Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The hate for Sufism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I get that they are misguided and we don't agree with them. But its not just disagreement, they see it as evil, and some even call them kafirs.

What exactly are their believes that makes some Shia's perceive them in such a negative light? 

I have to say I barely know anything about Sufism. Al I know are the dervishes dancing, singing, spirituality and dhikr. Yes dancing and singing are un-Islamic, but the rest doesn't sound so bad...I tried to do my own research but I was left confused and overwhelmed by the complexity and variety in this path. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 313_Waiter

:salam:

I don’t think Shias really hate Sufis at all. In fact, there is a branch of Shia mysticism called Irfan, and there are Shia Sufis that exist as well.

Some scholars may have accused Sufis of shirk due to their metaphysical concepts like Wahdat al Wujood. Though one should study on this topic extensively before passing such judgements. Salafis have a particular aversion towards Sufi beliefs because they do “tawassul” and also visit the graves and shrines of their saints. 

We Shias do have hadiths disassociating from them, though it may refer to some of the practices that they had, which may have included monasticism. The other practices of theirs that you mentioned was songs and the Sufi whirling (which you called dancing). When it comes to songs and music, this is the ruling of Sayed Sistani:

Quote

Question: Is it permissible to listen to religious songs in praise of Ahlul Bayt ((عليه السلام).) that are accompanied with music?

Answer: Songs (al-ghinã’) are harãm absolutely. However, singing praise [of the Prophet or the Ahlul Bayt] that is sung with a good tune but is not in ghinã’ form is without problem.
As for the music, it would be allowed, if it is not suitable for entertainment and amusement gatherings.

https://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01246/

As for the Sufi whirling, I’m not sure that it is harām, perhaps other brother can enlighten us.

Masalam

I will be back on shiachat soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/14/2020 at 1:09 PM, feefee_xx said:

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I think there is alot if Sufism that has crept into Shia and tends not to have any authentic basis to Ahlulbayt. Also alit of ghuluw concepts use abstract Sufi ideas to propagate false beliefs 

So their is resentment towards it.

Certain Sufi have strange concepts that Allah is in everything which is shirk.

And alot of Sufi thought leads to a very pleurulistic approach eg Hindu, Buddhist are all paths to truth.

On a personal level I have met Sufi/ irfani type people and they do honestly annoy me with there wish washy attitude. (But maybe that's a fault in my character).

Ill post an extract from.a zaidi book on Sufism.

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
12 minutes ago, Warilla said:

I think there is alot if Sufism that has crept into Shia and tends not to have any authentic basis to Ahlulbayt. Also alit of ghuluw concepts use abstract Sufi ideas to propagate false beliefs 

So their is resentment towards it.

Certain Sufi have strange concepts that Allah is in everything which is shirk.

And alot of Sufi thought leads to a very pleurulistic approach eg Hindu, Buddhist are all paths to truth.

On a personal level I have met Sufi/ irfani type people and they do honestly annoy me with there wish washy attitude. (But maybe that's a fault in my character).

Ill post an extract from.a zaidi book on Sufism.

I think that the majority of Shias who hate Sufis do so because there are narrations against them. 

You do come across some people, funnily enough many Shirazis, who say that it is the beliefs and practices of the Sufiyya that they find abhorrent, but that is ridiculous as they believe in things that are just as crazy as the wildest Sufi beliefs and behave in a way that is just as dumb as the dumbest Sufi ritual. It could be that it is tough to look into a mirror and acknowledge that you are actually looking at yourself rather than at some fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Shi'ism only rejects forms of Sufism that may lead to extremist spiritual tendencies (i.e. excessive monasticism, literal understanding of Waḥdat al-wujūd etc.) and the Americanized or hippie versions of Sufism that promote religious pluralism, abandonment of Islamic law, free mingling of the sexes etc. There are a lot of similarities and overlap between Sufism and Shi'ism because the origin of both trends can be traced back to the Prophet's household. The lineage of all ṭarīqahs (e.g. Mevlevi, Chishti, Qadiri, Bektashi, Naqshbandi etc.) originate with members of Muhammad's family (peace be upon them). Unfortunately, what happens sometimes among religious sects, denominations etc. is the closer the streams of thought the more zealous and dogmatic the infighting and hairsplitting becomes. My reading of Islam demands us to be accompanying and inclusive of one another and openminded people should seek out commonalities that bind us closer together instead of arguing endlessly over trivial matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/14/2020 at 6:39 PM, feefee_xx said:

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I get that they are misguided and we don't agree with them. But its not just disagreement, they see it as evil, and some even call them kafirs.

What exactly are their believes that makes some Shia's perceive them in such a negative light? 

I have to say I barely know anything about Sufism. Al I know are the dervishes dancing, singing, spirituality and dhikr. Yes dancing and singing are un-Islamic, but the rest doesn't sound so bad...I tried to do my own research but I was left confused and overwhelmed by the complexity and variety in this path. 

No problem with Sufism itself. But some Sufis actually did ghulu and connected (by their words) either Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to Allah or claimed divinity for themselves. 

Their is a famous name if you search 'Mansur Hallaj' who was actually accused of claiming 'Anal Haqq'(I am the truth). He was hanged as it was said thst he claimed divinity.

So, doing ghulu for AhlulBayt (عليه السلام) to the level of divinity or in fact any individual (not only Ahl ul Bayt (AS)) is rejected in Islam and considered Kufr, even if a Shia or Sunni does it. 

So, all the notions like these that erupt from 5th he Sufis have portrayed them in bad light. I can give you many examples, but I am unable to remember them completely, the stories made by Sufis.

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Be careful about mindlessly repeating the "Sufism is the plague of Morocco" slogan. North Africa has been a battleground between Sufism and Wahhabism for approximately 50 years and Sufism (unfortunately) is on the retreat. Sufi Malikis have been performing worship/offering prayers (i.e. as-ṣalāh) with unfolded hands (like Twelvers, Zaydis and Ibadis) for nearly 1,400 years but they can't anymore because it's now considered bid'ah. This is due to outside pressure by scholars and indoctrinated students that accompanied the Salafi influx during the 70's, 80's and 90's. Algerians were known for their mild dispositions and 'moderate' rendition of Islam...the disciplined yet inclusive/relaxed Malikism of the Maḡrib...Salafi da'wah has changed Algeria into a hotbed of extremism almost overnight...so-much-so that a Wahhabi-influenced Islamic state was almost formed following the brutal Algerian "Civil War" (read Salafist coup). The uprising was artificial. It was instigated by outside agitators and financed by Riyadh...identical to what happened in Syria in 2011 and the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya in 2011.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/14/2020 at 4:09 PM, feefee_xx said:

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I get that they are misguided and we don't agree with them. But its not just disagreement, they see it as evil, and some even call them kafirs.

What exactly are their believes that makes some Shia's perceive them in such a negative light? 

I have to say I barely know anything about Sufism. Al I know are the dervishes dancing, singing, spirituality and dhikr. Yes dancing and singing are un-Islamic, but the rest doesn't sound so bad...I tried to do my own research but I was left confused and overwhelmed by the complexity and variety in this path. 

There is no problem with Sufi's if they are practicing how they originally did so: spending most of their time alone while worshipping Allah. The original Sufi's did not do what they do today - they were people who were reclusive. They followed the Qur'an and Sunnah how it was supposed to be followed. They get their names from the material of clothing they always used to wear - Suf (wool in English). However, the Sufism that we have today is outright wrong. It comes from the Turks [whirling dervishes]. They believe that Allah is one with and is creation (pantheism and panentheism). They believe in asking the dead for help and circling around it like the Masjid al-Haraam. They are heretics, ultimately - and rightfully so. They believe that the Messengers of Allah are reincarnated into their saints. To explain, they believe that their leading saint is the leading Messenger of Allah [Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him] and the companions are the other Messengers of Allah [i.e., Musa, Isa, Yunus, Ibrahim, etc.] and they receive Knowledge of the Unseen directly from Allah. They believe that there is no problem if you worship certain animals, because it is Allah. They pray wrong and include innovations and shirk into their prayer - nullifying it. They make a lot of claims and claim they receive divine revelation and commands directly from Allah. 

That is basically the entirety of it. I have spent many time researching this and have been invited to debate Sufi's - and have done so. They are heretics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/15/2020 at 2:09 AM, feefee_xx said:

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I get that they are misguided and we don't agree with them. But its not just disagreement, they see it as evil, and some even call them kafirs.

What exactly are their believes that makes some Shia's perceive them in such a negative light? 

I have to say I barely know anything about Sufism. Al I know are the dervishes dancing, singing, spirituality and dhikr. Yes dancing and singing are un-Islamic, but the rest doesn't sound so bad...I tried to do my own research but I was left confused and overwhelmed by the complexity and variety in this path. 

Lol I was just saying to a friend about this, this morning actually. Those who deny the Batin have no seat at the table of Ahl al-Bayt. 

The particular type of Shias who hate Sufis are our equivalent of Salafis and should be avoided because they will only lead you down their path of shirk and munafiq, because Shia who are innately opposed to Sufis have that mentality just as Salafis do. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

There is no problem with Sufi's if they are practicing how they originally did so: spending most of their time alone while worshipping Allah. The original Sufi's did not do what they do today - they were people who were reclusive. They followed the Qur'an and Sunnah how it was supposed to be followed. They get their names from the material of clothing they always used to wear - Suf (wool in English). However, the Sufism that we have today is outright wrong. It comes from the Turks [whirling dervishes]. They believe that Allah is one with and is creation (pantheism and panentheism). They believe in asking the dead for help and circling around it like the Masjid al-Haraam. They are heretics, ultimately - and rightfully so. They believe that the Messengers of Allah are reincarnated into their saints. To explain, they believe that their leading saint is the leading Messenger of Allah [Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him] and the companions are the other Messengers of Allah [i.e., Musa, Isa, Yunus, Ibrahim, etc.] and they receive Knowledge of the Unseen directly from Allah. They believe that there is no problem if you worship certain animals, because it is Allah. They pray wrong and include innovations and shirk into their prayer - nullifying it. They make a lot of claims and claim they receive divine revelation and commands directly from Allah. 

That is basically the entirety of it. I have spent many time researching this and have been invited to debate Sufi's - and have done so. They are heretics.

The argument you present is anachronistic. The term "sufi" was never a self-designation until fairly recent history, the term "Sufism" is also of western orientalist origin.

Traditionally they were known as followers of Tasawwuf, which is not a sect but a tradition within historically mainstream Islam (predominantly Sunni but also Shia, as it originated from Shia sources, being the 12 Imams, especially Ali and Sadiq). 

Much of the criticisms you present are vague generalizations that cannot be applied to any particular group, maybe individuals but which ones? 

Quote

whirling dervishes

That's the Mevlevi order, only one Tariqa.

Quote

They believe that Allah is one with and is creation

No Sufis believe this. You are repeating the ignorant polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah. 

Quote

They believe that the Messengers of Allah are reincarnated into their saints

They they they they but which they? As I said much of the criticisms you present are vague generalizations that cannot be applied to any particular group.

Quote

and they receive Knowledge of the Unseen directly from Allah. They believe that there is no problem if you worship certain animals, because it is Allah. They pray wrong and include innovations and shirk into their prayer - nullifying it. They make a lot of claims and claim they receive divine revelation and commands directly from Allah. 

More Ibn Taymiyyah-tier drivel. 

Quote

I have spent many time researching this 

Clearly you've been reading polemics against them but no actual original sources, plus no true historiography, philosophy and anthropology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/19/2020 at 8:04 AM, Zainuu said:

He was hanged as it was said thst he claimed divinity.

He's perhaps one of the most infamous figures to be labeled "Sufi". 

Those who murdered him claimed that he claimed divinity but he didn't. "Ana'l-Ḥaqq" is a very Batin phrase, akin to some of what Isa and Ali both have said but not on their station of authority. Hallaj never claimed divinity, that was exactly the polar opposite of what he taught and believed. He taught and believed that creation has no existence, that God is the only existent. When one of Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) most important name/attribute is al-Haqq, then you better darn listen to what he is saying. The same thing Imam Ali says in the Nahjul Balahja, and what is repeatedly alluded to in the Qur'an. Remember that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is al-Ahad.

Hallaj, as with Ibn Arabi, only believed in pure Tawhid. Their opposers, their antagonizers, those who wrote propagandistic polemics against them (such as "they claimed divinity" or "they were pantheists"), claimed things about them that is absent from their words, works, teachings and sayings. 

It's sad when we meet the low level of my fellow Shias repeating the lying garbage words of Ibn Taymiyyah without even realizing it. 

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

He's perhaps one of the most infamous figures to be labeled "Sufi". 

Those who murdered him claimed that he claimed divinity but he didn't. "Ana'l-Ḥaqq" is a very Batin phrase, akin to some of what Isa and Ali both have said but not on their station of authority. Hallaj never claimed divinity, that was exactly the polar opposite of what he taught and believed. He taught and believed that creation has no existence, that God is the only existent. When one of Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) most important named/attributes is al-Haqq, then you better darn listen to what he is saying. The same thing Imam Ali says in the Nahjul Balahja, and what is repeatedly alluded to in the Qur'an.

Hallaj, as with Ibn Arabi, only believed in pure Tawhid. Their opposers, their antagonizers, those who wrote propagandistic polemics against them claimed things about them that is absent from their words, works, teachings and sayings. 

It's sad when we meet the low level of my fellow Shias repeating the lying garbage words of Ibn Taymiyyah without even realizing it. 

Salaam, 

Thanks for your clarity. I was not clear on the topic and this is the reason I said 'accused' and not attributed that to him. Please try to read carefully what I said. 

Anyways thanks for the clarity on Mansur. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, al-Muttaqin said:

he argument you present is anachronistic. The term "sufi" was never a self-designation until fairly recent history, the term "Sufism" is also of western orientalist origin.

Traditionally they were known as followers of Tasawwuf, which is not a sect but a tradition within historically mainstream Islam (predominantly Sunni but also Shia, as it originated from Shia sources, being the 12 Imams, especially Ali and Sadiq). 

Much of the criticisms you present are vague generalizations that cannot be applied to any particular group, maybe individuals but which ones? 

"Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image. They reached a true state of closeness and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favor, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path."
Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqi ad-Din al-Fasi: pages 15-16

Strange. I do not see Ibn Taymiyyah's name there! Perhaps it is falsely attributed to al-Fasi.

9 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

Clearly you've been reading polemics against them but no actual original sources, plus no true historiography, philosophy and anthropology. 

Every single scholar of his time unanimously agreed that he should be put to death for his heretical behavior and heresy*. Information is provided below.

*Taarikh Baghdad by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, volume 8, pages 112-141,  al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, volume 13, pages 201-206; Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’ by al-Shihaabi, volume 14, pages 313-354; al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer, volume 11, pages 132-144

14 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

That's the Mevlevi order, only one Tariqa.

Quote

I do not care. This is not something they condemn. Well, that is not true. They condemn themselves and one another, while claiming their side is right! Nonetheless, it should not really matter. It should not even be done.

17 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

No Sufis believe this. You are repeating the ignorant polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah. 

Quote

Here it is explained: https://ibnarabisociety.org/oneness-of-being-wahdat-al-wujud-aladdin-[edited out]/

I am guessing Ibn Taymiyyah also wrote this site. Man!

 

 

Strange... I have not mentioned any of Ibn Taymiyyah's work, but I take from him regarding this issue. What makes this even more ironic is that I have not even read from Ibn Taymiyyah concerning Sufis. An assumption that is taken as a fact while claiming I am... taking without research and only viewing polemically? That is quite interesting - ironic, nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam, 

Thanks for your clarity. I was not clear on the topic and this is the reason I said 'accused' and not attributed that to him. Please try to read carefully what I said. 

Anyways thanks for the clarity on Mansur. 

Your welcome. 

I wasn't writing from the assumtion you were claiming that, just more writing to the thread off one of the things you referenced (which is always a needlessly controversial subject).

God bless :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

Your welcome. 

I wasn't writing from the assumtion you were claiming that, just more writing to the thread off one of the things you referenced (which is always a needlessly controversial subject).

God bless :)

But I don't know if you are aware of the Sufis here in the Indian sub-continent, who have seriously deviated somewhat from real Sufism. As for the part of Ibn Arabi, Shams, Rumi etc, they are highly respected and that era of Sufism is just so missed today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

"Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image. They reached a true state of closeness and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favor, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path."
Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqi ad-Din al-Fasi: pages 15-16

Strange. I do not see Ibn Taymiyyah's name there! Perhaps it is falsely attributed to al-Fasi.

Every single scholar of his time unanimously agreed that he should be put to death for his heretical behavior and heresy*. Information is provided below.

*Taarikh Baghdad by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, volume 8, pages 112-141,  al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, volume 13, pages 201-206; Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’ by al-Shihaabi, volume 14, pages 313-354; al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer, volume 11, pages 132-144

I do not care. This is not something they condemn. Well, that is not true. They condemn themselves and one another, while claiming their side is right! Nonetheless, it should not really matter. It should not even be done.

Here it is explained: https://ibnarabisociety.org/oneness-of-being-wahdat-al-wujud-aladdin-[edited out]/

I am guessing Ibn Taymiyyah also wrote this site. Man!

 

 

Strange... I have not mentioned any of Ibn Taymiyyah's work, but I take from him regarding this issue. What makes this even more ironic is that I have not even read from Ibn Taymiyyah concerning Sufis. An assumption that is taken as a fact while claiming I am... taking without research and only viewing polemically? That is quite interesting - ironic, nonetheless.

You've just continued to demonstrate that you don't know any primary sources from this topic and are copying from Salafi sites. 

Quote

Which you clearly haven't even read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

But I don't know if you are aware of the Sufis here in the Indian sub-continent

Any kind of group, religion, time period has their deviants but they are not representative, usually, of the norm or the ideal.

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, al-Muttaqin said:

Which you clearly haven't even read.

You stated:

13 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

No Sufis believe this. You are repeating the ignorant polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah. 

Quote

In response to me saying:

Quote

They believe that Allah is one with and is creation

In the link provided, it states:

"Ibn ʿArabī says there, discussing ‘the ontological question’, that ‘ontological unification (tawḥīd al-wujūd) is an idea adopted by certain Sufis, signifying the unity of the Creator and the created’".

So... there are Sufis that believe this - a lot of whom I know of. So this is an outright lie. Second, how is he condemning it when he stated this:

"So nature is him and not him. He is unknown and known"
An excerpt from al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya by Ibn 'Arabi

That is quite hypocritical of him.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/14/2020 at 8:09 AM, feefee_xx said:

I don't understand the hate some Shia's have towards Sufism.

I get that they are misguided and we don't agree with them. But its not just disagreement, they see it as evil, and some even call them kafirs.

What exactly are their believes that makes some Shia's perceive them in such a negative light? 

I have to say I barely know anything about Sufism. Al I know are the dervishes dancing, singing, spirituality and dhikr. Yes dancing and singing are un-Islamic, but the rest doesn't sound so bad...I tried to do my own research but I was left confused and overwhelmed by the complexity and variety in this path. 

Yes.  Do more research.  


You should also look into their reasons for “dancing” and “singing”.  How can something be absolutely or unconditionally forbidden if it is in our fitrah?  Dancing and singing are in our fitrah.  Surely there must be a sacred form of dancing and a sacred form of singing.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Zainuu said:

But I don't know if you are aware of the Sufis here in the Indian sub-continent, who have seriously deviated somewhat from real Sufism. As for the part of Ibn Arabi, Shams, Rumi etc, they are highly respected and that era of Sufism is just so missed today. 

Sufism = Traditional Sunni Islam.  
 

if you witness Sunni Islam that is AGAINST Sufism, then it is a Saudi Influenced Athari speaking (either directly or indirectly).

Sufism is pervasive in the Islamic World.  
 

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Sufism = Traditional Sunni Islam.  
 

if you witness Sunni Islam that is AGAINST Sufism, then it is a Saudi Influenced Athari speaking (either directly or indirectly).

Sufism is pervasive in the Islamic World.  
 

 

I literally want to read the classical works of Sufis like Rumi, Shams, Sheikh Saadi, Hafiz etc. 

They are the reason I want to learn persian. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Next time you're cooking or cleaning the house listen to this 40 minute audio lecture by Hamza Yusuf...priceless information presented...he describes the interdenominational politics surrounding sadl (praying with unfolded hands) in North Africa as well as the justifications for its permissibility from a hukm/fiqhi perspective

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Both Salafis and Shias are extremists and teach some form of hate.

For me Shi'ism represents the perfect yin-and-yang symmetrical balance between love and firmness...Salafism is too stern, rigid, brutish, superficial, literal. outward, cunning and austere...Sufism (on the other hand) comes across often as being too otherworldly, passive, permissive, inward, naïve etc. Shi'ism imbodies a harmonious synthesis between the two extremes (although it favors the later over the former)...it's harsh and unyielding in those (particular) areas where an uncompromising quality is fittingly needed... this (however) is counterbalanced with a cerebral, idealistic, practical, calculating, courageous, tender, romantic and compassionate overall physiognomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

For me Shi'ism represents the perfect yin-and-yang symmetrical balance between love and firmness...Salafism is too stern, rigid, brutish, superficial, literal. outward, cunning and austere...Sufism (on the other hand) comes across often as being too otherworldly, passive, permissive, inward, naïve etc. Shi'ism imbodies a harmonious synthesis between the two extremes (although it favors the later over the former)...it's harsh and unyielding in those (particular) areas where an uncompromising quality is fittingly needed... this (however) is counterbalanced with a cerebral, idealistic, practical, calculating, courageous, tender, romantic and compassionate overall physiognomy.

I see what you mean.  Thanks for sharing your perception of things.  
 

I have a different perception naturally.  My perception is not that Sufism is naive, or too otherworldly, very passive or or only inward.

if “it appears” to be so, that is only because reality as such is bliss and joy (the Essence of God, the reality as such) is pure Bliss and Happiness.

so naturally, the more one comes in touch with the way things REALLY are, the more relaxed, satisfied, and happy one is with everything.  This is just to explain why it is you perceive what you perceive.  
 

But I would also like to add that your perception is not complete.  Sufis don’t meditate in a cave all day long, Sufis don’t stay away from their families and prefer the life of a recluse, (this is at least not what most Sufis do).  Most Sufis have jobs and work, are married and have a family.  They are very much part of a community (like most religious people are).  Perhaps you mean, that they don’t get into politics?  That is not exactly true.  Some may partake in politics and choose to be politicians but they don’t make it into a religion.  It is just their own individual calling.  
 

I would like to repeat:  Shia Islam has become compromised a fair deal because it has now become politicized.  It has turned into a political movement.  Islam has a political dimension. NO ONE DISAGREES.  But Islam is not Political.  This is something people need to understand.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/20/2020 at 3:07 AM, Nightclaw said:

You stated:

In response to me saying:

In the link provided, it states:

"Ibn ʿArabī says there, discussing ‘the ontological question’, that ‘ontological unification (tawḥīd al-wujūd) is an idea adopted by certain Sufis, signifying the unity of the Creator and the created’".

So... there are Sufis that believe this - a lot of whom I know of. So this is an outright lie. Second, how is he condemning it when he stated this:

"So nature is him and not him. He is unknown and known"
An excerpt from al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya by Ibn 'Arabi

That is quite hypocritical of him.

 

Alright.  Quite frankly, I believe you are intelligent, you have really good sound reasoning and I really like some of your posts.  But.

In this domain, you do not understand much of these statements.  You need to really understand this stuff in some other way other than your rational mind.  If you feel that you are not capable of doing so, the with all due respect, just don’t say anything about which you don’t know or are not familiar with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...