freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:


Ah yes, you're right. I was indeed thinking of Abu's rebuttals, but do you know? I don't remember him making this claim.

Is it possible you've changed his argument in your mind after all these years?

all too easy to confuse people regarding these matters. So much so, that the hadeeth prophecy that in the end times the Sunnah will be classified as bid’ah and the bid’ah will be classified as Sunnah has now come true. How can we distinguish sunnah from bid’ah when cultists are playing deceptive games with labels, yet fail to realize that the spirit behind these labels are in fact from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and his Sahaabah?

Let us look at a modern example unreleated to the deen. Let us use Asda supermarket as an example. Asda is a new company that merged with Wall-mart in 1999. Asda was unknown in the Prophet’s time, the Sahaabah certinaly did not shop for Asda special price products or ever witness the extravagance of what we know in our times as a supermarket,

Can we call Asda an innovation? What is Asda but a label? What about the products that are sold inside? Did not the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam have honey? vinegar? and other products found within this “great innovation”? I am pretty sure milk has been around since the creation of a cow, has it not? In all sincerity, we cannot claim the products are innovation, no matter what label they come under. You can deceive people by the label, but not by the product. New label, same product, should register in any sound mind as not an innovation.

The unfortunate reality is that the charge of innovation is all to common amongst those who wish to foster bad opinion and evil about their brothers, This causes self righteous people to form puritan cults and make false claims and accusations against the people of truth, But let us peel back these false claims and accusations and place them under the microscope to see if they can stand the test of sincere research and examination.

If we did this with everything that our opposition claims to be innovation, indeed we would uncover the many trickery tactics and flawed logic of none other than Shaytaan, and indeed he is truly weak. With sincere research, the true facts surface and the false claims of the cultists fail dismally, and as always the truth prevails.

The simple truth regarding the Naqshbandi Sufi order is that it is in fact from the Sunnah and part of Islam. Just as the names of the four known surviving madh-habs of Fiqh, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali, the sisalas [i.e. the Sufi Tareeqahs] also take their names after the Ulemaa that were most famous for reviving the science of tasawwuf. This does not mean that the science was unknown to Rasul Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and the Sahaabah, all because the names Naqshbandi, Qadri, Chisti, etc were unheard of in their time.

The Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam taught the doctrine onto his companions in which was then passed down from teacher to student in a traditional manner. Each of the sislahs has a chain leading back to the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam, and these chains are unique to the true claimants of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. “

Furthermore, we fail to see any revivers [mujadiddeen] that came after the naming of the Naqshbandi ever call the Naqshbandiyyah out by name to be either innovation or deviance. Nothing is said in Ibn Hajara al-Asqalani’s works, Ibn Katheer’s works, Imaam as-Suyuti’s works, Imaam adh-Dhahabi’s works, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s works. Had the Naqshbandis been in oppistion to the doctrines and the truth of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, then surely we should have at least found some warning about them in the books of the mentioned Imaams!

Not even Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah has spoken about the Naqshbandis as being a deviated cult, not once, and the Naqshbandi movement [as Wahhabis would have us believe] is said to have originated in his era. Yet “Shaykh ul-Islam” failed to warn against this “deviated cult”? Had Ibn Taymiyyah warned against the Naqshbandiyyah, would have Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab an-Najdi studied under Muhammad Hayyat as-Shindi who was not only a Hanafi by fiqh, but a Naqshbandi Sufi! Why do we not even find in Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s works any mention of the Naqshbandis as being a deviated cult? The only reason why is because it is simply not there.

These accusations against the four Sufi sislahs are new, and any new thesis without any authority being sent down by Allah is simply innovation. We have no choice but to conclude that it is the modern Wahhabi rhetoric that is the true innovation. Such people who carry these ideas only deal in slander and evil opinions about their Muslim brothers, and if they are not careful, their tongues, their false accusations and slanderous remarks will be the cause of them entering the Jahhanam. May Allah save us all from this. Ameen

Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult".

Ah, the shifting sands of Arabian religious politics.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:12pm:


Agreed, so other Muslims do consider Suffism a cult.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:


You mean the Naqshbandi Sufi order?

This is getting more complicated. Your references originally pointed to rather jaundiced Wahabist view of Sufis. Now we find out such disputes involve the lineage of particular Muslim orders.

To be honest, Secret, I just wanted to see how Sufism could possibly be seen as a cult by other Muslims. Now we find out there are historical rivalries, wheels within wheels, sects within schools.

For once, and I wholeheartedly congratulate you for this, you've managed to completely complicate things while still not proving your claim that Sufism is viewed as a cult.

Excellent work.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:


But of course, that's the beauty of it. You don't need quotes or references for any of this, but here's a question:

Do you rule out the use of porkies in your tireless crusade against the Muselman?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I am happy to provide references Karnal. I even tried prompting you to ask for them.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:


Alas, Secret, if it makes you feel any better, I'll even believe that the Naqshbandi order within Sufism is a cult.

Sufism, however, even more than Islam, could not possibly be described as a cult.

I'm not trying to prove Nazism is a cult anymore. I've just made that claim. If I've failed to prove it, so be it.