. J "" (cont.)

They claimed that they were no longer obliged to pray or perform any of the acts of worship because they had 1 Like many modem-day Christians, Sufis considered singing and dancing as a way of getting closer to Allah. These actions stir the emotions, which they claim is simply another way of expressing one's love for God. In fact, for many of them, listening to the Quran does not have as much effect on them as the music and singing that they prefer. See Hilaal, pp. 161-166; Fareed, Tazkiyyah, pp. 32-35, 2 Cf., Hilaal, pp. 1 491 8 1 . 3 The early Sufi Abu Yazeed al-Bustaami said, "Those poor people [referring to the scholars of hadith, fiqh, tafseer and so forth]. They take their knowledge from the dead on the authority of the dead while we take our knowledge directly from the Living who does not die." (Quoted in ibn al-Jauzi, p. 320.) The knowledge from the "dead on the authority of the dead" is the knowledge of the Quran, hadith and fiqh that has been passed on from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions. That type of knowledge is not what those people are interested in. 4 This last concept is known as wahdat al-wujood (pantheism or monism). It is believed in by a number of Sufis, especially the more extreme among them. It is a kufr that is worse than the kufr of the Christians. The Christians claimed that Jesus and God form one unity while these Sufis claim that all of creation is nothing but Allah Himself. For more on this concept, see Mahmood al-Qaasim, pp. I 05-262 and 703-712. 5 See Abu Haamid Muhammad al-Ghazzaali, Ihyaa Uloom al-Deen (Beirut: Daar al-Marifah, n.d), vol. I, pp. 1 9-20. 1 166 Hadith #38: "Whoever Shows Enmity to . . . " already reached their goal. Furthermore, all the forbidden becomes permissible because the purpose of the forbidden is to help the person reach his goal. 1 For the pantheistic Sufis, the question then becomes: When a person comes to the realization that everything is Allah, what is the purpose of good deeds or acts of worship? Everything is Allah and Allah is entirely perfect and good. There is then no such thing as evil or sin. Hence, ibn Arabi2, one of the most extreme of the pantheists and monists, once said in well-known lines of poetry, "The Lord is reality and the slave is [the same] reality Woe to me, then who is the one who is responsible for doing deeds? If you say, 'The slave,' but he is the Lord And if you say, 'The Lord,' then who can burden him with responsibility?"3 Ibn Taimiya wrote, The knowledgeable shaikh Kamaal al-Deen al-Maraaghi, the shaikh of his time, narrated to me, when he came and it reached him what [the Sufis] say about tauheed: I read some of what they say of al-Afeef al-Tilimisaani [the leading Sufi of his time] and I found him in contradiction with the Quran and sunnah. When I mentioned that to him, he said, "The Quran does not contain tauheed. In fact, all of it is shirk. Whoever follows the Quran will not achieve tauheed." I said to him, "In your people's opinion, what is the difference between [having 1 For comments from Sufis on that matter, see ibn Taimiya, Majmoo, vol. 1 1, p. 403. 2 Muhiyy al-Deen Ibn Arabi (560-638 A.H.) is a rather controversial figure in Islam. Many authors like to refer to him as, "the greatest Shaikh". Like the lines of poetry upcoming in the text, his words are filled with clear and blatant kufr (blasphemies). Some people claim that he was writing at an esoteric level that only those who are deeply ingrained in the Sufi tradition can understand. If, as these people claim, ibn Arabi was presenting the same truths that are clearly and understandably presented in the Quran, hadith, statements of the Companions and thousands of scholars, there was no need for him to resort to such esoteric and confusing language. The Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions never spoke words that were clearly kufr while apparently having some hidden meaning to them. Again, if he were supposedly presenting those same Islamic truths, he should be considered a poor writer who had no conception of how to present his material in a clear fashion while the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him) were able to present such information clearly. However, if ibn Arabi was teaching ideas that contradict the Quran and sunnah-- which was more likely the case as it is very difficult to try to reconcile his writings with the Quran and sunnah-- then his writings should be condemned for the pure kufr and blasphemies they contain. This much more logical approach has been the approach of many great scholars throughout the history of Islam.