DHTML Menu / JavaScript Menu Powered by Milonic
Already a member? Sign In

Village Journals help
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

The Premise of this Village


Is stupid and a result of regressive thinking
 

Add Comments

 
Add
 

  Comments on this journal

Login to find out (July 19, 2006 at 10:12am)
Actually i was just reading this discussion again. The issue of whether all sufis negate shariah or not is not the point. What i'm trying to say is that its erroneous to assume sufism = asharism.
 
Login to find out (July 19, 2006 at 9:31am)
Your wrong for grouping all sufis together like that. I mentioned Muhammed Haya al-Sindi because him and the other scholars mentioned becuase though they practiced tasawwuf they seemed to have literalist views in regards to aqidah (but were not anthropomorphs).

Not all sufis neglected sharia. In fact the formation of sufi tariqas is largely attributed to Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani and the Qadiriyya tariqa. Shaykh Jilani in many of his sermons and would repeatedly stress the importance of shariah.

The reason why ppl immediatly think of people prostrating to graves, singing and dancing when they hear the word 'sufi' is because they've allowed western perceptions to define the term for them.
 
Login to find out (July 18, 2006 at 12:42pm)
to my understand, they (kurani, al sindi, Qushashi) were of the neo-suffi order, considerably different than suffi's of the past, and stressed importance of sharia whereas those of the past neglected it due to their 'spirituality.' Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Login to find out (February 18, 2006 at 11:21am)
Yes and you can't back up that claim. Its pure speculation...Do some research on Muhammed Haya al Sindi, Ibrahim al Kurani, and Muhammed Qushashi. You'll see what i'm talking about. They were sufis that believed in the same aqidah expressed by ibn Taymiyyah...
 
Login to find out (February 18, 2006 at 3:35am)
as my point clearly says, they can not be sufi, becuase sufis belive in the ASHAREE AQEEDAH....because it suits their goal of "attaining the divine presence"
 
Login to find out (February 17, 2006 at 10:35am)
Wow your lack of comprehension is really showing. You talk about these issues but really have no clue. I don't know which sufi teachers you're referring to buy my teachers are students of Maualna Zakariyya Khandalawi and Maulana Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi. Both were Maturidi scholars who held Ibn Taymiyyah in high esteem and even referred to him as 'Sheikh ul Islam and Allamah". Second, like every single other argument you have, your position is based on speculation. You have no proof that sufis = asharis. You keep insisting it but its abundantly clear, as usual, you have NO clue what your talking about. Like i said before there have been important revivalist ulema who were part of sufi tariqas and expressed the same aqidah as ibn taymiyyah...
 
Login to find out (February 17, 2006 at 3:49am)
i am not starting a new discussion. My point is that you can go ask your sufi teachers if the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah is of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamah and they will surely respond no, so there for those "sufis" who followed Ibn Taymiyya could not have been from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, there for they are not in the saved sect. THAT is my point. The sufis belive thier aqeedah is the the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah (saved sect), which is the asharee Aqeeda, So if one does not share the same Aqeedah, than how can they be from the saved sect according to the sufis? Supposedly according to sufis, The Aqeedah of those who follow Ibn Taymiyya suggest that the follower is an anthropromorphist (which is a blatant lie, but thas diff topic). So how can the the Sufi be of the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyya (plus the 4 imams shared the the same Aqeedah as him) if the aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyya according to sufis is suggesting Anthropromorphism?
 
Login to find out (February 16, 2006 at 2:42pm)
what the hell r u talking about !?!?!? I'm saying:

A) the premise of this village is immature and the result of regressive thinking

&

B) your thinking that sufis = Asharis is incorrect in light of the fact there were and are sufis who follow pretty much the same aqidah ibn Taymiyyah supported

nobody is talking about Dr. Abdullah. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the topic and not try to start a new discussion. If you don't understand anything i've said pleez say so...
 
Login to find out (February 16, 2006 at 12:19am)
of course, I can, go ask him, and let me know. The reason I brought it up is becuase when he says that ibn taymiyyas aqeedah is not the aqeedah of the ahlus sunnah wal jammah, it means that anyone who shared the same aqeedah is not ahlus sunnah wal jammah. I would like you to go ask him or any shaykh in that crazy sunnipath cult.
 
Login to find out (February 15, 2006 at 2:57pm)
lol u replied to my post with a "no its not" argument...
 
Login to find out (February 15, 2006 at 2:20pm)
First of all your wrong and you can't substantiate that claim. 2nd what r u talking about? Dr. Faruq Abdullah? i'm talking about 17th 18th century revivalist ulema like Ibn Abdul Wahab's teacher...
 
Login to find out (February 15, 2006 at 1:52am)
ok let me explain something to you, the sufi the Madhabis are taught the Asharee aqeedah and nothing else. I would like you to go ask mr farooq abdullah or who ever else shaykh you follow and find out what they have to say about ibn taymiyyas aqeedah. The last time I checked, he didnt have the aqeedah of the ahlus sunnah wal jammah
 
Login to find out (February 14, 2006 at 9:31pm)
let me rephrase it in terms u will understand. in the 17th and 18th centuries there were important revivalist ulema that held to the same aqidah supported by ibn taymiyyah and were also part of the naqshbandi order...
 
Login to find out (February 14, 2006 at 5:46pm)
to clarify meaning the 4 Imams!
 
Login to find out (February 14, 2006 at 5:46pm)
what isthe hanbali aqeedah? So do you are saying that the imams had different aqeedahs?
 
Login to find out (February 14, 2006 at 11:17am)
Man you have no clue do you...FYI during the 17th and 18th centuries there have been some very important revivalist ulema that were not only naqshbandi but accepted the hanbali aqidah...this fact kinda tears your conception of asharis = sufis don't it???
 
Login to find out (February 14, 2006 at 2:05am)
and if you knew about the sufi cult, you would know that they have an ashari Aqeedah.
 
Login to find out (February 13, 2006 at 11:48am)
ya theres nothing wrong with discussing those issues on an academic front...this village does not serve as an academic platform. And this village is about sufiism not kalaam...jeez u don't even know the topic
 
Login to find out (February 13, 2006 at 1:40am)
haha , okay...thats why he OPENLY calls out Asharis, and constatly shows their flaws right?
 
Login to find out (February 12, 2006 at 10:02pm)
your comment clearly shows u don't understand his material