SUFI STORY: Hasan al-Basri and Habib al-Ajami (2nd attempt)
Dien Alfred Rice
SUFI STORY
The following is a short story about Hasan al-Basri and
Habib al-Ajami. Both were from the generation of Muslims
that came after the Prophet's Companions -- Hasan al-Basri
knew many of the Companions of the Prophet, including,
it is said, 70 people who had fought at the Battle of Badr.
Both Hasan al-Basri and Habib al-Ajami were great Sufis.
The following story comes from the "Tadhkirat al-Awliyya"
(Memorials of the Saints) of Fariduddin Attar. Fariduddin
Attar is another famous Sufi, who lived in the 12th century C.E.
His other famous work is the narrative teaching-poem,
"The Conference of the Birds."
One day Hasan al-Basri came to visit Habib al-Ajami.
Habib placed two rounds of barley bread and a little
salt in front of Hasan. Hasan began to eat. A beggar
then came to the door, and Habib gave all the barley
bread and the salt to the beggar.
"Habib," remarked the astonished Hasan, "you are a
worthy man. If you only had some knowledge, it would
be better. You took the bread from under the nose of
your guest and gave it all to the beggar. You ought
to have given a part to the beggar and a part to the
guest."
Habib said nothing. Soon, a slave entered with a tray
on his head. A roast lamb was on the tray, together with
sweetmeat and fine bread, and five hundred silver dirhams.
He set the tray before Habib. Habib gave the money to the
poor, and placed the tray before Hasan.
"Master," he said when Hasan had eaten some of the roast.
"you are a good man. If only you had a little faith,
it would be better. Knowledge must be accompanied by
faith."
[Slightly modified from A. J. Arberry's abridged translation of
Fariduddin Attar's "Tadhkirat al-Awliyya", translated as
"Muslim Saints and Mystics," p. 37.]
Majed AM
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.
br. Dien Alfred Rice:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
Here we disagree again. I have read from many books of the salaf
"the early generations" but I never read some one calling Hasan Al-Basri
as a Sufi man. He was a good follower of the Sahabah and was popular
by interpreting dreams, you could call him saint, but not Sufi. It is
up to you to consider him one but not up to you to tell others without
a proof. In order to call Hasan Albasry a Sufi man you have to proof that
he was following a Tareeqah.
By calling the early saints and Saleheen a Sufies that will not proof
that Sufiesm was there at the begining Islam. The proof is to show
that the strange teaching of Sufi Shykhs are part of Islam, which is
not.
Regards
Majed almogbel
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4msvja$a...@shellx.best.com>, Majed AM <malm...@maine.maine.edu> writes:
> Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, Br. Majed.
> Here we disagree again. I have read from many books of the salaf
> "the early generations" but I never read some one calling Hasan Al-Basri
> as a Sufi man. He was a good follower of the Sahabah and was popular
> by interpreting dreams, you could call him saint, but not Sufi.
Many Sufi Shaykhs have been gifted with understanding the meanings
of dreams. For example, today, to my understanding Shaykh
Taner Ansari of the Qadiri-Rifa'i tariqa has this ability,
and Shaykh Muzaffer Ozak of the Halveti-Jerrahi tariqa had
this ability (he left this earth about 10 years ago, I think).
Not all Sufi turuq make use of interpreting dreams, but some do.
Dreams can have meaning, as indicated in many hadiths.
Using dreams is, to my understanding, completely Islamic, but
not everyone has the ability to interpret them correctly.
How many Muslims (apart from some Sufi Shaykhs) have this ability
to interpret dreams? I have only heard of Sufi Shaykhs having this
ability, because the true Shaykh is the one who has reached the end
of the path, and experienced Allah's Presence so intensely that he may
be overwhelmed by His Presence.
Things like interpreting dreams is one of the things some
"modernist" Muslims criticize some Sufis for. However, as
your statement regarding Hasan al-Basri shows, and as recorded
in the hadiths, interpreting dreams is completely Islamic
when done by someone who has the necessary knowledge, and we
also have examples of it in the Qur'an (eg. Yusuf's ability
to interpret dreams (a.s.)).
> It is
> up to you to consider him one but not up to you to tell others without
> a proof. In order to call Hasan Albasry a Sufi man you have to proof that
> he was following a Tareeqah.
To follow a tariqa simply means to have the guidance of someone
else to help you with your path, who has himself experienced Allah
in an overwhelming way. For example, the Sahaba had the Prophet (s.),
and the generation after the Sahaba had the Sahaba to follow.
The Sufi turuq simply follow this tradition -- every Shaykh had
before him a Shaykh, and the line of teachers go back all the way to the
Prophet (s.).
As for Hasan al-Basri, he had the opportunity to learn from many
of the Sahaba. The teaching lineage (of which Shaykh taught which)
of all true Sufi trace their way back to the Prophet (s.).
> By calling the early saints and Saleheen a Sufies that will not proof
> that Sufiesm was there at the begining Islam. The proof is to show
> that the strange teaching of Sufi Shykhs are part of Islam, which is
> not.
What is so strange?
The main practices of the Sufi path, as I understand and have
experienced and read about them, are (1) following the Shari`ah,
(2) dhikrullah, (3) meditation and contemplation. This is,
of course, the heart of Islam. The result of this path, when
done properly, is to help remove love of this world from your
heart, and replace it with love for Allah.
Having a Shaykh, however, is important, because the Shaykh can teach
you things you otherwise would take a long time to find out.
A Sufi Shaykh is simply a guide -- you can try to find your way
through a strange country without a guide, but it would take much
longer to get to your destination, as you would go down many false
paths, and waste a lot of time. Following a true Shaykh means that
you save time on your journey, for he is a guide who has been to
where you want to go.
It was a Naqshbandi Shaykh who gave me the name "Fariduddin," and he
suggested to me that I read the writings of Fariduddin Attar. It is
partly because he suggested this to me, that I like to share the
stories recorded by Fariduddin Attar with others.
Wassalam,
Farid ud-Dien Rice
Majed AM
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.
brother Dien Alfred Rice:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
> Things like interpreting dreams is one of the things some
> "modernist" Muslims criticize some Sufis for. However, as
> your statement regarding Hasan al-Basri shows, and as recorded
> in the hadiths, interpreting dreams is completely Islamic
You mis-understood me, I have no problem with interpreting
dreams. I beleive that some people are gifted by this
ability.
> How many Muslims (apart from some Sufi Shaykhs) have this ability
> to interpret dreams? I have only heard of Sufi Shaykhs having this
> ability,
I don't no how many, but I know some. One of them lived in my
country Saudi Arabia and died some years ago. He was gifted
by a very accurate dream interpreting. He was very famous.
I've experienced his ability through a dream of one of my friends.
Some of his sons are gifted like him. Although he and his sons
are considered "Wahabies" as sufies called us. Neither
he or any of his sons are Sufi shaykhs nor Hasan Albasry was.
Niether he or any his sons has followed a sufi tareeqah
NOR HASAN ALBASRY HAD.
> To follow a tariqa simply means to have the guidance of someone
> else to help you with your path, who has himself experienced Allah
> in an overwhelming way. For example, the Sahaba had the Prophet (s.),
> and the generation after the Sahaba had the Sahaba to follow.
> The Sufi turuq simply follow this tradition -- every Shaykh had
> before him a Shaykh, and the line of teachers go back all the way to the
> Prophet (s.).
Shabah took Quran and Sunnah from Muhammd -saaw- and delivered
it to thier followers, this was the guidance. Nither them nor
thier followers inventid any new type of worship or Theker,
rather all of them strictly followed what Muhammad -saaw- said
and taught.
>
> > By calling the early saints and Saleheen a Sufies that will not proof
> > that Sufiesm was there at the begining Islam. The proof is to show
> > that the strange teaching of Sufi Shykhs are part of Islam, which is
> > not.
>
> What is so strange?
Well; have you read any of Ibn Elfardh books? or Ibn Araby? this is in creed.
What about the different kinds of Tareeqahs? which one is following
the Sunnah all the way to Muhammad -saaw-? this is in Sunnah.
What about the different kind of Theker of every Tareeqah? Is it
all been done by the Messenger -saaw-? this in worshiping
Shaykh Salamn Al-oudah was once in Eastern Asia and saw a Muslim brother
who happend to be a sufi. The shaykh asked him: what Tareeqah do you
follow? the Muslim brother replyed: Naqshabandy. The shaykh said to him:
I call you to leave your Tareeqah and follow the Tareeqah of Muhammad
-saaw-. The fellow Muslim looked at him and said: You are Wahabi!
See! this my problem with sufiesm, it captivates the follower's mind and
heart. And when you call him/her to follow Muhammad -saaw- through the true
Sunnah and worship Allah without mediators the ready answer which been filled
in his/her mined by his/her shaykh is 'you are wahabi'. Subhan ALLAH! he
didn't ask him to follow Ibn Abdulwahab or even to love him! he just
asked him to follow the Messenger -saaw-!
> It was a Naqshbandi Shaykh who gave me the name "Fariduddin," and he
> suggested to me that I read the writings of Fariduddin Attar. It is
> partly because he suggested this to me, that I like to share the
> stories recorded by Fariduddin Attar with others.
I respect and appreciate the way you admire those who may be
were the cause for you to know Islam. And I'm sorry if I offend you
when talk about them padly. But the truth should not be hidden.
The truth is not always easy. Some times those who hurt you love
and help you more.
> Wassalam,
>
wa alykum assalam wa rahmatULLAH
majed almogbel
--
G. Fouad Haddad
As-salamu `alaykum,
In article <4msvja$a...@shellx.best.com>, Majed AM <malm...@maine.maine.edu> writes...
>Here we disagree again. I have read from many books of the salaf
>"the early generations" but I never read some one calling Hasan Al-Basri
>as a Sufi man. He was a good follower of the Sahabah and was popular
Apparently you have missed Ibn Taymiyyah's point that al-Hasan was
the head of the pious men of Kufa, from where he believes tasawwuf
originated.
>by interpreting dreams, you could call him saint, but not Sufi. It is
He is not usually _called_ a Sufi, but he exemplifies early tasawwuf
just as `Abd al-Qadir Gilani exemplifies later forms of it. If you look
at Ibn Taymiyya's writings you never see Gilani referred to as a Sufi,
but he always comes up in his discussions of tasawwuf. The same is true
of Hasan al-Basri. Do you deny that Gilani can be called Sufi?
>up to you to consider him one but not up to you to tell others without
>a proof. In order to call Hasan Albasry a Sufi man you have to proof that
>he was following a Tareeqah.
Did you make up this pre-condition or is it based on knowledgeable sources?
>By calling the early saints and Saleheen a Sufies that will not proof
>that Sufiesm was there at the begining Islam.
There is no need for a proof at this point. Most people who have studied
the question are satisfied with Ibn Taymiyya's exposition of the
question in his essay "al-sufiyya wa al-fuqara'" where he shows
that sufi, faqir, zahid, and other names all correspond to the
same basic types of pious Muslims. You should read Ibn Taymiyya
instead of asking Brother Rice for proof. But to put to rest the
silly claim that tasawwuf was not there at the beginning of Islam
it suffices to mention the name of Sufyan al-Thawri's teacher:
Abu Hashim al-Sufi.
The proof is to show
>that the strange teaching of Sufi Shykhs are part of Islam, which is
>not.
>
>Regards
>
>Majed almogbel
Al-hamdu lillah, the Prophet (s) said Islam began as strange and shall
become strange again, so in your own terms the only true Muslims are
the Sufi Shaykhs.
Fouad Haddad
Naqshbandi-Haqqani Foundation of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4n6fmt$l...@shellx.best.com>, Majed AM <malm...@maine.maine.edu> writes:
> Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
The following was at the end of Majed's post, but I would
like to answer it first.
> I respect and appreciate the way you admire those who may be
> were the cause for you to know Islam. And I'm sorry if I offend you
> when talk about them padly. But the truth should not be hidden.
> The truth is not always easy. Some times those who hurt you love
> and help you more.
Actually, I was born to Muslim parents, and raised Muslim. I learned
many things from some people with connections with the Ikhwan
al-Muslimeen. But I can say that I only learned about Islam's
true _spirit_ from the Sufis, from their writings (especially those
of Jalaluddin Rumi), and from meeting them.
Now, back to the beginning of Br. Majed's post:
>> Things like interpreting dreams is one of the things some
>> "modernist" Muslims criticize some Sufis for. However, as
>> your statement regarding Hasan al-Basri shows, and as recorded
>> in the hadiths, interpreting dreams is completely Islamic
>
> You mis-understood me, I have no problem with interpreting
> dreams. I beleive that some people are gifted by this
> ability.
Actually, I wasn't referring to you, but rather to "modernist"
Muslims who have trouble also in believing in the possibility
of things like miracles. They think in doing so they are
being "scientific," however miracles, as once-only occurrences,
are outside the domain of science, which only considers
repeatable phenomena. Science in fact says nothing about
the possibility of miracles (in my own opinion), since they
are outside of science's domain of applicability.
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer that I wasn't referring
to you.
[...]
Thanks for your example of true dreams in Saudi Arabia.
>> To follow a tariqa simply means to have the guidance of someone
>> else to help you with your path, who has himself experienced Allah
>> in an overwhelming way. For example, the Sahaba had the Prophet (s.),
>> and the generation after the Sahaba had the Sahaba to follow.
>> The Sufi turuq simply follow this tradition -- every Shaykh had
>> before him a Shaykh, and the line of teachers go back all the way to the
>> Prophet (s.).
>
> Shabah took Quran and Sunnah from Muhammd -saaw- and delivered
> it to thier followers, this was the guidance. Nither them nor
> thier followers inventid any new type of worship or Theker,
> rather all of them strictly followed what Muhammad -saaw- said
> and taught.
Dhikr (Theker) is permissable in any place, in any posture.
The Qur'an says, in meaning (3:191, Pickthall translation)
Men who remember Allah, standing, sitting, and reclining [...]
Although it does not say this explicitly, the implication in this
verse is that it is permissable to remember Allah in any posture.
Some Sufis do dhikr while they turn.... you would say, I am sure,
that this is bid`ah, and a "new type of worship." These Sufis
still do salat, but as well as salat, they do extra -- they do
dhikr while they turn. Is this permissable or prohibited?
Allah says you can do dhikr while standing, sitting, or lying down....
why not while you are turning too? Remembrance of Allah is
remembrance of Allah, whatever posture you are in.
(I personally do not do dhikr this way, but the burden of proof
that it is prohibited I think is on those who will claim this.)
Is it permissable to remember Allah while we are driving our cars?
Of course, we should remember Allah all the time. If we can do
dhikr while driving our cars, why can't we do dhikr while turning too?
To my understanding, remembering Allah is permissable anywhere, in any
posture, which means sitting, standing, lying down, turning, standing on
your head, riding your horse, driving your car, doing pushups,
while you are having sex with your wife or husband, etc.
>> What is so strange?
>
> Well; have you read any of Ibn Elfardh books? or Ibn Araby? this is in creed.
Ibn Elfardh doesn't ring a bell, but I know of Ibn al-Arabi.
In creed? Every word Ibn al-Arabi wrote is based on the Qur'an,
to my understanding. The burden of proof is on you if you are
going to claim differently.
Many people criticize Ibn al-Arabi, basing their criticisms _not_
on his works, but on the works of those who followed after him.
This is mistaken, because not all of those who claim to follow
Ibn al-Arabi in fact seem to follow quite what he said....
However, I should point out I have read more of Jalaluddin Rumi
than I have of Ibn al-Arabi.
> What about the different kinds of Tareeqahs? which one is following
> the Sunnah all the way to Muhammad -saaw-? this is in Sunnah.
Authentic tariqahs follow the Sunnah.
> What about the different kind of Theker of every Tareeqah? Is it
> all been done by the Messenger -saaw-? this in worshiping
I have made dhikr driving my car.... if I do this, am I following
the Messenger (s.)? He never had a car. So am I following the
Messenger (s.) if I do dhikr in a car? Answer me this question,
Br. Majed. The answers are not always simplistic. Sometimes
we have to go beyond literalism and look to the meaning.
Is remembering Allah in your car bid`ah? One might say, the
Prophet (s.) never remembered Allah while driving in a car, so this
is bid`ah.... this point of view is the short-sighted view
of the complete literalist. The one who truly understands, however,
would realize that you can do dhikr anywhere, even driving your
car, because this is the _meaning_ of the teachings. He has
gone beyond literalism and understood the meaning. The true
Sufis understand the meaning; literalists criticize them because
they cannot yet see this far. The issue is, of course, not
about doing dhikr in a car, but doing dhikr in other ways.
Again, let's think about doing dhikr while turning, which the
Sufis of the Mevlevi tariqa do. There is a wisdom in doing
dhikr this way, which is known to them. The questions to ask are:
1. Is it permissable for Muslims to turn? If not, show where in
Qur'an or hadith it says Muslims may not turn.
2. If I turn around (like spinning), is it permissable to remember
Allah while I am doing so?
If you cannot prove it is prohibited for a Muslim to turn around
(point 1), then it is permissable. If you are allowed to turn,
you must be permitted to remember Allah while you turn, because
we are supposed to remember Allah as much as we can, all the
time (point 2). Thus, doing dhikr while turning is permissable,
and for those who claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.
If you disagree with me, Br. Majed, please provide your proof
from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
I do not do dhikr this way myself, by the way. I usually do
dhikr sitting down, as mentioned in the Qur'an (3:191).
> Shaykh Salamn Al-oudah was once in Eastern Asia and saw a Muslim brother
> who happend to be a sufi. The shaykh asked him: what Tareeqah do you
> follow? the Muslim brother replyed: Naqshabandy. The shaykh said to him:
> I call you to leave your Tareeqah and follow the Tareeqah of Muhammad
> -saaw-. The fellow Muslim looked at him and said: You are Wahabi!
I might say something similar. This is because Salamn Al-oudah
assumed that following a tariqah means he is not following the
tariqah of Muhammad (s.). I don't accept this assumption, but it
is one of the assumptions made by the "Wahhabis".
The man was knowable by his assumption in his statement. I do not
accept that assumption, nor does any follower of a true tariqah.
> See! this my problem with sufiesm, it captivates the follower's mind and
> heart. And when you call him/her to follow Muhammad -saaw- through the true
> Sunnah and worship Allah without mediators the ready answer which been filled
> in his/her mined by his/her shaykh is 'you are wahabi'. Subhan ALLAH! he
> didn't ask him to follow Ibn Abdulwahab or even to love him! he just
> asked him to follow the Messenger -saaw-!
I think the Sufi probably said that because he already _was_ following
the Messenger (s.), and the Wahhabi himself obviously could not see it.
Notice that Salamn Al-oudah never did _ask_ the Sufi anything;
he already had his mind filled by the Wahhabis with their wrong
assumptions about Tasawwuf.
Wa alaykum salam,
Fariduddin Rice
Moustafa Elqabbany
Assalamu `alaa `ibaadillah assaliheen.
The following is my reply to a similar discussion being held on the msa-ec
mailing list:
>From qab...@vanbc.wimsey.comTue May 14 10:48:51 1996
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moustafa Elqabbany <qab...@vanbc.wimsey.com>
To: msa...@facteur.std.com
Subject: Re: msa-ec: Denial of early sufism (SRI)
On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mateen Siddiqui wrote:
> Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem
> was-salaat was-salaam `alaa Rasul-illah wa 'alaa alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam
[stuff deleted]
> As-salamu `alaykum,
Wa alaikum assalaam.
> Apparently you have missed Ibn Taymiyyah's point that al-Hasan was
[stuff deleted]
> just as `Abd al-Qadir Gilani exemplifies later forms of it. If you look
> at Ibn Taymiyya's writings you never see Gilani referred to as a Sufi,
[stuff deleted]
> There is no need for a proof at this point. Most people who have studied
> the question are satisfied with Ibn Taymiyya's exposition of the
> question in his essay "al-sufiyya wa al-fuqara'" where he shows
[stuff deleted]
Don't you ever get tired of this childish double standard when it comes to
Ibn Teymiyyeh? Come now, someone with a PhD should have acquired a maturity
of argumentation at the very least. You simply cannot quote Ibn Teymiyyeh
left, right, and centre when he agrees with you and dismiss his opinions as
heresy when he disagrees with you.
Can you ever argue in a balanced and mature way, rather than making ad
hominem attacks and using the Wahhabi-scare tactic? Call me a Wahhabi all
you want, this doesn't change the fact that the majority of Ahlus-Sunnah
wal-Jamaa`ah *love* and respect Ibn Teymiyyeh, even though he has some
strange opinions. (And no, I'm not a Wahhabi, so perhaps you will have to
think up a new scare tactic.)
May Allah make us from those who listen to speech, and then follow the best
of it.
> Fouad Haddad
> Naqshbandi-Haqqani Foundation of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a
Salaam,
Moustafa
Majed AM
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.
Brother Dien:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
> Actually, I was born to Muslim parents, and raised Muslim. I learned
> many things from some people with connections with the Ikhwan
> al-Muslimeen. But I can say that I only learned about Islam's
> true _spirit_ from the Sufis, from their writings (especially those
> of Jalaluddin Rumi), and from meeting them.
I'm very sorry! my mistake, I shoud've not make this assumption.
please accept my apology.
> >> What is so strange?
> >
> > Well; have you read any of Ibn Elfardh books? or Ibn Araby? this is in creed.
>
> Ibn Elfardh doesn't ring a bell, but I know of Ibn al-Arabi.
>
> In creed? Every word Ibn al-Arabi wrote is based on the Qur'an,
> to my understanding. The burden of proof is on you if you are
> going to claim differently.
There is two different scholars; one is Ebn Al-Araby who's
a good scholar, the 2nd is Ebn Araby who was an extremest
sufi.
Are we talking about the same man?
If you are talking about Ebn Arabi the sufi then I will
proof how strange his teaching was.
> > What about the different kind of Theker of every Tareeqah? Is it
> > all been done by the Messenger -saaw-? this in worshiping
>
> I have made dhikr driving my car.... if I do this, am I following
> the Messenger (s.)? He never had a car. So am I following the
> Messenger (s.) if I do dhikr in a car? Answer me this question,
> Br. Majed. The answers are not always simplistic. Sometimes
> we have to go beyond literalism and look to the meaning.
You're missing the point here. My objection is not to the Thecker
it self, as for that we're asked to remember ALLAH by thecker in
any time, any where, in any position.
The problem is when some body assign a certain kind of Thecker
with a certain number of repeating in a certain time and make it
obligatory on his followers to do it. This is an inovated worship
added to te religion; Do not all the Sufi Shyks do it?
Majed Almogbel
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4ncu66$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Majed AM <malm...@maine.maine.edu> writes:
> Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, Br. Majed.
>> In creed? Every word Ibn al-Arabi wrote is based on the Qur'an,
>> to my understanding. The burden of proof is on you if you are
>> going to claim differently.
>
> There is two different scholars; one is Ebn Al-Araby who's
> a good scholar, the 2nd is Ebn Araby who was an extremest
> sufi.
I mean the Ibn Arabi the Sufi, though personally I support him.
> Are we talking about the same man?
>
> If you are talking about Ebn Arabi the sufi then I will
> proof how strange his teaching was.
If you wish to do so, I should say I am probably not qualified
to mount an adequate defence, having only read his writings
partially. From what I have read, Ibn Arabi's writings
are very in-depth, and do not lend themselves to anything
but a deep analysis.
However, sometimes these in-depth issues are not the most suitable for
public discussion, Allahu `alam, in case people misunderstand what is
said.
Perhaps, my brother Majed, we could discuss this in email, if you wish?
Though I am have only read a portion of the writings of Ibn Arabi.
[...]
> You're missing the point here. My objection is not to the Thecker
> it self, as for that we're asked to remember ALLAH by thecker in
> any time, any where, in any position.
>
> The problem is when some body assign a certain kind of Thecker
> with a certain number of repeating in a certain time and make it
> obligatory on his followers to do it. This is an inovated worship
> added to te religion; Do not all the Sufi Shyks do it?
Certainly, the Shaykh requests his followers to do it. Whether
it is considered "obligatory" I think probably depends on the
particular Shaykh.... For example, I just received the newsletter
of the Qadiri-Rafa'i tariqa (though I am not a member of this tariqa,
which is based in the US, while I am in Australia). In one of
the articles there, that Shaykh points out that the role of the
Shaykh is just to help show you how you can get closer to Allah.
He writes that you are not the possession of the Shaykh! The Shaykh
will not make you do anything, you have to do it yourself, it is
his role just to help show you how to get closer to Allah. Whether
you do it or not is completely up to you.
Is it wrong to ask someone to do a certain amount of dhikr each day,
to help them get closer to Allah? Or is it wrong to ask someone
to fast a certain amount each month, to help them get closer to Allah?
These are the kinds of things Sufi Shaykhs ask of their followers,
to my understanding, and Allah knows best. What they ask is usually
_based on the Sunnah_ of Rasulullah (s.) (for a true Shaykh, that is,
I am not talking about false Shaykhs which you can also find.)
Also, there is a hadith which says (from memory) that if there
are even three people, you should choose one of the three as your
leader. Many Muslims nowadays do not have a leader, even though
the hadiths seem to indicate that for a group to have a leader
is part of Islam. The Shaykh is one who is accepted by the others
as their leader, which is to my understanding in complete accord
with the Sunnah.
I should clarify, that myself, I have not made "bay`at"
to a Shaykh, though I do attend dhikr sometimes, and I do feel a
particular closeness to a particular Naqshbandi Shaykh, who I
have mentioned before.
Wassalamu alaykum,
Fariduddien Rice
Majed AM
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgme=
nt.
Brother Dien Alfred:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
> > If you are talking about Ebn Arabi the sufi then I will
> > proof how strange his teaching was.
>=20
> If you wish to do so, I should say I am probably not qualified
> to mount an adequate defence, having only read his writings
> partially. From what I have read, Ibn Arabi's writings
> are very in-depth, and do not lend themselves to anything
> but a deep analysis.
>=20
> However, sometimes these in-depth issues are not the most suitable for
> public discussion, Allahu `alam, in case people misunderstand what is
> said.
>=20
> Perhaps, my brother Majed, we could discuss this in email, if you wish?
> Though I am have only read a portion of the writings of Ibn Arabi.
Although I don=92t believe that any part of religion -especially
like this issue- could be not suitable for public discussion,=20
but I will fulfill your wish and discuss it by mail, in sha'a=20
ALLAH.
> Is it wrong to ask someone to do a certain amount of dhikr each day,
> to help them get closer to Allah? Or is it wrong to ask someone
> to fast a certain amount each month, to help them get closer to Allah?
> These are the kinds of things Sufi Shaykhs ask of their followers,
> to my understanding, and Allah knows best. What they ask is usually
> _based on the Sunnah_ of Rasulullah (s.) (for a true Shaykh, that is,
> I am not talking about false Shaykhs which you can also find.)
My respectable brother, the Fiqh scholars used to say:
=91 Al-Ebadat Tawqeefiah =92
=91 The worshipping matters is limited by what Allah and his Messenger=20
-saaw- commanded =92
and it=92s not a secret that Thecker is one of the most important=20
worshippings. So the types, the numbers, the times, and the=20
positions of thecker are all restricted to what Allah and his=20
Messenger -saaw- said. Some of the Thecker is limited by a time,=20
a number, a position, or a place. A good examples for these=20
respectively are; the =91Tasbeeh=92 after the obligatory prayers is=20
limited to a certain time and a certain number, and the =91Theker=92 of=20
riding a car, a plain or similar transportation media is=20
limited to a certain position and place. If some body -no matter=20
how good he is- said do the =91riding Theker=92 before sleeping we=20
could say freely this is =91 Bed=92ah =92. Other reported =91 Theker =92=
=20
is not restricted by any of the above four limits; like=20
=91Subhana ALLAH wa behamdeh, Subhana ALLAH aladeem=92 wich the=20
Messenger -saaw- described it as "two words; light on the=20
tongue, loved by ALLAH, and heavy in the balance(in the here=20
after)" . You could repeat this thecker - and many like it - =20
as much as you want, whenever you want, however you are, and=20
still it is authentic, and MOST IMPORTANT it getS closer to ALLAH.
So since =91Theker=92 is a worship, it=92s not up to any body to make=20
obligatory or even recommend any new type of =91Thecker=92 not by=20
type, not by number, not by position, nor by place. And even for=20
the reported =91Theker=92 it=92s not up to any body to restrict the=20
free, nor free the limited. =20
Why? Because this is Islam: =91Al-Ebadat Tawqeefiah=92. =20
You might tell me that the Sufi Shayks just recommend =91Thecker=92=20
exactly as Muhammad -saaw- did it (which is really a=20
highly hypothetical sentence), my comment -in advance- is;
well, why then call it a sufi tareeqah?!=20
Just tell the followers go and read the Ahadeeth you=92ll find=20
all the good there.
The legitimate question here is; with all the reported =91Thekers=92=20
in Quran and Sunnah, which cover all day and night, both limited=20
and free forms, all authentic; isn=92t this enough? And Why submit=20
my heart and mind to a shaykh to invent and describe for me a=20
=91Theker=92 to get me closer to Allah? Why not follow a scholar=20
who could tell me the authentic =91Theker=92 of Muhammad -saaw- to=20
practice it? Even if it is hypothetically lawful and just=20
recommended not obligatory; Is possible that the sufi new types,=20
times, numbers, and positions of =91Theker=92 will get me closer to=20
Allah better than Muhammad=92s -saaw- do?
> Also, there is a hadith which says (from memory) that if there
> are even three people, you should choose one of the three as your
> leader. =20
I think this is irrelevant. This is about managing life matters. =20
The worshipping matters is not under the authority of any human=20
leader but Muhammad -saaw- who died 14 centuries ago.
Majed Almogbel