A Pakistani magazine article from earlier this year.
Soldiers, policemen, factory and hospital workers, mourners at funerals and ordinary people praying in mosques have all been reduced to globs of flesh and fragments of bones. But, perhaps paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the dead bodies and shattered lives are almost all Muslim ones, few Pakistanis speak out against these atrocities. Nor do they approve of the army operation against the cruel perpetrators of these acts because they believe that they are Islamic warriors fighting for Islam and against American occupation. Political leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have no words of solace for those who have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved exclusively for the victims of Predator drones, even if they are those who committed grave crimes against their own people. Terrorism, by definition, is an act only the Americans can commit.
What explains Pakistan’s collective masochism? To understand this, one needs to study the drastic social and cultural transformations that have rendered this country so completely different from what it was in earlier times.
For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Indian subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian peninsula. This continental drift is not physical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the rich soil that had nurtured a magnificent Muslim culture in India for a thousand years. This culture produced Mughul architecture, the Taj Mahal, the poetry of Asadullah Khan Ghalib, and much more. Now a stern, unyielding version of Islam (Wahhabism) is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the Sufis and saints who had walked on this land for hundreds of years.
This change is by design. Twenty-five years ago, the Pakistani state used Islam as an instrument of state policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, floggings were carried out publicly, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts in universities required that the candidate demonstrate a knowledge of Islamic teachings and jihad was declared essential for every Muslim. Today, government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. The notion of an Islamic state – still in an amorphous and diffused form – is more popular now than ever before as people look desperately for miracles to rescue a failing state.
Villages have changed drastically; this transformation has been driven, in part, by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other sects, who they do not regard as Muslims. The Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than the Pukhtuns, are now beginning to take a line resembling that of the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from the recent decisions of the Lahore High Court.
In Pakistan’s lower-middle and middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement that frowns on any and every expression of joy and pleasure. Lacking any positive connection to culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate “corruption” by regulating cultural life and seizing control of the education system.
“Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichitraveena are completely dead,” laments Mohammad Shehzad, a music aficionado. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is violently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba at Punjab University. So the university has been forced to hold its music classes elsewhere. Religious fundamentalists consider music haram or un-Islamic. Kathak dancing, once popular with the Muslim elite of India, has few teachers left. Pakistan produces no feature films of any consequence. Nevertheless, the Pakistani elite, disconnected from the rest of the population, live their lives in comfort through their vicarious proximity to the West. Alcoholism is a chronic problem of the super rich of Lahore – a curious irony for this deeply religious country.
[...]
The Saudi-isation of a once-vibrant Pakistani culture continues at a relentless pace. The drive to segregate is now also being found among educated women. Vigorous proselytisers carrying this message, such as Mrs Farhat Hashmi, have been catapulted to the heights of fame and fortune. Their success is evident. Two decades back, the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. The abaya was an unknown word in Urdu. Today, some shops across the country specialise in abayas. At colleges and universities across Pakistan, the female student is seeking the anonymity of the burqa. And in some parts of the country she seems to outnumber her sisters who still “dare” to show their faces.
I have observed the veil profoundly affect habits and attitudes. Many of my veiled female students have largely become silent note-takers, are increasingly timid and seem less inclined to ask questions or take part in discussions. They lack the confidence of a young university student.
While social conservatism does not necessarily lead to violent extremism, it does shorten the distance. The socially conservative are more easily convinced that Muslims are being demonised by the rest of the world. The real problem, they say, is the plight of the Palestinians, the decadent and discriminatory West, the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, the Kashmir issue, the Bush doctrine – the list runs on. They vehemently deny that those committing terrorist acts are Muslims, and if presented with incontrovertible evidence, say it is a mere reaction to oppression.
-
Read it all here.
Hat tip: Talk Islam
19 Comments
I didn’t have to look at the link. Just on the basis of the excerpts, I could tell that the author is Pervez Hoodbhoy. No one else in Pakistan writes or speaks like that, not even Najam Sethi.
Pervez Hoodbhoy is a brave voice.
This article is magnificent.
Much the same processes have been at play in traditionally Sufi Sudan too. There is too much tragically in common.
The author is a brave voice, indeed.
This article is magnificent.
Except for the concluding paragraph.
Never mind what a “modern Islamic republic” could mean, Hoodbhoy has nothing to offer more than a “matter of faith”. Some may see this, as he clearly intends, as a counsel of hope — an unknown, undefined, inexplicable deus ex machina will salvage everything — but in practical terms, it’s a counsel of despair. Pakistan is done for, but Hoodbhoy won’t say it.
Actually, there was no need to replicate the final paragraph, qidniz. I could (and did) read it for myself.
I think you are being unduly critical of the author. Do you have anything to offer more than he? The fact that the opposition to Islamism amounts to an Islamic Republicanism is perhaps not satisfactory; but it equally may be an observation of Pakistani realities.
Evidently not, as for you “Pakistan is done for”. Perhaps Hoodbhoy won’t say so because he does not share your pessimism.
In any case, this was not my point. I was pointing up the similarities of social and political trajectory between the Pakistani experience and that in Sudan. Perhaps you missed that as you cut and pasted a wide section out of an article I had already read, as it was already at the top of the page – and hence I had already commented upon?
I think you are being unduly critical of the author.
Perhaps, but I intended an observation, not a criticism. The theme, and basic flaw, of his essay is carried in the third paragraph quoted above (“For three decades…” — I won’t quote any more lest I offend your sensibilities) , where he goes from getting it exactly right (“Arab-Muslim identity”) to trotting out a politically correct false dilemma (“Wahhabism versus Sufism”).
The point being, there is much more to “Arab-Muslim identity” than Wahhabism, which is why what Saudi money has been funding has had so much traction in Pakistan. Saudi money is merely exploiting sentiments and propensities which have been present for a long time — much longer than blaming it all on Zia’s “reforms” would suggest.
“Arab-Muslim identity” — in terms of the religion-inspired urge and desire for it — is what Pakistan has been all about. Because “authentic” Islam is necessarily “Arab-Muslim”. The open secret, rarely if ever admitted, is that Arabization is acknowledged the only path to a “better” Islamic society: the more “Arab” you appear to be the more “Islamic” you can plausibly claim to be. Besides Naipaul writing about it in Among the Believers and Beyond Belief, no one wants to discuss this predisposition or, perhaps more accurately, cultural surrender.
The rejection of a South Asian identity is much more than a suborning by Saudi money. As a commenter on another blog notes, about Pakistan:
Hoodbhoy knows this. But writing exactly that would get him killed in short order.
Which is why my comment was an observation, not a criticism.
So, to cut to the chase, quidniz, your objection is to Islam, not the article at all – or rather, your criticism of the article is simply a device for you to prosecute a rather transparent anti-Islam agenda.
I thought as much. Thanks for the clarification.
So, to cut to the chase, quidniz, your objection is to Islam
It has been, for a long time now.
your criticism of the article [...]
My observation — restated for context, that Islam is the doom not the salvation of Pakistan — stands on its own. It is not a criticism of the article, because I wouldn’t ask or want Hoodbhoy to get himself killed.
[...] is simply a device for you to prosecute a rather transparent anti-Islam agenda.
I am not politically correct either. I make no apologies for my anti-Islam stance.
You may, however, request that I refrain from posting here in future because of this.
Why should I do that, qidniz? I am not an editor of this site; nor do I think that any point of view, however depressingly silly I may hold it to be, should be denied a hearing.
Equally, there is the outside chance that you might learn that Islamism and Islam are not one and the same thing – as you (from evidences beyond this site) clearly believe them to be.
Why should I do that, qidniz?
I didn’t say you should. I said you may.
Equally, there is the outside chance that you might learn that Islamism and Islam are not one and the same thing – as you (from evidences beyond this site) clearly believe them to be.
I’ve learned plenty already, thanks. I’ll quote myself from the elsewhere you probably consulted:
Of course, there’s no particular reason that this view should “get a hearing” on a Muslims’ blog like this one. Because you don’t think you have anything to learn on this score.
That’s why I still say, you may.
Interesting article.
I think it’s important to distinguish the Islam as propagated by the Saudi petrodollars, and the Islam propagated by the ‘gentler’ Sufis who brought Islam to the Asian Peninsula and the rest of the world. I personally don’t think that the Sufis version is more gentler; just look at great leaders like Salahadeen Ayyubi, those in the Caucasus, those in Bosnia……all of whom were Sufi but took up physical Jihad to protect themselves from extermination.
I personally believe the difference between the Wahhabi and Sufi versions is to do with the emphasis on spirituality, cleansing the ego from bad traits and building a link to God. Spirituality, no matter where and in what form, attracts the soul to it. Just take a look at the many Westerners turning to arts such as Transcendental Meditation, Buddhism, etc. all of which are trying to re-establish that missing link between the person and God.
The hardline Wahhabi theology is pretty much devoid of any such spiritual advancement, so even though a Wahhabi may have excellent knowledge of Islamic Sciences, without studying the Science of the Soul and its purification, the soul will be pretty much corrupt, which of course manifests itself in all aspects of a persons behaviour. Many Islamic scholars have eluded to this fact and that the one that combines both Islamic Sciences with spirituality (in Islam ‘tassawuf’) will find the truth.
Just imagine the difference between two people; one has almost perfect character, is humble, modest, caring about his neighbours, his locality, animals and the rights of others; and another ,who knows Islamic Sciences, but seems harsh, over strict and devoid of any inner light which attracts people. This is the difference between the Sufi and the Wahhabi. One will allow everything unless it has a basis to be forbidden in Islam, whilst the other will condemn anything foreign to him as an innovation, disbelief or something even worse!
Its easy to see why Sufis were so successful in converting people to Islam the world over. I’d like to see the Wahhabis do the same and see how far they actually get! Now imagine societies being based on these two different approaches to Islam. The net result, two radically different groups; one which, unintentionally, harbours feelings of hatred, contempt and is very aggressive; and the other which is based on improving oneself, open-mindedness and more loving. I know which one I would choose!
The net result today seems to be Wahhabi Jihadist movements who are blowing up everything including the kitchen sink in the name of Islam and make everything a legitimate target, and the Sufis fight aggressors when they are attacked and no more, trying to respect the Islamic rules of engagement at all times (women, children and innocent men are not targets).
A prime example of this can be seen today in Somalia where the ‘Shebaab’, a group of Wahhabi hardliners, were fighting against the UN supported interim government, who are, yes, as you guessed it…MUSLIMS!
(Sidetrack: Reminds me of a narration from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH that a SINGLE muslims blood in more dear than the Holy Kabbeh in Mecca…..now lets get back)
Now, I don’t particularly hold much love for UN supported governments, but because many Somali youth did not support the Shebaab against them, they decided they were rich pickings and started to kill them too!!
What happened in response to this?
Little known to most, Somalia has a rich history of Sufism and Sufis. The Sufis decided that enough was enough and to fight against the Shebaab to stop this lunacy, calling themselves the Ahl us Sunnah wal Jamma Group.
To show how sufis think and behave, they said they were not looking for power and that…
“Our movement is fighting the Shabab forces of anarchy but we will lay down our weapons as soon as they have been eliminated.”
(http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1256909744816)
This clearly shows the difference in approach between the two groups, but unfortunately due to the huge Saudi petro-dollars, the Wahhabi stance is being shoved down people’s throats with no room for anything else.
I must also point out the prior to the establishment of the Saudi state, the predominant Islam was the Sufi version, with most of the Sunni Scholars and Muslims of the past adhering to the sufi practices and thoughts.
Having said this though, there is some light at the end of the tunnel as there is somewhat of a renaissance of ‘traditional’ Sufi islam taking place, particularly amongst the Muslim youth of the West. This can be seen with many Sufi Scholars coming out from the West and battling against this breeze of Wahhabism, which includes people such as Shaikh Nuh Keller, Shaikh Tahir ul Qadri, Shaikh Mohammad Al Yaqoubi, Shaikh Hamza Yusuf, Shaikh Babikr, Shaikh Ninowy and many many many others, who are as Sunni as Sunni get.
I just hope that the tide of Wahhabism hasn’t caused too much destruction in the minds of people, as tainting everyone with the same brush is the easiest thing to do, but probably the most difficult to correct.
Ibn Tahrir,
With respect I think you have a rather romanticised view of Sufism – especially the Sufi turuq of East Africa. Whilst I am aware of the Sufi basis of traditional Islam in Somalia – I am also aware of the sometimes rose-tinted glasses that observers sometimes seem to instantly don the moment the magic word “sufi” is uttered (and may have led, for example, to Alex De Waal – a specialist in East African political affairs for whom I have the highest esteem – discounting the rise of Islamist jihadi movements in the Horn of Africa as little as five years ago or so).
I know Sudan better; and so, if you do not mind, I will concentrate on that country – another country profoundly steeped in Sufi Islam.
In Sudan, the entire edifice of politics was traditionally founded on Sufi turuq. These were (and are) highly politicised organisations.
Even before the days of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, during the time of the Ottoman occupation and then the Egyptian Khedive, the turuq were orientated in pro- and anti-colonial poles. The Sudanese Mahdist State was a Sufi state, founded upon the intensely violent prosecution of a jihad aimed not just against the British, but also against those other Sufi turuq who had taken an anti-Mahdist stance by supporting either the British or Egyptians.
The modern political parties of Sudan – with the exceptions of the ruling NIF/NCP (which is basically a spin-off of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Sudanese Communist Party and the Southern SPLA/M = are political expressions of various Sufi turuq. The best known – and largest – is the Ummah Party, the political expression of the Mahdiyyah Ansari tariq. The Democratic Unionist Party, another major political player, has its roots in the Khatmiya tariq. The notion that Sufism in Sudan is either apolitical or only tactically interested in politics is simply untrue.
A useful overview of the growing tensions between the Muslim Brotherhood state and the traditional Sufi sources of political power in Sudan can be found in Mahgoub El-Tigani’s recent article Sufi-Brotherhood conflicts are imminent in Sudan elections and democratic politics. Again, however, I would caution against the author’s overly positive assessment of Sufi-based politics, which being based in a basically non-democratic model are fundamentally at odds with the needs of extending as broadly as possibly a democratic political culture in Sudan. The article can be found here:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article33114
I would also counsel strongly against making too much of Nuh Keller’s brand of Sufism – especially when senior Shaykhs of his own tariq have been less than comfortable with the personality cult that Keller appears to be erecting around himself and his less than enlightened views on a number of rather important topics – not least the treatment and role of women.
For me, a revival in the intellectual Sufism of thinkers such as Ibn ‘Arabi would be a far more constructive development than a continuation of the age-old veneration of Shaykh and the follow-my-leader blindness of much traditional Sufism, where ritual appears more important than any awareness of the meaning of the Way.
Abu Faris,
We need to differentiate here as we are talking about two different things. Sufism as an Islamic path to reach enlightenment and Sufism as a political force. While the two are connected they are still distinct. I will focus on the former for the time being.
Thank you for the insightful post, however, if you don’t mind I would like proof for these so called ‘uncomfortable’ positions that Shaikh Nuh’s Shuyukh hold of him. Just to clarify here, I am neither a follower of Shaikh Nuh nor of any of the other Islamic personalities I mentioned. I know for a fact that Shaikh Nuh condones the cult mentality and instead emphasises on building scholars who can eventually walk the Spiritual path alone. Where did I hear this from? From his mouth directly.
I think it is important to get such views firsthand, directly from the source, as one can read an array of online opinions and develop a ‘tinted glasses’ view till the cows come home and still be far from the truth.
I have had the honour of meeting Shaikh Nuh in person and will base my judgement of him and his ‘cult’ based on my dealings with them directly. Why is this so important? Well, we seem to forget a little thing called accountability when we pass on, and hence any opinions we hold and expound, we will be accounted for.
May I also point out that the path Shaikh Nuh and other Sufis expound isn’t for everyone. Many people have joined and left such turuq ,but this isnt a reason to conclude the ‘medicines’ administered by them to cleanse the ego don’t work. All genuine Sufis will state that the path they are treading is tough and this it needs great mujahada to progress through it. The medicines administered DO bite the ego, but then this is precisely why people affiliate themselves to a Tariq is it not? It’s not a walk in the park nor some kind of funky social club. Tassawuf is like your arm i.e. it should be doing something active to create the change. Once you don’t experience change, you have stopped walking the path. Are Sufis perfect? No. Are their followers perfect. Again no. But in my view, what they represent is better that the other options available.
As regarding Shaikh Nuh’s view on Muslim women, again empirical proof needs to be brought forth as, as far as I have heard and read, his view regarding women is progressive and he supports the active role of the women in the workplace and in society as a whole. His view regarding the wearing of the niqab is a rule for his murida to follow, not a general rule for all muslim women. Some of his murida may even decide not to, but then this goes back to administering medicine to cure the ego. Who knows better what cures the diseases, the doctor, or the patient? What I’m saying here is that there isn’t the so called ‘blind’ following that you so adamantly claim is rife. In fact, many of his murids are ex Wahhabi, who as you know, question the questions, which is a good thing as there is nothing better that clarity on a particular view or subject.
I do agree that sufis, as like any other muslim group, have erroneous elements, but this is the nature of man. Some do have cult like followers, but are you telling me that the Wahhabi groups are any better? Just because some muslims blow up innocent civilians, are all muslims bad? Are all Christians like the crusaders? Obviously the answer is a resounding no, so let’s not taint everyone who falls into a particular socio-religious setting with the same brush.
I believe that it is prudent for muslims to err of the side of caution when it comes to judging fellow muslims, let alone scholars, and that it is wise to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding opinions we may hear which are unbecoming of people of scholarly stature. I’m not saying Shaikh Nuh or any other Islamic personalities are perfect or infallible, but when one hears information contradictory to what one has experienced, one has no option but to speak out.
I do however agree that political Sufism in the past has been skewed to meet certain agendas, but this doesn’t take away from what these groups essentially are and preach. I’m not arguing this from a political perspective, but rather from an ideological one, that essentially the Sufi way is far superior to the one expounded by the Wahhabi elements, as its tarbiyah changes the very core of peoples beings (or at least should), which naturally deters one from becoming radicalised in the way that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are.
I also agree that following the traditional sufism from the likes of Shaikh Ibn Arabi is best to be followed, but then again who is going to teach you what he taught? The sufis of todays are the inheritors of this knowledge, which can so easily misinterpreted (which is why many Wahhabis declared Ibn Arabi a kafir). We need to be careful to take our knowledge from authentic Islamic sources, from those who have inherited this knowledge from Shaikh to Shaikh. Indepedent study is excellent, but should be used as a supplement to learning from Scholars, not as a complete replacement.
I don’t know much about how Sufism has affected or impacted Sudan so can’t really comment on what you have stated. It would be interesting however to hear what Shaikh Babikr has to say on this issue as he is a Sudanese Sufi (from the Sammaniya Tariqa) living in the UK with deep Sudanese roots.
My point is exactly that they need to be differentiated. However it is also my point that throughout the countries where Sufi Islam is dominant, this is exactly what does not happen. Sufism beyond the West is intensely and directly political – and there is no getting around this. Desiring to concentrate on the “spiritual” aspects of Sufism will not make these brute facts disappear.
On Nuh Keller – you write, en passant:
That is no excuse, morally.
You might find the following thread’s comments enlightening on the topic of Keller’s cultish foibles and misogyny :
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590
For example, Nuh Keller.
I made no such suggestions and no such view may be construed from my comments. It is a strawman argument as it bears no connection with my points at all; and is at least designed to excuse turpitude on the basis that others are at least as bad: “Others do X and therefore we should not condemn A for so doing as well”! Well, no, that simply will not do.
I am sorry, they are actively engaged in political agenda today.
Well, it most clearly does, whether you like it or not, I am afraid.
I am sorry, this is again a strawman argument.
Here is the nub of where I disagree with you:
I would suggest someone who does not artificially distinguish between Ibn ‘Arabi’s Islamic philosophy of love (for example) and its roots in pre-Islamic and non-Islamic sources; someone who might be actually qualified to make judgements about philosophy – and not simply someone who has memorised great swathes of text without actually understanding or appreciating these texts in any useful manner. On the other hand, you seem predisposed to simply playing follow-my-leader just in case the “authority” in question belongs to the appropriate order and has absolutely no formal training in the very disciplines necessary for a porper appreciation of this very important thinker (note, I am not interested in whether he happens to be a Muslim or not – I am interested in his ideas).
I am living and working in Sudan, I am married to a Sudanese Arab and I have an especial interest in the interface between politics and religion in East Africa. Will that satisfy you? Oh and I did write at some length on the matter before – but you listen to someone who is a shaykh, if that is your criterion of truth.
Before I start answering your points, I’d still like to get proof of Shaikh Nuh’s Shuyukh disproving of his methods. I invite you to Jordan to see Kharabsheh for yourself. It’s not a huge community. It’s a few streets, and I mean just a few, of which even few are dominated by Shaikh Nuh’s followers.
FYI, Kharbsheh’s population consists of many conservative Jordanian families (most with no sufi affiliation) and has a huge police/military office opposite Shaikhs Nuh’s Zawiya which certainly wouldn’t put up with any nonsense in the area. In such societies, if a women reports male harassment to police, the net result is usually a few broken bones and a bloody face before questioning even starts! I know as I live in Jordan!
You might find the following thread’s comments enlightening on the topic of Keller’s cultish foibles and misogyny :
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590
LOL. I see that your criterion for judging people is hearsay and blog posts, interesting. I have read the blog referred to in the post you mentioned (Yusuf Smith’s blog detailing some supposed incidents in Kharabsheh) and the allegations; and they are no more than that; have not been substantiated in any form or manner by proof! If you read through you will find that the allegations have even been rebutted by other blog posters.
FYI, I live next to kharabsheh and no such misogynistic happenings have been going on. If you read Yusuf’s blog and the posts on it, you will see there is nothing of substance to support any such happenings. Remember what I said about be eer’ing on the side of caution when accusing people!
Sufism beyond the West is intensely and directly political – and there is no getting around this.
Oh there’s a LOT of getting around this whether you like it or not. The Levant, Pakistan, Aghanistan, Indonesia, the Caucasus, the Balkans….all these lands have Sufis doing their thing WITHOUT entering politics. You just have Sudan as an example and want to ram it down peoples throats. How do I know these lands are devoid of the sufi-political influences? Simply because I have either lived in them at one time or another, or have family or friends who are from these lands….. maybe I should get a blog post reference for you instead…
This actually begs the question that if you do not like the Shuyukh of todays Islamic community, where is it that you get your knowledge from? I really would like to know who you think is qualified to teach the sufi work in today’s age.
Shaikh Nuh is one of many scholars who preach tassawuf. You don’t have to like or take from him. You can choose from an array of many others… or then again maybe all of these scholars are socio-political forces looking for power!
Then why do I defend him? Well, my direct experience with him and his ‘cult’ tells me otherwise. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would suggest someone who does not artificially distinguish between Ibn ‘Arabi’s Islamic philosophy of love (for example) and its roots in pre-Islamic and non-Islamic sources; someone who might be actually qualified to make judgements about philosophy – and not simply someone who has memorised great swathes of text without actually understanding or appreciating these texts in any useful manner.
I would just as happily take knowledge from scholars such as Shaikh Mohammad Yaqubi of Syria, or Shaikh Tahir Qadri from Pakistan, or maybe they too don’t meet your criterion to take from.You need to bring proof that Shaikh Nuh doesn’t have the requisite knowledge to teach Ibn Arabi’s work. Anyone can make claims about anothers knowledge.
Remember, Islamically it’s the onus of the accuser to bring forth evidence to support his claim, so bring forth your proof if you believe you are correct.
Again, I’d like to know who you think is qualified to teach Ibn Arabi’s and other sufis works in today’s age?
I am living and working in Sudan, I am married to a Sudanese Arab and I have an especial interest in the interface between politics and religion in East Africa. Will that satisfy you?
Well Im working and living in Jordan, married to a Bosnian-Jordanian Arab and have a special interest Sufism in the region. It’s interesting that when you pose yourself as an authority on the topic you ask whether or not I am satisfied, and when I quote first hand experiences accounts of my dealings, for you they don’t carry much weight as obviously you hold blog posts in much higher regard!
I’m sure that what you have said based on your experience is perfectly valid, but you simply can’t generalize this across all nations that hold any element of Sufism within them.
but you listen to someone who is a shaykh, if that is your criterion of truth.
Yes, I would much rather take my knowledge from first hand experiences and qualified scholars rather than posts written by unknown people who’s credibility is totally unknown to me. Called me old fashioned, but that’s how I am. I simply mentioned that it would be interesting to hear Shaikh Babikr’s view, that’s all. If you took this comment personally, then I apologize and this wasn’t my intent.
Too conclude. Call it tassawuf, cleaning the soul, Sufism, tazkiyat an nafs, whatever…. get beyond the clichés and do the work for your own soul. The goal is the important thing.
Don’t like Shaikh XYZ, that’s fine. Finds someone that appeals to you and learn from him. As many sufi scholars of the past have said, you need a guide to guide you along this path of purification…the one who doesn’t have a guide, Shaytan is his Shaikh.
Perhaps you might care to avoid ad hominem attacks and address the issues at hand?
I have made no such claims about myself. Again, you are setting up strawman arguments.
Again, the personalised attack. I suggested that someone who had an academic background in philosophy (for example), rather than simply someone who had committed to memory vast swathes of text might be better placed to dicuss Ibn ‘Arabi’s philosophy. I am not sure why you think that person would be me! I made no such claim.
I think this discussion is now closed, as you appear unable to discuss matters without resort to name-calling. Equally, you appear entirely incapable of understanding the simple comments I made.
Saudi money is merely exploiting sentiments and propensities which have been present for a long time — much longer than blaming it all on Zia’s “reforms” would suggest.
This issue, inter alia, is covered in this blog post and comments. A good read, IMO.
It’s very convenient to ‘close the discussion’ when clearly you cant bring any proof to substatiate your claim of the knowledge of Shaikh Nuh or address any of the other points I made.
BTW did you know Shaikh Nuh was a student of philosophy and that this was his major field of study in the States? Nope, thought not.
Slander and allegations are dangerous things unless you have proof for what you claim.
I can’t address the points you raised regarding Sufism in Sudan. Equally, you can’t answer mine regarding the spread of non political sufism in many muslim countries.
I can’t see where any name calling took place, but if you took offense to anything I said, I really do apologise as this was not my intent.
I say this with all sincertiy and for my personal benefit, that I really would like to know whom you consider is worth taking this knowledge from.
Maybe the people you take from are better than any of those I know.
As I said in my last post, this isnt about personalities. It is essential to take this knowledge from those one trusts and those that are qualified to do so.
I really do wish you all the best.
Sorry, I’m watching soccer riots now – all done in the best possible Sufi taste, I can assure you.
No. I chose not to bother responding to you – as you are clearly mistaken and clearly not at home to difference of opinion. I might say “Libya before Gaddafi”, or “Mali”, or almost any other Sub-Saharan African state, however. I might say “the Quraishi movement and janjawid” in Darfur… however, I’m watching the build-up to the World Cup qualifier here in Sudan…
Odd that, given your previous posts are littered with name-drops and not very veiled personal attacks.
Tant pis.