Sufism in Islam was not an imported idea or a strange guest who came from distant lands;

Rather, it was part of the core of Islam and an extension of the meanings of asceticism and purification - in their positive legal conception of activity and balanced in spirit and substance - that Islam considered since the Meccan period.

Therefore, scholars of the jurists and modernists were not rejecting him, as some might imagine because of some of their criticisms of certain words and actions attributed to the people of Sufism, just as this criticism did not mean exclusion and exclusion of the Sufis.

The truth is that the scholars’ criticism of the paths of Sufism was part of a long reform process that attempts to purify the Sufi methods, and then re-integrate them into the path of the general trend, especially within the Sunnis and the community. This reform process was very long and complex, and drawing a historical plan to investigate it is a known difficulty for those who follow the history of ideas, groups, and societal cultural phenomena, especially if this path attempts to monitor the responses of the three parties to the reform process (Sufis, jurists and hadiths) to the challenges of this process and their contributions to it.

The idea that this article addresses - substantiated by sayings and facts - is an attempt to monitor how the three trends were able to transform the differences between them into a close coalition, embodied in the great imams who combined them in their personalities and works, so they reformed and corrected the views of each sect towards the other two sects, with inference With the sayings of the imams of hadiths in praising the original trend of Sufism, and how there has been no hostility between the two parties - in the moderate line of both - since the beginning of Islam until today, and that cooperation and discipleship of hadith and jurisprudence has remained the dominant feature of all.

The scientific skirmishes between the three parties were part of an approach rooted in the Islamic heritage and the nation’s civilizational heritage in managing intellectual and behavioral differences, which prompts us today to discuss how to draw inspiration from those methodological and historical precedents to unify the dissonances of the scientific and reformist arena today.

A cumulative path


Any work to reform an idea must start from looking at its origin and its path and redrawing its presence in memory; How did the jurists and modernists view the crystallization of Sufism historically, and how did they systematically divide its stages and patterns?

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH / 1328 AD) provides us with a valuable text that helps us - albeit roughly - in drawing the temporal curve for the entrainment of Sufi generations since the end of the second century AH / eighth century AD; We find him saying in his book 'Safadiah': "The great sheikhs - who were mentioned by Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami (d. 412 AH / 1023 AD) in the 'Tabaqat al-Sufiyyah' and Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri (d. 465 AH/1074 AD) in 'The Message' - were on the doctrine of the Sunnis and the community and the doctrine of People of hadith, such as Al-Fadil bin Iyadh (died 187 AH/803AD), Al-Junayd bin Muhammad (Al-Baghdadi died 297 AH/910AD), Sahel bin Abdullah al-Tustari (died 283 AH/896AD), ​​Amr bin Othman Al-Makki (died after 300 AH/912AD), and Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Khafif Al-Shirazi (d. 371 AH / 982 AD) and others, and their words are found in the Sunnah and they classified the books on it.

Ibn Taymiyyah adds another dimension to his method of extrapolating the dynamics of Sufism in Islam, which is the methodological division to which the Sufism system was subjected, like other cognitive and behavioral approaches. Where the Imam distributes the flags of Sufism to groups that are dominated by certain scientific methods according to the context of each era and each group, and according to the state of development of these methods and their predominance in the Islamic scientific arena, including the method of “Ahl al-Hadith Sufism” as he put it: “But some of the later ones (= Sufis) It was on the way of some of the people of speech in some branches of beliefs, and there was no one among them on the doctrine of philosophers, but philosophizing appeared in the later Sufis. Sufism of the Philosophers".

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1348 AD) builds on Ibn Taymiyyah’s induction to explain the splitting of the second relationship between the two camps of jurisprudence and hadith, whose understanding allowed them to absorb the Sufi phenomenon and integrate it into the general knowledge fabric of “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah”;

We find that Al-Dhahabi best monitored and described the state of the scientific arena until the beginning of the fourth/tenth century AD, and the value of this description was that he provided us with the nature of the ground on which the meeting between the nation’s scholars of various disciplines was founded.

He mentioned - in “Sir A’laam al-Nabala” a group of imams who combined jurisprudence and hadith, and then said: “The hadith scholars at that time were imams who also knew jurisprudence. Eighth/fourteenth century A.D.) the muhaddith is content with the sermon and the sermon, so he neither understands nor memorizes, just as the jurist has clung to jurisprudence that he is not good at knowing and does not know what the hadith is!!

Before Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Dhahabi; In “Hilyat al-Awliya’” Imam al-Hafiz Abu Naim al-Asbahani al-Shafi’i (d. 430 AH/1040 AD) provided us with an important overview that helped to complete the conception of the historical scheme of the Sufi reform, and extended the thread - retrospectively - to the era of the companions of the character, making the hierarchy of Sufism a doctrine and a follower The Companions to those he called “the first among the predecessors,” and rejecting the intruders of unacceptable Sufism or the doctrine of the “obsessed and obsessed among the ignorant Sufis”; As he put it.

In that he says: “We have come to those who were mentioned by Sheikh Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami (in ‘Tabaqat al-Sufi’) and he attributed them to the endemicity and descent of the attribute. Imitated by their example, consistent with their way, following their footsteps, differentiating from the ignorant and obsessive ignorant of this sect, and denouncing them. And the rulers of the jurists.., [then we came to] what Al-Ablaj Abu Saeed Ibn Al-Arabi mentioned (Al-Basri, 340AH/951AD). Layers of hermits'.

The conclusion here is that one of the tasks of reform was to chart the course of the Sufi idea and its relationship to the legal system, and this is what the three imams mentioned tried to do; Where they did not view Sufism as an imported, alien movement, but rather as a part of the authentic Islamic system, even if it was tainted by some intruders, and that it emanated from one of its problems, and if it was withdrawn from the traditions of crystallization and the impurities of development, it did not apply to all sciences and legal knowledge.

Various factors. The


truth is that Sufism did not lose sight of the general pattern of crystallization of the legal system in the first centuries. Here we can point out - albeit with some appreciation - that with the dominance of the science of hadith narration from the age of the Companions until the third / ninth century AD, and the emergence of jurisprudential schools since the end of the second century, and then crystallization and stability of these schools - starting from the fourth century - in its continuum form; The movement of asceticism and acclamation - which is the root of mysticism - was at the heart of the legal movement and related to it, especially with the emergence of imams who combined mysticism with the narration of hadith and jurisprudence, such as those mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah. Then it was the cooperation and convergence of the three groups that prepared the soil for the completion of the reform process, and its essence is to return to the first biography of meeting knowledge on one land as it was.

Complementing the building of historical monitoring; We see that with the advent of the fifth/eleventh century AD, at which Ibn Taymiyyah's acknowledgment of the Sufi generations, "the zakat", stopped by modifying it; A sect of those who could be called "Sufism of the jurists" emerged - starting with Al-Qushari and Sheikh Al-Islam Al-Harawi (d. 481 AH/1088 AD) and ending with Al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH / 1111AD) - seeking to unify the path with the Sufis and to meet with them on a common word. They were accompanied by another group of modernists who combined the practice of Sufi education and preaching with the study of the narration and the chain of transmission, such as the two Imams Al-Sulami and Al-Qushayri.

Then, in the sixth / twelfth century AD, the phenomenon of “Sufism of the modernists” was reinforced by imams such as Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jaili / Al-Jilani Al-Hanbali (d. 561 AH / 1166 AD) and Abu Taher Al-Salafi (d. 576 AH / 1180 AD); We find figures of dozens of whom the books of biography and history literally describe as “the Muhaddith Sufi” or “the Sufi Muhaddith,” and they are the ones whom Imam Ibn Taymiyyah made a group that he called “the Sufis of Ahl al-Hadith”!! Then he was followed by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH / 1393 AD) in “The Tail of Tabaqat al-Hanbali” when he called them “the mystics of the people of hadith.”

And in this century also famous figures of asceticism appeared who deepened this path by adding a third dimension - besides knowledge of hadith and mysticism in its disciplined sense of purification - which is the knowledge of jurisprudence, and among the most prominent of these are the two Maliki Imams Abu Bakr al-Tartushi (d. 520 AH / 1126 AD) and Judge Ibn al-Arabi (d. 543 AH / 1148 AD). ), and the two Hanbali Imams Abdul Qadir Al-Jaili and Ibn Al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH / 1200 AD), and it is remarkable here that we witness - in this era - the beginning of the emergence of Sufism in the ranks of the Hanbalis, represented by Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jaili, the founder of the oldest and largest Sufi order in Islamic history.

It is a phenomenon whose examples will multiply starting from the seventh / thirteenth century AD with figures who were “three-dimensional” cognitively, as they were characterized by the imam in the three directions (hadith, jurisprudence and mysticism in its disciplined concept of praise); Such as: Al-Izz bin Abd al-Salam (d. 660 AH / 1262 AD), Al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH / 1277 AD) and Al-Qurtubi, the interpreter (d. 671 AH / 1272 AD), then it took its great impetus in the eighth century represented - in varying degrees - in Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Dhahabi and Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH). / 1355 AD) and his son Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771 AH / 1370 AD) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH / 1351 AD), to continue in the ninth century with imams such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH / 1448 AD), his student Al-Sakhawi (d. 902 / 1497) and Al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH). / 1506 AD).

In the context of talking about this remarkable phenomenon;

It is worth noting the great contribution made by the "Dur al-Hadith" established - starting from the sixth century - by the Zangid sultans, and the "schools of jurisprudence" and the "Sufism Khanaqat" founded by their Ayyubid successors in bringing together the three sects and merging their knowledge, for what we know about the sultans of the two countries. Take care of the knowledge of hadith, jurisprudence and mysticism at the same time.

It can be said that the impact of these schools - in integrating these scientific paths in their students and the balanced formulation of their scientific personalities - is equivalent to what the schools of the Seljuk minister Nizam al-Mulk (d. 485 AH/1092 AD) did in the fifth century of reconciliation between the jurists (mainly Shafi’is and Malikis) and Ash’ari theologians, which established For a comprehensive scientific current that dominated the Islamic arena and settled and continued.

A detailed contribution


after charting the historical course of the Sufi reform process;

We turn to how scholars understand what is legally acceptable from Sufism and sort and exclude intruders, and here it is better to point out the decisive role of Al-Ghazali in opening the path of convergence between the jurists and the Sufis, and his counterpart the detailed contribution of Sheikh Al-Jaily by paving the path of communication between the modernists and the Sufis.

On the basis of these two historical reconciliation achievements between the three trends (Jurisprudence, Hadith and Sufism);

A new ground arose that brought the nation together and crystallized its general, homogeneous and conciliatory ideological pattern among those with the three tendencies. This was a softening of the “dryness” of the jurists, a softening of the “severity” of the modernists, and a control of the “intrusiveness” of the Sufis!

And speaking of the process of sifting reformist Sufism; It can be said that Al-Ghazali - after the consolidation of his mystical tendency from his isolation in 488 AH / 1095 AD until his death - led the efforts of reconciliation between Sufism and the sciences of Sharia, although in fact he did not establish that reconciliation because many of the jurists and modernists before him were Sufis as previously mentioned and his statement will come, and they were theirs Efforts are clear in tracking the extremists, but Al-Ghazali expanded on that reformist criticism of Sufism and compiled several works in it.

In his criticism of the Sufis who drop the legal mandates on the pretext of reaching the degree of certainty and revealing; Al-Ghazali says in Ihya Ulum al-Din: “As for shatah, we mean by it two types of speech introduced by some Sufis: one of them is the long and broad claims in love with God Almighty, and the dispensation that suffices from outward deeds, until some people end up claiming the union and the lifting of the veil, witnessing by vision and speaking through speech, They say: We were told such-and-such, and we said such-and-such..and this is an art of speech whose harm is great for the common people.

Al-Ghazali criticizes the contentment of appearance without substance among many Sufis, especially the Sufis of his time, at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth: “The third category is the Sufis, and what is most deceitful upon them, and the deceived among them are many groups: a group of them - and they are Sufis of the people of time except for those whom God protects - were deceived by dress, appearance and logic, So help (= imitate) the truthful of the Sufis in their dress and appearance, their words, their manners and their ceremonies.. and they never tire themselves in striving, sports, monitoring the heart, and purifying the inner and outer from hidden and obvious sins.., [Indeed, they scramble for the forbidden, the suspicions, and the money of the rulers.] !

In general, it can be said that the hadiths and jurists followed two paths in reforming Sufism: First: criticizing exaggeration and rejecting extremism, and secondly: defending Sufism that is disciplined by Sharia, and declaring its truths away from exaggeration, superstition, superstition and sorcery, in an attempt from them to assimilate the Sufis with their pure legal knowledge within the scientific community. Thus, the pillars of the desired scientific Muslim personality: Creed, Sharia and Ethics.

Various


points of view. In what follows, we will summarize these two paths, whose fruitful results opened the way for the emergence of a phenomenon that can be called “scientific mysticism”; This phenomenon, which was manifested in the presence of a large segment of imams, integrated into their personalities - culture and practice - the formative curricula of these three currents, or “the people of hadith, the people of asceticism and the people of jurisprudence” in Ibn Taymiyyah’s expression in “Majmoo’ al-Fatwas”; They were modernists, scholars and mystics at the same time. The most important faculties of objections criticized by jurists and modernists on Sufi groups - which were not restricted in their education to the texts, purposes and rules of Sharia - can be summarized in the following points:

1- Lack of attention to science: One of the central issues that hadith scholars and jurists criticized against some Sufis is their ignorance of the controlling legal sciences and their indifference to them.

This is monitored by Imam Al-Ghazali - in 'The Balance of Action' - by saying that "the Sufis were not incited to learn and study the sciences, and to collect what the classifiers classified in the search for the facts of matters."

And if the Sufis searched for the purpose and the goal and worshiped another way to reach them other than the way of studying Sharia sciences;

Al-Ghazali sees that the jurists “did not deny the existence of this path and its leading to the destination.. but they were aware of this path.., and they claimed that erasing the relationships to that extent by diligence is like the one who refrains, and if it occurs in a case, its stability is farther from it”!

Then he added: "How many Sufis remained in the imagination for eleven years until he got rid of it, and if he had mastered the sciences first, he would have rid himself of it on intuition."

The one who examines the two books of Al-Ghazali 'The Rescuer' and 'The Revival' will realize that he - and his likes are among the reformers of Sufism before and after him - sees that the only solution to popularizing Sufism - to be the method of an entire nation and perpetuate it - is to negate income and corruption from it, and define its features and universals so that the good can be distinguished from the bad.

He considered that the way to do this is to fuse mysticism into the sciences of Sharia, to serve as a restraint for restraining the soul when it slips away.

Following in the footsteps of Al-Ghazali, who is the Shafi’i Al-Ash’ari jurist, in his criticism of Sufism’s avoidance of legal learning;

Ibn al-Jawzi, who is a Hanbali sect of jurisprudence, but it has a strong Ash`ari belief that made Ibn Taymiyyah say - in 'Explanation of the Isfahani Creed' - that in his proposition al-Aqdi "what is farther from the sayings of Ahmad (bin Hanbal, d. 241 AH/855 AD) and the imams from the sayings of al-Ash'ari 324 AH / 936 AD) and the imams of his companions!!

We find Ibn al-Jawzi urging the Sufis to learn the sciences of Sharia and not be satisfied with the states of the soul in moments of serenity and remembrance.

Ibn al-Jawzi says in 'Seid al-Khater': "I found most Sufis and ascetics deviate from the Shari'a, between ignorance of the Shari'a and starting with an opinion, citing verses they do not understand their meaning and hadiths that have reasons."

Ibn al-Jawzi - in “Talabbees Iblis” - explains his cruelty to the Sufis by their lack of attention to the legal sciences: And the righteous among them were rare; some scholars slandered and insulted them, even their sheikhs reproached them.”

We also find a reprimand from Imam Al-Nawawi against the fanatic Sufis who issue fatwas without knowledge.

Here he says - in 'Sharh Muslim' - after mentioning the hadiths about medication: "And in it there is a response to those who denied medication from the fanatics of Sufism."

We find an echo of that later on Imam Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari;

On one of the issues, he criticizes the ignorant Sufis, saying: “Some ultra-Sufis came forward to interpreting hadith without knowledge.”

Allegation and plagiarism and


this reason is the same that made Imam Al-Suyuti - one of the great latecomers who gathered the tripartite affiliation of hadith, jurists and Sufis - criticizing some of the Sufis of his time. And like him, many jurists fall into Sufism, and they misrepresent hidden suspicions, and that is because he sees an intruder.. He claims that he is one of them and he is without wealth from them.

2- Fabricating hadiths: We realize from what has been missed that many of the Sufis were modern imams, and many of them were great jurists from all schools of jurisprudence. But within the Sufi house, we find sects that content themselves with asceticism, piety, purification, and generosity, and neglecting to adhere to knowledge and the law. And these, although they are weak and abandoned, but they - in the vast majority of them - did not intend to lie, that is, they were not given from their trust, as much as they were given before, their control over their stories and human symptoms.

In that reference, Al-Nawawi says, explaining what Imam Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan (d. 198 AH/814AD) said: “We have not seen the righteous in anything more deceitful than them in hadeeth! Not intentionally, and that is because they do not know how to make this art, so they tell everything they heard and in which lies, so they are [by that] liars, for lying [is] telling about a thing contrary to what it is [it], whether it was an oversight or intentional.”

But a small group of Sufis deliberately fabricated and lied, and among them Al-Nawawi also says: “Know that deliberately fabricating hadith is forbidden by the consensus of the Muslims who are counted in unanimity. As a desire for good, in their false claim, this is apparent stupidity and ultimate ignorance.

In summary, the hadith scholars did not reject a hadith from a narrator simply because he was a Sufi, and they did not accept from others because he was not a Sufi; This is not one of the conditions for accepting the novel and rejecting it according to the people of art. Rather, the criterion was the availability of those conditions specific to the narrator - i.e. a narrator - such as truthfulness, accuracy, and reliability. As for Sufism, as a behavioral condition regulated by Sharia, it is not subject to acceptance or rejection, and we will see that one of the Sufis was imams in the science of Hadith narration.

Extraneous practices


3- Believing in myths: By the nature of the methodology of the hadith scholars, which is verified in every narration before it, it only accepts the solid and solid construction of the narrations; They refuted the narrations of the Sufis, which indicate irrational matters and whose occurrence is not correct in the Sharia. About this, Ibn al-Jawzi says in 'Seid al-Khater': "How often do they say that people walked on water, and Ibrahim al-Harbi (d. 285 AH/898 AD): It is not true that anyone ever walked on water! If they heard this they said: Do you deny the dignity of the saints and the righteous? So we say: We are not among those who deny it, rather we follow what is true, and the righteous are those who follow the law and do not worship according to their opinions.

Al-Dhahabi rejects such superstitions; He says in 'History of Islam': "Among these satanic conditions that mislead the common people are: eating snakes, entering fire, walking in the air, those who suffer disobedience and breach their duties! He spoke about the friends of God and insulted them, as he brought into them these crazy bastards, the guardians of the devils.”

In the translation of the founder of the Rifa’i Order, Ahmad al-Rifai (d. 512 AH / 1118 AD); Al-Dhahabi monitors - in 'Lessons' - the moment of negative change in the practices of this method. He describes Al-Rifai as "the ascetic by example, and he was the ultimate in humility, contentment, and softness of speech..., and the integrity of the inner"; Then he added: “But his companions (= his disciples) among them are the good and the bad, and there has been a lot of deception among them, and demonic conditions have renewed for them since the Tatars took over Iraq (in the year 656 AH / 1258 AD): from entering the fires, riding on lions, and playing with snakes, and this is what the sheikh knew nor The righteous of his companions, so we seek refuge in God from Satan!

4- Saying about solutions and union: the hadiths and jurists launched a raid on the fanatics of Sufism who claim to be solution and union, and we should understand that these raids were scientific and fall within the rich discussion among the scholars of the nation, and were not mere blasphemy or unfounded innovation as some imagine; Therefore, we find that the modernists sought excuses for this type of Sufis, despite their harshness in scientific responses to them.

Imam al-Dhahabi was strict with those who smelled the scent of solutions and union, yet we find him meticulous in using expressions against them, and attentive to the exits of interpretations that are plausible for their words; In his translation of Najm al-Din al-Shaibani (d. 677 AH / 1278 AD) he mentioned this verse from his poetry:


You are nothing but the universe, but you are its eye ** and this secret is understood by whoever tastes!


Then he commented on it, saying: “There is no doubt about the large number of declaring the union in this person’s poetry as required by the apparent meaning of the speech. The aspect of deism is what it is not permissible to release.”

Al-Dhahabi himself declares this and says in 'Mizan Al-Etidal': "Tayfur bin Issa Abu Yazid Al-Bastami (d. 261 AH/875 AD), the sheikh of Sufism, has amazing news and a strange situation..., and how sweet he said: If you look at a man who has been given many dignity until he rises into the air. Do not be deceived by it until you see how it is when it commands and forbids and preserves the limits of the Sharia. Then he quoted some of those problematic phrases, seeking excuses for him, entrusting his affair to God: “[As for] Abu Yazid.. he is a Muslim, his condition is for him, and God takes care of the secrets, and we absolve God from everyone who deliberately violates the Book and the Sunnah.”

Defense and discrimination


The criticism of some Sufis by the jurists and scholars of hadith was not - for the most part - criticism from outside, or between different and competing sects and currents, as if it were a dispute between the Mu'tazila and the Hanbalis, or the Ash'aris and the Shiites; Rather, it was a reform work from within the Sufi house, as many of the hadithers and jurists were from the people of Sufism, as we will see, and many of them - even non-Sufis - were following a precise scientific approach in criticism and redress, away from passion and whims. But if the jurists and hadith scholars have severely criticized - as we have seen - Sufism that escapes from the legal controls and costs, then they defended its part that is regulated by the texts of Sharia.

Ibn al-Jawzi, for example, went through phases and profound psychological and spiritual transformations that brought him to that conviction. We see him - in 'Capturing the Mind' - deciding that he reached - when he himself told him about isolation and left preaching councils for fear of hypocrisy - that "isolation should be from evil, not from good.. And as for the education of the seekers and the guidance of the aspirants, it is the worship of the scholar. And whoever neglects the preference of some scholars for the supererogation of prayer and fasting over compilation of a book or teaching knowledge is beneficial, because that is a seed whose yield increases and the time of its benefit extends.” Despite its severity on the Sufis; We find Ibn al-Jawzi summarizing two books of the pillars of the teachings of Sufism, namely: 'Hilyat al-Awliya' by al-Isfahani, who summarized it in his book 'Saffa al-Safwa', and 'Reviving the Sciences of Religion' by al-Ghazali, who deposited his summary in his book 'Minhaj al-Qasidin'.

Then Ibn Taymiyyah came to correct the view of Sufism when he placed it in its natural context, as one of the religious sects that strives in religion to correct and transcend like others. He said - in 'Majmoo' al-Fatwas' - that "because of what happened to many of them (= Sufis) of ijtihad and dispute about it: people quarrel over their path, a sect rebuked Sufism and Sufism and said that they are innovators who are outside the Sunnah..., and a sect exaggerated them and claimed that they are the best of creation. And the most complete of them after the prophets, and both sides of these matters are reprehensible, and what is correct is that they strive hard in obedience to God as other people of obedience to God strive. Sects of heresy and heretics were associated with them, but according to the scholars of Sufism [they] are not among them.”

And in a position of the great normal soul that takes into account the spaciousness of religious and human brotherhood;

The modernists distinguished between their scholarly disagreement with the fanatics of Sufism and their understanding of the station of humanity and its symptoms, the vicissitudes of the soul and its conditions and the stations and inspirations it goes through, and so on;

So they defended the Sufis, even some of those who saw them as extremists, and they commanded to think better of them and to interpret them as justified, but at the same time they warned against their statements and behaviors that are not proven by the texts of the Sharia.

These are two important levels that must be distinguished.

Al-Dhahabi judges - in 'The Balance of Modesty' - on Ibn al-Farid (d. 632 AH / 1234 AD) that he "clowns with frank union in his poetry, and this is a great calamity!

Al-Dhahabi defends the dignity of the saints and denounces those who deny them, even if he is one of the most eminent imams of jurists and hadith scholars.

He says - in 'Al-Siyar' - translated by Imam Abu Ishaq Al-Isfaraini Al-Shafi'i (d. 418 AH / 1028 AD) that he is "one of the diligent in his time.., and among the diligent in worship who exaggerated in piety.., and he was firmly trusted in the hadith..; he was denying the dignity of the saints. It is not permissible, and this is a great misstep!”


Equity gold


and we read the

golden translations of a

large number of flags of the

Sufis Fenrah avenge them, and discourage them Ptsofhm disciplined non -

Sharia and their knowledge mystical;

Here he says - in 'History of Islam' - on the authority of Idris al-Khawlani, the ascetic (d. 211 AH / 826 AD) - using without embarrassment some dialectical terms of Sufism - that "it was said: He is one of the substitutes, and he was likened to the bare-footed human being (d. 226 AH / 841 AD) in his merits. and his worship.

Aba al-Baqa al-Taflisi al-Sufi (d. 631 AH / 1234 AD) describes that "Sophia was a glorious, honorable, noble, with knowledge of jurisprudence, origins, Arabic, news, poetry and behavior, and he was the owner of sports and struggles." It was also translated by Abu al-Mahamid al-Zanjani al-Sufi al-Shafi’i (d. 674 AH / 1275 AD) and he said that “he was a jurist, an imam, a righteous ascetic, of great importance.”

Al-Dhahabi laments the loss of his meeting with one of the most prominent Sufi sheikhs, Abu al-Fadl Ibn al-Damiri al-Lakhmi (d. 695 AH / 1296 AD); He says about him: "Sheikh Imam al-Musnad.., and he wore a rag from Sheikh Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi (Abu Hafs, d. 632 AH / 1235 AD), and he was one of the major Musnads, so I missed meeting him (= meeting him) and I heard him create." Rather, al-Dhahabi himself practiced Sufism and wore the rag of Sufism. He said in the translation of Sheikh Dia Al-Din Al-Sibti Al-Sufi (d. 696 AH / 1297 AD): “He was comfortable reading the hadith.. He put on a rag and mentioned to me that he had worn it in Mecca from Sheikh Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi.. He was modest and generous, observing the garb of Sufism and scholars.”

Al-Dhahabi affirms that the legal scholar must be a mystic educator, and that the mystic must have the correct knowledge of Sharia;

So he put - in “Sir” - a general rule by which he summarizes the approach of the modernists towards the two groups: “And if the scholar is stripped of mysticism and deification, he is empty, just as a Sufi if he is stripped of the knowledge of the Sunnah strays from the right path”!!

It seems that al-Dhahabi followed the same approach as his sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, who differentiated between the righteous and the bad of the Sufis.

He says in 'History of Islam': "I heard our sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah say: I heard Sheikh Izz al-Din Ahmad al-Faruthi (d. 694 AH / 1295 AD) say: I heard our Sheikh Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi say: I resolved to engage in theology and the principles of religion, so I said to myself: Consult Sheikh Abdul Qadir [ Al-Jili], so I came to him and he said before I uttered: O Omar, what is the graveyard’s equipment..! He said: So I left it.”

Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jaili was the "Sheikh of the Hanbalis" in his time, and he is - at the same time - the "Sheikh of the Sheikhs" of the Sufis, the founder of the major and most widespread methods of Sufism in the Islamic world;

And in it al-Dhahabi says in 'History of Islam': "He is the owner of the dignity and the stations and the Sheikh of the Hanbalis... He heard the hadith... He was the imam of his time and the pole of his time, and the sheikh of the sheikhs of the time without a defense."

Al-Jaili was a Sufi reformer from within, and his efforts to reform the Sufi house and try to improve it are no less than those of Al-Ghazali;

Rather, the efforts of al-Jail’s most important, as a Hanbali, were the jurisprudential and creedal affiliations, so he brought the Hanbali and the Sufis closer and softened the hearts of the Hanbali militants in Baghdad to ascetics and the pious people of Sufism, and broadened the legal horizon of these by mixing with those.

Hence the school of “Sufism Ahl al-Hadith” was strengthened;

As Ibn Taymiyyah calls it.

A disciplined alternative


and from the great Hanbali Sufism as well, who contributed to the consolidation of modern Sufism within the Hanbali school; Sheikh Al-Islam Abu Ismail Al-Ansari Al-Harawi Al-Hanbali (d. 481 AH/1088 AD), when Ibn Rajab translated for him, he said that he is “the jurist, interpreter, the mystic, the preacher, the preacher Sheikh of Islam.” He stated that he was very loyal to the Hanbali school of thought. The Sunnah.” Rather, he used to say to his students: “The school of Ahmad Ahmad is the school of thought.” Then he penned that into a flowing verse, so he would “chant on the pulpit on the day of his assembly at Harat:


I am a Hanbali as long as I live and if I die ** My advice to people is that they should be humiliated”!

وقد نقل ابن رجب شهادة ابن تيمية بإمامة الهروي في التصوف والحديث: "وقال شيخ الإسلام أبو العباس (= ابن تيمية) في كتاب ‘الأجوبة المصرية‘: شيخُ الإسلام (= الهروي) مشهور معظَّم عند الناس، هو إمام في الحديث والتصوف والتفسير، وهو في الفقه على مذهب أهل الحديث، يعظِّم [الإماميْن] الشافعيَّ (ت 204هـ/820م) وأحمدَ".

وإذا جئنا إلى حافظ محدّث كبير آخر هو الإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني فسنجد أنه لم يكن من مناهضي المتصوفة بإطلاق، بل ثناؤه ومديحه للصوفية المنضبطة بالشرع أشهَرُ من أن يُشْهَر. وهذا الخطّ في الحقيقة نجده متواصلا منذ الإمام الشافعيّ الذي يقول عن فضل صحبتهم: "صحبت الصوفية فما انتفعت منهم إلا بكلمتين، سمعتهم يقولون: الوقت سيف فإن قطعتَه وإلا قطعك، ونفسك إن لم تشغلها بالحق شغلتك بالباطل"! فقال ابن القيم -في كتابه الصوفي ‘مدارج السالكين‘- معلقا على كلمة الشافعي: "قلت: يا لهما من كلمتين ما أنفعهما وأجمعهما، وأدلهما على علوّ همة قائلهما ويقظته! ويكفي في هذا ثناء الشافعي على طائفة هذا قدر كلامهم".

وفي هذا التوجه الدفاعي عن التصوف المنضبط؛ تدخل سلسلة مصنفات وضعها فقهاء ومحدثون لتقديم بديل صوفي معرفي يستبعد المكونات الدخية في مناهجه، إذ صنّف الإمام المحدّث أبو نُعَيم الأصبهاني الشافعي كتابه ‘حِلْيَة الأولياء‘ فترجم فيه لأعيان الصوفية وكبارهم، وألّف الإمام المحدّث محمد بن طاهر القيسراني الظاهري (ت 507هـ/1113م) كتابه ‘صفة التصوف‘، ثم جاء الإمام المحدِّث أبو بكر ابن العربي المالكي فقدّم كتابه ‘سراج المريدين‘ الذي سماه بعضهم "تصوف المحدِّثين"؛ كما في ‘قواعد التصوف‘ للإمام أحمد زرّوق الفاسي (ت 899هـ/1494م).

ويجدر هنا التنويه بأنّه حتى النساء المتصوفات حُزْنَ ثناءً عطِرا عليهن من المحدّثين الكبار كثنائهم على رجال التصوف وربما أكثر. ففي ترجمة سيدة بنت عبد الرحيم السُّهْرَوَرْدي (ت 640هـ/1242م) قال الذهبيّ في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘: "زوجة الشيخ شهاب الدين السُّهْرَوَرْدي..، وحدَّثتْ وأجازتْ.. جماعةً، وكان فيها صلاح وخير وتعبُّدٌ".

وترجم -في ‘السِّيَر’- لرابعة العدوية البصرية (ت 180هـ/796م) فوصفها بأنها "الزاهدة العابدة الخاشعة أم عمرو رابعة بنت إسماعيل..، وحكى عنها: سفيان (الثوري ت 161هـ/778م) وشعبة (بن الحَجّاج ت 160هـ/777م) وغيرهما ما يدل على بطلان ما قيل عنها". فالذهبيّ يستدلّ على صحة معتقد رابعة واستقامة سيرتها بشهادة محدثِين كبار أمثال سفيان وشعبة أخذوا عنها. وأنكر الذهبيُّ بشدّة على من اتَّهموها بالحلول ووصفهم بـ"الغلوّ والجهل".

كما يُثني -في ‘العِبَر‘- على سَمْتِ وتعبُّد الشيخة المتصوفة فاطمة البغدادية (ت 714هـ/1314م) ذاكرا أنه زارها؛ فيقول: "العالمة الفقيه الزاهدة القانتة، سيدة نساء زمانها الواعظة..، انتفع بها خلق من النساء وتابوا. وكانت وافرة العلم…، انصلح بها نساء دمشق ثم نساء مصر، وكان لها قبول زايد ووقْعٌ في النفوس..، زُرْتها مرّة"، ويضيف في ‘السِّير‘: "وقد زرتها وأعجبني سمتها وتخشعها"!!
تصوف علمائي
بعد أن قدمنا رصدا تاريخيا ووصفا منهجيا للجهد الإصلاحي المزدوج نقدا للمتصوفة ودفاعا عنهم، والذي أنجِزَ لبناء صورة وصيغة للتصوف يعود بها مُسْهِما -بتوازن وإيجابية- في صياغة وسلوك التيار الرئيسي المعبِّر عن الأمة؛ نقدم الآن نماذج لأئمة من أعلام ظاهرة "التصوف العلمائي" الذين تبنَّوْا تلك الصياغة التركيبية، فجمعوا بين العلم الشرعي (حديثاً وفقهاً) والتصوف سلوكا وتربية!

1- صوفية مُحدّثون: من قدماء الصوفية المحدّثين: سَلْمُ بن ميمون الزاهد الرازي (ت نحو 220هـ/835م) الذي "روى عن مالك (بن أنس ت 179هـ/795م) وابن عيينة (سفيان ت 198هـ/814م)، وهو من كبار الصوفية"؛ وفقا للذهبي في ‘ميزان الاعتدال‘. ويترجم الخطيب البغدادي (ت 463هـ/1072م) لأبي جعفر ابن الفَرَجي الصوفيّ (ت بعد 270هـ/883م) فيقول إنه "ورث مالا كثيرا فأخرجه جميعه وأنفقه في طلب العلم، وعلى الفقراء والنساك والصوفية. وكان له موضع من العلم والفقه ومعرفة الحديث، لزم عليّ بن المَدِيني (إمام المحدِّثين ت 234هـ/849م) فأكثر عنه، وكان يحفظ الحديث ويفتي… وصحب [مشايخ] الصوفية".

وكذلك منهم الإمام أبو سعيد ابن الأعرابي البصري المتقدم ذكره؛ فقد وصفه الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- بأنه "الإمام المحدث القدوة الصدوق الحافظ شيخ الإسلام.. نزيل مكة وشيخ الحرم..، رحل إلى الأقاليم وجمع وصنف، وصحب المشايخ وتعبد وتأله، وألف مناقب الصوفية، وحَمَلَ [كتاب] ‘السُّنن‘ عن أبي داود (ت 275هـ/888م)..، وكان كبير الشأن بعيد الصيت عالي الإسناد..، وكان.. قد صحب الجُنيد [البغدادي]..، وقد كان ابن الأعرابي من علماء الصوفية فتراه لا يقبل شيئا من اصطلاحات القوم إلا بحُجّة".

ومنهم محمد بن الفَرُّخان الدُّوري (ت بُعيْد 359هـ/970م) الذي ذكره الخطيب البغدادي فقال إنه "كان يتعاهد الصوفية وأصحاب الحديث، وقد لقي جماعة من الصوفية مثل الجُنيد.. وكان يحكي عنهم". وفي القرن الخامس يلاقينا منهم الحسن بن محمد البَلْخي الدَّرْبَنْدي (ت 456هـ/1065م) الذي نعته الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- بـ"الشيخ الإمام الحافظ.. الصوفي المحدِّث، من المشايخ الجوّالين في الحديث". وكذلك ترجم لأبي صالح المؤذن: أحمد بن عبد الملك النيسابوري (ت 470هـ/1077م)، فقال إنه "الإمام الحافظ الزاهد المُسنِد، محدِّث خراسان الصوفي..، [كان] نسيجَ وَحْدِهِ.. في حفظ القرآن وجمع الأحاديث".

ومنهم في القرن السادس الإمام الفَراويّ (ت 587هـ/1191م) أحد رواة ‘صحيح مسلم‘، وقال عنه النووي -في ‘شرح مسلم‘- إنه كان "إماما بارعا في الفقه والأصول وغيرهما، كثير الروايات بالأسانيد الصحيحة العاليات، رحلتْ إليه الطلبة من الأقطار..، وكان يقال له فقيه الحرم لإشاعته ونشره العلم بمكة..، نشأ بين الصوفية". ويقول الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- إن الفَراوي "اجتمع فيه.. علوّ الإسناد ووفور العلم، وصحة الاعتقاد وحسن الخلق".

وها هو محدِّث عصره أبو طاهر السِّلَفي يلقبه الإمامُ المحدِّث صلاح الدين العَلائي الشافعي (ت 761هـ/1360م) -في ‘المسلسلات المختصَرة‘- بـ"السِّلَفي الصوفي". وكان السِّلَفي يأخذ عن بعض الصوفية الكبار؛ فقد جاء في ‘لسان الميزان‘ لابن حجر أن أحمد بن علي الطُّرَيْثيثي (ت 497هـ/1104م) كان "شيخَ السِّلَفي، تُـكُلِّمَ في بعض سماعه فقال السِّلَفي: كان أجلَّ شيخ لقيته ببغداد من مشايخ الصوفية، وأسانيده عالية جدا، ولم يُـقرَأ عليه إلا من أصوله (= كُتُبه الموّثقة)، وسماعاته كالشمس وضوحا"!

ومن الصوفيّة الحفّاظ المحدّثين الإمام الحافظ أبو الفتيان الدِّهِسْتاني (ت 503هـ/1109م)، وكان أحد أئمة أهل الحديث في عصره لدرجة أنّ شيخه الخطيب البغدادي روى عنه، فقد قال الذهبي في ‘تذكرة الحفاظ‘: "كان إماما مبرِّزًا في هذا الفن، وروى عنه شيخه أبو بكر الخطيب" البغدادي. ويصفه الذهبيّ بأنّه "كان على سيرة السلف". ومع ذلك فعندما نزل طوس أكرمه الغزالي وصحح عليه نسخته من الصحيحين وروى عنه. فالصوفيّ الغزاليّ يأخذ من السلفيّ الدهستانيّ دون تحرُّج، وكذلك كان فهم الأئمة الكبار من الفريقين!
صوفية مذهبية
ونجد ابن الجوزيّ المحدّث الحنبلي -رغم شدته وقسوته على الصوفية كما مَرَّ- يأخذُ الحديث عن الحافظ الصوفيّ أبي الوقت السِّجْزيّ (ت 552هـ/1157م)، ويقول في ‘المنتظم‘: "كان شيخُنا صالحا على سَمْتِ السلف كثيرَ الذكْر والتعبد والتهجد والبكاء". وينعته الذهبيّ -في ‘السِّيَر’- بأنه "الشيخ الإمام الزاهد الخيِّر الصوفي، شيخ الإسلام مسند الآفاق".

2- صوفية الفقهاء: وكما كان في الصوفية حُفّاظ محدثون بارزون طوال القرون؛ شهدت حلقاتُ تربيتهم أيضا -عَبْرَ العصور- وجود أئمة فقهاء، منهم من كان حنفيا، ومنهم من كان مالكيا، ومنهم من كان شافعيا، وفيهم آخرون كانوا حنابلة، بل إن بعضهم كان من أصحاب المذهب الظاهري المعروف بأثريته الصارمة! وسنكتفي هنا تمثيلا بذكر نماذج مما قبل القرن التاسع، مقتصرين -في الغالب- على تراجم الذهبي لدقته المسلَّمة في معرفة أقدار العلماء وإنصافه المعهود، ولجمعه -إلى حد كبير- بين الاتجاهات الثلاثة.

فمن أعلام صوفية الحنفية: أبو منصور عمر بن أحمد الجُوري النيسابوري الحنفي (ت 469هـ/1076م) الذي يصفه الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- بأنه "العالم الحافظ المفيد الثقة أبو منصور.. الحنفي الصوفي العابد، تلميذ الشيخ أبي عبد الرحمن السُّلمي..، وكان من خواصّ أصحاب السلمي [فـ]ـكتب عنه تصانيفه".

كما ترجم -في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘- لعبد العزيز البرهان الخُـتَني (ت 697هـ/1298م) فنعته بأنه "الحنفي الصوفي..، شيخٌ إمام فاضل زاهد كبير القدر، صاحب عبادة وقناعة وتقلل وزهادة". وذكر أيضا محمود الكَلاباذي (ت 700هـ/1300م) فقال إنه "الإمام المحدِّث.. الحنفي الصوفي..، وكان ديِّنًا نزِها ورِعا، متحريًّا متقنا، كثير المعارف.. كثير الإفادة..، حسن الديانة والمعتقد، وكان من أعيان صوفية الخانقاه" ببغداد.

ومن أعلام الصوفيّة المالكية: إسماعيل المَنْفَلوطي (ت 652هـ/1254م) الذي يصفه السيوطي -في ‘حُسن المحاضرة‘- بأنه "كان ممن جمع الشريعة والحقيقة، فقيهاً مالكيا له كرامات ومكاشفات ومعارف صوفية". وقال عن الشيخ ابن عطاء الله السَّكَنْدري (ت 709هـ/1309م) إنه "كان جامعا لأنواع العلوم من تفسير وحديث ونحو وأصول وفقهٍ على مذهب مالك، وصحب في التصوف الشيخ أبا العباس المُرْسي (ت 686هـ/1287م)، وكان أعجوبة زمانه فيه، وأخذ عنه التقيّ السبكي".

ومن أعلام الصوفيّة الشافعية ولعله من أقدمهم: محمد بن إسماعيل العلوي (ت 393هـ/1004م) -وهو من العلماء الصوفية الجامعين بين الفقه والحديث- الذي يقول عنه الخطيب البغدادي: "نشأ ببغداد ودرس فقه الشافعي على أبي علي بن أبي هُريرة (شيخ الشافعية ت 345هـ/956م)‏، وسافر إلى الشام وصحب الصوفية وصار كبيرا فيهم..، وكتب الحديث.. وقد حدَّث ببغداد".

ومنهم الإمام أبو القاسم القُشيري المتقدم ذكره والذي وصفه الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- بأنه "الإمام الزاهد القدوة الأستاذ الشافعي الصوفي المفسِّر". وقال عن أبي النجيب البَكْري السُّهْرَوَرْدي (ت 563هـ/1168م) إنه "الشافعي الصوفي الواعظ شيخ بغداد… من أئمة الشافعية وعلم من أعلام الصوفية". ونجم الدين محمد بن موفق الخُبُوشاني (ت 587هـ/1191م) "الفقيه الكبير الزاهد.. الشافعي الصوفي..، وعاش عمره لم يأخذ درهما لمَلِك ولا من وقْفٍ"!

حنابلة وظاهرية
ومن صوفية الشافعية الإمام العز بن عبد السلام الذي كان -حسب السيوطي في ‘حُسن المحاضرة‘- يحضر دروس الشيخ الصوفي الكبير أبي الحسن الشاذلي (ت 656هـ/1258م) شيخ الطائفة الشاذلية، وأورد عنه الذهبي -في ‘السِّيَر’- قوله: "ما نُقِلتْ إلينا كرامات أحد بالتواتر إلا الشيخ عبد القادر [الجِيلي]"! وقال السبكي في ‘طبقات الشافعية‘: "وذُكر أن الشيخ عز الدين لبس خِرقة التصوف من الشيخ شهاب الدين السُّهْرَوَرْدي وأخذ عنه وذكر أنه كان يقرأ بين يديه رسالة القُشيري".

ومن أعلام صوفية الحنابلة ولعله من أقدمهم: "عمر بن ثابت أبو القاسم الحنبلي الصوفي" الذي ذكره البغدادي في ‘تاريخ بغداد‘، ويبدو أنه عاش بين القرنين الرابع والخامس. ومنهم أحمد بن عبد الكريم البعلبكي (ت 777هـ/1376م) الذي قال عنه ابن حجر -في إنباء الغُمْر‘- إنه "الحنبلي الصوفي المسنِد..، وحدَّث بالكثير وارتحلوا إليه" في طلب الحديث.

وقد ترجم الذهبي -في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘ وغيره- لنحو عشرة من علماء الحنابلة فوصف كلا منهم بـ"الحنبلي الصوفي" أو "الصوفي الحنبلي"، وكانت وفياتهم بين سنة 634هـ/1236م و719/1319م، وهو ما يرجح أن ظهور هذه الطبقة بين الحنابلة كان نتيجة لجهود الجيلي الصوفية وابن الجوزي الوعظية، على ما كان بين هذين الإمامين الحنبلييْن من تنافر نبّه عليه الذهبي في ترجمته لابن الجوزي، حاكيا ما جلبه إليه هذا التنافر من محنةِ سجنٍ دامت خمس سنوات!

ومن اللافت فعلا أننا نلاقي بين أعلام الصوفية أنصارا للإمام ابن تيمية الذي يظنّ كثيرون أنه هو وتلامذته منابذون للصوفية ومنبوذون منهم دائما؛ فابن حجر يقول -في إنباء الغُمْر‘- إن علي بن غريب البُرْجُمي (ت 777هـ/1376م) كان "أحد المشايخ المُعتقَدين (= المتصوفة)، وكان بزِيّ الجند، وكان كثير التعصب لابن تيمية وأتباعه"!! وفي ترجمة شمس الدين الدَّبَاهيّ البغدادي (ت 711هـ/1311م) يقول الذهبي -في ‘العِبَر‘- إنه "الإمام القدوة الشيخ الحنبلي الصوفي..، وكان ذا تألُّه وصدق وعِلْم".

ويضيف الحافظ ابن رجب مُبْرِزا تلمذة الدَّبَاهي لابن تيمية: "صحب بقايا الصوفية واقتفي آثارهم وحفظ كثيرا عنهم وعن مشايخ الطريق، وأنفق كثيرا من الأموال من ميراثه على الفقراء (= المتصوفة)، وقرأ الفقه في شبيبته على مذهب أحمد، فلما لمعت له أنوار شيخنا (= ابن تيمية) وظفر بأضعاف تطلبه: ارتحل إلى دمشق بأهله واستوطنها".

ولم يقتصر وجود الصوفية الفقهاء على المذاهب الأربعة، بل كان لهم حضور في المذهب الظاهري الذي يعدّ نظيرا للحنابلة في الأثرية إن لم يَفُـْقهم فيها؛ ومن فقهائه المتصوفة الإمام القيسراني السابق ذكره، ورُوَيْمٌ بن محمد البغدادي (ت 303هـ/915م) الذي كان "شيخ الصوفية ومن الفقهاء الظاهرية، تفقّه بداود (الظاهري الأصبهاني ت 270هـ/884م)"؛ وفقا للذهبي في ‘السير‘. ومنهم أيضا محمد بن إبراهيم الشيرازي الكاغَذى (ت 474هـ/1082م)؛ فقد قال عنه الذهبي -في ‘ميزان الاعتدال‘- إنه "الداودي الظاهري الصوفي.. كان له حانوت ببغداد يبيع الكتب".