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
10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

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.

First off, I would like to say thank you. It is nice to hear that, honestly.

However, how am I supposed to not be capable of using my rational mind? Ration, reason, intellect, etc. is the essence of what humans are, right? I cannot think or be becoming of something I am not, and neither can you nor anyone else, as that becomes speculation. Speculation does not equal something certain, henceforth the name.

Also, these are their books being quoted in which I am looking to get myself:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

First off, I would like to say thank you. It is nice to hear that, honestly.

However, how am I supposed to not be capable of using my rational mind? Ration, reason, intellect, etc. is the essence of what humans are, right? I cannot think or be becoming of something I am not, and neither can you nor anyone else, as that becomes speculation. Speculation does not equal something certain, henceforth the name.

Also, these are their books being quoted in which I am looking to get myself:

I am not saying that you should not use your rational mind, but there is more it that what the rational mind can grasp.  The essence of what humans being is, is not the rational mind.  So, I beg to differ.  You are not your thoughts, you are not your mind.  You are truly the spirit.  The essence of the human being is the spirit (ruh) that was breathed into him. It is in fact due to this spirit that mankind is capable of understanding "all the names of God".  This is what separates mankind from other creatures.  Even dogs are rational in some ways.  Some animals are rational in some ways.  Wolves can be very cunning and can even outsmart humans sometimes.  

We can have a rational discussion about all this by the way.  I am not closing the doors and saying, "nah, you can't understand this as it is mystical and only some people can grasp it". No.  I am not saying this.  I do not believe this.  In fact everyone is capable of grasping this if they are properly qualified (I certainly believe you are).  The proper qualification is that you need strong faith, in the divine revelation (which you obviously appear to have), and you need some some unbiased interest in and love for the Truth as such.   We CAN have a rational discussion about the limits of reason.

 

 

 

 

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

I am not saying that you should not use your rational mind, but there is more it that what the rational mind can grasp.  The essence of what humans being is, is not the rational mind.  So, I beg to differ.  You are not your thoughts, you are not your mind.  You are truly the spirit.  The essence of the human being is the spirit (ruh) that was breathed into him. It is in fact due to this spirit that mankind is capable of understanding "all the names of God".  This is what separates mankind from other creatures.  Even dogs are rational in some ways.  Some animals are rational in some ways.  Wolves can be very cunning and can even outsmart humans sometimes.  

We can have a rational discussion about all this by the way.  I am not closing the doors and saying, "nah, you can't understand this as it is mystical and only some people can grasp it". No.  I am not saying this.  I do not believe this.  In fact everyone is capable of grasping this if they are properly qualified (I certainly believe you are).  The proper qualification is that you need strong faith, in the divine revelation (which you obviously appear to have), and you need some some unbiased interest in and love for the Truth as such.   We CAN have a rational discussion about the limits of reason.

I most certainly agree wholeheartedly. However, how can we come to this conclusion? I agree that reason can only go so far, as we cannot reason or rationalize certain things [i.e. Day of Judgement, how we will be judged, how Allah creates, how/what is beyond the scope of the heavens (universe), how certain phenomena work and why, etc.] but how can be certain of what follows after if we are trying to understand something that cannot be rationalized nor reasoned with? If we cannot grasp things, what good do these speculations do outside of cause confusion or reach a conclusion that is not concrete?

In my opinion, everything has a specific reason behind it. Nothing is purposeless. If we discuss mysticism, how can we come to a reality-based conclusion when it passes the window of rationality and reasoning? 

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

I most certainly agree wholeheartedly. However, how can we come to this conclusion? I agree that reason can only go so far, as we cannot reason or rationalize certain things [i.e. Day of Judgement, how we will be judged, how Allah creates, how/what is beyond the scope of the heavens (universe), how certain phenomena work and why, etc.] but how can be certain of what follows after if we are trying to understand something that cannot be rationalized nor reasoned with? If we cannot grasp things, what good do these speculations do outside of cause confusion or reach a conclusion that is not concrete?

In my opinion, everything has a specific reason behind it. Nothing is purposeless. If we discuss mysticism, how can we come to a reality-based conclusion when it passes the window of rationality and reasoning? 

We will always be using our reason so long as we are discussing.  But we will be rationally trying to understand its limits.  In other words there are many things we think we know but which in fact we do not know.  By having a rational discussion we may come to the conclusion of knowing that in fact we do not know.  So this will be the aim.  The aim is to know our limits.  To know not what we do not know, but to know that we do not know.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, eThErEaL said:

We will always be using our reason so long as we are discussing.  But we will be rationally trying to understand its limits.  In other words there are many things we think we know but we do not know.  By having a rational discussion we may come to the conclusion of knowing what in fact we do not know.  So this will be the aim.  The aim is to know our limits.  To know not what we do not know, but to know that we do not know.  

That reminds me of a quote... I can never remember who until it is relayed to me.

Nonetheless, rationally discussing the limits of reason is not a problem. What becomes problematic is trying to deduce facts from these things in which we do not know - as they cannot be based in reality, as reality alludes to what we know, are certain of, and are objective.

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

 

Nonetheless, rationally discussing the limits of reason is not a problem. What becomes problematic is trying to deduce facts from these things in which we do not know - as they cannot be based in reality, as reality alludes to what we know, are certain of, and are objective.

Yes indeed.

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

So then how can we be certain of what we are uncertain of?

How can we be certain that we are not certain...?

Start questioning the very things you think you know that you have taken for granted.  Questions like, "self identity".  "Who or what am I?".  Do "I" even exist?  Des a world exist?  Would you be interested in going down this road?  

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

Start questioning the very things you think you know that you have taken for granted.  Questions like, "self identity".  "Who or what am I?".  Do "I" even exist?  Des a world exist?  Would you be interested in going down this road?  

This is the opposite of reality, no? Reality is the state of things existing based on actuality rather than inference. Questioning if I exist places skepticism on my head, and not just a skeptic, but irrational skepticism. Questioning one's existence goes against reality, because it is an objective fact that you exist. You cannot deduce that you do not exist based off of skepticism of that magnitude because it is irrational - which goes against the principle of us using rationality and reasoning to discuss these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Reality is the state of things existing based on actuality rather than inference.

very well.

 

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Questioning if I exist places skepticism on my head, and not just a skeptic, but irrational skepticism. Questioning one's existence goes against reality, because it is an objective fact that you exist. You cannot deduce that you do not exist based off of skepticism of that magnitude because it is irrational - which goes against the principle of us using rationality and reasoning to discuss these things.

Alright.  so "you" most certainly exist!    

But are you certain you know who or what you are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm a rational guy so never really got Sufism. But one thing that helped me understand was an example I got from a student of Deen. 

Basically if you take football (soccer)

The strikers job is to score a goal

One extreme is the guy who learns all the technique understands position and knows how to score, great athlete does everything textbook. Talks about mind set and tactics in interviews 

The other guy does all the fancy moves unorthodox stuff, normally talks about feeling and rhythm etc.

They both score the goal. 

But here's the main point both need to play by the rules.

As long as you don't break the rules carry on.

Only problem is every sect has there own rules :grin:

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Warilla said:

I'm a rational guy so never really got Sufism.

very funny.

1 hour ago, Warilla said:

 

But one thing that helped me understand was an example I got from a student of Deen. 

Basically if you take football (soccer)

The strikers job is to score a goal

One extreme is the guy who learns all the technique understands position and knows how to score, great athlete does everything textbook. Talks about mind set and tactics in interviews 

The other guy does all the fancy moves unorthodox stuff, normally talks about feeling and rhythm etc.

They both score the goal. 

But here's the main point both need to play by the rules.

As long as you don't break the rules carry on.

Only problem is every sect has there own rules :grin:

what is this goal according to you?

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

Shia Islam has become compromised a fair deal because it has now become politicized.  It has turned into a political movement.

Not sure what you mean by this statement...Shi'ism hasn't "become" political...it's been political since Muhammad (peace be upon him) founded the first Islamic state in Medina in 622...the primary schism was due to a difference over political and religious succession after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) demise.

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

Not sure what you mean by this statement...Shi'ism hasn't "become" political...it's been political since Muhammad (peace be upon him) founded the first Islamic state in Medina in 622...the primary schism was due to a difference over political and religious succession after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) demise.

you see, what you are saying?  You think Islam is a Political Movement.  

NO!

Politics is an aspect of Islam, but Islam is not a political movement.  Do you see the difference?

 

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

Islam has a political dimension. But Islam is not Political.

Sounds like we're quibbling over semantics...Islam is a complete and comprehensive way of life...it has a social sphere, political sphere, economic sphere, spiritual dimension etc. etc.

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

Sounds like we're quibbling over semantics...Islam is a complete and comprehensive way of life...it has a social sphere, political sphere, economic sphere, spiritual dimension etc. etc.

No.  It is not a semantic issue.  Of course, Islam is a complete way of life.  But the complete way of life that Islam is, is not a political movement.  

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

are you limited? If you believe so, how do you know this?  Is it because we can read this from a book?  An encyclopedia? Someone told us?  How do you know that? 

Yes, I am limited.

As for how I know - I cannot fly like the birds nor breathe under water like the fish. We do not have the extraordinary memory of an elephant or an orca. We are not immortal and we get sick. We cannot bring ourselves into existence nor go to anywhere but the moon and here on earth. We cannot see miles upon miles like the eagle or run as quick as the cheetah. We do not have the strength to knock someone's head off in one fell swoop like the bear or gorillas and apes. The only thing that is marginally superior is our intellect, greater reasoning capacity, our innate inclination/disposition, and intellect we have over them. Our very existence is limited and we are our existence - therefore, by default, we are limited.

One does not need any book to tell them what is prevalent nor does one need religion to be moral due to their own natural inclinations.

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

Yes, I am limited.

As for how I know - I cannot fly like the birds nor breathe under water like the fish. We do not have the extraordinary memory of an elephant or an orca. We are not immortal and we get sick. We cannot bring ourselves into existence nor go to anywhere but the moon and here on earth. We cannot see miles upon miles like the eagle or run as quick as the cheetah. We do not have the strength to knock someone's head off in one fell swoop like the bear or gorillas and apes. The only thing that is marginally superior is our intellect, greater reasoning capacity, our innate inclination/disposition, and intellect we have over them. Our very existence is limited and we are our existence - therefore, by default, we are limited.

in all of this, you are presuming that you are a limited body.  You = Body?

what is the evidence for this belief?

 

7 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

One does not need any book to tell them what is prevalent nor does one need religion to be moral due to their own natural inclinations.

 

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

in all of this, you are presuming that you are a limited body.  You = Body?

what is the evidence for this belief?

The evidence is what is objective and already substantiated. When you die, you no longer exist in this world. The evidence for that is not argued against because it is a fact.

Evidence for these facts prove themselves. Am I an a body? Yes. Is my existence a body? Not necessarily, no. I have to exist before I have a body.

If you have evidence for an unlimited body, you would have to show me. Otherwise, I do not stand corrected because of it. Yes, I am aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but what it comes to specifics like this [i.e. opposing ideas], then surely something else must be there. You cannot say that my presumption of having a limited body is a presumption because it is something that is unchangeable. I cannot fly like Superman, do the spectacular like Dr. Strange, survive for decades upon decades like Captain America, turn into a green, raging titan like Hulk, become an "overseer" of the universe like Adam Warlock etc. These are examples of nigh-unlimited beings.

This is not a belief. This is a fact.

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

Sufis don’t meditate in a cave all day long

Keep in mind Shi'ism has a balanced irfani element naturally built into it...Shi'ism doesn't have to borrow from other systems and incorporate or create new types of hybrid orders or movements...the level of irfani proclivity will vary among individual Shi'i laymen and ulema...Sufism was largely a *reaction* to the overly excessive emphasis of land and material acquisition of the caliphs and it experienced a huge expansion (unsurprisingly) when Shi'i esotericism was being suppressed by Seljugs.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Nightclaw said:

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

When you die

again, you are presuming you are a body. A body disintegrates, sure.  Are you the body?
 

“you = body”

Can you substantiate this belief?  How is this an objective fact if I may ask?  

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

you no longer exist in this world.

you “will” no longer exist?  A body will cease to exist.  Because bodies tend to age and die.  So most probably this body that you associate as “you” will also die.  Alright.  But how do you know you are this body?  

Just now, Nightclaw said:

The evidence for that is not argued against because it is a fact.
 

that you are a body?  How do you know this supposed fact?  Tell me why you are not a squirrel jumping on the tree but you are a body?  

Just now, Nightclaw said:

Evidence for these facts prove themselves. Am I an a body? Yes.
 

what is this evidence?

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

Is my existence a body? Not necessarily, no. I have to exist before I have a body.

You seem to separate “your existence” from “who you are”.  I am not sure I can make sense of what you are saying now.  On the one hand you Are saying that you are a body but on the other hand you are suing your existence is not a body?  What is the difference? 

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

If you have evidence for an unlimited body,

I made no claims that you are an unlimited being or body.  I am only here to find out what the basis for your beliefs are.   You believe you are limited.  Because you believe you are a body.  (And indeed a body is limited).   But what is the evidence you are this body?  

Just now, Nightclaw said:

you would have to show me.

I made no claim that you are unlimited.  
I am simply asking how do you know that you are limited?  You claim to have evidence?  What is it?  Have you verified this?  

Just now, Nightclaw said:

es, I am aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but what it comes to specifics like this [i.e. opposing ideas], then surely something else must be there. You cannot say that my presumption of having a limited body is a presumption because it is something that is unchangeable.

Your presumption is unchangeable? I simply want you to acknowledge that you may not know if you are limited or unlimited.  I don’t want you to suffer from a belief that you find yourself unable to verify, or that you simply don’t have the evidence for!  

Just now, Nightclaw said:

. I cannot fly like Superman,

the body cannot do that.  But again,  you = body?

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

do the spectacular like Dr. Strange, survive for decades upon decades like Captain America, turn into a green, raging titan like Hulk, become an "overseer" of the universe like Adam Warlock etc. These are examples of nigh-unlimited beings.

I get it.  The body that you associate as “you” cannot do these things.  But how are you the body?  What is your evidence?

 

 

Just now, Nightclaw said:

This is not a belief. This is a fact.

Because you said so?

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

Keep in mind Shi'ism has a balanced irfani element naturally built into it...

so in order for you to make this statement, you obviously have to have some idea of what Irfan is.  What is Irfan?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

 

Shi'ism doesn't have to borrow from other systems and incorporate or create new types of hybrid orders or movements...the level of irfani proclivity will vary among individual Shi'i laymen and ulema...Sufism was largely a *reaction* to the overly excessive emphasis of land and material acquisition of the caliphs and it experienced a huge expansion (unsurprisingly) when Shi'i esotericism was being suppressed by Seljugs.     


 

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

again, you are presuming you are a body. A body disintegrates, sure.  Are you the body?
 

“you = body”

Can you substantiate this belief?  How is this an objective fact if I may ask?  

Because if I was not my body, I would be other than it. My body requires my existence whereas my soul can live without my body. My body was integrated with my existence, but my existence does not depend on my body [hypothetically speaking, because I am a Muslim and we cannot necessarily exist physically in this word without a body, etc].

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

you “will” no longer exist?  A body will cease to exist.  Because bodies tend to age and die.  So most probably this body that you associate as “you” will also die.  Alright.  But how do you know you are this body?  

Quote

I am not exactly this body. This body is of me, part of my existence. Without this body, I do not exist in this world.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

I made no claims that you are an unlimited being or body.  I am only here to find out what the basis for your beliefs are.   You believe you are limited.  Because you believe you are a body.  (And indeed a body is limited).   But what is the evidence you are this body?  

Quote

My essence exudes from my body. I feel emotions, which are not tangible. I have dreams which are also not tangible. This cannot happen if this body is not of me and vice versa.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

I made no claim that you are unlimited.  
I am simply asking how do you know that you are limited?  You claim to have evidence?  What is it?  Have you verified this?  

Deduction and induction is the evidence. It is a well-used method in the field of science. Epistemology will only take you so far.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Your presumption is unchangeable? I simply want you to acknowledge that you may not know if you are limited or unlimited.  I don’t want you to suffer from a belief that you find yourself unable to verify, or that you simply don’t have the evidence for!  

Quote

I make the claim that I am limited and my evidence is that there is and has been no human to have ever been "unlimited", especially on how you define it. There is no evidence of a human being unlimited and it cannot happen. This is an impossibility. My evidence is the use of induction. Even if there was a flaw in my explanation, that does not make what I said any less true.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

the body cannot do that.  But again,  you = body?

My body is of me and I am of my body.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

I get it.  The body that you associate as “you” cannot do these things.  But how are you the body?  What is your evidence?

No body = no existence. Existence means that state of being alive. No person is alive without their soul in them. If you want evidence for a soul, then jump off a giant building and wait about 10 seconds or so, hahaha.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Because you said so?

Because you cannot disprove of what I am saying and this is consensual. Provide me an unlimited human being/unlimited body. If not, my point is substantiated.

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

Because if I was not my body, I would be other than it.

how are you it and not other than it?  

 

9 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

My body requires my existence

so your existence is not your body?  But you are your body?  And your existence is not you?  So....


(a) your existence =/= (b) who you are =/= (c) body

(a) does not equal (b) does not equal (c)

is this what you are saying?  

 

9 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

 

whereas my soul can live without my body. My body was integrated with my existence, but my existence does not depend on my body [hypothetically speaking, because I am a Muslim and we cannot necessarily exist physically in this word without a body, etc].

I am not exactly this body. This body is of me, part of my existence. Without this body, I do not exist in this world.

My essence exudes from my body. I feel emotions, which are not tangible. I have dreams which are also not tangible. This cannot happen if this body is not of me and vice versa.

Deduction and induction is the evidence. It is a well-used method in the field of science. Epistemology will only take you so far.

I make the claim that I am limited and my evidence is that there is and has been no human to have ever been "unlimited", especially on how you define it. There is no evidence of a human being unlimited and it cannot happen. This is an impossibility. My evidence is the use of induction. Even if there was a flaw in my explanation, that does not make what I said any less true.

My body is of me and I am of my body.

No body = no existence. Existence means that state of being alive. No person is alive without their soul in them. If you want evidence for a soul, then jump off a giant building and wait about 10 seconds or so, hahaha.

Because you cannot disprove of what I am saying and this is consensual. Provide me an unlimited human being/unlimited body. If not, my point is substantiated.

 

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

My body requires my existence whereas my soul can live without my body. My body was integrated with my existence, but my existence does not depend on my body [hypothetically speaking, because I am a Muslim and we cannot necessarily exist physically in this word without a body, etc].

I am not exactly this body. This body is of me, part of my existence. Without this body, I do not exist in this world.

 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you sure you know what you are saying?  how do you really know what you are saying?  do you have any proof?  Anyway of verifying all this?  

Quote

My essence exudes from my body.

that sounds poetic... not sure what to make of this...

Quote

I feel emotions,

there are emotions that you experience or feel!  Yes!!

indeed!    But that doesn’t mean you are your emotions.  Right?  

 

Quote

which are not tangible. I have dreams which are also not tangible. This cannot happen if this body is not of me and vice versa.

You dream.  Fine.  This doesn’t mean you are your dream.  Your dream is limited and comes from a limited body or is of a limited body, but how does  this mean you are your body or your dream.  It just means you experience dreams or that you dream!  

The mouse  gnaws on something,

the cat licks her paws,

the sun rises and sets....

you dream.....

 

tgese are just facts you observe or facts you experience.  I have yet to see you prove that you are the body!  

Quote

Deduction and induction is the evidence.

I am not seeing a deduction or an inference. I don’t see a shred of evidence that you are a body or some thing limited or a soul or a whatever you say that you are.   

Quote

It is a well-used method in the field of science. Epistemology will only take you so far.
 

where is the deduction?  Where is the inference?  

Quote

I make the claim that I am limited and my evidence is that there is and has been no human to have ever been "unlimited",

human = limited being.  Alright.

“you are human”,  why aren’t you the dog or the cat purring or the sun rising?  Why are you saying you are this body?  Or the soul or whatever you think you are...  

prove it^. 

Quote

especially on how you define it. There is no evidence of a human being unlimited and it cannot happen.

alright.  How are you the human or a human?  What is the evidence for this?  

Quote

 

My body is of me and I am of my body.

to be honest with you.. I am not sure I understand what you mean by “of” in the statement “I am of my body” or “my body is of me”.  What could you possibly mean by this?  Can you rephrase this?  

 

Quote

No body = no existence. Existence means that state of being alive. No person is alive without their soul in them. If you want evidence for a soul, then jump off a giant building and wait about 10 seconds or so, hahaha.

are you a person?  What is the evidence for this?  Are you a soul...?what is your evidence for this belief?  Why aren’t you a pink fairy?  

 

Quote

Because you cannot disprove of what I am saying and this is consensual. Provide me an unlimited human being/unlimited body. If not, my point is substantiated.

my job is not to disprove what you are saying.  Our job here is to investigate whether there is any justification for our claims.  Now you seem to be making a lot of claims without ANY justifications.  And you are doing this repeatedly over and over.  Mentioning a claim in different ways is not a way in which to substantiate your claim. It is not itself any evidence.   
 

I hope you really see that you have not shown a shred of evidence that you are limited or that you are a body.  How do you know you are a body?  Or a soul or a pink fairy?  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 6:09 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. 

I thought same when I was young enough having no recognition as to between Sufisim and Islam. But as as grew older and begin to know atheists so I came to know sufism. I also asked one of my teacher to tell me about it. And, he write a detailed paragraph to me which is as follows:

Sufism by term means "separate or alone". In old times, people took it as a term similar to "Asceticism" or "Monasticism. However, there are two types of Monasticism in Quran which is written as "Rehbaniya" or "Zuhud" once used by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) for crticizing Christians in the words saying "the monasticism which they invented for themselves we did not prescribe for them". At another place used by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) for praising Prophet Zakariya (عليه السلام) and his family in the words saying "they performed monasticism in such a way that each of them tried to excel in goodness than the other".

Now, what happened that some people right minded people introduced two definitions about praise of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) Wahadatul Wujud and Wahadatul Shahood. Although both of them were right and saying same thing but the first one which was described by earlier true Ascetics who were Muslims called as "Wahadatul Wujud" was distorted by other religions and thus came to the scene a new school which was more near to "Jewish concepts of Kabalalistic ideology" and they spread in "Turkey" and "India" and were called as Sufis.

What the actually definition "Wahadatul Wujud" meant was that "Only absolute eternal truth is Allah (عزّ وجلّ)" all other "eternities depend on him" saying that "If Allah (عزّ وجلّ) wills He (عزّ وجلّ) may cause someone to have huge life like Hazrat Khizr (عليه السلام) and may also end his life and that Hazrat Khizr (عليه السلام) and all other realities in truth depend upon Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and they are not independent of their individual existence". 

However, some people which you may call as master minds twisted it as said: "Wahadatul Wujud means that everything in this life is part and parcel of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and when one die, he becomes part of him". Which is extremely against what it actually meant. And this description is same as that of "Jewish Kabalistic ideology" who have similar idea that we are in this world to improve so that one day we become part of Allah (عزّ وجلّ)....(God forbid)

This description, although was quite understood by Iranian philosophers who dubbed them as "Mushriks or Mulhids" because it is against Quranic and traditional description of Allah (عزّ وجلّ), and they regarded only those as "Sufi" or "Ascetics" or "Monastics" who accept true definition of "Wahadatul Wujud" not the "wrong one". Those who adopted wrong ones were like nomads in Iran and the people and ulemas detested them, they were as if they are excommunicated which they deserved.

However, in Indo-Pakistan, the word "Sufism" became so much confused that it become indistinguishable from true Islam because of mixed culture. Ignorant Hindus were impressed by "Saints" having correct definitions but as the "Saints" died, they left only their poetry and some of its verses were misinterpreted and some were innovated and begin to be attributed to them. But, since there was no system of Ilmul Rijal, one was unable to distinguish between true and fake poetry so much so that some thought that it may not be distorted so they drowned them into rivers but some of their works remained on their lips of their adorers and it took lot of toll on researchers to accumulate them but until now there is debate going on whether some saints said some poetry or not. Because some of the "fake sufis" which penetrated among their followership attribute "wrong poetry" upon them but many of their poems speaks about Nimaz, Salaat, Hajj and daily worships and records testify that people saw them praying and reciting Qurans and speaking about rights of worships which "fake sufis" say are not binding upon them since they are part of Allah (عزّ وجلّ). 

Thus, when this wrong definition of "Wahadatul Wujud" became infamous in Indo-Pakistan. Some Scholars came with another definition to counter it, and one of the prominent in this cause famous in Pakistanis History is Mujjadid Alf Sani, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhandi who was a Sunni Scholar who said in contrast that "Everything is not the part and parcel of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) rather it is manifestation of the great power and majesty of Allah (عزّ وجلّ)". This was one of the good grounds to counter such wrong interpretation of "Wahadatul Wujud".

However, as you see how much it became complex and how "Wahadatul Wujud" was distorted that a new school came into being who are far far away from Islam. 

I hope you understand now the difference. This is one of written writing by my teacher on Sufism and Zuhud, and difference between them. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/23/2020 at 2:05 AM, eThErEaL said:

 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you sure you know what you are saying?  how do you really know what you are saying?  do you have any proof?  Anyway of verifying all this?  

that sounds poetic... not sure what to make of this...

there are emotions that you experience or feel!  Yes!!

indeed!    But that doesn’t mean you are your emotions.  Right?  

 

You dream.  Fine.  This doesn’t mean you are your dream.  Your dream is limited and comes from a limited body or is of a limited body, but how does  this mean you are your body or your dream.  It just means you experience dreams or that you dream!  

The mouse  gnaws on something,

the cat licks her paws,

the sun rises and sets....

you dream.....

 

tgese are just facts you observe or facts you experience.  I have yet to see you prove that you are the body!  

I am not seeing a deduction or an inference. I don’t see a shred of evidence that you are a body or some thing limited or a soul or a whatever you say that you are.   

where is the deduction?  Where is the inference?  

human = limited being.  Alright.

“you are human”,  why aren’t you the dog or the cat purring or the sun rising?  Why are you saying you are this body?  Or the soul or whatever you think you are...  

prove it^. 

alright.  How are you the human or a human?  What is the evidence for this?  

to be honest with you.. I am not sure I understand what you mean by “of” in the statement “I am of my body” or “my body is of me”.  What could you possibly mean by this?  Can you rephrase this?  

 

are you a person?  What is the evidence for this?  Are you a soul...?what is your evidence for this belief?  Why aren’t you a pink fairy?  

 

my job is not to disprove what you are saying.  Our job here is to investigate whether there is any justification for our claims.  Now you seem to be making a lot of claims without ANY justifications.  And you are doing this repeatedly over and over.  Mentioning a claim in different ways is not a way in which to substantiate your claim. It is not itself any evidence.   
 

I hope you really see that you have not shown a shred of evidence that you are limited or that you are a body.  How do you know you are a body?  Or a soul or a pink fairy?  

@Nightclaw   Salam, any thoughts...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/15/2020 at 12:09 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. 

Sufis are the most moderate sunni sect.

I respect them alot because they dont do takfir on shia.

And they believe shia is muslims.

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...