased with them – if it contradicts external knowledge, bears various possibilities,
A) First we do not concede its attribution to them until it is established as authentic.
B) Second, once authenticity is established, it is pausible that it is has a figurative meaning. If it doesn’t, then one says ‘perhaps it has a figurative meaning for the people of INTERNAL knowledge and the Knowers (’aarifeen) of Allah Almighty.
C) Third, this may have come to them in a state of spiritual intoxication and distraction, and the lawfully spiritual intoxicant is not taken to task for he is not held responsible in such a state.
Holding a negative view about them after all these points is a sign of deprivation of success. We seek Allah’s refuge.”
[End quote from Tanbih Al-Ghabi]
So yes, this science has terms and phrases that you do not understand, as stated by the Sufis themselves. These type of statements are understood to the ones who understand this knowledge (i.e. the ‘aarifeen). If you can not understand these statements, then it is best to ask someone qualified in their interpretation instead of making horrid accusations against established scholars of our illustrious past. You are speaking out of ignorance. To show your exterme ignorance in this field, as an example I shall mention what you had mentioned in a prior thread when you took case with calling someone ” ‘Aarif”. Yet, Imaam An-Nawawi has written an entire book called “Bustaan Al-’Aarifeen”! Not to mention that many of the great ‘Ulamaa’ use this term (including the illustrious student of Ibn Taymiyyah – Adh-Dhahabi, as we have shown above), yet you do not even understand what it entails or implies! Knowing this, you still attack the scholars and revile them with disgusting accusations of knowingly committing an act the shari’ah does not allow! The flesh of the scholars are poison and your attacks upon them fall upon your scales heavily.
Gain some knowledge before you speak on these matters and contemplate the words of Imaam As-Suyuti well. And lastly, you do not even know the conditions of something being deemed a “misguided bida’ah”, so do not call people away from “bida’ah” when you do not know its place in the shari’ah.
TAKE THAT WAHHABI HAHAHA